Commons Sitting of 3 March 1910

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Midland Railway Bill.

Shirebrook and District Gas Bill.

Kingswood Water Bill.

Barry Railway Bill.

Bristol Gas Bill.

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Crystal Palace Company Bill,
To be read a second time upon Thursday, 17th March.
Kingstown Urban District Council Bill,
Whitland Water and Gas Bill,
To be read a second time upon Thursday next.
Yorkshire Registries and Driffield Navigation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  SOCIETY OF APOTHECARIES OF LONDON BILL. (By Order.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. SPEAKER: With reference to this Bill, it is one which seeks to empower the Society of Apothecaries of London to grant diplomas in sanitary science, public health, State medicine, school hygiene, and tropical medicine, and also for dentistry and dental surgery, and for that purpose to hold examinations. I have considered the matter very carefully, and I have come to the conclusion that this is a Bill which ought not to proceed as a private Bill, but must proceed as a public Bill, as it deals with public interests.
  Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.

ENFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMEN.
Mr. J. M. McCALLUMpresented a Petition signed by 16,778 electors in the Paisley Division, in favour of the passing of a measure granting the Parliamentary vote to women on the same terms as it is or may be granted to men.
Mr. C. E. PRICEpresented a Petition signed by 763 electors of the Central Division of Edinburgh in favour of the extension of the franchise on the same terms as to men.

RETURNS.
  PRICES OF EXPORTED COAL.
  Return ordered "giving the quantities of coal exported from each of the ports of the United Kingdom by quarterly periods in 1909, at prices not exceeding 5s., above 5s. but not exceeding 6s., above 6s. but not exceeding 7s., and so on (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 78, of Session 1909)."—[Mr. Walter Each, for Mr. D. A. Thomas.]
  COAL EXPORTS.
  Return ordered "giving for the year 1909 the export of coal from each port in the United Kingdom to each country abroad, together with summary statements showing the export of coal in every period of three months from the principal districts of the United Kingdom to the principal groups of foreign countries; and also showing the quantity of coal shipped at each port in the United Kingdom for ships' use on foreign voyages during like periods, giving in each case the corresponding particulars for the year 1908 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 111, of Session 1909)."—[Mr. Walter Roch, for Mr. D. A. Thomas.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Villa Rosebery (Naples).
  Mr. GINNELLasked by whom, and for what purpose, was it intended to use the Villa Rosebery, near Naples; what outlay hitherto necessary would its acquisition render unnecessary; what was the estimated cost of the alterations necessary to adapt it to its new purposes; and what was the estimated annual cost of its upkeep after those alterations?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): It is intended to use it as a (country) residence for His Majesty's Ambassador and the staff of the Embassy at Rome. This will render it unnecessary for the Ambassador to take a villa during those months of the year when residence in Rome is undesirable for climatic reasons. No alterations are necessary to adapt it for its new purposes. The estimated annual cost of upkeep is £500 per annum.

  Suez Canal (Lease).
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could state whether the Egyptian Government would be bound by the decision of the General Assembly upon the question of the proposed extention of the lease of the Suez Canal?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The General Assembly has only a consultative voice.
  Mr. HAZLETONasked if the right hon. Gentleman could state why the Suez Canal Company has sought to extend its lease of the Suez Canal till the year 2008, in view of the fact that the present lease does not expire till the year 1968?
  Sir E. GREY: The object of the Suez Canal Company is understood to be to secure for its shareholders that their investment shall have a more permanent character than it possesses at present.
  Mr. HAZLETONasked how many shares His Royal Highness the Khedive of Egypt held in the Suez Canal Company, and what was their value?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not aware that the Khedive possesses any shares.
  Mr. BELLOC: Is there any public place where one can consult the list of shareholders in the Suez Canal Company?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not know, but I will inquire.

  Declaration of London, 1909.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESasked, in view of the intention of His Majesty's Government not to submit the Declaration of London, 1909, to Parliament before ratifying it, was it the intention of His Majesty's Government to ratify it by a pure act of prerogative without the assent of Parliament; and, if so, was he aware that in the case of Baird and Walker the
  958
  Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided in 1892 that the fact of the Crown having made a treaty by prerogative alone, without any Act of Parliament to carry it into effect, gave the Crown no right to coerce the subject into obedience to the conditions of such a treaty; and, inasmuch as the Declaration in question abandoned maritime rights hitherto held essential to the defence of the country, did His Majesty's Government propose to advise the Crown to exercise the prerogative by ordering naval officers to abstain from the exercise of those rights, without having received any authority from Parliament to order such abstention?
  Sir E. GREY: I stated during the last Parliament that an opportunity would be afforded for this House to discuss the Declaration of London before it is ratified. The question whether any steps are required to render the Declaration binding on British prize courts is still under the consideration of His Majesty's Government, and I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject at present.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: May I take it that the Government do not propose to give the advice in the circumstances to which the question refers in the last four lines?
  Sir E. GREY: We could not give that advice before the Declaration is ratified, and I have already promised that before it is ratified the House will have an opportunity of discussing it.

  Thibet and India.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESasked if the Foreign Secretary could inform this House what effect the recent events which have occurred in Thibet are expected to have on the relations between Thibet and India; and if he can state what the general policy of His Majesty's Government will be in relation thereto?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. E. S. Montagu)rose to reply.
  Mr. BOWLES: May I ask whether I am not to have an answer from the Foreign Secretary? May I remind him that Thibet is not in India, but in China?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes; but the question refers to the relations between Thibet and India.
  Mr. MONTAGU: The relations between India and Thibet are determined by a

  959
  treaty with the Thibetian Government which has been confirmed by the Chinese Government, and there is no reason to suppose that they will be affected by the change in the personnel of the Thibetan administration. The general policy of His Majesty's Government will be strictly to observe their treaty obligations and to require similar observance by the other parties concerned.

  International Prize Court.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESasked when it was proposed to present to Parliment the Bill required so to alter the Common Law embodying the Law of the Nations as to give effect to the proposals of the Hague Conference for the establishment of an international prize court?
  Sir E. GREY: The Bill in question will be introduced during the present Session of Parliament, but I cannot yet fix the date. It must be before the end of June.

  Baghdad Railway.
  Mr. REESasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he can communicate to the House any information regarding the progress of the project known as the Baghdad Railway?
  Sir E. GREY: It is announced by the Baghdad Railway Company that work will be begun at once on two more sections: namely, the Taurus section to Aleppo, and the section from Aleppo to El Halif.
  Mr. REES: May I ask whether the position of the Government remains as it was before, or has there been any change?
  Sir E. GREY: No, Sir.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: Have the Turkish Government and the British Government any understanding to the effect that the British Government would have a prior claim?
  Sir E. GREY: There has not been any alteration in the terms of the concession at present.

  Naturalisation Act, 1870.
  Mr. RENDALLasked whether, having regard to Section 7 of The Naturalisation Act, 1870, there was any treaty between this country and Russia which protected a native of Russian-Poland who had been duly naturalised in this country from being treated as a Russian subject, should he return to his native country?
  Sir E. GREY: The reply is in the negative.
  Mr. RENDALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether a Russian subject naturalised in this country would, on returning to Russia, be liable to military service?
  Sir E. GREY: I imagine, if I understand the case rightly, that any Russian who was originally a Russian subject, and is now naturalised in this country, would, when he returns to Russia, be still treated as a Russian subject, and therefore would be under all the obligations of a Russian subject.

  Naval Armaments (Limitation).
  Mr. BYLESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been drawn to a recent speech in London by Count Metternich, the German Ambassador to this country; and whether, having regard to the views therein expressed, the Government would see its way to renew communications between Great Britain and Germany, directed to attain some agreed limitation of the naval armaments of the two countries?
  Sir E. GREY: I have read a report, published in the Press, of a speech made by Count Metternich at the Hotel Cecil on 28th January last. I cordially reciprocate the friendly tone of that speech. It contains no reference to the question of the limitation of armaments. The position of His Majesty's Government in respect to that question was fully explained by the Prime Minister in this House in answer to a question by my hon. Friend on 7th September of last year, and I have nothing to add to the statement then made on that point.
  Mr. BYLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it worth while to dispose of a rather improbable suggestion in "The World" newspaper that the visit of Prince Henry of Prussia has something to do with this question?

  Destruction of Big Game (Lado Enclave).
  Sir RANDOLF BAKERasked whether the destruction of big game, especially of elephants, is proceeding practically unchecked in the Lado enclave at the present time; and whether any steps are being taken to prevent such destruction immediately if it was taking place?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not aware that destruction of elephants or other big game is taking place unchecked in the Lado Enclave at the present time. I have no recent information, but, as I stated last year, I was then informed that instructions had already been sent to the officials there to repress with the utmost severity any breaches of the Game Regulations. The territory will be taken over as soon as the Government of the Soudan can make the necessary arrangements.
  Sir R. BAKER: Are there any officials there responsible for checking this destruction since the Congo officials have withdrawn?
  Sir E. GREY: My impression was that the Congo officials are still there, and that arrangements were being made between' the Soudan Government to take the country over as soon as possible.

  Officials and Elections (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Local Government Board for Ireland afforded any protection or remedy within the reach of poor people when paid officials of local councils threaten recipients of outdoor relief that the relief will be withdrawn unless their male relatives vote for a particular candidate at a Parliamentary election, and threaten applicants for labourers' cottages with the loss of the cottages on the same grounds?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): No instance has been brought to the notice of the Local Government Board of a person being threatened with the withdrawal of outdoor relief or the loss of a labourers' cottage in the circumstances mentioned. The Local Government Board have frequently informed boards of guardians that an officer of the union should not interfere in elections beyond exercising his statutory right to vote; and if any definite case of the use of threats such as those indicated in the question were brought to the Board's knowledge they would investigate it.

  Export of Horses (Ireland).
  Captain COOPERasked the Chief Secretary if he is in a position to state how many horses were purchased in Ireland by foreign Governments for military purposes during the year 1909?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The numbers of horses exported from Ireland—viâ Great Britain—to foreign countries in the year 1909 were as follows:—Through Belgian, Dutch, and German ports, 2,723; through French ports, 1,420; through Danish, Swedish, and Russian ports, 103; through American, 11; and for Switzerland, 160. Total, 4,417. The Department of Agriculture have no official information as to the number of these horses purchased by foreign Governments for military purposes, but it is assumed that the majority of them were bought for those purposes.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what age those horses that are exported usually are?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am afraid I must have notice of that.

  Moy Postmaster.
  Mr. CREANasked why, when the Postmaster-General dismissed the Moy postmaster in connection with an assault for which he was adjudged to pay damages, did the Irish Executive retain him as petty sessions clerk; and, if so, why the Irish Government retained this person to discharge duties connected with the administration of justice when the English postal authorities did not consider him fit to deliver letters to the public?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed. I understand that the late sub-postmaster at Moy was not dismissed but resigned, and that his resignation had nothing to do with an assault. Nothing connected with his conduct has come to my knowledge which would call for his dismissal from the petty sessions clerkship.

  Sale of Ventry Estate (County Kerry).
  Mr. O'SULLIVANasked whether that portion of the Ventry estate situated at Glenawadra, in the parish of Kingswilliamstown, comprising about a dozen tenants, has been offered by the landlord for sale to the Congested Districts Board; and whether, seeing that this portion of the estate is highly congested and that negotiations are proceeding between the Congested Districts Board and the landlord, steps will be immediately taken to have this portion inspected and bought with the rest of the estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The townland mentioned in the question is not included in the portion of the Ventry estate which has been

  963
  offered to the Congested Districts Board. Inquiry will be made as to whether the owner wishes to sell to the Board the holdings referred to.

  Estate of Captain Burke (County Galway).
  Mr. CULLINAN (for Mr. Duffy)asked whether the estate of Captain Burke and others, of Kilmeen, Loughrea, was purchased some time ago by the Estates Commissioners; what quantity of the untenanted land was acquired; and when do the Estates Commissioners intend to prepare a scheme of allotment in connection with this estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have not purchased this property. There were preliminary negotiations between the owner and the Commissioners, but formal proceedings for sale were not instituted until October, 1908, and, having regard to its place on the priority list, the property cannot yet be dealt with. It includes some 390 acres of untenanted land, and under the Act of last Session the consent of the Congested Districts Board will have to be obtained before the Commissioners can purchase. The hon. Member's inquiry as to a scheme of allotment is therefore premature.

  Dartfield Estate (County Galway).
  Mr. CULLINAN (for Mr. Duffy)asked the Chief Secretary whether he will explain what steps have been taken by the Estates Commissioners in the way of acquiring the lands of Dartfield, the property of Mrs. Gowing; and, in view of the necessity which exists for the distribution of these lands, will he indicate the time when these lands might be dealt with?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the lands of Dartfield appear to form portion of the Meath Hospital Estate. The papers in the case are at present in the hands of one of the Commissioners' inspectors for the preparation of a scheme for their distribution.

  Athenry (County Galway) District Inspector (R.I.C.)
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he was aware that a notice threatening the life of the district inspector, Royal Irish Constabulary, at Athenry, was posted on the district inspector's door; and what precautions were being taken to protect this officer?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No notice threatening the life of the district inspector stationed at Athenry was posted on his door or elsewhere so far as the police are aware. No special precautions are taken to protect this officer.

  Police at Craughwell and Athenry (County Galway).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked how many police are stationed at Craughwell, county Galway, at present, and how many at Athenry; and what were the numbers of police at these two places, respectively, in January, 1906?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Thirty police are at present stationed at Craughwell and thirty-one at Athenry. In January, 1906, there were seven police at Craughwell and fifteen at Athenry.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: What is the necessity for such an increase in the number of police?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The condition of these two places is such as to require the presence of an additional number.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the condition of those two places is improving at the present time, or getting worse?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I should say it remains pretty much the same.

  Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907 (Cork Applications).
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners had considered the application of John D. M'Auliffe, an evicted tenant on the estate of D. Smith, at Ballygibbon, Blarney; whether this tenant was evicted on 27th July, 1905, for one year's rent; whether he is in every sense a person to whom the provisions of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, apply; whether the present occupant of the farm is willing to surrender in favour of M'Auliffe; and would he, therefore, state the reasons why the Estates Commissioners have decided not to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have considered this man's application. He was evicted subsequent to the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and the provision of the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, do not therefore apply in his case, and the Commissioners have decided to take no action in the matter.
  Mr. SHEEHANasked whether the Estates Commissioners received an application for reinstatement from James Crawley, who was evicted from his holding at Shanachrane, Dunmanway, parish of Inchigeelagh, in 1883 by the representatives of William Beamish Lane; whether the rent which this tenant paid formerly for seventy-five acres of land and twenty acres of commonage was £30 a year, although the present annual value was only £14; would he say if the present occupier has it at present for £12 a year; did the tenant in 1880 obtain and pay for a lease for a term of thirty-one years; were all the circumstances of this man's eviction inquired into by an inspector of the Estates Commissioners; had his application been refused; and, if so, would he state the definite grounds for the denial of his claim to reinstatement?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners received an application from this man for reinstatement in a holding now in the occupation of his brother, and decided to take no action in the matter. The statements in the question as to the acreage and rent of the holding correspond with those made by applicant, and were before the Commissioners when they came to their decision. It would be contrary to the established practice to state the grounds of that decision, which was made in the exercise of the discretion vested in the Commissioners.

  Portandoo Harbour (County Antrim).
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he was in a position to say what was the amount of the financial contribution which the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction was prepared to make towards the improvement of the harbour at Portandoo, Portrush?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The question of marine works in county Antrim is to be discussed at a conference between the Department and the piers committee of the county council on the 15th instant. In the meantime nothing definite can be stated. The present condition of the Department's funds must constitute an element in the discussion.

  Congested Districts (County Galway).
  Mr. O'MALLEYasked the Chief Secretary if, in view of the fact that the county of Galway was not directly represented on the Congested Districts Board, he would take steps
  966
  to see that the districts in the county of Galway, especially Connemara, which was the largest, the most congested, and the poorer district in the whole of Ireland, received that attention and consideration from the Board that they deserved; and if he would state when the Board would direct its attention to the necessities of Connemara?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board are alive to the condition of the inhabitants of Connemara. Steps have already been taken with the object of effecting an improvement, and further measures are in contemplation.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he was aware that a widow, Mary Hickie, of Inches, district of Millstreet, county Cork, applied in November, 1908, for an old age pension, representing herself to be seventy-two years of age, that she was granted a pension of 5s. per week, it being established by the Census Return that her immediately elder brother was seventy-four years of age, that the pension officer stated at the time that he was satisfied she had attained the age of seventy years and over, and endorsed the same on the back of her marriage certificate, that the pension was paid regularly for ten months and then suspended until proof of age was furnished; was he aware that the certificates of two old men over eighty years of age were furnished to the Local Government Board proving Mrs. Hickie was over the prescribed age; and whether, seeing that no parish records existed, would he, in all the circumstances of this case, see that this woman should have her pension continued, and that the arrears should be made good to her?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Mary Hickie, who stated in her application that she Was seventy-one years of age, was granted a pension in November, 1908, her appearance and her marriage in 1863 being apparently taken as sufficient proof of age. The pension officer, relying on her appearance, was satisfied as to her age at the time, but subsequently raised a question on the ground that her name was not found in the Census Return of her parents' family in 1841. As the other evidence of her age did not appear to be sufficient, the Local Government Board decided against the applicant on appeal. The Census Return records the fact that three children had died before the date of the Return, and

  967
  these, or some of them, may have come between the applicant and the elder brothers referred to. The certificates of the two old men mentioned in the question are, as I am informed, merely statements of opinion, and are worthless as evidence.

  Shipment of Ammunition (Persian Gulf).
  Mr. REESasked the Under Secretary of State for India whether much of the ammunition shipped from Europe and run from Muscat to the Mekran coast of the Persian Gulf consisted of cartridges with expending bullets; and, if so, whether steps could be taken to check the export of such cartridges, the use of which was forbidden to our soldiers, upon whom they would be issued in the event of any disturbance on the North-West Frontier?
  Mr. MONTAGU: A very small proportion of the ammunition captured has been found to consist of cartridges with expanding bullets. I fear that it is not practicable to check the export, but every possible precaution is taken to prevent them reaching their destination.

  Cotton Cultivation in India.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked if any attempt had been made during recent years by the Government of India, or by private individuals with the assistance of the Government of India, to cultivate a long staple cotton; and, if so, with what success and at what cost to the Government?
  Mr. MONTAGU: In 1905 the Government of India and the British Cotton Growing Association agreed to defray the cost in equal shares of preliminary experiments conducted by a syndicate formed in Calcutta for the cultivation of a long staple cotton. These experiments have not been successful, and have now been brought to a close. The cost to the Government has been £3,660. The Agricultural Department is engaged in experiments for the improvement of the indigenous species of cotton and the introduction of exotic species, and has met with a fair amount of success. The cost of these experiments is included in the general expenditure of the Department.

  Emigration of Indian Labour.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked if it was the intention of the Government of India to introduce legislation prohibiting the emigration of Indian labour?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Legislation is contemplated which will empower the Governor-General in Council, where he has reason to believe that sufficient ground exists for prohibiting emigration to any country to which it is now lawful, to declare that emigration to that country shall cease to be lawful from a specified date.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: What is the reason for that legislation?
  Mr. MONTAGU: To enlarge the powers which are now exerciseable by the Governor-General in Council.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: Why is the Governor-General in Council empowered to stop emigration?
  Mr. MONTAGU: As the hon. Member knows, the Governor-General in Council now can for certain specific reasons forbid immigration into a country, and in order to enlarge those powers we are seeking fresh legislation.

  Military Assistant Surgeons (Qualifications).
  Mr. HAZLETON (on behalf of Mr. Kettle)asked whether the medical diploma which is held to be sufficient for military assistant surgeons in India is also in all cases sufficient to entitle the holder to be registered under the Medical Acts and to be recognised as a qualified medical practitioner in this country?
  Mr. MONTAGU: No, Sir.
  Mr. HAZLETON (on behalf of Mr. Kettle)asked whether the senior assistant professor at the Medical College, Madras, and the senior assistant surgeon at the General Hospital, Madras, were military assistant surgeons; and whether they possessed any additional qualifications for those important positions?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my predecessor to a question by the hon. Member for Galway North on 21st October last. The Government of Madras have doubtless satisfied themselves that the holders of the posts possess the qualifications necessary to enable them to fill them.
  Mr. HAZLETON (on behalf of Mr. Kettle)asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention had been called to a resolution unanimously adopted at a meeting of members of the medical profession, held under the auspices

  969
  of the Bombay Medical Union, submitting that the present system of reserving all important posts in the medical service of India for military officers of the Indian Medical Service had led to the entire exclusion from these posts of Indian civil doctors, however high their qualifications; whether he was aware that the present system caused much discontent and was the occasion of unnecessary expense; and whether he could hold out any hope of early reform?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has not seen the resolution referred to. From answers given to previous questions and from the papers presented to Parliament last year, the hon. Member is aware that action has been taken with a view to increasing the number of Government medical appointments held by unofficial doctors in India. The process must inevitably be a slow one; and the Secretary of State is not in a position to make any further statement at present.
  Mr. REES: Does not the system of using these military doctors in civil employ during times of peace reduce the charge on the taxpayers, as compared with the system of having two separate services?
  Mr. MONTAGU: These matters were fully dealt with in the Papers laid before Parliament last year.

  Indentured Labourers (Natal).
  Mr. M'CALLUM (on behalf of Sir John Jardine)asked whether any, and, if so, what, decision had been arrived at by the Governor-General of India in Council as to the supply of indentured labourers to the Colony of Natal?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It has been decided to postpone consideration of this question until the Union of South Africa has come into being.

  Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903.
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Lord Advocate whether he could supply information showing the names of those Scottish burghs which had not complied with the provisions of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903, especially with regard to Sections 5 to 10, inclusive; and whether he proposed to take any steps to enforce compliance with those provisions in such burghs as were found in default?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I have no informations as to the burghs
  970
  which have taken action under the sections specified to form a register of streets. If my hon. Friend desires to move for a Return, the Government will offer no objection.

  Service with Colours (Qualification for Civil Service Pension).
  Colonel CALLEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he was aware that service with the colours did not count towards qualification for pension in the Civil Service, and that a Departmental Committee had reported in favour of colour service counting as half-time for pension qualifications; and, if so, whether the Government intended to give effect to such recommendation?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the last part I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the present Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Wandsworth on 3rd March, 1908.

  Alcoholic Insanity (Straits Settlements).
  Mr. REESasked whether the report of the superintendent of the Straits Settlements Lunatic Asylum showed that the substitution of cheap brandy for opium was leading to a rapid development of alcoholic insanity amongst the Chinese?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Master of Elibank): The report to which my hon. Friend refers states that alcoholic insanity among the Chinese is increasing, but the statement is scarcely borne out by the figures, which show that in 1908, the year to which the report relates, fourteen persons were admitted to the asylum suffering from alcoholic insanity, as against sixteen in 1907. The superintendent refers to several cases in which insanity was the result of overindulgence in cheap brandy, but there is nothing to suggest that this liquor was used as a substitute for opium.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: Was the brandy used priced at a shilling or less per bottle?
  MASTER of ELIBANK: I have no knowledge on the point.

  House of Commons (Chaplain).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the membership of the House now included

  971
  seven ministers of religion, he would consider the desirableness of inviting one or other of those honourable and reverend gentlemen to officiate at prayers, and thus save the salary of the present chaplain?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I was not aware of the fact which my hon. Friend brings to my notice, and I am disposed to doubt whether his suggestion would turn out in practice to be a well-considered form of economy.

  Budget (1909–10).
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether it was still his intention to pass the Budget through this House before the House adjourned for the Spring Recess?
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: When the right hon. Gentleman replies, will he state what he means by the "Spring Recess"? Does he mean a recess extending from 15th April to Whitsuntide; if not, what other period does he mean?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid it must be what in ecclesiastical language is called a "movable feast." I should not like at the moment to commit myself to a precise date. April 15th is certainly not necessarily the day on which the recess will begin.
  In reply to the question on the Paper, as I stated on Monday, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, there has been no change in the intention of the Government, announced on the first night of the Session, to ask the House to assent to the Budget before, it adjourns for the Spring Recess. Our intention is—subject of course to unforeseen contingencies—to ask the House to dispose of the Budget as soon as the Resolutions relating to the House of Lords have been passed through the House of Commons.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to embody the Budget proposals for the two years in one Finance Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot give an answer about that at the moment.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Is it the intention of the Government to bring in a Finance Bill without doubt?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think my answer is perfectly explicit.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman adumbrate the first business after the Whitsuntide recess?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think it would be premature to do so at this moment.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: If unforeseen circumstances should arise, will the right hon. Gentleman promptly inform the House of any change in his intentions?

  House of Lords Veto.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether it was still his intention that the Resolutions dealing with the veto of the House of Lords should be embodied in a Bill and carried through the House of Commons in the course of the present-Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Our intention, as has been already stated, is to get our proposals on to the Statute Book in the shape of an Act of Parliament at the earliest possible moment. As was said last Monday: "Unless we find ourselves in a position to ensure that our proposals not merely will pass the House of Commons, but can be passed into law, we shall not continue in office."
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Are we to understand that if the Resolutions sent up from this House fail to pass in another place, the circumstances contemplated by the Prime Minister will have arisen?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We had better wait and see.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: Are we to understand that the pledge given on 21st February to bring in a Bill embodying the Veto Resolutions, and to pass it through the House of Commons in the course of the present Session, still holds good?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly it is intended to embody the proposals in a Bill. But until we know what decision has been come to upon our Resolutions, both in one House and in the other, it would be premature and altogether impossible to determine finally what the course of procedure in regard to them shall be.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: Is the House to understand that the unqualified pledge given by the Prime Minister on 21st February to bring in a Bill and to pass it through all its stages in this House during the present Session no longer holds good?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said on Monday.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: Did not the right hon. Gentleman assure the House on Monday that the only change in procedure from that originally announced by him was that the Resolutions would be submitted to the House of Lords?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is the only change in procedure. At the same time, both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I said that in a certain event we did not intend to ask this House to repeat the process described in days gone by as "ploughing the sands."
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: Is bringing in a Bill embodying these Resolutions and passing it through all its stages in this House not a matter of procedure?

  Commissioners of Charitable Donations (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether, before Parliament was asked to vote more money for the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland, that body would be required to present a report and abstract of accounts similar to those presented by other accounting bodies, and similarly accessible to Members of this House, showing the total value of money and other property that came under the control of the Commissioners in the last financial year, the total value of property dealt with by them within that year, and the actual market value of all the property and estimated value of all the securities held by them or under their control at the end of that year?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has asked me to answer this question. The money voted for the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests is for salaries, law costs, and incidental expenses, and is accounted for like any other Vote. The accounts of the funds lodged with the Commissioners for charitable purposes are duly audited, and a report of their proceedings is presented to Parliament each year as required by law. I have no power to alter the statutory obligations of the Commissioners in these matters.

  British Colonial Legislatures.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether he will grant the Return in the name of
  974
  the hon. Member for Central Sheffield relating to British Colonial Legislature.
  MASTER of ELIBANK: I am anxious to supply the information which the hon. Member desires, but I do not think the terms of the Motion which he has placed upon the Paper are sufficiently comprehensive. I will communicate with the hon. Member privately, and I hope that it will be possible to agree upon the form of word to be adopted.

  Importation of Live Cattle (Argentine Republic).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the further information respecting the freedom of the Argentine Republic from foot-and-mouth disease has been obtained; and, if so, can he state when it is proposed to remove the existing restrictions upon the importation into the Deptford Cattle Market and other Foreign-animal wharves of live cattle for slaughter?
  Mr. HAMILTON BENNasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he can now see his way to remove the restriction on the importation of live cattle from Argentina?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): Further information on this subject has been received from the Argentine Government, which is now engaging our consideration. I will communicate with my hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Greenwich so soon as a definite decision is arrived at.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether any representations have been made to the Board of Agriculture by the Argentine Government in favour of the removal of the embargo on the importation of live cattle from Argentina into this country; and whether, before the Board consents to the removal of the embargo, care will be taken to ascertain that foot-and-mouth disease has been stamped out in Argentina, and that there will not be a repetition of the fiasco of the year 1903, when the embargo was prematurely removed, the herds of this country subjected to risk, and the Board of Agriculture obliged to reimpose the embargo after an interval of only two months?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The reply is in the affirmative.

  Diagnosis of Swine Fever.
  Mr. STANIERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board will appoint a Committee to inquire into the question of swine fever, and to see if the diagnosis of the disease could be better defined?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Swine fever is the subject of continuous investigation by our veterinary officers at their laboratory, and the Board do not think that any useful purpose would be served at present by the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the diagnosis of the disease.
  Mr. STANIER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question as a whole, and give us some more information?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We have considered the question as a whole. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question for Thursday I will give him an answer that I think will satisfy him.

  Deaths and Disappearance of Seamen at Sea.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the disappearance at sea of two Asiatic firemen named Yu Ah Yu and Woo Ching Za, on 20th August, 1909, and 27th August, 1909, respectively, whilst serving on the steamer "Prometheus," of Liverpool; whether any inquiry has been held into these cases; whether the seamen were medically examined before joining; how long they had served on the vessel; whether they had had any previous service whether they were on duty at the time; what was the temperature of the engine-room and stokehold, how many tons of coal the engine-room hands were required to work each twenty-four hours; whether the engineers' log books have been produced to the Board of Trade surveyors; and whether any previous cases of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance have occurred on this vessel?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Sydney Buxton): Inquiries have been made into the disappearance at sea of the two Asiatic firemen, named Yu Ah Yu and Woo Ching Za, by the Acting British Consul at Jeddah, by the superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office at Liverpool and by a Board of Trade surveyor. The men had been medically examined before joining the "Prometheus," and they had served on
  976
  the vessel nearly two months. Both men had had previous sea service, and were on duty at the time of their disappearance. When Yu Ah Yu disappeared on 20th August the temperature of the engine-room was 94 degrees and of the stokehold 98 degrees. On 27th August, when Woo Ching Za disappeared, the temperature of the engine-room was 96 degrees, and the stokehold 102 degrees. An average of 42½ tons of coal were required to be worked each twenty-four hours, the number of firemen and trimmers being eighteen. The engineers' log books have been produced to the Board of Trade Surveyor. No previous case of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearances have been reported on this vessel during the last three years.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the death at sea, on 7th August, 1909, of an Asiatic fireman named Rasam Ghaleb, whilst serving on the steamer "Tangistan," of Swansea; whether he can state the cause of death; and, if so, why the cause was not stated in the return of deaths published by the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen for the month of September, 1909?
  Mr. BUXTON: Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to the death of the Asiatic fireman in question. He is supposed to have committed suicide, and in such cases it is not usual to publish the cause of death in the monthly return of deaths issued by the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen.
  Mr. O'GRADY: May I ask whether there are not exceptions made in the Returns as to the cause of death?
  Mr. BUXTON: In a few cases. In a case like that mentioned the cause is not given out of consideration for the feelings of the relatives.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the disappearance at sea, on 4th October, 1909, of an Asiatic seaman named Raiman Hossein, whilst serving on the steamer "Macedonia," of Belfast; whether any inquiry has been held into the matter; whether he was on duty at the time; whether he was medically examined before joining; how long he had served on the vessel; whether he had had any previous sea service; and whether any previous cases of death from suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance have occurred on this vessel?
  Mr. BUXTON: Inquiry into the disappearance at sea of the Asiatic seaman in question was made by the shipping master at Fremantle and by the deputy-superintendent of the mercantile marine office at Tilbury. The seaman was not on duty when he disappeared; he was medically examined before joining the "Macedonia," and had served on the vessel about eight months. He had had previous sea service. One other case of supposed suicide has occurred on this vessel during the last three years.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the disappearance at sea on 20th September, 1909, of an Asiatic fireman named Dong Chup, whilst serving on the steamer "Chatham," of London; whether any inquiry has been held into the matter; whether he was on duty at the time; whether he was medically examined before joining; how long he had served on the vessel; whether he had had any previous sea service; what was the temperature of the engine-room and stokehold; how many tons of coal the engine-room hands were required to work each 24 hours; and whether any previous cases of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance have occurred on this vessel?
  Mr. BUXTON: Inquiry into the disappearance of the Asiatic fireman in question has been made by the shipping master at Newcastle, New South Wales, and further inquiry will be made when the vessel arrives in the United Kingdom. The man was on duty at the time of his disappearance, but it is not known at present whether he had been medically examined before joining the "Chatham," or whether he had had any previous sea service. He had served on the vessel about two months. The minimum temperature of the engine room for the voyage was 90 degrees, and the maximum temperature 120 degrees. The minimum temperature of the stokehold was 92 degrees, and the maximum temperature 118 degrees. I have no definite information at present as to the coal consumption of this vessel. One other case of supposed suicide has occurred on this vessel during the last three years.
  Mr. O'GRADY: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department never takes into consideration the question of temperature in these rooms and their connection with the suicides that frequently take place?
  Mr. BUXTON: The matter is very carefully considered from every point of view. Whenever these questions of temperature are brought to the attention of the Board of Trade, and in their view the temperature is excessive, representations are at once made to the shipowners in question. I am glad to say that in nearly every case—certainly the majority of cases—our representations are very favourably received with a view to mitigation.
  Mr. REES: Is it not the case that higher summer temperatures than those mentioned are experienced on deck in certain tropical waters?

  Labour Exchanges.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade when it is his intention to set up the advisory trade committees under the regulations of the Labour Exchanges Act; and, when set up, is it his intention to ask for representatives of employers and workmen associations to constitute such committees?
  Mr. BUXTON: Steps are being taken for the early formation of advisory trade committees. The mode of constitution of these committees is prescribed in Section 7 of the General Regulations. It is my intention to consult the principal associations of employers and workpeople in each district before the actual appointments of these committees are made.
  Mr. J. H. WHITEHOUSE: Are we to understand that such committees will be exclusively composed of representatives of the employers and of the workpeople?
  Mr. BUXTON: The object, so far as possible, is to get real representatives on the one hand and on the other, so that the advisory committees may be really representative of the employers and workmen.
  Mr. WATT: Will there be any remuneration for the members of these committees?
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not think so.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I desire to ask whether people who are neither employers nor workpeople, but who are people of experience and goodwill, will be eligible to serve on these committees?
  Mr. BUXTON: They will be eligible to serve if they seem to be acceptable to the employers and to the workmen. Our desire is to obtain primarily those who will represent the employers on the one hand and the workmen on the other.
  An HON. MEMBER: Will arrangements be made not only for the representation of employers and trade unionists, but also for free labour to be represented?
  Mr. BUXTON: What I said just now was that we desire to obtain those who are bonâ fide representatives of the employers on the one hand, and of the workmen on the other. We desire, as my right hon. Friend and predecessor has pointed out more than once, to have on these committees equality of representation of both sides.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a definition of what is meant by "free labour"?
  Mr. BUXTON: Better ask the hon. Member who put the question.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the officer in charge of a Labour Exchange can, under the regulations, advance money to an applicant for work towards meeting the expenses of travelling to a place and taking work in a trade where there is a strike?
  Mr. BUXTON: No, Sir. Under the regulations made by the Board of Trade in pursuance of Section (2) of the Labour Exchanges Act, no advance of travelling expenses can be made in the case of an applicant taking up employment in a place where a trade dispute which affects his trade exists, or where the wages offered are lower than those current in the trade in the district where the employment is found.
  Mr. CLYNES: Are the regulations available for the Members of this House; and may I ask whether, in the case of money advanced to a workman to reach his place of employment he will be required to repay the money?
  Mr. BUXTON: Such money advanced under the Regulations will be repaid by the workman concerned. As regards the regulations, I intend to lay them on the Table at once. I will send a copy to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: Do the regulations insist upon an employer in dispute with his workpeople, and who made application to the exchange for assistance, notifying the fact that a dispute is pending?
  Mr. BUXTON: The question of strikes has been very carefully considered with a view to the avoidance of the difficulty suggested, and the placing of exchanges on neutral and impartial ground.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether Clause 2 of Regulation 4 of the Labour Exchanges Act will be amended to provide that copies or summaries of agreements arranged between associations of employers and workmen for the regulation of wages, or other conditions of labour in any trade, shall be posted in a prominent place in the Labour Exchanges?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Regulations referred to have only recently come into effect, and I do not think it would be desirable to alter them until some experience of their actual working has been gained.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state the names, positions held, and qualifications and previous experience of the chief appointments made directly by him under the Labour Exchanges Act of last Session?
  Mr. BUXTON: On 1st February last a list of the names of the principal officers appointed under the Labour Exchanges Act was published, together with the positions to which they had been appointed. I am sending a copy of this list to the hon. Member. It is not usual in such cases to publish an official statement as to the qualifications and previous experience of the officers appointed.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of the men so appointed had any previous experience in work of this kind or of a corresponding nature?
  Mr. BUXTON: Not of this class; this is new work altogether; but certainly they are men who have had experience of work of a similar nature, which qualifies them for the duties they have undertaken at the Labour Exchanges.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: How many of these men are ex-military officers, and how many of them are returned ex-South African Civil servants?
  Mr. GOLDMANasked if arrangements can be made, in the case of towns where no Labour Exchanges exist, for obtaining forms at local post offices or elsewhere which any unemployed applicant can send by post to the nearest Exchange in a franked envelope?
  Mr. BUXTON: The possibility of utilising the services of the post offices for the extension of the Labour Exchange

  981
  system is at present under consideration by the General Post Office and the Board of Trade.
  Mr. FELLasked if the distress committees in towns where there are no Labour Exchanges are in communication with the neighbouring Exchanges, and work with them in supplying lists and details of men wanted and available, and are also in communication with the head office in London?
  Mr. BUXTON: No arrangement of the nature suggested in the question has been entered into, and I doubt if it is desirable as a general rule to associate the work of Labour Exchanges too closely with the work of distress committees. I hope, however, that Labour Exchanges will be established before next winter in nearly all industrial districts where a distress committee exists at the present time.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was prepared to receive further applications with a view either to immediate or to future appointments under the Labour Exchanges Act; and how far the applications already sent in are likely to result in appointments?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am glad that my hon. Friend has asked me this question, as there appears to be a good deal of misapprehension in regard to the matter and it is well that the facts of the position should be known. It appears that over 20,000 applications have been received for appointments made under the Labour Exchanges Act. I find also that practically all the immediate appointments have been made, and I desire to bring this fact specially to the notice of all those applicants who have not already been notified of appointment. Further, it is clear that, in the circumstances, no further applications should be made, and I am anxious cot to raise hopes which cannot be fulfilled.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether political influence carries weight in making appointments?
  Mr. BUXTON: No, certainly. Any applications made are considered on their merits and the qualifications of the applicants.
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a resolution from the Sligo County Council
  982
  calling for the establishment of a Labour Exchange Bureau in Sligo; and, if so, whether, seeing that Sligo is the most important town in the province of Connaught, and that there is as yet no Labour Exchange opened in that province, he will consider the advisability of establishing one in Sligo?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have not so far received any resolution from the Sligo County Council.

  Aberdeen Postal Services.
  Mr. PIRIEasked the Postmaster-General whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the grievances experienced by the inhabitants of the Woodside ward of the city of Aberdeen in their postal services, more especially with reference to a decision that letters for that part of the city should be addressed as being in Aberdeenshire instead of Aberdeen; and whether he will include in that inquiry a re-examination of the question of more greatly utilising the tramway services of the city for postal requirements?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am having inquiries made, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Holloway Factory (Discharge).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he was aware that the controller at the Holloway factory, when he gave a workman named Cosker his notice of discharge, told him that if Tariff Reform had been adopted his discharge might have been avoided; and whether he would take steps to prevent officials using their positions to propagate their political principles?
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a man named Cosker, employed at the Holloway factory, who was discharged recently, ostensibly on account of slackness, had made a complaint a few days prior to receiving notice with regard to a shortage in his wages; and whether he will make close inquiry into the matter with a view to ascertaining whether the fact of the man having made a complaint was really the cause of his discharge?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am assured that the Controller of Factories made no such statement as is attributed to him, and I am satisfied, after close inquiry, that Cosker's discharge was not in any way connected with his complaint.

  Postal Telegraph Clerks' Vacancies.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that advertisements are appearing in various newspapers for postal telegraph clerks; and if he can state how it is that the various Government Departments are not using the Labour Exchanges?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think the hon. Member is referring to advertisement issued by commission sub-postmasters who desire to obtain assistants. Such assistants do not enter the Post Office service but are the servants of the sub-postmaster, who is allowed to engage them where he pleases. In many cases knowledge of telegraphy and other expert knowledge unlikely to be found at a Labour Exchange are required. For its own service the Post Office would certainly avail itself of the Labour Exchanges in proper cases if it had any difficulty in obtaining labour.

  Kilfinane District Postman.
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Postmaster-General if he can state the circumstances under which Mr. Bryan Flynn was appointed as rural postman in the Kilfinane district; who recommended him for the position; was this man dismissed about fifteen years ago from the same position in the same district; can he state the causes of his then dismissal; was a man named Kelly entitled in the ordinary course of promotion to the position; did he actually receive a letter of appointment; and will he have the whole facts of this case investigated in the interests of the public service, and a proper appointment made?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am having inquiry made, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

  Portrush and Ballymoney Post Offices.
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Postmaster-General if he can state the respective numbers of letters and amounts of postal matter received and delivered through Portrush and Ballymoney post offices in the twelve months ending 31st December, 1909; and the number of employés in each place?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The information asked for is not at present available, but I am having inquiries made.

  Postal Telegraph Factory.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he was aware that the workmen employed in the engineering department of the Postal Telegraph Factory, Mount Pleasant, are being threatened with short time and possibly some discharges; and whether he will take steps to ensure that work is supplied to the factory rather than to outside contractors?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am giving immediate attention to this question, and am making every effort to secure a sufficiency of work for the factory.

  Greenwich Hospital Estate Workers.
  Mr. HAMILTON BENNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether instructions have been recently given that all the men who have hitherto been annually engaged for temporary work on the Greenwich Hospital estate must in future register themselves at the local labour bureau as a condition of re-engagement?
  Mr. McKENNA: A notice was posted in the Works Department Yard at Greenwich stating that no application for employment will be entertained unless made through the Labour Exchange.
  Mr. HAMILTON BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether the men usually engaged in this work will be prejudiced by having to take their turn with the other unemployed, and whether they will have to register each time they are stood off for two or three days?
  Mr. McKENNA: I quite agree with the hon. Member the wording of the form was probably not put in the best way possible. No prejudice will occur to men usually employed.

  Port of London (Regulation of Dues).
  Mr. PEARCEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, as the Port of London Act limits the dues on goods discharging or loading in the open river to one three-thousandth of their aggregate value, any schedule approved by the Board of Trade will be required to conform to such limitation?
  Mr. BUXTON: As I stated to my hon. Friend yesterday, the Port Authority have no power to go beyond the Statutory limitations.

  Asiatic Sailors (Treatment and Conditions of Work).
  Mr. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any complaints were made by or on behalf of the deceased Asiatic coal-trimmer, Ali Mahomed Rajan; the Asiatic fireman, Annasalla Cadis Mahd; and the Asiatic fireman, Shibatoola Romeezoola, of the steamers "Mahronda," of Liverpool; "Arracan," of Glasgow; and "City of London," of Glasgow, respectively; and whether he has any official information showing that the crews of these steamers have complained, or have cause of complaint, of their treatment by the masters and owners concerned?
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked whether any complaints or claims for compensation have been made by or on behalf of the deceased Asiatic seamen, Vue Yu Ahu and Woo Chin Za, of the "Prometheus," Liverpool; of the deceased Asiatic, Rasan Ghalib, of the "Tangistan," of Swansea; of the deceased Asiatic seaman, Riman Hussein, of the "Macedonia," of Belfast; and of the deceased Asiatic fireman, Dong Chup, of the "Chatham," of London; and whether he has any official information showing that the crews of these steamers have complained, or have cause of complaint, against the masters and owners concerned?
  Mr. BUXTON: No complaints have reached me with regard to any of the cases to which he calls attention. But I desire to add that any bonâ fide representations made from any quarter in regard to the conditions under which firemen and others on board ship work will always receive my consideration.
  Mr. REES: May I ask whether particulars upon which this question are framed are not available in the Official Returns which have been published, and whether the statistics do not show that violent deaths and suicides are fewer proportionately among Asiastic than European sailors?
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not think that is the point. The allegation is that, under certain conditions of temperature in certain hulls under which these firemen and others work, there is a tendency to commit suicide. What I pointed out was that I do not think it is necessary for me or the Board of Trade to wait to get representations from the crews themselves. So long as we get bonâ fide representations upon the matter, we say it is
  986
  our duty to consider the representations and to examine them carefully, in order as far as possible to reduce such evil results as those complained of.
  Mr. REES: Do not the official statistics show that the percentage of deaths on this account is lower among Asiatics, on the average, than among Europeans?
  Mr. BUXTON: Even though the percentage of deaths is low, everyone will desire to see it lower.

  Rigid Dirigible Balloon (Date of Completion).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state when he anticipates the completion of the rigid dirigible balloon now under construction at Barrow?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): In June or July next.

  Speed of the Destroyer "Swift."
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the designed speed of the destroyer "Swift," her maximum speed on trial, and the period over which this maximum speed was maintained?
  Mr. McKENNA: The designed speed is 36 knots for six hours. The greatest speed of which records were taken was 35.239 knots. This speed was the mean of six runs on the measured mile, taken during the fourth hour of the trial.

  German Armoured Vessels of 1909 (Date of Laying Down).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the exact dates on which the four German armoured vessels of the 1909 programme were laid down?
  Mr. McKENNA: The German official dates for ordering the "Ersatz Frithjof" and the cruiser "H" are 8th April, 1909. We have no other German official information on the subject.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Are these the official dates?
  Mr. McKENNA: In this case I understand the date is that of the official order.

  Destroyers of the "Acorn" Class.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the displacement, armament, horse-power, and average cost of the new destroyers of the "Acorn" class?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not desirable in the public interest to give this information yet.

  Floating Dock in Medway.
  Mr. WHELERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the position of the proposed floating dock in the Medway has yet been decided on?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply is in the negative.

  New Lock, Portsmouth.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he would state when it was first decided to construct the new lock at Portsmouth; when the plans were prepared; when the contract was awarded; what is the total estimated cost; how much has as yet been expended; and what is the anticipated date of completion?
  Mr. McKENNA: The contract was placed in July, 1908, and the final decision to construct the lock was taken immediately before that date. The total estimated cost is £940,000. The expenditure up to date is £173,000. The reply to the last part of the question is, early in 1913.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why such a small amount has been expended in the two years since the contract has been placed?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member will give me notice I will give him the exact details of the expenditure. I do not carry the figures in my head.

  Torpedo Boat Destroyers (Removals from Effective List).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what torpedo-boat destroyers had been removed from the effective list since the last issue of the Dilke Return; and what were the reasons for such removal?
  Mr. McKENNA: "Hornet," sold—condemned; "Ferret," condemned, and appropriated to be used for gunnery experiments; "Starfish" and "Sturgeon," not considered worth the expense of repair; "Lee" and "Blackwater," lost.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me what is the condition of the forty-one destroyers built in the same year as the "Starfish"?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think that arises out of the question put by the hon. Member.

  Torpedo Boat Destroyers.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any arrangements have been made for laying up a number of torpedo-boat destroyers in charge of care and maintenance parties; and, if so, will he state the number of boats in each group and the strength and composition of the parties that have been or will be detailed to each group?
  Mr. McKENNA: Unless the hon. Member refers to destroyers laid up for long refit the answer is in the negative.

  Royal Dockyards Establishment (Age Limit).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether the age limit for establishment is forty-five years; whether establishment is a condition of eligibility for a pension; how many men in the Devonport Dockyard have passed that age since the suspension of the establishment in 1907; and whether, now that the Government have decided to reopen the establishment forthwith, he will undertake to see that those men are in no way prejudiced by the suspension?
  Mr. McKENNA: Thirty-five is the ordinary limit, but an extension to forty-five is allowed in the case of hired men who have served continuously since attaining the age of thirty-five. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. The number of men employed in Devonport Dockyard who have passed the age limit since the establishment was suspended cannot be given without a local detailed investigation. The cases of these men will be carefully considered with a view to their not being prejudiced by the suspension. It should, however, be clearly understood that in any event only such of these men can be established as are considered to be the most suitable for the available vacancies.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether he will cause a local inquiry to be made?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir.

  Dirigible Balloons (Sheds).
  Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has taken any steps for the erection on the East Coast of garages or sheds for the shelter of dirigible balloons or aeroplanes?
  Mr. McKENNA: Until experience has been obtained of the first ship now under construction, it would be premature to erect further garages or sheds on the East Coast or elsewhere.
  Mr. FELL: May I ask where it is proposed to keep the dirigible balloon made in June?
  Mr. McKENNA: She is already in her shed, and until we have had more experience in the navigation of the ship, it would be most undesirable to make known our plans either as to the size or the form.
  Mr. FELL: She is in the shed, I gather, at Barrow-in-Furness?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, as she was built there I presume she is there.

  Labourers Acts (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the boards of guardians and district councils in Ireland which availed of the earlier Labourers Acts to ameliorate the condition of labourers are now paying on the outstanding debts thereby incurred interest higher by 1 per cent. or more than is paid by councils which did nothing for labourers until the latest Act, with its low rate, was passed, although the term of repayment has been equalised; will he state the aggregate amount of this excessive interest or clear profit to the Treasury; and whether he proposes to reduce the interest in all cases to the new standard, or to apply the money in any way to the benefit of the districts paying the excess?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): The rate of interest under the Labourers Act, 1906, is 2¾ per cent., but the hon. Member is no doubt aware that the Government cannot borrow money at that rate. It is not correct to state that the rates of interest on loans under the Acts previous to the Labourers Act, 1906 (which are the rates for Local Loans current at the time of borrowing, and range from 2¾ per cent. to 4¼ per cent.), represent excessive interest or clear profit to the Treasury. The rates of interest on loans from the Local Loans Fund are fixed at such a level as will secure the Local Loans Fund from loss. There is no intention of reducing the interest on outstanding loans made to local authorities for housing purposes.

  Finance Bill (New Duties).
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer could he say which of the new duties and increased duties proposed by the Finance Bill, 1909, as set forth in the White Paper, No. 316, of 1909, under six separate heads, including twenty separate new or increased taxes, have been levied during the current financial year since 31st March, 1909; what amount has been received in respect of each one of the twenty items up to the present date; what has been allowed in respect of the abatements and allowances mentioned in that Return in respect of Income Tax; are the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and of Customs continuing at this time to levy all the new and increased duties proposed in the Finance Bill, 1909, and to allow the abatements and allowances there proposed, or, if not all, which of them; and, if so, by what authority do they now levy these duties and make these allowances?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The only new and increased duties which have been levied or paid as voluntary deposits under the Budget Resolutions of last year are:—Customs.—Spirits, increase of 3s. 9d. a gallon; motor spirit, 3d. a gallon; tobacco, increase of 8d. a lb. Excise.—Spirits, increase of 3s. 9d. a gallon. Estate, etc. Duties.—Increase of Estate Duty scale; increase of Settlement Estate Duty from 1 to 2 per cent.; amendment of law in connection with powers of disposition; revision of Legacy and Succession Duties. Income Tax.—At the rate of 1s. 2d. instead of 1s. in the £.
  For particulars of the amounts received I must ask my hon. Friend to wait until I am in a position to make my financial statement upon the result of the year as a whole. No amount has been allowed in respect of the proposed abatements and allowances under Income Tax. Since the prorogation of Parliament on 3rd December last, the new and additional duties mentioned above have not been levied, but all amounts voluntarily paid are received on deposit.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESalso asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered that it is now impossible to make returns or to give the notices which Clause 72 of the Finance Bill, 1909, proposed to require, under heavy penalties, before 31st December last, inasmuch as that day is now long past; that, inasmuch as the Super-tax on Income Tax was

  991
  proposed to be based on those notices and returns, does he now, in view of the impossibility of their being made, propose to levy the Super-tax for the present financial year or to allow it to lapse for the year; and have the Special Commissioners in any instance exercised, or are they now exercising, the right proposed to be conferred upon them by Clause 72 (5) of making their own assessment of Super-tax for the present financial year in the absence of the information for its assessment proposed by the Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, it is not intended that the proposed Super-tax should lapse for the present financial year. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative.

  Mackerel Duty (Ireland).
  Mr. GILHOOLYasked the President of the Board of Trade if any representations had been made to the Government of the United States since His Majesty's present advisers took office as to the incidence of the import duty on mackerel, an Irish industry, as compared with the import duty on herring, which were principally exported from Scotland; if the Government could ascertain what reason was assigned for the difference in the duty on mackerel and herring; whether mackerel was a fish caught in any greater quantity than herring by United States fishermen; whether the Government were in possession of any statistics of the catch in America; what was the respective import duty per ton on herring and mackerel; and would the Government request His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington to make representations on the subject of the effect of the mackerel duty on Irish trade?
  Mr. BUXTON: The answer to the first question is in the negative. I am not aware of the reason for the difference between the duties imposed in the United States on mackerel and herring respectively. The latest statistics I have seen of the United States catch relate to 1906, in which year the total catch of mackerel was approximately 10,448 barrels, salted, and 35,240 barrels, fresh, or a total of 45,688 barrels; whilst the total catch of herring, frozen and salted, was 72,309 barrels. The figures of a single year do not, however,
  992
  afford a sufficient basis for a proper comparison, as the catch varies from year to year. The duty leviable in the United States on herrings, pickled, salted, smoked, or kippered, is half a cent per pound, and on fresh herrings a quarter of a cent per pound. On mackerel the duty leviable is one cent per pound.
  Mr. GILHOOLY: The right hon. Gentleman has given no answer to the latter part of my question, as to whether the Government will request their Ambassador at Washington to make representations on the subject of the effect of the mackerel duty on Irish trade.
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not know whether representations were made, and I do not quite see on what ground we can make representations. If the hon. Member will give me any information upon which I can base representations, I shall be glad to consider them.

  ORDER OF BUSINESS.
  Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether he can give us any information as to the course of business next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As already announced, we intend on Monday to move the Speaker out of the Chair, and on Tuesday and Wednesday to take the Army Estimates, Army Votes A and 1, and we hope to get Vote 10 (Buildings), and possibly some other non-effective Votes. On Thursday we shall take the Civil Service Vote on Account, and on Friday Report of the Supplementary Votes, and the Army Votes; and, if time permits, one or two non-controversial Departmental Bills.
  Mr. LOUGH: Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to consider the appeal made to him yesterday to expedite the issue of the Navy Estimates? They were promised for Thursday, and the discussion takes place on the following Monday, and that interval is a very short one.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will communicate with my right hon. Friend.
  Sir JAMES DALZIEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us what business will be taken to-morrow?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. Tomorrow we shall take the Third Reading of the Treasury (Temporary Borrowing) Bill and the Third Reading of the War Loan (Redemption) Bill, and the reports of outstanding Votes.

  UNCLAIMED BANK BALANCES.
  Address for return "giving (1) the Colonies and British Dominions in which periodical returns are required by law of unclaimed balances and securities in the hands of bankers, and (2) the total amount of such unclaimed balances and securities disclosed up to 31st January, 1910, in each of such Colonies or Dominions respectively."—[Mr. Bottomley.]
  MEMBER SWORN.—Mr. Ernest J. Soares, for the Barnstaple Division of Devonshire, on re-election after acceptance of office under the Crown as a Lord of the Treasury.

BILLS PRESENTED.
The following Bills were presented, and read the first time:—
Mr. BRIDGEMAN—Small Holdings and Allotments Act (1908) Amendment—Bill to amend The Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908. (To be read a second time upon 17th March.)
Mr. GEORGE THORNE—Public Health (Provisional Orders)—Bill to amend The Public Health Act, 1875, in relation to Provisional Orders. (To be read a second time upon 14th March.)
Mr. J. G. BUTCHER—Parliamentary Registration (Soldiers)—Bill to facilitate the acquisition and exercise of the Parliamentary Franchise by Soldiers who, in the course of their military duty or service, are removed from one constituency to another. (To be read a second time upon 14th March.)
Sir HENRY CRAIK—Officer under the Crown (Vacating of Seats)—Bill to amend the Law regarding the Vacating of Seats by Members of the Commons House of Parliament accepting Office under the Crown. (To be read a second time upon 14th March.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
Resolved, "That the Proceedings on the Treasury (Temporary Borrowing) Bill and the War Loan (Redemption) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

TREASURY (TEMPORARY BORROWING) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
Reported without amendment. Bill to be read the Third time to-morrow (Friday).

WAR LOAN (REDEMPTION) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

WAR LOAN (REDEMPTION) BILL.

  SCHEDULE.
  (Provisions for carrying out Redemption of War Loan.)
  Paragraph (4).—If any person credited in pursuance of the foregoing provisions with money payable to him on the redemption of War Stock does not claim his money before the thirty-first day of May, nineteen hundred and ten, the money shall be invested forthwith by the Bank in Two and a Half per cent. Consolidated Stock at the price of the day in the names of the respective stockholders.
  Sir F. BANBURYmoved to leave out paragraph (4).
  I object to this provision, and I would like to call the attention of the Committee to the facts connected with this War Loan. It was issued ten years ago with the understanding that at the expiration of ten years—that is to say, on 5th April, 1910–the holders should receive in cash £100 for every £100 stock. That was a definite agreement entered into between the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the time and those people who subscribed to the War Loan. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to abrogate that agreement and say: We will pay you in money provided you make your demand within seven weeks of the date of redemption.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Quite fair.
  Sir F. BANBURY: If the hon. Member or some of his friends had £2 per week in wages and the master came round and said, I am not going to give you your wages in money but in kind, would he think that quite fair?
  Mr. WARD: It would be quite fair if he offered to pay me in cash within two months.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Quite so, but that is just exactly what I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do, and it is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not going to do. If the right hon. Gentleman were going to pay in cash within two months, I should have nothing to say, but he is going to pay in Consols, which is a totally different thing. That is the whole point, and I am obliged to the hon. Member for his interruption. I take it he will now vote with me in the Division, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not agree with me on my Amendment. Yesterday I alluded to this subject, and I ventured to say there was not precedent for a course of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hobhouse), in answer, told me there was a precedent, and he instanced the case of the conversion of Consols by Lord Goschen in 1889. May I point out that is not a precedent at all? Yesterday or the day before, when speaking upon this Bill, I said I did not know whether the War Loan was funded or unfunded debt, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that it was unfunded. What is the use of telling me of a precedent which relates to funded debt? There is no precedent with regard to unfunded debt of this sort. The right hon. Gentleman gave a contemptuous shake of the head when I said there was a difference between funded and unfunded debt. Let me explain it. The conversion of Consols, in the first place, was not a pledge by the State on a certain date to give the whole of Consols in money; it was merely a conversion of Consols. There was no undertaking ever given by any Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay off Consols at par at any given time; on the contrary, all Chancellors of the Exchequer have reserved to themselves the right to allow Consols to continue indefinitely and to pay off at par on giving a year's notice. Therefore, no one ever invested in Consols on the understanding that on a fixed day they were going to get cash for their stock.
  4.0 P.M.
  When Mr. Goschen converted Consols what did he do? He did not give another stock; he merely said, "If fox six months you are content to allow your money to remain I shall take it for granted that, having made no attempt to withdraw it, you have assented, and therefore the stock will continue to remain." It was the same stock, the only difference being that the interest was reduced. I venture to say very
  996
  humbly that Mr. Goschen was quite right under those circumstances, because there was a very large number of people who invested their money in Consols, knowing that it was a permanent security, and therefore they preferred to continue it. They were not always able to make up their minds whether they would take a lower rate of interest, and, under the circumstances of that state of indecision, Mr Goschen simply said, "If within six months you do not make up your minds it will be taken that you have assented to the stock still standing in your name." But in this instance the Government are allowing only a period of two months, and, consequently, the holder who invested in the belief that he would get his money in full will get something less. The only reason is that the holder might possibly not like to lose interest during the time he omitted to claim his money. But what is the rate of interest on Consols? They only return about 3 per cent., and for a period of two or three months that would not come to very much. Suppose a great fall in the price of Consols, which is not unlikely, should take place on 31st May. Supposing, too, the holder of the War Loan who had invested his money in that loan with the knowledge that he was going to get, on 5th April, 100 golden sovereigns for every £100 of stock, knowing that the word of the British Government had always been held to be above question, so that he might rely on getting his money when he claimed it happened to be living abroad at the time, and did not read the Debates in the British House of Commons, he might find when he came home and expected to get his money back in full that, instead of getting the cash, he would only have it offered him in Consols. Supposing further that, in consequence of the action taken by this House in regard to another place, the country was in a state of ferment, if not revolution, it is not impossible that Consols would have fallen to 75, and, therefore, the unfortunate holder who had invested his money at 82 in the belief it would return him 100 would only actually get 75. Surely for that he will not thank the right hon. Gentleman.
  I am afraid I am doing my party a disservice and the party of the right hon. Gentleman a service in drawing attention to what has no doubt been an oversight on his part, because it is going to make his party extremely unpopular. I do not know whether they are so unpopular that they think they have nothing to lose and do not care how much more unpopular

  997
  they may become, but, at any rate, this procedure is not going to do them any good. It, however, is not my object in raising this point to do them a service; my object is to do some service to the public and to the people who have invested their money in this particular Government stock. The Financial Secretary told me yesterday he was quite certain I had not had any communications from bankers or people in the City in this connection. That was more or less correct. I pointed out, however, that I was not speaking in the interests of the City or of bankers; they are well able to look after themselves; they are able almost to cope with the Financial Secretary himself. I was speaking in the interests of the unfortunate private investor, who is not able to cope with these authorities. Mr. Goschen, when he gave six months' interval before forcibly converting his Consols allowed a space in which dividends accrued. A large number of people only look to their dividends; they know they are going to get dividends at certain intervals, and they do not take the trouble to see whether or not the stock is due to be drawn. When the dividend does not come in, then they begin to ask what has happened; they go to their banker, or solicitor, or broker, as the case may be, and find out probably that it has been redeemed. They simply reply they did not see any notice of it, and then they expect to go and draw their money. If the right hon. Gentleman would give an interval of six months there is some possibility that private individuals would know what is going on; he has, however, given such a short interval that there is very little chance of these investors, unless they are particularly wide-awake, knowing what is going on. That is my reason for raising this point in the interests of private people rather than of the City. I had a letter last night from one of the largest bankers in the City of London. The writer asked me not to disclose his name, and I must, therefore, invite the House to accept my word that he is one of the largest bankers. He was writing about the War Loan, and at the finish of his letter he said, "We never receive an order to buy Consols now, nor English railways, nor anything else English." Yet the right hon. Gentleman is going perforce to make these unfortunate people accept in lieu of War Loan Stock something for which orders to purchase are never received. The right hon. Gentleman a day or two ago told me in answer to the question why it was proposed to
  998
  pay off this particular loan by means of floaters that there was a demand for floaters, but not a demand for Consols. Yet with that knowledge he is putting on these holders another stock for which he himself admits there is no demand at the present moment. I hope I have been moderate in the way I have placed this matter before the Committee. It is not a big matter, nor a party matter, but it is certainly important for those who have invested their money in this particular stock. It is also really important both for the Government and for my right hon. Friends on these benches that the public shall be satisfied that whatever the English Government says when it comes into the Money Market to borrow money will be carried out without quibbling, and that the plain contract will be fulfilled.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: To my mind the point brought before the House by the hon. Baronet is one of the most amazing mare's nests ever heard of. He has suggested to us that the Government, instead of paying the holders of the War Loan on 5th April 100 golden sovereigns for every £100 in stock, are going to pay something less.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): Yes, you did.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I read the Section I proposed to omit. That Section says that if the holders of the War Loan do not claim cash on 5th April, and do not claim it before 31st May after that date, instead of being paid in cash, they will be paid in Consols.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: My hon. Friend represents that the holders of War Stock are such rich people that when they are offered £100 they will not take it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did nothing of the kind.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Let me say at once that this Bill forces the Government to carry out the obligations which they contracted in connection with the War Loan—that is to say, for every £100 of stock they must on 5th April pay 100 golden sovereigns. There is no holder of War Loan Stock who is not entitled to get this money. Now we come to the case of the man who does not claim within three months, or who, through some accident,

  999
  may not know what has taken place. What is going to happen in that case? He is going to have the same value provided for him in another form. Observe that this War Loan bears interest at the rate of 2¾ per cent. If this victim does not claim his £100 it will be automatically invested for him in Consols, and from the day of its investment, instead of getting £2 15s. per cent., he will be entitled to £3 1s. per cent. Is that an injury to him?
  Sir F. BANBURY: But suppose he wants cash?
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: He can get it. He can exchange his Consols for cash. My point is this: that the absentee or the forgetful man who has foregone his opportunity of securing his 100 golden sovereigns is not harmed one helfpenny, because, instead of receiving £2 15s. per cent., as he has done during the last ten years, he will, in consequence of his neglect, be given by this paternal and grandmotherly Government, which takes charge of his money for him, as I am sure many brokers in the City would do for simple clients, receive the increased late of interest of £3 1s. per cent. He will, in fact, get £3 1s. instead of £2 15s. for every £100 of stock he held in this loan. Can that be said to be a harm to him? Is it not, indeed, a very fair arrangement? I confess I think the interval might have been a little longer than three months.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Two months.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: It is really three months. I admit it is rather a short time. I agree that people are forgetful. They live abroad and overlook these matters. There is the celebrated case of Mrs. Roberts, of Smith Street, Chelsea, who for forty years forgot the dividends which were at her bank. They were finally captured by some conspirators, and in that way the matter was first brought to her knowledge. I think, if the Government could make the interval six months instead of three months, it would be a great advantage.
  Now there is one question I myself should like to put to the Government, and it is in connection with this War Loan which bore interest at 2¾ per cent. I may tell hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they complain of the Government not having extinguished more of this War Loan, the fact is that it was extremely difficult to buy. Those who had it would not part
  1000
  with it. They were content to wait till the 5th April in order to get their 100 golden sovereigns, and that certainly is a good reason why the Government did not buy up more of the War Loan. You are now about to issue Exchequer Bonds. Are they to run from day to day? Are they receivable in payment of duties? Are they that sort of bond? You are extinguishing a 2¾ per cent. stock or bond. What per cent. are you going to pay for the stock you will substitute for it? I should like to know, in other words, whether we are going to be put into a worse position in consequence of the present state of affairs? Are we going to pay more than 2¾ per cent., or are we going to pay less? Because that is the measure of the liability, and I should very much like to know. I should for myself very much like, indeed, to pay off this War Loan with that £30,000,000 which we never had, but which we were to get; but it would not be in order on this occasion to discuss that question. I do not agree with the hon. Baronet as to his main contention, but with regard to the subsidiary point in reference to the three months I do think there is something in it, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury whether they could not accept an extension of the time to six months.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I only wish to point out, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, that he has not answered my case when he says where is the hardship to the forgetful holder of stock, who has his money reinvested for him and is paid £3 1s. per cent. interest instead of £2 15s. per cent. He may get 3½ per cent. on other stocks, or he might even get his money invested in stock paying £4 10s. per cent. I can give the hon. Gentleman the names of plenty of stocks paying these sums, and, therefore, when he said that the investor gets the benefit of the £3 1s. per cent., it is an absurd answer, because he could possibly get much more. Then the hon. Member forgets the real point, which is this. It is true that the investor receives a little higher rate of interest, but he does not get his money. Suppose it was invested by him in order to buy a house, and when he comes back to this country he finds his money re-invested for him. He will at least have to pay brokerage and lose the turn of the market of one-quarter per cent., and in that way he will lose money. Suppose, moreover, he comes back and finds Lord Swaythling's prediction is true and the Bank rate goes up, in consequence

  1001
  of the non-passing of the Budget, to 10 per cent., he will lose the use of his money which he does want for the sake of interest at a rate which he does not want, and he might get four or five per cent. for his money.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Baronet comes down to this House and leads the Committee to understand that he is speaking more or less on behalf of the commercial community in the City of London and that he not only represents their political but their financial views in this Assembly.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: He does not speak for anybody.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Yes, I speak for myself and I also represent 12,700 people.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is what I said. He leads the Committee to understand that he represents not merely their political but their financial views. We recognise that he represents their political views, but does he represent their financial views? Because if he does he has not represented to this Committee that there is a state of uneasiness such as might arise in the City over the proposals of this Bill, but he has, I say it perfectly frankly, made a purely party attack on the Government. What did he say? He gave the Committee to understand generally, and I think in particular he gave my hon. Friend below the Gangway to understand, that the Government in this Bill were deliberately breaking faith with those who lent the money to them in 1900. He said that the loan of 1900 promised cash. I agree. He did not say that this Bill did not give them cash, but that is what he meant to insinuate, because if he did not mean that he meant absolutely nothing at all. If, however, the hon. Baronet had not merely studied this Sub-section (4), but if he had read also Sub-section (1) of these Regulations and Sub-section (3) he would have seen that the payment, as has been pointed out, is payment in cash for the cash originally advanced. If that is so, why should not the hon. Baronet have read out that Section to the Committee? He dealt with great asperity with one; why did he not read the other?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did mention it.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: He did not do so because it was not convenient for his argument to point out the whole facts of the
  1002
  case. Sub-section (1) provides that payment of War Stock shall be carried out by the payment of the principal sum at the rate of £100 sterling for £100 stock; that is sterling for stock, cash for stock. Why was that not said?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did say it.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Then again we come to Regulation No. 3, which says that any payment to be made by the Bank for the reduction of War Stock may be made either by warrant sent by post or by crediting the stockholder in the books of the Bank with the amount of cash due to him. I hope that this ridiculous legend which the hon. Member has created will not be repeated in connection with this particular Debate. He then went on to comment upon what I will venture to say was a perfectly reasonable proposition against which he argued on a perfectly reasonable basis, the provisions of the fourth Regulation. I drew attention to the provisions of Mr. Goschen in the National Debt Redemption Act of 1889. The hon. Gentleman asked me when that Bill was passed, and I pointed out that it was passed on 11th April. He jumped to the conclusion that because the Bill was passed on 11th April that proved that it came into operation, as far as the redemption of stock under this Bill was concerned on 11th April, but unfortunately for his argument it did not come into existence till 1st June, or rather July. If he will look at the Act he will see that the time is the 6th day of July, and therefore you have to calculate for the purpose of money lying at the Bank not between 11th April and 1st October, which gives him this six months, but from the period of 6th July when the stock is to be redeemed at the Bank to the 1st day of October, on which date exactly the same condition is made by Mr. Goschen as we make by this Bill.
  Therefore under the original Act upon which our proposal is based a period of less than three months elapses, not six months, in this case a period of just under two months elapses. As to the point which the hon. Baronet made in reference to the difference between funded and unfunded debt, the object of the investor is to get his money back again—to get his cash back again, and if he applies for it he gets his money back again, and he gets it in cash. If, on the other hand, he leaves his money for a period of nearly two months

  1003
  in the bank under exactly the same conditions as were made under the Act of 1889, his money is to be put into Consols for him. But my hon. Friend below me said, "Why do not you leave it a little bit longer?" There is, I think, a good reason in this case for investing it on the 1st of June; Consols become ex-dividend on the 2nd. There is, therefore, a period of two days in which the money may be invested by the bank for the person who is in credit at the bank—the original investor—and in regard to any investment made on those two days the creditor will benefit to the amount of the interest which will accrue on the money that he has invested. That is precisely the same reason which moved Mr. Goschen, under the Act of 1889, to fix, not upon the 4th or 5th or any other day of October, and made him fix upon the 1st day of October. That is the reason which moved him and, for the same reason, has moved us to take the first day of the month.
  The hon. Baronet says that this proposal is a very unpopular one; it is nothing of the sort. I not only made inquiries in the City before I spoke yesterday, but I made subsequent inquiries since, and the only person whom I have been able to trace who takes any objection to this procedure at all is the hon. Baronet opposite. I do not know why he is always crying down English investments—I do not know whether he thinks that such a practice will increase the value of English investments, but I should have thought that if persons were always being told that English securities were worthless, and that they had better put their money into something else than British Consols and stock for which the British Government is responsible, that it would tend to depreciate those securities as an inevitable result. I do not know whether the hon. Baronet thinks he is serving any interests of the constituency he represents or the country about which he is always talking. I can only say that as an investor, if I had to depend for information which would lead me to invest money in this or that security upon the hon. Baronet, I should certainly avoid all British securities whatever.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say that I think this is a matter of very great importance, but I was a little surprised at two or three remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Apparently
  1004
  he thinks that it is the duty of the hon. Baronet, when his friends come to him for advice, to give them advice which he does not believe in; and, secondly, he thinks that if, in the opinion of my hon. Friend, through the action of the British Government, British stocks are an unsafe investment, it is his duty, nevertheless, to say that they are good investments. I only say that because I am sorry to think that the whole speech of the right hon. Gentleman raised a party tone which was not in that of my Friend the hon. Baronet. My hon. Friend's point did not differ from that which the hon. Member opposite made. My hon. Friend's complaint had no reference to big bankers, who know what is going on, but his whole complaint was that this loan, like many other investments of the same kind, is held by a great many people who do not follow what is being done, and who will find out at the end of two months that they will not get cash, but will find that they have Consols placed to their credit which they do not want. The whole point is whether it would not be fairer and wiser in the interests of everyone concerned to give a little longer notice. I have myself found that I have lost money by having circulars sent to me which I have overlooked. Everybody is liable to do that, and the two months which the right hon. Gentleman gives is really not enough even to meet the case without overlooking everybody in distant parts of the world. I would put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Is there any hardship in leaving the loan in this position for some longer time than two months, so that a man who does not make his claim in time will get his £100 of cash for his £100 of stock?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman took my remarks in a sense in which they were not intended. I distinctly told the House yesterday that anyone who wanted cash could get it, provided he applied before 31st May, therefore the statement that I did not say so was quite incorrect. The right hon. Gentleman has laid great stress on the fact that Lord Goschen's Conversion Bill became law on 11th April, but did not become operative until 6th July. Lord Goschen's Conversion Bill convulsed the City, so to speak. Such a thing had never taken place before. It dealt with £500,000,000 of money—quite different from a little thing like this, and everyone knew that when the Act became law they would have either to convert or to take their money, and to all

  1005
  intents and purposes they had six months' notice from the date when the Bill passed Parliament to the time when they were obliged to convert.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have no desire to decry English investments, or to attempt to make a party point upon this question, which is really a matter of business, but I do not think the other side exactly understand the point that the hon. Baronet was trying to make. It is proposed under this Bill to make an alteration in the terms on which the loan was originally floated. It was originally floated on the terms that on and after due date they should repay in cash, and what you are now proposing is to vary those terms. You are going to say "on due date, and for a limited time afterwards, we will pay in cash. Unless you are successful in coming to us and asking for your money within seven weeks, instead of paying in cash we are going to give you Consols." The point is not whether you are giving a better security or a worse security, whether you are getting higher interest instead of lower. The point is that you are varying the terms upon which you floated the loan, and you are not paying in cash when you have agreed to pay in cash. This point is one of real importance, because British securities have always, and rightly, demanded a much higher price owing to the belief, abroad as well as at home, that we shall continuously carry out our obligations, and this alteration, although perhaps not very important, is one of degree. If a foreign State were to say, "although it is due from us that we should pay in cash on the expiry of our loan, instead of paying cash we will give you another security without the option of cash," there would be an outcry at once, and our Foreign Office would be asked to make representations to the foreign State, and it would be put upon the defaulters list. That is a matter, of course, of real repudiation. I am not suggesting that you are doing anything as gross, but you are doing something in the way of altering the security which you promised to the investor, and to say that you are giving Consols is no answer, because, as has been admitted on the Government Benches, the War Loan has been difficult to get when they went to try and get it. It was difficult to get from the very good reason that people knew that within a short time they would get cash, and it consequently commanded a much higher price than Consols although
  1006
  it was returning a much lower rate of interest. You are therefore telling those who have subscribed upon the faith of getting their cash on and after due date that they have to hurry up and ask in a short period for their cash. The point that you want to re-invest the cash ex-dividend on 1st June is an utterly bad one, because if you want to invest the cash ex-dividend, do not do it on 1st June, but on 1st September or 1st October, three months afterwards, and if you do that you can then give this extra time that is suggested, which, at any rate, will mitigate the hardship of those who have subscribed on the faith of your promise.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I rise to make an observation with reference to the opening statement of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). I quite agree that we on these benches are very simple in reference to finance, and especially to the terms of the City. But the hon. Baronet made a reference to an interjection of mine which I am certain led astray everyone who had not considered the actual terms of the Bill. The hon. Member (Mr. Bonar Law) has complained of the style of reply which was given by the Financial Secretary. I think, when one considers that the statement of the hon. Baronet was intended to misinterpret the position of affairs—[Cries of "Withdraw"]—I will ask the House whether these are not the actual terms that the hon. Baronet used. He said to me, "Suppose you have been working for wages and, when the time came, instead of paying you in cash the sum you have earned you were paid in kind, would not you object?" And I said, "If you offered to pay me in cash any time within two months and I never applied for my wages I should think you were entitled to pay me in any form you chose." The hon. Baronet says, "If they offered to pay in cash I would not object, but that is the very thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he is not going to do." Now it turns out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, within two months of the expiry of the loan, is offering to pay in cash, and therefore it looks like an attempt to confuse those who did not understand the actual terms of the Bill.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us why it is necessary to interfere at all with these people's money instead of keeping it until they come and claim it, the Bank do?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): I rise to correct one statement made by the hon. Member, who rather suggests that this is a proposal to repudiate our liabilities. He stated that the Act of Parliament on the strength of which this money has been raised definitely promised that the money should be paid on 5th April, either on or after. He could not possibly have looked up the Act of Parliament. Clause II., Sub-section (4) says, "It shall not be redeemable until the 5th day of April, 1910, and on that date shall be redeemed," not on or after. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton) is exceedingly amused. It is the point of his own follower. It is not an important point at all, but the hon. Gentleman seems to think it was a very important point. The statement made by the hon. Gentleman was that there was a distinct promise and that it was part of the condition on which the money was raised that it should be paid on or after.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I did not say it was in the Act of Parliament, but in the terms on which the loan was floated, and I think I am accurate, because when a loan is floated on terms that you shall pay in cash, the practice is that you shall pay in cash whenever the repayment of the loan is due.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman now, his attention having been called to October, goes on a totally different ground. He is now reverting to the original argument of the hon. Baronet who got up to enlighten the House about the terms of the loan. Was not this the suggestion made by the hon. Member, that there was a definite, explicit promise in the very terms on which the loan was issued, that it was to be paid not merely on, but on and after? I see no condition of that kind. When it comes to practice it is a totally different matter. It is not the invariable practice. The hon. Baronet himself admits that with regard to Lord Goschen's transaction. There time was allowed, and unless the money was applied for within that time they would take the stock suggested by Lord Goschen. There is a precedent. It is not at all a departure from practice. What is the hardship? The hon. Gentleman talks about repudiation. I cannot really conceive why he should use language of that kind, because, after all, we are not paying our own debts, but debts created for us by hon. Gentlemen opposite. This is a War Loan, and we are doing our very best to pay the balance of that debt. We have paid about nine millions, and we
  1008
  have to go to the City to pay up the balance. I should have thought hon. Gentlemen opposite would rather help us instead of decrying the stock, and saying "you are repudiating your liabilities," and passing all sorts of criticisms which make it difficult for us to float this loan on reasonable terms on the City. They all know perfectly well that this money is redeemable on 5th April. Everyone knows. It is not merely bankers; it is known by every investor in War Loan stock [Cries of "No, no."] Surely they ought to, then, and on the face of every bond it is clearly and distinctly stated. Does the hon. Member (Mr. Bonar Law) really suggest that these investors in War Loans are so very innocent that they know nothing about the time when it is to be redeemed?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have myself over and over again allowed loans of that kind to mature, and only discovered it when the dividends did not come in.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is because the hon. Gentleman has left the matter in the hands of someone to advise him in the City. It would not happen in the case of a very small investor who has to depend entirely on an investment of this character. I can understand that there may be cases where a man leaves his business in the hands of someone in the City, but surely his adviser knows the time when it becomes redeemable. The stock is thoroughly advertised, if only by Debates in this House. There is one advantage of the speeches of the hon. Baronet. He is advertising all the holders of War Stock throughout the country that it is redeemable on 5th April, and they know perfectly well that they have only to apply for cash. They ought to know something about it, and if they do not why should the country be damnified? You offer them cash. If after two months they do not take the cash you offer them 2½ per cent. Consolidated Stock at the price of the day. You are offering them something which is equivalent to cash. [An HON. MEMBER: "It may not be next day."] It may be higher. The Noble Lord opposite is one of those who think probably that he would be sitting on this bench. Then, of course, that would put down the price of securities. We are going to give the owners of War Stock a great chance. They have got to invest this money in Consols. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Well, in order that it should produce interest. It is obviously in the interest of the man himself that it should be so invested. Supposing

  1009
  that it were kept in the bank without making any interest at all, he would have much greater reason to complain than if it were invested in Consols at the current price of the day.
  The hon. Baronet, in the course of his speech, made the usual depreciatory observations about British securities, and the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bonar Law) defends him. He says that if he thinks British securities are unsafe he is bound to advise his clients not to invest in them. All I can say is that if British securities paid the same interest as German securities pay they would be higher in the market. Can the hon. Baronet find any securities in the world paying as low a rate of interest as Consols, which can be purchased to give a better return to the investor than Consols? That is the real test. Supposing we were paying 4 per cent., would our stock be as low in the market as it is now? I take British railway securities, which he is running down.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I really must protest. I have not run down any British securities. Really I must protest because words are put into my mouth which I have not used, not only by the right hon. Gentleman, but by his colleague, the Financial Secretary. I made no reference to British railway securities. I read a letter written by a banker, in which he expressed the opinion, not that British securities are bad, but that he had no demand now either for Consols or any other British security.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Baronet read a letter which he evidently approved of, because it was read in support of his argument. Does he approve of that letter?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I believe the fact stated in the letter is absolutely correct.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Baronet knows perfectly well that it is not correct. He knows perfectly well that there are transactions constantly in which British securities change hands. He knows perfectly well—
  Sir F. BANBURY: I never said there were no transactions in British securities I said I had received a letter from an eminent banker, in which he said, "We never receive an order to buy Consols now. I might add neither English railways nor anything else English." [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] If hon. Gentlemen who call
  1010
  for the name of the writer had come into the House when I was speaking they would have heard me say before reading the letter that the writer asked me not to mention his name, [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I have been eighteen years a Member of this House, and I am not in the habit of saying what is not correct. Hon. Members may take it from me that the writer of the letter is a banker of eminence. If they do not take it from me, that is their affair.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have never doubted the hon. Baronet, and I have never doubted that the letter he read was written by a gentleman of eminence in the banking world. But that is not the point. The suggestion which the hon. Baronet made was that British securities did not stand so high in the market as other securities. His suggestion was that people would not invest in them.
  Sir F. BANBURYindicated assent.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: He assents to that. Why does he say that he merely read the letter as if it were not relevant to his argument that British securities do not stand high in the estimation of investors? The hon. Baronet ought to be fair to British securities, and when he read a letter of that sort he ought to have explained that it was not meant to draw invidious comparisons between British securities and other securities. The fact is that you can get money here at a lower rate than in any other country in the world. Does he deny that? Does he say that we cannot get money here at a lower rate than the German Imperial Government can get money?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I deny that the reason that there is a disinclination to invest in British securities is because the rate of interest abroad is higher. It is because people have no confidence in the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Baronet knows perfectly well that that is no answer to my question. When he got up I gave way to him in order that he might answer my question, and he took an unfair advantage of my giving way to him. The question I put to him was this, Can he give the name of any Government in the world that can borrow money at a lower rate of interest than the British Government?
  Sir F. BANBURY: France.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Oh, no. The hon. Baronet is absolutely incorrect about that. They cannot borrow money cheaper. The Germans, who are always held up to us as a model of what a country ought to be, especially in the matter of raising revenue, and in military and Imperial matters, have to pay 4 per cent., or very near it. Does the hon. Baronet think that the price of our stock in the market would stand in the same position as that of German stock if we paid 4 per cent.? Compare British railway securities with American securities. The rate of interest for American securities is very much higher for the same amount of cash. Take even Steel Bonds, and compare the return with that on British securities. I could give the hon. Baronet a list of the best industrial securities in America to compare with industrial securities here. The rate of interest has to be higher in order to get the money. What does the hon. Baronet do? He reads these garbled statements and tries to make out that British securities are no good. I think there ought to be an end of this sort of thing—this crying of stinking fish about British trade. British trade no good! British commerce no good! British securities no good! Everything British no good! These patriots are always running down everything English. They go down into the country decrying everything British, and they are quoted in foreign papers to the detriment of this country. These speeches which are made running down Britain are naturally doing a great deal of harm. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Limehouse speech?"] I did not decry my native land. I ran down some of the wastrels in my native land. I never ran down the credit of the country, or its power, or its influence, but those speeches which have been constantly delivered running down British credit are doing harm. They are quoted abroad for that purpose, and I think hon. Members who have the real interest and the fair fame of their country at heart ought to repudiate those statements which are being made.
  Mr. MACMASTER: The question before the Committee is strictly a business one, but notwithstanding that the discussion has wandered a long way from the point before us. It is not a question of British credit, but whether a particular course of procedure should be followed which may more or less cast a blight on British credit. The question before the Com-
  1012
  mittee is this: Is it in order that a British security which has been issued subject to redemption on a particular day should be redeemed on that day or after, and whether, in the event of its not being redeemed within a certain period, the borrower should be able to convert that security into some other security? I am astonished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider that a sum of money which is payable on a particular date should not be equally payable at a later date. If the dividend or interest on a bond is payable on a particular day, it is surely payable after that day. Nobody would think for a moment that it was not payable after that day simply because the word "after" was not expressed on the face of the obligation. If there is an obligation on the part of the borrower to pay the original sum on a particular day, should there be the right on the part of the borrower to convert the money into some other security if it is not paid on that day? It is a perfectly elementary matter in finance that if a sum is payable in money it should be paid in money, and not in anything else, except with the consent of the borrower. It is no answer to that to say, "I am going to give you a better security. I am going to give you Consols, and you should be very happy to take Consols." The borrower may have in view the getting of his money to build a house, or to put it in some other investment. Nor is it any answer whatever to say, "I will give you Consols, because they give a higher rate of interest." On the contrary, they may pay a lower rate, and even if they pay a higher rate, the investor might say, "I do not care about making an investment at the price." All these suggestions that you are going to pay something different are purely illusory. The amount of the loan should be paid accordingly to the bond unless the lender agrees to something else. What has all this to do with foreign credit? It is true that it might be a reflection more or less on the credit of the country to say to the borrower that you will repay him by converting his security into another form. Will you permit me to say, without casting any reflection on the credit of this country, that some speeches—perhaps not the speeches referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—with which he is entirely familiar have tended to discredit the public securities of this country more than any other speeches which have been made in the past years. When the Chancellor of the Ex-

  1013
  chequer undertakes to say that the credit of this country is so superior to that of foreign countries, he must compare the credit of this country with the credit of other countries in regard to matters where comparison is possible.
  5.0 P.M.
  I notice that from these benches reference has been made to the credit of France. I am not going to make any comparison myself, but I may point out to the right hon. Gentleman, for his consideration, whether this country is now, or ever has been able to borrow money as cheaply as the United States of America. Is it not true that they floated their securities bearing 2½ per cent. at par, and are these 2½ per cent. securities now at a discount in the market? I make this observation simply for the purpose of correcting what the right hon. Gentleman has said and not because I wish for one moment to disparage British security. This is the first time that I have had the honour and privilege of speaking before this House; I had not intended to speak this evening, but I have had something to do with financial affairs myself, and I have some personal knowledge of the operations of money and rates of interest and credit, and for that reason I took the liberty of saying a few words, although I did not wish to occupy the time of the Committee.
  Captain CRAIG: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that it was the interests of the lender which he was considering when he proposed to invest their money in Consols for them without any mandate or instructions from them. I wish to call his attention to a recent precedent in this matter. Everyone in the House will be aware that during the great financial transaction of paying off the landlords of Ireland under the Act of 1903 it was not possible for the Estates Commissioners to pay in hard cash. In every instance the Estates Commissioners had to invest the money in Consols, and then, when the transaction was completed and the title was proved, the Consols were transferred from the Estates Commissioners into the name of the landlord who owned the property. And what was the effect? Consols stood somewhere about 86, 85 or 84, when the money was invested, and now these gentlemen are looking for their money and cannot get it because Consols have come down to about 82. It is quite true that in the case where a landlord could be communicated with he
  1014
  had the option of stating whether he would prefer his money invested in some other securities with which he was perhaps personally familiar; but, failing any instructions, the Estates Commissioners were compelled by the Act of 1903 to invest in Consols. The owners have all lost on the transaction, and it would have been far better for those men whose money was at stake if the Estates Commissioners had simply placed the money in hard cash to their credit in some bank and let it lie there until they could claim it.
  In this case the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers take upon themselves the grave responsibility of investing money for other people in a security which, of course, is our premier security. I do not wish to follow him in his heated argument about British security. But can he give any guarantee that Consols will be at 82 or 83 this day three or four months? And is he not trafficking with other people's money without any demand from them? And for what purpose? Simply to bolster up the price of Consols. He chooses that particular stock, and says, "we are going to invest these people's money in this security. They are lower than they ever stood before. Evidently there is something wrong. We must improve the price of Consols, and therefore improve the credit of the country in this backhanded way." I think it is most unfair. He says that it is on the face of the bonds. But nearly all this stock is inscribed stock. Very often the bonds are in the names of trustees, banks, stockbrokers, and such like, all scattered throughout not only the country but the world, and, consequently, what is being done is that in this very short time the money belonging to these people, without any request from them, is to be gambled with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bolster up the price of Consols. I do not think it is a fair transaction. I quite agree with the hon. Member for King's Lynn when he says that all the complaints made would be remedied if the date was shifted on three months, if it was made, say, six months instead of two months' notice. Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary skirted round the Amendment on the Paper and attacked the hon. Baronet beside me (Sir F. Banbury), but neither of them ever touched the real point at issue, which is, what is the objection to giving a slightly longer notice? The conversion of Consols by Lord Goschen was an enormous transaction, a revolution in the finance of

  1015
  the country, and everyone at home and abroad knew what was going on. Here it is quite a different matter. It is merely a question concerning £21,000,000, which is a trifling sum compared with the £800,000,000 involved in the conversion of Consols from 3 to 2¾ per cent.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer never said one single word as to why in this instance the holders of the War Stock should not have just as long notice as was given in the case of Lord Goschen's conversion of Consols. The right hon. Gentleman is technically correct in slaying that from the time the Bill became an Act it was only three months, but the whole thing involved six months, and that was quite sufficient to permeate to Australia, Canada, and foreign countries. But this short time of seven or eight weeks is certainly not enough to allow the whole of the holders of this stock to communicate with the Bank of England as to how it shall be dealt with. And the Government have no right, without long notice and fair play being given to investors in the stock, to treat it in the manner in which they are doing. Why not leave it alone? Why invest it? Why not let it stand to their credit and say, "When you call you will get what we promised you—£100 for the £100 which you invested"? That would not suit the right hon. Gentleman. He does not like to see money lying idle, and therefore he invests in Consols, as to which no one can say whether they will not be down five or six, or even more, points before the end of the year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his financial advisers are running a very grave risk by pursuing this course. My learned Friend (Mr. Moore, K.C.) will bear me out when I refer to the serious loss caused by the Estates Commissioners being compelled to invest in Consols before transferring to the owners later on. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot get over that, and anyone who has anything to do with it would much prefer that the money should be kept bearing no interest, but standing to their credit, and that they should get £100 for every £100 invested. I think if the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had altered in his Amendment the date from May to October, or some later date, it would have fulfilled the wishes not only of hon. Members on this side of the House, but actually of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who has always had a name for finance. I appeal to the right
  1016
  hon. Gentleman in fairness to forego this little chance of bolstering up in such an artificial way the price of Consols and to do the fair thing by those who have invested in the War Loan.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Perhaps I may say a few words as to how a business Government would deal with this matter. They would say, "We owe this money, we have to pay it on 5th April, and if we owe it on the 5th April and do not pay it we shall still owe it on the 6th and 7th April; and if the people to whom we owe it are stupid enough not to come and claim it we shall keep it in our possession and make the best use we can of it." It is no part of the function of the State to find investments for the people. The function of the State is to collect the taxes and to get the money in. Therefore it is that I would almost suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the short cut through this matter: "As there is some difference of opinion as to whether or not we should invest the money for the people to whom it belongs, we will keep it. We will follow the methods of the banks in dealing with what belongs to other people." I want to say, with great respect, if I may, that I wish the Government would be a little more candid with the House. The real reason of this proposal was to try to get statutory power to use this unclaimed money for the purposes for which the money taken out of the Sinking Fund would have been used if we had not taken it out by purchasing Consols.
  We have depleted the Sinking Fund—we have no money at the moment to keep up the price of Consols. I admire the ingenuity in this matter with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under the guise of benevolent interest for those who do not claim the money, says he will support the Consol market. That is really the inner meaning of the whole proposal. Therefore, as it does not much matter to me as a business man whether the Government sticks to the money and has an interest on it or uses it for the purpose of bolstering up the Consol market—in either case they will get the benefit—I am not very enthusiastic as to the coarse adopted. But I do protest against the idea that the Government, owing this money, and being liable to pay it on the 5th April, do not hold the ordinary relation of debtor and creditor with these people if they do not call for it, but say, "We are trustees for these people, and we will make such use of the money as we think best." The real

  1017
  explanation is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that there is no money to buy Consols; he knows that a great deal of this money will not be claimed, and he says, "Why cannot I counteract the mischief of raiding the Sinking Fund by using this money to buy Consols?" It
  is a good business proposal, and therefore I do not object to it.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule"
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 147.

  Division No. 5.]

  AYES.

  [5.20 p.m.

  Abraham, William

  Hancock, John George

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Agnew, George William

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Alden, Percy

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Allen, Charles Peter

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

  Rees, John David

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harwood, George

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Hastam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Barnes, George N.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Beale, William Phipson

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  Henry, Charles Solomon

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

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Higham, John Sharp

  Seddon, James A.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Shackleton, David James

  Bowles, Thomas Gibson

  Hodge, John

  Shortt, Edward

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hooper, Arthur George

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton).

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hudson, Walter

  Snowden, Philip

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

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

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydfil)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Sutton, John E.

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Tennant, Harold John

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Leach, Charles

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Clough, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Clynes, John R.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tomkinson, Rt. Hon. James

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Twist, Henry

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

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Wadsworth, John

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Walton, Joseph

  Cowan, William Henry

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Wardle, George J.

  Crosfield, Arthur H.

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs. Spalding)

  Waring, Walter

  Crossley, William J.

  Mallet, Charles Edward

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Martin, Joseph

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Waterlow, David Sydney

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

  Middlebrook, William

  Watt, Henry A.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Millar, James Duncan

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Mond, Alfred Moritz

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Montagu, Hon. E S.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

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

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Elverston, Harold

  Neilson, Francis

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

  Evans, Sir S. T. (Glamorgan, M.)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Norton, Capt. Cecil

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

  Ferguson, Ronald C. Munro

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Grady, James

  Wing, Thomas Henry

  Gibson, James Puckering

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Pearce, William

  Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

  Greenwood, Granville George

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Guest, Capt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Gulland, John William

  Pointer, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Master of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

  NOES.

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Adam, Major William A.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Attenborough, Walter Annis

  Forster, Henry William

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Bagot, Colonel Josceline

  Foster, John K. (Coventry)

  Moore, William

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Nield, Herbert

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Barnston, Harry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

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

  Grant, J. A.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bathurst, Hon. Alien B. (Glouc. E.)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bird, Alfred

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Brassey, H. L. C. (Northants, N.)

  Harris, F. L. (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury)

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

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Heath, Col. Arthur Howard

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bull, Sir William James

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

  Royds, Edmund

  Calley, Col. Thomas C. P.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cator, John

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Stanier, Beville

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Strauss, Arthur

  Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

  Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

  Sykes, Alan John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Thompson, Robert

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Croft, Henry Page

  Knott, James

  White, Maj. G. D. (Lanc. Southport)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

  Dalziel, Davidson (Brixton)

  Llewelyn, Major Venables

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

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

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Du Cros, A. (Tower Hamlets, Bow)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birn. Edgbaston)

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor. Droitwich)

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

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Falle, Bertram Godfrey

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. A. Fell.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Bill reported without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1909–10 (CLASS 5).

  COLONIAL SERVICES.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £57,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1910, for expenditure
  1020
  in respect of sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants in Aid."
  Mr. JOHN DILLONmoved the reduction of the Vote by £10,000. This is an enormous Supplementary Estimate. Although the sum asked is only £57,000, when one comes to examine the details of the Estimate, we find that it is in reality £96,000, for the purposes of the expedition in Somaliland The fact is, therefore, that the Supplementary Estimate in this case is larger than the original Estimate, which was only £94,500. Hon. Members who were in the last Parliament will recollect that at this time last year this question of threatened hostilities in Somaliland was debated at some length, and we were led to believe by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Seely), who unfortunately is not now in the House, that there was some prospect that the sum

  1021
  asked for would be ample, and that negotiations were in progress which probably would lead to peace. The first thing I should like to put to the representative of the Colonial Office on the present occasion is, What has become of those negotiations, and why have they not led to peace? I myself take a great personal interest in the Mullah of Somaliland, who some ten years ago was called the "Mad Mullah," though he appears to be no more mad than any hon Member of this House. He is a man of ability, because he has carried on a struggle against the forces of the British Empire for ten or twelve years, in which, I am bound to say, he has uniformly come off best. This gentleman has maintained throughout the whole of the ten years that he is very much ill-used person, and that he wants to remain at peace with mankind if allowed. The British Government has sent against the Mullah of Somaliland no less than three expeditions. I cannot without a great deal of research bring before the House the exact figures, but I have taken part in every Debate on the question of Somaliland during the last twelve years, and I have a fair recollection of the sums of money voted by this House on this matter. I venture to say that the Mullah of Somaliland has cost this country at least £4,000,000 of money. What have we got to show for this £4,000,000? Absolutely nothing. Two expeditions of British troops, or Indian troops led by British officers, have been more or less cut to pieces and annihilated by the Mullah. We were told over and over again that he and his force had been completely exterminated, but he has never been caught—or, rather I should say, he has been caught two or three times, but he "turned Turk" upon his pursuers, who got the worst of the encounter. For the most part, these expeditions spend their time flying through the most appalling, waterless and burning region on the whole face of the globe, with infinite cost of men and money and unfortunate cattle. Parties come and parties go in this House, but the Mad Mullah goes on for ever. This is the third Government that has undertaken an expedition of this character, I have never been able to extract from any Colonial Minister a coherent or rational statement of what it is they want to do with the Mullah. He lives in one of the most inhospitable countries in the whole world, waterless, very difficult to traverse, and with a temperature quite as hot as that of any stokehold: a subject referred
  1022
  to to-day at question time. What it is that the Government wants in chasing this man through his torrid region I can never understand or make out. At any rate, we have expended about four millions of money, and we have gained absolutely nothing.
  I remember that the House was very much amused, and a great deal of laughter arose, when Colonel Seely, representing the Colonial Office, read out a communication in reply to a question by me which he had received from the Mad Mullah. I really think the Mad Mullah had the best of the matter in that communication. He said he could not understand why he was being hunted and persecuted. He said also that the British had nothing to get from him, while, if they continued, he should get their cattle. That is the history of these transactions, because I noticed the other day that in spite of this enormous expenditure of money that the Mad Mullah made a raid and carried off 20,000 cattle. We are called on now to vote another £96,000, and I want to know where it is going to stop. I made a suggestion, at least ten years ago, that this gentleman ought to be offered, say £2,000 per year, and then he would keep quiet. I do not really know that he has been doing any harm when let alone. I am perfectly certain that for a modest sum he would become entirely friendly to the British Government. And observe the saving it would be supposing you paid this gentleman, as is the custom of the Government in India to pay along the frontier subsidies to tribes as long as they keep quiet, whereas you have spent £4,000,000 and many lives in chasing him, and for what purpose I never could find out. I ask, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman who is to speak for the Colonial Office, to give us, if he can, a rational statement why these expeditions and why this quarrel should be pursued as long as the siege of Troy, and for what purpose this £96,000 is now required. I beg to move.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of these Votes if it is his intention to make a statement now such as the Under-Secretary for the Colonies did last year. There are a good many of us who are interested in this Question, and who have addressed ourselves to it in the Committee in the past. We were greatly aided last year by the statement the Under-Secretary made. A good many things have happened in

  1023
  Somaliland since he addressed the House on that occasion. Members upon this side of the House have not worried Ministers much concerning it, but they have been exercised regarding operations there. I would therefore like it if the right hon. Gentleman could now make his statement.
  Mr. REES: I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker), and I think there is considerable advantage in the Minister hearing the views in different quarters of the House before he proceeds to deliver his discourse. If the right hon. Gentleman adopted the procedure suggested no further attention would be paid to anything said by other hon. Members in the House, therefore I heartily disagree with his view on this point. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) said that this Mullah was no madder than other people, and that might well be so, but I should be sorry to think it was a proof of sanity on his part, as the hon. Member seemed to think, that he spent most of his time engaged in attacking the British.
  Mr. DILLON: What I said was that he said that the British spent most of their time in attacking him.
  Mr. REES: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that a proof of his sanity was that he was attacking the British.
  Mr. DILLON: Not at all.
  Mr. REES: I draw from these premises the exactly opposite conclusion. The hon. Member said also that he has beaten us for ten years running, but that is by no means the case. It is the exact opposite. It is the fact that we have been engaged in desultory and spasmodic conflicts for periods of that length. The reason they have been so much prolonged is not that we have been unable altogether to deal with this wild man of the desert, but because it is our invariable habit, whether a wise one or not, in dealing with enemies of this class, having defeated them, to treat them as fit examples for misplaced leniency, whereby opponents of this sort consider that we are unable to take those steps which, in their eyes, we did not take when we could.
  Mr. DILLON: When did we beat the Mullah?
  Mr. REES: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman in this matter, neither do I
  1024
  think that it is conclusively proved that these expeditions have cost the British Government £4,000,000. I should be loath to ascribe all the expenditure in Somaliland to this purpose. Of course, if you start from the standpoint that British prestige is nothing, that there is no pride in the British flag flying anywhere, or protection under it except in our own islands, and I suppose in the neighbouring island of Ireland, then the hon. Gentleman may be right. As the exact contrary is the case, and as matters on the shores of the Red Sea and the adjacent countries are such that British influence should predominate, if possible, for the safety of our Indian Empire, I draw an entirely opposite conclusion, and believe this Supplementary Vote to be a sum which, though large, has been well spent, and that we could not, without great loss of British prestige, have treated the Mullah with that indifference which the hon. Member for East Mayo recommends. He says, What have we got to show for this money? If everything were to be judged from the purely commercial point of view, I take it this House of Commons would never have been dealing with anything but the affairs of these small islands, and there would have been no British Empire for hon. Gentlemen to criticise, and no British Empire, with servants in every part of the world, which the hon. Member could criticise in that hostile spirit which he invariably adopts.
  It is true, as he says, that parties come and parties go, but the Mullah is always with us. It is the nature of Mullahs that they are not to die just like the Dalai Lama of Thibet, with whom we are concerned at present. They appear, whether from heaven or elsewhere, and there is a succession of them. This Mullah may be the same one, but even of that we are not sure. Personation is not so difficult in Somaliland as it is in the office of an old age pension agent. The hon. Gentleman said, and it is perfectly true, that there are considerable hardships endured by our troops in pursuing this potentate, if that is a correct description of him. Incidentally, he referred to the temperature, and quite rightly said it was often far higher than that referred to as the fate of Asiatic seamen to-day. The hon. Gentleman wanted to know what we have gained in pounds, shillings, and pence. If that had been the principle that had actuated us in the past we would never have had the Indian Empire, never regenerated Egypt, and never have had anything but this small island

  1025
  without any interest outside it, not even across St. George's Channel. A colleague of the hon. Member for Mayo on a previous occasion invited the Front Bench to state what were the military measures which were in contemplation for the purpose of crushing the Mullah. He wished them stated on the floor of the House, so that the Mullah, who seems to be a very up-to-date gentleman, might obtain, through his agents in London, the necessary information with which he could more easily meet our soldiers.
  Mr. DILLON: Has he got agents in London? He is a greater man than I thought. Has he got agents here?
  Mr. REES: Evidently. Then the hon. Member proceeded to say that it would be much cheaper to pay the Mullah £2,000 or £3,000 per year. That was the precise course adopted by the Roman Empire, with which we are often compared. In its days of decadence it bought off the neighbouring barbarians until the barbarians, being persuaded of its weakness, came down and destroyed it. The hon. Gentleman seriously put that forward as a policy, and he referred to a similar policy which, he said, was pursued along the frontier of Afghanistan. It is true it is pursued to some extent there, but speaking for my humble self I entirely regret it, and I believe it to be a bad policy. I think we do too much in the way of subsidy. I must point out, however, that the policy that is pursued on the Indian frontier is by no means the policy the hon. Member suggests. It is a policy no doubt of subsidy, but it is also of punishment whenever hostilities are engaged in against the British Empire. It is by no means the case that the British Government buys all barbarians on the frontier. It is the case that they smite them hip and thigh, and if they pursued the policy of subsidy less there would be less expenditure of treasure and blood and life on that frontier.
  I repeat that the tribes on the frontier are punished, and that such necessary punishment is frequently commented on in this House as if it were a barbarity. Nevertheless, in spite of these considerations which arose from what the hon. Member said, no doubt it is desirable that this Vote should be discussed. There are points in it which certainly make it desirable that a full explanation should be given. For instance, there have been no doubt serious raids in
  1026
  Somaliland. I see, from the latest information which reached me on the subject, that a great many people were lately killed and a thousand camels looted. The question arises, Who amongst the different sections and tribes were the persons whose camels were looted and to some extent killed. [Laughter.] That is not a slip on my part, because in the eyes of these tribes the loss of camels is regarded as equal to the loss of life. They place a different value upon human life from what we do in this House. I do not say who is right, but that is their point of view, and in discussing their affairs it is desirable to see their point of view. It would be an extremely serious matter if the tribes who have suffered the loss of a few lives and many camels are friendly tribes, who have now been exposed to the resentment of the Mullah on account of our having recalled our troops, or having in any way pursued that policy of retreat and indifference which the hon. Member for East Mayo recommends. In my view, it would be a very serious matter if any such policy led to abandoning to the resentment of their neighbours those who, on the faith of our protecting them, have supported us. It seems to me not at all unlikely that these are friendlies who have been thus harried, and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give us some information on the point. At Aden, only a month ago, thirty of the Mullah's men attacked a friendly tribe and killed twenty.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for HOME AFFAIRS (Mr. Churchill): The hon Gentleman is on the wrong side of the water.
  Mr. REES: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that I have been in these waters far oftener than he has. I do not forget where Aden is, but I say that these were men in communication with the Mullah, and said to be acting under his advice or orders. That is my information. I shall be glad to hear that I am wrong. Aden is some little way from Somaliland, but not very far as Oriental distances go. I may be entirely wrong in thinking that our advance posts in Somaliland have been brought back towards their base, thereby exposing friendly tribes to the resentment of the Mullah's people. An explanation on that point will be acceptable. If there is any policy of hasty withdrawal or of curtailment of the protected area, it must seriously injure British prestige, not only in Somaliland, but also at Aden, which is practically the next door place, for, from an Oriental point of view, Aden and

  1027
  Somaliland are no farther apart than Middlesex and Berkshire. I so far agree with the hon. Member for East Mayo that I do not think we can altogether subjugate Somaliland. I do not know that I would advise it. But in any case you cannot ignore the Mullah in the way the hon. Member suggests, and it is necessary all over these regions that we should see that no tribes are the worse off for having been friends to the British.
  Mr. J. L. BAIRD: I rise to ask for further information, and to endorse the remarks of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bees). I share with him the good fortune of having been in the public service in the part of the world now under discussion, and I also partake of his feeling of resentment at the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo. I have read the hon. Member's (Mr. Dillon's) speeches when in the service of the country in the parts of the world with which they were concerned, and nothing is more discouraging to public servants than such speeches, displaying either great levity or great ignorance in regard to the subject under discussion. The hon. Member for East Mayo suggested that the Mullah might be given £2,000. He also said that Mullahs come and Mullahs go. If there is one thing better than mother to make Mullahs come, it is to offer them £2,000 for coming. If it is once known in Somaliland, where Mullahs are as common as sparrows, that they have only to make themselves particularly disagreeable to the British Government in order to get £2,000, there will certainly be a vast increase of Mullahs. But there is a much more serious point of view, namely, the point of view of our responsibility as trustees of the Empire, the point of view of the brave Englishmen who are endeavouring, in face of great difficulties, caused mainly by such speeches as those of the hon. Member for East Mayo, to discharge their duty, and the point of view of the natives for whom we are responsible.
  What do you mean to do with Somaliland? That is a pertinent question. I have taken part in one expedition against the Mullah, and I have had to do with two others. I think they were exceedingly futile. I do not mean to suggest that they ought not to have been undertaken; I think they certainly ought to have been, but on different lines. They all ended in the same way. We got the Mullah, so to
  1028
  speak, stone cold, but were not able to go on because the funds ran out. Having bought that experience once, the proper thing would have been to see if there was not a better mode of procedure. I think there is—a mode recommended ever since the Mullah question became a live one, namely, to build a railway into Somaliland. There have been discussed various schemes for making a railway, thereby to impress the tribes with your determination to protect them, and to abandon the insane policy adopted by both parties of sending expeditions, harrying the country, and then leaving to the tender mercies of their foes the people who have been your friends. The latter is an entirely false policy, and as long as it is pursued it will always have the same result of leaving the Mullah in charge of the country. If, on the other hand, we gave the Somalia a chance of choosing between a stable, fixed Government, such as they would have under the British flag and under British officers, on the one hand, and, on the other, the sort of happy-go-lucky business which government under the Mullah is, there is not the slightest doubt that they would flock to us. Somaliland would be pacified directly we made it perfectly clear that we meant business and that we intended to stay in the country.
  Another aspect of the question which demands attention is that British Somaliland is only a small territory wedged in between French, Italian, and Abyssinian territory. It thus becomes a very vulnerable point. It is altogether beside the mark to say that it is very hot and desolate. Nature made it so. We have put the British flag there, and it is very desirable that we should hold it. But we shall not hold it by futile expeditions and speeches in this House. We must adopt some concrete policy for dealing with the problems that exist there. They are problems which have had to be faced in other countries. I might recall the case of the Soudan. We abandoned the Soudan, and by the exigencies of Empire we were forced to reconquer it. If we abandon Somaliland, as we are on the road to doing now, we shall be forced one of these days to reconquer it. There will be no necessity for doing that if we build a railway through it. If we want to keep our predominance in Abyssinia, to keep the trade of Somaliland open, and to keep peace among the men who look to us to protect them against their hostile neighbours, we shall have to take a stronger

  1029
  line in regard to Somaliland, and to make up our minds that although it is a small and poor country it is not by any means a negligible quantity. Instead of bringing in year by year Estimates and Supplementary Estimates for perfectly futile military expeditions the Government should bring in an Estimate to build a railway and properly settle the country. We should then achieve what I suppose we all want, namely, the prosperity and welfare of a certain section of His Majesty's subjects, who are just as much entitled to be looked after as any other section.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: The Government are asking the House to sanction large additional expenditure, which they put down as being entailed by the defence of the Protectorate in consequence of the hostility of the Mullah. What is it that has caused this renewal of hostility on the part of the Mullah? From 1905 to 1908 I believe the Mullah was not attacking the Protectorate to any great extent, but at the end of 1908 the Government adopted a new policy, and the Mullah once more renewed hostilities. The Government first of all initiated what I believe to be the thoroughly sound policy of blockading the coast. The Somalis require or like a certain amount of rice and dates for their daily subsistence, which commodities have to be imported from abroad. The Government, about this time last year, by blockading the coast, largely stopped those supplies. For ten or twelve years, while the party with which I am associated were in office, the Mullah was the leader of a religious movement and at the head of a great body of fanatics. Since then he has been gradually losing his prestige, and has become a mere freebooter. A letter has been sent from Mecca stating that the Mullah is no longer a true Mahomedan or the head of a religious movement. Such was the state of affairs about a year ago, when the Government did what? They proceeded to send one or two military officers as a Commission to inquire into the matter and to treat with the Mullah. I understand that their endeavours were not successful, and that a second letter was sent, the bearer of which has not returned. When those negotiations began the Mullah was at a very low ebb indeed, and it is because the Government have treated him as a potentate instead of as a mere freebooter that this additional expenditure has been forced upon us.
  1030
  6.0 P.M.
  There is another point. The Mullah was largely at one time at the head of a purely nominal and wandering following, but since that time he has settled down. I believe his headquarters are now in the Italian Somaliland. He has there got a considerable establishment. If the Government would be prepared to renew the blockade of the coast, and to get the Italians to agree to allow the blockade to extend over that part of the Italian Somaliland coast through which the Mullah gets his supplies, and at the same time would make a forward movement by the aid of friendly natives against the Mullah it would be well. A forward movement towards our own border would cause the Mullah to retreat towards Abyssinia, and thus he would lose a great deal of his prestige. This prestige is really the cause of his remaining the thorn in our side that he has been for so many years. I think that one might ask the Government to explain more clearly what their policy is, and whether they do intend to make such a forward movement, or whether they intend to retire before the Mullah, and abandon everything, and so sacrifice our position; or do they intend to make a strong forward movement with a thoroughly mobile and mounted force which might be capable of dealing with the very mobile and very active force that the Mullah has at his disposal, even though his own headquarters are not so mobile as they used to be.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): The Debate has certainly been productive of some very good speeches from hon. Members, many on this side of the House, and especially from those who have geographical knowledge of the place or have taken part in expeditions, and it has been adorned by the two speeches to which we have just listened from hon. Members on the other side who for the first time have taken part in our Debates, and who have spoken with conspicuous moderation on a subject on which they have special knowledge. I freely admit that there is a great deal of force in some of the arguments which the hon. Gentleman the Member from Mayo has advanced. I do not think anyone who looks at this matter in a cold light can be satisfied with the position we have occupied in British Somaliland during the last ten or eleven years. In the old days, when the Somaliland coastline was under the control of the Government of

  1031
  India, the posts held by the British Government were confined to the coastal region. It was there that the whole revenue was, and is still, collected. It was there and at Aden—the great centre of Somaliland, where the intercourse with the tribes was best regulated—that the revenue which was in those days raised upon the coast was sufficient to defray the main cost, and I think for many yeans the whole cost of the Somaliland Protectorate. Events have drifted and marched on their wayward course, and we have been drawn in the course of the last ten or eleven years into moving forward from the convenient and safe position which we used to hold with such little trouble, to occupy in the interior a certain area—not a very considerable area in view of the size of the country. Our presence in the interior has unquestionably led to the need of maintaining a military establishment which, if it is far too small to effectively police these vast deserts, is very far too large for the revenue which can be derived from the Somaliland Protectorate. In consequence of that we have had a prolonged period of grants in aid, which, apart from the expeditionary expenditure, cannot, I apprehend, be estimated at anything less than about £60,000 or £70,000 per year upon an average. That is not a very satisfactory situation from a financial point of view. Neither is the situation very satisfactory from a military point of view. It is quite true that the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Dorset, who has just spoken, has told that the power of the Mullah is at the present time on the decline. His reputation as a religious and spiritual guide has been very seriously affected by the Mecca letter. Instead of being, as he was some years ago, at the head of a large concentrated Dervish gathering, he is now exercising a sort of loose sway over three or four disunited and disconnected raiding parties, who maintain centres of disorder in different parts of this enormous region. But although the Mullah is at present in a period of decline, there is no doubt that the attempt to hold any large portion of the interior with a small force of 1,400 or 1,500 men for any long period of time must dispose you to a certain unceasing risk of military disaster. We have seen in the late war the great rapidity with which portions of Dervish horsemen can move at the proper seasons through this waterless country, and we know well the very formidable military power which on occasion
  1032
  they have shown themselves capable of developing. Therefore, I say that if the financial situation is unsatisfactory, the military situation is not one the indefinite prolongation of which can be viewed with any comfort or satisfaction even from the soldier's point of view.
  Thirdly, I am bound to say that I have formed the conclusion that if we are not doing very much good to ourselves we are not doing very much good to anybody else by our present position. I have come to the conclusion that during the ten or eleven years we have been interfering and meddling in the internal affairs of Somaliland we have not been able to give any real security or tranquillity to the country. We have tried many different policies, and under both Governments—I hope this question will not be made a matter of party feeling. Under the late Administration a prodigious exertion was made, and nearly £3,000,000 were spent upon a powerful expedition which moved from converging lines into the centre of the country and fought several seriously contested engagements. But no satisfactory result was achieved, and I cannot myself resist the conclusion that we have during all that period not given any satisfactory measure of protection even to those tribes who have been nearest to our military zone. We have not given any satisfactory measure of protection to what are called the friendly tribes. They have been raided occasionally, and they have raided back occasionally. Sometimes we have found that a tribe which we were engaged in protecting had moved 100 miles from a military post established for its security and safety, and at the very moment was engaged in raiding somebody else's ground, sometimes with weapons we had given them for their own defence. If, again, a mobile column is employed to police the desert and to circulate through this wilderness of stone, and sand, and shrub, to circulate everlastingly upon police duty, the raiders disappear into other places. On the other hand, if the troops are placed in garrison at fixed points, with a system of posts and forts, they become immobile, and the raiding proceeds all round and under their very noses. Whether it be from a financial or military point of view, or from a point of view of the interests of the people of Somaliland as a whole, I frankly state to the Committee that we cannot be asked to view the position with any satisfaction. The country itself is barren. Certainly all authorities agree that it has no commer-,

  1033
  cial no mineral, and no agricultural properties. Even the Mullah, I believe, is forced to import such food as he cannot steal. The poverty of the land is extreme. It is a country valueless to all except the wild inhabitants who live in it, and to them it is dearer than life.
  I do not feel myself if that were the whole argument there would be any difficulty in my drawing conclusions, which, at any rate on this side of the House, would be accepted with some measure of satisfaction. But as is perfectly well known, the situation is not completely described or covered by the arguments I have used. We have been in that interior of Somaliland, and, I think, mistakenly. I think it was a great mistake to have left the secure positon, which under the Government of India was maintained for many years on the coast line, and which gave us all we needed without any risk. But as we have left that secure position we have contracted obligations and responsibilities. It is the proper discharge of those obligations and responsibilities which form the principal preoccupaton in Somaliland of His Majesty's Government. I do not feel able to describe in any close details the actual military situation, but I will say this: we have thought it right and proper to reinforce the troops in Somaliland by a strong Indian battalion of the Baluchis. They have been brought across the Indian Ocean, and placed under the orders of General Manning, who is dealing with the situation there, who thus will be at the head of troops entirely unaffected by any local feeling, and who has been given this extra force to strengthen him in carrying out any policy which, in his own opinion and in the opinion of the Government, it may be desirable to embark upon Although I deeply and seriously regret the financial demands I have to make on the Committee—although it is very unsatisfactory—I think the House may rest assured that there are forces at the disposal of General Manning quite adequate to any movements which he may decide to make—and forces unaffected by any feeling of religious fanaticism which may be flying to and fro in Somaliland. I do not wish to say any more about the actual military position, still less would I like to say anything about the prospective movements whether of an aggressive or contractive nature. These are movements which may conceivably, if they were announced or spoken of in this
  1034
  House, cause real embarrassment to people on the spot who are dealing with the situation, and, therefore, I shall purposely deny myself the opportunity of making any clear or precise statement to the House, and I will only ask the indulgence of the Committee, and hope they will not press the Government unduly on this matter. After all the Somaliland Vote will come up again—unless some unforeseen circumstance shatters this Parliament, it will come up again very shortly in the course of the Session, and I think it very probable then that whoever is engaged in explaining the subject will be able to deal much more fully and freely with the position and policy than it is open for me to do at the present time. But upon the general Question, let me say, I feel that our present position is very unsatisfactory, and I should like to see us get to a firmer and securer position and a clearer and a more strongly reasoned policy than any which has hitherto been adopted. You cannot go on holding on from day to day in the hopes that something better may turn up. Sometimes that is the only policy in human affairs in Africa and elsewhere, and for the moment I am speaking of Africa. But, again, the moment is very often reached when that policy has to be finally discarded, and when sharp, clear and decisive action must be taken whether in Africa or elsewhere, and I think it is quite clear that although no doubt the building of a railway would have a very beneficial effect in the subjugation of the natives in British Somaliland there are other railways on the East Coast of Africa which it would be very much more worth our while to deal with.
  When I think of this desert of scrub and sand in Somaliland on which we have spent so many millions, and turn my eye to the beautiful and fruitful regions of Uganda in the East African Protectorate, which for a very much smaller proportion of the money we have squandered, would all this time have been producing far greater supplies of oil, of rubber, and of cotton than they have ever yet achieved, when I consider how tremendously the investment of Imperial capital in this region has repaid, I do view with as grudging an eye as the hon. Member who moved the reduction the prospect of any extension of our responsibility in this barren region of Somaliland and of any military operation or railway construction likely to plunge us into large and indefinite liabilities. I have endeavoured, to the best of

  1035
  my ability, to address the House on the subject. I hope the Committee will have confidence in the Government and will believe we are endeavouring to relieve the cost and strengthen the situation and contract the area of our responsibilities in Somaliland, and at the same time to do justice to our obligations to those who, through mistaken policy on our part, have been led to rely, to some extent, at any rate, upon the protection of our military forces.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I could not help but remember when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking his first speech made in this House, in which, in a fine apostrophe, he held up the tattered rag of economy, to the protection of which he was going to devote his future energies in the House. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in his position to-day, as I sympathised with him in those days, and I sympathise with him in having to accept what is forced upon him. He made a very gallant defence of the Government's position to-day in one of those speeches in which the right hon. Gentleman has some peculiar and fascinating facility. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a few questions? He has said he is in favour of a stronger policy—at any rate, he gave the Committee to understand that he was dissatisfied. He was speaking on behalf of the Government, and he is dissatisfied, and the Government is dissatisfied, with the position in which we find ourselves to-day. But we have been saying the same thing for a number of years, and I frankly say I have not the slightest faith in the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made. He makes that statement in all good faith, but I do not believe that anything will be done. Last year I ended the few remarks that I made by saying that the Government's policy was a futile undertaking. It is indeterminate. The right hon. Gentleman has given us no picture whatever of the present situation in Somaliland. I take up the last Report, and I find that nothing is given there; no indication is given of the military operations which were carried on. The right hon. Gentleman asks us not to compel him to say anything about the future military operations. We do not, but I think this Committee has a right to know something of the past military operations, and the right hon. Gentleman did not make a single statement that will enable us to understand what has been done during the last year since his colleague came to this
  1036
  House and asked for £52,000 in Supplementary Estimates. We have now got to £96,000, and it was prophesied the last time that £100,000 would be asked for.
  What has that money been spent on? We do not know. I assume it has been spent well. I have the most absolute confidence in our military officers out there and our military organisations, but here is a policy which year after year this House is almost blindly supporting. We have never pressed the Government; we did not press the last Unionist Government as much as we ought to have done. Suggestions have been made—one by my hon. Friend, who in his maiden speech made a very strong impression on the House—that a railway might be built. My hon. Friend suggested that the only way to act effectively was to strike, and to strike hard. He suggested that we should build a railway and do what was done in the Soudan. If we are going to keep this territory at all we must act; we cannot keep going on with the policy we are now pursuing. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury over two years ago made a quotation from Unionist Ministers and said that the policy of inaction and of waiting and of marking time was a policy which could only bring confusion in the end. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken would have us think to-day that he is in sympathy with that. I think we are entitled to further information. Has the right hon. Gentleman anything to say about any general plans of operation which, broadly speaking, he can give to the House regarding the railway and regarding the accumulation of crops? It was suggested that you could corner the Mullah and drive him into the dry districts in the time when, being driven there, he would have no hope. His followers must be disordered, his cattle lost, and he must be placed in difficulties which would possibly end in his being destroyed altogether. There are three policies—the policy of remaining at the coast; the policy of moving forward a certain distance and then drawing back, of producing certain effects upon the Mullah and his faction and then retiring, and retiring without any particular effect to the advantage of the administration of Somaliland; and there is a third and final policy of having our firm determination translated into military operation which will probably cost this country £500,000.
  Mr. JOHN DILLON: Five million pounds.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I am not an authority on military operations, but that figure has been given to the Government by officers in Somaliland who understand the situation and believe, from their experience, that the whole thing could be done under £1,000,000. This year we are asked for Supplementary Estimate for this portion of Africa of £60,000. Ten years at £60,000 a year means £600,000, and we have already approached that sum. £1,000,000 would settle the whole difficulty by capturing the Mullah and having wide operations in this district. If £1,000,000 would settle this difficulty, it seems to me that it would be well spent. I have watched for a number of years, and I have found the Government every year facing the House, looking for a Supplementary Estimate. Anyone who really cares for British prestige, or, indeed, for our safety in the East or in British East Africa, must come to the conclusion that we must remain in Somaliland. We cannot abandon the country now. From the standpoint of Imperial prestige, from the standpoint of those native and friendly tribes to whom we have given assurances that they shall be protected if they sided with us instead of with the Mullah we cannot abandon it. Is this indeterminate policy to go on? Are we from year to year to say we must protect those friendly tribes while by our operations and actions we do not give them the mandate that they are entitled to expect?
  I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman also whether rifles are going into Somaliland to arm the natives under the Mullah? It was stated in this House last year that they had been coming in the previous year, and it was promised that inquiry should be made of the French and Italian and the Abyssinian Governments concerning the importation of rifles through their territories and particularly through Italian territories. We understood that specific information will be given to the House, but we have heard nothing but generalities ending with fine sentiments about clear, sharp, and decisive action. I should like to know what that clear, sharp, and decisive action is going to be which is the natural desire of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Blackpool last year made a speech on this subject, which everyone regarded with great satisfaction. It was a very clear statement of the position, and the Under-Secretary for the Colonies then made a clear statement as to the position
  1038
  of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman has on this occasion made a clear statement only in regard to his own sentiments, and, however much we may admire the language he uses, sentiment will not satisfy this House when we are asking for information upon a matter in which this country is vitally concerned. We have to consider our interests all along that coast and our position amongst the Mahomedan tribes along our highway to India. All these things demand from us the most serious considration, and putting them off from day to day can only end in disaster. We get no further from the coast than we have done before, and we inflict no more injuries upon the Mullah than we have clone. Our prestige in Somaliland continues to decline, and it will probably decline just as much in 1910 as it did in 1908–9. If the Prime Minister had not left the House I was going to appeal to him to supplement what the Home Secretary has so ably stated, because the right hon. Gentleman's statement carries us no further, and before we pass this Vote we ought to be satisfied that the intentions of the Government are not only good and sincere, but that they have behind them a policy which is in the way of being worked out, and one which, I hope, will be different to the policy pursued in the past not only by this Government, but by previous Unionist Governments. Both parties have been to blame in the past, because they have done exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has done to-day. The only thing that can serve us is the death of the Mullah by natural causes or the assassination of the Mullah by some of his own people. I know that the present Government is incapable of assassination, although I am not sure that it is incapable of committing hari-kari upon itself. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make a further statement upon this important and vital matter.
  Sir CLEMENT HILL: I rise to support the observation of the hon. Member for Gravesend, because I think the statement made by the Home Secretary has only left us where we were before. I ventured to put upon the Paper a question asking whether the Government would lay Papers on the Table with regard to the military situation in Somaliland. I did so because ever since I left the position I had the honour to fill as Superintendent of Protectorates in the Foreign Office there has not been issued one single publication to give us information as to the actual state

  1039
  of affairs in Somaliland. We are told that any information that might be given to this House concerning any operations which the Government think it necessary to undertake would be immediately communicated to the Mullah, and in that way we should be assisting the cause of the enemy and not the cause we have at heart. I am speaking surrounded by colleagues who have worked with me and under me in the Foreign Office, and I have no hesitation in saying that not one of us would wish to do anything to embarrass the present Government or any future Government on matters relating to foreign policy or in regard to what is to be done in Africa. I think, however, as a matter of legitimate curiosity, we are entitled to hear something from the Government as to what is going on in Somaliland. Under the late Government we used to lay before the House the fullest possible information in regard to our proceedings in the Protectorates and in the different regions in Africa, and we did so because it was felt only right that we should treat the House of Commons in that way.
  As far as the officials are concerned they would prefer to deal with these matters without the intervention of the House of Commons at all, but surely the House of Commons has a right to the information which we always endeavoured to give it. Those of us who have been connected with those countries are in an extremely difficult position, because we cannot cut ourselves off from all the information our old friends would give us, and we cannot suddenly say to them, "Do not write us letters telling what is going on." We are in the position of having received information, and we are unable to say what we know, because we are afraid of embarrassing the Government. I think if the Government would treat us with a little more generosity in the matter of information it would be very much easier for us to give them our support. I know perfectly well the extraordinary difficulty there is in dealing with the military and social question in Somaliland, and I should like to have some good reason given to me why I should support the Government. This is very difficult to do if you are told absolutely nothing by the Government, on the ground that it would be injurious to the public interest. We were told by the Under-Secretary to the Colonies, on a former occasion, that the Government would not pursue a forward
  1040
  policy, but that they would endeavour to defend the tribes, and there was to be no building of a railway. Since then we have heard nothing of a more definite character as to the policy which is being pursued, beyond being told that events have not marched in accordance with the wishes of the Government, and that the position in Somaliland has not improved. I think the Mullah found out from the last Debate that ours was not going to be a forward policy, and since then he has taken what steps seem most convenient to him. I think we might at least be told something as to the reasons which have prompted the Government to replace the King's African Rifles by a regiment of Baluchis.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I can answer that question at once. At the beginning of last year, when there was a certain recrudescence of raiding, rather of a petty but disquieting character, it was found necessary to bring into Somaliland first one and then an extra battalion of the King's African Rifles, which were moved in from the East Africa Protectorate. This left the East Africa Protectorate dangerously denuded of troops, because we have only a very small margin of force with which to maintain authority over large tracts of the country. The difficulty of keeping these two battalions such a long time away from their proper districts in which they are employed in East Africa and Uganda made it necessary to relieve them by bringing in a battalion from India, and so we picked out a very good fighting battalion, one of the Baluchi battalions, and, with the concurrence of the Government of India and the Secretary of State for India, that battalion was moved in, and it is now stationed at Burao. That battalion also has this advantage: It is quite unaffected by any of the currents of feeling which are moving in the country, and which might conceivably affect the minds of troops raised in the locality, and raised from races so closely allied to the Somalis as are the soldiers of the other two battalions of the King's African Rifles. I do not see any reason why I should not state that the Baluchi battalion and the Indian contingent of the 6th Battalion of the King's African Rifles, which is largely a mountain force, constitute the bulk of the troops we now have there, and they have recently somewhat contracted their advanced posts and have withdrawn from the high land. More than that I really do not wish to say. I have done my best to give all proper information.
  Sir CLEMENT HILL: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the further information he has given us. The King's African Rifles were specially kept there for the purpose; they were specially organised and created for dealing with these small wars in Africa, and are supposed to be exceptionally suited for that work. I know they are infinitely cheaper, more mobile, and more able to deal with Somalis than the Baluchis, who carry about with them a great deal of impedimenta and are very difficult to move about. I will not, however, press the right hon. Gentleman at present for any further military details. I understand that the Vote for Somaliland will come up again and that we shall have a further opportunity of discussing this question. I hope the Government will consider on some future occasion whether it is not possible to give us some further information about the position of affairs in Somaliland. If the right hon. Gentleman will ask the representative of the Colonial Office when he returns to this House to look at the Report which was issued on Somaliland last year, he will find that all allusion to the military movements was cut out, and therefore we have not had any opportunity whatever of knowing anything of what is going on in that country. During last year's Debate on this question many solutions were proposed for the position in Somaliland. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, the Member for Rugby (Mr. Baird), who has had much experience in Abyssinia and is entitled to speak on the subject, that it is very desirable to make a railway there. It will show we have come to stay, and it is quite possible the country might develop hitherto unknown resources. Another method suggested by the Leader of the Opposition last year was motor traction. We have had no information about that, we have not been told whether any roads are to be made, and we have no idea what efforts are being made to develop Somaliland. Speaking with all knowledge and responsibility, and not wishing the Government to give us anything which would prove injurious to the country, I say I do think they should give us some Papers and some little further information on this subject.
  Mr. DILLON: During a long experience of these Debates extending over ten years, the only satisfactory speech I have ever listened to from a Minister of the Crown on Somaliland is that just made by the
  1042
  Home Secretary. His speech from beginning to end was a comprehensive and a severe condemnation of the entire policy of successive Governments in Somaliland. He pointed to a condition of things which I think has fully justified the contentions of those of us who for twelve years have resisted all these Votes. He pointed out that all military expeditions were futile, that millions were thrown away, and many lives wasted. The introduction of military protection posts was the first cause of the trouble. So long as the Government contented themselves with holding the coast, everything was peaceful, trade went on, and friendly relations existed between the posts on the coast and the natives. What caused all this trouble was the forward policy and the introduction of military posts into the country. What was the excuse? The protection of friendly tribes. The Home Secretary has told us that throughout the whole twelve years the attempt to protect the friendly tribes has been absolutely futile, and he described a condition of thing which, I think, really ought to be a matter of reproach and regret to any Government responsible for it. On more than one occasion a friendly tribe, for the protection of which a military post had been instituted, was discovered a thousand miles away raiding other troops with the weapons put into their hands by the Government. Is not that something worthy of one of Gilbert and Sullivan's comic operas? We are told that the country might develop in some extraordinary manner, that it might strike oil, and one hon. Member says that wherever the British flag is raised there it ought to stay. Really, I must say it is a reductio ad absurdum of the doctrine of the flag when you want it flying over the deserts of Somaliland at enormous expense. [HON MEMBERS: "Heligoland."] Heligoland is a much more important place than Somaliland.
  The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) who takes a great interest in these matters—he and I are old campaigners on this subject—said he had had it from military experts that the Government had had a plan put before them whereby they could finally extinguish the Mullah for £500,000. I heard of that ten years ago. We gave them £500,000, and the Mullah was going to be finally extinguished. We voted £2,500,000 on top of that, and it was not the Mullah who was extinguished but the British force. Then there was another expedition, and, I

  1043
  remember, week after week special correspondents writing "The Mullah surrounded," "The Mullah has at length been taken"; but the Mullah always escaped, and nobody suffered but the British force. I do not think I exaggerated when I said that these expeditions have swallowed £4,000,000. I think I should have been justified if I had said £5,000,000, but whether you capture the Mullah or not he is not worth £5,000,000. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Baird), who addressed the House with great eloquence and force, fell upon me with the utmost savagery and ferocity. He said that all these misfortunes with the Mullah and various other frontier wars were due to the speeches I had delivered in the House.
  Mr. BAIRDdissented. The treaty we made with the Abyssinians in 1897 reduced our limits and handed over to the Abyssinians a great deal which before was under our protection. That is not a forward policy.
  Mr. DILLON: I have listened to the statements of Ministers for ten years, and up to a few years ago the policy of the British Government was to hold the coast, and, as long as they adhered to that policy, they had peaceful relations with the tribes trade went on, and they had revenue sufficient to govern the country and pay all expenses, and all these great dangers to the British Empire were non-existent. It was when they commenced these incursions into the interior that all these troubles arose. The hon. Member, however, did say that a great deal of the trouble was due to my speeches and other speeches. Being an Irishman, I am naturally modest, and I never attributed such enormous power to my speeches before. I never really set up to be able to shake the British Empire by delivering speeches, but in this particular instance, although I do not pretend to be a very enthusiastic believer in the unlimited expansion of the British Empire, I believe I am the best friend of the British Empire, because had my advice and that of friends on both sides of the House—in the old days I used to be supported by Conservatives, who held as strongly as I do that these operations were a mistake and an absurdity—had my advice been taken, I should have spared the British Government a great many valuable Jives and a good deal of money which has been wasted.
  1044
  What did the right hon. Gentleman say? He knows a great deal more of Somaliland than I do. He said it was a series of futile military expeditions. That is exactly what we have been objecting to all along. He said that when they were just going to get the Mullah money always failed. It was not the fault of the House of Commons, because we voted millions enough. The sands of Somaliland have swallowed up many millions, and will again. I draw an augary of hope, however, from the speech of the Home Secretary, and I do not propose to divide the House, because I cannot conceive that this forward policy will be persevered in. The speech of the Home Secretary was to the effect that it has been a mistake and a failure from beginning to end, and I conclude, therefore, that at last the Government has made up its mind to abandon that policy and to revert to the older and wiser policy which they pursued before all these troubles broke out, of confining itself to the coast line. Drawing that conclusion from the speech we have just listened to and in that confident hope, I do not propose to divide the House on the present occasion, but I shall look forward to receiving a satisfactory statement on the matter when it next comes up for discussion.
  Mr. REES: May I ask two questions? I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any ground for the assumption which appeared to underlie the speech of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) that if a railway was made up to a certain point in the interior the Mullah would wait at the end of that railway in order that he might be attacked at the terminus by our troops when they detrained? The second question I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether General Manning, who is so conspicuously well suited by his experience and ability to deal with the present situation, has been, I will not say permanently appointed, but whether, as such appointments go, he has been more or less permanently appointed to Somaliland, or whether it is merely a temporary appointment? I think it would give general satisfaction if so able an officer is likely to remain where he is whilst affairs are in their present condition.
  Sir G. PARKER: May I ask whether it is the intention of the Government to give any information to the House whatever concerning the report made by the Sirdar upon the condition of affairs in Somaliland? Will any Papers be laid, or, when the Vote is taken again, will full information be given?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have asked my Noble Friend Lord Crewe what he thinks about that report, and whether it could be laid. I could not give any undertaking on that account myself, but I certainly think the House, which has treated the Government with so much indulgence in the Debate, is entitled to all possible information. I will represent to the Colonial Secretary, to Lord Crewe, the feeling there is that further papers should be laid before the House at the earliest possible opportunity, and I will also remind him of the desire of the House to have another opportunity later, if possible, to discuss this matter further. I have no doubt the Colonial Office will be able to lay Papers which will give a greater measure of information, if not about the precise military numbers, about the general conditions which prevail in Somaliland. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs (Mr. Rees), I think it would be placing undue reliance on the somewhat slender qualifications of the Mullah to be classed as insane to base our railway or military policy upon the supposition that he would adopt such a simple course as that. With regard to the question asked about General Manning, we have sent General Manning out to look most carefully into this situation. He knows most thoroughly the view of the Government, he has worked for a long time in the Colonial Office, and he is perhaps more than any other officer on the active list thoroughly conversant with the conditions in Somaliland. I hope he may have the fullest freedom in any course which he may think it right to adopt.
  Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £47,000, be granted for the said service," put, and negatived.
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINS: There is another matter dealt with in this Supplementary Vote to which I should like to ask the attention of the Committee, and that is the question of the Vote for pathological research. It is quite true that, as in the case of the previous Vote, it is intended to fight one of the enemies of mankind, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman, if he has to speak on this Vote, will find it necessary to defend the grant of this sum of £1,000 to the purposes of pathological research. This modest sum is devoted to scientific research as to the nature of certain tropical diseases, and is a new departure which I hope will be supported on all sides of the House.
  1046
  I should, however, like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question as to the precise object to which this is to be devoted, and also the manner in which it is proposed to spend this £1,000. Probably hon. Members who take an interest in this Question are aware that, largely owing to the Tropical Schools of Medicine at Liverpool and Greenwich, great advances have been made in recent years towards discovering the causes of such diseases as sleeping sickness, yellow fever, and malaria. I hope and trust that in any further investigations that may be made under the authority of the Colonial Office due regard may be had to some previous investigations made by the Royal Society and also by the Portuguese Government, because I think, if regard is had to some of the previous reports, certain pitfalls may be avoided in further researches. I should like to know whether it is proposed to include in this investigation not only the question of the diseases of men, but also that of the diseases of animals—diseases prevalent both on the East and on the West Coast. There is, for instance, a disease supposed to be communicated by wild animals to domestic animals. The particular parasite is supposed to be communicated by some species of fly. It is not manifest as a disease in the case of the wild animal, and it is said it has no disease-producing effect until it is communicated to the domestic animal by some form of fly. I therefore should like to know whether the diseases of animals, as well as those of men, are to be included in the scope of this investigation. There is also the question of the African horse fever, to which Professor Koch has devoted great attention. Costly investigations have already been instituted into the pathology of African horse fever, but I believe that up to the present those investigations have proved largely unsatisfactory. The system of inoculation against that disease has practically turned out to be useless, and some other methods of prevention are now under consideration. I should like further to ask the right hon. Gentleman as to the mode in which the grant will be expended. Is it proposed to utilise the Royal Society for the purpose? Will one of the universities be asked to administer the grant, the University of Liverpool or that of London, both of which are well qualified to send out persons skilful in the investigation of tropical disease, or is it proposed to deal with the matter through the Colonial Office? If so, I hope and trust the right hon. Gentleman will see that those who

  1047
  are put on the task are not exclusively bacteriologists, but are capable of taking philosophic views on the natural history of disease. I hope it is not proposed to send out investigators to make merely laboratory experiments. Let us have men with wide philosophic views. I am not taking up a critical attitude with regard to this Vote. I am simply asking for further information. I entirely approve of the action of the Colonial Office in initiating this new form of expenditure.
  Mr. REES: I think I should say that, as I have been continually in contact with questions of this sort in Nyassaland, I believe it would be satisfactory that this money should be expended. I have to express my complete concurrence with what has been said as to the manner in which the Grant should be expended. In Nyassaland and elsewhere in Central Africa there is great dread lest sleeping sickness should arrive. I would urge the Colonial Office to spare no pains in any direction to avert so great a disaster.
  Mr. J. A. GRANT: I rise with no feeling of criticism in regard to this Vote, but I wish to endorse what has been said on the question of sleeping sickness. There can be no doubt as to the vast importance to Central Africa of dealing adequately with this scourge. It is astonishing how little attention has been paid to it in this country when we remember that in our Protectorate of Uganda and on the shores of Nyassa two-thirds of the entire population died of the disease. I am well aware that the Government has taken steps to deal with this question, although I feel that they have been somewhat inadequate, and I rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is being done in adjacent countries to the North of the Nile Valley and to the south down to Tongaland and Nyassaland to deal with this disease. I think I am right in saying that although medical science has discovered what brings about the disease, it has not yet found a cure. All that it has been able to do so far has been to remove the native from the infected area. I wish to urge on the Government that no money should be spared in dealing with this appalling scourge which affects the population of Central Africa. I should like to know if there are signs of the disease spreading down the Valley of the Nile or in the Protectorate of Nyassaland. I should also like to ask the Government whether they are acting in co-operation with the Governments of the neigh-
  1048
  bouring States—with the Egyptian Government and with the German East African officials, as well as with those of the Congo State. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us that that is being done the information will be most acceptable to the House.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I share to the full the feeling of the hon. Member who has just addressed the House as to the immense importance of dealing with sleeping sickness by every means in our power, and by concerted action with other Powers. Anything more tragic or melancholy than the ravages of this foul disease amongst the populations of Uganda it is hardly possible to imagine. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the late Governor of Uganda (Mr. Hesketh Bell) took very effective measures on a gigantic scale to try to check the disease in Uganda itself. As soon as it was discovered that it was spread by the mosquito carrying it from one infected person to another, it was possible to adopt some policy against the disease. In order that the disease should really have full play it is necessary you should have not only the fly from one infected person to another, but also the environment suitable to the fly, which is to be found in the bushes hanging over the water. If we are able to break any of these conditions the fell charm ceases to work. I have personal experience of that. What has been done throughout Uganda by a tremendous act of administration has been to cut down all the bushes and grass wherever it is necessary to go to the lake, and where that is not possible the population has been moved bodily back to some distance from the lake. We believe that will have a decided effect in stopping the ravages of the disease. But it will do no good to the people at present dying of the disease. The disease is curable in certain circumstances, where certain special efforts are used and where certain advantages are at the disposal of the surgeon, but for the great mass of the infected population, numbering many thousands, I am afraid that only a slow and painful death can be the outcome. The statistics of mortality have not undergone any marked decline, and they will not do so for a short time, because we are still passing through the period when those who were infected years ago have still to succumb to the disease. Infected people are, however, being isolated, and measures are being taken to separate

  1049
  the population from the area of the infecting fly. That is only one instance of exertions which are being made to deal with this scourge. I cannot speak with anything like precisely full information of the affairs of the Colonial Office, but I certainly have every reason to believe that concerted action with other Protectorates liable to the ravages of this disease are being taken, and that they are being fully apprised of the best methods of combating the fly and of dealing with the persons already infected. This is, of course, a matter of the highest consequence to the Governments which we have scattered about Africa, and also to the German Protectorates and to the Portuguese and Congo States. This Committee, over which Lord Cromer is presiding, and on which will be found the greatest practical authorities in regard to tropical diseases, is only another instance of the extension of the policy which His Majesty's Government is pursuing in dealing with these diseases. I cannot speak, of course, with the authority of the hon Gentleman the Member for West St. Pancras, but I understand that the Committee is entirely independent of the two Schools of Tropical Medicines, both of which schools receive contributions from the Colonial Office Vote, in return for which they do good work. This is purely a committee of Research. A Vote of £1,000 per year is proposed to be given to it, and later on there will come another £1,000 from some of the African Colonies. The committee will send two very skilled investigators, one to the East Coast and the other to the West Coast, to advise and report on any special points on which it may desire information. The inquiry covers the whole region of the diseases which are conveyed by insects, not only those which affect man, but those which affect animals and plants. I am quite sure that all the Members of the House, wherever they sit, who take an interest in the scientific treatment of tropical diseases will appreciate that in developing more highly the power of research, which is now possessed by the Colonial Office, and that by calling this new Committee into being we take an important step forward far more than the comparatively small sum of money which is involved would indicate—an important step forward which may conceivably be of priceless advantage not only to our own fellow countrymen who are serving beyond the seas, but to the great mass of the aboriginal population committed to their charge.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: Before this Vote is passed I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain whether this money is to be devoted in part, at any rate, to vivisectional experiments, and I ask that question because, as is well known, there was a series of vivisectional experiments in regard to sleeping sickness carried out by Dr. Andrew Balfour, which involved an enormous amount of suffering to dogs and other animals. I hold in my hand the "Journal of Pathology" for March, 1906, with the description of those experiments, and it says that one of the dogs inoculated on 26th February died in a state of tremendous suffering on 23rd March. There is also a picture which is well known, and which has excited very much indignation because of these experiments, which are made upon dogs and monkeys. It is not pretended for one moment, that the slightest benefit to science, and certainly not to humanity has been arrived at in this particular case, and no cure for sleeping sickness has been found. There is no proof, moreover, that we are nearer a cure for sleeping sickness in consequence of this suffering inflicted on dogs and monkeys. I want to know before this Vote is taken, therefore, whether a sum of public money is going to be devoted for vivisectional purposes.
  Mr. TOMKINSON: I only desire to say that as a Member of the Royal Commission, which has been sitting, and which has not yet reported upon the subject of vivisection, I think the picture which my hon. Friend has brought forward represents an animal which has not been experimented upon in England, but in a laboratory in Khartoum. That is what I desire to say, and with regard to these interesting experiments on the subject of the extirpation of insects which carry, or are supposed to carry, infection from one animal to another, and from one person to another, I remember we had some interesting evidence brought before us of an experiment which was made by a certain number of people, headed by a doctor, who went into one of these infected districts in the marshes. They divided themselves into two bodies, one which had been clothed in such a way that the insects could not penetrate to them, and the other not being protected. The result was that several of those who were not protected were attacked by insects, and one of them, a doctor, actually died; and certainly it is extremely interesting to hear that by the

  1051
  removal of sage and brush vegetation, and more particularly by the drainage of the country, that source of infection can be very largely decreased and that the expenditure of this money will be very well laid out.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I will just answer the question which has been put to me in two or three sentences. I do not apprehend myself that it is intended to put this money to the purpose which my hon. Friend fears. The methods of research of the committee will probably be more of a theoretic nature than in the nature of experiments of the kind which he dislikes so much. I cannot possibly make any pledge on this subject which should keep them off from any line of inquiry which they might think it advisable to have, but if they were to embark upon any such experiments, then the matter would come back to me in my capacity as Home Secretary in watching over the working of the Vivisection Act, and I should certainly be guided by a desire to minimise, as far as possible, the sufferings of dumb animals, while at the same time making sure that the advance of science was not impeded.
  Dr. ADDISON: I am very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman assures the House that whilst deprecating, as everyone does, I am sure, any needless cruelties, the hands of this committee should not be in any way tied. I think after all, perhaps, the statement of the hon. Member behind me will not altogether bear close investigation, because we know that sometimes experiments can be carried on for a long time without apparently any hope of successful results, and yet eventually we may be rewarded for years of patient and apparently hopeless effort by great success. The striking thing to me about this Vote is the smallness of it. I suppose it would not be fair to compare it with the Vote which precedes it, but it is a striking feature of the British character that here we devote £1,000 to tropical research and £200,000 to policing Somaliland. I would respectfully urge that if we had spent another £199,000 in research in reference to tropical diseases, we should have done very much more to consolidate and expand the British Empire than we have done by spending that sum on the object I have mentioned.
  I think the experience of the Americans in their endeavour to construct the Panama Canal shows very well how research in tropical diseases does enrich an
  1052
  empire, and long experience in times to come, in Nigeria and other tropical countries, will do much which is of value. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that an officer would be sent to East Africa and another to West Africa, and I should only like to express the hope that the results of their labour will be such that the Government in time to come will be encouraged to send not one but twenty to each of our dominions in the neighbourhood of the Congo. I think then we shall very soon find that the riches of those regions are more available for the merchants and traders of our country. There is one aspect of this work which the right hon. Gentleman has not referred to, and which I think might receive more extended consideration, and that is the co-ordination of the various efforts which are being made in different parts of the world in researches of this kind. Workers and Governments suffer very much sometimes from not knowing what other people are doing, and I think that £1,000 or £10,000 for that matter, might be spent in collecting and co-ordinating the information derived from workers in all parts of the world.
  I think such a sum would be very well spent, and I do sincerely hope that the committee will bear in mind the value arising from co-ordinating and bringing together all the results of different men's work in these researches. I should think myself that the whole £1,000 might be well spent in this work alone, but so far as it will assist in helping men to spend their time out of doors who are engaged in research of tropical diseases, I am afraid it will not go very far. Finally, I would like to express the hope that the committee will not interpret the word "entomological" in the strict sense; in some diseases workers set out with the idea that the work is entomological in its character but it is not, and sometimes it is found to be of a bacteriological character. I hope that the committee will interpret the word broadly; and I cordially support this Vote, and hope that next year we shall have it ten times as large.
  Mr. REES: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Dr. Ross is on this committee, and also to take exception to the description of the hon. Member for Peterborough of Lord Cromer's Commission. It is simply to prevent the well-meant but mischievous efforts of anti-vivisectionists from impeding such a committee as this in its

  1053
  efforts to find out what are the causes of this terrible scourge, the ravages of which the right hon. Gentleman knows from observation, and which all those who are concerned in Central Africa are very much concerned about, that I venture to intervene. It is to prevent their being impeded that I heartily deprecate any such interference as my hon. Friend suggests. I would also tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have reason to believe that there has been actually one case of sleeping sickness in Nyassaland, and unless the Colonial Office is prepared to face the enormous expenditure of operations such as he has described in Uganda, at Lake Tanganyika, in other places, and even along the banks of the Zambesi, it will be necessary to spare no effort, in the way of research, by sending out officers in order to prevent this terrible scourge, compared with which the Indian plague, which is often brought before the House, is little more than trifling.
  Resolution agreed to, and reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

SUPPLY [2nd March].—REPORT.
Resolutions reported:—
SUPPLY [2nd March].—REPORT.

  NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1909–10.
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £689,100, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March, 1910, for additional expenditure on the following services, namely:—

  Vote 8.—Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc. (Section III. Contract Work)

  £830,000

  Vote 9.—Naval Armaments

  86,000

  Vote 10.—Works, Buildings, and Repairs, etc.

  100

  £916,100

  Less other Surpluses

  227,000

  £689,000"

  SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION, ETC.—(CLASS 4.)
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1910, for sundry Grants in Aid of Scientific Investigation, etc."
  TREASURY CHEST FUND.—(CLASS 5.)
  "That a sum, not exceeding £17,052, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1910, for making good the net loss on transactions connected with the raising of money for the various Treasury chests abroad in the year 1908–9."
  SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES. (CLASS 6.)
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1910, for superannuation, compensation, compassionate, and additional allowances and gratuities."
  LAW CHARGES AND COURTS OF LAW, SCOTLAND.—(CLASS 3.)
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st of March, 1910, for the salaries and expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department and other law charges, and for the salaries and expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice in Scotland."

  INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITIONS.—(CLASS 7.)
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,250, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1910, for expenses in connection with international exhibitions."
  MASTER of ELIBANKmoved: "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I think it a little unfortunate that the Government have not seen their way to allow the question raised in the Resolution in my name to be brought before the House in a definite manner, and it is, I think, a little difficult for the matter in question to be adequately stated on the Motion for the, adjournment.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Not only can it not be adequately stated, but it cannot be stated at all. The hon. Member is precluded from raising it on the question of the Adjournment by having given notice to raise it.
  Mr. HOPE: I wish to utter a protest against the Government having moved to adjourn, and thereby prevented this

  1055
  question from being brought before the House. Had they not moved to adjourn, this question would have been brought on, and would have been debated in the normal course. By the action they have taken, they have prevented that, and I can only conclude that they had some motive for preventing it. The only motive they can have had cannot be connected with a desire to expedite the business of the House. It can only have arisen from the wish that this matter should not be thoroughly debated after the experience they have had of the course which Debates on this Motion have hitherto taken; and the country, reading to-morrow that the Debate on this was stifled by the action of the Government, will judge that they have deliberately burked discussion on an indictment accusing them of throwing away huge sums of public money for no other motive than to gratify their vanity.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Gentleman has used very strong language, and language singularly inappropriate to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. As a matter of fact, this matter has been debated at considerable length during the last two days, and can be debated again to-morrow on the Third Reading of the first of the two Financial Bills. The Government would have been delighted to spend the whole of the remainder of this evening in discussing the hon. Gentleman's Motion. Nothing would have given them greater pleasure, because the further the matter is discussed, the more they are convinced the strength of their position becomes apparent. We should have been very glad for the House to come to a considered judgment upon it, but it is necessary for any Government which has taken, with the assent of the House, for itself the whole time of the House, and which has therefore deprived private Members of their ordinary opportunities of bringing their Motions forward by ballot, at the conclusion of Government business, to make this invariable Motion for the adjournment of the House. There was no Division on the Motion to take the time of the House, and if we were to make an exception of a particular Motion put down late last night by a private Member we should be doing the greatest injustice to the great bulk of the private Members of the House who have, on the faith of the Government having taken the whole of the time themselves, not obtained the opportunity they otherwise would for ventilating
  1056
  subjects. On that ground only the Government now make this Motion for the adjournment, but they will welcome fuller discussion of the matter such as will be afforded on the Third Beading of the Bill to-morrow.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I recognise that there is force in the argument which the right hon. Gentleman has used for adjourning the House before any private Member's Motion is reached under the circumstances in which we now stand. It is true that the Government was given the whole time of the House up to Easter with the usual understanding that that time would be used only for Government business, but then with the understanding that it would be used and that every moment of it was required for Government business which was urgent. On that understanding the House acceded to the Prime Minister's Motion without a Division. What has happened? For the third evening running since the Government have obtained the full time of the House they adjourn the House when only half a Parliamentary day's work has been done. For the third day running half a Parliamentary day is wasted, and this is the time when the Government themselves admit that money is being lost and expense being caused by the non-collection of taxes. Why do they not use the time which the House gives them for the purpose—
  The PRIME MINISTER: For the Budget?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, use it for the Budget if you like. I am very glad to accept the offer of the right hon. Gentleman. Will they put down the Budget? That is better than I expected, and if the Prime Minister was going to do that, of course no one would be more gratified than we. The request I was urging was a more modest one. They have explained over and over again that their great financial difficulty arises from the non-collection of Income Tax.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is now raising the point which is raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Hope). He is precluded from raising that.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Of course, my object in so doing is to show how inexcusable it is in the Government under such circumstances and in such a condition of the national finances to waste the time which the House has generously placed at their disposal; and everyone

  1057
  knows that they are doing it as part of a long series of manœuvres, the object of which is, if possible, to avert defeat in this House, and, if they are defeated, at any rate to leave financial confusion for their successors.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Though it is quite true that this matter has been repeatedly discussed, it is also quite true that the explanations of the Government are each time different and each time wholly unfounded. Indeed, the explanations of the Government are like the assurances of the Government—they always vary and they always turn out to be untrue. [Cries of "Oh!"] They often turn out to mean something different. I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman would like to discuss the matter, and I hope we may have an opportunity of discussing it, but I am quite sure that the longer the Government go on with the policy of shuffling out of their difficulties and evading the issues which they dare not face, the deeper will be the discontent of the country and the greater the contempt for their action.
  Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter before Right o'clock.