Commons Sitting of 13 June 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Egremont Urban District Council (Gas) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Assam Railways and Trading Company Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Bradford Corporation Bill,
As amended, to be considered tomorrow.
Bristol Gas Bill,
Gowerton Gas Bill [Lords],
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
City of London (Tithes and Rates) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill (by Order),
Port of London (Port Rates on Goods) Provisional Order Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
Staffordshire Potteries Water Bill,
Order [20th April] that the Staffordshire Potteries Water Bill be committed, read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.
Message from the Lords,—That they have agreed to,—
Amendments to—
National Provident Institution Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to extend the limits of supply of the Great Grimsby Gas Company, and to confer further powers upon the company." [Great Grimsby Gas Bill [Lords].
Wardens' Divorce Bill [Lords],—That they communicate Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings taken upon the Second Reading of Wardens' Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the documents deposited in the case, as desired by this House, with a request that the same may be returned.
Great Grimsby Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Southern Nigeria (Arrest of Oloye of Oye)
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention had been directed to the arrest and detention for a month of the Oloye of Oye, the native ruler of the district, by the District Commissioner, and the evidence on which this action was taken; and if any communication had been, or would be, addressed to the Governor of South Nigeria?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): Attention has already been directed to this matter, and the Governor has been asked to furnish a report.

  Lagos (Concession to Cut Mahogany Logs)
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, whether, in view of the fact that a native, Sumoni Ewumi, was granted a concession to cut mahogany logs by Lapoki, the Oba of Aye, and that the said Sumoni Ewumi was deprived of this concession by the action of the District Commissioners, Captain Werry and Mr. T. P. Pinket, and the concession given to Mr. Matheson as agent for Messrs. W. B. McIver and Company, Lagos, that over twelve months ago full judicial inquiry was promised, and that no inquiry has taken place, he will inquire further into the matter?
  Colonel SEELY: A further inquiry has already been made by the Secretary of State, and the Governor's reply has been received. My hon. Friend will remember that in my reply to his question on 20th May last year I referred to certain technical questions as to the jurisdiction of the court. There have been further difficulties in this respect, but they have now

  1017
  been surmounted, and it has been settled that the trial of the case in the Supreme Court shall take place on the return of Mr. Matheson to the Colony.

  Lagos (Episcopal Church Building and Maintenance).
  Mr. LEACHasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, if he would now revoke the order to tax the inhabitants of Lagos for half the cost of erecting an Episcopal church building and the expenses of maintaining the chaplain, seeing that of the 41,000 population one-third were Moslems and that only about 400 were Europeans, and that it was contrary to Liberal principles for the State to teach or pay for teaching the doctrines of any sect?
  Colonel SEELY: I can add nothing to the full statement which I made on 21st March last, except to explain that the expenses in question will not be borne by the inhabitants of the town of Lagos, but will be met from the revenues of the whole Colony; and also that it has been decided that whenever the chaplaincy shall become vacant, the whole question of its continuance or otherwise shall be reconsidered.
  Mr. LEACH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would erect a Methodist meeting house and sustain a Methodist minister on the same terms?
  Colonel SEELY: I have stated on many occasions in this House that the Government pursue a policy of entire impartiality in this matter; and, if any other body wishes to set up a church, we shall be only too glad to consider it.
  Mr. LEACH: May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would entertain a proposal to erect a Moslem mosque and sustain a Mahomedan priest?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member had better put his question down.
  Colonel SEELY: We do that already.

  Gold Coast (Boinsu Rubber Company).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, if his attention had been directed to a statement in the prospectus of the Boinsu Rubber Company that the Boinsu lands, comprising some 20 square miles in the Aowin district of the Gold Coast, had been granted under lease to Mr. W. S. Rogerson for 99 years for £5 per annum;
  1018
  if be would inquire of the Governor of the Gold Coast if the said lease had been submitted to him for his approval; and whether any adequate protection was secured to the natives whose lands had thus been disposed of?
  Colonel SEELY: The attention of the Secretary of State was directed to the issue of the prospectus, to which my hon. Friend refers. No such concession is valid, until its terms and conditions—including reasonable protection for the rights of the natives—are approved by the Supreme Court of the Colony and my Noble Friend recently caused a public notification to this effect to be made through the Press of this country.

  Mediterranean Fever (Goats' Milk).
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether it had been decided to appoint a new Mediterranean Fever Commission for the purpose of investigating the manner in which goats became infected, seeing that it was officially stated in evidence before the Royal Commission on Vivisection (Q. 14242) that no goats had been infected by the alleged Malta fever germ, that it did not give rise to any ill-health, and that it did not give rise to any fever; and, seeing that, according to official statistics, Malta fever had been practically extinguished from among the British garrison before the order of 1st July, 1906, for the prohibition of goats' milk was issued, what public ends were sought by spending time and public money in prosecuting a research which appeared to have no bearing whatever upon the question of Mediterranean fever?
  Colonel SEELY: It has been decided to appoint another Commission for the investigation of the question to which my hon. Friend refers. The evidence of Sir David Bruce before the Royal Commission on vivisection, to which allusion is made, was to the effect that the goats, though their blood and milk contained the micrococcus of Malta fever and they were therefore capable of infecting man with the disease, remained themselves apparently healthy. Such tolerance of disease germs is, the Secretary of State is advised, a common physiological phenomenon. My hon. Friend is mistaken as to the statistics of admissions to hospital among the troops for Malta fever. In 1905 there were 643 such admissions up to July, 1906; when the prohibition of the use of goats' milk was issued there were 123, for the re-

  1019
  mainder of the year, 40; for 1907, 11; 1908, 5; 1909, 1; and 1910 to date, 0. As it is not practicable to prohibit the use of goats' milk among the civil population it remains to investigate the causes of the infection of goats, and, if possible, to remove them.

  Putumayo Valley (Peruvian Amazon Company).
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any inquiry has yet been made as to the alleged ill-treatment of Indians working for the Peruvian Amazon Company in the Putumayo Valley; if so, whether this country was represented on that inquiry; and what the result of that inquiry has been?
  The SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): The Peruvian Amazon Company have just intimated their intention of sending a Commission of Inquiry to the Putumayo, and I propose to suggest that one of His Majesty's Consuls and a Barbadian official should go with the Commission in case any British subjects are involved and require assistance.

  Customs Tariff, Finland.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce, expressing their anxiety at the proposal of the Imperial Government of Russia to deprive Finland of her local autonomy as regards her Customs tariff and other commercial matters, which would prejudicially affect the growing trade between Great Britain and Finland; and whether he has made or proposes to make representations to the Imperial Government of Russia in favour of the autonomy of Finland being preserved?
  Mr. REES: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask whether the Russian Imperial Government has made any representations to His Majesty's Government in favour of the present relations between the two Houses of Parliament being preserved?
  Sir E. GREY: No, Sir, the answer to that is in the negative. I have received the communication referred to by the hon. Member, but His Majesty's Government
  1020
  are not in a position to make representations which would involve interference in the internal affairs of a friendly Power not based on any treaty right. I am not aware that commercial changes are directly involved.

  Egyptian Administration (Sir Eldon Gorst and the Foreign Office).
  Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any grave disagreement exists between Sir Eldon Gorst and the Foreign Office in regard to Egyptian administration; and can he state whether the British representative at Cairo continues to possess the complete confidence of His Majesty's Government?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second in the affirmative. I would take the opportunity of saying that His Majesty's Government very much appreciate the work which Sir Eldon Gorst has done and is doing in Egypt; nor am I aware that anything has occurred or been said to give rise to misapprehension on this point.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that a copy of that is sent to Mr. Roosevelt?
  Sir E. GREY: No, Sir, I see no reason for sending it. It has no reference whatever to his speech. There is certainly nothing in that speech to give rise to a question of this kind in the House.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I give the right hon. Gentleman notice that I shall put a supplementary question on this subject on Wednesday.

  Papal Encyclical on St. Charles Borromeo.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the recent Papal Encyclical, published on the occasion of the centenary of Saint Charles Borromeo, criticising the Reformation and condemning its authors, has been communicated to His Majesty's Government; if so, will he cause a translation of the Latin text thereof to be laid upon the Table of this House; and will he state whether His Majesty's Government propose to make any representation to the Vatican on the subject?
  Sir E. GREY: The Papal Encyclical in question has not been communicated to His Majesty's Government.

  Naval Technical Training.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it would be possible to extend to the Navy generally the system of technical training which his explanatory statement (page 12) shows to be productive of excellent results in the case of the Royal Marines as a means of enabling the men to obtain satisfactory employment after leaving the Service?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): It is not contemplated that the Admiralty shall take any direct steps in this direction, such schemes being matters rather for voluntary effort. The Admiralty view with satisfaction the steps that have already been taken on these lines at Eastney.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is it not the fact that the steps taken have been promoted by the Admiralty, and cannot they see their way to extending it?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: They have not been promoted by the Admiralty, but, as a matter of fact, we have made a very small Grant.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that the First Lord of the Admiralty, in a clear statement in his Memorandum, claimed credit for this scheme?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I think the attitude taken up by the Admiralty has been that we shall watch its progress with very careful attention.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Is it not the case that the Admiralty have made a Grant out of the Works Vote for this purpose, and is it not possible to extend the same consideration to other branches of the Service?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We have, as I said, made a small Grant. As to other branches we must consider each case on its merits. But this is a matter which we look upon as rather one for voluntary effort.
  Sir H. CRAIK: As to voluntary support—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think notice should be given of further questions.

  Naval Visits to Belfast Lough.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he was aware that two years had elapsed since the Fleet last visited Belfast Lough;
  1022
  and whether, under these circumstances, he could arrange for another visit at an early date?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Some torpedo craft visited the Lough last year. It is not convenient at present to arrange a visit by the Fleet.

  Devonport Dockyard (Official Holidays).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked on whose authority the order to close the Devonport Dockyard on 3rd June was given; at what time and on what day the order reached the yard; whether the dockyard would be closed on 24th June next; and, in that event, whether the men would be called on to work extra time to make up for the enforced holiday on 3rd June?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The order to close the yard on 3rd June was given on the authority of the Admiralty. It reached the yard on the 2nd. The holiday having already been given, the yard will not be closed on the 24th.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the hon. Member say at what time the order reached the yard on the 2nd?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I should not like to say off-hand.

  Submarines (Rescue Appliances).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked what appliances, if any, the Admiralty have at their command for raising a submarine in the event of an accident and the vessel sinking; whether these appliances were as complete as possible and sufficient to meet the case of any emergency that may arise; and in what way our appliances differ from those used in similar circumstances by the German naval authorities?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There are numerous salvage appliances at the dockyards which are available for the salvage of submarines as well as of other vessels. These include lighters specially fitted for salvage work; and provision has been made in the current Navy Estimates for the commencement of a vessel which will be specially suitable for salvage of submarines. A large number of submarines are also fitted with special safety helmets for use of the crew in an emergency. The provision made generally is, in the opinion of the Board, adequate for any probable emergency. We have no information as to what appliances would be used in Germany in I similar circumstances.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Is there a helmet for each member of the crew?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I should not like to answer without notice.

  Nonconformist ministers (Royal Navy).
  Mr. LEACHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the time had now arrived in which he would take steps to place Nonconformist ministers on the staff of the Navy and naval pensions on the same terms as those which applied to clergymen of the Church of England?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: So far as I am aware, the remuneration paid to Nonconformist ministers under the regulations, copies of which I will forward to my hon. Friend, have not hitherto been considered inequitable.

  Argentine Centenary Celebration (British Naval Participation).
  Mr. BIRD (on behalf of Mr. Norton Griffiths)asked what squadron of British vessels will attend the Argentine Centenary celebration; and whether it would be possible for a vessel of the "Dreadnought" type to visit Bahia Blanca?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The "Hermes," "Argyll," and "Amethyst," under the command of Vice-Admiral Egerton, were ordered to attend this celebration, but were recalled from Maldonado owing to the death of His late Majesty. I may add that the naval celebrations terminated on the 29th of May.

  Falmouth Bay Fishing Boat Disaster.
  Mr. GOLDMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he is considering the circumstances attending the disaster in which the fishing boat "Olivia" was sunk in Falmouth Bay on the night of 30th May, with a view to adequate compensation being given to the families of the four men who lost their lives?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The report of a Court of Inquiry is now before the Admiralty. No claims have been received. If and when any are received, the Admiralty will give them their most careful consideration.

  Seamen's Wills.
  Mr. NEWTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the fact that, under Section 5 of the Navy and Marines
  1024
  (Wills) Act, 1865, a will made on shore by a seaman of the Royal Navy must, in order to be valid to pass naval assets, not only be a valid will in the ordinary legal sense of the term but must also comply with Sub-section 3 of Section 5 of the said Act, which requires that one of the attesting witnesses must be one of those enumerated in that sub-section, and in view of the fact that this provision is not generally known among the men, with the result that the testamentary intentions of deceased seamen are often defeated, if he will take steps to have all seamen in the Royal Navy acquainted with the exceptional requirements of the Act as regards wills made on shore?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is the fact that a will made by a seaman of the Royal Navy is not valid to pass naval assets unless it be attested in accordance with the requirements of the Navy and Marines (Wills) Act, 1865. The King's Regulations contain provisions relative to this Act; but as cases do occasionally arise of a character similar to that to which the hon. Gentleman has recently called my attention, I will take steps to supplement these by the issue of directions which will lead to the requirements of the Act being made generally known throughout the Fleet.

  Portsmouth Gunwharf Shop (Plumbism).
  Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, in view of the recent death of one of the workers at the gunwharf shop at Portsmouth, he will appoint a medical officer, who shall be, if not a specialist, at least thoroughly conversant with the disease known as plumbism, and shall give this officer authority to visit the gunwharf shop, to draft men suffering from the incipient or later stages of the disease from this shop to healthier work in the dockyard, and generally to report on all such cases and on the cause of the disease and on the possible remedial measures?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Medical officers are not appointed to dockyards unless they are thoroughly conversant with industrial diseases. Dockyard workmen whose business brings them into contact with lead are periodically examined by the dockyard medical officers for plumbism, etc., and, if considered necessary on medical grounds, they are placed on other work where there is no risk of contracting lead poisoning.
  Mr. FALLE: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the state of affairs now existing in this wharf both as regards ventilation and the health of the men?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I think the dockyard regulations are satisfactory. I shall be glad to send a copy to the hon. Gentleman.

  Portsmouth Naval Ordnance Depot (Workmen's Compensation).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether the appeal to the courts of the widow of the late George Horn, plumber, Naval Ordnance Depot, Portsmouth, has been successful; if so, whether the claim has been settled; and what amount has been paid?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The county court has reserved its decision in this case, which involves an important question as to the jurisdiction of the Court. Until this question is decided I fear that it will be impossible to settle the claim. I may add that before the case came on for hearing the claimant was offered the sum of £266 2s. 2d., the full amount due under the Government Compensation Scheme, and, in addition, as an act of grace, the reasonable costs incurred on behalf of the plaintiff. This offer the plaintiff's solicitors refused.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Was not the entire claim originally refused?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware of that.

  New Austrian Battleships.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now inform the House as to the laying down of two Austrian battleships or armoured cruisers of the "Dreadnought" or "Invincible" type at Trieste and Pola respectively; and whether he has yet received official or unofficial information that two other vessels of a similar class have been, or are about to be, laid down in Austrian establishments?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We have no information beyond that which has appeared in the public Press.
  Mr. LEE: Is it proposed to make a statement on the subject?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say.

  German Battleship Construction.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether the Admiralty have received official or unofficial information to the effect that the three battleships of the "Dreadnought" type and the one cruiser of the "Invincible" type provided for in this year's German Navy Estimates have already been tendered for and the estimates given out; and, if so, by what month in 1912 is it anticipated that these vessels will be completed?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: According to the German Press, the orders have already been placed. It is not anticipated that any of these vessels will be completed before 1913 under normal circumstances.

  Naval Veterans (Funeral Regulations).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that in the case of the death at Portsmouth of a Crimean or other veteran belonging to the military service, the military authorities, on application, allow the use of a gun-carriage, buglers, band, and a funeral escort to pay respect to the memory of deceased; whether he is aware that on an application being made under similar circumstances to the naval authorities the request is refused on account of the regulations precluding such respect being paid to the memory of naval veterans; whether he is aware that service honours being granted at a funeral makes a considerable difference to the cost which has to be borne by the relatives without any expense being borne by the State; and whether he can see his way to remove the present difference of treatment between the funerals of veterans in the Army and Navy by paying a fitting tribute to the naval veterans when borne to their last restingplace?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am inquiring into the War Office practice in this matter, and will communicate with the Noble Lord later.

  Medals for Elementary School Children.
  Mr. LEACHasked the President of the Board of Education if he is now prepared to take steps to make compulsory the feeding of those elementary school children whose parents, through no fault of their own, are too poor to properly feed them, seeing that the Report of the Board of Education on the feeding of school children shows that where feeding

  1027
  has taken place the children are mentally improved, regularity of attendance is increased, and the children are thereby trained in habits of orderliness and good behaviour?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): My right hon. Friend is not prepared to introduce legislation of the character proposed, at any rate without further experience of the working of the Act of 1906. It is no disparagement of the excellent work which has been done under the Act by local education authorities to say that there does not appear to be that unanimity of opinion as to the nature of its effects upon the children which the terms of the question would appear to suggest.

  Victoria School, Wrexham (Grant).
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether the Grant payable to the Victoria Council School, Wrexham, will be reduced owing to the closing of a portion of the infants' department of this school owing to infectious disease, although no reduction of Grant would be made if the whole school were closed; and whether the Board can see their way to amend Articles 43–45 of the Code of Regulations, 1909, with a view to making the same allowance to schools partially closed as is made to schools completely closed under recommendation of the local sanitary authority?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The facts are generally as stated in the first part of the question. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative; my right hon. Friend is not prepared to amend the Articles in question except in connection with a general revision of the system of Grants for public elementary schools.

  Telephone Facilities (Flintshire).
  Mr. SUMMERSasked the Postmaster-General if he will arrange that the post offices at Caergwrle, Flint Mountain, Halkyn, Overton, Llanarmon, and Llanferres, which have telephone wires, may be used as telephone call offices, and also all other post offices which have telephone wires and instruments installed; and, if it is necessary for the purposes of intercommunication to make some arrangements with the National Telephone Company, will he enter into negotiations at once, so that this public convenience may be made available at an early date?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The telegraph lines at the offices mentioned by the hon. Member have been fitted with telephones for the purpose of sending forward telegrams to the local transmitting centres. They are not suitable for use for general telephone exchange communication, and in some cases are filled with existing traffic. I will, however, inquire and inform the hon. Member as to the steps that would be necessary before the facilities mentioned could be afforded at these offices. General arrangements are in force for intercommunication between the call offices and exchanges of the Post Office and the National Telephone Company's exchange system.

  Sunday Telegrams (City of London).
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that important telegrams, addressed to the Atlantic Transport Company, Limited, at their offices. No. 38, Leadenhall-street, in the City of London, in reference to the position of a large steamship owned by that company and then stranded on rocks, were received in London on the morning of Sunday, 24th April, and that such telegrams were not delivered until Monday, 25th April; whether such non-delivery was due to some regulation or instruction that telegrams are not to be delivered in the City of London at night or on Sundays unless special request is made for delivery by the addressees; whether the existence of such regulation or instruction is made known to persons and companies in the City of London; whether persons in the provinces handing in telegrams on Sundays are informed of the rule; and whether it is possible to disregard the rule where the contents of a telegram disclose its urgency?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member has correctly stated the rule. It has been in operation since 1877, and it has been found to work well by preventing the loss and delay of business telegrams, which previously not infrequently occurred through their being overlooked or mislaid after delivery at places of business which were closed. The public are notified of the rule at page 84 of the "Post Office Guide." As the rule does not apply in the case of firms who have requested that telegrams may be delivered immediately on their arrival, no useful purpose would be served by specially notifying the rule to persons in the provinces handing in telegrams on Sundays, since those tele-

  1029
  grams might be addressed to such firms. I may add that the company in question have now made formal request for delivery on Sunday. In reply to the last part of the hon. Member's question I would say that it is possible to disregard the rule where the contents of a telegram disclose its urgency or where it is marked "Urgent" or "Immediate." I am making arrangements for telegrams addressed to offices in London and other large towns at night or on Sundays to be examined with this object in view, and I trust this will prevent the recurrence of such an incident as the hon. Member has kindly brought to my notice.

  Labour Exchanges (Denbighshire, Flintshire, and Wrexham).
  Mr. SUMMERSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has had a communication from the Mold District Council requesting that a Labour Exchange be established in their district; and, if so, will he take into consideration the desirability of opening an Exchange in Flintshire?
  The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I have received a communication from the Mold District Council on the subject referred to. The claims of Flintshire will receive careful consideration in connection with the future development of the Labour Exchange system in Wales, but I regret that it is not at present possible to establish an Exchange at Mold.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is his intention to open a Labour Exchange for Denbighshire and Flintshire at Wrexham; and, if so, on what date?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Board of Trade intend to open a Labour Exchange at Wrexham during the course of the present financial year, but it is not possible at present to state the exact date on which the Exchange will be able to commence operations.

  Great Western and London and South Western Railways (Working Arrangement).
  Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention had been called to the completion of the working agreement between the Great Western and the London and South Western Railway Companies; whether he had obtained a copy of such agreement; if so, will he lay the same upon the Table
  1030
  of the House; and, if no such copy has been deposited with the Board of Trade, whether he will ask for such copy?
  Mr. BUXTON: A copy of an agreement which has recently been concluded between the two railway companies has been furnished to me through the courtesy of the companies. I may say, for the information of the hon. Member, that the agreement does not provide for the working by one company of any portion of the other company's undertaking. It relates mainly to the pooling of the receipts from competitive traffic, and a rearrangement of the train services at junctions wherever desirable in the interest of the travelling public and of the companies. The document is not one which the Board of Trade are entitled to require the companies to publish, and I am, therefore, not in a position to lay it on the Table.

  Great Eastern Railway Engine Drivers.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, on 21st June, 1909, Mr. S. D. Holden, locomotive superintendent of the Great Eastern Railway, stated, in his evidence to Lord Gorell in the Wages and Hours Arbitration, that in such work as that on the branch line between Mellis and Eye the Great Eastern Railway employs railway drivers who are not sharp and whom he would not dare put on a fast passenger train or mischief comes; is he aware that many important trains on these branches, such as those from Yarmouth to Cardiff or to Peterborough and York, as well as dining-car trains to Hunstanton, are worked by the men so described; is he aware that some thirty-two men at King's Lynn have had their wages reduced in consequence of the awards made upon this evidence; and, if so, can he take any steps to remedy this state of things?
  Mr. BUXTON: The award of Lord Gorell, which was made after a hearing of arguments and evidence submitted on behalf of the railway company and the employés, provided that the company should be at liberty to vary the rates of pay of drivers on certain specified branch lines, but not so as to reduce them below the minimum drivers' rate for the district, and I presume that the reduction of wages to which my hon. Friend refers was made under this provision. I have no power to take any action to vary rates of pay which have been fixed in accordance with the award.

  Foreigners and Labour Exchanges.
  Mr. RICEasked whether foreigners are able to secure employment through the Labour Exchanges of this country; and, if so, will he state the number who have thus obtained employment?
  Mr. BUXTON: Foreigners are not precluded from registering their names at a Board of Trade Labour Exchange as applicants for employment, but it is not possible to say what number, if any, have made use of the exchanges or obtained employment through their agency.

  Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Bill.
  Sir WALTER MENZIESasked what extra expense will be incurred by the railway companies in keeping the records and compiling the statistics necessary to enable them to prepare their accounts in the forms suggested in the Bill which he has introduced; and what will be approximately the sum total of that extra expense?
  Mr. BUXTON: I cannot say how far any additional expense will be incurred by the companies should the Bill become law, but the forms of account and returns scheduled to the Bill were prepared, after prolonged inquiry, by a Departmental Committee, on which the railway companies were fully represented, and were accepted by the companies' representatives. The forms of account and returns were unanimously recommended by the Committee.

  Endorsement of Pilotage Certificates (Bristol).
  Mr. JOYCEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Bristol Corporation, acting as the pilotage authority for the port of Bristol, has committed a breach of Section 599 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, by endorsing the pilotage certificate held by the master of the passenger steamer "Barry," for the purpose of authorising him to pilot the said steamer after a change in her ownership without examining the said master as required by the said Section; and whether, if so, he will communicate with the pilotage authority and point out that if a ship changes owners a pilotage certificate held by the master becomes invalid and that the master must be examined again before he can be authorised to pilot the said ship?
  Mr. KINGalso asked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the action of the Bristol pilotage committee, which has recently endorsed the pilotage certificates of three masters of the steamships "Devonia," "Barry," and "Westonia," when these vessels changed owners, without re-examining these masters; and whether, in view of Section 599 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, he will say what action the Board of Trade is taking in this matter?
  Mr. BUXTON: I will answer these questions together. My attention has been called to these cases, and I am making inquiries with respect to the circumstances in which the certificates were endorsed.
  Mr. JOYCE: All we ask is that the law should be carried out in these cases as in other similar cases.

  Coast Watching for Wrecks.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the hearing of the inquiry into the loss of the "Thistle-moor," held at Bideford last month, and of the findings of the court, have been considered in connection with the present regulations for watching the coast in the interests of the mercantile marine; and whether new arrangements will now be made to increase the safety of our merchant shipping by better provisions for coast watching?
  Mr. BUXTON: The report of the court of inquiry referred to is receiving careful consideration. Active steps are being taken, by local investigation and otherwise, to ascertain how far and in what way the existing arrangements for watching for wrecks on the coasts of the United Kingdom require strengthening, in order that the Board may be in a position to decide what further action it will be desirable for them to take in this important matter.

  Weir Hospital Judgment.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the judgment of the Court of Appeal in regard to the Weir Hospital, and to the misapprehension of their powers which the court found to be entertained by the Charity Commissioners; and whether he is prepared to adopt the suggestion of the court that he should consider whether steps may be taken to recover for the charity a sum of £5,000, which the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Farwell pronounced to have been misappropriated, without any justification, by the authority of the Charity Commissioners?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The attention of the Attorney-General has not yet been called to the judgment of the Court of Appeal owing to his absence at The Hague, where he is attending the Newfoundland Fisheries Arbitration. I am informed that there is no reason to apprehend that this sum of £5,000 will not be replaced. In the event of the sum not being replaced, the Attorney-General will doubtless consider whether any, and what, steps may be taken to recover this sum which has been misapplied.
  Sir HENRY KIMBERasked the Attorney-General whether his attention had been called to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, setting aside as ultra vires a scheme of the Charity Commissioners in the Weir Hospital case, a charity involving £100,000, and by which judgment, in particular, a certain payment of £5,000 by the Charity Commissioners out of the trust funds in their hands belonging to the charity was declared to be clearly unjustifiable and so hopelessly wrong that the Attorney-General's counsel could suggest no ground of justification, and that if the payment had been made by trustees they would have been personally liable to replace it; whether, in particular, he has considered the statement and suggestion made to him in the judgment delivered by the Master of the Rolls that there was not a shadow of excuse for this payment, and it was alarming to find that a Government office is capable of such a misapplication of funds committed to its care, that he could find, however, that the Legislature had given the court no jurisdiction to set this right, and that the court could refuse to sanction a scheme, but no provision was made enabling the court to enforce repayment of money mistakenly applied by the Commissioners, but that he trusted that the Attorney-General would consider whether this sum could in some way be recovered for the Weir Charity; what conclusion, if any, has he arrived at; whether he has noticed the comments of the court upon the evasive and misleading answers given by the Commissioners, Members of this House, to three questions put to them by a Member of this House upon the subject matter; and whether he proposes to take any, and what, steps in relation to the mattar.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have already answered this question. The observations attributed to the Master of the Rolls
  1034
  were made by Lord Justice Farwell. The Attorney-General does not advise upon the answers of the Charity Commissioners to Members of this House, and has no power to take any steps in relation to the matter.

  Whitehaven Colliery Disaster (Sealing of Wellington Pit).
  Mr. GRANTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the recent disaster at Whitehaven, on whose authority Wellington Pit was sealed on 12th May?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I presume the hon. Member refers to the stopping of the intake-airway of the mine, which took place on 13th May, the return-airway being left open until several days later. The decision to close the intake-airway, by which the conflagration was being fed with air, and which further carried the poisonous gases generated by the fire through all the workings of the mine, was made by the authorities of the mine, acting on the advice of His Majesty's Inspector of Mines for the district. It was confirmed by the Chief Inspector of Mines on his arrival at Whitehaven a few hours after a conference, at which the managers of the mine, six inspectors of mines, and others were present, who unanimously advised that the stopping must be maintained. This decision was arrived at because it was clear that, in view of the extent and fierceness of the fire, any further attempt to penetrate the mine was useless; that it was impossible that any of the workmen in the workings should be alive; and that further operations were attended with imminent danger of another explosion, which would cost the lives of the would-be rescuers.
  Mr. GRANT: May we take it as the right hon. Gentleman's answer that the rumour to which currency has been given that the colliery owners sealed the mine to save their own property is wholly without foundation?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The sealing of the intake-airway was done on the advice and with the approval of His Majesty's Inspector of Mines.

  Shop Hours Bill.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Home Secretary whether it is his intention to reintroduce the Government Shop Hours Bill which was brought forward in August of last year by his predecessor?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I see no prospect at present of passing this measure in this Session.

  Church in Wales (Commission's Report).
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked when the Report of the Royal Commission on the Church in Wales will be published; and whether any of the evidence submitted before the Commission will be published as well as the Report?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am in communication with the chairman of the Commission. I am informed that it is intended to publish the whole of the oral evidence submitted to the Commission.

  Licensing Statistics (England and Wales).
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSasked when this year's volume of Licensing Statistics (England and Wales) will be published?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The volume is in an advanced state of preparation, and will, I hope, be ready for issue before long.

  His Majesty's Declaration.
  Sir CHARLES M'LARENasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the feeling of the country in favour of religious toleration, he proposes to legislate in the direction of modifying the terms of His Majesty's Declaration regarding the Roman Catholic faith?
  Mr. M'ARTHURalso asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it is his intention to bring in a Bill this Session to amend the declaration of religious belief which the Sovereign is required by Statute to make on his accession to the Throne?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce legislation on this subject at an early date.

  Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905.
  Mr. GIBBSasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to include the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act this Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not as yet in a position to say whether the Bill referred to in the question will or will not be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.

  Procedure Committee.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDYasked the Prime Minister whether he can see his way
  1036
  to proceed at once with the appointment of a Committee to consider Procedure, as promised by him during the Autumn Session last year?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I have already stated, in the absence of something more like general agreement than has yet been attained, I do not see that any useful purpose would be served by the appointment of the Committee referred to in the question.

  Late King's Funeral Procession (Accommodation for Members).
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSONasked the Prime Minister if he can state who was responsible for the fact that no proper accommodation was provided for the Members of this House and for Members of His Majesty's Privy Council to view the funeral procession of the late King; and why the Members of this House did not receive the same consideration as on the occasion of the funeral of Her Majesty Queen Victoria?
  Mr. EUGENE WASONasked the First Commissioner of Works if he can state by whose authority the application of late Members of Parliament and Privy Councillors to pass through the House of Commons to Westminster Hall to view the lying-in-state of the late King was refused?
  Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he can explain why more satisfactory provision was not made for the Members of the House of Commons on the occasion of the funeral of His late Majesty?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer the question addressed to him, and I will at the same time reply to those put to me which deal with the same subject. State funerals are by custom and tradition under the sole control of the Earl Marshal. On this as on other occasions he was assisted by a committee nominated by himself and consisting of those primarily concerned in the arrangement of the obsequies. It was by the Earl Marshal's directions that admission to the Parliamentary enclosure in Westminster Hall during the Lying-in-State was confined to Peers and Members of Parliament and the ladies they brought with them. The arrangements made for the two Houses of Parliament to view the funeral procession of Queen Victoria gave such universal dissatisfaction that it was

  1037
  decided not to repeat the experiment. No stands or reserved seats were erected for or at the disposal of the Government. I hope the House will believe that, within the limits of my own powers and jurisdiction, I endeavoured to afford them every possible accommodation and consideration.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: May I ask whether, with regard to the arrangements for the funeral of the late Queen Victoria, the cause of the dissatisfaction was not due to the blunder of the office in charge of the arrangements in putting the stand far too far from the procession, and whether that was not the cause of the dissatisfaction—not the faults which were made with regard to the arrangements? Further, I would ask whether we are to understand from his reply that the Cabinet of the day, in the case of a great State ceremonial of any kind, has no authority to make representations to the Earl Marshal and to make sure that they are respected and attended to.
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to giving the names of those who were associated with the Earl Marshal in making the arrangements.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have no doubt the Cabinet can make representations to the Earl Marshal. Of course the funeral is not a Government matter, but one relating to the Royal Family, and the Earl Marshal manages these things. My hon. Friend is right in believing that the dissatisfaction was owing to the position of the stand at Queen Victoria's funeral, but it would be difficult, of course, to provide a stand in any other position on this occasion without occupying a space which would have otherwise been available to the public. In reply to the hon. Member (Mr. Wason) the names of those who assisted the Earl Marshal on this occasion, as a committee, were: The Earl Marshal himself, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Steward, the Lord Chamberlain, the Master of the Horse, Viscount Esher (Constable of Windsor Castle), the Secretary (Office of Works), Sir William Carrington (Keeper of the Privy Purse), Sir Edward Ward (Secretary to the War Office), Sir Douglas Dawson (Controller in the Lord Chamberlain's Department), Sir Edward Henry (Commissioner of Police), Garter King-at-Arms, General Codrington (Commanding the Home District), Commodore Troubridge (representing the Ad-
  1038
  miralty), and Mr. Harcourt (First Commissioner of Works).
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate taking any step which will in future ensure that more respect is paid to the Members of the House of Commons?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I shall be happy to confer with my hon. Friend in designing such representations.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is not the provision of stands, at any rate in the Royal Parks, a matter exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Office of Works?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Certainly.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I telegraphed to a Member of the Government, and that, arising out of that telegram, a correspondence did pass with the Earl Marshal?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I know nothing about the hon. Member's telegram.
  Mr. BELLOC: Is the Earl Marshal also responsible for no special care having been taken that the staff of the House of Commons should have a special opportunity to see the funeral?

  Horses (Exportation).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether it was the intention of the Board, in issuing the Order of the 16th April, 1910, relating to the exportation of decrepit and worn-out horses, to put a stop to such exportation in the case of all animals which cannot be shipped abroad without undergoing physical pain owing to age, infirmity, illness, or injury; and, if so, what is the exact meaning of the provision in the Order under which the veterinary inspector is only enabled to refuse his consent to the proposed shipment if unnecessary suffering is likely to be caused thereby; and whether, in the interests of humanity and to ensure that the Order shall be put into effective operation, the Board will amend it by providing that no horse shall be shipped from a British port if, in the opinion of the veterinary inspector, such shipment is likely to involve suffering, whether necessary or unnecessary?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir E. Strachey): The terms of the Order to which the hon. Member refers follow pre-

  1039
  cisely those employed in Section 22 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, under the authority of which the Order is made. The Board see no reason to doubt that it is sufficient to carry out their intention in the matter which is correctly expressed in the question.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Will the Board take into account the extreme delicacy of the position of both the local authorities and of the local veterinary inspectors in moving in this matter, bearing in mind that it involves an increase of the local rates?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Certainly, we will consider it.

  New Irish Officials.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether he will give the number and total immediate amount paid per annum to the new officials, permanent and temporary, respectively, who have been appointed in Ireland up to the close of the year 1909 in consequence of legislation passed by the present Government?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The numbers as given in the Return (House of Commons 126) in the eight Irish Departments referred to in the List are as follows:—

  Number of officials.

  Total immediate cost per annum

  £

  Permanent

  11

  …

  …

  …

  899

  Temporary

  69

  …

  …

  …

  7,176

  Total

  80

  …

  …

  …

  8,075

  But for the reasons stated in the notes to the Return, the figures for the Registry of Titles and for the Irish Land Commission could not be given. I have no information as to the number of officials of other departments who have been appointed in Ireland.

  Kingstown Harbour (Deficit).
  Mr. CLANCYasked what was the deficit on the working of Kingstown Harbour for the years ending 31st March, 1908, 1909, and 1910 respectively; by how much would the deficit have been reduced in the two latter years if the Treasury had allowed the Commissioners of Kingstown Harbour to charge the steamers of the London and North-Western and Great Western Railway Companies dues at the rate of 5½d. per ton on 50 per cent, of the gross tonnage of those steamers, in accordance with the
  1040
  powers of the Commissioners as provided by Section 70 of the Dublin Port and Docks Act, 1902; and whether the Treasury intend to continue to allow the steamers of the companies mentioned to use this harbour, which is maintained at the public expense, for a nominal charge?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The net charge against the Vote was:—

  Year to 31st March,

  1908

  …

  £7,959

  do.

  1909

  …

  £9,427

  do.

  1910

  …

  £8,051

  If the London and North-Western Railway Company's steamers and the Great Western Railway Company's steamers had paid at the rates mentioned in the question (5½d. per ton on half the gross tonnage) the charge against the Vote would have been reduced by the following amounts:—

  Year to 31st March,

  1909

  …

  £6,550

  do

  1910

  …

  £6,700

  No decision has yet been arrived at on the question of the rates to be charged in respect of the steamers of these companies, as the question is still under consideration.
  Mr. MOONEY: Will these companies have free use of the harbour as soon as the legal proceedings have finished?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I could not make any promise of that sort.
  Mr. MOONEY: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman made the statement in this House that the London and North Western Railway, pending the action, were allowed the use of the harbour without paying the tonnage rate stated in the Act of Parliament, and so used the harbour practically free of charge?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, in any case they were not using it free of charge, I should like to refresh my memory on the point before I make any definite statement.

  Treasury Disbursements (Old Age Pensions).
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact reported in the third Report for this year of the Committee of Public Accounts, that there had been expended on 28th February, 1909, on old age pensions the sum of £69,531 l1s. 9d. in excess of the sum at that time voted by Parliament, and that this excess was defrayed out of moneys in the hands of the Postmaster-General; will he state

  1041
  out of what particular moneys the expenditure was defrayed, by whose direction it was thus defrayed, and whether by Treasury order; whether any, and, if so, what notice has been taken of the conduct of those responsible for this illegal act; and whether he will inform the House of the security there is that similar or other illegal acts shall not be committed with impunity by officers in high authority either at the Treasury, at the Post Office, or elsewhere in the public service?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The sum of £69,531 11s. 9d. referred to in the question represents the amount by which the orders on account of old age pensions cashed by postmasters throughout the United Kingdom out of their general balances up to 28th February, 1909, inclusive, exceeded the then available balance of the Vote for old age pensions. Against this excess there was available on the Civil Contingencies Fund on that date a balance of £65,114, leaving £4,417 11s. 9d. uncovered. The Treasury were aware that if the whole of the pension orders due on 24th February were presented before a further Grant was available there would be an excess on the Vote, but, having regard to the fact that any uncovered excess was likely to be of small amount—an anticipation which, as I have explained, was justified by the event—and that it was the clear intention of the House by the original Grant to provide for the continuance of the pensions to the end of the financial year, did not feel justified in directing that payment of the orders falling due on 24th February should be refused. The responsibility for the course taken rests with His Majesty's Government.

  University Education (Report of Royal Commission).
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked, having regard to the fact that the first Report and Evidence of the Royal Commission on University Education in London were laid upon the Table of the House on 3rd May when the Report and Evidence will be circulated to Members of the House?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have made inquiry, and I am informed that the volume will be ready for circulation by the end of this week.

  Infectious Diseases Notification Act (Scotland).
  Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGERasked the Lord Advocate if he can state how many
  1042
  local authorities in Scotland in burghs and counties, respectively, have added pulmonary phthisis to the list of compulsory notifiable diseases under the Infectious Diseases Notification Act, 1889; and how many cases were notified in 1909?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The Local Government Board have approved the orders of forty-one burghal local authorities and of thirty-three landward local authorities extending the provisions of the Act referred to by the hon. Member to pulmonary phthisis; 1,902 cases of phthisis were notified in the year 1909.

  Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act (Single Arbiter Clause).
  Mr. MORTONasked whether it is the intention of the Government to at once introduce a Bill to amend the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, to meet the difficulty that has arisen in connection with the single arbiter clause, etc.?
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Lord Advocate whether he will recommend that the legal expenses in the case of Stewart v. Williamson shall be defrayed from public funds?
  Sir JOHN DEWARasked whether, seeing that a decision has now been given by the House of Lords in the case of Stewart v. Williamson, the Government are now prepared to proceed with a Bill to take sheep stock and other away-going farm valuations out of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908; and whether the Government will consider favourably an application for a Grant towards the expense of the litigation, seeing it was undertaken to determine whether the intention of the House of Commons to exclude such valuations from the scope of the Act was borne out by the Act?
  Mr. URE: It is the intention of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to introduce at an early date a Bill on the lines set out in the questions put by my hon. Friends. The matter referred to in the Noble Lord's question and in the latter part of the hon. Baronet's is under consideration.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: When are the proper authorities likely to give a decision on the point?
  Mr. URE: It is impossible to say.

  Small Holdings (No. 3) Bill.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Prime Minister if he will give time for the passing of the Small Holdings (No. 3) Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to make reference to this in a general statement.

  Income Tax (Life Insurance Policies).
  Mr. BALDWINasked whether Income Tax is refunded on amounts paid as single premiums in purchase of life insurance policies?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, Sir.

  Government Contracts (Payments).
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked whether there are any payments in respect of contracts or services which are due by the Government but have not yet been paid; and, if so, what is the amount of such payments due under each Vote of the Army and Navy Estimates, under the Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue and the Post Office Estimates, and under each class of the Civil Service Estimates; and whether the proportion of the amount to the total net estimate in each case is greater or less than that obtaining at the same date in the years 1908–9; and, if so, what is the reason?
  The HON. MEMBERhad also given notice of the following question: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any receipts received by any of the public departments in the present financial year have been applied as Appropriations in Aid; if so, what is the amount up to 9th June that has been so received under each Vote of the Army and Navy Estimates, under the Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue, and the Post Office Estimates, and under each class of the Civil Service Estimates; under what direction by Treasury Minute or otherwise has such application been made; have the moneys in question been paid into the Exchequer; to payments under what Votes have they been applied; in virtue of what statutory powers has such action been taken in each case; and what has been the total sum so applied in the present financial year as compared with the sum so applied during the same period of the financial year 1908–9?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answers to these questions appeared in the Official Report for Friday, 10th June, columns 1011–12.

  Finance (Estimates for Current Year).
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked whether, seeing that the total of the proposed Estimates of expenditure on Supply services for the year 1910–11 is more than
  1044
  £10,900,000 in excess of the Estimates for the previous year, and that the sum issued from the Exchequer in the present financial year to meet expenditure on these services, as published in the last issue of the "London Gazette," is more than £1,500,000 less than the sum issued in the similar period of last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will state the reason for the difference in the proportion in the two cases between the sum issued up to date and the total estimated expenditure?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I fear that I am quite unable to follow the hon. Member's figures. The Estimates for the current year for Supply services show an increase over the original Estimates for 1909–10 of £9,433,000, or about 7½ per cent.—not £10,900,000. The Exchequer issues for Supply services in the period to 4th June, 1910, show an increase over the corresponding period of 1909–10 of £1,610,00, or about 8¼ per cent.—not a decrease of £1,500,000, as suggested in the question.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I ask whether these figures are the same as the figures which appeared in the issues from the Exchequer as published in the "London Gazette," these figures showing the decrease?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should not like to answer that without seeing the figures. If the hon. Member will give notice of a question I will inquire.

  Income Tax (Assessment Forms for Super-Tax).
  Mr. GIBBSasked whether Mr. N. F. W. Fisher, clerk to the Special Commissioners, of Income Tax, has given instructions that applicants for forms on which to make returns for assessment for Super-tax should be informed that such applications for forms will be regarded as an admission of liability to pay the Super-tax, and that forms should not be supplied unless this preliminary admission is made; if so, by whose authority Mr. Fisher gave such directions; and has such authorisation the sanction of the Government?
  EARL of RONALDSHAYhad the following question on the Notice Paper: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if an applicant for a form for the purpose of assessment for Super-tax is not entitled to receive one unless he first gives his name and address and admits his liability to pay Super-tax; and, if so, will he say by whose authority instructions to this

  1045
  effect have been issued to the Special Commissioners for Income Tax, and for what reason?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will answer these two questions together. No admission is required from persons applying for the form of return, and no instructions of the kind suggested have been given by the clerk to the Special Commissioners. The request for the name and address of the individual for whom the form is intended is made partly in order to obviate the possibility of his being served direct from the office of the Special Commissioners with a further form, and partly in order to prevent the form falling into the hands of unauthorised persons.

  Indian Bronze Cannon.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked whether a suggestion can be made to the Indian Government that they should make a Grant to the provincial cities of this country interested in metallurgy of some of the old Indian bronze cannon now lying in the yards of the fort at Calcutta, not only on account of their ornamental character but also for the purposes of instruction?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): If the hon. Member will kindly supply me with fuller details regarding the precise purport of his suggestion the Secretary of State will be glad to consider it.

  Member for Commerce and Industry (Governor-General's Council of India).
  Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Member for Commerce and Industry in the Governor-General's Executive Council of India has already been selected; and, if so, will he give the name of the person elected?
  Mr. MONTAGU: No appointment has yet been made. I may add that members of the Executive Council of the Governor-General are appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for India. Subject to statutory limitations, the Secretary of State reserves entire freedom of selection, and undertakes full responsibility.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Can the hon. Gentleman say when this post is likely to be filled up?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Shortly. I cannot say exactly.
  Earl WINTERTON: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the case of Mr. Dowd, and not make any appointment against the best Indian opinion?
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is it not a fact that there are statutory provisions with respect to the appointments which require that a servant so appointed should have served, in the public service in India for a certain number of years?
  Mr. MONTAGU: There are certain statutory provisions, but the hon. Member has not stated them accurately.

  Cattle-Driving in Ireland.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that, on Sunday night, the 10th April last, a cattle-drive took place on the estate of Captain H. H. Jones, Rathlea, Ballina; whether all the animals have been recovered; whether any arrests have been made in connection with the outrage; and what steps have been taken to prevent similar occurrences in that neighbourhood in future?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): A cattle-drive took place on Captain Jones' estate on the night mentioned. All the cattle have been recovered. No arrests have been made, but it is hoped that the protection post which has been established on the property will have the effect of preventing further drives.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on the night of the 16th April last eight head of cattle, belonging to a man named Peter Tarpey, of Ballyglass, county Galway, were driven off his farm through a gap maliciously made in the wall; whether Peter Tarpey had purchased his farm, and a rumour was current that he wanted to purchase an adjoining farm, which was resented by his neighbours; whether the cattle have been recovered; whether any arrests have been made; and what steps have been taken to prevent further outrages of a similar nature in the locality?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Tarpey's cattle were driven off his farm on the night of 16th April in the circumstances mentioned in the question. They have been recovered. The police have not been able to make any arrests, but they are doing all that is possible to prevent further drives.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he can state the number of cattle drives that have taken place in

  1047
  Ireland during the months of January, February, March, April, and May last respectively; and the number of arrests made and sentences imposed on the perpetrators of the outrages?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I find that there were fourteen cattle drives in January, six in February, twenty-two in March, twenty-four in April, and thirty-five in May. Two hundred and twenty-four persons were arrested in connection with these drives, of whom twenty-seven were discharged, 127 were bound to the peace and gave bail, and thirty-five were committed to gaol in default of bail, nine for one month, six for ten weeks, and twenty for three months. The charges against the remaining thirty-five have been adjourned, and are still pending.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask whether it would not be possible to prosecute these cattle drivers for malicious injury, or cruelty to animals, or something of that sort?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Malicious injury or cruelty has to be proved. You cannot take action against people unless you have reason to believe that you can make good the charge.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask whether it is not a fact that all former attempts to suppress cattle-driving have been absolutely futile, and whether the right hon. Gentleman will not take steps to stop this cruel form of outrage?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am doing the best I can.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary how many cases of cattle-driving have been reported to the police since 1st April last; and how many were similarly reported in the corresponding period of 1909?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Sixty-one cases of cattle-driving have been reported to the police between 1st April and 8th June of this year. There were sixty-six cases during the corresponding period of last year.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary whether he will state the number of extra police drafted into the Ballysteen district, county Limerick, for the protection of cattle; and what is the cost placed on the ratepayers in respect of such police protection?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that eight men have been sent from other parts of the county to the police stations near Ballysteen as a temporary measure owing to cattle-driving in the neighbourhood. This arrangement does not entail any increased cost to the ratepayers.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary how many claims for compensation for injury to cattle have been lodged during the past three months; what is the amount claimed, the amount awarded, and the amount in respect of claims still unheard; and whether he proposes to proceed against those responsible for injury and cruelty to the cattle by driving?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The figures asked for by the hon. Member could not be furnished without local inquiries which would take some time. If he wishes to move for a Return I will consider whether it can be given. All persons found cattle-driving are proceeded against.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the cruelty practised upon animals in connection with recent cattle drives in Ireland; and whether he will direct that proceedings should be taken in such cases against offenders to recover the penalties imposed by the Cruelty to Animals Act for overdriving or abusing cattle?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Up to the present the police have found no sufficient ground for charging the persons who have taken part in cattle drives with cruelty to animals. Should cases of cruelty, such as is contemplated by the Statute, occur the police will take the necessary action.

  Pollock Estate Disturbances (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state what action has been taken with regard to the disturbances on the Pollock estate; whether any arrests have been made and prosecutions instituted against any of the perpetrators; whether it is intended to hand any of the farms purchased to the people who took part in the cattle-driving; and what steps have been taken to prevent similar outrages in that neighbourhood in future?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No action has been taken in this case. No further outbreak has occurred. The distribution of the untenanted land is in the hands of the Estates Commissioners, and the impend-

  1049
  ing completion of the sale of the estate gives good ground for hoping that there will be no further trouble in connection with this property.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the second part of the question?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; there is no such intention. I said that the farms have not yet been distributed. There is no present intention to give them to any particular persons.

  Shooting Case at Kiltulla (Galway).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that an outrage was perpetrated at a place called Kiltulla, about three miles from Galway, at ten minutes past nine on Friday night, 20th May last, when a man named Martin Conroy, who was sitting with two of his neighbours in his own house, was fired at in the open door and hit in three places about the head; whether a police patrol had only just left the place, and whether there is evidence to show that the patrol was watched by the perpetrators; whether there is any evidence to prove that it was intended to kill Conroy; whether he has been under police protection for some time past; whether he is aware of the unrest in the district over the sale of a farm for which competitive offers for purchase were made by persons living in and around the villages of Kiltulla and Ballintemple; whether the landlord accepted the higher price offered by the tenants at Ballintemple, of whom Conroy is one of the principal, and after the sale had been completed reprisals were threatened on the part of the Kiltulla people; whether any arrests have been made; and what steps have been taken to protect this man against similar outrages in the future?
  Mr. BIRRELL: A man is at present awaiting his trial at the coming Assizes in connection with this matter. The case being sub judice, I cannot enter into particulars.

  Land Purchase (County Limerick).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that in 1908, in the presence of an inspector of the Estates Commissioners, the tenants on the R. W. Smith estate, county Limerick, offered to pay £10,000 for the lands then offered by the vendor, provided he would sell the same to the Estates Commissioners; that in July, 1909, after a second inspection, the
  1050
  Estates Commissioners offered £9,174; that the tenants again offered to pay £10,000, and the landlord accepted it and communicated his acceptance to the Estates Commissioners; that the Estates Commissioners took no further action till the Land Act of 1903 had expired; and that on 7th April, 1910, they have now reduced their offer from £9,174 to £8,519 on the plea that the Land Act of 1909 has altered the situation; and, inasmuch as this, coupled with the reduction of the bonus to the vendor under the Act of 1909, will prevent the parties coming to terms previously twice agreed on, will he introduce amending legislation to prevent land purchase as in this case from being defeated, and will instruct the Estates Commissioners to carry out their original undertaking?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners had a preliminary inspection made of this estate and intimated to the owner the amount they would be willing to advance if formal proceedings for sale were instituted. The owner was unwilling to sell at the price, and his agent informed the Commissioners that the tenants had met and expressed their willingness to purchase for £10,000. On a further inspection the Commissioners increased their offer to £9,174, which the owner was willing to accept if he got 12 per cent, bonus. Having been informed that only 3 per cent, bonus was payable at the time the owner did not institute proceedings for sale. If he now proceeds with the sale the annuities will be at the rate of 3½ per cent., and the Commissioners, having regard to security, cannot advance more than £8,519 exclusive of the bonus payable under the Irish Land Act, 1909. The owner has been so informed. There is nothing in the case calling for legislation.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask whether the Estates Commissioners did not deliberately stop the sale which was satisfactory both to the landlord and the tenants, and whether, if that is the effect of the Act of 1909, he will not do something to alter it if possible?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners did not agree as to the value of the estate. They are not bound to pay the price even although the parties are willing to agree to the price.
  Captain COOPER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he still considers that the Act of last year has facilitated land purchase?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the right hon. Gentleman's answer.

  Labourers' Cottages (County Down).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Chief Secretary if land belonging to Mr. H. Dawson, of Ballynichal, Comber, county Down, was in 1908 taken by arbitration for the purposes of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts and £56 awarded to him; if the lands were subject to a purchase annuity of £15 12s. payable to the Land Commission; if the Newtownards Rural Council, the promoters of the scheme, paid £36 to Mr. Dawson in January, 1909 and £20 to the Land Commission in reduction of an apportioned part of the said annuity; will he say why no corresponding reduction by the Land Commission has been made in Mr. Dawson's purchase annuity; and if he will take steps to see that this is done forthwith?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The facts of this case appear to be correctly stated in the question, save that the amount payable to the Land Commission was not received by them until the end of September last. Owing to the very large number of similar payments which had then been received it was not found practicable to make the necessary calculations with respect to the reduction of the annuity before the ensuing gale day which fell on 1st November. The payment has, however, since been applied in reduction of the annuity, and the half-yearly instalment is reduced by 9s. 3d. as from 1st May last.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. AUGUSTINE ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary whether the townlands of Farnanes, Pulbrick, and others in the Muskerry estate of Daniel H. Conner were inspected in June, 1909; whether the purchase money of said lands was offered to the said Daniel H. Conner before February in the present year; and if not, why was not the estate dealt with in the order of priority?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is being dealt with in order of priority. It was inspected in 1909, and the Estates Commissioners expect that the purchase money will be advanced, and the holdings vested in the purchasing tenants during the current financial year.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary if he will state the number of land purchase agreements which were lodged
  1052
  with the Estates Commissioners up to the end of May last under the provisions of The Irish Land Act, 1909; the amount of advances applied for; and how many of such agreements represented direct sales between landlord and tenant?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The number of purchase agreements at 3¼ per cent, annuities under the Irish Land Act, 1909 lodged with the Estates Commissioners up to 31st May last in direct sales between landlords and tenants is 2,158, and the advances applied for therein amount to £550,139. Proceedings have also been instituted since the passing of the Act for the sale to the Commissioners of estates comprising 475 holdings, but no purchase agreements are lodged in such cases as the tenants do not sign undertakings to purchase until the estates have been inspected and the prices fixed by the Commissioners and accepted by the owners.

  Scientific Agriculture (Ireland).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary whether any steps have yet been taken by the Department of Agriculture to establish a research station for the investigation of scientific questions bearing upon agriculture?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Though the Department of Agriculture have been doing a certain amount of research work in connection with agricultural problems, they have been unable as yet, through want of funds, to establish a special research station for this purpose. Such a research station is in their opinion greatly needed.

  Horse Breeding Advisory Committee.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary how many additional representatives of Ulster are to be put upon the Advisory Committee on Horse Breeding; and when this strengthening of the committee is to take place?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture that the gentlemen who comprise the Department's Advisory Committee on Horse Breeding were not chosen as representatives of provinces or districts, but were selected on account of their knowledge of this industry in Ireland. In view, however, of the exceptional circumstances in regard to horse breeding which prevail in many districts in the North of Ireland, the Vice-President announced at the recent meeting of the Council of Agriculture that additional representatives from

  1053
  Ulster would be appointed. Accordingly, the Department have invited two gentlemen from that province with experience in horse breeding to act on the committee in question.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the names?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not like to give the names, because, although the gentlemen have been asked to act, they have not yet intimated their willingness. I will let the hon. Member know a little later whether they are willing to act.

  Loans to Credit Societies (Ireland).
  Captain COOPERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction have been obliged to resort to legal process in order to obtain repayment of loans advanced to credit societies; what are the names of the societies from which repayment was recovered by this means, and the amounts respectively sued for and recovered?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Department were obliged to request the Chief Crown Solicitor to take such action as might be necessary to recover loans advanced to some credit societies. The amount recovered in this way was £1,375. The Department do not consider that it would be in the interest of these societies or would serve any useful purpose to publish their names.
  Captain COOPER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the Department have any objection to giving the names and the figures to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society which organised and founded these societies?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think that there ought to be any objection. I will inquire.
  Captain CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects it will be possible for the Vice-President of the Department to attend in his place in the House?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That depends on a variety of circumstances over which I have no control.

  Lord Kitchener's Position.
  Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is still his intention that Lord Kitchener should succeed to the post of Inspector-General of the Forces in the Mediterranean and
  1054
  South Africa; and, if so, can he state approximately when the duties will be entered upon?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): To my great regret, Lord Kitchener has informed me that he does not now desire to take up his appointment to the Mediterranean Command. The Government, however, consider the appointment of much importance in connection with recent and prospective developments, and they propose to continue it. The appointment would, however, even in the hands of Lord Kitchener, have been the subject of modifications and additions, which I shall be prepared to state a little later on. I may, however, mention that the duty of inspecting the military forces overseas, except in India, will attach to this post, the holder of which will not be always in residence at Malta. As the post will be of an exclusive military character, it will not now be necessary to retain the title of High Commissioner in connection with it.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has in contemplation utilising Lord Kitchener's services?
  Mr. HALDANE: Lord Kitchener's services are a great national asset. I am glad to say that as a Field-Marshal he remains on the active list.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government expects to be in a position to announce the name of the officer who is to hold the new appointment.
  Mr. HALDANE: I think very shortly indeed.
  Earl WINTERTON: Do the words "recent and coming developments" refer to> the international situation?
  Mr. HALDANE: They do not refer to-the international situation, but to the reorganisation which, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, has taken place.

  Territorial Good Service Certificate.
  Mr. CARLILEasked the Secretary of State for War whether a member of the Territorial Force is allowed to reckon previous service in the Volunteer Force in order to qualify to obtain a certificate of good service, Army Form E 150, mentioned in paragraph 98, Territorial Forces Regulations, if his service has been continuous?
  Mr. HALDANE: Under existing regulations a member of the Territorial Force is not permitted to reckon service in the Volunteer Force towards the grant of this certificate. The question of amending the regulations is under consideration.

  Territorial Force (South Staffordshire).
  Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to give any additional information concerning the proposed drill-hall for the Darlaston company of the South Staffordshire Territorials?
  Mr. HALDANE: The scheme originally put forward by the association has now been approved, and the association was so informed on the 4th instant.

  Sale of Worn-out Artillery Horses.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is the regular practice to sell by auction, with the authority and approval of the War Office, old and worn-out artillery horses for anything that they will fetch; whether such sales generally take place in the poorest parts of garrison towns; whether those horses which are lame and entirely past work of any kind are often sold for the sum of £5 or less; and, if so, whether he will issue an order for the compulsory slaughter of such animals, to prevent their being exported to foreign countries for purposes of human food?
  Mr. HALDANE: Horses, prior to casting, are examined by a veterinary surgeon, who, in each case, recommends to the approving authority whether the animal should be sold or destroyed. The horses are sold at auction in the market town nearest to the garrison town where they are cast.

  New Japanese Tariff on Steel.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect that under the new Japanese tariff it is proposed to raise the Customs duties on steel ingots, blooms, and billets from 2s. 10½d. to 17s. 3d. per ton, on bars and rods from 9s. to 20s. 7d. per ton, and on unspecified manufactured goods from 30 to 40 per cent. ad valorem; and whether His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokio has made any representations to the Japanese Government on the subject?
  Mr. BUXTON: There are some minor differences of description as between the existing and the proposed new Japanese
  1056
  tariff in the case of the articles referred to by the hon. Member, but the effect of the proposals is substantial indicated in the question. The whole question of the nature of the communications to be made to the Japanese Government in regard to the proposed tariff is now under consideration.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALFOUR: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell the House what the proposed course of business is for the ensuing week?
The PRIME MINISTER: To-day we hope to get the Second Beading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, after which we intend to proceed with the two Census Bills. On to-morrow and Wednesday we hope to complete the various stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill and to make further progress with the Census Bills, the Small Holdings (No. 3) Bill, and the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Bill. On to-morrow (Tuesday) a message from the King will be presented with respect to the Civil List and the desirability of introducing a Regency and an address in reply will be moved. On Wednesday we propose to set up a Committee to consider the Civil List and to introduce the Regency Bill. On Thursday we intend to get the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates, and on Friday to take the Local Government Board Vote.
Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say on what days the Committee on the Census Bill for Great Britain will be taken?
The PRIME MINISTER: On either tomorrow or Wednesday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  Budget Statement.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his Budget Statement?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather answer that on Thursday.

  Veto Proposals Conference.
  Sir HENRY DALZIEL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman contemplates making any statement to-day with regard to certain reports as to negotiations going on between the two Front Benches?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend must be well aware that in matters of this kind the newspapers know so much better than we do ourselves all that we are doing and saying and writing and thinking and feeling that it is very difficult to keep pace with their illuminating revelations. I am in a position to say to the House at this moment—and I am afraid it will not strike them with any air of novelty—that within the last week certain communications have passed between myself and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, which I hope may lead at an early date to a meeting between us.

DEATH OF KING EDWARD.

  Message from Austria.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have received a message from the President of the House of Deputies, Austrian Reichsrat, to the following effect:—
  [Translation.]
  "To the Speaker of the English Lower House.
  "Honoured Sir,—
  "At the sitting of the House of Deputies of the Reichsrat on 10th May last I devoted the following words, as President of the House, to the memory of his late Majesty King Edward VII.:—
  "Honourable House! King Edward VII. has been called away from his life so rich in power and success. [The House rises.]
  "With deep sorrow we think of the severe loss suffered by the English Nation, our traditional friends, and its Royal House.
  "King Edward was bound by friendship and admiration to our august Monarch, who has already given expression to his deep sympathy.
  "In his sorrow are united the feelings of all the peoples of Austria, who, at the same time, recollect the keen predilection with which the deceased Sovereign clung to our beautiful country, which he repeatedly visited, and in which he was always received with the warmest sympathy.
  "By rising from your seats, gentlemen, you have given appropriate expression to your deep feelings, and thereby decided that this manifestation of mourning on the part of the House of Deputies shall be incorporated for perpetual remembrance in the official minutes.
  "At the same time, I beg the honourable House to authorise the President's office to convey our sincere sympathy, through the Government, to the Speaker of the English Lower House. [After a pause.] With your assent thus given, this will be done.
  "With the assent and under the expressed authority of the House, I have the honour to bring this demonstration of mourning, through your medium, to the knowledge of the English Lower House.
  "Accept, honoured Mr. Speaker, the assurance of my highest respect.
  "(Signed) Db. Robert Pattais.
  "Vienna, 11th May, 1910."
  Mr. SPEAKER: The House will probably desire me to send a suitable reply.

MR. SPEAKER AND CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY.
Mr. SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that I have been honoured by the proposal of the University of Cambridge to confer upon me the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws. As to accept this will necessitate my absence from this House and my attendance at Cambridge tomorrow, I ask the indulgence and leave of the House so to accept it. ["Hear, hear."] I thank the House for the indication it has given to me.
Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath.

BILL PRESENTED.
  Professional Accountants Bill.
  "To provide for the registration of Professional Accountants in Great Britain and Ireland, and for other purposes," presented by Mr. Radford; supported by Mr. Hay Morgan, Sir Frederick Low, Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. F. E. Smith, Mr. Winfrey, and Sir George White; to be read a second time upon Monday, 27th June.
NEW WRITS.

  Borough of the Habtlepools.
  Ordered, "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of

  1059
  a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of the Hartlepools, in the room of Sir Christopher Furness, whose election has been declared to be void."—[Master of Elibank.]

  County of Dorset (Eastern Division).
  MASTER of ELIBANKmoved: "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New-Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county of Dorset (Eastern Division), in the room of Captain the Honourable Frederick Edward Guest, whose election has been declared to be void."
  Mr. MARKHAMmoved, after the word "do" ["Mr. Speaker do"], to insert the words "not during the present Session of Parliament."
  4.0 p.m.
  In rising to move the Amendment, I make no apology to the House. If there ever was a case where, in the interests of honest politics, the writ should be withheld for twelve months, this is the case. I am sorry to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in the House. I do hope that he will be in his place before the next quarter of an hour, for being President of the Gladstone League I have a few questions to address to him arising out of the very grave position he states that our public life is to-day in by reason of the intimidation that prevailed at the last election. I make, so far as my own opinion goes, no hesitation in stating that I believe that intimidation did prevail very extensively in the rural districts at the last election. So far as my own Constituency goes, I say at once that there was no intimidation. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but I represent intelligent men with strong arms who would flatten out anybody who attempted to intimidate them, whereas hon. Members who come from southern constituencies do not represent, I think, constituencies of that kind. At all events I have no desire whatever to receive any cheers directly or indirectly from the party opposite for what I have already stated.
  I wish to draw the attention of the House first to the Bill, the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act. It was under that Act that the recent petition was heard in Dorsetshire. By that Act the House has set up a tribunal of judges to inquire into malpractices at elections; but it has in no way divorced the House itself
  1060
  from fully inquiring into what has taken place. That has been clearly held and laid down by all the authorities. In 1883 the Bill was introduced by Lord James in this House, and it was introduced also by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir Charles W. Dilke), by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and by other gentlemen who have now ceased to be Members of this House. The Debates arising out of that Bill were of a very remarkable character. Clause 2, to which I am about to refer, was debated for, I think, at least four nights. The judges can only rely on what is the strict interpretation of the Act before them, but between the interpretation which they put on the Act and what Parliament wishes to determine there is often a very wide difference. As hon. and right hon. Members know the intentions of Parliament have many times been clearly expressed, as Parliament thought, while His Majesty's judges would put an entirely different construction on the law. The intention of the authors of this Act was, and they wished to make it their object, to prevent any intimidation or undue influence at elections held in any part of this country. Lord James resisted numerous Amendments and, as I say, it was the intention of Clause 2 to render void all elections where any undue influence could be reasonably brought home to the authors of that undue influence. Clause 2 reads as follows:—
  "Every person who shall directly or indirectly by himself or by any other person on his behalf make use of or threaten to make use of any force, violence, or restraint, or inflict or threaten to inflict by himself or by any other person any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm, or loss upon or against any person in order to induce or compel such person to vote or refrain from voting or on account of such person having voted or refrained from voting at any election or who shall by abduction, duress, or any fraudulent device or contrivance impede or prevent the free exercise of the franchise of any elector or shall thereby compel, induce, or prevail upon any elector either to give or to refrain from giving his vote at any election shall be guilty of undue influence."
  Clause 4 states that if the judges of the election petition report certain corrupt practices then the candidate, "shall not be capable of ever being elected to or sitting in the House of Commons for the said

  1061
  county or borough." In this case His Majesty's judges have found in legal form that no legal intimidation prevailed. Before I pass from the Act, I want to state, and it is very important, what was the intention of the author of the Act, because I ask the House to disagree with the judges on the ground that the judges have not interpreted the intention of Parliament. It is for the House itself to place any construction it thinks fit on the facts and on the action of the judges, and their decision in no way binds this House. That must be quite clear. At this election, I say, in the first place, and my first charge is, that there were gross abuses and a vulgar use of the Wimborne purse with the object of preventing the return of a candidate to this House, or rather, I should put it, making it impossible for any but a rich man to compete against those abuses of the vulgar purse of the Wimbornes. Lord James said, in the course of the Debate:—
  "Apart from the fact that extravagant expenditure is near akin to corruption, and that it was at least, the father of corruption [mark the words father of corruption'] it appeared to him and to many other Members of the Government that even if it were not corrupt expenditure, it was necessary to check it in order that they might maintain the character of the House and the position and character of the Members who sat there."
  I think I am right in saying that Sir Edward Clarke, then Mr. Clarke, strongly urged the House that they should be their own election judges. For my part, I believe that the House of Commons might act as a judicial tribunal as well as anybody. When we are acting as politicians we are dishonest. I wish now to state what was said by Mr. Parnell in the course of that Debate, because I think it will carry some weight with the Irish Members, whose votes I want if possible. I have always found that they are the party of democracy in this House, and that they are always ready to support a case whether the Front Benches do or not. Speaking on 14th June, 1883, Mr. Parnell said:—
  "There was nothing that an Irish elector resented so much as being interfered with or talked to when on his way to perform the duty which the Constitution imposed upon him, to register his vote secretly; and he defied anyone to find out from a voter what candidate he had or had not voted for… Undue influence was a thing of the past, and the only abuses to be feared and guarded against were bribery and treating, and such other grosser forms of action which interfered with freedom of election."
  When hon. Members from Ireland hear what I have got to say about East Dorsetshire I think they will agree with what Mr. Parnell said twenty-seven years ago.
  1062
  I want them to come to the help of the democratic element to assist the people in East Dorset to exercise their franchise liberties without fear and without intimidation. I proceed to deal with some of the cases, not taking them in the order of merit; in fact I have not even prepared any order in which I intend to bring them before the House. Those cases are equally bad. Before I make any remarks on the East Dorset election I ought to say that perhaps no man has a more unpleasant duty to perform that I have, because I am going to make an attack on a lady. But when twentieth-century ladies come into the political arena, when they take an active part in the returning of Members to this House—when they, as in the case of East Dorset, where Lady Wimborne was election agent, and, in the words of Mr. Justice Lawrance, "a most useful agent," to Mr. Guest, who was a mere cypher in the election, which was carried out by Lady Wimborne, under those circumstances, regrettable though it may be, that I am going to make an attack on this lady, it is one of the disabilities that attaches to the exercise of votes by women. If they come down, as I have already said, to the political arena, they must be responsible for their actions, and they cannot claim that they should be above criticism. I think it is only just and right to say that so far as Lady Wimborne is concerned I have not the slightest personal feeling in the matter, and I make no personal attack, but I am going to make an attack in no half-hearted way in the cases I am going to put.
  Let me briefly state to the House something of what prevailed in East Dorset. For many years this constituency returned a Conservative Member to this House. In 1873 the constituency was disfranchised for bribery and corruption, and remained so for a period. Lady Wimborne appeared on the scene, and proceeded to form branches of the Primrose League in every district of the Division, and, owing to her influence and the influence of the Wimborne estate, with its hundreds and hundreds of small tenant holders and with the great power of the Wimborne purse, no one dared to attack the seat for years, until a candidate eventualy came along. In 1904, about the same time as that at which the Home Secretary changed his political views, all the Members of the Guest family, and as is well known Lady Wimborne is an aunt of the Home Secretary, came over to our side of the House, or rather adopted Liberal principles. In

  1063
  point of fact they do not understand and never have been Liberals, and never will be Liberals. By some strange coincidence in the history of the Churchill family, whenever they have "ratted" it has always been at a time when it was of material benefit to themselves, or when they thought it was going to be of benefit to themselves. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Oh!"] Hon. Members may dissent, but is it not the truth? I might go back to the time of the first Duke of Marlborough—but I will not go into that.
  Let me deal first with the case of the Labour party in this matter; they ought to have a full measure of criticism, as they are responsible for one of the incidents for which the judges held the election to be void. A man named Eli Best, who had worked on the Canford estate for twenty-five years, was a bricklayer in receipt of a wage of 27s. a week. On 30th April, 1908, the day following that on which Mr. Guest had been nominated by the East Dorset Liberal Association, Eli Best received notice that his services were no longer required on the Wimborne property. Three distinct tales were told as to the dismissal of this man—one by Mr. Moir, who at that time and until September, 1908, was agent on the estate; another by Mr. Andrews, who was appointed agent in 1908; and a third by Lady Wimborne. His Majesty's judges were not sufficiently far-seeing to observe this fact. Lady Wimborne must have known long before the 30th April, 1908, that Mr. Guest was going to be nominated by the association, as the association was her creature; but the judges seem to have lost sight of that point. Owing to the ill-health of Sir Lewis Mac-Iver, a question arose whether there would not be an election in 1908, and the Member for West Edinburgh told Mr. Guest or Lady Wimborne that he did not intend to stand at the next election. The point which the Solicitor-General will probably make is, Why should Lady Wimborne take this action only one day after Mr. Guest had been nominated? But, as I say, Lady Wimborne knew long before April that her son was to become candidate. I am about to quote from the "East Dorset Herald, Times, and Standard":—
  "Eli Best, examined by Mr. Coward, said that for a quarter of a century, up to June, 1908, he had been employed as a bricklayer on the Canford estate. He was a Conservative, and he and his wife belonged to the Primrose League.
  "Did you join that habitation of the Primrose League which was started by Lady Wimborne herself?—Yes, sir.
  "Her Ladyship was the Dame President, I think, of the habitation?—Yes.
  1064
  "And you are well known on the estate as a Conservative?—Yes.
  "Now, on 30th April, I908, did you receive a notice terminating your engagement from the estate office, signed by Mr. Moir?—Yes.
  "Witness, on request, produced a copy of this document, and Mr. Coward read it as follows:—
  "Canford Estate Offices, Wimborne, Dorset,
  "30th April. 1908.
  "To Mr. Eli Best.
  "Dear Sir, —I regret to have to give you format notice that your services will no longer be required by the above estate on and after 14th May, 1908. The necessity for this decision is obviously due to your being incapable of doing a regular day's work. In view, however, of your long services on this estate I am prepared to extend the notice for a particular month so as to enable you to obtain a situation elsewhere.
  "Is not that generous after twenty-five years' service?
  "At the same time you must clearly understand that this special indulgence must be exercised by you in the spirit in which it is given, and that during the time which remains while employed on this estate you must exercise your best endeavours at all times to do a full day's work.
  "Yours faithfully,
  "J. Moir.
  "Were you surprised to receive that letter counsel asked?—Yes.
  "It says in the letter that you were incapable of doing a regular day's work. Were you incapable? —No, that is not correct.
  "On receiving the letter, witness continued, he got friend to write a letter to Lady Wimborne. He went to Canford Manor, and handed the letter to her Ladyship. He kept a copy which counsel read, as follows:
  "If your Ladyship thinks it best for me to go I raise no complaint though I have served you faithfully for twenty-one years, but I do complain of the notice sent to me by Mr. Moir. He says "the necessity of this decision is obviously due to your being incapable of doing regular day's work." I have always done a regular day's work from 6 in the morning until 5:30 at night.
  Will the Labour party please note that?
  "I have never shirked my work or been absent from it except when seriously ill last year and again this year, but only for nine days, not counting Easter holiday. I feel that the statement of your agent, is a distinct injustice to me, and I should like your Ladyship to know before I leave that I have always done my full day's work for you. Such a statement is unjust and ruinous to a working man, as no man can get a fresh place with such a charge against him in his notice of dismissal. Would your Ladyship be good enough to see that justice is done to me, and notice given me with no such charge contained in it?
  As time is getting on I will simply say that this man went to her ladyship, but Lady Wimborne refused to continue his employment.
  Mr. Geikie, who was clerk of the works on the Canford estate in April, 1908, gave a totally different reason for Best's dismissal from that given by Mr. Moir. Mr. Geikie stated:—
  "Best was dismissed because he was not satisfactory; there had been complaints against him for some time."
  "Cross-examined by Mr. Dickens, witness said. Many years ago Lord Wimborne complained of Best, and asked that he should he dismissed, but the agent, intervened and used his influence, and he was retained. He had not done his work properly for many years, and would not carry out his instructions.' But you bore it bravely until 1908,' said Mr. Dickens."
  What Lady Wimborne said was that she was sorry she did not prevent the notice.

  1065
  That is reported in none of the London papers, but it is in the "East Dorset Herald." With regard to the charge that she caused this man to be served with notice to quit, she said that Mr. Moir told her that the man was idle and slack and a bad workman. In cross-examination she said that it was a curious fact that he was the only man Lord Wimborne had noticed as being very idle, and his lordship had some time previously spoken of how he noticed the man's slow movements on the roof of the house. There appeared in the "Labour Leader" a fortnight ago a curious cartoon which thoroughly fits this description. There is the usual appeal to ignorance. A man is depicted sitting in a large room. He has an enormous stomach and a bloated appearance, and he is resting his feet on the mantelpiece. By his side are a bottle of champagne and a bottle of whisky. He is smoking a big cigar, while a flunkey is handing him a glass of champagne. The cartoon was headed, "Go Easy." There is the usual appeal to the prejudice of the working man. I suggest to the "Labour Leader" that next week there should be another cartoon, headed "Canford Manor," and that in it there should appear the same table, with champagne and cigars, and not one flunkey, but half a dozen, whilst sitting in the chair should be the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: He is not a Member of the Labour party.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I do not know the internal differences of the Labour party; there are so many different sections that I may be mistaken. At any rate, Mr. Havelock Wilson, who represents the seamen, was imported into the constituency because of the sailors at Poole, and the Member for Stoke also went down. This case is precisely similar to what has time after time been charged against the party opposite. This man had worked on the estate for twenty-five years. He was an active Tory in the middle of the camp, and Lady Wimborne said, "My son has fought three elections; he has been kicked out at Brigg, Cockermouth, and Kingswinford. Now at last he is coming here "—to use her own words—"to fight under my own doorstep."
  She said definitely that "on no account must we be beaten; we must win." Very well, this man had been taking an active part in politics. He was an active agent of the Tory party—a very silly man, I think. Still, there he was. Why was it,
  1066
  in view that in the first case Lady Wimborne says he was dismissed because he was slow on the roof of a house many many years before—that was the reason that Lord Wimborne had spoken about—and that Mr. Geikie says he would not carry out his orders that the dismissal given to him on 30th April was of an entirely different character? What did the judges say? Mr. Justice Lawrance, with that sound common-sense which always distinguishes his observations, said this:—
  "Now, dealing with the Best case as we go along, it was not made much clearer by the gentleman who was called, Mr. Geikie, I think, was his name, another Scotsman. Mr. Geikie's evidence (I am only repeating it from memory—we need not trouble to look it up) was this: I did not get rid of him because he could not do a day's work; I got rid of him because he would not do what I told him.' 'Well, you gave him orders, I suppose? 'Yes, I continued to give him orders, and I knew those orders would not be carried out.' I see Mr. Foote shakes his head; he will shake it a great deal more, I daresay, before I have done; but still, that is what he said to me. I said, 'You knew he would not carry out those orders." and he said,' Yes. I knew that.' And they continued in that way until the time came, when his account of getting rid of this man is entirely different from that which was given before, and given by the man himself; that it was due to his being incapable of doing a regular day's work.
  "Now, the other case of that kind of undue influence that is mentioned is the case of King, who had been a tenant of some twenty-five acres of land for some fifteen years. … Well, again all one can say about that is that it may be said, and rightly said, that they are isolated cases and have nothing whatever to do with the election at all, or with Captain Guest's position as adopted candidate on 29th April, 1908. But, again, they are unfortunate — that is all one can say —and unfortunate because they might be looked upon, and probably were looked upon, by some of the people who were occupying land under the Wimborne Estate, as an indication of what would happen to them if they did not what I may call 'come to hand' when the next election came on."
  Mr. Justice Lawrance said exactly what I am trying to ask the House to agree with me in—that probably these people were intimidated. Mr. Justice Lawrance said:—
  "Now, with regard to both those cases, I do not come to the conclusion that it is made out that they amount to undue influence. I only mention them to show that in my judgment they have been very proper cases to be inquired into. The result has been favourable to the respondent so far as it goes; that is to say, I do not find with regard to those cases that they support the charge that has been founded upon them of undue influence by the Wimborne family."
  Mr. Justice Pickford said:—
  "It was done at a remarkable time. I mean remarkable if it was intended as undue influence, because it was done on the very day after Captain Guest was accepted as a candidate, and one would think it must have been under contemplation before."
  So it was. Captain Guest was selected, or nominated, on 28th April. Lady Wimborne was perfectly well aware days before that her son would be, on 28th April, accepted or nominated as the candidate. Therefore, I fail to see why the judges should have tied to the particular period

  1067
  stated. They evidently did not appreciate the fact that the East Dorsetshire Liberal Association was the creature, the purely servile creature, of Lady Wimborne.
  With regard to King, his case was even a more remarkable one than that of Best. He had held land. In August, 1909, Lady Wimborne came round to introduce her son, Captain Guest, to the various tenants on the estate at Canford. Time after time the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated—as I shall show later on—that any landlord who goes round canvassing his tenants or who exercises any pressure, either by canvassing or taking any active part, ought to be ashamed of himself, and is not a proper person to hold land. But here Lady Wimborne spoke at 115 meetings, she—or her agent—canvassed personally all these people, the 800 allotment electors. I need not say that at the last moment before the election a card was sent out by Lady Wimborne frankly putting forward the great virtues of the Wimborne family and saying what they had done for the district. That was, it was said, in reply to an attack in relation to Dowlais which had been made six months previously, and which had not been answered. Three days before the declaration of the poll this pamphlet was sent out to the voters, drawing attention to the cheap allotments and other matters. All this was a direct incentive to the bribery of the electors. If this was not a bribe why was not this charge answered before? Why was it kept? The charge had been lying for eight months, and it had not been circulated in the Division. Here at the last moment you have the great lady of the estate dealing with this charge, and letting every elector in the constituency know what she had done. Is that not undue influence? Is that the unprejudiced return of the Members of this House? There has never been any question that in East Dorset personality has stood first and the cause second. I know Dowlais intimately, and the case there is the antithesis to this.
  But what about this case? I quote from "The Times":—
  "Lady Wimborne called at his house with gentleman whom she introduced as Captain Guest. She said she hoped witness would support Captain Guest. Witness said that would he a consideration. Lady Wimborne said she would call again later. She did not call again. Two or three days later a man who was in a motorcar came to sec him. He did not know the man, who asked him: 'Are you a supporter of Captain Guest?' Witness replied, 'No, I am a Conservative. I have a principle, and I must use it."
  1068
  This report is from the "Daily Telegraph":—
  "Her Ladyship said she wished to introduce Captain Guest as the prospective candidate, and hoped witness would support him. Her Ladyship said she would call again. Witness replied that that would be for a consideration."
  Lady Wimborne denied that consideration. On 29th September King received notice from Lady Wimborne, who was managing the estates, to the effect that he must give up his holding. It was given in evidence, and proved, that the parish council had an abundance of land at that time. What happened? Mr. Andrews, the surveyor, wrote in October, saying that the case was under his consideration, and the man had to give up the land. He was about to leave the land. The petition was filed, and as soon as it was filed he was allowed to retain the land. I ask if it was right—and in cases of the sort where any notice was given, it was not given to a Liberal, they were all Conservatives—if this land was required—as it was not required—why was it that Lady Wimborne gave notice for the land to be given up on 29th September, 1908, and then dangled on with that land up to the time of the petition, and then said that the men could stop?
  The most remarkable evidence given in the whole of the cases is, in my opinion, that connected with the allotments. I am not going to deal with all the numerous cases of the allotments. I am going to take one case, and one case only. That was of a man named Meadows. [An HON. MEMBER: "The case was withdrawn."] An hon. Member says that the case was withdrawn. He interrupts me before even he has heard the evidence, for I do not suppose that he has read the newspapers, as I have done. I have spent two or three days going through them, and have given this case my most earnest consideration. I have not a single prejudice against Lady Wimborne, but desire that this intimidation shall be put a stop to. It is only by dealing with a concrete case of this kind that you can deal with the matter—hard though it may be on Lady Wimborne—and that you can deal with this system of terror which has prevailed in the rural districts. It is not a pleasant thing to make an attack of this kind. Let me take the case of Mr. Bantten, who was a cycle agent in Poole. On 3rd August he agreed with Mr. Andrews to purchase a plot of land on the Canford estate, for which he had to pay £65; the total purchase money was £68. That was on 3rd August. Mr. Bantten said the trans-

  1069
  action occurred in September, but the estate agent stated definitely that the money was paid on the date actually given. On 4th October the conveyance of this piece of land was executed, and three days later the sale took place. On 3rd August the man bought this land at a reserve price. Two months later there was another sale of land, when the reserve price, doubtless owing to the election, was reduced. This is a very curious case. Let me read what Mr. Bantten himself says:—
  "He came to the conclusion that he had paid too much for the land. Shortly afterwards, learning that Captain Guest was in the Poole Liberal Club, he went in, interviewed him, explained the matter, told Captain Guest that be thought he had paid too much, and asked him the best way to deal with the matter. The witness was told that Captain Guest has nothing to do with the matter and witness said he was fully aware of that. He did not remember all the conversation with Captain Guest, but Captain Guest took notes on a paper as to the price of the plots and said he would see what could be done in the matter for witness Subsequently he met Mr. Andrews, who told him he had received the letter instructing him to hand witness back the sum of £8 1s 6d., remarking that there had been a mistake in the price of the land."
  There had been no mistake. The mistake was due to the fact that Lady Wimborne reduced the price of the land on 4th October, 1909, and then this man, who purchased by private treaty two months previously, comes to Lady Wimborne or to Captain Guest and says: "I paid too much for my land. You are now offering the same land at £8 12s. 6d. cheaper," and he got that amount back; and yet the judges said that that was a fair case on the part of Lady Wimborne. If the land had gone up in price would Mr. Bantten come along to Captain Guest and hand him back the difference in price? The contract in this case had been made previously. The witness had paid his price, and had no reason to claim, but he goes up to Captain Guest in the Liberal club, and Captain Guest said he would see into the matter. "Previous to the polling day Captain Guest called at witness's house and asked if that little job was settled satisfactorily. Witness could not remember definitely what he said, but Captain Guest said it was the best thing that could be done, as there was no case, as witness had no business claim." Of course he had no business claim—" Captain Guest said he was on the right side." Of course he was. "And Captain Guest said he would look in in a few weeks."
  In cross-examination witness said that "Mr. Andrews called and said there was something wrong about the reserve price,
  1070
  and that Lady Wimborne had reduced it to £65." I cannot for a moment see why His Majesty's judges could say that Lady Wimborne was entitled to give back that money and that that was not a corrupt act. A contract is a contract; the sale had taken back two months previously, on 3rd August, 1909, the reserve price in the October sale was reduced, and at the time of the election the chief agent, Lady Wimborne, has no right during that election to reduce the price clearly and only with the object of getting consideration for her relatives.
  Captain Guest was examined and he confirms entirely Mr. Bantten's statement. He says he accepted Mr. Bantten's statement as practically correct. There is no dispute about the fact of this case at all. Captain Guest was not very sure about the notes, though he recognised Mr. Bantten, and said, "How do you do?" He also afterwards said, "What about that matter you talked to me about some weeks ago? "He believed Mr. Bantten was satisfied—so he ought to have been with £8 12s. 6d. in his pocket. "I told him," said witness, "that I would mention his name on the first opportunity to my mother that this man had come to me about something he was in doubt in regard to the purchase of land." Lady Wimborne said her son mentioned the case of Mr. Bantten to her, and that the man had a grievance. She told Mr. Andrews about it, and she told him to look into the matter. He looked into the matter, and a cheque for £8 12s. 6d. found its way into the pocket of Mr. Bantten. I cannot for the life of me see why this House should not say that that was a corrupt act within the meaning of the Act of 1882.
  The judge, in connection with this charge of personal bribery against Captain Guest, said:—
  "The next matter in order to which I come is the charges of bribery. One of those was a personal charge against Captain Guest himself. The others were charges against his agents. I can see no grounds whatever for the personal charge against Captain Guest. A man who had bought the property came to the conclusion, in consequence of some subsequent sale, that he had paid more than he ought justly and fairly to have paid. He went to Captain Guest and told him so and Captain Guest said: 'It is not a matter I have anything to do with, but I will report the matter to the estate office,' which he did, and according to the evidence from the estate office there had been a mistake. The price the man had been asked to pay had been based upon a certain reserve fixed a year or two before, with a permission to build shops upon the property. As a matter of fact, he did not get the permission to build shops, and a different reserve was fixed when the remainder of the property was put up to be sold, just after the man Bantten had bought his plot."

  1071
  How came it to be decided to give this man this bonus? Perhaps in other circumstances it might have been right to give the money back, but when you want to have purity in your elections the best thing you can do is not to give these bonuses.
  Sir FRANCIS CHANNING: Read on further.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I will read the whole if you like.
  "Whether the treatment of him by the estate office which seems to me to be nothing but fair, although he had no legal claim against them, was in any way affected by the fact that there was possibly an election going on, I do not think it matters. But certainly there is, in my opinion, not the slightest ground for saying that anything that has been done by Captain Guest—"
  I am not talking about Captain Guest, I am talking about Lady Wimborne. Captain Guest was a dummy right through.
  "was done in any way improperly, or was more than anybody in his position would have done. I think that charge against Captain Guest entirely fails."
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): That charge was made against Captain Guest.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I admit that it was against Captain Guest, and that the charge failed, but it was really Lady Wimborne who was behind the scenes. The petitioners did not know who was behind the scenes. They were at that time in doubt and difficulty to know who was directing and pulling the strings. Lady Wimborne herself says that she instructed this money to be paid.
  5.0 p.m.
  I will now deal with the case of intimidation which I think makes a fitting conclusion to the part Lady Wimborne and family have played in East Dorset. On the day of the poll Mr. Meaby, who was the estate agent to Lady Wimborne, and had been appointed to that office, I think, in September, 1908, received definite instructions from Lady Wimborne on the eve of the poll that he was to visit certain polling stations, Broadstone and Cranborne, with what purpose? I propose to read some of his evidence so that the House can decide for itself. Here we have, notwithstanding what has been said from the Front Bench, Mr. Meaby, the agent of the great landlady, standing, pencil and book in hand, before the polling booths on the polling day, taking note of the electors. That is not denied. What does the Chancellor of the Exchequer say about proceedings like those? There were 400 electors on the polling day in Broadstone, where
  1072
  Meaby went, and no less than 100 of these small men get their living through the estate office. This agent went to this place on the polling day purely and only for the purposes of intimidation. He stated in his evidence that he neither said nor did anything to intimidate or to obstruct the election. He had a little notebook in his hand, but it does not now exist. He made no entries in it, he said, until the afternoon, when he copied out the names of persons who had not voted, so that he could send and bring them to the poll. In reply to Mr. Dickens, in cross-examination, he said he was there until about 7.30 or eight o'clock in the evening and that he canvassed about seven or eight voters. The little book was evidently carried for the purpose of making notes. He had put it in his pocket that morning, it was an ordinary pocketbook, for the purpose of making any notes he might want to keep. Mr. Justice Pickford said he could not understand why Mr. Meaby had not kept the notebook in which he made his notes. Mr. Meaby produced a similar book and said the book in question was a similar one. In reply to Mr. Dickens he said he put the book in his pocket that morning. Mr. Dickens suggested that witness had put the book in his pocket because he might want to make notes, and witness said he had torn it up. Mr. Dickens suggested that that was a strange proceeding. Mr. Meaby further said he received a message from Lady Wimborne as to where he was to go, to Broadstone or Cranborne. He had no instructions except as to where he was to go for the day. No time was mentioned in the message, it was left to his discretion. He was there in the interests of Captain Guest. Whom are we to believe—Lady Wimborne or her agent? Arising out of this case I must briefly refer to the reign of terror which prevailed in this district. You are moving for this writ, and you know perfectly well that when it gets down to East Dorset the election is going to be fought on the election petition. All kinds of prejudices will arise which will affect the election, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us in plain language that before the next battle is over we have got to see that something is done to make intimidation impossible, I think there ought to have been after that remark "loud and continued cheers." The two Front Benches on this matter seem to have put their heads together, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman

  1073
  (Sir A. Acland-Hood) does not want to prejudice his own party, and he knows that if his party votes for my Motion they will prejudice their chance of winning this seat. There are independent hon. Members sitting below the Gangway who know perfectly well that the question of terrorism exercised in agricultural districts is a much greater question than the loss of this seat. I have been a Liberal and a Progressive all my life, and not merely for six years, like Lady Wimborne, and if I were an elector in East Dorset, nothing would persuade me to cast a vote for a member of the Guest family after what I have seen at this last election. I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the president of the Gladstone League, which was formed to put down practices of this kind. The "Daily News" advised its readers not to trust the fine ladies who came to the electors to steal away their votes, and urged them to profess Toryism and vote Liberal. That is what the "Daily News" advocates, and I say that that kind of argument is not calculated to do good but evil. Years ago my Constituents fought for their liberties and this canting, nauseating attack of the "Daily News" is the same kind of monstrous proposition that you must have Captain Coe to propagate the principles of the Liberal propaganda. I could keep the House a couple of hours reading what Liberal Members have said on this question of intimidation. The primary work of the Gladstone League is to defend the independence of the electors. I notice it has been decided by the Gladstone League to open a register of well authenticated cases of intimidation, and I hope the first place put on the register will be that of East Dorset. Let me give to the House an opinion of an honest journalist, probably the greatest we have in this country to-day, Mr. Alfred Spender, the editor of the "Westminster Gazette." [An HON. MEMBER: "He writes against his own party."] It is all very well to say he writes against his own party, but at any rate he writes honestly. The "Westminster Gazette" condemned the action of Lady Wimborne and expressed regret at any action which seemed to make it more difficult for the electors to exercise their vote with the utmost possible freedom. As everybody knows, the "Westminster Gazette" is a Liberal paper which cannot be accused of partiality, and it has stated the whole case correctly. That is the conclusion which I, at all events, have decided
  1074
  is the only possible conclusion which any sensible person reading the evidence on both sides can arrive at. As I stated in my opening remarks, this election has been characterised by gross expense. I am not a lawyer, and I am not going to attempt to say when an election starts and when it does not. From 28th April, 1908, up to the time of the General Election Captain Guest and Lady Wimborne spent no less than £2,541 in subscriptions to the association, in addition to the full Parliamentary expenses of £1,743. In all they spent during the period I have mentioned £4,284. I have deducted from that sum £153 for printing, and I have also struck out the cost of the meetings, and during the period I have named this vulgar abuse of the Wimborne purse resulted in £4,284 being spent when it was known that if there was a candidate before the electors at all it was Captain Guest. I feel sure that if the authors of the Act of 1883 could be made aware of what has happened their hair would stand on end at the construction which has been placed on the Act by His Majesty's judges. Here you have had all this vulgar abuse of wealth in the way of expenses and party subscriptions. Captain Guest goes into the constituency during the election, and he is nominated by his mother, as the president of the Allotment Society, where there are some 800 electors, and he contributes to no less than seventy slate clubs. If we only knew the money that was contributed during this election I think the House would be astonished. What I object to and what I raise my protest against is that the judges sent by this House to inquire into this petition never asked for Lady Wimborne's pass-book. It was never before the court. Why was not Lady Wimborne's pass-book brought before the full light of day, and why did we not have all the payments made by her? We know that in the case of the printer, Hentschell, Lady Wimborne said it was a German name, and would not do. It is not a German firm at all. It is a very respectable firm in the City, employing 500 hands, and they are all Englishmen. She need not have been frightened to have had the cartoons published by him, but she telegraphed:—
  "Don't send them down in your name, send them down and I will get another name stuck on."
  Lady Wimborne also had a special edition of the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) printed at a cost of £50. I cannot understand why that was not seen by Mr. Dickens and His

  1075
  Majesty's judges. It works out at over 2d. a copy. The East Dorset paper is a miserable, thin, four-page paper, sold at a halfpenny, and Lady Wimborne paid £50. The reason the editor gave was that Lady Wimborne wanted all the electors to read what the hon. Member for Stoke had said. If you allow £5 for a portrait of Captain Guest in the paper, it leaves £45 for the speech, and that comes to over 2d. a copy. There is the same extravagant expenditure all through.
  I know what the learned Solicitor-General is going to say. He is one of the greatest advocates at the Bar to-day, but the House of Commons is not a jury in the sense that he is going to persuade them that these cases have not been brought home to the people. Legal proof and common sense are two different things. The legal proof present to the minds of lawyers is necessary in the criminal law, but if the Government had wanted to bring cases home after all this shrieking and howling about intimidation in rural districts they ought to have had the courage to face the question practically, and to have said, "this is intimidation of the kind we have been protesting against"— the agent of the landlord watching and besetting electors as they come out of the polling booth. Not at all. The Solicitor-General is going to rely entirely on the dictum of the judges. That is not what was the intention of this House, and what was present to the minds of the authors of the Bill. The construction they placed on these acts was entirely different from the legal dicta which is going to be thrown at us by the Solicitor-General. I say, therefore, that, taking into account the general conditions in our rural life, the case of East Dorset is one where this House ought properly to withhold the writ for twelve months. It would be a punishment not to the constituency but to Lady Wimborne. Mr. Guest and the constituency are merely the creatures of Lady Wimborne. She wants the full reversionary interest of the money she has spent. We have a third Guest going up, and I say it is a scandal. I have the address of this gentleman in my hand. He says:—
  "My brother has been completely exonerated from all the personal charges and accusations made against him by his political enemies, and has only been unseated because certain expenses, in themselves perfectly legitimate
  I say wholly illegitimate—
  "were, through misinterpretation of the law, at once technical and very uncertain, not included in the return of his election expenses."
  1076
  The "technical and uncertain misinterpretation of the law" is solely in the imagination of Mr. Henry C. Guest, or, rather, of the author, because he did not write this pamphlet. In view of the gross manner in which money was chucked about by the handful in the constituency, I think an overwhelming case has been made out for withholding the Writ, and I can only appeal to the independent Members below the Gangway, because, although they may get some support from the Irish Benches, they will not get any from the Opposition. I have only dealt with a quarter of the cases I have on my paper, but sufficient for the day is the evil thereof in connection with the Guests.
  Mr. BELLOC: I rise to second the Amendment in the briefest possible manner. I would not trouble the House, and I would not even, I think, have come down to vote upon an ordinary case. It is not because one party is involved more than another. I dissociate myself entirely from the idea of party in connection with this matter, and I may add that I think the bulk of the electors to-day have almost forgotten that parties exist, so far as any difference of principle is concerned between the two Front Benches. I might also dissociate myself from something which fell from the hon. Member who moved the Motion, when he said that things of this sort were peculiar to the South of England. I think you could find men of gigantic strength and indomitable courage anywhere between Long Nose Buoy and Penzance; and I think you will find political corruption spread like thin butter over the whole of the electorate in England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. It is the cynicism of this particular movement that causes me to rise. It is in the nature of English politics that a particular constituency is more or less dominated by one wealthy family, and that men should vote in large numbers, especially in rural parts, according to their interests, is a necessity of the case. How can they vote for principle when no principle divides the two Front Benches! There is nothing to vote for, except A or B, nominated by the two caucuses. The cynicism of the movement is this: A very wealthy family, which has subscribed, as is notorious, to both of the party funds, I think, equally, and, at any rate, in very large amounts to both, having been unseated with regard to one of its members, proposes that another of its Members shall be mechanically returned with the aid of the two Front Benches and

  1077
  their organisations in their interests. That is perfectly intolerable, and it is to protest against that that I rise to second the Motion. There is nothing more to be said about it. We all know it is a scandalous case and that the man has been unseated, and I think it is cynically adding to that scandal that, in the interests of a moribund party system, we should be asked to whitewash them by permitting the same family to exercise the same influences again.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): If the whole or indeed one-half of the facts as stated by the hon. Member who moved had been proved, and if he or the petitioners could have substantiated anything like the statements he has made to this House, then there would be no doubt that the word "scandalous" would be properly applied to what has taken place at the East Dorset election, and I think equally there would be no doubt that the judges' report must have been a very different one from that issued to this House. It is very easy—and I am not quite sure that anyone knows it better than the hon. Member who moved this Motion—in a case of some eight days' hearing to pick out from the great body of evidence certain parts and read them to the House of Commons, knowing—I do not think I am exaggerating—there are not half a dozen Members who have read that evidence, and relying upon being able to make out his case. I have no doubt, approaching it as he does with evidently strong prejudices against the Wimborne family, he found no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion which would make them appear to the House of Commons as persons who were worthy of the greatest blame, who have behaved in the most scandalous manner, and who have used their wealth and position only for the purpose of intimidation, of undue influence, and of doing the very things that we, as a party, and which I think I am justified in saying hon. Members opposite as a party, and all the Members of this House, will always protest strongly against. I do not think it would be right to take up time going through detail the evidence so that I may place the House in a position of forming a judgment upon the matter, but I will take one case and ask the House to consider that carefully, because I noticed the hon. Member devoted to it twenty-five minutes of the one hour twenty-five minutes which his speech occupied. He apparently thought it was the strongest
  1078
  point he could make, and that it was a, strong case. When the House appreciates how this point stands—and I will tell it very shortly—it will be seen that really nothing but the strongest prejudice in the hon. Member's mind could have blinded him to fairness and have so led him to forming a wrong judgment. What has happened in this particular case? I am not accusing the hon. Member of having wilfully or consciously formed a wrong judgment. I am saying he has approached the case apparently with a strongly biassed mind, and has not observed a balance of judgment when he examined the evidence. He referred to the Bantten case — the £8 12s. 6d. case. That is a case which, he said, showed in the strongest degree a corrupt act. The House will remember that in the conclusion at which the judges arrived, they had the benefit not only of seeing and hearing the witnesses, but also of hearing the speeches of the counsel who appeared on both sides, for days they had been examining into this matter, and they had come to the conclusion that so far as any question of attack on the honour of either Captain Guest or Lady Wimborne were concerned, the case might be dismissed. I come to the Bourne Valley case. My hon. Friend is quite right when he said there was no substantial dispute as to that. The evidence showed that a fixed price was arrived at on the understanding that a certain reserve had been placed upon lots of a certain character, and upon that footing the figure of £68 12s. 6d. was arrived at. It was ascertained subsequently that that was not correct, that that particular reserve did not apply, although my hon. Friend was perfectly right in saying there was a legal contract by which this man was bound to pay £68 12s. 6d. After it was discovered that the reserve upon which that figure was based was not the same reserve as was fixed for other lots under similar circumstances, and that consequently, he had paid £8 12s. 6d. too much, he very naturally complained; he complained that the price fixed was higher than that paid by others similarly circumstanced, and he made the complaint to Captain Guest, who referred him to the estate agent. Inquiry was made, and it was found to be perfectly true that the man had either paid too much or was being called upon to pay £8 12s. 6d. in excess of the proper price. My hon. Friend said in respect of that there could be no stronger evidence of a corrupt act. But the judges say, although

  1079
  it was perfectly true either he was bound to pay the money or had paid it under a legal contract, there was a moral obligation on the part of the Wimborne estate to return the money although it could not be recovered in law. It had been received under circumstances which, in the words of Justice Lawrance, would render it unfair to keep the money in the pockets of the Wimborne estate, and thereupon in view of those facts it was determined that the amount should be returned. That was a fair position, and what happened was that the man was placed in exactly the same position as others who had not paid the same amount of money. Can the House wonder, when the judges came to consider this, and when they examined the evidence and found there was no dispute of fact at all about it, that they themselves put to themselves the question, "What would we have done in similar circumstances?" and that they came to the conclusion they would have said that this money was to be returned. Unless they were administering the estate of a deceased person or a minor that is exactly what would have been done. Numbers of land owners would have done the very same thing under similar circumstances—finding that there had been a mistake and that the money had been paid under a contract of payment under a mistaken impression, it was returned, although there was no legal right of recovery. The judges said, as a matter of common sense, and trying the case with a considerable knowledge of human nature, that it was a right and honourable thing to do. Therefore they acquitted Captain Guest of any corrupt motive in that matter.
  Mr. MARKHAM: I have the report—I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman has—of the evidence of Mr. Kendal, which is exactly opposite to what he has been saying.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The evidence of Mr. Kendal?
  Mr. MARKHAM: Yes, Mr. Kendal, the architect.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I should like to read what has been said with regard to the facts. I have not Mr. Kendal's evidence, and I really do not understand how it applies.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Mr. Kendal fixed the price.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: We are discussing the evidence given and heard by the judges upon which they came to their conclusion, and I am asking the House to bear in mind what the judges stated upon those facts. They said:—
  "The next matter in order to which I come is the charges of bribery. One of those was a personal charge against Captain Guest himself. The others were charges against his agents. I can see, no grounds whatever for the personal charge against Captain Guest. A man who had bought the property came to the conclusion, in consequence of some subsequent sale, that he had paid more than he ought justly and fairly to have paid. He went to Captain Guest and told him so and Captain Guest said: 'It is not a matter I have anything to do with, but I will report the matter to the estate office, which he did, and according to the evidence from the estate office there had been a mistake. The price the man had been asked to pay had been based upon a certain reserve fixed a year or two before, with a permission to build shops upon the property. As a matter of fact he did not get the permission to build shops, and a different reserve was fixed when the remainder of the property was put up to be sold, just after the man, Bantten, had bought his plot. That was taken into consideration, a calculation was made as to the difference between the price based upon one reserve and upon the other, and that was repaid to hint. Again whether the treatment of hint by the estate office, which seems to me nothing but fair, although he had no legal right against them, was in any way affected by the fact that there was possibly an election going on in the district, I do not think matters, but certainly there is in my opinion, not the slightest ground for saying that anything that was done by Captain Guest was done in any way improperly or was more than anybody in his position would have done. I think that charge against Captain Guest entirely fails."
  That is the gravest charge made by my hon. Friend. I would remind the House also that it is the gravest charge in the case, because it is a charge of bribery made against Captain Guest—the only charge of that nature made in the petition —and when we find that, after a long examination of the evidence, not only Justice Lawrance but Justice Pickford come to the same conclusion, it does become difficult to understand how my hon. Friend reconciles that unbiassed view of the evidence with the statement he has made. He put forward the Bourne Valley case as a reason for the suspension of the issue of the Writ for the remainder of the Session, but may I point out that so little were the judges impressed with the evidence on this part of the case that when counsel proposed to address them in regard to it Mr. Justice Pickford stopped him.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Not on the Bourne Valley case; it was another.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: My hon. Friend is quite wrong, that case was abandoned by counsel for the petitioners. I have pointed out to the House in respect of the Bantten case the judges, having heard the evidence and seen the witnesses and docu-

  1081
  ments, thought so little of it that when counsel for the respondent was proposing to address himself to that part of the case the learned judge waived it on one side and said, "Do not trouble about that." But that is an entirely different matter from the Bourne Valley case. The case upon which the allegations were made in the petition against the respondent so entirely and completely broke down very soon after the evidence had been started by the petitioner that it was abandoned by counsel for the petitioner and nothing further was said in regard to it; indeed, the costs had to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent in respect of that.
  Before I sit down I would say one or two words upon some other aspects of the case. I want first to call the attention of the House to how this matter stands. Why is it that my hon. Friend has moved the suspension of the issue of the Writs? It is not because the learned judges have reported that there has been general bribery, corruption, and illegal practices in this particular case. Apparently my hon. Friend has not told the House that the judges in their report, which they are bound to make under the statute to this House, have actually stated that there is not only no charge proved, but that there is no evidence establishing it. It does not stop there, but there is a duty imposed on the judges, notwithstanding that the charge is not proved, to state if necessary that there is reason to believe extensive bribery and corruption or illegal practices were prevalent in the constituency, notwithstanding that individual cases could not be proved; and thereupon the House would, in the ordinary circumstances, suspend the issue of the Writ until further information was obtained. Let me point out in this case we are dealing with the judges' report. They say corrupt and illegal practices have not been proved to have existed, and that moreover they see no reason to believe that corrupt or illegal practices extensively prevail in the constituency. Under these circumstances, just see what it is that the House is being asked to do. It is to disfranchise—because that is what it means—during the whole of the Session this constituency because apparently proper returns have not been made of the election expenses of Captain Guest by his agent or by Lady Wimborne, who, as was found by the judges, was acting as his agent. When you have this state of fact proved and this report made by the elec-
  1082
  tion judges—not only that there was no personal charge made against the candidate—not only that there was no corruption or illegal practice prevalent in the constituency, but, further, that they had no reason to believe any such state of things existed, really it does seem absurd to ask this House to disfranchise a constituency apparently in order—I am using the words of the hon. Member himself—that Lady Wimborne, who has no vote, may be punished. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this matter more at leisure, and really to bring his judgment more to bear upon the position that he has put forward, and, if he does. I am quite sure, if he approaches the consideration in a more equable frame of mind, he will see that he stands forward here not as the champion of justice, but as asking the House of Commons to do as unjust a thing as it is possible to conceive.
  You have something like 14,700 electors in East Dorset, and a very large number of electors are electors who did not vote for the Liberal side, and, so far as I understand, the fortunes of the constituency have wavered a good deal. I see that so far back as 1906, and after the conversion of the Wimborne family to Liberal views, the Liberal majority was only twenty-one, although it had been some 820 in 1904. How is the House of Commons to say, that as the result of the indictment which has been brought by the hon. Member against Lady Wimborne— because his attack has all been directed against Lady Wimborne, and he must put his proposition in this way—that as the result of his attack as against Lady Wimborne we ought to punish the general electorate. He says fairly enough, with regard to the general electorate, "I have nothing to say, I have no attack to make upon those who are entitled to exercise the franchise in that constituency, but I am very angry with Lady Wimborne, and, in my opinion, the judges who tried the case have come to an utterly wrong conclusion," and therefore, he says, we should take the course he proposes. He is quite entitled to hold the view that the judges have come to a wrong conclusion, but he is not entitled to go this step further, that he wishes this House to travel with him and say the judges are wrong in the view they have taken of Lady Wimborne, and the consequence is the constituency has to be disfranchised. That is actually what his proposal is. Will the House bear in mind that formerly the House of Commons

  1083
  itself used to deal with these election petitions, but in 1868 it was thought desirable that they should not be tried by a Committee of this House, but that they should be relegated for trial to the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice. The consequence has been that ever since that time we have had them tried in the High Court, and when the House of Commons parted with its jurisdiction over election petitions so far as control of them was concerned, then I say that they placed with the judges the right to determine these matters, although I am not suggesting, and do not for one moment suggest, that the House of Commons is not entitled to examine the evidence and to examine what has taken place. I never made any such suggestion. What I do say is that it would be a somewhat curious result if Parliament, having sent these matters to be tried by the judges, who have had an opportunity of hearing and seeing the witnesses and of testing their veracity, were then to sit as a court of appeal without having anything like the same advantages that the judges have had, and to overrule their judgment, although in respect of the certificate which has been given by the judges Parliament cannot overrule that.
  The judges have declared that the election is void, and there can be no possible means of overriding that certificate. It is final to all intents and purposes. What the House of Commons can do, and what it is quite entitled to do, is to consider the report of the judges, and it is for the House of Commons to say whether the writ shall issue now in respect of the seat for which the election has been declared void by the judges. I really feel that I should be almost wearying the House if I went into any detail as to what has been said by my hon. Friend in regard to other matters, and if I do so it is only because I do not think it is right or fair that this House should only have a one-sided view of what has been proved and what actually took place at the trial of this petition, but I shall deal very briefly with the matters referred to by my hon. Friend. First of all, he dealt with the complaint in regard to Eli Best, and I do not think as to that he made quite the use which he was entitled to make as to the incident of the man who did some work upon the roof, because the real explanation of that was simply and solely this: It was suggested that the man was a very good man, and that no fault could
  1084
  be found with him at all, whereupon it was said that Lady Wimborne stated: "I know that is not so, because Lord Wimborne complained to me of this man and of some work he was doing on the roof." The only value of that is as a piece of evidence, but really my hon. Friend seemed to seek to make out that it was sought to justify the sending of this man away on the day when Captain Guest was selected as a candidate, and he was sent away because, some weeks before, he had been found fault with. With reference to this and other matters the whole point which the judges have to consider is whether there is a corrupt motive in the cases which are charged, and they also have to consider whether there has been any undue influence exercised. They considered that, and they came to the conclusion that none had been established, and therefore the charges failed.
  I come to what was said about the Dowlais affair. My hon. Friend might have told us a little more in justice to the Guest family than what he actually said with regard to that. The pamphlet, to which the publication complained of was a reply, was, it was quite true, published some six months before, but it was a pamphlet which was characterised by Mr. Justice Pickford as a scandalous and disgraceful attack upon Captain Guest and the Wimborne family. That matter was again resuscitated by an article in one of the newspapers, and, Captain Guest being abroad at the time, it was pointed out to Lady Wimborne what the effect of this was in the Division where it was doing harm, and I ask hon. Members who have fought constituencies just to imagine this. Suppose in the Division they represent a scandalous and disgraceful attack was made upon themselves and their family, and it was ascertained that in point of fact it was being repeated in the constituency, and had had some effect. What was done in this case? A reply was published, and I should have thought that there could be no further attack made upon that score; quite the reverse. They were not only justified, but they were bound to make a defence to this charge the moment they found that the attack was having weight in the constituency. All that could be said about that and the whole gravamen of the attack against them in the election petition was that they had not issued it for six months after the first attack was issued. Thereupon the answer, which I suggest to this House was quite obvious,

  1085
  was explained to the judges, and except in so far as it has any bearing upon the return of the election expenses, it has no bearing upon this matter, and that would be said, I have no doubt, by the election judges and by the counsel engaged in the case.
  6.0 p.m.
  It all came down to this one point: was the answer which was made to that Dowlais attack, one for which the expenses ought propertly to be attributable to election expenditure? That was the point upon which the question was raised, and I again remind hon. Members of this; and I am speaking to men, many of whom have sat before, and many of whom will sit again, in this House. I say, speaking as a lawyer and as one who has contested several elections, it is very difficult to say at what precise moment when you are a candidate your election expenses begin to run, and how far you are entitled to incur them, without counting them in your election expenses. It is, after all, a technical question, and it is in respect of this question that the judges have found against Captain Guest, and declared that his election is void. So much for the Dowlais matter. Now, as to the next point, which I think was the only other one of any importance—Mr. Meaby's case, who was accused of intimidation and undue influence. If Mr. Meaby was sent there for the purpose of directing undue influence, and was directed to stand, and did stand, there with that object, in my opinion nothing more is necessary, in order to make it plain that he was guilty of undue influence. And I say more than that. Speaking for myself, I make this observation, that there is no more reprehensible practice at elections than that of sending a representative of the big landowner, the big manufacturer, or the big agriculturist—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or of the trades unions."]—I make no distinction, but I say to send men of that character to stand by the door of the polling booth for the purpose of finding out how a man votes, and for the purpose of exercising any undue influence upon him is very reprehensible. Speaking for myself, and I am only expressing my own opinion, I would like to see the system of appointing persons to stand at the doors of polling booths checking electors as they go in and as they come out done away with, and certainly with regard to any man holding a position of influence in the constituency. I think that it is most objectionable that he should stand at the door of the polling booth and see
  1086
  who is going in and who is coming out. No one expressed herself more strongly upon that point than Lady Wimborne when she was asked the question in the witness-box. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Are hon. Members quite doing justice to Lady Wimborne when they cheer, and are obviously inclined to treat with derision her statement on oath, which was accepted by the judges, and which further led them to say that she had most fairly, frankly, and fully made answer to the questions they put, whether they told in her favour or not? I do not think hon. Members are really treating her quite fairly when, without knowing what has taken place, they are at once so inclined to scoff at a statement made on oath.
  Let me say what really happened with regard to that. According to Lady Wimborne, this Mr. Meaby, who was described by one of the judges as the meekest and mildest old gentleman he had ever seen and by the other as a benevolent person, who, he was sure, was not able to intimidate anyone, was sent to one of two places simply for the purpose of seeing whether the voters who had promised their vote had actually voted according to the promise. That, I think, happens in every constituency, or, at any rate, in most constituencies, where it is the object of the Member and those who are working for him to see that the promises which have been made have been fulfilled as far as they are able to influence their fulfilment. I leave out all controversial matters with regard to it. This fact is quite sufficient to deal with any motive which was in Lady Wimborne's mind. She said he was either to go to Cranborne or to Broadstone. Cranborne is twelve miles from Broadstone, and the benevolent old gentleman chose the nearer place, Broadstone. With respect to that, the denial and the statement which had been made by Lady Wimborne was accepted by the court after she had been cross-examined at length, quite rightly and properly, by counsel for the petitioner, and what the judges say is what, I think, we shall all agree to, that it was a most undesirable thing, and indeed a reprehensible thing, that any man should go and stand at the door of the polling booth under these circumstances. Lady Wimborne emphatically denied that she sent him there for that purpose or gave any such instructions. She denied it on oath, and was

  1087
  cross-examined on it, and her statement was accepted by the judges. That disposes of Mr. Meaby.
  With reference to the slate clubs, I do not quite know whether the hon. Member meant that as an attack or not, but certainly with regard to this the evidence was perfectly plain. Lord Wimborne had years ago subscribed to slate clubs. Captain Guest himself subscribed to slate clubs, and, having done it, his attention was called to it by his opponent, Captain Nicholson, and he thereupon took counsel's opinion upon the matter and did everything he could to ascertain whether he was doing anything wrong. He was told he was entitled to do it, and that there was nothing wrong in it, and he went on doing it. He never made any secret of it. It was done quite openly from the first, and everyone in the constituency knew it. There again the judges acquitted him clearly of anything in the nature of improper action in reference to these slate clubs, as they did in reference to everything else. I have travelled over the ground, not I agree in such detail as my hon. Friend, for the reason that it is an absolute impossibility for this House to pass a judgment upon the evidence given during eight days unless hon. Members read the evidence for themselves. When they have read the evidence they are not in the same position as the court which tried the case, because no one who has experience of courts of justice will doubt this, that it is invaluable to see the witness when he is giving evidence, and to observe his demeanour; and that no one can be in such a good position to form an opinion of the credibility of the witness as a person who has been present and heard the whole of the evidence and the argument from beginning to end. It really would be the height of absurdity to ask the House to resolve itself into a Court of Appeal in these matters. I am only repeating what was said some few years ago by the Attorney-General in the last Conservative Administration, who is now absent at The Hague, representing Canada in the Newfoundland Fisheries Arbitration, upon whose views, of course, reliance was placed. I commend the same views to the House. I will merely ask any Member of the House to consider for himself for a moment whether, after the speech he has heard from my hon. Friend of an hour and twenty-five minutes, of which perhaps twenty minutes were taken up in reading evidence, they
  1088
  are satisfied to dissent from the judgment of two of His Majesty's judges after eight days' trial, and after hearing the arguments of counsel on both sides? If the House of Commons is going to do that, it will make it absolutely impossible, it appears to me, for anyone to come to any sound judgment upon this matter unless he sits himself down and prepares to weigh carefully all the evidence on both sides with the greatest care, and I know something of the labour of it, although, of course, I am used to dealing with documents of this character, and used to reading evidence. I am quite certain the House never could be expected to take up that position. I would really ask my hon. Friend, now that he has ventilated the views which he has formed upon the evidence, whether he desires to proceed further with this Motion, which, if carried, will only have the effect of disfranchising some 14,700 electors, and for which there is no justification?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: What about Worcester?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I have not dealt with Worcester, because it is, of course, a totally different case. In Worcester there were three Commissioners appointed in order to examine into the general bribery and corruption which was reported to the House—Sir Charles Matthews, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Tindal Atkinson, and Mr. Horace Avory—and they reported that in the constituency there were some 500 out of, I think, an electorate of just upon 8,000 who were corrupt, and I think the majority was about 180, so that it was clear that among the corrupt section of the constituency there was a sufficient number to have turned the scale of the election. They reported against it. This House discussed it, I think, three times, and eventually, after something like thirteen months, a Writ was issued. The difference between that case and this is all important. In this case there was a report by the judges that they found as a fact, or had reason to believe, that there was general corruption or illegal practices.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that the Commissioners at Worcester found that? They found the contrary.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I do not think he quite followed what I said. I did not

  1089
  say they found that the electorate was wholly corrupt. What I said was that they found that 500 out of 8,000 were corrupt, and that as the majority was only some 180, out of that 500 there were enough corrupt electors to have turned the scale.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I interrupted the hon. and learned Gentleman because he said that in the Dorsetshire case the judges found there had not been general corruption. He was contrasting this case with Worcester, and I thought he implied by that the Commissioners at Worcester had found there had been general corruption. They found that there had not.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think we are only quarrelling about words, and we mean the same thing. If 500 electors out of 8,000 were corrupt, I should think I was justified in saying that there was corruption prevalent in the constituency, in the words of the Act of Parliament, and that there was general corruption, although I should take care to make it plain that I did not mean that to apply to the whole electorate. There you have the report of the judges, and you have the Commissioners who went down to examine some ninety persons who were named by the Commissioners in the return. There were a number of prosecutions, and the report dealt with them at length. In the Worcester petition there was this great difference, that the House waited, and the Commission returned with a report, and the House said, after a Debate, that there was a state of corruption prevailing in Worcester, and, therefore, they thought the writ ought not to be issued. When you once get a report from a Commission that there has been anything in the nature of corruption or illegal practices prevailing, I agree that the House must take some steps; but when, as in this case, the court says there has not only not been any corruption or illegal practice prevalent in the constituency, but that, apart altogether from the legal evidence which was brought before them, and after all the examination that the court had made into the circumstances, there is no reason to believe that there is such a state of things existing in the constituency, I think the House will follow the course it always does under such circumstances, and allow the writ to issue so that the constituency may no longer suffer from the disadvantage of the result of Captain Guest not having made a proper
  1090
  return of his election expenses. The last observation I desire to make upon this matter is this: If you take the charges as I have done, one by one and step by step, and deal with them on the evidence as presented in the Report, you must come to the conclusion that, so far as Captain Guest was concerned, there was no foundation for any charge against him, and that as regards Lady Wimborne she acted as his agent, and did not return the election expenses she ought to have done. In respect of that the court came to the conclusion that the election ought to be declared void, and it was declared void. My hon. Friend has referred to the question of the definition of election expenses. All I can say is that it has puzzled every judge who ever set himself to determine the precise point at which election expenses have to be included in the return. After all, if it has puzzled the judges it is not difficult to understand that it has also puzzled Captain Guest, Lady Wimborne, the election agent, or anybody in this House, however experienced in elections. I can only say that, although you may lay down some sort of indication of what election expenses are, there must always be some risk as to what are not legitimate expenses in an election. On these grounds I ask the House to allow the writ to issue and to reject the Amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I am entirely in accord with the conclusion of the learned Solicitor-General, but I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Markham) has done well in initiating what has been a very interesting, and, especially to our side of the House, a very instructive and illuminating Debate, and particularly in eliciting the contribution which has just been given by the Solicitor-General. He said that the hon. Member for Mansfield had approached the case from the standpoint of prejudice against the Wimborne family. I think that is hardly doing justice to the hon. Member for Mansfield. He has introduced it from the standpoint of the Gladstone League, and it seems to me that his main point was that he wanted to give practical effect to the superfine views of the Gladstone League. Accordingly he initiated the Debate by making a personal appeal to one of his leaders, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who holds the honourable position of President of the League, to come and listen to a few home truths. I am pleased to see that in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Home Secretary is here,

  1091
  and perhaps he will communicate them to his colleague. I am bound to say that I welcomed one of the observations the Solicitor-General made at the outset of his speech when he said that he felt certain that hon. Members on this side of the House as strongly and completely condemned all such practices as the Gladstone League seeks to condemn them. I wish he could inoculate his colleagues who support the Gladstone League with something of his own fairness and charity. It shows how responsible position in the House of Commons tempers the language which men are very apt to indulge in when speaking on the platform. I only hope that not only the president of the Gladstone League, but all the members of that organisation, will take to heart the tone which the Solicitor-General has adopted to-day. If a change in the politics of the Wimborne family had not taken place, and if they had been on our side of politics, how would hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side have spoken of them then? Hon. Members opposite think, of course, that all the political virtues belong to them. This is an illuminating Debate, and I think the hon. Member for Mansfield has done done for the purity of election, not so much from his own party's point of view as from the point of view of getting fairness to their opponents from those who pretend to be so much better than other people. I hope we will have no more of the cant about wealthy landowners. The Solicitor-General, while he has spoken on nearly all the points that have been raised, said nothing about the strongest point which the hon. Member for Mansfield made. If I may borrow the language of the hon. Member, without expressing approval of it, that point was the vulgar abuse of the Wimborne purse. The Solicitor-General had not a word to say in condemnation of that.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I did condemn it.
  Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I omitted to note it. He must have spoken very pianissimo on that point—certainly not nearly so audibly as in his peroration. I rise to emphasise the appeal that we may have less of the sanctimonious purity which condemns Conservatives and Unionists with respect to the power of the purse. I cannot support the Amendment because, in the first place, I think it would not be well for this House, after the scanty examination which it is possible to give to
  1092
  the question in a Debate like this, to overrule the considered judgment of the election judges. I think that would be unfair to the judges, to the House, and to the constituency. In the second place, even if we were to be told that the whole electorate of 14,000 are, like the Liberal candidate, in the pocket of the Lady of the Manor, I think it would be unfair that they should be disfranchised for a Session. I do not think that any reason has been shown why the Writ should not issue.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I wish to associate myself in the expression of thanks to the hon. Member for Mansfield for bringing the subject before the House, although I neither agree with his conclusion nor see my way to support his Amendment. The hon. Member for Mansfield appealed several times to those who sit below the Gangway. I listened very attentively to his speech in order to find some justification for going into the Lobby in support of his Motion, but during the whole hour and twenty-five minutes he spoke I never heard a single argument in favour of the punishment which the carrying of his Amendment would mete out to the electorate of this constituency. I follow very closely all these electoral matters, because I have old associations with electioneering, and I must say that when I read through the report of this case I could not see anything which implicated the electorate generally in the charge of corruption, or anything which would justify this House in inflicting any punishment on the constituency as a whole. I think none of us, on whatever side of the House we sit, can for a single moment condone the practices which were brought before the Court, and especially the part played in the election by Lady Wimborne, but I think myself that not only Lady Wimborne, but Captain Guest and the other members of the family, have got their punishment. It must have been, one would imagine, a tremendous blow, not only to the Member, but also to Lady Wimborne, that the election petition should have resulted as it did, for we must remember that it was Captain Guest's fourth election. In three of them he had been unsuccessful, and I have not the shadow of a doubt that much money was lavished on all the three previous contests. When eventually he was successful in getting a majority of the electorate in his favour, it must have been a blow to find himself dragged through the court, and finally unseated. As regards Lady Wim-

  1093
  borne and Captain Guest, I do not think there is a single Member of the House who would say that the punishment has been exaggerated, but when we go from this family to the electors, as a whole, I say that not a single charge has been found against them; and I venture to say that the judges, who are always very ready to detect these things, would have been the first to have said that the electorate, as well as the Member, were deserving of what punishment could be inflicted if there had been cause for that. The hon. Member for Mansfield strove very hard to identify the Labour party with this little episode. Let me say emphatically for his information that the Labour party were in no way, directly or indirectly, connected with it. Neither of the gentlemen to whom he referred has, so far as I am aware, ever received the Whips of any other party than the party responsible for moving the issue of this Writ to-day. I hope we have heard the last of the charges made against the Labour party in this connection.
  Mr. LYELL: I listened to the hon. Member for Mansfield during the hour and twenty-five minutes he occupied in delivering his spech. He expressly disclaimed any desire whatever to receive the cheers of hon. Members sitting on the benches opposite, yet in spite of that desire time after time his speech, to his great embarrassment, was punctuated by rounds of ringing applause by hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Not from the Front Bench.
  Mr. LYELL: I have some small claim to speak in this matter, because I have some experience in the constituency. I arrived in that constituency and won my first election there without any help from the Wimborne family. When I arrived there I found an extremely flourishing Liberal association which I endeavoured to leave in an equally flourishing condition. Therefore the idea that the Liberal association down there is a child or a creature of Lady Wimborne's is a pure delusion. In addition, I have this claim to speak on the matter, that I suppose I am the only Member of this House who was present in court during the hearing of the petition. When I listened to the hon. Member's speech I was immensely struck by the close likeness between that speech and the speeches which I heard from counsel representing the petitioners in that case. I
  1094
  do not know whether the hon. Member is a lawyer or not, but if he is I have no doubt whatever that an excessively lucrative practice awaits him if he turns his attention to election petitions. He told us he spoke as a Member of the House of Commons which, when it acted in its judicial capacity, was eminently to be trusted. If the hon. Member's speech is an earnest of his idea of a judicial attitude of mind Heaven preserve the House of Commons from ever attempting to take up a judicial attitude or any judicial responsibility in matters of election petitions.
  On the question of intimidation in the reference of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to Mr. Meaby, I think there was a point which he missed. Lady Wimborne offered Mr. Meaby his choice of two places. He could either go to Cranborne or to Broadstone. These two places are widely apart. At the polling station at Broadstone a considerable number of tenants on the Canford estate came down to vote, but at Cranborne itself there was not a single tenant on the Canford estate registered. The Wimborne family do not own a foot of land within seven miles of it, and the mere fact that Lady Wimborne gave Mr. Meaby the alternative of going to either of these two places shows that the whole idea of exercising intimidation of any kind was wholly absent from her mind. If Mr. Meaby had gone to Cranborne he could have done nothing whatever in the way of influencing anybody. One of the judges declared that it was only necessary to see Mr. Meaby in the box to make it impossible to believe that any human being could have been intimidated by him. Again, on the point of intimidation there is a kind of general allegation that acts of intimidation prevailed in this Division. I have just been informed that Captain Guest polled 600 more votes than he received promises. I think that that fact alone, if hon. Members will turn it over in their minds, disposes pretty effectively of the charge of intimidation. When intimidation is rife the side on which it exists receives a far greater number of promises than it acutally gets of votes, and the mere fact that Captain Guest's votes largely exceeded the promises which his side received is an effectual answer to the charge of a general atmosphere of intimidation.
  All these charges of bribery and intimidation were expressly declared by the Commissioners to be not proved. The seat was vacated on the question of ex-

  1095
  penses. What were the expenses? There was a Liberal van. I think we are perfectly entitled to maintain that that was an educational measure. What is the object of all elections? It is to make one's own side prevail in order that the idea one supports may prevail in the House and in the nation. The machinery is laid down by which those ideas are to prevail by our constitutional system. The men are chosen. In order to get chosen, in order that the machinery may be worked so that the ideas may prevail, we all know perfectly well it is necessary that we should make ourselves acquainted with the electors so that our agreeable personality may become known. We are all so impressed with the charm of our own personality that we know it is only necessary for us to become sufficiently well known to the electors in the Division for the wheels to turn round and for us to be chosen and the ideas we represent to prevail. It has been laid down that our expenses of making ourselves known may begin to run at a far earlier time than we had supposed possible. I think every candidate has been left in a doubtful position by the decision of Mr. Justice Pickford. Before that decision was given counsel for Captain Guest entreated Mr. Justice Pickford, almost with tears in his eyes, to lay down a final definite rule on this point as to the time from which election expenses apply. Mr. Justice Pickford, in his judgment, said he had spent long hours in endeavouring to find some principle, but that he had totally failed, and that he must now fall back upon the old weight of authority given by previous judges.
  I think that the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Belloc) is in a very happy position in this matter. He is now chosen to play the part of Minos to the Rhadamanthus of the hon. Member for Mansfield. I think he is one of the people who in the election of 1906, having made their appearance in the political field only a very short time before the election, were elected Members, and he has remained Member for Salford ever since, thereby gaining that privilege which we all value so very much of being able to send a Christmas card to our constituents without it being charged in our election expenses, as I believe it would be charged to a candidate. A Member has certain privileges, we are given to understand, by law which a candidate is not entitled to. I merely mention that to show the unsatisfactory state
  1096
  of the law. If the judges are not able to lay down, and if a judge of the acumen of Mr. Justice Pickford is not able to find a principle to go on, it is time that this House took the matter in hand and passed some legislation of a declaratory nature, in order that this whole matter of election expenses may be put upon a more satisfactory basis.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: The learned Solicitor-General did not allude to the fact that in this case the judges found most distinctly that there had been intimidation. They said it had been proved to their satisfaction. They also found, as regards the charges of bribery, that they were not proved, but that considerable doubt was raised. As regards undue influence, it was held to be a matter of grave suspicion. Surely, after that decision of the judges, it was clear enough that at the East Dorset election there was intimidation. I rejoice that the eyes of the people of this country have been opened to the fact that at the elections, both in Hartlepool and in East Dorset, methods were used which are absolutely repulsive and repugnant to the feelings of the vast majority of the people of these islands. This would not be of so much importance were it not for the formation of that hypocritical organisation known as the Gladstone League. The party opposite support it. The Government is supported by the three different sections—the Radicals, the Labour Party, and the Nationalists. [An Hon. MEMBER: "I beg your pardon."] They have supported the present Government, as far as I have seen, this Session. Those sections have been in very large numbers elected by methods which absolutely reek of intimidation. Take the Irish Party first. Are we to suppose there was no intimidation in the United Irish League, or the Molly Maguires, or the Big Sticks? Take the Labour Party. Are we to suppose that, in their case, there was no intimidation, and that there were none of those insidious methods which are used by trade unions.
  Mr. W. THORNE: What are they?
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: I have said that they were insidious. It is perfectly impossible to say exactly what they are; but every honest man knows that trade unions do use these methods of intimidating the electors. The country has now awakened to the fact that the Gladstone League is absolutely organised

  1097
  hypocrisy. And after this wonderful league has been started, what happens? The first two cases brought forward are most damning to the Liberal party, and will, I am thankful to say, undoubtedly lose them thousands of votes at the next election. As regards the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division, I cannot vote for it because I do not see why the innocent electors should be disfranchised for the sins of the Liberal supporters of Captain Guest. I am very glad indeed that both the late Members have been completely exonerated of any personal part in these disgraceful transactions, although I can only marvel at the laxity of the supervision which they exercised over those who were concerned in these matters. I consider that the hon. Member for Mansfield Division has done a public service by drawing attention to these two elections, and I hope that they will have a very great and marked effect in the country.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The hon. Member who has just sat down has spoken of intimidation which he alleges is pursued by trade unions. He was careful not to express what the acts of intimidation were, but by his assumption that every honest man knew that such things were done it is evident that the hon. Member, in his dealings with politics, lives in such an atmosphere of corruption and intimidation that he cannot conceive the possibility of other people acting independently and according to principle. The trade unions have no intimidatory power which they could exercise. They are formed for the purpose of protecting their members against intimidation by the very class for which the hon. Member speaks. The trade union does not give employment. It has no power of influence one way or the other which it can exercise over its Members who vote according to their principles. Therefore a charge of that kind is obviously baseless because of its absurdity. I was greatly interested in the speech of the Solicitor-General, especially in its omissions. His attempt to whitewash the Guest family and those responsible for the conduct of the election in East Dorsetshire, and to make it appear that the court had entirely exonerated everyone connected with that contest from all blame and responsibility, was worthy of his ability and powers of eloquence. Anyone who cares to take the trouble to read the judges' report in re-
  1098
  gard to corruption, intimidation, and undue influence will see that they were quite clear that the Guests and their agents had been sailing remarkably close to the wind, and that they simply managed to escape, and nothing more. In the case of Meaby, it is quite true, as the Solicitor-General said, that the judges described him as an old man of inoffensive appearance, who could not intimidate anyone, but Mr. Justice Lawrance went on to add that this did not affect the point that he was intended to exert influence by his presence. For the moment my point is this, that proceedings like those at Hartlepool have revealed a state of political life which I think must be becoming alarming to men of all parties—I mean the growing expenditure in connection with elections. There always must be a certain advantage on the side of persons of wealth and social influence in connection with electioneering work. That is natural, inevitable. We found it to be the case when we were fighting the Liberal candidates in East Glamorgan, where the colliery owners and their managers who were Liberals sought to exert influence in the interests of the Liberal candidates. I do not blame them for that. I am only trying to prove that Liberals are almost as bad as those on the other side. Social influence will always be a factor in elections, as will also great wealth, but it should be the object of all parties to minimise these influences as much as possible, and to prevent them from becoming either corruption or intimidation. The facts revealed in the East Dorset election petition inquiry in regard to elections point a moral which I should have thought the Solicitor-General would have taken advantage of in the course of his speech. He told us about the difficulty of deciding when election expenditure began, but here are the facts:
  Captain Guest was adopted Liberal candidate in April, 1908, whereupon he began to subscribe to all the slate clubs in the constituency. It was admitted that up to that date no one of his family had done so before, but that Captain Guest had heard his father had done so; but certainly this was a fresh start on his part. He admitted that he had paid the financial secretary to the East Dorsetshire Liberal Association, in October, 1909, and February, 1910, the sum of £295. He paid various sums to two others, and he paid £100, being a portion of the instalments towards the formation of the Branksome Liberal Club. Lady

  1099
  Wimborne subscribed to the same effect. His subscription to the Women's Liberal Association was very small, but he could not tell how much. He subscribed £35 a month to the East Dorset Liberal Association, having commenced in July, 1908, three months after he was adopted a candidate. Lady Wimborne's subscription was £200 or £250 a year.
  When you add to all these hundreds of pounds which this Liberal candidate and his mother were paying to the organisation, and which they only commenced to pay after his election—when you add the slate clubs, the county cricket club, the football club, the churches, chapels, flower shows, and the like, you get an insight into a degree of expenditure which no man of moderate means can pay. Therefore the moral of East Dorsetshire is that politics are becoming a monopoly of the rich. If this kind of thing is to be allowed to pass unchecked and unpunished, men—not merely workmen who do not pretend to fight their elections in that way—but men of moderate means will have no chance whatever of being selected as candidates. I intend to vote for this Amendment. I do not believe that the bulk of the electors of East Dorsetshire are corrupt, but the body of electors, if they allow a "second Guest" to be thrust upon them, are not worthy to be entrusted with the franchise. I will give one personal reminiscence of East Dorsetshire and Captain Guest's candidature which, I think, has an interesting bearing on this matter. There is a movement for the election of a memorial of those trade unionists who were transported in the early years of last century and a committee has been formed for the purpose. One method of raising funds is that well known public men should deliver lectures. I was invited to speak at a meeting. On the day of the meeting—this was after Captain Guest was adopted as Liberal candidate—one of the Wimborne agents called upon the secretary of the committee to ask whether the Tory candidate had subscribed to the memorial fund, because if he had his instructions were to go "one better." The secretary said that no subscription had yet come from the Conservative side, whereupon the agent left instructions that if a cheque came from the Tory side they were to at once advise him and he would "improve upon it." The hour of meeting drew nigh, and nothing had come from the Conservative candidate, whereupon the agent left two cheques—one from Cap-
  1100
  tain Guest, the Liberal candidate, and one from Lady Wimborne—with the intimation that if the Tory subscription exceeded the amount of these two cheques a third one would be forthcoming. If that was not corrupt influence it was certainly meant to be; there is no question about that. I should have thought, in a case like this, that the Solicitor-General would have said that the facts disclosed such a dangerous condition in connection with our political life that it was the duty of the Government to seek some means of limiting this kind of extravagant expenditure and exercise of undue influence. He made no such promises, he seemed to regard everything that went on in East Dorsetshire as right and proper, except for one little slip on the part of someone, whereas everybody knows that it was the exact opposite of that. In view of the attitude taken up by the Government, and in the interests of purity of election, I shall certainly vote for the Amendment.
  Mr. STEPHEN COLLINS: As one interested in the honour of Dorset and Dorset men, and as one concerned for the honour and character of the House, I rise to resent the reflections cast upon them by the hon. Member who introduced the Amendment. He held up the people of his own constituency as paragons of virtue, and as independent electors who could not be got at in any way, while he almost said that with Southerners one would be able to do anything. I listened very attentively to his speech, and I thought I was going to hear some shocking story of how they had been bribed, and how they had been susceptible to bribery, but the evidence did not bear out the statements he made. He said that no such proceedings were possible in his constituency, and that if such influences were brought to bear there as had been exercised in East Dorset, the persons who made the attempt would be likely to be "flattened out." If the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division will go down to my county and venture to make those statements he will very soon find what will happen. In what I have heard in this lengthened Debate this afternoon I have heard nothing to prove that the men of Dorset are any worse, I will not say better, than any other men. I say they are as good as any others, and the evidence has not proved anything to the contrary. I ask the House not to go into the Lobby with the hon. Member for that reason, and also because of the bitter,

  1101
  prejudiced attack which has been made on the Wimborne family and the veiled, ungenerous attack he has made on the Home Secretary.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted" ["not during the present Session of Parliament"].
  The House divided: Ayes, 24; Noes, 229.

  Division No. 71]

  AYES.

  [7.5 p.m.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Royds, Edmund

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Sutton, John E.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hudson, Walter

  Winterton, Earl

  Clough, William

  Hunt, Rowland

  Compton, Lord Alwyne (Brentford)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Markham and Mr. Belioc.

  Cowan, William Henry

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  NOES.

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

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Adam, Major William A.

  Falconer, James

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Allen, Charles Peter

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Armitage, Robert

  Forster, Henry William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  M'Callum, John M.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Mallet, Charles Edward

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Manfield, Harry

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Marks, George Croydon

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Middlebrook, William

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Greenwood, Granville George

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Barclay, Sir Thomas

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Millar, James Duncan

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott

  Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Mond, Alfred Moritz

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen, W.)

  Beale, William Phipson

  Gulland, John William

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

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

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Muspratt, Max

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Birfell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nield, Herbert

  Bowles, Thomas Gibson

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Nussey, Sir T. Willans

  Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Heath, Col. Arthur Howard

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Pearce, William

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Byles, William Pollard

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

  Phillips, Sir O. C. (Pembroke)

  Calley, Col. Thomas C. P.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs, Hey wood)

  Hills, John Walter (Durham)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Radford, George Heynes

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Rainy, Adam Holland

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Raphael, Herbert Henry

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rees, John David

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Ridley, Samuel Forde

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Crosfield, Arthur H.

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydffi)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Crossley, Sir William J.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lambert, George

  Shackleton, David James

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Shortt, Edward

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

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

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

  Leach, Charles

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Llewelyn, Major Venables

  Stanier, Seville

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Starkey, John Raiph

  Staveley-Hill, H.

  Vivian, Henry

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wadsworth, John

  Wiles, Thomas

  Strauss, Arthur

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Summers, James Woolley

  Walton, Joseph

  Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wardle, George J.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Wing, Thomas

  Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Toulmin, George

  Waterlow, David Sydney

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

  Verney, Frederick William

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Ordered, "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county of Dorset (Eastern Division), in the room of Captain the Honourable Frederick Edward Guest, whose election has been declared to be void."

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the second time."
Mr. BAIRD: I desire to draw the attention of the House to a matter of very grave importance, not only to this country, but to the Empire, and that is to the events which have taken place recently in Egypt. Just before the House rose the Report of His Majesty's Consul-General at Cairo was put in the hands of Members, and, I am bound to say, I think disclosed a very grave state of affairs. In any remarks that I shall venture to make now I should like it to be clearly understood that I do not for a moment attack His Majesty's Consul-General in Cairo. In the first place, it is exceedingly unfair to attack a man who is not able to defend himself by being here; and, in the second place, no one can tell to what extent the present condition of affairs in Egypt is due to the orders that His Majesty's Consul-General has received from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Therefore, in any criticisms which I want to offer to the policy pursued in Egypt, I should like it to be clearly understood that I am not in any way attacking Sir Eldon Gorst. Sir Eldon Gorst begins his Report in the stereotyped fashion by describing what he calls "the progress" that has taken place in Egypt during the past year, and, although probably he has no political bias, I should think that the use of the word "progress" implies a degree of inexacti-
1104
tude in terminology that might render even the most skilled electioneerer on the opposite side jealous. There is no indication whatever of progress in the Report, but just the reverse. After that Sir Eldon proceeds to describe the murder of the Prime Minister of the country. That murder was alluded to pertinently, and I am afraid with truth, very recently by a distinguished Egyptian, who said it had taken us twenty-eight years to teach the Egyptians to murder their Prime Minister. There is not much indication of progress in that. Although the Report contains the normal development of financial and education and irrigation systems which have been introduced under our rule, there is no denying that the general condition of the country is exceedingly unsatisfactory. With regard to the murder of Boutros Pasha, the first question that arises is, Who is responsible? That is settled by Sir Eldon Gorst, who has no doubt in assigning the blame for the murder to the Nationalist party in Egypt. With regard to this Nationalist party, it is rather instructive to see what Sir Eldon said in 1907, I think it was, as to the members of that party.
In his annual Report for 1907 Sir Eldon alludes to the Nationalist party as follows:—
"At the present time the pupils in the schools constitute the chief prop of the Kationalsts—a somewhat frail reed upon which to lean. The students, nevertheless, do their best to make up for their youth and inexperience by a display of political activity. During the last few months they have assiduously Seized every opportunity in season and out of season to clamour for a constitution. If their methods and procedure have not had any effect in advancing the cause they have at heart, they have, at any rate, added to the labours of the Cairo police in keeping order in the streets."
These are the people who are responsible for the disorders which have led up to the murder of the Prime Minister. Why was not the murderer of the Prime Minister dealt with promptly? Why was time given for him to be made into a political martyr? Not a single word of regret or condemnation of the crime has appeared in the Nationalist Press. On the

1105
contrary, it has been rather held up as something praiseworthy, and the perpetrator, who was caught red-handed, has not yet been disposed of. In addition to that, you have given the Mussulmans an opportunity for laying down views and ideas with regard to the righteousness of Christians being killed by Mussulmans which are certain to have a very disturbing effect in any country where there is a mixed population of Christians and Mussulmans, and where we, as a Christian nation, are obliged to enforce order amongst men of a different race and religion. All that would not have happened—or, at any rate, would not have been likely to happen—if the murderer had been dealt with promptly, and time had not been given for the country to be covered with these writings in the Nationalist Press. There need be no difficulty in dealing with the Nationalist Press. Under the Press Law you have power to suppress papers which incite people to acts of lawlessness or insubordination to the authorities; but, for some reason or other, that Press Law has been very sparingly used.
What are you going to do to put things right? You have a precedent for action in matters of this sort in the year 1893, when Egypt was in almost as bad a condition as now. At that time a Radical Government was in power, and the Liberal Foreign Secretary took a very decided line. All of us who have had anything to do with the government of Egypt hope that the present Foreign Secretary will follow the example of Lord Rosebery on that occasion. Lord Rosebery's despatch was so much to the point that I may be pardoned for quoting it. On 16th February, 1893, his lordship said:—
"Should further difficulty arise, it might be urged that the conditions of British occupation will have changed, and it may be asked whether the altered circumstances will not require corresponding modifications of policy, and whether that occupation should be maintained in opposition, as it might seem, to the sentiments of an important section of the inhabitants, and whether it would not be better that it should cease."
That is precisely parallel to the case today.
[The hon. Member quoted Lord Rosebery's arguments against such a change of policy, and continued.]
If the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is prepared to re-affirm that perfectly clear statement of our policy, I, for one, have nothing more to say, because that despatch describes in the first place why we are in Egypt, and the task which falls to our lot to discharge in that country in the interests not only of the Egyptians
1106
and of ourselves, but of civilisation. It will be interesting to see whether the Foreign Secretary will adopt that line Everybody is aware that the state of affairs in Egypt has exposed us to what I may justly call the humiliation of being told recently by a great foreign friend how to manage our own affairs. Nobody can say that is a satisfactory state of affairs, nor can it be said that the remarks of Mr. Roosevelt were not perfectly justified. As a matter of fact, both in Egypt and in this country those remarks have been received with the utmost relief, because it is felt that only a man in the position of Mr. Roosevelt would carry enough weight with the Gentlemen opposite to induce them to reconsider and to some extent modify their policy.
There is, however, this difficulty. Hon. Members opposite rely to a large extent—at any rate, it is so believed—on the support of Members below the Gangway, whose one cure for all the misfortunes in Egypt is an extension of the principles of self-government and the granting of a Constitution. Newspapers which support and are supported by Gentlemen opposite are full of suggestions for the granting of a Constitution to Egypt. What do they mean by it? It is quite impossible to grant a Constitution which would be binding on Europeans inhabiting that country. They are extra-territorial, and consequently they would not come under any constitution that we could confer on Egypt. Secondly, what line would Turkey, the Suzerain Power, take? Is it to be supposed that Europe would allow the great fabric which we have erected in that country to crumble away, as it would, if it were handed over to the Egyptians in their present unprepared state for self-government? All these considerations would seem to rule out the possibility of granting a constitution to Egypt. But I think there are other grounds than these for opposing the proposal. You have only to refer to the statements made by both Lord Cromer and Sir Eldon Gorst as to the capacity shown by the Egyptians for self-government. In his Report for 190V Sir Eldon Gorst alluded as follows to the Legislative Council and the General Assembly in Egypt:—
"On several occasions I have given expression to my opinion that an indispensable preliminary to the consideration of the question of enlarging the sphere of these institutions is that they should exercise wisely the functions they already possess, and thereby prove to the world at large that they are fit to be entrusted with more extended powers. In my last Report I mentioned that the experience of recent years indicated that these bodies were moving in the right direction.

1107
.… It is therefore with considerable disappointment I have to report that the general attitude of the Legislative Council, and its record as a consultative body, has not been of an encouraging nature. …. Recent proceedings appear to warrant the conclusion that it is losing ground, and that the part which it plays in the administration is less efficiently performed than heretofore."
That was two years ago. Last year you had the experience with regard to the agreement arrived at between the Egyptian Government and the Suez Canal Company. That agreement was referred, quite unnecessarily, to the General Assembly. Sir Eldon Gorst says in his Report that there was no necessity to refer it to the Assembly, but he thought it proper to do so. That was an agreement especially favourable to Egypt. Egypt was to get some four millions of money to start with, and, after that, to share in the profits of the Canal Company, who in return were to get certain concessions. That agreement has been unfavourably reported on by the Assembly, not on its merits, but on other grounds. That does not seem to show that the existing body representative of the Egyptian people has displayed any great aptitude for self-government. Then there is the question of the Legislative Council. If there is one thing more than another for the benefit of Egypt, it is the conquest of the Soudan, which gave back to the country the control of the head waters of the Nile; and yet you have this representative body putting obstacles in the way of the contribution of the Egyptian Government for that object. There is nothing to show that Egypt is in any way ready for representative institutions. That is the view of anybody who has lived in the country, but everybody who has had anything to do with the government of the country is quite ready to agree that we are working with a view to enabling the Egyptians to qualify for self-government. It is all a question of time. We have been there only twenty-five years, and when you consider the state of servitude in which the Egyptians had lived up to that time there is nothing very surprising in the fact that they have not yet reached a state of development which would qualify them to take over the control of their own affairs. The whole question turns practically on the internal administration of the country. In matters of finance the success of Lord Cromer's policy, which has been carried on by Sir Eldon Gorst, has been phenomenal. In matters of education we have built up a system which has brought un-
1108
told prosperity to the country. Education is progressing, everything is going on well, except the maintenance of law and order. And the main thing that interferes with the maintenance of law and order, according to Sir Eldon Gorst's own showing in his present Report, is apparently the difficulty raised to a large extent by the Nationalists. Here is what Sir Eldon says with regard to that, and it is a very important thing—he has come to this conclusion in his Report of this year:—
"The greatest obstacle at the present time is perhaps the general want of confidence in the intentions of the governing power which prevails amongst the unofficial upper middle classes of this country, and causes every proposal put forward by the Government to be viewed in a hostile spirit. The chief reasons for this unsatisfactory state of affairs, in my opinion, are as follows: In the first place a great part of the Press, native and English, too frequently publish articles and letters—generally anonymous—which have no other effect but of stirring up bad blood between the English and the Egyptians. The second one is want of knowledge … that the British Government are actuated by interested motives in the exercise of their control. Lastly, the unmeasured criticism of a few individuals, based on the assumption … that the good old-fashioned virtue of respect for authority is out of date, which is not only bad, but sets an exceedingly bad example."
It has apparently become so old-fashioned as to have gone out of fashion. There was never a country where the respect for authority was more marked than in Egypt when we first went there. We have done our best to destroy that respect. I should like to ask whether there is any truth in the statement that an order has been issued that the natives no longer need dismount when they meet a British officer in the Soudan? It seems to me to be incredible. After all, that is the normal and the only way that the native can show respect to his superiors. It would be just as reasonable to issue an order of that sort as to say that the policemen on duty at the doors are not to salute the Prime Minister when he leaves this House. It is perfectly ridiculous. If it is true—it is a small thing, and may appear so to Gentlemen who have had no experience of the Oriental—it is an exceedingly bad thing when you consider that in these countries we live on prestige. Undoubtedly we depend upon respect. If you teach the natives not to respect you, how on earth can you expect them not to follow your teaching? The effect is to endanger the lives and property, not only of officers who are leading heroic lives in maintaining the honour of the flag, and discharging the duties which they do—and very onerous duties they are—but you are jeopardising the safety of the persons and properties which depend on order being

1109
maintained in these countries. I hope that it is a Bazaar rumour, and that it is not true that any order so ridiculous has been issued in the Soudan.
What are the Government going to do in the matter? It is obviously impossible for the present state of affairs to continue. You cannot have a foreigner come into this country and point out what a mess we have made of it. We have gone to Egypt, not exactly with the mandate of Europe, but Europe has been content to allow us to remain in Egypt so long as we show ourselves capable of running the country. Mr. Roosevelt said, "Either govern a country or get out." He said what was absolutely true. It was exceedingly unpleasant reading for us. The question is whether hon. Gentlemen opposite are to continue that policy, and so end in having to get out, or whether they will stiffen their backs and admit that they have been trying to go too fast; that whereas in the old days on the Upper Nile—to use one phrase which might be used with regard to our policy—"we went too late," we are now adopting a policy in which "we are going too early." You are trying to introduce a system of Government for which the Egyptian is totally unfitted. Everybody remembers the story of the institution of the first Legislative Council in Cairo. When the first meeting was called all arrived there to be elected by some means or other. They were told that the supporters of the Government always sat on the right, and the opponents of the Government on the left. They sat on the right, and when the Session was opened it was discovered that nobody at all was sitting on the left. That is pretty well the present state of affairs; the only difference is that you are now driving the people into opposition because they think you are not strong enough to enforce order. How easy it is—nothing is too easy in Egypt, perhaps—how easy it is to restore law and order by proper measures, is seen by the success of the order introduced to put people under police supervision. One of the flaws in the administration of the country has been the alarming and constant increase of important crimes ever since our occupation. The old-fashioned rough-and-ready methods of enforcing law and order were abolished. We cannot possibly revert to them. I do not suggest that we should. But, on the other hand, if the methods we are adopting are not leading to successful results, surely it is the business of the Government, and especially of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of
1110
State for Foreign Affairs, who is responsible for the Government of Egypt, to see if he cannot adopt some other methods. With regard to police supervision, a law was passed last year to enable notoriously dangerous characters to be placed under police supervision, and, if necessary, to be exiled. Two hundred and eighty-one persons were put under police supervision, and for the first time in many years there was a diminution in crime. That is one result of the action which everybody recognises Egypt needs, and of what can be done if hon. Gentlemen stiffen their backs and carry out a policy of law and order in that country. You have got more than that to think of. You have the British flag flying in the Soudan. You cannot expect in that large community in the Soudan, governed by a very small body of British officers, that if there are disturbances in Egypt that they will not re-echo in the Soudan. If they do so there is no saying how far they will spread. Then there is the very serious consideration, and one which I hope will weigh with the right hon. Gentleman in the consideration of this matter.
After all, the re-conquest of the Soudan resulted in the destruction of slavery. It resulted in the destruction of the most dreadful form of tyranny which, I suppose, has ever been seen since the world began. Certainly there has been no worse. Those who have seen the place during a time of campaign, and seen the ruined wastes, the starving women and children, and all that sort of thing—the relics of Dervish rule in that country—must admit that in reconquering the Soudan we carried out a magnificent work of civilisation. You cannot have the Soudan controlled in a civilised way by a small body of British officers without respect for British authority being maintained. It can be done if the right hon. Gentleman will make up his mind to do it. But it is no use shilly-shallying. It will be no use for a number of years to try superseding British officers by Egyptian officials, and trusting more and more authority to the natives, and then, they having shown themselves not yet ready to exercise that authority, trying to bring back the Soudan again to a system of civilisation. That is no reason at all, however, why eventually they should not be able to discharge those duties. But you have tried to put new wine into old bottles, and the thing will not work. The consequence is that you have got a state of affairs there where

1111
you have the Prime Minister assassinated and the representative of the British Empire insulted at the station by a lot of schoolboys.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): That is not true.
Mr. BAIRD: I am very glad to hear it. You have the Prime Minister assassinated. That unfortunately is true. You do not punish his assassination, and you convert supporters to the parties who are anxious to get us out of Egypt, and afford every opportunity of stirring up the most unreasonable hatred to the nation which has conferred benefits such as Egypt never enjoyed before; and all that because I venture to think you pay undue attention to the views expressed by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, whose one solution for difficulties in Egypt and elsewhere is to confer self-government on the people of the country. It will not work in Egypt, yet it may work in time. I hope the Government will see their way to make drastic changes and adopt a line of policy which will secure the support and confidence, not only of the people of Egypt, but of the people of this country as well.
Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seemed to affect the notorious and extraordinary doctrine lately promulgated by Mr. Roosevelt in this country and to applaud Mr. Roosevelt for the almost more extraordinary attitude that he took up towards the British Government. The hon. Gentleman belongs to the school who are ready to applaud an insult to their own country—
Mr. BAIRD: No, no.
Mr. ROBERTSON: Let me finish. "If it happens to be directed against a school to which they are opposed."
Mr. BAIRD: I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to put my views in that way. I think that no one will resent an insult more than those on this side of the House. We have shown that often enough.
Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman has said nothing to meet my criticism. I will make it clearer. The statement of Mr. Roosevelt amounted to this: "If a Prime Minister is assassinated in Egypt it is because you have done too much, and if you do not mend your ways you will be turned
1112
out." The hon. Gentleman applauds that proposition and said that Mr. Roosevelt was quite right. The expression I have used is that it was an insult to this country. That may seem a little strong, as I suppose Mr. Roosevelt would not intend his proposition as an insult. But it would be so regarded by many impartial men, and has been so regarded by many in England. My proposition is that a proposition which has the effect of an insult to this country is applauded by hon. Gentlemen of the opposite school because they think it is directed against the political school that they detest at home. [Hon. Members: "No, no."] It is no use calling out that; that is the effect of the proposition. Where would the doctrine laid down by Mr. Roosevelt lead to? Mr. Roosevelt belongs to a country where three Presidents have been assassinated over half a century. What, I wonder, will Mr. Roosevelt say, and what will his friends here say, if it be suggested on his own line of argument that these assassinations, or that any one of them, proves that the Government then in power in America had been misgoverning, or not maintaining order, or that Mr. Roosevelt's friends were doing too much? Take the case of the assassination of President Mackinlay, Mr. Roosevelt's own chief. What is precisely the lesson to be learnt from it on the basis of the argument from the Egyptian case? I think it is very desirable to point out how baseless the doctrine is, because, according to it, any crime of the kind, the assassination of the head of a constitutional or autocratically governed state may be attributable to the way it has been misgoverned! If the sane or the insane strike down any President or Russian Czar, in any case on the line of argument taken up, the Government in question is proved to have been very lax in some way in keeping order, and are apparently incapable of keeping order. That is a doctrine, I must say, which is a most amazing one to be put forward by a responsible politician in modern times, and I say, with perfect confidence, that there must be a multitude of men in the United States who repudiate as Americans the whole position taken up by President Roosevelt in regard to the conclusion he draws from one crime in Egypt. What is the political doctrine here involved? That that crime indicates or would justify the assertion that in Egypt we have been doing too much. The hon. Member for Rugby has endorsed that position also. He made it the subject of a large part of his incoherent speech. [HON.

1113
Members: "Order, order."] What have I said that is out of order? The speech was incoherent to the last degree as regards the centre of it. I am perfectly in order.
Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member not to use more offensive language than he can help.
Mr. ROBERTSON: If you rule, Mr. Speaker, that the word "incoherent" is offensive I at once withdraw it.
Mr. SPEAKER: I think it was meant offensively.
Mr. ROBERTSON: I meant it as a criticism, and I must say I do not think it is more offensive than a number of expressions used by the hon. Member with regard to hon. Members on this side of the House below the Gangway, but, Sir, I bow at once to your ruling. My reason for using the expression in regard to the hon. Member's argument was, that on the one hand he agreed with Mr. Roosevelt that we have done too much; on the other hand he has not even tried to show that we have done anything, and he devoted his argument to showing the impropriety of the suggestion that certain things should be done.
What has been done in Egypt? The hon. Member and a number of men of his party talk as if we had given a constitution to Egypt; as if a great number of experiments in constitutional government had been made there; as if we had conferred all manner of franchise and powers and privileges upon the Egyptian people. Nothing of the sort has been done. The Egyptian people have no more power of self-government to-day than they had when the present constitution was established, giving something in the nature of provincial self-government, which I think means but very little and which hon. Members opposite suggest is a kind of conferring of power upon the Egyptian people that they are not fit to exercise. Is it possible that the hon. Member contends that the submission of the question as to the Suez Canal agreement to the General Assembly has led to crime? Is it seriously contended that the submission of that question to the General Assembly has been the provocation of the recent murder in question? That is the only thing that can be suggested in the way of doing too much for the Egyptian people, and I do not think that the hon. Member would suggest that that in any way led to the atrocious crime upon which this discussion
1114
has so unfortunately been forced to turn. The situation as regards Egypt is this—that the Foreign Secretary has been in no way responsible for any extension of self-government in Egypt; that in suggestions made from these benches in that direction, I think no one would have taken more cautiously conservative action upon the subject that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary and I must say when the hon. Member accuses indiscriminately hon. Members upon this side of the House of having made suggestions in regard to Egypt of presenting a wholesale new constitutional government to that country, he entirely misrepresents the whole line of argument which has been advanced from this side of the House. The Foreign Secretary will bear me out when I say the kind of suggestions made to him have been that the existing institutions should get a little extension of their powers with a view to the gradual, cautious, and wise development of the powers of self-government in Egypt. I, at least, never did and I do not remember hearing anyone else on this side make a proposal that you should, out of hand, confer a constitution upon Egypt, either in the sense of the Constitution existing in this country or of the Constitutions existing in the self-governing portions of the Empire. If that suggestion were made I should agree in pronouncing that suggestion entirely impracticable, but the suggestion that you should in Egypt fulfil your promises of fitting the people gradually to govern themselves is a suggestion in accordance with the whole decencies of British policy.
We went into Egypt on the understanding that we should prepare the people for self-government, and if any criticism lies against the Foreign Secretary it is not that he has shown any disposition too rapidly to confer new powers upon the Egyptian people, but perhaps that he has not shown a sufficient sense of the need for doing something at all. We have been accused of doing too much—we have done nothing in the way of conferring powers of self-government. The hon. Member had his own suggestions to make. We must be careful, according to him, to-preserve our prestige to see that the natives continue to dismount to salute whenever they meet us. He has many suggestions that belong to what are called the Imperialistic politicians. It never occurred to him to suggest another way in which the history of the world proved

1115
that something might be done, and that is to educate the people. The main charge that lies against the British Government is that they have done far too little for the education of the people. A few years ago there was being spent upon the primary education of a people numbering about 12,000,000 a sum of about £200,000. That sum was extended, and perhaps it is now doubled or more than doubled, but, whether doubled or trebled, what does that expenditure represent as regards the performance of our duties and the responsibilities of the people of this country towards the Egyption people? We may well speak of the amount of crime in Egypt. The amount of crime, and serious crime, is large. Perhaps there is not really an increase, as the hon. Member infers. I think something is to be said of the fact that crime is more regularly registered now—that is to say, the cases of crime are nearly all taken note of, whereas in the old days the number of crimes were unenumerated. What is the actual fact? The measure of last year was no doubt a good one, and if that good measure has been working what becomes of the pretence that the Government in Egypt is daily reproducing disorder, and not taking proper pains to maintain order? In one breath the hon. Member says you are not maintaining order, and in the next he gives credit to the Egyptian Government for carrying out a measure which he assumes is successful in the promotion of order. I am far from being in the position of defending the Egyptian Government. It may be possible that in some matters the Egyptian Government is really lax as regards its primary duty of enforcing law and order; but when the hon. Member suggested the way to do it properly is to go and hang one of them without the slightest delay—in fact, he would hang them or lynch them—hang them first and try them afterwards—
Mr. BAIRD: I do not think I should be accused of suggesting in the House of Commons that a man should be lynched.
Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member said that the only way to maintain law and order is to hang a man as soon as possible—"without delay," were his words.
Mr. BAIRD: Without unnecessary delay.
Mr. ROBERTSON: I believe no unnecessary delay is taking place. As soon as the
1116
Mufti which takes place under the law meets, which is a customary matter in regard to all these cases, there will be no delay. It is not a case of the Grand Mufti having refused to endorse the sentence of death; it may have done so frequently, but it is not true that the Grand Mufti always refuses to endorse a sentence. I may add that formula is a standing formula, yet if the Grand Mufti does not endorse a sentence the sentence will be fulfilled all the same. I should say in regard to great political crimes of this kind it is surely expedient you should observe an air of deliberation and gravity, and that no harm has been done by lack of that extreme promptitude which the hon. Member opposite suggests.
Let me refer to the remarkable incident of Denshawi. There you had promptitude, you had scaffolding erected before the prisoners were convicted, a special tribunal was set up and the utmost rigour and severity and methods of punishment were adopted. Four people were put to death, and a number were punished for what was really a matter of accident, a fortuitous fatal result rather than anything in the nature of a crime. All these measures were taken on the principle now laid down that you must terrorise the Egyptians and maintain your prestige, and show that you are fit to govern them. These particular measures have created very bad feeling in Egypt. They answer generally in advancing the foolish propaganda of the Nationalist Members, and this atrocious crime is partly connected with that very incident. The people of Egypt have commemorated Denshawi ever since. [An Hon. Member: "No."] Yes; if the hon. Member will look into the matter he will find the whole episode is commemorated amongst the extreme Nationalists, and is an argument against the line of policy now suggested. What you want in the case of a country like Egypt is firm and unvarying enforcement of the law. Did the Denshawi incident result in firm and unvarying enforcement of the law? The sentences and punishment in that incident were out of all proportion to the crime charged, and were executed solely in the interests of maintaining what is called the prestige of the people of this country. The tradition of this country will, I think, suffice to keep the House right upon this matter. I do not intend to raise all the issues. I think something might be said of the violent Nationalists in Egypt who have shown undoubtedly deplorably little

1117
wisdom in the conduct of their propaganda, but even in regard to them and in removing from a country like Egypt violent or seditious propaganda, one of the methods you should adopt is the method of education. Hon. Members must be aware that a great part of the feeling against the Government in Egypt is due to the fact that Sir Eldon Gorst has been held up to contempt for a long time past by persons there who sympathise with the hon. Member and his view of the problem, and that the English Government in Egypt is being largely held up to contempt by English malcontents for the very reason the hon. Member has given.
8.0 P.M.
They are indignant because Sir Eldon Gorst, in fulfilment of pledges and promises to the British Government, has been giving appointments to natives. The only definite charge the hon. Member has made in support of his attack and his endorsement of Mr. Roosevelt's argument is that you have been doing too much in the way of giving posts to natives. I defy the hon. Member to justify the association of that charge with anything connected with disorder in Cairo or Egypt. No one will contend that in every case where a native is appointed he is a thoroughly competent person. I would like to know if anybody is prepared to say that all those appointed in other countries are competent. The policy of Sir Eldon Gorst has only been an honest fulfilment of pledges repeatedly given. What has been the attitude of the persons who share the opinion of the hon. Member opposite? We hear a good deal about the Nationalist Press in Egypt, but what about your Imperial Press here, which has been holding up Egyptian rule to contempt? When in this country you hold up the Government to hatred and contempt, and exhibit the British Government to the world as utterly unfit to rule, when you are bringing charges of such virulence here, you are only teaching the natives to criticise us in the same way, and giving them a lesson in the art of vituperation. You make these charges freely at home, but when these natives begin to criticise your Government you declare that they are shrieking sedition. In my opinion the language used daily by the Tory Press is very much more violent than the language which has been called seditious used by the natives with regard to the British Government elsewhere. It is the party which uses this language of virulent contempt which holds up the hand
1118
of horror whenever, any native begins to criticise our Administration. We have heard something about hypocrisy; but what is to be said of the organised hypocrisy which assumes, when you are in opposition, that the Government in power is deserving of every kind of epithet and charge, aspersion, and disparagement, and all the while maintains that the same principles in Egypt are above all criticism whatever. The more political education spreads in countries like India and Egypt the more clearly will the natives see the essential absurdity and the bottomless hypocrisy of the system that exhibits itself in that fashion. The hon. Member, virtually, in the course of his criticism, said that Mr. Roosevelt was justified in saying that we had brought the country to this pitch, and that it was our failure to maintain order that brought about this assassination. To use language of that sort is absurd. The hon. Member has chosen to take the rejection of the proposed new agreement on the Suez Canal as a proof of the unfitness of the Egyptian people for self-government. May I point out that that is a very dangerous line of argument for Sir Eldon Gorst to take up? He claims to be in the position of having voluntarily and without necessity consulted the General Assembly on a matter of importance for Egypt.
Mr. REES: He did consult the General Assembly.
Mr. ROBERTSON: I understand that Sir Eldon Gorst claims that he gave as a matter of grace an opportunity to the General Assembly to pass an opinion upon this matter, and the fact that they did not take his advice seems to have been taken as proof that they are unfit for self-government. Hon. Members opposite are dissatisfied with the financial methods of the Government. They say we passed a Budget last year calculated to ruin this country, and, according to the argument which has been used, that would seem to indicate that this country is unfit for self-government. Hon. Members opposite seem to have one set of principles for British politics and a totally different set of principles for those races which happen to be subject to us. I do not think it is possible to settle the question of the proper policy with regard to this question in the summary fashion which the hon. Member has adopted. It is a broad and I difficult question, and to take this opposi-

1119
tion of the General Assembly in Egypt as a proof of political incapacity is a perfectly monstrous proposition. There are thousands of people who believe that the General Assembly on this matter refused to make a bad bargain, but hon. Members opposite seem to think it was a good bargain. This is an example of the way in which the hon. Member and his school of thought think fit to deal with anyone they can classify as Oriental. No doubt Orientals are backward in many respects as the result of their past history, but they have potentialities and developments like ourselves. The hon. Member quoted Sir Eldon Gorst and extracts from the Nationalist press as tending to make bad blood. He ignored entirely how the British press acts in the same direction by habitually adopting a tone of superiority towards Orientals. The hon. Member tells the Orientals in a tone of patronage and almost insult that they are never to manage their own affairs, but you are not tending to minimise bad blood between the different peoples in that way. Unfortunately there is plenty of bad feeling in Egypt in regard to this lamentable crime, and personally I regret the attitude taken up by the Nationalists on this point. In India we have been true to the principle of steady progress, and I hope we shall be equally true to that tradition in Egypt. I hope we shall continue to rule with firmness without going back upon our pledges to that country, the first and most essential of which is that we shall gradually and with caution, wherever possible, extend among the natives facilities for acquiring the power to govern themselves. Hon. Members have been arguing as if a Constitution was on the verge of being given to Egypt, but the Foreign Secretary has never agreed to do that, and I never found him at all hasty to adopt far more moderate suggestions for reform than that we have been speaking of. I trust the crime of which we have been speaking tonight and the language used in connection with it will not have the effect of inducing him to limit the very slow rate of progress that has taken place in Egypt, and, above all, will not induce him in any way to use the influence of the Government in Egypt in any limitation of that policy of the education of the people of Egypt in regard to which we have been lamentably remiss in the past and in which we are making no too rapid progress at the present time.
Mr. REES: I would remind the hon. Member that the criticism which one political party passes upon another ought to be subjected to the most enormous discount, because it is looked upon more as a domestic affair. Does the hon. Member suggest that the kind of criticism to which he has referred is comparable with the racial criticism, the bitter hostility and sedition which characterises the Press criticisms of the British Government in Egypt? I do not think the hon. Member can have been serious in his observation. How can such criticism be comparable with what exists in seditious newspapers in other countries? I did not intend to make any remarks upon this subject, but the speech made by the hon. Member appeared to make it imperative for me to repudiate the position which he has taken up. When he stated that the seditious party in Egypt ought to be educated out of that way of thinking, I think he fell headlong into a very common error. Like many other hon. Members of this House, he compares the condition of education in Egypt with education in this country, and that is a common and cardinal mistake. Surely if he is going to deal with an Oriental country as regards its education he must compare it with another Oriental country. The hon. Member expressed astonishment that only £250,000 was spent upon elementary education in Egypt. May I remind him that every Government has to govern in accordance with the feeling of the country it governs. The people who have to pay the taxes are entitled to say that they shall be governed according to their own views. They are not accustomed to pay taxes for the education of the other classes of the community, and they might very properly complain that the Government in Egypt was not conducted upon a system in accordance with native feelings and traditions. Egypt is an ancient country. It has been a civilised country for a longer time than any other country in the world. Therefore, it has some traditions. Is it, because the British Government happens to be there for the time being, to alter all this and make allotments so much per cent, for elementary education, so much for secondary education, and so much for higher education at once just as if we were to introduce that cut and dried British constitution which the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baird) very naturally deprecated?
With regard to the Suez Canal, I have read Sir Eldon Gorst's Report, and he very

1121
distinctly says that the General Assembly, in dealing with this matter, displayed an animus against the proposals of the British Government, and that these proposals were rejected, not because they were bad proposals or because they were unfair to Egypt, but owing to an Anti-British animus which unfortunately pervades that Assembly. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to say anything that might embarrass the Foreign Office or the Egyptian Government in the negotiation of this very important matter, but we have a very great stake in Egypt, and we have a very large sum of money invested in the Suez Canal, and I should like to ask whether, since the rejection of this scheme, good both for Egypt and for England, which is admitted by our representative in Egypt to have been due to an animus in the General Assembly, and not to a fair and impartial consideration, it is proposed to fake action with or without the approval of the General Assembly, which will properly safeguard British interests and British investments in the Suez Canal. I repeat I do not ask for any information which is likely to embarrass the Foreign Office, but I do think this is a matter on which all those interested in Egypt and all those interested in British finance would be glad to have some information.
I believe I am at liberty to refer to another matter. I cannot say it has any immediate reference to what has been said with regard to the deplorable assassination of the. Egyptian Prime Minister, but I should like to ask, whichever Department of the Government it concerns, whether it be the Solicitor-General or the Home Office, whether the Government in this country can in any way deal with what seems to me personally a most outrageous matter, and that is the publication in a magazine, sold in immense numbers all over this country, in the "Strand Magazine" for this month, of an article entitled "How we assassinated Plehve: By one of the assassins." I really do not know whether the law touches a matter like this, but it seems to me a deplorable thing that the assassination of a Chief Minister of a friendly Power should be published without any comments and without any regrets that the incident happened, but just like a pleasant tale told for the amusement of the hundreds of thousands who, we are told, read this publication. If there are any means by which such publications could be checked I would
1122
beg the Government to use them. Whether there are such means or not I myself do not know. I see it on every railway station: "How we assassinated Plehve: By one of the assassins." Surely it is not becoming that in the capital of one friendly Power it should be possible for an article of this sort to be published broadcast and advertised, not as if it was a dreadful account of a deplorable occurrence upon which we should sympathise with a friendly Power, but as if it were a commonplace matter like any of those defective stories published and read all over the country. It really seems to me that the unrestrained publication of such matters amounts almost to a palliation of political assassination. I am sure it was not meant in that way, but I do hope, if there is any method of restraining such activity on the part of purveyors of such literature to the public, that such measures will be adopted. I feel this more particularly because only to-day an hon. Member opposite asked whether steps would be taken to urge the Russian Government not to interfere with the internal autonomy of Finland. No Member could have greater sympathy with Finland than one who, like myself, has spent some rime in that hospitable country, and who has the warmest feelings of affection for its inhabitants, but interference of that sort rouses feelings of resentment, and probably leads to exactly the opposite effect those who make the representation desire. It is a most regrettable circumstance that this interference should take place. The Imperial Russian Government has never interfered with our relations between the Houses of Parliament or with Irish Home Rule or in any other delicate domestic question. We should bitterly resent any such interference, and so do they. Their feelings are just as acute as ours. The publication of such an article cannot but exercise a most unfortunate effect. We may say this is merely a magazine read for pleasure, to be tossed away when done with, but in Russia it bears rather a different complexion. It is said: "Here is an ordinary English publication, containing a cruel account of the death of one of our Ministers, sold as a holiday treatise to amuse Englishmen on their journeys backwards and forwards to London and the suburbs and about the country." I have lived in Russia, and know something about the feelings of the Russian people, and I repeat that it is a deplorable thing that such an article

1123
should be published, and I hope that the Department concerned will endeavour to take such action, if any, as can be taken to prevent such publications in future.
Sir H. CRAIK: It is somewhat of a satire upon the proceedings of this House that for several hours we should have had crowded benches to listen to a comparatively small scandal regarding a particular election, and that now, when we are engaged in a discussion concerning matters of interest to the whole civilised world, there should only be one or two Members present and it should be difficult to carry on the discussion. I cannot help thinking, if Members were to reflect upon the absurdity of the position, that they would feel somewhat ashamed of the apathy shown by the House with regard to this question. The hon. Member for the Tyneside Division made what, in many respects, was a violent attack upon our administration in Egypt, and upon the feeling of the English nation towards native claims to self-government. He has not seen fit to remain to listen to the arguments that may be passed upon his speech. The hon. Member had certain fads which he thought it his duty to air, and he advanced certain sentimentalities which belonged to the party he represents and which they desire to put forward. But the calm consideration of the question, the calm weighing of the vastly important issues that rest on the action of this House with regard to Egypt, he was content to set aside for some party purpose. But there were certain points in the hon. Member's speech which were rather interesting and amusing. He told us that we must not attack—that we must not do anything so wicked as to attack a Liberal Government, because, if we did do so, it would at once give fatal lessons to those who might attack British rule in any part of the world. Until we learnt to speak in language of hushed and absolute respect of the Front Bench opposite, we were setting a dangerous example to Oriental nations all over the world. Does the hon. Member really seriously advance this as a contribution to the discussion of the affairs of this Empire? Does he really think that our party struggles in this House are to be regulated because our Soudanese dependents or Egyptian fellaheen may possibly read an account of these Debates and may think that they are entitled to resist the Government
1124
which is the subject of attacks made in this House?
The hon. Member made one serious admission, of which I take note. It is one which we may perhaps be able to recall, not when it suits him, but when the particular circumstances of the moment seem to make that admission less convenient than it is now. He told us he had never seriously put forward a proposal that there should be popular or free government in Egypt, or in any other similar dependency on the model of our Colonies elsewhere. That is a very important admission. I think I have heard the hon. Member and those who act with him in this House speak in a different sense on several occasions. I think, too, I have heard them appealing to the sentiments of those concerned in popular government here, and advancing precisely similar claims for the Oriental inhabitants of those countries. But he has now admitted that he does not put it forward on his own part, and he thinks it is not possible for any sensible person to put it forward now. He speaks in dread of the danger which has become visible to himself and those who act with him—the imminent danger now present all over the civilised world; and he speaks in somewhat bated tones. He is not ready to put forward now a scheme for popular government; he only tells us to educate them as far as possible. He says: "Concede as much as you can, and try and prepare the way for some system of popular government which, perhaps, will come sooner or later." Yes, but what is the hindrance to the advances which we are making? What is the difficulty we are finding in loosening the reins of our administration in Egypt? It is precisely the attack made by the hon. Member and those who act with him; it is their constant stirrings up of discontent, and the encouragement given to agitators in Egypt—agitators who do not represent anything like a tithe of the population of Egypt, and who are repudiated by the more serious and sound Nationalists themselves. The title "Nationalist" is too proud a one to be absorbed entirely by these wretched agitators who are doing their best to bring mischief and trouble to their country. I say that those who know Egypt know that the wisest, the most sane, the most prudent among Egyptians, who have really patriotic feelings for their country, are those who speak in terms of condemnation of that little band of agitators for whom the hon. Member for the

1125
Tyneside Division is concerned. What is the remedy he gave us? It is elementary education. I have given a good deal of my life to the work of elementary education, and I am not, therefore, likely to depreciate the value of it, but really after all we ought to use these blessed words with a certain sense of proportion. Elementary education is in everybodys mouth, morning, noon and night. We talk far too much about it. We theorize about it. We say that the salvation of every nation is to come from it. But does the hon. Member seriously say that to Oriental nations there is any magic in this blessed system of elementary education, and that it is the be-all and end-all of everything?
Mr. ROBERTSON: I never suggested that it was the be-all or end-all
Sir H. CRAIK: The hon. Member certainly said it would help them if they were given elementary education.
Mr. ROBERTSON: I said that was the minimum of what was necessary.
Sir H. CRAIK: I think we had better leave elementary education out of the question. The fellaheen of Egypt do not want it. Let us have some other means of raising Egypt than by bringing in this constant talk of elementary education. We are sick of it. They are not fit for it. You may try to introduce it by artificial means in Egypt, but you will not get very far with it, and it will not help you if you do. We must remember that we are dealing with a race differently constituted from our own, a race that has its own beliefs and traditions, a race of which religion is the very centre of its life. The hon. Member gives us this one indication of a possible means by which we may bring about regeneration. It is a means as to which anyone who knows Egypt as I presume the hon. Member knows it and as I know it from having associated closely with those who are connected with educational work there, will not be sanguine. The Government of Egypt are doing an immense deal of work for education. I am not quite sure that they are not doing more than is called for in all the circumstances. I am not sure that they are not trying to introduce Western and European methods rather too quickly, but I am glad to see that they are energetic, and I recognise that they are making strides forward. I am not quite sure, with all respect for their activity and industry, that
1126
they are not carrying it much too far and introducing much too drastic Western methods. The hon. Gentleman says this is to be a great means of regeneration, but in saying that is he not guilty of that very sentimentalism as to which our wholesome mentor gave us some advice the other day?
The hon. Member objected to the speech of the late President of the United States. That may have been diplomatically wise or not; that is not my business to judge; but I think that, in common with a great mass of our countrymen, we valued that advice as coming from a man of sound judgment, wide experience, and of bold habits of thought. We were none the worse for it, and among other things he said—and there was nothing I admired more or which came with greater force—was that of all the reeds you can trust to for a righteous government sentimentality was the worst, and all this talk of regenerating native people by methods which have sprung up amongst us and by our tricks and aims of elementary education has vice of sentimentality into which the hon. Member will forgive me for saying he has fallen. The hon. Member speaks of encouraging the national principle in Egypt and of educating the people to take part in their own government. Has he ever asked himself what the national principle in Egypt is? Has he ever tried to analyse what the Egyptian race really consists of? Really to him, as to an immense number of those who have studied Egypt, it is one of the most difficult problems to say what the nationality of the Egyptian is or whether he has any nationality at all. It is a mixed race of the most perplexing and difficult kind. You may advance one section of it, but you will only the more discourage and dismay another section, and one of the great difficulties, one of the most perplexing problems anybody ever called to the administration of Egypt has to deal with is simply this, that you have to control not one nation, but strange congeries of races mixed together with extraordinary blend and very often divided from one another by the most bitter hatred, dislike, and suspicion. If you give one section of the Egyptians supremacy how will you end? Will you not rather separate and disgust a large part of the nation which looks upon that section with distrust? The hon. Member speaks of the administration of the Soudan as if that was precisely of a piece with

1127
the administration of Egypt, as if it could be regulated by the same considerations, as if in fact it rested upon the same constitutional basis at all.
Mr. ROBERTSON: Is the hon. Member referring to me?
Sir H. CRAIK: Yes.
Mr. ROBERTSON: I made no remarks about the Soudan at all.
Sir H. CRAIK: Yes, I think in one reference in regard to the usages of the Soudan the hon. Member did speak about recognising Egyptian equality. I think the hon. Member used those words. But the real fact is that the Soudan and the Soudanese are a race absolutely separate and divided from the Egyptian.
Mr. ROBERTSON: Hear, hear!
Sir H. CRAIK: There is but the slenderest bond of connection; there is no race that the Soudanese dislike more to have set over them than the Egyptian. Certainly, though I speak in general terms, I do so with good authority when I say that it has been found impossible to place any Egyptian officer in command of Soudanese regiments, and that the Soudanese will not act under the command of the Egyptian commander, and if the latter does in certain cases happen to be placed in that position he has to be supplemented by a European officer to maintain his authority and conciliate the obedience of the Soudanese troops. In the Soudan we are associated not merely as advisers, but are in co-dominion with Egypt and we have equal authority. If we left that authority entirely to Egypt, if we fostered this nationalism in Egypt and then handed over the administration of the Soudan to this Nationalist Government, even if you could have it established, the result would be an immediate rebellion among the Soudanese, the appearance of another Mullah, and the breaking off of the Soudan altogether. These are questions which have to be considered and carefully weighed before you commit yourself on the question of assigning complete independence to any Nationalist Government. The Nationalist Government would probably stir up ten times more bitter and enduring enmity than any you could bring about by withdrawing to-morrow from Egypt yourself. The hon. Member further spoke, as I understood him—he will correct me if I am wrong—with some contempt of cer-
1128
tain usages which were intended to maintain European prestige. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Baird) deprecated the abandonment of a certain usage in the Soudan, which everyone is familiar with, of a native dismounting to salute a British official. No one who has lived in the Soudan will for a moment deny that that is a necessity for preserving our prestige. If it has been given up I join with the hon. Member for Rugby in deprecating any such senseless folly as that would involve. If I know anything of those responsible for the administration of the Soudan itself, I am convinced that it has been carried out against a great deal of advice given on the snot. Does the hon. Member know the conditions under which life is spent in the Soudan? I have had occasion to know it. The work is carried out there under harder conditions than in any part of the world. You send a single British official not to be in contact with a single white face for perhaps ten or twelve months, separated from the nearest white face by a distance of 300 or 350 miles. They often have to build their own houses, to make any sanitary arrangements they can, to cater for themselves the best way they can, and they have to face malaria and disease of the worst, sort. They have to visit fever camps, to stop slave raiding, and to rectify boundaries, and young men under thirty years of age have to administer regions as large as the whole of Wales absolutely single-handed, with the help of a few native troops. What would their life be worth, and how long would the beneficent work of sanitation or visiting fever camps, of carrying out some sort of regularity in administration, of trying to stop the evils of slave raiding, be carried on if it was not for the prestige which attaches to a single European officer in the midst of a vast horde of natives? Are you lightly going to cast away any usage which increases the prestige, the dignity, and the safety of these officials? We cannot suppose that they are affected in the same way as we are affected. To us such a ceremony as returning a salute means absolutely nothing. We treat it as a trifle. But do not think that it is a trifle to the Oriental mind. Abandon it, and the Oriental thinks that you are afraid of him, and that you wish him to show no respect. There is a very small boundary in Oriental minds between lack of respect and the advancement of dangerous resistance to your power.

1129
I may adduce one instance of the dangers that this lack of outward respect may bring which has come to my knowledge in London itself. I was told the other day by a leading Indian official that he is constantly met, after leaving the India Office, by two or three native students, who salute him in a method which is not recognised here, but which is known to anyone familiar with India as a sign of insolence. I asked this official whether he did not think it was his duty to give notice to Scotland Yard, but he said it would raise difficulties which he did not wish to raise. Let the Government know, and it ought to be known, that even as near as the very threshold of our own pubic offices there are men who are guilty of discourtesy which means much more than a discourtesy, which means an absolute defiance and insulting of your authority. Such defiance is a contagion which quickly spreads throughout Egypt. We may disregard it and smile at it here, but it is no smiling matter to those of our brothers and sons who have to carry out the administration of Egypt under great hardships, and who know by experience that it is not by sentiment, it is not by encouraging agitation, and angry criticism and an ambition which would place the Egypt nation on a level with modern Western European States that you can maintain your authority in Egypt, and with it the duty that you owe to yourselves, to your own name, to Egypt, and to the civilised world. I trust that the Secretary for Foreign Affairs will be able to give us some assurance that he is prepared to deal firmly, drastically, and severely with agitation wherever it comes from, and that he is not prepared to allow sentimentality, that most independable reed, to be the guide to British administration in Egypt.
Mr. G. A LLOYD: I do not propose to add very much in the way of condemnation of the very unhappy experiment which this Government has made in Egypt, whereby they have, to a very large extent, undermined the patient work of the Egyptian Civil Service for the last twenty years or more. I think it is sufficiently deplorable and sufficiently humiliating to this country that our failures there should have been so conspicuous as to attract the attention and compel the candid, if just, utterance of the Statesman who has lately been visiting us. However glad we may be to have his criticisms, yet I think everyone must have felt that those criticisms were
1130
to a large extent unpleasant to hear from outside. However it may be, it still remains that he saw in three or four weeks' stay in Egypt what it has taken three or four years for the present Government to understand. Everyone knows how it was that we came into Egypt; everyone knows why we stayed there, everyone understands why it was that we cheerfully took up the task of reorganising the finances and the administration which had been dictated under Oriental rules for us, and this for nearly a quarter of a century we, in conjunction with other Powers, have successfully performed. The only justification, it was said the other day by Mr. Roosevelt, for our presence is that we should do better than this Power which we took it over from. We took it over from an Oriental Power which completely failed in its Government of the people, which reduced the finances to chaos and weakened the people and the country to breaking point. It has been reserved for this Government, the first European Government of Egypt, to fail completely in the task of maintaining order, and the moment that a Government does fail in maintaining order and in carrying on the administration which has been successfully inaugurated and maintained for so long we have no better case for remaining in Egypt than the Oriental Government from whom we inherited it. Doubtless we shall hear some brave words from the Foreign Secretary in regard to the experiment which has been made in Egypt. We shall hear, perhaps, that he and his Government have just found out that the hopes which they had entertained for the self-government of Egypt have been brought to nought by the attitude of the Nationalist party. I hope we may hear—I and am confident that we shall hear, too—I that a change in the attitude of the Government must take place in consequence. But the point is that nothing this Government can do now, however much we should I desire that they should change their attitude in Egypt, can completely obliterate the attitude of the last few years. The Government can never return to the old I steady policy of governing for the best good of the people, though not necessarily according to the people's will as before their failure and before their vacillating policy started. How can they expect the Legislative Council in Egypt to really understand in future that they have changed their policy? They have listened to the Legislative Council, and encouraged them, and it is too much to expect people

1131
who are without political sense—the Council is too young for that—to understand immediately such a complete change of policy as that which we hope may take place in Egypt. We cannot in Eastern policy blow hot and cold. To be weak is to fail as much in Egypt as in India, as much in one part of the world as another, but more particularly is weakness among Orientals completely misunderstood. That is the lesson which we hope, with all respect, the Government will take to heart. We had before they came into office a statesman who made very clear his policy and carried it out unflinchingly for a great number of years. There was no reason, so far as anyone could possibly see, to suppose that the Government would change to another attitude. The mere argument that if they were to carry on the status quo was to drift into something like annexation, never seemed to me to have any sense in it. We could have carried on the same government, increasing the self-government of the country in exactly such measure as the people seemed fit for it with the old policy better than with the new. The unfortunate thing is that the present Government, who are called Liberals, and would wish, no doubt, to grant self-government and introduce Liberal institutions into Egypt, have themselves by their own action put off self-government in Egypt almost indefinitely. There is only one satisfactory point with regard to this failure, and that is, that perhaps the Nationalist in Egypt may at last learn that by mere agitation it is impossible to get rid of British rule in that country, and that by the mere striking down of partisans or others, against whom they have a grudge, they cannot shake the intentions of the Government to go on with the work they have carried out for a quarter of a century in Egypt. If this is the lesson they have learned from the Government's failure and its inexplicable weakness during the last three or four years, I shall be glad that they have failed, and that the lesson has been learned once and for all by the Nationalist party.
9.0 P.M.
Mr. GRETTON: I do not propose to deal with what was said in regard to our Egyptian policy by the ex-President of the United States. Mr. Roosevelt spoke in the Guildhall and made an important speech, which has attracted universal attention throughout the world, and I venture to
1132
suggest to the Foreign Secretary that Mr. Roosevelt should be acquitted of the accusations which have been made against him during the course of this Debate. I cannot believe that Mr. Roosevelt made his speech without first communicating its substance to the Foreign Office, and giving the Government an opportunity of objecting to anything which they might find embarrassing. If he did so communicate with the Government, I venture respectfully to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, after the speeches made to-night, he owes it to Mr. Roosevelt, to the Government, and to the country to inform the House of the fact. Everyone who has either officially or unofficially an intimate connection with Egypt will absolutely agree, whatever their opinions may be, that the state of that country has most seriously deteriorated in recent years. In fact everybody agrees that the cause of that deterioration is to be found in the way the Government have conducted their administration. There has been a relaxation of authority, and a feeling seems to have arisen that our Government are no longer determined to support their own people who are doing the work of the Government, and they are willing to listen to the requests of certain agitators against those gentlemen. Nothing can be more fatal in bringing the law into disrepute. Those who live quietly at home, engaged in business, or in the politics of this country, cannot possibly realise what it is to try to deal with people who are uncivilised according to the methods of Western civilisation. It is impossible to apply to people in that state those theories of government and those shibboleths which carry weight in this country because we have been accustomed to those ideas. That is undoubtedly the cause of all the difficulties which the Government have created for themselves in Egypt. They have taken to Egypt their ideas of Liberal Government, as understood in this country, and they have not resisted the clamour of the agitators and the Press. To start with the assumption that their clamour represents the mind of the Egyptian people must inevitably lead to disaster. Everyone who knows Egypt agrees that we are confronted with a serious situation. It is not too late yet to act, but if action should

1133
be too long delayed it must inevitably lead to such a disturbance of the public mind, and probably such an amount of religious excitement, as will result in an explosion which can only be subdued in one way, by bloodshed. Anyone who knows the Soudan knows that the people there are a wild people. They have been for centuries accustomed to bloodshed, war, raids, and vendettas, and all these are things which it is the business of a civilised Government to suppress.
I need not refer to any particular incident more than to say that everyone acquainted with the Soudan knows that not very long ago an outbreak which happened and which was dealt with with very little trouble showed when it came to be investigated that its ramifications extended in all directions and even to Government offices in Khartoum. You have exactly the same thing in Egypt. Directly you have any weakness on the part of the Government you have ramifications of a revolutionary movement extending in every direction even in the highest quarters. Perhaps not many Members in the House at the present moment realise that Egypt is one of the great centres of the Moslem faith. There are great religious schools in Cairo and elsewhere in Egypt to which students come from very distant parts of Africa and other places in order to be instructed in the principles and tenets of the Mahomedan faith. Egypt is peculiarly adapted to become the centre of a religious fanaticism. We have got to face the religious question in Egypt. Of 12,000,000 of inhabitants some 10,000,000 are Mahomedans. The question requires to be dealt with most cautiously and carefully. The faith of Mahomed may easily be involved in the political question and become the chief factor. We do not want to interfere with that faith, but what is necessary to be known in Egypt is that the British representative is to have the last word in everything that is vitally affecting Egypt itself, and that his word in the last resort is law and carries with it the whole force and authority of the British Government and the British people. Once that idea is established in Egypt the difficulties become comparatively trifling and are well within the management of the many able administrators whom we have in the country. The Government, in order to deal with this question, must be willing
1134
to support a strong man as adviser to the Egyptian Government, and must trust the man on the spot. I do not attach the enormous importance which some of the speakers have done to the late lamentable murder of the Egyptian Prime Minister. Its significance consists in the fact that it is a symptom of what is going on, it is not the only incident, but it is the culmination of a long series of events. The Government are now going to deal with the murderer on their own account. The crisis cannot be long delayed. The Government will have to face the situation. It is their own weakness and the idea, which they have allowed to spread throughout Egypt, that they are lax in their purpose and determination which have contributed to the present state of chaos. If the Government do not take their courage in their hands and defy the idealism of a section of their own supporters they will have a great responsibility to their own country, to Egypt, and to the people of this country; and they will have a great responsibility to answer for when the history of these times comes to be written.
Mr. E. WOOD: I am quite sure that I shall be voicing the sentiments of all who have spoken or will speak from these benches if I hope that no word of ours will further complicate the extremely difficult position of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on this question of Egypt. Anybody who knows Egypt must recognise that the position at this moment is as serious as it can be. I should like, with the indulgence of the House, to ask attention to one or two of the considerations which I think must govern our dealings in Egypt to-day, as they always govern the question of the white nation when brought into contact with a nation of any other colour. I only do so because I think from what we have heard this evening that these considerations are in some danger in certain quarters of being lost sight of. Earlier in the course of this Debate we have heard that the same arguments that were used for the purpose of advocating severe measures, if they be so called, in Egypt, on the score of the Prime Minister being murdered there, would be equally applicable to the United States on an occasion like the murder of President McKinley, or to Russia on the occasion of the murder of the Russian Czar. I venture to think that between those two cases there is no connection whatever, and

1135
for this reason, that the whole civilised world would regard the murder of the President of the United States or the murder of the Czar of Russia as an isolated act, while the gravity of the murder of the Prime Minister of Egypt is that the murder is merely one sympton of a general unrest in that country. Therein lies its gravity. One often hears that when a white nation is dealing with a black nation it is practically governing by force. I think that even in those conditions government remains what it always is—government by consent. Anybody who has lived or who has passed his time among those conditions among black people must recognise that government in that case also is government by consent, because unless you can keep the consent—by which I mean that the black people are prepared to be governed for their own good by the white people—your government is not worth a day's purchase.
If that is true, as I think it is, surely the argument that under all conditions and at all times all men are equal is one of the most flimsy and one of the most academic that could possibly be brought forward. It is no more true to say that all men are equal at all times than to say that all men have red hair or false teeth. And while we on our side most emphatically disclaim any attempt permanently to hold down black races, we do at the same time insist that if our position in those countries is to be maintained it can only be, as it is at the present moment, by maintaining the position and fulfilling the functions of a superior race. I think that one of the hon. Members who spoke earlier in this Debate said or inferred that all foreign nations, or, rather, the subordinate nations, would learn their vituperation and would learn what way to treat their Government by considering what way we treat our Government in this country, and I think he went so far as to say that all the arts of vituperation could be learned from either the Tory Press or the Tory Opposition. I think that after this evening's Debate those pupils will gradually realise that they can learn the lesson of vituperation from some hon. Members opposite even better than they can from the Tory Press or those who sit with me upon these benches. If I may, without any disrespect to those who, perhaps, on this point differ from me, I would ask them to consider why it is that white men who
1136
leave this country to settle in lands where the black population is predominant at once become imbued with the fact that they must at all costs uphold the prestige of the white governing race? It is because their fates, the fortunes of their wives and children, are at the mercy of the black population, which can only be maintained in its proper place by strong insistence on order. It is the duty of all Governments, so long as they are in the right, as a first step to maintain order. I have observed the great suspicion with which some hon. Members regard the use of the word "prestige." I am, I confess, set to wondering whether they and I mean the same thing when we use the word "prestige." I think in the minds of some hon. Members there is the idea, when that word is used, that it means right or wrong—the white man will; be upheld and supported and that the black man will be downtrodden, and will have extremely scanty opportunities of justice. That is not my meaning when I use the word "prestige." My meaning is that the subordinate race should by all I means be fairly treated, and that there: should be no sense of injustice. But given that condition, surely you are in a position to insist that the black races must and can only be treated as subordinate to the race charged with the government of their country for the time being. The time may come, and I hope it will come, when those races with whose government we are now charged may be in a position to assume the control of their own fortunes, and may be able to work out their own destiny. When that time is reached, I am sure that all parties in this country will be prepared to assist them when they make the attempt. To encourage them to make that attempt, however, when they are in the condition of political children is not only to court disaster to those engaged in the government of the country, but it is to court disaster in one of the most valued possessions of this country, and bring into most serious jeopardy the white, races wherever they are in contact with the black races. It is for these reasons that we on this side feel compelled to invite the attention of the foreign Secretary to these matters. We have no wish to complicate the position, or say one word to add to the difficulties, but we do hope that before the end of the evening the Secretary for Foreign Affairs will be able to give us some assurance on this question, in regard to which we feel the greatest anxiety.
Mr. LINCOLN: Nobody on these benches has risen to protest against the speeches made by hon. Members opposite; and they should not pass unchallenged. Hon. Members opposite hint vaguely at something, which they do not define, that His Majesty's Government have done during the past two or three years, and which has created a certain situation in Egypt which, also, hon. Members do not define. Then they go on to say that the Government, finding themselves in this position, have only themselves to thank. They have not submitted a single fact or one reason to show what action of the Government has created this situation and the difficulty to which they refer. They go on to advise the Government to adopt certain repressive proceedings to remedy this situation, and to uphold the prestige of the white man. I submit that if the white man cannot rule races which we call inferior races save by resort to arms, then his prestige is already gone. I speak, I confess, as an Oriental myself. I have Oriental blood in my veins, and I cannot but laugh at the doctrine of hon. Members opposite that Orientals must receive treatment in some way different from that given to other peoples. May I be permitted to point out that one of the greatest men who ever lived, Jesus Christ, was an Oriental, and did He differentiate His treatment when dealing with Orientals? No. He had one method of dealing with everybody, with the whole human race— the method of human sympathy, love, and appreciation of difficulties. That is the only sure way of dealing with individuals and dealing with nations, whether we are in Egypt, whether we are in South America, or whether we are in China. What are the difficulties to which hon. Members opposite have referred in very vague terms indeed? Those difficulties have not been created by this or any other Government. They are the natural outcome of our work in Egypt. The people in that country have become educated under British rule, they have more opportunity of developing their faculties, they have more freedom to make the best of their opportunities, and by reason of these very circumstances the Government are placed in difficulty. The situation in Egypt is not the creation of the Government; it is the natural outcome of British occupation.
Why do hon. Members blame the Government? Surely if hon. Members are, as they always profess to be, such exceptionally
1138
good patriots, they would not add to the difficulties of the Foreign Secretary, and they would not add to the complications of an intricate situation, which is frought with the greatest danger. This Egyptian question, whatever it is, is not an isolated one, and it must be treated from the point of view of international politics. One hon. Member advised drastic steps to preserve order. We have already one Eastern question, and hon. Members opposite would like us to add another, even more complicated and dangerous than the present one which claims the attention of the Powers. The situation in Egypt, of course, is somewhat different. At the beginning of the nineteenth century Great Britain had considerable difficulty in Canada. Those difficulties were solved by the application of that human sympathy to which I have just referred. It was not by repression, but by appreciation of the difficulties of the case, by extending to the French Canadians the sympathies of British statesmen, and it was by the application of those very same principles that we solved the great problem in South Africa. I admit that in Egypt the situation is somewhat different, for the Egyptian people are not satisfied, and would not be satisfied with responsible government if it were granted to them to-morrow. They want Great Britain, as they say, to clear out of Egypt. They did not want responsible government; they do not want to have any foreign occupation. I speak only for myself, but I hope that for the present the Foreign Secretary will make it clear, that although we are willing to grant them step by step more of representative government as we educate and fit them for it, that they must not expect that we shall leave Egypt. If we were to leave and withdraw our troops Egypt would fall an easy prey to another foreign Power. We have to consider the Egyptian question from the wider aspect of the Imperial question. If the agitators, or let us call them leaders, are not satisfied there is the vast bulk of the people to be taken into consideration. I am fully convinced that we can never, either in Egypt or anywhere else, satisfy the agitator, who will never be content and can never be satisfied. If we go on the path of reform, granting to the people step by step more freedom, bringing them more largely into the government of the country, then, whether the agitators are satisfied or not, I am fully convinced from the history of the world that we shall again have the

1139
sympathies of the people and that we shall be able, if not to solve, at any rate to approach to the solution of the Egyptian question.
I hope that His Majesty's Government will do nothing to what is called on the opposite side uphold the prestige of Great Britain and the white man. The prestige of nobody can be upheld by resort to force of arms. If that is once adopted then our prestige is gone. Our prestige can only be upheld by the application of the elementary methods as to the dealings of I human beings and nations with one another. I admit that the situation is very complicated, and as a humble Member of the Liberal party I desire to compliment the Foreign Secretary and to express my admiration for the great skill with which he has handled this question during the past two or three years. He knows many things about the Egyptian question which we can only guess from what appears in the newspapers, as to international complications, and so forth. We have to remember that it is impossible to deal with this question simply from the geographical point of view of Egypt. The question is only one of the many questions that are facing the Foreign Secretary, and I trust that he will be able to tell us that the Government will be in a position to deal with the serious situation, not on the lines hinted at by hon. Members opposite, but according to the great and noble traditions of Liberal principles.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not want to stand in the way of the Foreign Secretary, because I usually prefer following to preceding those whom I possibly may have to differ from, though I trust that on this particular occasion there may be no difference of opinion between the right, hon. Gentleman and myself. I am sure, by getting up now I shall give him the opportunity of hearing anything I may say, if there be anything, to which he might wish to take exception as a Minister of this House, responsible for one of the most important, one of the most critical, and one of the most difficult tasks which could by any possibility fall to the lot of a British Minister. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyneside Division (Mr. J. M. Robertson) talked as if the recent speech of Mr. Roosevelt was an insult to the policy of this country, and in particular to the policy of the party of which the hon. Gentleman is himself a Member. I was an auditor of that speech,
1140
and I hope I am not less sensitive than others, but I hope, though a party politician, I can put myself in the position of those who differ from me and look at myself with their eyes. Certainly I never heard a speech which dealt undoubtedly, I admit, with a British problem, and in that sense no doubt compelled the speaker dealing with it to skate over thin ice—I never heard a speech which less deserved the charge of being an insult to the country whose hospitality he was for the moment enjoying. Sir, we do not always have justice done to us by foreign critics or by critics belonging to other nations. I do not like to use the word "foreign" in this connection. We do not always have justice from critics belonging to other nations, we do not always have our actions looked upon with a sympathetic eye and with a true knowledge of the problems that have to be faced by the officials of a country like our own when they are dealing with races very differently situated from our own. That knowledge and that sympathy so often wanting in the spirit of critics that come from abroad, was conspicuous by its presence in the speech of Mr. Roosevelt, and no man acquainted with the difficulties with which we have got to deal, whether it be in Egypt, or other parts of Africa, or whether it be in India, no man acquainted with those difficulties could ask from anybody, not himself a member of our own nation, a kindlier, more appreciative and more sympathetic treatment of the problem with which we have had long to deal and of which America in her turn is now feeling the pinch.
Mr. Roosevelt said nothing, in my judgment, at all eevnts, to which the most sensitive Briton could take the smallest objection. He realised what I do not think the Member for the Tyneside Division or the Member for Darlington realised: that you cannot treat the problems with which we have to deal in Egypt or elsewhere as if they were problems affecting the Isle of Wight, or the West Riding of Yorkshire. They belong to a wholly different category. And when the hon. Member says, speaking to us, "What right have you to take up these airs of superiority with regard to people whom you choose to call Oriental," I take up no attitude of superiority. But I ask those two hon. Members, and everybody else who has even the most superficial knowledge of history, if they will really try to look in the face the facts with which a British statesman has to deal

1141
when he is put in a position of supremacy over great races like the inhabitants of Egypt and countries in the East. We know the civilisation of Egypt better than we know the civilisation of any other country. We know it further back; we know it more intimately; we know more about it. It goes far beyond the petty span of the history of our own race, which is lost in the prehistoric period at a time when the Egyptian civilisation had already passed its prime. Look at all the Oriental countries. Do not talk about superiority or inferiority.
Look at the facts of the case. Western nations as soon as they emerge into history show the beginnings of those capacities for self-government, not always associated, I grant, with all the virtues or all the merits, but still having merits of their own. Nations of the West have shown those virtues from their beginning, from the very tribal origin of which we have first knowledge. You may look through the whole history of the Orientals in what is called, broadly speaking, the East, and you never find traces of self-government. All their great centuries—and they have been very great—have been passed under despotisms, under absolute government. All their great contributions to civilisation — and they have been great— have been made under that form of government. Conqueror has succeeded conqueror; one domination has followed another; but never in all the revolutions of fate and fortune have you seen one of those nations of its own motion establish what we, from a Western point of view, call self-government. That is the fact. It is not a question of superiority or inferiority. I suppose a true Eastern sage would say that the working government which we have taken upon ourselves in Egypt and elsewhere is not a work worthy of a philosopher—that it is the dirty work, the inferior work, of carrying on the necessary labour. Do let us put this question of superiority and inferiority out of our minds. It is wholly out of place.
Mr. ROBERTSON: Who raised it?
Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman himself raised it.
Mr. ROBERTSON: It was in speeches from that side of the House.
Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman— I think I am not misrepresenting him—in answering the very able speech made by
1142
an hon. Friend behind me, accused him of asserting that Orientals were inferior. He almost objected to the use of the word "Oriental," and he objected to my hon. Friend describing them as inferior, because in the opinion of my hon. Friend and of myself it is perfectly absurd to suppose that you can inoculate these races with the particular spirit of self-government which is familiar to Western nations, and, of all Western nations, most familiar to ourselves. You cannot do it. My hon. Friend pointed that out, and what did the hon. Member for the Tyneside Division say? He said, "This is your air of insolent and lawless superiority." I am not quoting his words; but that is the substance. "That is the way you talk of Orientals, and that is the feeling which produces all the bitterness and all the heart burnings which are giving trouble now in the Near East, and now in the Far East."
Mr. ROBERTSON: I surely did not say that that is the source of all the trouble in the Near East and in the Far East.
Mr. BALFOUR: I withdraw the word "all." The hon. Gentleman may choose his own fraction. I will say three-fourths of the trouble. If the hon. Member thinks I that that variation of my argument is of any value to himself, he is at liberty to make the most of it. The point I am trying to press on the House is this. We have got, as I think, to deal with nations who, as far as our knowledge goes, have always been governed in the manner we call absolute, and have never had what we are accustomed to call free institutions or self-government. They have never had it; they have never, apparently, desired it. There is no evidence that until we indoctrinated them with the political philosophy, not always very profound, which has been in fashion in this country, they ever had the desire or the ambition which the hon. Member opposite very naturally and properly wishes that they should have. The time may come when they will adopt, not merely our superficial philosophy, but our genuine practice. But after 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000 years of known history, and unlimited centuries of unknown history have been passed by these nations under a different system, it is not thirty years of British rule which is going to alter the character bred into them by this immemorial tradition.
If that be true, is it or is it not a good thing for these great nations—I admit their

1143
greatness—that this absolute Government should be exercised by us? I think it is a good thing. I think experience shows that they have got under it a far better government than in the whole history of the world they ever had before, and which not only is a benefit to them, but is undoubtedly a benefit to the whole of the civilised West. That has been pointed out by my hon. Friend and has not been denied by the Foreign Secretary. We are in Egypt not merely for the sake of the Egyptians, though we are there for their sake; we are there also for the sake of Europe at large. If this be the task which, as it has been thrown upon us we ought to take up, as it is a task which, at all events to the best of our knowledge and belief, is of infinite benefit to the races with whom we deal, what are the special difficulties attaching to it? The difficulties are very great and inevitable. There, are those who talk as if the test of the excellence of our government were the gratitude which it elicited. A great reform in these countries, probably a great reform in any country, does elicit usually, not always, gratitude at the moment of its inception. Certainly if you had consulted the fellaheen immediately following the period when we relieved them from the abominable treatment to which they were subjected before we went into Egypt, I have no doubt they would have expressed great and genuine gratitude. Generations pass. New men arise. Old memories vanish. Under a policy which casts pain and inconvenience on some members of the community ancient wrongs are forgotten, ancient benefits are forgotten likewise. All that remains are those complaints, sometimes just, most commonly, I believe, unjust, on which the agitator can work when he wishes to raise difficulties in his own interest or in the interests of some, as I think, impossible ideal. But if I am right, and if it is our business to govern, with or without gratitude, with or without the real and genuine memory of all the loss of which we have relieved the population, and no vivid imagination of all the benefits which we have given to them; if that is our duty, how is it to be performed, and how only can it be performed? We send out our very best to these countries. They work and strive, not for very great remuneration, not under very easy or very luxurious circumstances, to carry out what they conceive to be their duty both to the country to which they belong and the populations
1144
which they serve. They carry out that work under difficulties which we sitting here quietly in Parliament can have no conception of. You place a single British official amidst tens of thousands of persons belonging to a different creed, a different race, a different discipline, different conditions of life. These officials can do that work, I believe, better than anybody, if they merely have the sense that they are being supported. If they lose that sense for a moment, rightly or wrongly—sometimes it is wrongly—their whole position is undermined. The base of their supplies, as it were, is cut off. They face a task which might well make anyone's courage fail under the happiest circumstances. They face it under circumstances which are most unhappy. Directly the native populations have that instinctive feeling that those with whom they have got to deal have not behind them the might, the authority, the sympathy, the full and ungrudging support of the country which sent them there, those populations lose all that sense of order which the very basis of their civilisation, just as our officers lose all that sense of power and authority, which is the very basis of everything they can do for the benefit of those among whom they have been sent.
I agree that we must not look at this thing—that we cannot look at this question—entirely from the point of view of the British officials on the spot. They may make mistakes. They may even make serious mistakes. It is perfectly impossible for this House to lay down the proposition, or to accept the principle, that, however gross the mistakes may be, that they, in these circumstances, may be condoned because mistakes made by ruling officials must never be admitted by those on whose support the ruling officials depend. What we ought to do is to sympathetically remember the difficulties under which these people work. The right hon. Gentleman who will follow me will explain exactly the attitude which his Government has taken up in Egypt, and he will, no doubt, deal in detail with the special criticisms passed. I do not mean to touch these special criticisms. I have not the knowledge. I have not the authority. But one thing is certain. Every person, with an intimate knowledge of Egypt, to whom I have spoken, whether he be a recent traveller, a man with a long official experience, or whether he be a man whose business has taken him to Egypt year by year for decade after decade—all these

1145
people have agreed with one voice I that the position in Egypt is now eminently unsatisfactory. They also agree that it is eminently unsatisfactory because the authority of what they frankly say is the dominant race—and as I think ought to remain the dominant race—has been undermined. Whether that is the fault of the Egyptian administration, whether it is the fault of His Majesty's Government, or whether it is due to a somewhat unfortunate concatenation of circumstances over which neither the Government at home nor the Government in Egypt have had adequate control, I do not know, and I do not say. What I do know, what I will say, I is that the situation, if I read it rightly, I calls for prompt and decisive action! Two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the other side have derided the idea that prestige is of any value. Certainly, it is possible that prestige may be presented under the vulgarest guise as representing the crudest insolence of power, and in that shape it neither deserves, nor will it receive, respect from any party or any Member of this House. There is a meaning of the word "prestige" which I beg hon. Gentlemen to consider and to carefully weigh, for without that prestige it is vain for a handful of British officials—endow them how you like, give them all the qualities of character and genius that you can imagine—it is impossible for them to carry out the great task which in Egypt, not we only, but the civilised world have imposed upon them. That is the difficulty which has to be met. I am sure I am not misled by party feeling in this matter. I am quite confident at this moment a feeling has got abroad in Egypt amongst those who are, and who must remain her rulers, that the full magnitude and full character of their task is not thoroughly appreciated by those for whom they work, and that they cannot count with absolute assurance upon that support without which their task would become absolutely impossible. It is in the power, I am sure, and I feel confident, of the Government to put that right. That it is their desire to do so I cannot for a moment doubt. I know well the general view of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I do earnestly beg of them, so far as I can and so far as I may, to use without any tincture of party spirit or desire to secure party advantage, to address themselves to the greatest task that can fall to their lot—the task of seeing that our civilising work in Egypt, carried on as it is by a mere handful of our countrymen, shall not suffer even in the
1146
smallest degree by a feeling, well or ill-deserved, that they are not to have from home that support without which they are helpless indeed.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): Before the right hon. Gentleman opposite rose I had it in mind to make some complaint or some criticism of what seemed to me the partisan and rather petty way in which this Debate had been handled, I will not say by everybody but by some Members upon the other side of the House. I do not think it has reached a high tone on the whole, and I think it consisted of epithets and abstract charges levelled against His Majesty's Government with very little in the speeches to support those charges. But the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I frankly admit, has been in tone all that we could wish, and in substance a most valuable contribution to every thoughtful mind in regard to the problems with which we have to deal. Of his speech I have no word of complaint to make, and with regard to its tone I shall endeavour, as far as I possibly can, while I have to answer some controversial points, to make the tone of my speech respond to that of his. One thing I am glad about with regard to every speech in this Debate is that any attack upon Sir Eldon Gorst has been absent from them. I have seen in one or two organs of public opinion attacks upon Sir Eldon Gorst which were most unfounded, most unjust, and most untrue. If a policy is attacked it is the Government should be attacked; if a policy is approved, and if it appears that the application of that policy has not been successful, then it should be the Government that is attacked in Parliament, and not officials who attempt to carry out that policy.
Parliament will never know at what point the official has stated that some particular step is necessary effectively for the carrying out of the policy and the conception of the Government; and with regard to the position in Egypt at the present moment I would say that if fault is to be found it is with the policy of His Majesty's Government, who had given instructions to Sir Eldon Gorst, and not in regard to the carrying out of the policy. No one could have carried out this or any policy in Egypt with more knowledge and ability and skill than Sir Eldon Gorst.

1147
10.0 p.m.
Before I pass to the question of the government of Egypt, I must deal with one or two points of criticism that have been made upon the speech of Mr. Roosevelt. The hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton) placed an aspect upon the criticism of Mr. Roosevelt's speech which, until he spoke, had not occurred to me. He said he could not have believed that that speech would have been made unless there had been some previous communication of Mr. Roosevelt's views to His Majesty's Government, and that if there had been any such communication it would be unfair to the public to withhold the knowledge of it, from which I infer that the impression produced on him was this: that in his mind and in the mind of others, if Mr. Roosevelt had made that speech without some previous communication of his views to His Majesty's Government, he would have been guilty of an act of grave discourtesy to a country offering him hospitality. If that is the view, based upon the criticism of Mr. Roosevelt's speech, I say frankly he communicated to me his views and his experience during his travels through British territory in Africa. He communicated to me his views with regard to what he had seen in East Africa, Uganda, the Soudan, and in Egypt. I seldom listened to anything with greater pleasure. If I had said that a public statement of his experience, which I knew he wished to make, was in any degree likely to be embarrassing to me, I am quite certain he would have withheld them, but I did not think them in the least likely to be embarrassing to me. I made no suggestion to him whatever that he should not make them public. I heard them repeated at the Guildhall substantially as they were repeated to me, and I listened to that speech with the greatest enjoyment.
First of all I should have thought that to everybody the friendly intention of that speech would be obvious. In the next place, I should have thought that everybody would have felt that it was, taken as a whole, the greatest compliment to the work of one country in the world ever paid by a citizen of another. Of East Africa, Uganda, and the Soudan there has been no mention to-night, though there was mention of them in the speech. Why that part should have been omitted I cannot understand. I knew when I heard the speech there would be some attempts to make use of parts of it for
1148
party purposes, I did not think that that mattered, provided that the substance of the speech was true. And in regard to Egypt itself, what was the substance of this speech I First of all, a statement that we have done the best work which has been done in Egypt in historical memory. In the next place, the opinion expressed that excessive complacency or weakness towards those opposing British occupation in Egypt had endangered that work. In the third place, the statement that we were in Egypt as trustees both for the Egyptian people and for foreign countries who had an interest in Egypt, and that, as trustees, the duty lay upon us of preserving order, and it would be futile for us to remain if we did not do so. In the fourth place, the statement that Egypt would fall into a welter of chaos if not governed from outside, and that we were the people Mr. Roosevelt hoped and believed would undertake that duty. With the exception I should say, not that excessive complacency had endangered, but that it would endanger our work, there is not a single one of those statements which I am not prepared to endorse. As a matter of fact the situation in Egypt has been giving rise to serious consideration. It is not nearly so grave as it has been painted in some of the speeches by hon. Members opposite, and at the present moment there is nothing which need occasion disquiet. Undoubtedly there have been some symptoms which have given rise to anxiety and which have occupied the attention of His Majesty's Government and of the officials who carry out their policy in Egypt. The assassination of the Prime Minister in one sense was an isolated act, but it was a very serious murder. As to where the responsibility should be placed for that act I have nothing to add to Sir Eldon Gorst's annual Report. I think it is quite natural there should be some criticism with regard to the length of time which has elansed in reference to the punishment following a crime of that kind in which the murderer was taken red-handed. There is no reflection to be made whatever upon the judges who had the case in hand. They were bound to investigate the question whether there were others who were responsible for that particular crime, as well as the individual who actually committed it. The ordinary procedure of Egyptian law, which is modelled upon the French code, prescribes certain periods of delay for the appeal and so forth,

1149
and this has been followed as part of the ordinary procedure. It would be quite a mistake to suppose that there has been any delay which has been out of the common or not contemplated as the ordinary procedure of Egyptian law. I do feel that in a case of that kind, when the murderer is caught red-handed and when it is known, as it would be known in the case of a future crime, that the murder has been committed upon an Egyptian official because he was supposed to be carrying out the policy and intentions of the British Government with regard to Egypt, I do think there lies upon us a responsibility to show that, in occupation of Egypt as we are, we shall use our power to show that Egyptian officials who administer Egypt in consultation with us and bound to accept our advice, are to be protected from acts of that kind. I have been in consultation with Sir Eldon Gorst during the last two weeks as to what measures can be taken to secure that in crimes of so grave a nature punishment shall either follow more swiftly by the ordinary course of law, or else we should take it into our own hands as responsible for the protection of those who are ruling Egypt to deal with such offences by the army of occupation. With regard to the responsibility for the crime itself. I have no more to say except that the course of justice has been slow; but the judges have given their sentence, and in the due course of the ordinary law that sentence will be carried out. With regard to the general state of things in Egypt, I think there has been much too little recognition—while the actual state of things as they are now has been painted in much too dark colours —of the progress which has been made since Sir Eldon Gorst went there. The phrase "law and order" has been used on the other side—I think an hon. Member said we have failed completely in the government of Egypt, but that really is a travesty of what has taken place. One of the greatest difficulties in Egypt when Sir Eldon Gorst went there was the condition of things in the Ministry of the Interior and the state of undetected crime that existed in Egypt, especially in the, rural districts. By special methods most carefully devised and most carefully watched in their working, and which have only been in operation a few months, the amount of crime has been reduced, as Sir Eldon Gorst says in his annual report, by 27 per cent. That was one of the first tasks to which
1150
he had to address himself, and that is one of the things in which there has been a marked improvement. The Soudan has been mentioned, but there has been no recognition whatever in the Debate of the exceedingly satisfactory state of things which has obtained there. An hon. Member opposite asked me if some change had been made in the order as to whether natives were to dismount or not. I do not know what the practice has been, and I do not know whether any change has been made in the practice, but I would say this —if any body of officials deserve credit and confidence for the difficulties they have had to deal with, and the way they have overcome them, and the way they have carried on their work, with the most slender means and the public spirit put into their work, it is Sir R. Wingate and those acting with him. As to the point which has been raised by the Mover of the Debate with regard to regulations affecting natives, I am perfectly content to take the judgment of the officials of the Soudan. I would say to the hon. Member who introduced this Debate to-night that I think it is most unfair to bring up a point of that kind which is trivial, but which he says is undermining all authority in the Soudan; it is obviously a matter in which the opinion of the officials in the Soudan is of the greatest importance, and to bring it up without one word of appreciation of what the condition of things is-in the Soudan at the present time and the good work which the officials have done-there is very unfair.
Now I turn to Egypt and our general' policy. We are told that our general policy has undermined all authority in Egypt. I admit that would be a most serious thing if it had happened. I do not think it has happened, but even the impression in any mind that it has happened' is something which needs to be corrected, and is in itself a misfortune. I do not think our policy in Egypt has been rightly responsible for anything of that kind, but I will sketch to the House what it has been. Undoubtedly during the last three years we have been endeavouring in Egypt to make Egyptian Ministers and Egyptian officials more of a factor in the Government of their own country. Ever since we have been there we have been training them in the arts of government, and it is only natural that we should, as time goes on, endeavour to make greater use of them. Lord Cromer himself had taken one step in that direction in the appointment of

1151
Zagloul Pasha. I think it is possible that in his opinion, since he left, we have gone too fast in that direction, but the direction itself is not a novel one, and I do not think in that respect we can be fairly charged as being responsible for undermining authority in Egypt. In the next place, we have endeavoured to build up local government from the bottom by establishing Provincial Councils. Provincial Councils have not been working long, and it is too soon to pronounce whether their success is assured, but I think that was a thoroughly right step to take, and it was one taken with knowledge and skill by Sir Eldon Gorst. I think it right you should, first of all, if you are to train the people in Egypt to a sense of responsibility, begin by dealing with their local and provincial affairs, and I am sure the establishment of the Provincial Councils is not responsible for any disturbance in Egypt. In the third place we have tried to make larger use of the Legislative Council. The Legislative Council and the General Assembly out there are integral parts of the present Constitution, and I think it was right to attempt to make a larger use of them. Questions are sometimes asked in this House on matters of detail. The Foreign Office and the Consul-General in Egypt are responsible for the general policy. They have to see the finances of Egypt are sound, and that the general policy is satisfactory. They have to attend to big things. It is quite impossible for us here to go into small matters of sanitation and the little details of administration, and when questions are asked in this House on those subjects I think it must be obvious that, if the attention of the Foreign Office is to be diverted to those petty details of Egyptian administration, it can only be done at the expense of general policy and large questions such as sound finance. It is perfectly natural to retort to that that it would be only fair that the Legislative Council in Egypt should have the opportunity of asking questions of the Departmental Ministers in Egypt on matters of Departmental administration, and greater use has been made of the Legislative Council in that respect. It is described in Sir Eldon Gorst's Annual Report, and I need not go into it further. I cannot believe that matter is to be laid to our charge as having been responsible for disturbances in Egypt.
1152
But, undoubtedly, the warning I have to give with regard to Egypt is a serious one. We are responsible for the government of Egypt. We carry it on through Egyptian Ministers and through British advisers, and in the long run and in important matters we must be held responsible for the general policy, and the Ministers are therefore bound to take our advice, though there may be varying degrees of responsibility from time to time and in particular questions. That is an anomalous form of government. It is one in which we were placed by force of circumstances, owing to the abnormal nature of the occupation. It is one which involves great difficulty and requires great tact and great practical sense to make it work well. It is impossible that that system should continue to work well if, when there is deference, real or supposed, on the part of Egyptian Ministers towards our advice, it is to be denounced in the Nationalist Press and in some native quarters in Egypt as an offence, entailing upon Ministers violent attacks. Well, if that is to go on, it would make this system of government impossible. In the next place, you cannot make use of the Legislative Council or the General Assembly to improve the government of Egypt if it is to become—as it has lately shown a tendency—the mere instrument of what is called the Nationalist agitation against the British occupation. I say "what is called the Nationalist," because it is a limited class, and not the most responsible class, in Egypt who call themselves Nationalist, not those who know most about the fellaheen, or are most in touch with the natives outside the towns. It is a limited class, and the object, in great part, of that Nationalist agitation is undoubtedly to bring the British occupation of Egypt to an end by making our task there impossible. They do it by abuse of the Anglo-Egyptian officials and by insulting all Egyptians who do not oppose British control, and they do it also by inciting to disorder whenever there is an opportunity. Now the conclusion I draw from that is this. You can make no progress in the development of the government of Egypt through Egyptians as long as that agitation against British occupation continues. I have spoken — not sympathetically enough to please the hon. Member for Tyneside, perhaps—but I have spoken sympathetically about the development of self-government in Egypt on previous occasions. We

1153
have done what I have described in that direction—through Egyptian officials with regard to the Government, through provincial councils, through actual use of the Legislative Council—and if all that we do does not work in the direction of stimulating greater interest on the part of the people in their own Government, and of leading them to criticise the action of the Government on its merits, but is simply going to increase the agitation against the British occupation, we can go no further in that direction. We are trustees in Egypt, in the first place for the natives of Egypt themselves, and nobody can say that that trust has not been discharged on our part with the highest sense of duty and with great success. We are also trustees—because we have no other title to remain in Egypt—of good order and public security there. We are trustees for the interests of Europe as well as for the natives. It is quite true that the task of improving and developing satisfactory government in Egypt is hampered to a considerable extent by the restrictions under which the Egyptian Government, and therefore we ourselves, are placed by the capitulations, which are not suitable to modern government, and are constantly liable to impede improvements and reforms. It is urgently necessary that in the near future these treaty rights with regard to Egypt should by some means or other be brought more into harmony with modern conditions. If we were not in Egypt to-day, and if there was a purely Egyptian Government, that would be its first need, as it would be the need of anybody who took the task of the British Government in hand. Does anybody suppose there will be the faintest chance of improvement in this respect if there is any doubt as to the continuance of the British occupation? The British occupation must continue in Egypt more so now than ever. It is not a question of British interests in Egypt. It is simply this, that we have gone on in Egypt doing more and more good work, year after year, that that good work depends on our stay there, and that we cannot abandon Egypt without disgrace to ourselves.
We could not go and see all the work undone and the agitation against the British occupation of Egypt can have but one result, whichever party is in power, and that is to lead to more assertion of our authority, and our intention to see our work maintained. I cannot talk any more about self-governing institutions in Egypt so long as that agitation against
1154
British occupation continues, and I trust whenever the question of Egypt is discussed the House as a whole will make it clear that the maintenance of good Government and order in Egypt is the first object of the British Government and British Parliament. I have spoken strongly on this point because I think it is essential that there should be no misunderstanding about it. If ever there is misunderstanding it will encourage agitation and undermine the confidence which is essential for the prosperity of the country. But although we have seen signs which have given cause for anxiety I would ask the House to believe that at the present moment there is not that condition of affairs in Egypt which would justify a sudden departure or resort to unusual methods. I quite recognise what uncomfortable symptoms there have been in the last year. I think it is quite possible that those symptoms may lead to further development, but at the present moment even the agitation against the British Government—even the undesirable agitation of which I have spoken in such strong terms—is less evident and less apparent during the last few weeks than the previous few weeks, this is not the moment to decide or announce a new departure or to take drastic steps to show that we mean to assert our authority, but I do think it necessary and desirable to give this warning that the symptoms which we have seen and the agitation against the British occupation, if it is rekindled and continued, will make it necessary for any British Government to make it clear that their first object is to assert their authority and to protect Egyptian Ministers who follow their advice, and that there will be no further progress in Egypt until they put an end to the agitation against British occupation and until the Egyptians—of whom there are plenty, although they have been terrorised by the attacks in the Press and the extreme Nationalist agitators—who would desire to see their country progress under British advice and British care have their views accepted and not denounced by the great majority of their fellow countrymen.
Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN: It is with diffidence that I ask leave to offer some few observations in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, not having had the advantage of hearing the whole of this Debate. I should like to preface what I have to say by at once assuring the right hon. Gentleman that there are some things

1155
that have been said by him which I think the House on all sides, as well as the people in the country generally, will hear with great satisfaction. There are some others which I find it not so perfectly easy to reconcile with the present situation which prevails in Egypt, and which the policy of His Majesty's Government has undoubtedly led to, or under which policy that situation has grown up. In the first category I would mention that I was delighted to hear the outspoken announcement that the Government recognise to the full that it is their first duty to give adequate and proper protection to the officials, native and otherwise, in Egypt, and I was still more pleased to hear the emphatic announcement that the Government were determined to do so. I believe that will give unbounded satisfaction to great numbers of people in Egypt, and will remove what has undoubtedly been a false apprehension on their part that the Government were not giving, and were not disposed to give, that full protection to their officials which was so eminently needed. Then, again, I think it was highly satisfactory to have it most clearly stated by the right hon. Gentleman that the maintenance of order and good government must be always the first object of British Governments in Egypt, but I did not agree with his opinion that the Nationalist party who incite to disorder were a very limited class in that country. I am afraid the more this question is examined and the more information is received upon it, the more it will be found that the Nationalist party and their organisation has of late been growing with great rapidity, is permeating various classes in the country, and has even reached at present to a certain extent the fellaheen who at one time were supposed to be so mindful of, the benefits that that class in particular had received under British rule in comparison with the great hardships with which they were formerly treated in other days. I am afraid it will be found that even to that class hostility and prejudice against the English occupation has spread, and probably in a greater degree, than the right hon. Gentleman anticipates.
But, notwithstanding that, I was rejoiced to hear him say, in the plainest possible language, that, if the insulting agitation which has been carried on for the last two or three years, and is still being carried on with great energy, or was when I left Egypt only a very few weeks ago, is
1156
to be continued, all progress in Egypt must be dismissed as an impossibility, and the attitude of the English Government will have to be very different in the future from what it has been in the past. Good order he has told them—and I can assure him that the information was not altogether unnecessary for the satisfaction or numerous classes in Egypt at the present time—is the first object and the first duty and the first determination of the English Government. But, undoubtedly, disorder has been growing, not only with great rapidity, but with alarming rapidity, during the last few months. Then this agitation has been conducted with one object alone, to paralyse all government altogether in Egypt under the present rulers with a view of putting an end to the English occupation. There are a number of signs to be seen of this hostility day after day. To anyone who visits Egypt, and who keeps his eyes and ears open, it is not an agreeable thing to have British troops, when they march through the streets of Cairo, hooted and hissed and denounced on every opportunity, and that has been occurring day after day within a very short period of time. I heard rumours just as I was leaving, or very shortly after I left Cairo, that the British Resident himself had been hooted.
Sir E. GREY: I have heard these stories of personal disrespect to Sir Eldon Gorst, of insults to the British flag, and of insults to British troops when marching through Cairo, and I have ascertained that they were absolutely without foundation.
Mr. CHAPLIN: That is all very well, but I have seen many people who have seen it, and who know it for themselves. I can say that the right hon. Gentleman's information on this point is not altogether accurate. I, of course, accept his denial in regard to the rumours as to the Resident being hooted.
Sir E. GREY: The alleged insults to Sir Eldon Gorst, the alleged insults to the British flag, and the alleged insults to the troops marching through Cairo were three particular cases which I inquired into, and I have found them to be without foundation. If the right hon. Gentleman has other special cases of which he can give me the dates and places, of course I shall be ready to make inquiry into them.
Mr. CHAPLIN: I am speaking from memory, and I do not know that I can give dates, but the fact that British

1157
troops have been hooted and hissed within recent months when marching through Cairo is a fact which no one acquainted with all the circumstances of Cairo will dispute or deny. I pass on to other statements of the right hon. Gentleman which are not so easy to reconcile with the situation which has grown up under the administration of the present Government. I was delighted to hear him say that the policy of the Government has been carried out with admirable skill by Sir Eldon Gorst. He also told us what was most interesting—and I am sure that the House heard the statement with great satisfaction—that Mr. Roosevelt, before he spoke, had communicated his views on the present situation most fully to him, that he heard them with the greatest pleasure, and that he heard them repeated with similar pleasure at the Guildhall. But what was the first of these statements? It was that the duty of the English Government was to establish and maintain order and to put down all disorder in Egypt. He went further than that and said, "If you are not able or willing to put down the disorder which prevails at present, why, then, go out of Egypt altogether." That was one of the statements Mr. Roosevelt made, and if, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, there is nothing in the situation of Egypt at the present time to occasion any disquiet whatever—these are the words he used— what, in Heaven's name, was the reason for or the object of the remarkable speech delivered by Mr. Roosevelt, and which the right hon. Gentleman heard with such pleasure at the Guildhall? I do not think, if he will forgive me for saying so, that the right hon. Gentleman has at all successfully reconciled the statements he made on this point.
Sir E. GREY: I said that in the actual state of things at the present moment there was no occasion for any new departure.
Mr. CHAPLIN: I took down the words, and he also said that there was nothing in the present situation to occasion disquiet. I am not quite sure whether he thinks there is occasion for disquiet or not. I have no doubt on the subject. I am perfectly certain that there are the gravest reasons for disquiet. I am equally certain from what Mr. Roosevelt stated in his speeches, both in Cairo, where he made a remarkable speech, and in the Guildhall, and from what he said
1158
to me privately, that he also believes there is ample ground for disquiet. I am delighted he made the Guildhall speech, for I can conceive nothing which would bring home more clearly to the British people than does his speech the present position in Egypt. If he did not see reason for disquiet, what was the meaning and what was the object of making the speech at all?
Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the murder of the Prime Minister was in a sense an isolated act. I do not quite know what the words "in a sense" meant. I do not understand that it was an isolated act. There were constant acts of great disorder and other attempts to murder, and, as showing how rapidly those disorders increased, I may refer to the attempted murder of one of the best of the English officials in Cairo, Harvey Pasha, an extremely well known man, and head of the police in Cairo. It was only by the mercy of God that within a few days of the murder of the Prime Minister he escaped assassination himself. What was the cause of his attempted assassination I am not in a position to say, but can anybody say that the murder of the Prime Minister was an isolated act when the Chief Inspector of the English police within a few days afterwards only just escaped a similar murder by the greatest piece of luck in the world? What happened? Harvey Pasha met one of these half crazy fanatics, I suppose, led on by the Egyptian Press or by the Nationalist party who, as your Minister has stated in his Report in the most unqualified terms, must be regarded as absolutely responsible for the murder of Boutros Pasha; and this fanatic who was walking along the corridor, I understand, of one of the departments in Cairo, having got close to Harvey Pasha, fired a pistol at him point blank. By the mercy of Heaven, some man close by just had time to strike the pistol up into the air, and it just missed him. Yet the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe that this murder of the Prime Minister on which Mr. Roosevelt laid so much stress, and as to which Sir Eldon Gorst has used the strongest possible language, was an isolated act. In my humble judgment it cannot be rightly described as anything of the kind. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to speak of the policy which the Government had been pursuing in Egypt. He said that the policy was one of gradually educating and training up natives to per-

1159
form the duties of officials in Egyptian administration. That policy began, it is quite true, during the period of Lord Cromer, and I understand that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with Lord Cromer that that policy has been carried on rather too fast. I should venture to say myself, whatever my opinion is worth—and I only voice the opinions of men of much greater experience, position and standing in Egyptian affairs—that that policy has been carried a great deal too far.
Many native officials, feeling that they have not got the protection which they ought to have from the English Government, and the weakness of that Government becoming more and more apparent, they are ready to throw them over, and to take up with the party which appears to have so powerful and so unfortunate an influence at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the Legislative Council and about the Press Laws. No doubt if the Press Laws be administered as they ought to be administered at the present time, they probably would have a very real and a very serious effect in checking these disorders. They are the most useful, perhaps the best weapon that could be employed at the present time. Supposing the Press Laws were administered as they ought to be, supposing there is a genuine attempt by the Government to enforce them, will the officials responsible for their administration think it their duty to carry them out, and, if they do, will they be supported in the long run even by the courts? I am by no means so certain as people would naturally imagine and for this reason: I believe there can be no doubt whatever that at the present time there is a widely-organised conspiracy of the Nationalist party in Egypt, spreading now widely in various parts of the country, for the purpose of paralysing all government in Egypt under its present rulers.
They hope to do this by establishing something in the nature of a reign of terror. Why, at this moment—I think that our Resident will endorse every word I am saying—I believe all the official classes, from Members of the Cabinet downwards to the judges of the land and all the smaller officials, are flooded with threatening letters addressed to them day after day. I have heard it said by people who ought to have a very good knowledge of what goes on in Egypt, that
1160
if there be not a Committee of Terror in existence already, there is at all events someone who addresses and writes letters on their behalf to great numbers of individuals and officials of all kinds in all parts of the country who are supposed to be hostile to the views of the Nationalist party. I do not know that there is anything more I can say usefully or with any effect upon this occasion. I should not have ventured to speak at all but for the fact that in recent years, and again lately, I have had some means and opportunity of acquiring a good deal of information about the general situation. Only within the last year and a half I have been to Egypt on three different occasions. I had been there three or four times before, and this time for something like two months. I therefore hope that I have not exceeded my duty in any way. I think I should have fallen short of it having been a member of Administrations in this country and a Member of this House for a great number of years if I had remained altogether silent. I have heard with profound satisfaction many parts of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary to-night, but I am still apprehensive that he does not take a sufficiently serious view of the situation as a whole. I do hope and trust that he will make known by practice, as well as by precept, and without any further delay, the determination of the English Government at all costs, at all hazards, so long as they remain in Egypt, which it is impossible all parties are agreed for them to abandon, their absolute determination at all costs to put down disorder and to restrain and stop crime, and to maintain the position in Egypt as it was maintained up to a very few years ago.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: After the Debate which has taken place it seems almost an anti-climax to come back to the financial part of the Bill now before the House. I trust I am not intervening at a moment when any other hon. Member desires to carry on the Debate on Egypt. I come back to the purely financial part of the Consolidated Fund Bill, and I have a suggestion and I have a complaint to make. Up till 1870 every Consolidated Fund Bill and every Appropriation Bill contained a clause prohibiting the issue and application of money by officials to any other purpose than those which had been voted by the House of Commons. In the year 1870, for some reason which I

1161
have been unable to ascertain, for there was no Debate in the House of Commons, nothing but a remark of Mr. Stansfield that it was done for simplification, those governing clauses, as to the issue and application of money voted by the House, were omitted. I could give many instances of the improper application of moneys which have come to my knowledge in the Public Accounts Committee, but I only desire to open my case to-night. I propose to reintroduce some of the clauses which were formerly put into the Consolidated Bill and the Appropriation Bill, and I merely desire to make my ground on the Second Reading. The fact is that officials have constantly applied moneys, I will not use a stronger word at this moment than irregularly. I know many cases, but I am content with one of the latest. On 28th February, 1909, the expenditure on old age pensions amounted to a million pounds odd, being £69,500 in excess of the sum at that time voted by Parliament. That £69,000 could only be issued either for the sum already voted or for the Civil Contingencies Fund. That fund did not contain enough, and the final result was that £4,000 odd was taken out of the money of the Post Office, which had been voted for no other purpose than for the salaries and expenses of the Post Office, and was applied to the payment of old age pensions. I think that is a very serious and a very shocking abuse. I believe the real criminal is the right hon. Gentleman who sits below me. I am sure he did it with the best intentions. He felt that the old age pension payments could not be stopped, but so did Robin Hood. His practice was to rob the rich in order to endow the poor with pensions, not necessarily dependent on old age; but I have never heard any lawyer or Minister justify such a practice on that ground. In the Consolidated Fund Act, 1866, there was this clause:—
"It shall be lawful for the said Commissioners to issue and pay from time to time all such sums of money as should be raised by Exchequer Bills.…to such services as should then have been voted by the Commons of the United Kingdom."
A similar guarding clause, slightly different, appeared in the Appropriation Act of the same year. I shall propose in Committee to restore a similar clause. From all time such a clause had existed both in the Consolidation Act and in the Appro-
1162
priation Act. The last form of it was in 1866, and that form was most properly adopted in consequence of certain alterations in the Schedule. In 1870 for the first time it was discontinued, but no reason was assigned. One result has been considerable irregularities and improprieties in the issue and application of public money. I shall propose to restore that clause and to add a penalty, because an official is only to be kept in order by having a bit put into his mouth and a curb chain under his chin. That curb chain I propose to represent by what I consider to be an appropriate penalty. In the issue of this sum for old age pensions by the Post Office two offences were committed— one was against the Exchequer and Audit Act,1866, which enacted that the Post Office should pay in its gross revenue to the Exchequer Account in the Bank of England, and the other was the issue of moneys without proper authority. As a last word, let me remind the House that what I propose to introduce into this Bill is nothing new. None of the words are new. The principle, the form, is not new. The only thing that is new is that I propose to introduce a penalty for violation of the clauses which have been of old time, and were only abandoned in 1870.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I will recall to the recollection of my hon. Friend the circumstances under which the Treasury committed what was unquestionably and admittedly an illegality. The Vote for the old age pensions was a new vote, and the amount of money required could not be calculated to a nicety. Two days after this House met, it was discovered, on 19th February, 1909, that the money was likely to run short, and would not be sufficient to meet the payments of the following week. There were only two alternatives which could be adopted. One was to stop the payment of the pensions, and defeat the purpose of Parliament. This would have caused the greatest possible inconvenience and hardship to a large number of well-deserving persons. The other course was to exceed the payment which Parliament had explicitly authorised by the payment of some £4,000 It was, I think, clearly desirable from every point of view to commit this illegality.
The Committee admitted it when the matter came under the review of the Public Accounts Committee. They endeavoured at the first possible moment to

1163
obtain an indemnity. The Controller and Auditor-General drew attention to the matter in his report, and the Public Accounts Committee drew attention to it in the Paper they presented to Parliament. All they said was:—
"The Committee regret that the situation should have arisen, while recognising that it was difficult to estimate the amount of money that would be required for old age pensions for the first few months."
With regard to the proposed remedy, I may inform the hon. Member that the insertion of the words that have been omitted from both the Appropriation Act and the Consolidated Fund Act since 1870—that the restoration of those words would by no means accomplish the purpose which he has in view. It would be perfectly possible, even if these words were restored, to commit the same illegality. I entirely sympathise with the hon. Gentleman in his desire to check expenditure which has not been authorised by Parliament, but admittedly occasions will arise from time to time in which, both for the convenience of the House and in the general interests of the taxpayers, a Committee may, by a necessary payment, commit an illegal action for a day or two rather than dislocate the whole financial machinery of the country.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to. Bill to be considered in Committee to-morrow (Tuesday).

CENSUS (GREAT BRITAIN) BILL.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask if it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Census Bill to-morrow? If so, I should be glad if the Government can see their way not to take Committee stage on the next day, as there are some very important Amendments to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh Boroughs, and it would be inconvenient to take the Committee stage on the day after the Second Reading. It would not give adequate time for those interested to pay proper attention to the Amendments. I hope, therefore, the Committee stage will be put off till next week.
The PRESIDENT Of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I am sorry I cannot give the Noble Lord an answer till to-morrow.
Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes after Eleven o'clock.