Sitting of 10 December 1900

Preamble
Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath, and one other Member made and subscribed the Affirmation required by Law.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
The Right Hon. St. John Fremantle Brodrick for County of Surrey (South Western or Guildford Division).
The Right Hon. Robert William Hanbury for Borough of Preston.
The Right Hon. George Wyndham for Borough of Dover.

PETITIONS.
  INHABITED HOUSE DUTY AND INCOME TAX.
  Two Petitions from London, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  OLD AGE PENSION SCHEME.
  Petition from Baildon, for adoption; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petitions for prohibition, from West Hendon; Walton-on-the-Naze; and Halstead; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  RESTRICTIONS UPON BRITISH INDIAN SUBJECTS IN BRITISH COLONIES AND DEPENDENCIES.
  Return [presented 7th December] to be printed. [No. 383.]
  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR.
  Copy presented, of Proclamations issued by Field Marshal Lord Roberts in South Africa [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 543 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2540 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CHINA (No. 4, 1900).
  Copy presented, of Reports from Her Majesty's Minister in China respecting events in Peking [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS (ANGLO-FRENCH PRESS TELEGRAMS).
  Copy presented, of the Telegraph (Foreign Written Anglo-French Press Telegram) Regulations, 1900, and dated 13th November, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Inquiry into Charities (Administrative County of Durham), Return relative thereto [ordered 14th February; Mr. Grant Lawsom]; to be printed. [No. 384.]
  2. Lunacy; Copy of Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, the number of patients seen, and the number of miles travelled by the Visitors of Lunatics between 1st April, 1900, and 30th September, 1900 [by Act].
  3. Augmentation of Benefices; Copy of Return of Proceedings under the Augmentation of Benefices Act, 1863, from 15th August, 1892, to 6th December, 1900 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 385.]

  POST OFFICE (WEST INDIA MAIL CONTRACT).
  Copy ordered, "of the Contract, dated the 1st day of September, 1900, with the

  339
  Royal Mail Steam Packet Company for the conveyance of the West India Mails for the period from the 1st day of July, 1900, to the 30th day of June, 1905; together with a Copy of the Treasury Minute thereon, dated the 4th day of December, 1900."—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 386.]

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—HOSPITALS COMMISSION'S REPORT.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when he expects to be able to present to the House the Report of the South African Hospitals Commission.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am informed by the Royal Commissioners that they hope to be in a position to present their Report early in the ensuing year.

  SOUTH AFRICAN CORRESPONDENCE—MR. MERRIMAN'S LETTER.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the letter from Mr. Merriman, published in the Parliamentary Paper headed "Correspondence relating to the Political Situation in South Africa," was in the hands of Sir Alfred Milner while Mr. Merriman was, as Treasurer of the Cape Colony, one of Sir Alfred Milner's Ministers, and in constant relation with him; whether the letter was shown or mentioned by Sir Alfred Milner to Mr. Merriman; and whether the Colonial Secretary or Sir Alfred Milner asked Mr. Merriman's consent to the publication of that letter, or gave Mr. Merriman any opportunity of making any observations upon it.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): So far as my information goes the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, and to the last two questions in the negative. The letter was in no way discreditable to Mr. Merriman.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it not a fact that Mr. Merriman made a public protest in the Cape Parliament against the publication of this correspondence?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

  SEDITIOUS NEWSPAPERS.
  EARL PERCY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any intention of taking stops in South Africa to suppress newspapers of a distinctly seditious character.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no doubt that the Ministers of the Cape Colony will take any action that will be rendered necessary, whilst in districts under martial law it will be for the military authorities to consider what steps are required.

  SUPPOSED OFFER OF SURRENDER BY GENERAL DE WET.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether ho has any information to the effect that Captain Fiset, a French Canadian, who had been wounded whilst fighting on the British side in the Transvaal, stated that General De Wet had informed him that he, Do Wet, had twice offered to surrender to Lord Roberts, but that his offers had been refused; and, if so, upon what grounds the offers were refused.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I understand that a paragraph to this effect has appeared in the press. There is, however, no official confirmation of the report.

  IRISH AND IRISH-AMERICAN WAR PRISONERS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether some Irish and Irish-American prisoners captured during the Boer war are now interned in Ceylon and St. Helena, and if any political or other reason exists for refusing to allow them to return to their homos; or, if not, would they he brought to trial.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Full lists of the prisoners have not yet reached this office, but it is understood that some

  341
  prisoners of Irish nationality are interned in Ceylon and St. Helena. They cannot be treated differently from other prisoners of war.

  ROYAL INNISKILLING FUSILIERS—DRAFTS FOR SOUTH AFRICA.
  MR. BAETLEY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether thirty-seven recruits from the dep6t at Omagh are now being sent to South Africa to reinforce the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers; if so, what are the ages of these recruits, have they had any experience in battalion drill, have they ever had any practical instruction in shooting, and have they only had four months' training.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I believe these figures are substantially correct. In a certain number of cases partially trained soldiers have been sent with drafts to South Africa for service on the lines of communications and have been attached where possible to Militia battalions. The Secretary of State has recently given orders to discontinue sending drafts, having regard to the large number of men in each unit now in South Africa.

  POLICE RESERVISTS' PENSIONS.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a circular was sent by the Home Office to the Cumberland County Council, to the effect that the time the police Reservists, who are absent with the colours, pass in South Africa should not count towards their pensions in the county police force; and whether he will reconsider this decision, and agree to the time passed in service by police Reservists being added to the police service qualifying for pension.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg at the same time to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will consider the propriety of amending the regulation whereby Reserve soldiers, members of the police, who have been called out for active service, will have to serve for pension an additional period equivalent to the time of their absence upon such service.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): The answer to these
  342
  questions is that a letter was sent by the Home Office to the Cumberland County Council giving the effect of the law as it at present exists. I am not satisfied that the law is right, and I hope to introduce a Bill to deal with the matter next session.

  PIERSHILL (EDINBURGH) CAVALRY BARRACKS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the cavalry barracks at Piershill, Jock's Lodge, near Edinburgh, are so constructed that the men have to sleep in lofts over the stables, which are only separated from the stables by old floor boards,, the result being that the effluvia rising from the stables flows into the men's sleeping apartment; is he aware that on the east side of the barracks there are only two baths for the use of the 400 men quartered in the barracks, and that the cistern for supplying each bath is capable of holding only sufficient water to-fill the bath twice; that the two baths on the other side of the barracks have been out of order and unfit for use for upwards of a year, and that the punishment for men not taking a bath is three days' confinement in barracks; and will he say who is responsible for this housing of our soldiers, and whether steps will be taken to render the barracks fit for human beings.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: No, Sir. The statements made in the question are not accurate. The men's rooms are not lofts, but regular upper storeys with sound floors and ceilings between them and the stables, which, the general officer commanding states, keeps the stable effluvia from the rooms. There are not only the two baths on the east side of the barracks, supplying hot and cold water, but six baths on the west side, similarly supplying hot and cold water. Over £2,000 has been spent on these barracks in the last two years, which are now reported as being in a thoroughly sanitary condition.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Has the inquiry into the condition of the buildings promised last session yet been held?
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Yes, Sir; it was held soon after the promise was given.
  MR. WEIR: In consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall take the earliest opportunity of calling attention to the state of these barracks.

  CHINA—DEFENCE OF THE PEKING LEGATIONS—DESPATCHES.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the despatch of the officer commanding the British Guard of the Legation at Peking will be published, and what is the cause of the delay in publishing the official report from that officer of the operations resulting in the successful defence of the Legation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I entirely share my hon. and gallant friend's desire that the despatch in question, which reflects great credit for gallantry upon the small guard of Royal Marines in Peking, and which was received at the end of October, shall be published as soon as possible. I understand that arrangements have been made for it to appear in the London Gazette on Tuesday, and I regret that, owing to a misunderstanding as to the decision of the Board on the subject, it has not been done sooner.

  ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the replies of the Powers to the communication inviting their adhesion to the Anglo-German Agreement will be presented to Parliament.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): The papers are being prepared, and will be presented at once.

  CHINA—PEKING SHAN-HAI-KWAN RAILWAY.
  COL. HOWARD VINCENT, on behalf of Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information which he can give to the House concerning the position and the present custody of the Peking-Shan-hai-Kwan Railway.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Her Majesty's Government have been given to understand that the present disposition of the forces of the Allies on this railway is of a purely temporary character; and we venture to think, as my right hon. friend would probably agree, that no useful purpose would be served at the present time by describing the existing arrangements in detail. The matter is engaging the close attention of Her Majesty's Government.

  INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES CONFERENCE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Report of the British delegate who attended the International Fisheries Conference held at Stockholm last year will now be published; will he state whether Great Britain proposes to take part in the investigations concerning the fishing industry which were recommended by the Conference; and will the correspondence which has taken place on the subject be laid upon the Table of the House.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Her Majesty's Government cannot undertake to publish the Report of the British delegates. They have expressed their willingness to take part in the proposed Fishery Committee, the meeting of which has been postponed. The publication of the correspondence will be considered, when the scheme of investigations is further advanced.

  MACEIO AND PERNAMBUCO—CONSULAR TRADE REPORTS.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can explain why the Consular Report on the state of trade for 1899 in Maceio and Pernambuco has not been published yet; and whether the Report has been in the possession of the Foreign Office since May last; and can he state when it will be printed, as it is anxiously awaited in various commercial quarters.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The Report in question has not reached the Foreign Office. Her Majesty's Consul was recently reminded of his omission.

  ARMENIA—DISTURBANCES IN BITLIS.
  EARL PERCY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

  345
  whether disturbances of a serious character have occurred during the last four months in the Vilayet of Bitlis; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will reconsider their decision to withdraw the British Vice-Consul from Bitlis.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: At the end of July last a massacre of Armenians was reported to have taken place at Spag-hank in the Talori district of the Vilayet of Bitlis. Her Majesty's Vice-Consul at Van made inquiries into the matter, and although there were conflicting accounts of what took place, he could ascertain no more than that a small band of revolutionists took refuge in a church at Spag-hank, from which they fired on the Turkish troops, and in which they were eventually killed. This intelligence was supplied by a person who had visited and carefully examined Spag-hank, which is a small village of only six houses. There have been no reports of any further disturbances in the Vilayet of Bitlis. As my predecessor informed my noble friend on the 22nd of March last, Her Majesty's Government have not decided permanently to withdraw the British Vice-Consul from Bitlis, but the matter is under consideration.

  MALTESE LAW COURTS—OFFICIAL LANGUAGE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the face that dissatisfaction exists in Italy on account of the attempt of the Colonial Office to impose on the people of Malta the use of the English language in place of Italian in the courts of law; and in view of the irritation which this action has caused amongst the people of a friendly Power, will the Government consider the expediency of taking steps to annul the Order in Council of the 7th March, 1899.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been called to the fact that certain Italian newspapers and persons have commented adversely on the changes which it has been found necessary to make with regard to the use of the Italian language in Malta, but they appear to have been entirely misinformed as to the facts. The only change which has hitherto been made is that where British subjects are concerned they may choose English as the language in which the proceedings are to be carried on in a
  346
  court in a British colony, which is also a British fortress. It has also been stated on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that at the expiration of fifteen years from 22nd March, 1899, the English language will be substituted for Italian in the courts, and it is believed that as a very small proportion of the Maltese now understand Italian, and as, having been given the option of having Italian or English taught to their children in the public elementary schools, no less than from 85 to 100 per cent, of the parents and guardians in Malta, and 79 per cent, in Gozo have decided in favour of English, it will be a great advantage and convenience to the majority of the population fourteen years hence that this change should be made.

  BREAKING UP OF LONDON STREETS.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, having regard to the inconvenience caused to the public by the tearing up of the streets of the metropolis by the London County Council, the borough councils, water and various companies, without any common plan, he will consider the desirability of introducing a short Amendment to the Metropolitan Streets Act, or other statute, making the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis an authority whose licence must be obtained before any street can be taken up and closed to traffic.
  MR. COHEN: Is the London County Council responsible in any instance for the inconvenience?
  MR. RITCHIE: The inconvenience to which my hon. and gallant friend draws attention is certainly very great, and I notice with satisfaction that the question is engaging the joint attention of the London County Council and the borough councils. I will not lose sight of the matter. In response to the hon. Member for East Islington, I have to say I have no doubt that the London County Council is not responsible for many of the breakings-up,

  MERCANTILE SHIPPING IN IRISH PORTS—SHIP MEASUREMENTS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the com-

  347
  plaints from Dundalk, Drogheda, and a number of port authorities in Ireland as to the mode of measuring ships, whereby dues are raised on tonnage far below the real weight of the cargo, and the authorities are deprived of the moans of effectively carrying on the effective working of the ports over which they have jurisdiction; and will he state whether the Government intend to submit any legislation on the subject.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): My attention has been called to the complaints to which the hon. Member refers, and the Board of Trade are preparing instructions with the view of meeting them, so far as that is possible under the existing law. The whole subject is an intricate and difficult one, and, as at present advised, I am not prepared to propose fresh legislation with regard to it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the instructions be made public?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, they will be issued shortly to the authorities concerned.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES—RENTS CHARGED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
  MR. HAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is the practice of local authorities to charge upon the rents of working class dwellings erected by them under Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the Housing Act, 1890, the sums necessary to repay in a term of years the capital cost of the whole or part of the land forming the site thereof; and, if so, whether he will issue instructions to the local authorities to assimilate their practice in these cases to that which they follow in the case of land acquired and let by county councils under the Small Holdings Act, 1892.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,): It rests with the local authorities to determine the basis upon which they will fix the rents of the houses provided by them under the Housing of the Working Classes Aces. I am not aware to what extent they adopt
  348
  the practice referred to in the question,, but I have no authority to give them any instructions in the matter.

  POST OFFICE—WEST CHEVINGTON RURAL MESSENGER,
  MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of the fact that Mrs. Lindsay, rural post, messenger at West Chevington, in the county of Northumberland, has been compelled to retire through failing health after twenty-four years' service, and that in consequence of her retirement she is now left without means of support other than the workhouse; and will he undertake to see that some more suitable provision is made for her either in the form of pension or otherwise.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): There would appear to be some misapprehension in regard to this matter. Mary Lindsay is reported to be in good health, is well able to perform her duties, and. states that she has no present intention of giving up her employment.

  KEYHAM BARTON POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. KEARLEY: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has received complaints from the inhabitants of Keyham Barton, Devonport, as to the inadequacy of the postal facilities in this district, affecting both the lateness of the morning delivery of letters and general postal accommodation; and whether, in view of the fact that a thousand new houses have recently been erected and occupied, he will arrange for a sub-office and pillar boxes to be more centrally placed in order to spare the residents the inconvenience occasioned, by the existing arrangements.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has received, complaints from the inhabitants of Key-ham Barton respecting the postal facilities in the district, and inquiry is being made on the subject. The hon. Member shall be informed of the result as soon as possible.

  ABERDEEN POST OFFICE.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state when the Government intend to commence building the post office in Aberdeen; and whether, in view of the time elapsed since the site was obtained, a substantial sum will be set aside in next year's Estimates, so that effective progress may be made with the work.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The new post office buildings would by this time have been commenced, but the Corporation raised the question of widening the street, and this has led to further delay. After much negotiation, the Corporation has agreed to provide an equivalent in land to compensate for the loss of area by the street widening. Fresh plans, to meet the altered conformation of the site, will now be necessary; but the matter is being pushed on, and a sum on account will be inserted in the Estimates for the ensuing year.

  CUSTOMS WATCHERS' PAY.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to state when the Customs watchers will receive the benefit of the concessions approved by the Lords of the Treasury in their letter of the 18th August, 1900, No. 13,833/1900; and whether he will give an assurance that the watchers will receive their back pay from the date of the Treasury letter.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The increase of the overtime rate for watchers, when "hoarded," from 4d. to 6d. was introduced at once, and the increases of pay, when finally determined, will take effect as from the 18th August last—the date of the Treasury letter which sanctioned them. The selection of the individual watchers who are to receive these increases cannot be made until a complete seniority list has been compiled, but I hope that it may be announced before Christmas. The completion of a contract for the supply of uniforms has necessarily occupied some time and the uniforms will not be issued till 1st February next.

  CUSTOMS BOATMEN'S GRIEVANCES.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what
  350
  decision has been come to in reference to the inquiry into the grievances of the Customs boatmen, undertaken as long ago as last May, by his predecessor in office.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It has been decided that boatmen employed at distant stations in London between midnight and 5 a.m. should be paid an allowance of 9d. a night for the combined charges of travelling and subsistence, and also that serge jackets shall be supplied to the officers at any port at which they may be considered necessary by the Board of Customs.

  SCOTTISH CROFTERS—SIR KENNETH MATHESON'S DEER FOREST.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that Sir-Kenneth Matheson's deer forest at Attadale, Ross-shire, now let to Baron Schroder, was originally tenanted by 63 crofter families; and, seeing that since the eviction of these families the forest has been increased from 12,606 acres in 1891 to 18,689 acres in 1898, will he state what steps the Government propose to take to prevent the further extension of this and other deer forests in the Highlands.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The Government do not propose to introduce special legislation on the subject of deer forests.

  SCONSER (ISLE OF SKYE) CROFTERS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that Lord Macdonald's estate factor, when recently urging the crofters of Sconser, Isle of Skye, to remove from their present holdings to the depopulated lands of Boreraig and Suisinish, stated that the Congested Districts Board were prepared to erect houses and fences on the new holdings, and bear the expense of the removal; is he aware that this proposed removal of crofters has for its object the absorption of the crofter township of Sconser in the adjoining deer forest; and will he state whether the Board has authorised any such statement; if so, will he explain why the Board offered to undertake this expenditure in order to secure the extension of a deer forest.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The crofters of Sconser have disobeyed the finding of the Crofters Commission by keeping stock beyond that allowed by the Commission, which stock can only be fed by permitting it to trespass. As the crofters have represented that without this extra stock they cannot comfortably live, and as their houses are in an insanitary condition, the estate management, which is subject to the Order of the Court of Session, approached the Congested Districts Board with a view to seeing whether a scheme of migration could be carried out. Negotiations are still pending. The scheme as proposed is conceived in the interests of the crofters alone and with no reference to the deer forest, and, if carried out, the estate would be rather a loser than a gainer in pecuniary advantage.

  SCOTTISH FISHERY BOARD'S CRUISER.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the cause of the delay in finishing the Scottish Fishery Board's new cruiser, whether penalty clauses for non-completion to time were inserted in the contract, and what part of the coast the cruiser will patrol when ready for service.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: There has been no delay in finishing the new cruiser. She is to be ready in about a fortnight, as provided by the contract, in which a penalty clause was inserted. The area to be patrolled will be as decided by the Fishery Board from time to time.
  MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware he stated in this House a few months ago that on the 1st December——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  DUBLIN CAR LICENCES—JAMES FITZHARRIS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that James Fitzharris, a released prisoner, was refused a licence as a car-driver in Dublin by the police authorities, and being deprived of any means of earning a living has had to become a pauper in the South Dublin Workhouse; and whether it has hitherto been the policy of the authorities to assist released
  352
  prisoners, irrespective of the accusation against them; and, if so, whether the Government will now interpose any obstacle to a renewal of the car licence to Fitzharris, and thus prevent a man who is willing to work being an enforced burden on the ratepayers.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Atkinson,): The Chief Commissioner of Police, in the exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Section 52 of the Dublin Carriage Act, 1854, refused, in conformity with invariable practice, to grant a licence to Fitzharris, he having been convicted of a felony—namely, of being accessory to the murder of Mr. Burke, and having been only recently discharged on ticket-of-leave. The Prisons Board assist released prisoners, but with a due regard in every case to the character and antecedents of the prisoner. In answer to the second inquiry in the last paragraph, I beg to say the matter is not one calling for any action on the part of the Government.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has not the man already undergone his full punishment?
  MR. ATKINSON: No, Sir.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Why should he be forced either to starve or come on the ratepayers for his maintenance? He is willing to work if only he can get a licence.
  MR. ATKINSON: The law gives the police discretion to refuse a licence to a man who has been convicted of felony.

  THE NEW ROYAL YACHT.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state what has been the total cost of the repairs and alterations to the new Royal yacht up to this date; and whether all the original wood lining of cabins and berths is to be removed; if so, what material is to be substituted, and at what cost.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The cost of the repairs and alterations of the new Royal yacht up to 1st December, 1900, is £22,831. The accident which occurred to her has indirectly caused greater expenditure than this by prolonging the time that the ship has been under construction, but it would be impossible to assess the exact amount. In certain

  353
  places where defects in the non-inflammable wood have appeared, and it is feared that a repetition of these defects might affect costly decorations, ordinary wood will be substituted, but no decision has yet been taken as to the remainder.

  OEPTFOED VICTUALLING YARD.—PAY OF LABOURERS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is prepared to modify the decision with reference to the refusal to consider an increase of pay for the labourers at Deptford Victualling Yard in receipt of wages under 24s. a week, with a view to the application by the Admiralty of the principle already adopted as regards labourers employed under the War Office.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The question of increasing the wages of these labourers was carefully considered by the late First Lord of the Admiralty, who, in the debate last March, gave the reasons which precluded the grant.* Any representations will have consideration, but I cannot give an undertaking to alter the decision then arrived at.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: In the event of my making further representations will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to deal with the question without delay?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The representations should be made to the First Lord of the Admiralty.

  H.M.S. "PELORUS"—BOILERS.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state what type, and whose make, of boilers are fitted in H.M.S. "Pelorus"; whether this vessel had her machinery recently overhauled prior to her departure to join the Channel Squadron; and what is the nature of the defects in her boilers that have necessitated her return to port now.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The boilers of the "Pelorus" are of the "small tube" water-tube type, termed modified "Normand"; and they, with the engines, were made by Messrs. Thomson, now the
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. 1xxx., pages 421–432
  354
  Clydebank Shipbuilding and Engineering Co., Ltd. The machinery of this ship had been recently overhauled at Devon-port. The return of the ship was not due to defects in the boilers, but was necessitated by the priming of the evaporators. This affected the freshness of the feed water so as to cause such excessive priming of the boilers that the condensers were suspected to be leaking; these have, however, since been tested and found to be quite tight.

  GIBRALTAR—NEW COMMERCIAL MOLE.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that the new commercial mole at Gibraltar is only 3,200 yards from Punta Mala in Spain, and that the whole of the commercial anchorage, the man-of-war anchorage, and the three new docks, which are now being constructed there at an estimated total cost of £4,369,000, are within the range of modern artillery and the shipping therein liable to be exposed to a converging fire from a segment of nearly half a circle of the shore round the Bay of Gibraltar; whether the advisability has been considered of constructing these docks and works, or a portion of them, on the eastern side of the Rock; and, whether steps will be taken to suspend the construction of the works on the western side of the Rock until Her Majesty's Government have satisfied themselves that they are safe from attack from the land.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The distance mentioned by my hon. friend is substantially accurate. It is quite true that the western side of the Rock is more exposed than the eastern side to attack from the land, but the eastern side is more open to every form of attack from the sea. The construction of the works would have taken a serious additional number of years on the eastern side as compared with the western side. The question of the east side or the west side was very fully considered by Lord Rosebery's Government in 1894, and again by the late Government on assuming office, and in both cases it was decided that the weight of advantage was on the western side. The Government are not prepared to recommend a suspension of the works.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: In reference to the statement that the works on the eastern side would have taken longer to complete than those on the western side, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the bottom is exactly the same depth and of the same character on each side? Why then should the works take longer?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware, but if my hon. friend will put down a question I have no doubt an explanation will be given.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Leader of the House whether he is in a position to give the House any information as to the course of business.
MR. A.J. BALFOUR: In answer to my right hon. friend, I cannot, of course, state with certainty what the course of business will be. The Government, I need hardly say, have no desire to shorten the consideration of subjects with which the House may desire to deal fully, but I cannot help thinking that the House, without giving up any time it may desire to spend in discussing the questions before it, could, if it desired, conclude all the business by Saturday next. I assume—I hope I am not sanguine in assuming—that we shall conclude the debate on the Address to-night. If that is concluded to-night we shall then really have only two questions before us—namely, the Estimates to be proposed by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War, and the Bill dealing with the borrowing powers of the Government to be introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is the Appropriation Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Let me point out that the Appropriation Bill is confined to what is contained in the Estimates, and practically it is the same question, which can be debated again fully upon each stage of the Appropriation Bill. Practically, therefore, there are only two questions before the House, and if we proceed as quickly as our rules will permit, we have Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday in which o discuss them. I should hope that we
356
might not only finish the Estimates tomorrow, but might also take the first stage of the Bill of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealing with the borrowing powers of the Government. Then we could take the Report of the resolution on Wednesday, the Second Readings of both Bills on Thursday, Committees on Friday, and Third Readings on Saturday. It will be seen that the questions of Estimates and borrowing powers can be discussed on all these stages, and I should therefore hope that the time between now and Saturday would be sufficient to dispose of the two topics without undue curtailment of debate. These are counsels of perfection, perhaps, but I think that to conclude on Saturday would be for the general convenience, and I put out this general scheme in order that Members may make up their minds, and that we may come to an arrangement that will conduce to general convenience on both sides.
MR. DALZIEL: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to ask the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to ask the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means to-morrow, and should it be very late at night the matter could be discussed again on Wednesday.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I presume there is no intention to break through the twelve o'clock rule to-morrow night, but it is intended to trust to the general desire to close the debate if possible?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would not like to give a decision now, or until I have collected the general view in the House.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I suggest that the same attitude might apply now. I know that a considerable number of Members do not view with favour a motion for suspending the twelve o'clock rule. They have, as I have already said, no desire for the continuance of discussion upon matters not immediately affecting the business before the House in the present session, and I am anxious that the sittings should close this week, though I think it would be better if this could be effected without the suspension of the rule.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If there is an understanding on both sides that the debate shall close to-night without sus-

357
pension of the rule, of course I will say nothing more, but I do not gather that there is such an understanding.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the Address in
answer to Her Majesty's Speech, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order, Sittings of the House."—(Mr. Balfour.)
The House divided.—Ayes, 214; Noes, 98. (Division List No. 3.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lowe, Francis William

Aird, John

Finch, George H.

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Fisher, William Hayes

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Fison, Frederick William

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Macdona, John Gumming

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Maconochie, A. W.

Arrol, Sir William

Forster, Henry William

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Galloway, William Johnson

Majendie, James A. H.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Garlic, William

Manners, Lord Cecil

Austin, Sir John

Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Nairn

Max well, W. J. (Dumfriesshire)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gordon, Maj. W. (Tower Hamlts

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Baird, John George Alexander

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Milward, Colonel Victor

Baldwin. Alfred

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mitchell, William

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

Graham, Henry Robert

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Balfour, Maj. K.R. (Christch.)

Greene, Sir EW(Bury St Edm'ds

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Banbury, Frederick George

Grenfell, William Henry

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Bartley, George C. T.

Groves, James Grimble

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Bentinck, Lord Henry C,

Gunter, Colonel

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Mount, William Arthur

Bignold, A.

Hain, Edward

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Bigwood, James

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Murray, Rt An A. Graham (Bute

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G.(Midd'x

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Bond, Edward

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Myers, William Henry

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Nicholson, William Graham

Boulnois, Edmund

Harris, Dr. Fred. R.(Monmouth

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex)

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Hay, Claude

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Helder, Augustus

Parker, Gilbert

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Pemberton, John S. G.

Carlile, William Walter

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead

Percy, Earl

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Hogg, Lindsay

Plummer, Walter R.

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Hope, J. F. (Sheffi'd, Brightside)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Horner, Frederic William

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Charrington, Spencer

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Purvis, Robert

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

Hoult, Joseph

Radcliffe, R. F.

Coddington, Sir William

Houston, Robert Paterson

Randles, John S.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Renwick, George

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hughes, Colonel Edwin

Ridley. Matthew W (Stalybr'ge

Corbett A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

Ridley, Samuel F (Bethnal Gr'n)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Ritchie. Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Cranborne, Viscount

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kenyon, James (Lanes., Bury)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Round, James

Dewar, T.R (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo.

Knowles, Lees

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Lawson, John Grant

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edw. H.

Seely, Charles Henry (Lincoln)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lee. Capt. A. H. (Hants. Fareh.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Legge, Col. Heneage

Shaw-Stewart, M. H.(Renfrew)

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Leighton, Stanley

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham.

Spear, John Ward

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Long, Rt. Hon Walter (Bristol, S

Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sh'f 'ld

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M T.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Wanklyn, James Leslie

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

Stock, James Henry

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.

Stroyan, John

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R. (Bath

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E. (Ta'nt'n

Wylie, Alexander

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Tollemache, Henry James

Wharton. Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(B'rm

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Take, Sir John Batty

Wills, Sir Frederick

Valentia, Viscount

Wilson, Arthur S. (York, E.R.)

NOES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Rea, Russell

Allen, C. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Reckitt, Harold James

Asher, Alexander

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Rickett, J. Compton

Barker, John

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Rigg, Richard

Barlow, John Emmott

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Robson, William Snowdon

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Schwann, Charles E.

Black, Alexander William

Healy, Timothy Michael

Shipman, Dr. John

Brigg, John

Hemphill, Rt, Hon. Charles H.

Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Scares, Ernest J.

Bryce, Rt. Hon James

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

Burns, John

Joicey, Sir James

Strachey, Edward

Burt, Thomas

Kearley, Hudson E.

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Caldwell. James

Labourchere, Henry

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Causton, Richard Knight

Lambert, George

Thomson, Frederick W.

Cawley, Frederick

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Channing, Francis Allston

Leng, Sir John

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Lewis, John Herbert

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Cremer, William Randal

Lloyd-George, David

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Dalziel, James Henry

Lough, Thomas

Weir, James Galloway

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Macnamana, Dr. Thomas J.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

K'Kenna, Reginald

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Duncan, James H

Margan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Williams, Arthur O (Merioneth

Edwards, Frank

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

Ellis, John Edward

Nolan, Col John P.(Galway, N.

Wodehouse, Hn. Armine (Essex

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Yoxall, James Henry

Fenwick, Charles

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

Paulton, James Mellor

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Perks, Robert William

Captain Norton and Mr. Jacoby.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Address in Answer to Her Majesty's Speech, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order, Sittings of the House.

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
[THIRD DAY'S DEBATE.]

BRITISH INTERESTS IN CHINA.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [7th December] to Question [6th December], "That an
360
humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as foliowoth—
"Most Gracious Sovereign,
"We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to your Majesty for the gracious Speech which your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Gordon.)
And which Amendment was—
"At the end of the Question to add the words, 'And we humbly represent to your Majesty that it is essential that more adequate

361
measures should be taken for the safeguarding of the vast commercial and political interests of the British Empire in China; and we further humbly submit that no demand should be made on the Chinese Government for the punishment of Chinese officials which would not be equally imposed in the case of a European Power, and also that reparation should be sought in increased facilities to trade rather than by a money indemnity.'"—(Mr. Joseph Walton.)
Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
Debate resumed.
SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETTsaid he did not think any apology was required for referring to questions relating to China. Indeed, the gratitude of the House was due to the hon. Member who introduced the question in a speech of so much moderation and knowledge on Friday night, and he ventured to repeat what he then said, that the very treatment of this question afforded the most agreeable contrast to the personalities in which so much of the time of the House was wasted on Thursday and during a portion of Friday. It was perfectly true that the South African question had been one of great gravity, but it might now be considered as practically settled, as South Africa would no doubt be British. But the Chinese question still remained with us, and it was of even greater importance than ever the South African question had been, as our trade with China amounted to between fifty and sixty millions a year—more than double our trade with South Africa, and there was no reason why that trade should not enormously increase if only a wise and statesmanlike policy were pursued in regard to that country. It was not too much to say that the future of China, and perhaps of Asia, was now hanging in the balance. If once Russia was allowed to get military and political control of Manchuria and the North of China, she would obtain a lever to enable her to overrun the whole of China. There were in Manchuria twelve millions of people, hardy and naturally warlike, and in Pe-chi-li there were thirty millions, and what Power was there in Europe which could resist 500,000 Northern Chinese, armed, disciplined, and led by Russian officers? That was whit we must keep in view. It was a real danger which the House was too liable to over-
362
look, but he ventured to say that any statesmen who were proved to have overlooked it would, when the fact was realised by the country, earn the execration of the English people. In some two years the Trans-Siberian Railway would be finished, and then it would be too late to save Manchuria from the grip of the Muscovite. At present England and Germany, backed up by the United States and Japan, were quite able to prevent the annexation of Manchuria by Russia. But the condition necessary for success was that the policy pursued, must be clear and resolute. The noble Lord the Member for Rochester, who spoke on Friday night, rather challenged the hon. Member for Barnsley to give instances of our weakness in the past. He did not wish to take up that challenge too sharply, but he would assert that if our policy was to succeed in the future, there must be no more such incidents as the ignominious withdrawal of our men-of-war from Port Arthur, no more wholly needless invitations to occupy ports in the Yellow Sea; no more such arrangements as were made for giving Russia a monopoly of all the railways north of the Great Wall, and no more tame acceptance of the constant insults offered by the Russian officers in China to our troops and flag. There could now be no doubt as to the nature of the policy of our great rival in Northeast Asia, for it had been fully developed within the last two or three months. It might be described as three-fold. The first aim was to weaken and discredit British prestige by various small affronts, which though not serious individually, were very grave collectively, seeing how prestige was looked upon in the East, and especially in China. The second object was to impress the Chinese with the overwhelming might of Russia and with a sense of her relentless cruelty by the terrible massacres along the Amur river, and the third was to pose as the friend of the corrupt Palace coterie, so that when the old gang resumed control she might claim her reward. Was not the last point proved by the sudden order, two months ago, for the evacuation of Peking by the Russian troops? That was simply done-to please the Palace coterie and to obtain the support of the United States, which, at the time, was somewhat embarrassed by the General Election which was then proceeding. It was a distinct breach of

363
the alleged Concert of Europe lay the Russian Government. He was not a believer in that Concert; he did not believe it did or could exist; it was only effective to inform our enemies of our plans and to give them opportunities of frustrating our objects. It was doubly dangerous—it was dangerous both at home and abroad. It deceived the people at home, and it placed in the hands of right hon. and hon. Members opposite a weapon which would be used should any failure follow upon our policy. Abroad it was even more effectual, because it placed our whole policy and conduct entirely under the control of those who were our natural rivals. If hon. Members had knowledge of the secret history of the last few months they would laugh at the Concert. It had been an unmitigated failure from beginning to end; it even delayed the relief of the Peking Legations until it became almost a miracle, and it absolutely thwarted Admiral Seymour's gallant effort. It had given Russia the lead in everything, it had allowed her to seize the railways, and terrorise the Chinese people. The noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs told them the other night that while the difficulties of diplomatic Concert were terrific, those of military Concert were far greater. That was perfectly true, and it was therefore folly on the part of the Government to have embarked on such an expedition as they did, when the work could have been done months earlier, far better, and at less expense, by a force of 10,000 Japanese or of 7,000 British troops. He felt bound to support the protest which the hon. Member for Barnsley had made with great force against the cruelty with which the campaign had been conducted by some of those who had taken part in it. The wholesale massacres of peaceful and industrious populations, including women and children, which had taken place were absolutely indefensible barbarity, for which, owing to our unfortunate diplomatic association with the Powers whoso troops had been guilty of such atrocious conduct, we should in future generations be held in detestation by the people of China. He believed that the public execution of Prince Tuan and other well-known leaders would be far better for China and her future than the massacre of thousands of villagers. It was the greatest hypocrisy for Christian
364
Powers to claim the punishment of the Chinese responsible for the death of some 300 Europeans, and yet to say nothing against the Russian officers responsible for the massacre of 50,000 innocent Chinese. Yet he had looked in vain for any condemnation of such conduct both in our leading journals and by Members of Parliament who were only too ready to denounce the Turk. He agreed entirely with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Barnsley. He agreed that greater efforts were necessary to increase our prestige and strengthen our power in China. He also thought the proposal to substitute increased trade privileges in China for a large part of the money indemnity was excellent. It would benefit both the Chinese and the nations of Europe, and he hoped, therefore, that the Government would direct their efforts in that direction. They might also make efforts to secure an improved and more honest administration in China. That was a necessity if any beneficent result was to follow from the bloodshed and cost of the present expeditions. There were plenty of honest men in China who would come forward if only they were sure of the moral support of European nations. Russia was pursuing the same policy as she had pursued in Turkey—namely, to keep the administration in a rotten condition, and pose as the friend of the Palace coteries, in order that some day the country would fall a helpless prey to her ambition. The most remarkable condemnation of the Conceit was afforded by the action of Her Majesty's Ministers who had themselves inflicted the coup de grâce by substituting for it an Anglo-German Agreement, the main object of which was the maintenance of the territorial independence of China. But the only thing which counted in European politics was force majeure, and the whole value of that agreement depended upon whether by it Manchuria was to be freed from the military and political control of Russia. If the agreement meant winking at the Russian annexation of Manchuria and freely throwing open the Yang-tsze-Kiang valley to German competition it would be worse than useless. It was customary in some quarters to describe his remarks as un-conciliatory, but he was only now doing in regard to China what he ventured to do in 1894 and 1896 with regard to South Africa, when he said that

365
unless the nettle was grasped war would come. If we now allowed Russian control to be established in Manchuria, Russia would become the force majeure in China, and we should be unable to cope with her. The policy he advocated was really the policy of peace, because it would put this country in such a position of strength that its opponents would not dare to attack it. If, on the other hand, the Government followed a policy of vacillation upon this occasion they would find themselves confronted with a condition of things with which they would be unable to contend.
MR. WYLIEsaid that as one who had practical connection with China he might be allowed to offer a few remarks upon this subject. He first, however, desired to congratulate the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs upon his safe return to this country and the position to which he had been appointed. He believed the noble Lord to be possessed of the hereditary capacity for statesmanship which distinguished his family, and that in fulfilling the duties of his office he would be of great advantage to the country and gain honour for himself. So much had been said during the elections against the policy of the Government with regard to China that it was somewhat surprising that when the points of the policy came before the House the criticisms of hon. Gentlemen should be reduced to such small dimensions, and their suggestions should be so erroneous. The second proposal of the Amendment, besides being unsound in principle, would, he believed, have a most injurious effect by encouraging the Chinese officials to repeat those horrible atrocities and cruelties which they had perpetrated upon the Christian population in China. Many business men and missionaries had been sacrificed in those atrocious massacres which were now known to have been instigated and abetted by the Chinese officials, and he felt certain that if the perpetrators of those cruelties were allowed to escape with impunity, at no distant date there would be a recurrence of those atrocities. Among the friends and relatives of those who had perished there was no thought of revenge, but for the safety of life and property in China to-day it was absolutely necessary that such condign punishment should be inflicted upon
366
those wretched and treacherous miscreants, as would burn into the Chinese official mind, as nothing else could, a wholesome dread of European power, and respect for Christian life and property, which would last for all time. In his opinion the Government had already taken ample means for the safeguarding of the vast commercial and political interests of the British in China by the formation of a successful Concert of the European Powers. Notwithstanding the remarks, of the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield, he thought the action of the Powers had so far been vigorous and harmonious, and that the pacification of China would soon be an accomplished fact. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had intimated that the Government regarded the pacification of China as the most pressing matter in connection with our interests there. The Government was also strenuously supporting the opening up of the whole of China to the trade of all nations. To that end the agreement with Germany had been of great use; it gave a splendid lead to other nations, and it secured the predominance of the British policy of the open door. In working out this policy he thought that all duties levied by the Chinese Government upon imports should be rigorously confined to the port of entry. Sufficient duties should be levied there, under the superintendence and control of European officials, to pay the Chinese officials properly and for the conduct of administrative matters in the Chinese Empire, and that likin should be absolutely abolished. Likin consisted of extortionate extortions levied on all goods at various stages of their transit inland only; they had been measured in the past only by the greed and rapacity of the extortionate officials who levied them, and they had been one of the greatest curses to-British commerce in China. If they were abolished he believed it would be greatly to the advantage not only of Europe, but China herself. Some hon. Gentlemen were of opinion that British interference in the affairs of China would, be of little benefit and much expense to us. He would remind them that our interference in the affairs of India and our direct administration of that great empire had resulted in a trade to this country of £140,000,000 per annum, which every five years nearly doubled itself, and had been of very great benefit to India. Our

367
indirect administration of a small part of China had resulted in a trade which had doubled during ten years, and last year amounted to £70,000,000, three-fifths of which was British, and five-sixths carried in British bottoms, and he believed that the pacification and the opening up of that country would create for British commerce one of the greatest markets in the world. He thought it was the duty of the House to vigorously support the policy of the Government in China, by granting ample supplies.
MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Though the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to interpretation of the Anglo-German Agreement, and also his reply to one or two other important matters to which I referred in connection with China was not satisfactory, still, in view of his promise that the Government will take into careful consideration the suggestions I have made which would be likely to assist British trade in China, I ask leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question again proposed.

CABINET AND GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS.
MR. BARTLEY: The Amendment which I have had the honour to place upon the Paper I now desire to move. I know that to question anything of this sort is a matter that requires a certain amount of brutality, and I know perfectly well I shall not be looked upon with any great favour for the action I now take by some Members of this House; but in the remarks I shall make I shall not trespass on any personalities. I merely wish to raise a question of great public importance, and to judge it on its merits. In the steps I have taken I am not in the position of an anonymous writer; many of these matters are raised anonymously, but what I have written I have put my name to, and I bring that forward to show that I am not afraid to act in my own name. I believe the formation of the Government is a thing that everybody notices and refers to privately,
368
but one which they do not like to refer to in public. In my judgment this matter goes to the root of the influence of the Government, and it will prevent the Government doing that which I think it is bound to do as a result of the General Election through which we have just passed. In the recent elections the country decided two great issues. One was the war, and on that question the country approved the action of the Government, and decided that the war was to be continued to the end. It gave the Government absolute power and discretion to carry it on until the British flag was supreme between Cape Colony and the Zambesi. The other question which, in my judgment, was almost as important which the country also had before it to decide was whether, without any further delay, there should be, not reform, but entire reorganisation in our system of national defence. I believe that the country felt this question to be as important as that of the carrying on of the war, if not of greater importance, and the country gave the Government this overwhelming majority on the condition that the reorganisation of our system of national defence should be taken in hand at once. The question I raise is as to the predominance of one family in the Cabinet, and how it affects that question, and I shall endeavour to show that this arrangement is detrimental to the idea that we are going to have any reform at all. It is no secret that the country was not satisfied with the action of the late Government. That is common knowledge on both sides of the House. I am speaking not only for myself but for many others, and if the House wants proof I need only refer to the letter of the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn, written last summer and already quoted in this debate, in which he said the action of the Government was not satisfactory. If they had not felt that the hon. Gentleman was a man who could be trusted they certainly would not have selected him to move the Address, and thereby clearly shown that a good deal of what has been said was correct on these points. Everybody, whatever their feelings, sank their differences to the great issues before the country. The great question of the Church, the question of Education and Voluntary Schools, even the action of the Government concerning vaccination,

369
were forgotten. All these questions were sunk because we wished to give the Government as long, strong, and large a majority as possible in order to support them throughout Europe and the world. The only exceptions were their Irish allies, who did not act during the General Election as if they were strong supporters of the Government, but the Government have thrown over the chief member who acted under the late Government for Ireland, and so I suppose some compromise has been arranged. Well, it may be said that if we felt so strongly on the subject of the national defence, why could we not have brought it up in the last session of Parliament? There were obvious reasons why we did not do so. There were very few on the opposite side of the House, except the section already referred to, and practically no one except one Member on this side, who did not wish to give the Government absolute freedom during the last Parliament. We did not wish to bring up those questions on which we differed, and we did not wish to raise the question of the national defence, because we wished, not to embarrass the Government, but to give them an absolutely free hand. The election having passed, and the country having decided as they have done that these questions cannot be ignored, I say that we have a right, and I think it is our bounden duty now, to consider whether the formation of the Government will tend to produce these reforms so necessary in our national defence. I lay great stress upon that; and the point which I shall try to show is that the predominance of one family, however distinguished, is certainly detrimental to that position. There are many apologists for our system who say that during last year, with all our calamities, the country sent between 200,000 and 300,000 men to South Africa, and that everything was done that could be done. I say that that was done, not by the system of the Government, but in spite of it. I say that the country rose as one man, and that everything was done—volunteers came forward, and all the other steps were taken, but it was not done by our system. It seems to me that our system of national defence led to the failure at Colenso, but it was the action of the country that changed the aspect of affairs and turned the tide to success. If that was so, I think the time has come
370
for us to demand an inquiry into those questions, and that seems to me to be the point we should brace ourselves to consider. It was not the time, nor was it desirable that we should last session go into it, but the time has now arrived. Although there are a number of points we should inquire into, I do not wish to trespass long upon the House. Still there are a few points I must refer to. Those of us who are interested in the South African war, and many of us who were present in South Africa, know that there are an immense number of points that must be considered. We are bound to ask and to get an answer why our army was not ready, and whether our guns were less or not less efficient than those of the enemy. Why was Natal left absolutely at the mercy of the Boers, and why was Ladysmith made the Aldershot of the Cape? Was our supply of ammunition adequate? These are questions which it is absolutely necessary that we should go into. I have heard on very good authority that the Navy had to be ransacked for ammunition, and that we were absolutely at a loss for ammunition at the beginning of the current year. I say we are bound, without regard to party, without regard to personal feelings, and without regard to personal interests, to inquire why that was the case. If it was so somebody should be held absolutely and personally responsible. How is this inquiry to be made? No doubt we shall be told when Parliament meets in February next that there will be a Commission or something of that sort to inquire into these questions. That may be very good, but the whole of that inquiry depends on the way in which it is made. During the election there were continual inquiries as to what changes were to be made in the personnel of the Government. Everybody felt that there must be changes made to carry out this inquiry, and so loud did these inquiries become that hon. Members may, perhaps, remember that just before the election Lord Roberts was announced to be the successor of the Commander-in-Chief. That gave a great feeling of relief to the whole country, but I would ask why we were not told who was to be the First Lord of the Admiralty at the same time? I myself believe if we had been told it would have been a very satisfactory thing for us to know it. I don't

371
think that many of us would have had any great confidence in the inquiry if the name had been announced. The Standard, which, I believe, is a newspaper that supports the Government, was very strong upon the point, and it said if it had been announced beforehand possibly the result of the election would have been different from what it was. But immediately after the election we had a very few authentic remarks on this subject of the inquiry by the Prime Minister at the Guildhall. Here I lead up to a point which seems to me to be very vital in the consideration of this question. At the Guildhall the Prime Minister made a very remarkable speech. He praised up the War Office, and dilated upon the fact that between 200,000 and 300,000 men had been sent out. All that, I say, was done in spite of the War Office, and not by it. It was done by the country, and not by the system of national defence—by the resources of the country, and not by the resources of the War Office. The Prime Minister said he rather deprecated than encouraged unnecessary inquiry. He used the word "unnecessary," but I think that the spirit and tone of these remarks did deprecate a complete and exhaustive inquiry such as we demand. If it took Lord Lansdowne five years and a great war, with its enormous loss to this country of life and treasure, to find out that our stores were wrong, if we do not mind it will take as many years, and perhaps another war, before we get the inquiry. When the vacancy in the office of Secretary of State for War was announced to the country every newspaper, The Times amongst others, dilated upon the great importance of securing somebody at the War Office who was the strongest man who could be obtained—the most decided, and the most absolutely independent, and that he ought to have a free hand if he was to do anything. Can we say that we have this rara avis secured to us? I have great respect for the Secretary of State for War—I think he is a most excellent man; but if there had been a guessing competition, such as we find now in various newspapers, how many in this House would have guessed that the right hon. Gentleman would have been selected for this most serious and most important duty? He is a gentleman I have known during fifteen years I have been in this House, and I have found him extremely kind. He has even gone the length of being
372
kind after he got a seat on that august Bench. But what are the antecedents of that right hon. Gentleman? He has been nearly ten years in the War Office. He has been associated with almost all the work there up to the time of the war. If there is all this deficiency in stores and in the other preparations, such, for instance, as the absence of maps which every War Office should have, I say with all due respect and from the political standpoint absolutely, that he is largely to blame for these deficiencies. I think he will form an excellent administrator; still, I think there is reason for us to feel, looking to the events of the past year in connection with the war and the condition of our national defences, that it is unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman has been associated with that department so long, and that he has been mixed up with all these matters. I ask this: supposing there came to be a difference of opinion between Lord Salisbury and the right hon. Gentleman, is he likely to override the Prime Minister in matters concerning the War Office? The Prime Minister, in his speech, rather deprecated unnecessary inquiry. Is it likely that the right hon. Gentleman will have the power to have his own way in the case of that difference of opinion arising? We know perfectly well that when he was in the House in the last Parliament as Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs he was not allowed to answer questions of a supplementary character without referring to the Prime Minister, and therefore it seems to me that to put a man in that position who probably will have the usual differences of opinion from the Prime Minister is very dangerous. The fact of the right hon. Gentleman, of whom I wish to speak with great respect, being put in this position suggests that the War Office Will continue to be considered the perfect machine it has been in the past. But it may be said—and here I come to the chief point of my argument—that, although the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War may differ, there are other members of the Cabinet who will look after any deficiency that may arise, that he will be guided by others, acting, of course, on their own account for the great Departments—the Navy, the Treasury, and the Foreign Office. These are great Departments of the State, but

373
three out of the four are represented in the Cabinet, and they are practically members of the same family. I say it is an unprecedented thing that one-fifth of this swollen Cabinet should practically be all of one family party. How do you expect to get independence of opinion in that case? You want men who will administer their Departments with absolute independence and vigour, which you cannot expect to get in well ordered sons in-law and sons. In the last Cabinet there of this family, whom we all very highly esteem, but I think most of us feel that was enough, and that we should not have five in positions, making the Government not one of independent units, but really a Government of one family. It appears to me that this is a serious question, as this Cabinet has been so swollen. It has now twenty members. It has become so large that a sub-Cabinet has to be made, and that sub-Cabinet, with the Prime Minister and the First Lord, is practically a Cabinet of one man. With regard to the First Lord of the Admiralty, many of us knew him when he was in this House; in fact he was so fond of us he did not want to go. He sat in this House after he became a peer, and we had politely to tell him he must go. I do not wish to say a word against anybody—I am not saying a against anybody, except in their professional or political position—but if their was a difference of opinion in regard to the Navy between Lord Selborne and Lord Salisbury, which would have more power, the father-in-law or the son-in-law? It is obvious that such a condition of affairs is not desirable. Can we for one moment compare Lord Selborne with Mr. Goschen? I say, emphatically, that Mr. Goschen was a man of great power, originality, and industry, to whom the country owes a great debt for the way in which he managed the Navy in the last Parliament, and nobody can deny that the strength and power of the office is immensely reduced, in spite of the fact that it is the most important function of this House to maintain the strength of the Navy, by the transference of the seals of the office to Lord Selborne. Then there is the Board of Trade. I candidly say that I have never heard a single man in any direction support this appointment. We know the late Home Secretary was got rid of; I have it on very good
374
authority that he did not want to leave, but he was got rid of in order to make way for some other Gentleman. The appointment to the Board of Trade certainly does not strengthen that Department, nor does it give it an independent voice in the Cabinet, and that I extremely regret. I think I have shown conclusively that the preponderance of this one family in the Cabinet does not strengthen the Government in the eyes of this House or of the country. I do not for one moment say that the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen of this family are not men of great ability. We know they are; but if one-fifth of the Cabinet is to be of one family, why not a half, or the whole? And then there are the Lord Chancellor and the Commander-in-Chief. There are members in the family who would well fill those positions. Take the Archbishopric of Canterbury; there is no doubt about there being one perfectly competent for that post. He is so able that when he was barely ordained he was sufficiently competent to take one of the best livings in the Church. A good many years ago Lord Beaconsfield appointed the son of a clergyman in his district, I believe, to a post in the Stationery Office. The outcry was tremendous; it was considered an outrageous job. But that was a single event, and did not mean word five of a family being put into offices in which they drew £17,000 or £18,000 a year, as in the present case. It is most unreasonable that this should be considered simply as a matter of private concern. Suppose for a moment that this action had been taken by the late Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone took two offices, and a great fuss was made. But supposing he had taken for his own family five or six of the highest appointments in the Cabinet. I know what would have happened then. We should have had a bill giving the names of the relatives and their salaries placarded in every borough in the land. If it would have been wrong for Mr. Gladstone, why is it not wrong when somebody else does it? I undertake to say unhesitatingly that if this matter was thoroughly explained at any meeting in the country, whether Conservative, Tory, or even Liberal Unionist, it would be strongly objected to. It is not desirable that our Government should have this jibe thrown at all. All the newspapers are jeering; the comic papers refer to it; and the

375
other night even the House of Lords was made to laugh about this very subject. Our friends as well as our enemies speak about it, and in our Conservative clubs and elsewhere the Government is called "The Hotel Cecil, Unlimited." This being the case, are we supposed to sit on this side of the House and look as if we approved of and liked it? I may be regarded as audacious and daring to refer to the matter, but there are many on this side who agree with me, although they do not like to say so, and doubtless they will not vote for me. No doubt they do not like to look unkind; no doubt we all owe—and I would say this most emphatically—Lord Salisbury an enormous debt of gratitude. I only regret that in the last few years of his life he has done this, because it is damaging his prestige and position. But, as I say, many agree with me, although they will not vote with me—some from very high motives, and one or two, perhaps, because they think by so doing they would cut off all chance for themselves. Let them not be alarmed. They do not lose anything by being straight on this matter. They have a bettor chance by telling the truth straightforwardly. They must remember that the family is not yet exhausted, and there is another family in the Midland counties to pick up any crumbs which may be left. It has been said, and will be said again, that I am taking this course because I am a disappointed man, and I expected to get a large salary for some good appointment. Many in the House think this, and dare not say it, and there are thousands outside, no doubt, who will agree with them. But whatever my motive, are these things facts or not? As regards myself it is true, no doubt, that Lord Salisbury might have told my constituents that he regretted very much that he could not give me office owing to special circumstances, but he did not repeat the statement this year—there were family reasons to prevent it. I would acknowledge that I did innocently and fully believe that the Prime Minister meant what he said, and that it was not merely a diplomatic expression. But I think I am justified in saying that I am free from any such motive as that of disappointment. I have been offered an appointment, with a—to me—very large salary, and also there was held out to me by some the glittering prospect of the
376
honour which is so keenly received and enjoyed by some of my Liberal Unionist friends behind me—namely, a belted knighthood. The appointment, I may say, was that of Auditor General. I refused it. I did not want it. I did not leave the public service twenty-five years ago in order to get a better appointment. Strange as it may seem—although some people on the Bench there might wish me to—I did not want to leave the House, and as long as my constituents give me, as they do now, one of the largest majorities in the kingdom, I am content to remain as I am, and my aspiration now is to endeavour to keep the Government a little more in order, possibly, than it was before. Nobody knows better than I do what folly it is to speak here with independence. But the times are very serious, and independence is more needed on our side than ever. We have practically—I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will not be offended—no Opposition. At any rate, the Opposition is not very powerful. The Government can do exactly what it likes; it never consults us, although we keep it in office still. It is necessary that independence should exist, and that we should say what we think on these particular points. I do not know whether I shall be out of order, but Lord Randolph Churchill used to call it "the old gang," and I am afraid "the old gang" is more "old gangy" than it ever was. No one can possibly object to a reasonable number of a family deriving benefit from the greatness of the State. I should be the last to object. I think it is one of the highest incentives to enterprise and success that we should do something for our children. Nobody wishes to prevent that, but it must be in reason. Important and great offices must not be given to nonentities. There is another aspect of this affair. The canker worm of patronage is not limited to Parliamentary appointments. It has rarely been done so boldly as at present, but it also enters into the Array and Navy. I say emphatically this is a matter of enormous importance. How many of the early disasters of this last, war were due to improper appointments in the early days of the Government? When it was thought that the war was to be of so easy a character many of the appointments were obtained by family intrigue. Men in this country are willing to sacrifice themselves, or to give

377
their children in the war, but still there is a feeling abroad—and no hon. Member will venture to contradict me—that many of our first reverses were due to the incompetency of officers who had been largely picked out from private considerations. They may be wrong in this, but they want to know, and they want to have the matter examined. Nobody is satisfied at the present time, and they will not be satisfied unless there is a full investigation into this matter by an absolutely independent authority. I say that it is a little "off" for the Government which is going to make this inquiry to have a certain amount of taint itself in this way. In our national defence the selection of heads will be of the most vital importance, and the example set by the Government in this respect is a very unhappy one. It seems to me that although certain persons may hold high positions their families may not all be clever, and those individuals are too apt to think that their sons are as clever as they are, and they may attempt to put them into such positions. I have brought my remarks very nearly to a close. I may be very foolish to voice hero what so many think. I shall no doubt be abused and hunted down, and I am aware that the unfortunate mouse that bells the cat has a bad time of it. However, that must come to pass. That is unimportant to the community so long as this matter is brought to light, and what happens to me is a matter of no concern. [An Hon. Member: Hear, hear.] I am much obliged to my Liberal Unionist friend behind me for that interruption. The responsibility, no doubt, is great in these matters, and of course it should all be done absolutely for the public good. It should not only be done in that way, but it should look so to the man in the street. That is a most important point in the giving away of high patronage. When there are so many of one family selected by the head of that family, certainly it does not inspire confidence amongst outsiders, and both in politics and in the Army and Navy this weakness is certainly a very serious one. I do not know whether I shall get even a seconder for my Amendment, and I have not inquired for one. I hope I shall, and if I do I shall certainly divide the House. It may be that the Leader of the House will not even condescend to answer me. If he does, I have no doubt that I shall
378
receive a severe castigation. But let me warn him that the division will not be an index of the feeling of this House or of the country. If everybody here could vote as they think the result would be very different. I am sure of this—that there is a feeling abroad that this sort of thing could not happen in the Conservative party. There is also a feeling abroad that we have unlimited confidence in the Prime Minister in this matter, and we expect him to use that confidence in a way which will not only satisfy himself, but satisfy outsiders; and I am sure of this—that, although my Amendment may receive little support, it will have a tendency to stop this evil going on in the future. And, therefore, with great reluctance, and still feeling that I have brought forward a proper matter for the consideration of this House, I venture to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
MR. SCHWANNformally seconded the Amendment.
Another Amendment proposed—
"At the end of the Question, to add the words, 'But we humbly express our regret at the advice given to Your Majesty by the Prime Minister in recommending the appointment of so many of his own family to offices in the Cabinet and Government, as being calculated to diminish the responsibility of Your Majesty's Ministers to Parliament, and gravely to impair the efficiency of the public service.'"—(Mr. Bartley.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): My hon. friend who has just sat down appeared to be absorbed during the latter part of his speech with a feeling of glowing self-satisfaction at the courage he was displaying in carrying out a difficult and dangerous public duty. He seemed to think that some terrible Nemesis would fall upon him for the line he was taking, and that he was acting a very heroic and patriotic part in throwing himself undaunted into the breach. I do not quite understand my hon. friend's view in this matter. I have been in the House now for twenty-six years, and I do not think there is any Parliamentary task more easy than, amid the cheers of your opponents,

379
to make a personal attack on your friends. It requires for its operation and for its successful execution neither very great courage nor very great ability. I am quite sure my hon. friend has both courage and ability which he is prepared to exhibit at an appropriate moment, but the particular job which he has taken on hand to-day does not seem to be one of those which specially call for the exercise of these heroic virtues. I listened with great attention to my hon. friend, and, though I discovered that he had a very strong aversion to the number of persons in the Cabinet connected with the Prime Minister, I did not exactly understand the line of argument by which he attempted to prove that it was inimical to the public service. He did not suggest—as far as I heard him, at all events—that any of those persons wore incapable of carrying out, or unfit to carry out, the functions entrusted to them. He did not even refer, I think, to myself, who am the oldest, and, I presume, the worst offender in the line of which he was speaking. What was the argument of my hon. friend? He said the country has recently been called upon to pronounce a verdict upon two great issues. One of those issues was the continuation of the war, and the other great issue was the reform of the War Office. So far so good. I followed my hon. friend in the statements he made, but I was greatly puzzled to know what bearing they had upon the conclusion he wished the House to adopt. He made a violent attack on the War Office—upon the late occupant of the War Office. He made another attack, a very unjust, and, in my opinion, very ungenerous attack, on the present holder of the War Office. Neither the late Secretary of State nor the present Secretary of State for War has the misfortune which is shared by some of their colleagues of being nearly related to the Prime Minister. How, then, was this attack, this most unmerited attack, as I think, upon Lord Lansdowne and my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War relevant to the issue which the hon. Gentleman has brought before the House? As I understood it, that long preface about the supposed misdeeds of the War Office and the supposed incompetence of my right hon. friend near me to reform the War Office was directed to this end—that when my right hon. friend in the Cabinet found himself in disagreement
380
with the Prime Minister upon some subject of Army reform, a faithful phalanx of relatives would come forward and outvote my right hon. friend, and prevent him from carrying out those reforms which, in another part of his speech, my hon. friend said he was by nature and training absolutely unfitted to suggest. Is that a very reasonable point of view? The hon. Gentleman said the Cabinet is now an overgrown Cabinet. If it is an overgrown Cabinet, the proportion of this unhappy and persecuted family-has the smaller influence for evil. But, he said, the Cabinet is so overgrown that, there must be a sub-Cabinet, and that that sub-Cabinet is composed of the Prime Ministers near relations. How does my hon. friend know that there must be a sub-Cabinet; how does he know that these things are done by a sub-Cabinet; and, if there be a sub-Cabinet, how does my hon. friend know that it is composed of the Prime Minister's near relatives? It is purely invention on my hon. friend's part, and, though it was loudly cheered by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, I could not help smiling to myself when I remembered how inconsistent that view is with the other theory of the Cabinet which we hear constantly put forward in the Press, in the couutry, and, above all, by hon. Gentlemen opposite. My hon. friend's view is that the Prime Minister and his satellites, who are also his relations, rule as a sub-Cabinet over the deliberations of their colleagues and crush the budding reforming tendencies of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War and others, who, however incompetent, according to my hon. friend, have still inclinations towards the right. But that is not the view held by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Their view is that this Cabinet sits simply to register the decree of one all too powerful Minister, and that all too powerful Minister is not the Premier, backed up by his family, but my right hon. friend the Secretary for the Colonies. He is not, according to my hon. friend, even a member of that sub-Cabinet. In my hon. friend's perverted view of what goes on the Secretary for the Colonies does not figure at all. He vanishes altogether, while in the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite he looms an enormous and baleful figure, overshadowing his pigmy colleagues and reducing all the other nineteen gentlemen who nominally sit with him in the Cabinet to the

381
position of humble and subservient followers. Those are two quite opposite views of the Cabinet—views which are mot only opposite, but inconsistent—and I would respectfully venture to suggest to the gentlemen who have drawn those pictures—whether the picture in which the Prime Minister with his satellites figure as the villain of the piece, or the picture in which the Colonial Secretary figures as the villain—that these are both equally the creation of an uninformed imagination and have no resemblance whatever to the reality. My hon. friend goes upon the theory that from the nature of the ease relatives are too likely to agree. His view, if I do not misrepresent him, is that the very fact that people are bound together by the tic of relationship prevents that independence of judgment without which, no doubt, a Cabinet cannot fulfil its full measure of utility. I do not know that I am particularly anxious to make agreement in the Cabinet more difficult than, I suppose, some Cabinets have found it, and I certainly cannot hold out the smallest hope or expectation to my hon. friend that any members of this Cabinet are likely to disagree, and certainly not the members of this Cabinet who happen to be in any way connected by relationship. But certainly if my hon. friend is not making a personal attack upon particular individuals, but is making himself the advocate of a great general principle—if that is his view, I think the smallest knowledge of English history will inform him that there have been constantly near relations assooiated together in the Government of the country, and that they have hardly ever contrived to agree during the whole of their political career. I am not going to run down the long course of successive Ministries, but I may remind my hon. friend that Walpole could not help quarrelling with his brother-in-law, Lord Townshend, and turning him out of the Secretaryship of State; that Lord Temple first quarrelled with his brother-in-law, who won for us Canada, and then quarrelled with his brother, who lost to us America; that they alternately agreed and alternately quarrelled with each other until, the quarrels of the Grenvilles and the Pitts formed half the English history of the third quarter of the last century. In the next generation, unless my memory fails me,
382
the second Pitt and Mr. Grenville, afterwards Lord Grenville, first cousins, were two of the most important members of Mr. Pitt's first Administration. For some reason or other, which I either never knew or have forgotten, after the Peace of Amiens Lord Grenville found it impossible to work again with his relatives. The Duke of Wellington and Lord Wellesley, when they worked together, worked together for the great benefit of the country, but unfortunately, as is well known, in later life the two brothers found it impossible to work together harmoniously, greatly, as I think, to the public loss. And even in the great Reform Cabinet of Lord Grey of 1830, unless all the stories that have come down to us are erroneous, the two most important members of that Cabinet were Lord Grey and his son-in-law, Lord Durham, and their relations very often left much to be desired. I have gone into this long parenthesis, but my hon. friend really need not be so distressed about this imaginary danger that, owing to there being two or three gentlemen of the same family in the Cabinet, independence of opinion is lost and the power of the Prime Minister unduly magnified. The hon. Member has told us that if the composition of the Government had been known before the General Election was concluded it would have been alluded to at every meeting, placarded on every hoarding, and the public indignation would have been so aroused that the General Election would have turned out differently.
MR. BARTLEY: I did not say that.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I certainly thought my hon. friend did suggest that.
MR. BARTLEY: I said that if Mr. Gladstone had so acted that is what would have been clone by us.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I remember rightly Mr. Gladstone did appoint the only son he then had in the House of Commons to office. [Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches: "No."] My memory may be wrong. If he did appoint his son he was quite right. I make no criticism upon him. I thought that was the fact. I am really almost ashamed to follow the line of my hon. friend, but I think Mr. Gladstone did

383
appoint another son. I was not referring to that part of my hon. friend's speech in which he touched on that suggestion. I have no desire to deal with a controversy of that character. I was alluding to the part of my hon. friend's speech in which he distinctly stated, as I understood him, that this was a subject which might be brought, and ought to have been brought, before the public at the election, and that if it had been so brought forward public indignation would have been aroused. Well, there is but one member of the present Government connected with Lord Salisbury who was not in the late Government. I am not aware that the composition of the late Government raised this storm of indignation of which my hon. friend complains. I have not heard, directly or indirectly, of such an attack upon this supposed evil distribution of offices. But perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to say that attacks of this sort should be made, if made at all, not upon the principle of selection, but upon the individuals selected. If it be true that any of the individuals selected are unfit for the offices they hold, it is a matter for regret and for legitimate criticism. But if they are fit, then I say that the unhappy accident of birth ought to be no bar to their selection, to these gentlemen having office. My hon. friend, perhaps only from kind feeling and good taste, refrained from suggesting that any member of the Prime Minister's family who is in office is incapable of carrying cut the duties of his office. He kept the venom of his indignation for my right hon. friend near me, the present Secretary for War, and Lord Lansdowne, the late Secretary for War, neither of whom have any blood relationship, or any connection by marriage with the Prime Minister. It has never fallen to my lot to form a Government, but I have seen a good deal of the formation of Governments, and I cannot imagine a task at once more difficult and more distasteful to be imposed upon any human being. The Prime Minister has had to discharge this, of all his duties the most difficult and important, four times, and I do not think that the performance of that duty has met with any serious hostile criticism in any part of the country. If a Government were to be selected by competitive examination, if the occupants of the Treasury Bench could be chosen
384
for their skill in Greek iambics, it would very greatly facilitate the task of the Prime Minister, though it would very greatly change the composition of this Bench. Indeed, I am not sure that there is any member of this Bench, except, perhaps, my right hon. friend and relative the President of the Board of Trade, who would come out of such an ordeal with even decent credit. But unfortunately the task of the Prime Minister is very different, and very much more important. I do not believe it possible that it could be exercised to the universal satisfaction, at all events of those who, quite rightly, perhaps, think that had the choice fallen upon them they would not have discredited the Government. My hon. friend, I think, in one part of his speech admitted that he was a disappointed candidate, and in another part lie rather repudiated the suggestion. I do not know which of those two views represent the real mind and mood of my hon. friend. But this I must and can say—if the country did anything at the last election it entrusted the present Prime Minister with the task of forming an Administration. It did so with a knowledge of him reaching back to the year 1885, when he formed his first Administration, of which, I almost regret to say, I was a member, so inveterate are the faults of Lord Salisbury, so early had his unhappy leaning towards his relations shown itself. But if the country has had before it the knowledge of the manner in which Lord Salisbury has exercised this high trust, a trust which no one can share with him, which the Cabinet cannot share with him, and which none of his colleagues in the Cabinet can share with him, which from the very nature of the case he must exercise in isolated responsibility—and if the decision of the country, repeated not once, nor twice, but three or four times, means anything, it means that they repose not only in his integrity, which no man doubts, but in his ability to carry out what is the most difficult, the most responsible, and almost, I might say, the most heartbreaking and most thankless task that could be imposed upon any subject of Her Majesty.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid that nobody suggested that the accident of birth should be a disqualification for office. The right hon. Gentleman was himself a case in point,

385
for no one would even hint that he had not fully earned his spurs. But that was not the question before the House. The question was that there were members of Her Majesty's Government who surely would never have been appointed to their offices but for the accident of their relationship to the Prime Minister, and nobody could suggest that these appointments had been made by merit. The right hon. Gentleman had made reference to the difficulties the Prime Minister had in forming a Cabinet, but Lord Salisbury had solved that difficulty in a very peculiar way. He did it much in the same way that the monkey solved the difficulty of dividing the cheese between the cats, by eating the cheese himself. The hon. Member for North Islington had made reference to Mr. Gladstone. The universal feeling in this House, he ventured to say, was that it was unthinkable, by way of suspicion, to couple Mr. Gladstone's name with such a proposition, or that a man of Mr. Gladstone's high feeling could ever descend to anything of the kind. It was only on the other side of the House that a gross job of this kind had ever been or would ever be perpetrated.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I was satisfied that this was one of the subjects that unfortunately must be raised in the House; inevitably, I think, under the circumstances. I could not but suppose that a matter which had attracted such notice outside, ought to have some little attention inside the House. My right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury claims that my hon. friend below the gangway did not attack the personal capacity of the Members of the Salisbury family appointed to the Government; but neither did my right hon. friend defend the capacity of these Ministers. Again, in answer to my hon. friend below the gangway, who said that there was too great a chance of several members of a family being in agreement with each other in the Cabinet, the First Lord quoted historical instances of relatives in past Governments having disagreed with each other, and the evils which had fallen in consequence upon the Empire. That, he said, suggested was the more likely thing to happen; and, therefore, if we were to abandon the position of the mover of the Amendment we must take up the position of my right hon. friend,
386
and say that the appointment of so many members of the same family to the Cabinet will tend to a disagreement, and to the consequent ruin of the Empire. My right hon. friend was a little hard on the mover of the Amendment. He said his action was unjust and ungenerous, and had shown venom, and that he was a disappointed candidate.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am in the remembrance of the House. Did not the light hon. Gentleman say that my hon. friend had reserved the venom of his indignation for particular Ministers?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said that his attack upon the Secretary for War and upon Lord Lansdowne was irrelevant.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I think my right hon. friend has now made his charge worse, for he says that the Member for North Islington had shown not merely venom, but irrelevant venom. My hon. friend has, indeed, some excuse for his action. Perhaps he is a disappointed candidate; but the right hon. Gentleman is a candidate who has not been disappointed, and he defended the place in which the House would fain keep him.
"These fight like husbands, and like lovers those;
These fain would keep, and those more fain enjoy."
The Member for North Islington fights like a lover, while the First Lord of the Treasury fights like a husband, though his marital duties are not heavy. My hon. friend the Member for North Islington, if he is disappointed, has some reason to be so; he was a Tory when right hon. Gentlemen now sitting on the Treasury Bench were Radicals and Socialists. My hon. friend was one of a small band of Tories, who in the years 1893, 1894, and 1895, stubbornly conducted the assault on Her Majesty's Radical Government, and fought unceasingly by night and day, often when their leaders were not there to lead them, when their Front Bench was empty, and when every member of it was absent, enjoying the society of congenial souls. My hon. friend was one of the foremost of the fighters, and when the fortress of the Government was captured he was left

387
outside. Why, I do not know, and I do not undertake to say; but certainly it was very largely owing to that little hand, of whom he was one of the foremost, that the Government now sits on these benches. But my hon. friend must not assume that his case is hopeless. Not at all. Last May the hon. and gallant Member for the Wellington Division of Somerset, sitting on this bench, made what was considered to be an attack on the Government with reference to the issue of General Buller's despatches. He ventured to say that Sir Redvers Buller was a gentleman, and this was so resented that the First Lord of the Treasury fell upon the hon. and gallant Member, and broke him in pieces like a potter's vessel, on the ground that to say General Buller was a gentleman was, under the circumstances, to say that the members of the Government were no gentlemen; and he said that in the whole course of his experience he had never heard so scandalous and unjust an attack, and that he did not think that any language could be severe enough to characterise it. Yet the hon. and gallant Gentleman has now been appointed to that excellent post, Vice-Chamberlain of the Household. The critic of May has become the Vice-Chamberlain of December. Perhaps the critic of December may become the Chamberlain of May! My hon. friend suggests that there are too many members of one family in the Government. Well, there are a good few of them. My hon. friend suggests that that does not strengthen the Government. If I were asked whether all the changes that have been made have weakened or strengthened Her Majesty's Government, I should respectfully ask that the question should be postponed till the next day; and I do not desire now to express my opinion about it. My right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury has very truly pointed out that of all the tasks the leader of a party has to undertake there is none so difficult, so invidious, and so thankless, and one in which failure is so easy, as that of constructing a Government. But the difficulty is doubled when you come to reconstruct a Government, because then you have not only to appoint people, but to disappoint them. You have not only to take in, but also to turn out. There are also certain technical difficulties, such as the need of making up
388
to one House what was taken from it. It is held necessary to give an equal number of great offices to the House of Lords and the House of Commons. If you take away the Secretary of State for War from the House of Lords you have to take away the First Lord of the Admiralty from this House. Then there is another very serious difficulty to be considered after a General Election, which is the claim of those who have supported the Government in the election. For elections cost money. Peers and other great personages subscribe their money to Party funds, and their claims are serious; their families often are numerous. The horse leech had daughters crying "Give, give," but it is not recorded that it had sons-in-law or nephews. Finally, there is the important question of the ability of the Members to be appointed to the Government, for, though ability is the last and least thing to be considered, yet there is no doubt that ability always lends a certain charm to a Government. Here I think my hon. friend has underrated the difficulties that beset the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister is in the House of Commons he knows his followers, and can judge for himself whether they are men of ability; but when he sits, like a Grand Lama, on the distant red benches of another place, it is difficult for him to get that knowledge, and perhaps he does not always have adequate assistance in obtaining it. In his own family circle, however, he does know; he is able to detect there the latent political talents and administrative qualities that might perhaps be unsuspected by persons outside. Consequently by utilising this talent that he does know he is exposed to the danger of somewhat disregarding the enormous amount of talent that he does not know. In the case of the Liberal Unionists, however, there is no doubt, he does get adequate assistance, for their leaders are hard fighters, they go in for power, their claims are always adequately pressed—so much so, indeed, that really I think the Government will soon become more Liberal Unionist than Conservative. But I think it is not so bad as it might have been. The Government might have been filled with souls, Cecils, sycophants, and socialists. But it is not so. A very large proportion of very able men have

389
survived the reconstruction. I have already alluded to the difficulty of getting rid of people. One right hon. Gentleman has disclosed the method by which that was done; they were required by the Prime Minister to surrender their places, not because there was any condemnation of their policy, but because "vacancies were wanted for others." It was absolute surrender that was required, unconditional surrender, and the purpose avowed was to make places for "others." The summons to surrender met with various results. The right hon. Member for Sleaford surrendered, though he more or less kept his colours flying as he marched out. I feel that that right hon. Gentleman had been treated a little ungenerously; but he has shown very considerable dignity, and has given very useful political information. Some members of the Government, however, when summoned to surrender refused, if they did not even fire on the white flag; they were the younger and more boisterous members—giddy young things of the age of from 70 to 75, whose warlike ardourcould not be restrained, and it was likely that they would fly their colours to the last. In the case of the Home Secretary, it appears that he was taken neck and shoulders and turned out. That was a very hard thing for the Prime Minister to be forced to do. The late Home Secretary performed his duties with courage and ability, and, although sometimes in the face of considerable doubt on the part of the public, always with final success. Who, now, was the "other" here? Who was the place wanted for? The immediate successor to the office was the President of the Board of Trade, but he already had an office, so it was not for him. The vacancy thereby created was given to the late Secretary for Ireland, who was the other intended to be provided for. For him it was, in reality, that the Home Secretary was turned out. That right hon. Gentleman was considered to be so great a success that he could not even be left to Ireland; he must be put into this office, and into the Cabinet. So the Home Secretary was turned out to put him in. Then Mr. Goschen was called upon to surrender the Admiralty. He evactuated the position very promptly, though I am not sure that there was not a tough fight before he went.
MR. A. J. BALFOURinterjected a remark which did not reach the gallery.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I take it entirely from the right hon. Gentleman that there was no pressure whatever put upon the First Lord of the Admiralty. He retired because he was tired of public life. But the noble Lord who succeeded him is chiefly remembered in this House as having introduced, with other scions of the aristocracy, a Bill whose object was to enable them to sit in either House of Parliament when they liked. I have nothing to say against the noble Lord personally, except this, that he is not the person I should have expected to have seen appointed as First Lord of the Admiralty at this time, considering the very serious condition of the Navy. I will not go into the minor surrenders further than to say that there was the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty and the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who were both turned out and made Privy Councillors, and will now have to advise Her Majesty on great affairs of State. But the family party in the Cabinet is not so large, after all; it has only been increased from two to four. It has only been doubled, and it is only a fifth part of the Cabinet. That is to say, the family is only assumed to represent and to embody a fifth part of the talent on all the benches on this side of the House and on the Government side in the other House. Surely that is a small assumption to make for so gifted a family! They are talented. I believe there is an extreme possibility that they may all prove heaven-born statesmen, all prove illustrious men, and perform the greatest possible services to their country. But their abilities are as unknown to the Party in general as the abilities of the Party in general are unknown to their leader, Lord Salisbury. But when Lord Salisbury, knowing those abilities, reflects that he has only four of his own family in the Cabinet—though, I believe, two had been appointed outside it—he must be astonished at his own moderation. But it must have been a greater matter for astonishment that, after having so provided for all the talent that he knew of in his family, he found himself without any emolument at all—the one unpaid volunteer in a Ministry created by himself. We have heard of the pelican that fed its young with its own blood,

391
but that was a lame and halting precedent for what must have taken place here. But there is here a difficulty and an abuse. The office of Prime Minister, as such, is unknown to the Law. There are therefore no emoluments attached to such an office. There is, however, an office that belongs to the Prime Minister of this country, one which was provided some 150 years ago; that is the office of First Lord of the Treasury. There are no administrative or departmental duties attached to that office; there are no duties whatever attached to it; it is an office consisting of a salary. I will not weary the House, else I could produce authorities on the subject. Mr. Lowe in 1889 avowed that the office has no duties connected with it; Sir William Anderson, in his recent work on the Constitution, explains that the office has no duties and has always been associated with the office of Prime Minister. So, too, says Mr. Alpheus Todd in his work on Parliamentary Government. The Duke of Wellington said in 1827 that it was difficult, if not impossible, for the Prime Minister to hold any other office than that of First Lord of the Treasury, on account of the great financial control that the department of the Treasury exercised over all the other departments of the Government. And the Duke has been justified by the fact that Lord Salisbury, in consequence of his not holding this office, has been forced—he, the Prime Minister—to make himself a most serious attack in the House of Lords on the Treasury itself. This was only because he was not himself, as he should have been, First Lord of the Treasury, and because he, therefore, could not control it. Now I do not know how far family considerations have had anything to do with it, but what I do know is this, that for some years past Lord Salisbury, whose greatness of public spirit, whose talents, knowledge, ability, and temper have been of most undoubted advantage at the Foreign Office, and who has been the almost indispensable Foreign Minister ever since he took over the difficulties of the Office, has now recognised the impossibility of continuing the duties of both Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, and has wisely placed our foreign affairs in the most capable hands of Lord Lansdowne, and so brought
392
them under the purview of two minds instead of one. For that we ought to be very thankful. But Lord Salisbury, having retained the Prime Ministership, should have the post that belongs to him as such. He should be First Lord of the Treasury. But that is not to be done. He has assumed the post of Lord Privy Seal, an office all the duties whereof were abolished not because there are any now duties attached to it, but because the Prime Minister is kept out of his own proper office. That is a very unfortunate state of things. Eight offices were vacant in the Cabinet, and one of them might have been given to the Leader of the House. A salary is not given to the office of Leader of the House, any more than a salary is given to the Leader of the Opposition. They are the leaders of two great parties, but that is all; there is no salary attached to those offices. Now, is there any objection to an unusual preponderance of a family unduly gifted with public ability? I think there is. My hon. friend adduced argument against the inner Cabinet, and I think his argument was a strong one. The Cabinet was instituted when the Privy Council became too large to do expeditious work. Now, I do not know if the Colonial Secretary is to be taken into the inner Cabinet, but I do know that there is a strong probability of an irregular inner Cabinet in which a policy might be suggested at breakfast, discussed at luncheon, and settled at dinner, in the same dining-room. But in all this reconstruction and re-arrangement of offices the one thing which seems to me most important is the Admiralty. I am convinced that there are matters of difficulty and danger in connection with the Navy which demand the greatest exertions of the very best men available at that Department. There are serious defects in, serious dangers connected with the Navy. With regard to arrears of construction, to training, to instructions and direction, it has been impaired. I have not said much about this matter in the House, but I have never ceased to press it in other places, and all those things have filled me with great anxiety. As L say, I have not pressed them in this House, but in the private rooms of Ministers and other places, and I am not without some belief that I have given

393
some private assistance to Ministers in some of these matters. It was a matter of great pride to me when I was told by the late Attorney General that I had rendered assistance in discovering a trading case as to contraband of war destined to a neutral port, and in other ways. My belief is that in all these matters serious dangers affect the Navy; and the answer which I and all those who feel this anxiety have received has been the appointment of a Board of Admiralty, which seems to me to be a mocking and contemptuous dismissal of the anxieties keenly felt and the representations seriously made. The new Board of Admiralty is not satisfactory, and rather adds to than diminishes these
anxieties, and I regret that Lord Salisbury has shown, as I think he has, a marked, absence of desire to consult the views and allay the apprehensions of his followers. It was proper, indeed, to bring forward this motion. It has now been discussed, attacked, and defended, and the jury outside will decide. I hope, therefore, that now my hon. friend will see fit to withdraw his Amendment. [Cries of "No, No."] The hon. Gentleman is in the hands of the House, but that is my suggestion.
Question put.
The House divided.—Ayes, 128; Noes, 230. (Division List No. 4.)

AYES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Pickard, Benjamin

Allen, C. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

Haldane Richard Burdon

Pirie, Duncan Y.

Asher, Alexander

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Rea, Russell

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hardie, J Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Reckitt, Harold James

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff

Atherley-Jones, L.

Harwood, George

Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries)

Barker, John

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Rickett, J. Compton

Barlow, John Emmott

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Rigg, Richard

Beaumont, Wentworth C. D.

Healy, Timothy Michael

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bell, Richard

Helme, Norval Watson

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Black, Alexander William

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Robson, William Snowdon

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Holland, William Henry

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Brigg, John

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Shipman, Dr. John

Broadhurst, Henry

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire).

Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Jacoby, James Alfred

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Burns, John

Joicey, Sir James

Soares, Ernest J.

Burt, Thomas

Jones, David Brynmo (Swans'a

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Strachey, Edward

Caine, William Sproston

Kearley, Hudson E.

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Caldwell, James

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.).

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Layland-Barrett, Francis

Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Leng, Sir John

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Cawley, Frederick

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan Gower

Channing, Francis Allston

Lloyd -George, David

Thomson, Frederick W.

Craig, Robert Hunter

Lough, Thomas

Tomkinson, James

Cremer, William Randal

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Kenna, Reginald

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mather, William

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Wm.

Weir, James Galloway

Duncan, James H.

Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen

White, George (Norfolk)

Dunn, Sir William

Moss, Samuel

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Edwards, Frank

Moulton, John Fletcher

Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)

Ellis, John Edward

Murray, Hn. A. W.(Midlothian

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Newnes, Sir George

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Fenwick, Charles

Norman, Henry

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

Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Yoxall, James Henry

Furness, Sir Christopher

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Partington, Oswald

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Grant, Corrie

Paulton, James Mellor

Mr. Bartley and Mr. Schwann.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Perks, Robert William

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Arroll, Sir William

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Baird, John George Alexander

Aird, John

Austin, Sir John

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Banbury, Frederick George

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H (Bristol)

Hambro, Charles Eric

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Beckett, Ernest William

Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord G (M'd'x

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Parker, Gilbert

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Pemberton, John S. G.

Bignold, A.

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Percy, Earl

Bigwood, James

Harris, Dr. Fred. B.(Monmouth

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bill, Charles

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Plummer, Walter R.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hay, Claude

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bond, Edward

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Helder, Augustus

Purvis, Robert

Boulnois, Edmund

Hermon-Hodge, Rbt. Trotter

Pym, C. Guy

Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

Higginbottom, S. W.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampste'd

Randles, John J.

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Rankin, Sir James

Butcher, John George

Hobbouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Carlile, William Walter

Hogg, Lindsay

Renwick, George

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hope, J. F.(Sheffi'ld, Brightside

Ridley, Sir M.W.(Stalybridge)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Horner, Frederic William

Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J(Birm.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas Thomson

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Hoult, Joseph

Robertson, Henry (Hackney)

Chapman, Edward

Houstan, Robert Paterson

Robinson, Brooke

Charrington, Spencer

Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Coddington, Sir William

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col. Edw. J.

Cook, Frederick Lucas

Knowles, Lees

Seton-Karr, Henry

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Lawson, John Grant

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Cust, Henry John C.

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William E. H.

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lee, Capt A. H (Hants. Fareham

Spear, John Ward

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

Legge, Colonel Heneage

Spencer, Ernest(W. Bromwich)

Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

Stock, James Henry

Dixon-Hartland, Sir P. Dixon

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

Stroyan, John

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Lucas, Reginald (Portsmouth)

Duke, Edward Henry

Macartney, Rt. Hon. G. W. E.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Macdona, John Cumming

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxf'd Univ.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Fardell, Sir T. George

Maclure, Sir John William

Thornton, Percy M.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Maconochie, A. W.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J.(Manc'r

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Finch, George H.

M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Fisher, William Hayes

Majendie, James A. H.

Valentia, Viscount

Fison, Frederick William

Manners, Lord Cecil

Walker, Col. William Hall

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Marshall-Hall, Edward

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Maxwell, W. J. (Dumfriesshire)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Webb, Colonel William George

Flower, Ernest

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E(Taunt'n

Forster, Henry William

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)

Galloway, William Johnson

Milward, Colonel Victor

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Garfit, William

Mitchell, William

Williams Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Wills, Sir Frederick

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Montague, G. (Huntingdon)

Wilson, Arthur S. (York, E. R.)

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

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

Gordon, Maj. W. (Tow'rH'ml'ts

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford)

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)

Goschen, George Joachim

Mount, William Arthur

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Wylie, Alexander

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Groves, James Grimble

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Myers, William Henry

Gunter, Colonel

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hain, Edward

Nicholson, William Graham

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Main Question again proposed.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN AND MEMBERS HOLDING OFFICE (INTEREST IN CONTRACTS).
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper. During the last seven years attention has repeatedly been called in this House to the question of Ministers holding appointments and engaging in occupations which bring their private interests into conflict with their public duty. Some of those cases were cases of directors of public companies which were contracting with the Government. There were one or two other cases in which directors held shares in public companies, some of them coming in contact with their own departments. I do not propose to-night to refer to any of those cases in support of this Amendment. I simply wish to refer to them generally in order to remind the House of the facts, and remind them also that this is simply part and parcel of the policy of objecting to operations of this kind, and that we are not singling out a single case or a single Minister. Wherever any Minister or servant of the public has placed himself in a similar position there has been no hesitation on either side of the House in raising a protest. Therefore, I do not propose to refer individually to any of those cases, although they would be perfectly relevant and germane to this Amendment. I wish simply to confine myself to the facts, most of them fresh, most of them discovered within the last few weeks, and none of which have been brought to the attention of the House at all. I therefore deem it to be the duty of some Member of the House, were it only for the purpose of eliciting an explanation, to state the facts in presence of Ministers arraigned, so as to give them full opportunity for explanation. If that be unfair, it would be worse than unfair if we missed the first opportunity that has offered of bringing all these circumstances to the knowledge of the House. They have been canvassed and discussed in the country. We have discussed them at our election meetings, and I think it is due to the Ministers whose names have been mentioned, to the House of Commons, and to the country, that all these facts should be brought to the attention of
398
the House, in the place where there will be an opportunity of canvassing them thoroughly. There are two or three Ministers whose names have been associated with companies, concerning which there has been so much discussion of late. Before I come to the facts, I should like to say one or two words with regard I to general principles. It is very difficult to lay down, I fully appreciate, a rule for the conduct of public men or Ministers of the Crown in matters of this character The only Act of Parliament that deals with it at all is an Act passed in the reign of George III. At that time most of the industry and commerce of this country was in the hands of private firms, and it was rather the exception than otherwise for an incorporated company to be carrying on trade. Therefore rules which were framed under conditions of that character are neither adequate nor even applicable to the circumstances of the present day, when most of the industries of this country are carried on by joint stock enterprise. I might give an illustration of the unfairness of the present state of the law. A Member of this House may also be a member of a firm which has a small contract with a Government department; it does not matter how small the contract, it does not matter how insignificant in the firm his interest may be, still he is disqualified and liable to a penalty. On the other hand, he may hold nine-tenths of the shares of a public company which has an enormous trade Math the I Government, and that disqualification does not apply. That at once proves that there is an anomaly in the present state of the law which calls for some sort of redress or remedy. With regard to the principles which ought to be laid down I wish to deal with the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, and the rules which he himself has laid down. I venture to say there is no better judge. He has had great experience in business and in municipal affairs. He has had a wide range of experience, and consequently he will be able to detect the dangers and provide against them very much better than any other Member of this House. Therefore, I quote with confidence any rules or principles he may lay down as certain to be more or less applicable to cases of this character. I venture to say that no one has been more ruthless than the right hon. Gentleman himself in criticising transactions of the kind we

399
complain of. I believe that he signalised his first entry into public life in Birmingham by the exposure of a councillor who had been guilty of contracting for the Corporation, and it will be within the memory of several Members of the House that he made a severe attack upon Lord Salisbury in the year 1885, because Lord Salisbury and his agents and friends in the Upper House had insisted upon the insertion of a clause in an Act of Parliament, the effect of which would be to give an enormously enhanced value to Lord Salisbury's own property in London. The right hon. Gentleman exposed that transaction in very scathing terms and laid it bare—that is, he stated the facts in the way he alone can state them. Therefore I am sure he will not complain if we state the facts with regard to the other circumstances which require explanation. I will, therefore, quote two or three rules which he has laid down—one at the beginning of the first part of his career and the other at the end of the same portion of his career—referring to the same kind of transactions. Since then I have not seen any cases in which he has taken the same interest, except possibly in the Transvaal. He has laid down some very important rules. One is the case of Sir Hercules Robinson. He was appointed High Commissioner by the late Government, and the right hon. Gentleman objected to the appointment, because he had held some shares in Rhodesian companies. Sir Hercules Robinson had parted with these shares before his appointment, and the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the fact, and that is rather important. Notwithstanding that fact he persisted in his criticism of the appointment, and declared that a person appointed to represent the Queen should be not only pure, but, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion. I am quite prepared to admit these words with regard to the right hon. Gentleman himself. Allow me to say at the outset that I am not going to attempt to make or suggest any charge of personal corruption against the right hon. Gentleman, or any of the other hon. Gentlemen who are members of some public company. That is not my case at all. I shall simply state the facts, and I shall state clearly the inferences I propose to draw from them, but corruption is not one of them. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that something more than that was necessary.
400
It was not merely enough, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, that an officer of the State should be incorruptible, but he must have no association with companies, either past or present association, which would make him open to suspicion. That is the rule which I call the rule of Cæsar's wife. I am simply stating the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman himself. That is what he lays down, and I accept it fully. The second regulation the right hon. Gentleman has laid down is for the conduct of his own officers in Ceylon. This is the rule—
"No officer shall be allowed to engage in commercial pursuits or purchase shares in any local land company, nor shall any officer make or continue an investment which may interest him privately in any private or public undertaking with which his public duty is connected. All officers shall confidentially consult the Government as regards any investment which may be reasonably open to doubt. The foregoing regulation applies to the holding of laud by an officer in the name or names of members of an officer's family."
That is practically what is wanted in the Amendment, and if Her Majesty says that there is no objection, then the blame is not upon the Minister. But the second part of this regulation is a still more pertinent one. The foregoing regulation applies to the holding of land by an officer in the name or names of an officer's, family. May I suggest, then, that there is a necessary and inevitable corollary of these two rules, and it is this, that unless these rules are observed by, and enforced against, officers of State in high places you cannot possibly enforce them against, subordinate officials. That is one of the principal points I propose to make. When once these rules are broken by any person in high position it leads to the complete demoralisation of the whole Civil Service. It is setting a dangerous precedent. I am sorry to say that the right hon. Gentleman, if my facts are correct, is the first to break his own commandments. He has stated in the House that he has no interest, direct or indirect, in any company which supplies to the Government munitions or war materials. What are the facts? The Colonial Secretary has since admitted that that statement is not strictly accurate.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBRELAIN,): No.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understood him in the letter to the hon. Member for

401
Bradford to say with regard to one company—Tubes, Limited—that that was not strictly accurate.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not admit it.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Very well, I will come to that later on, when I come to deal with the Tubes. I will give a list of the companies in which I say the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for East Worcestershire, the Financial Secretary of the Treasury, are interested. The first company is called Hoskins and Sons, Limited. I believe they were incorporated in December, 1897, and I take it on the authority of the Financial Secretary of the Treasury that at the time of their incorporation they had some dealings with the Admiralty. They have since been Admiralty contractors. I find that this company now is practically a private company owned by the right hon. Gentleman's family. I do not wish to road out the names—I think it would be invidious; but I can state generally that they are related to the right hon. Gentleman; they reside under his rooftree, and they are related to him in such a way that I venture to say the right hon. Gentleman's interest is direct, or certainly indirect. The only person who holds any shares in this company except the right hon. Gentleman's family is a gentleman of the name of Hall, who is manager, I believe. It has got the usual permissions in the articles of association providing that it may be made a family company. I shall say a word later on with regard to the names added to this company, but for the present, having stated that all the shares are owned by the right hon. Gentleman's family, I will show what this company is, and I will take it from its own bill-heads. The bill-head is "Hoskins and Sons, Limited, contractors to the Admiralty." I think I am bound to mention that the Civil Lord of the Admiralty holds 600 shares of £5 each. [An HON. MEMBER: Secretary to the Treasury.] He was Civil Lord of the Admiralty until quite recently, and he held £3,000 worth of shares in that company. There is also on the bill-heads "Shot and shell racks, and all similar fittings for Her Majesty's Navy." That is their own description of their business. They have got other things described as materials for ships'
402
use. By the way, the telegraphic address is, "Berths, Birmingham." I recommend this to the hon. Member for North Islington. The directors, I believe, are members of the right hon. Gentleman's family and relatives of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. There is a point with regard to this company which I think demands explanation, partly from the fact that the late Civil Lord of the Admiralty holds shares in the company which is described as "Contractors to the Admiralty." The point is that there are only five bona fide shareholders in this company. You must have seven in order to have a limited company. That is done by giving a share to some nominal holder, and another share to another nominal holder. Then the company is registered. The extraordinary thing about this company is that the numbers are made up not to seven but to ten. Why? It is not for me to suggest a reason, but I think I am entitled to quote the Act of Parliament dealing with contractors to the Admiralty. It provides that—
"No Member of the House of Commons may share in any contract with the Government, or derive any benefit from an order, but this disability does not apply in the ease of contracts with companies or corporations which consist of at least ten persons."
Will the House bear this in mind? The usual practice when you register a private company, and the number of real shareholders will not make up the requisite seven, is to give two or three shares to others just to make up the number. In this case the practice has been departed from, and nominal shares have been given to clerks to bring up the number to ten. In view of that Act of Parliament I think the House will infer what is the object. So much for the case of Hoskins and Sons, "Berths, Birmingham." Now I come to the case of the Birmingham Trust. The Birmingham Trust was formed to invest in selected stocks and shares and to average investments. As to this company, it is not very clear what the number of shares is. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary has a very considerable holding. He holds about 500 ordinary shares of £10. With regard to the preference shares, there seems to be some doubt as to the number, but the holding is a considerable one, so that between the ordinary and the preference the right hon. Gentleman has

403
a very considerable and substantial share in this company. Thou the right hon. Gentleman's family hold shares to the value of about £67,000 at par. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is down with two others as the holders of shares to the nominal value of about £3,500. I infer that he probably holds those shares as a trustee; but that makes no difference as far as my point is concerned, because a trustee is bound to exercise the same diligence; towards the interests of the beneficiary as he would do towards his own. This company holds a considerable number of shares in a concern known as Tubes, Limited, but it has another considerable interest in a company known as Elliot's Metal Company. Its interest in Tubes is about £12,500, taking the nominal value of the shares. I do not believe they arc quite at par, but they have gone up considerably since the Chamberlain influence was introduced into the matter. I will give the actual figures later on to prove that statement. I simply make the point now to show that although the nominal value may be £12,500 the real value is not quite so much; but still it is very considerable, because the shares have gone up in value within the last eighteen months. The history of Tubes is a very interesting and significant one when you take into account what happened in the case of Kynochs. I find that in Tubes the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley Division has a small interest—I think 300 shares. Mr. Arthur Chamberlain has about 74,800 shares, and other members of the family also have a holding. This company was formed to acquire certain cycle manufacturing companies in the Midlands; it made tubes for cycles. After a year or eighteen months trading it seems to have made a loss, and then in the beginning of 1899 Mr. Arthur Chamberlain was brought in to save the company. It is stated in the report of the directors that Air. Arthur Chamberlain, who had acquired a large interest in the company, both in ordinary and preference shares, had consented to take a seat at the board and to accept the position of chairman. In the speech which he made at the meeting when he took over the chairmanship he made the following remark—
"That owing to the collapse of the cycle tube trade the directors had to go into what was to them practically a new business, that
404
of making boiler-tubes. Personally, in regard to the future he was hopeful: the question was whether they could make a profit. He reminded the company of what was done in Kynochs, and suggested that what had happened in the past might happen again."
That has a certain significance, not merely in view of what really did happen in the case of Kynochs, but to what actually happened to this company after Mr. Arthur Chamberlain took over the chairmanship. The very first report after that event, presented on the 8th December, 1899, says—
"The business of the company has been practically confined to making the weldless tubes required for water-tube boilers by the British Admiralty."
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: And they all burst.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Oh yes, but what is far more to the point here is that they saved this company from bursting. The company goes on for another twelve months, and what is the result in the last report? It is that still the bulk of the business of the company is the provision of these tubes for water-tube boilers for Her Majesty's Navy. That is from the report, issued within the last few weeks, of a company which was losing £4,000 a year as a cycle company, but which is now, in the hands of Mr. Arthur Chamberlain, making a profit of £10,000 a year as contractors to Her Majesty's Government. I said something about the rise in these shares, and that is not immaterial, for two reasons.
COLONEL MILWARD: The £1 shares are at 2s.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will come to that point in a moment or two. What happened in regard to these shares? When it was known that Mr. Arthur Chamberlain had taken over the chairmanship, and that the directors had decided to give up their legitimate trade and to go into the business of contracting for the Government, the shares instantly went up. Mr. Arthur Chamberlain is my authority for that statement. He says that—
"He would like to warn them that the shares he bought were bought at the price of the day, which was very much less than the price people were paying for them then."

405
Another circumstance is that immediately after this speech in regard to Kynochs the shares still go up. It is true that in the matter of profits the company has not realised the expectations that might well have been formed from the Kynoch reference, and therefore the shares have recently gone down; but at the same time Mr. Arthur Chamberlain's prophecy that what had been done with Kynochs might be done with Tubes has been justified. Another point in regard to the rise in the shares is that the Birmingham Trust, in which the right hon. Gentleman had a very considerable holding, acquired over 5,000 shares in Tubes" in 1899, apart from their present holding, so that their entire holding amounted to something like 15,000 shares. But those 5,000 shares they disposed of, not when they were at 2s., but after the impression I created by the Kynoch speech and the better prospect. Now I come to Elliot's Metal Company. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to the statement about the Birmingham Trust and the other companies set forth in the Morning Leader, stated that he was not aware that he had any interest at all in Tubes. I observe that he did not make any reference at all to his interest in Elliot's, and I think there is a very good reason. This is a company which has large contracts with the Government and supplies large quantities of materials to the naval dockyards. The directors are the right hon. Gentleman's own son, who resides with, him, and three of the right hon. Gentleman's brothers. The shareholders are members of the right hon. Gentleman's family residing with him, and they hold about £5,250 worth of shares, taking the company at its nominal value. The right hon. Gentleman's brothers and other relations, in preference and ordinary shares, hold about £121,000 worth; in fact, they own practically half the company, and most of their interest has been acquired since 1898, that is since the administration of which the light hon. Gentleman is the most potent factor came into power. There is another fact about these shares. The light hon. Gentleman himself held 405 £10 shares until 1897. Some time between April, 1897, and April, 1898, he transferred these identical shares to his son, and they are still held by him. I maintain that that is an indirect interest in a company dealing with the Government, the
406
bulk of whose business is done with the Government, and whose profits are made out of the Government. I make the same point with regard to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He holds—I presume as trustee, although there is nothing to indicate it, but I make the assumption—£4,170 worth of shares in this company dealing with his own department. Most of these companies to which I have referred describe themselves its contractors to the Admiralty. Of course it is not merely the quantity of material supplied by them to the Admiralty; it is the fact that to all their customers and to all whom they solicit for orders this statement is made, and they are able to advertise themselves as firms which have the confidence of Her Majesty's Government. In regard to municipal corporations a £50 contract disqualifies a member; why should Ministers of the Crown be excepted? In referring to the Birmingham Trust the light hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary says—
"I hold a very small portion of the capital of this company."
Then he says—
"I do not know whether it is invested in Tubes or not."
And he says—
"I did not know Tubes were interested in Government business."
Then he says—
"It comes to this: I have a small portion of Trust shares; they in turn have a small portion of their funds invested in Tubes; Tubes does some business with the Government."
Supposing the real facts were put, would not this be the correct way of stating them? The right hon. Gentleman has a-considerable holding in the Birmingham Trust; the Birmingham Trust have a substantial holding in Tubes and Elliot's; Elliot's do most of their business with the Government; Tubes do, not some, but the whole of their business with the Government. Does the right hon. Gentleman now mean to say that his is a correct version of the case? I am simply contrasting the defence which he made in the answer published as an authorised version by the hon. Member for Central Bradford, and in so doing I am overlooking the very important fact that members of the right hon. Gentleman's own household own over £5,000

407
worth of shares in Elliot's, let alone the interest held by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I presume as trustee. I now pass to the Colombo Commercial Company. The importance of this company lies in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman laid down rules to be observed by his officials in this colony, under which they were not to hold any interest in land or in any company which dealt with the Government; and so rigid and searching were these rules that if they had any such interest they were to part with it at once. The right hon. Gentleman has 400 £5 preference shares in this company and 500 £10 ordinary shares, acquired, I believe, before he came into office. The character of the company was changed owing to the failure of the coffee trade in Ceylon, and from being a coffee planting company it was converted into a company speculating at largo in Ceylon. It was simply a general trading company, but the memorandum and articles of association took power to deal in land, and notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's own prohibition of dealings of that character he still retains his interest. One of the things done by this company has recently come to the observation of people in this country. Accommodation in St. Helena for Boer prisoners being rather limited it was decided for some reason which has never been explained to send them to Ceylon. The first thing that had to be done there was to provide accommodation—to build huts and sheds, and generally to prepare the place to receive them, and a Ceylon newspaper, the Ceylon Observer, on the 17th May says—
"Mr. Menzies, of the Colombo Commercial Company, has arrived and they hope to start immediately to put the buildings together"—
that is, the buildings for the prisoners. On the 20th May—
"The iron framework of the first prison for the Boers is up under Mr. Menzies' supervision and tin Colombo Commercial Company's contract, and the materials for other prisons being re-erected by the same company arc scattered over the sites. The hundreds working are gradually coming up to thousands, and already the Commercial Company have four of the iron buildings up."
It gives a specification of the buildings, which are rather commodious, and I should say somewhat expensive. The bulk of the contracts let out by the Government have been given to the Colombo Commercial Company, Limited,
408
in which the right hon. Gentleman holds £7,000 worth of shares. There was a second contract there, and on the 18th August we read—
"The work at the camp has recommenced. Eighteen more huts are to be erected for the military and thirty more huts for the prisoners. Building operations for the new camp have already commenced, the Colombo Commercial Company being to the fore, and their representative is kept busy pushing on the work. The materials for several of the large huts that the company have to build have been received already."
I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman knew all about this company in which he had invested his money, but it is a considerable investment. I do not say he knew anything at all about this contract; I take his statement explicitly—that he is too busily engaged in public affairs to be able to look after his own investments, and that he did not give the same supervision to his investments, that an ordinary careful business man would. But I do say that it illustrates the danger of investments of this character in the hands of Ministers of the Crown. I cannot conceive a more unfortunate investment at the present moment than an investment in making prisons for the Boers. Last Friday the right hon. Gentleman delivered a very remarkable speech in this House—a. speech conciliatory in its tone, and evidently intended so to be as far as the right hon. Gentleman's general attitude was concerned. He proposed certain terms, but I think I shall have the assent of the House when I say that in a dispute of this character it is not so much a matter of the terms you propose as of the confidence you have in the men who are to carry them out. I ask the House, what terms can you offer to the Boers which they are prepared to. accept if they knew, as know they will—[Ministerial laughter. Can you imprison thousands of Boers there without their knowing something about this company? Again I say, what terms can you offer to the Boers which they will accept when they come to know that the gentleman, who will be the supreme factor in interpreting those terms and in carrying them out is one who has a large interest in a company which is profiting out of making, prisons for the Boers? I simply point that out in order to show what an unfortunate investment it is from that point of view. The other company I now come to

409
is Kynoch and Co. The case of this company is important for two reasons. I apologise to the House for detaining it so long, but I am bound to place all these facts before the House, and if the companies are so numerous it is no fault of mine. When we come to Kynoch and Co. I find that there are two points to make about them. My first point is that it is the only company whose affairs have been investigated by a Committee of the House of Commons; Hoskins, Elliot's, and the other companies have not been investigated. My second point is that Kynochs, when investigated by the House of Commons, were very much worse than anything which had previously been said about them. In this company the shares of the right hon. Gentleman's relations are of the value—taking the present value—of something between £230,000 and £250,000, which is the amount they hold in Kynoch and Co., Limited. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has an interest—again, I assume, as trustee—amounting at their present value to £15,000. They manufacture cordite and munitions of war. With regard to this company, it has a kind of bearing upon all the other companies, because there has been undoubted favouritism, and it shows the danger of men holding high and influential positions an the Government having an interest in this company, because, for some reason or other, unmistakable favouritism has been shown towards this company. I will take two or three instances of this favouritism. In the year 1898 the Government asked for tenders for a very large quantity of cordite, and several tenders were sent in. The National Explosives Company's price was Is. 10½d. per lb. and Kynoch and Co.'s price was 2s. 4½d., or 6d. per lb. more. There were several other tenders which were lower than Kynochs'. What happened? Did the Admiralty and the War Office give the contract to the firm with the lowest tender? On the contrary, what they did was this—they gave Kynoch and Co. an opportunity of revising their tender. They sent another tender form to them, and asked them to tender for Is. 10½d., and all the other companies who had tendered were ignored, and no opportunity to tender again was offered to them. I say that that is a thing which is perfectly unprecedented in the history of this country.
MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: No, no.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman says "No, no," but will he give me an instance?
MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Yes, the previous Government.
MR. LLOYH-GEORGE: But in that case Kynochs were l½d. higher then the lowest, and there was another firm which was 2s. or 3s. dearer. The previous Government took the lowest tender and said, "We will give you a share of this contract, but you must do it at the same price as the lowest." That was a very different transaction from this. What the right hon. Gentleman did here was to cut out all the intermediate tenders—they cut out all the companies that had tendered at a lower figure, and they went to the highest, and they said, "We will give you an opportunity of revising your tender," and never communicated to the others, and the right hon. Gentleman must know that is a very different transaction. The right hon. Gentleman says he has taken the responsibility for this himself. What happens? In the case of this company they had given them this opportunity of revising their price, and what followed? Instead of giving the bulk of the work to the National Explosives Company—which, by general consent, is the best company of the whole lot, which did the best work, had fewer objections, and did its work with greater promptitude—instead of giving the bulk of the work to the company that tendered the lowest, they proposed to give 470 tons to Kynoch and Co. and only 210 tons to the National Explosives Company. The Director of Army Contracts would not stand that, for ho thought one piece of favouritism was quite enough in the course of a single month, and, finally, the allocation he insisted upon was 380 tons to Kynochs and 300 tons to the National Explosive Company, whose tender was the lowest. Therefore, there were two acts of favouritism—the first was giving them an opportunity to revise their tender; and the second was giving them a larger share of the order than the company which tendered lowest. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Birmingham himself admitted,

411
in his evidence before the Committee, that no other company had ever had an opportunity of revising its tender.
MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: No, I did not.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I bog the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He did say that it was an opportunity which had never been given to any other company. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that?
MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Yes, I do deny it. If I had made such a statement it would have been manifestly wrong. I do not remember that I made any such statement, and I do not believe that I did. But if I did I made it unconscious of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, when Secretary of State for War, did himself precisely the same thing as I did.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, but he is not correct in his explanation. If it was done it was done by the same company, and my point is that no opportunity was given to any other company to revise its price but Kynochs. His statement does not challenge my previous proposition, for what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition did was a totally different transaction. Now what happened in 1899? In that year Kynochs again got half the contracts. I do not want to dwell too much upon that, because I do not want to go into too many details. I will come at once to what happened in the year 1900. In that year there was a very large contract, and a very large quantity of cordite was asked for by the Admiralty—the quantity was 1,400,000 lbs. They invited tenders for that, and seven firms tendered. Out of those seven companies Kynochs tendered for the highest price. Kynochs' price was 2s. 6d., and there wore other companies who tendered at about 2s. What happened? The whole tender for 1,400,000 lbs. was divided between Kynochs and the National Explosives Company. Not only this, but Kynochs got the easiest part of the job, which is twenties, because, as I understand from the evidence, as you go up in size you increase the difficulty of production, and
412
more skill is required. Now Kynochs got the twenties at a big price, and the National Explosives Company got the rest at a lower price. All the other companies who had tendered, and who had previously done good work—as I shall point out later on—were completely ignored. [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh."] If those facts are unpleasant to Members opposite I really cannot help it. The next thing that happened was this. The Director of Army Contracts complained of the favouritism, and he said "This won't do," and he presented a report, which I will read to the House, which shows how very groundless this favouritism was towards Kynochs as compared with the other companies. There was an objection made, and after a good deal of discussion between the Financial Secretary to the War Office and the Secretary to the Admiralty, the following division and allocation of the order was arranged. It was divided into four parts, and given to Kynochs, the National Explosives Company, Nobel's, and the Cotton Powder Company. These facts are taken out of the evidence and are not challenged. The National Explosives Company got 2s. Id. for size 50, which is the most difficult size to make up. Nobel's got 2s. 3d. or 2s. 4d. for size 50, the Cotton Powder Company got 2s. Id. for 350,000 lbs., but Kynochs got size 20—the easiest size of all—at 2s. 6d. for 300,000 lbs. weight of cordite. Was there any reason for showing this favouritism to Kynochs, because this is really very material in its bearing upon the whole of the contracts? Some of the witnesses for the War Office and the Admiralty stated that it was a better firm. Some witnesses said that the other firms were found plenty of other work to do by the War Office, but the fact remains that Kynochs got more orders out of the War Office than any other company, and one witness stated in the course of his evidence that he thought it was the policy of the War Office to prefer Kynochs. Will the House now kindly listen to the Report made by the Inspector upon the quality of the goods provided? The Inspector says—
"The National Explosives Company have by far the best record, and the Cotton Powder Company are good seconds. Kynochs have been unsuccessful as regards the large sizes required for the Naval service, and their rejections on present contracts have been very heavy."

413
That is to say that of all the companies reported upon by the Inspector, Kynochs was the worst, and yet what is the proposed allocation? The National Explosives Company, which is the best, gets 2s., and Kynochs, which is the very worst, gets 2s. 6d. That is to say, that upon 300,0001bs. of cordite Kynochs, which is the worst company of the lot, gets a bonus of £75,000. Who will say after that that there is no favouritism? The late Financial Secretary to the War Office said, with regard to one of these instances, and one of the most glaring instances, "I am responsible for it; the responsibility is mine." And Lord Salisbury said, "Very well, if the responsibility is yours, then out you go." Then the Secretary to the Admiralty jumps lip, and ho says, "The responsibility is also mine." And Lord Salisbury practically said, "Then off you go as well." And so they both disappeared, and have been dismissed into the Privy Council, which is now made a kind of laager for the undesirables of the Ministry. That is the case as far as Kynochs is concerned. The only other point is this, that afterwards, in spite of the report of the Inspector that Kynochs provided the worst cordite, in spite of the fact that they were more in arrear than all the other companies put together, they received 6d. per lb. more than their competitors. All the other companies put together were 50,000 in arrear with their orders, but Kynochs alone had arrears amounting to 240,0001bs. Even their orders for 1898 were in arrear, and they were the only company whose orders for that year were in arrear. Kynochs' orders for 1900 were also in arrear. Kynochs produce worse cordite, according to the testimony of the Inspector, and still they are paid 6d. per lb. more; they get opportunities of revising their tenders, and they also get large orders; in fact, this was a company which was so much favoured by the Government that the Storekeeper to the Navy said, "Kynochs is one of the companies built up by the Navy." There is one other fact with regard to Kynochs which I wish to mention before I dismiss it, and it is full of significance. When the present Government came into office it was very interesting to observe the change which took place in the value of Kynochs' shares. There were no fresh orders, and nothing special had happened,
414
and there was nothing in the way of legitimate trade to account for this. And yet, comparing the value of Kynochs' shares the month before the election which put the present Government in power—I do not mean the last election, but the 1895 election—with the month after the General Election, what do we find is the state of things? The shares stood at £15 in the month of May, 1895, but in the following month of August they went up to £20. There was no corresponding rise in the value of other Explosive Companies' shares. The right hon. Gentleman complains that we have made insinuations, and that we have suggested corruption. [Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear."] Well, if hon. Gentlemen opposite insist upon that, then I cannot help it. All I can say is that I have simply stated the facts, and if hon. Members opposite insist upon reading into them corruption, they are doing so upon a bare statement of facts. What I do ask is this—What interpretation does I the Birmingham Stock Exchange place I upon the business? Four-fifths of them arc the right hon. Gentleman's friends, and yet their view of the matter was that the change of Government was worth an addition of thirty-three per cent, to the value of the shares of the company in which the right hon. Gentleman's family held the largest interest. And now comes the significance of the statement made by Mr. Arthur Chamberlain in relation to Tubes. At a meeting the other day he said, 'What was done in Kynochs could be clone in Tubes." Let the House not forget that this is the only case which has been investigated, and the result of the investigation has been to display and expose the most disgraceful condition of favouritism towards one company which, has been manifested, I venture to say, in the present century by any Government Department. I might have referred to other companies, but I will only refer very shortly to the Birmingham Small Arms Company, of which the right hon. Gentleman's brother is the chairman. The only point I make in connection with that is this—that the War Office, in inviting tenders for cycles, have insisted that most of the parts which compose those cycles—I believe the proportion is about nine-tenths—should be manufactured by the Birmingham Small Arms Company, which is not the best company by any means in the cycle trade. There

415
was no reason, as far as quality was concerned, why the parts should have been the manufacture of that company, and Coventry cycle firms could have done all this. There has been an agitation in the trade about this question, and it is only within the last few days that that company has been withdrawn from the Government contracts with regard to cycles. I say that all those are cases which demand the same searching investigation as was given to the case of Kynochs. The right hon. Gentleman has said that we are attacking his private character, but that is not what we are doing at all. Nobody has ever suggested it. All these are published facts, and they are not merely published facts, but they are facts which are necessarily public, for it is information which the law insists upon being open to the public for the information of the public, and for the protection of the public against transactions of this character and others. But although we have discussed his public affairs we have not, in order to defame his political reputation or to destroy his political career, intercepted and published his private correspondence. If we had, then I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman would have been justified in flinging at us some of the epithets which he so freely hurls at his political opponents. But we have done nothing of the kind. We have searched the registers at Somerset House. We have inquired into the evidence published in Blue-books in this House. Those are the facts which we have brought before the House, and those alone, and I do say that they demand an explanation. I say that not merely have we a right to bring these facts before the House, but it is the duty of some Member to do it. They invite explanation, nay, they demand it. It is not that charges of corruption are brought against any Minister of the Crown, for that is not insinuated, but I do say, to use a phrase uttered by the right hon. Gentle man, "it is not treasonable but it is improper." That is exactly the description that can be given to some of these investments. The investments in the Kynochs, Hoskins, some of the Tubes, and Elliots arc not corrupt, but they are certainly improper. My second point is this—that although there is no charge or suggestion of corruption, still things have been done which would set up a precedent which
416
could legitimately be used later on to justify corruption itself. Corruption is a question of intention and of motive, but the House of Commons, in framing regulations of this kind, cannot inquire into motives. You cannot say that because A has a small interest, infinitesimal it is true, he is exactly the sort of man who would not do a thing corruptly. B has a large interest. His family have huge influence, but B is a high-minded man, and who shall profess that he is disinterested? You cannot say that. You are bound to examine the facts, and to judge upon them. These rules are laid down not altogether to prevent corruption or to hit corruption, but to prevent circumstances that might justify corruption in others. They are rigidly, sternly enforced against the officials of the Civil Service. Supposing one of these unfortunate Civil Service clerks in Ceylon had put money into a land speculation, or had had a hundred shares in the Colombo Commercial Company, which was building huts for the poor Boer prisoners, he would have invited, and would have received, the censure of the Government. Nobody, however, would have said that it was an attack upon his private character, but purely an attack, and a very just attack, upon him in his official capacity. Nobody would have suggested corruption. All that would have been said was that it was highly improper, and ought to be stopped. I know of nothing in regard to which those rules ought to be enforced with greater rigidity than in war contracts. In regard to the influence which is exercised in these there is this to be said, that although no pressure is brought to bear on officials to give contracts to favoured firms, there is a knowledge in the minds of those gentlemen who deal with the contracts, when they are distinguishing between two or three different firms, that there is one firm which has at its back most powerful influence in the Government of the day; and who will suggest that that is not an influence which has to be combated with? Anyone who reads the evidence given before the Select Committee will see that officials at the Admiralty are at a loss to explain why Kynochs are preferred. They used all sorts of reasons, which are false, I do not mean to say intentionally false, but which are entirely incorrect. It was not because Kynochs' goods were better worth; for

417
you find that they were worse. These officials were constantly floundering to find some sort of reason. The real reason they do not know themselves. It was this unconscious influence which they themselves were unable to appreciate—the constant influence of a powerful personality at the back of the company. The right hon. Gentleman himself manifested this in the House of Commons in regard to Kynochs. In 1895 he got up in the House and said—
"What orders have you given to Kynochs? I have an interest in Kynochs through my constituents."
He never explained that he had any other interest—
"It is true that Kynochs is not in my constituency; it is outside it; but still my constituents are interested, and I want to know what orders have been given to that company."
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War got up and said that an order for five millions of cartridges had been given. "Grotesque," said the right hon. Gentleman; the idea that they should only get an order for five millions of cartridges was grotesque, and they have made up for it ever since. Now there is this danger in regard to these contracts. I do not say it exists with regard to the right hon. Gentleman, but if Ministers of the Crown are allowed to have large interests, direct, or indirect, in firms providing munitions of war to the Government, I know of no greater danger to the peace of the country or to its security. It is not that any Minister you can imagine sitting in this House would ever deliberately, for the sake of promoting his own private interest, engage in war. That is too horrible a suggestion even to think of, and I do not suggest it. But there is again the subtle influence of the constant action of a man's permanent interest upon his judgment. It does give him a bias without his knowing it. Take the case of Kynochs. A very remarkable speech was delivered by the chairman of that company two years ago. If he did it deliberately, I know nothing more horrible; but he arrived at his conclusions by the unconscious operation of that personal bias. I take this instance as an illustration of what may happen in the case of a private individual in this com-
418
pany, and I hold that it may also happen to a Minister of the Crown. I take from The Times report. He said—
"The trade with Persia was taken away from us because Mr. [now Baron] Curzon was of opinion that the Birmingham goods supplied to Persia went to the Afridis to shoot down our own soldiers."
Mr. Arthur Chamberlain said that that was not true. If anyone said to Mr. Arthur Chamberlain that he was supplying ammunition to commit the Armenian atrocities or the massacres in Crete he would repudiate it with anger, and yet, unconsciously, that was the point he was putting in his speech. If anyone were to say to him, "Don't send your cartridges to Persia, because they are used to shoot down our own troops," I believe that he would have said, "Certainly, I would not send a single cartridge, even if Kynochs go without a dividend." I say that this illustrates the great danger of Ministers having an interest in these contracts in this country. I have stated the whole of the facts, and I am exceedingly obliged to the House for their kindness in listening to me so long. I put it again, that I brought the subject forward on the ground of the importance of ensuring that regulations of this character, as laid down by the right hon. Gentleman himself, should be rigidly enforced. We have a proud pre-eminence as a country in this matter. One of the first things anyone hears after crossing the Atlantic is charges of corruption brought against public men in connection with public municipalities, and even the State. It is suggested that contracts are given purely from influence, and if anyone draws a contrast between that country and this his heart is filled with British pride at the purity of our statesmanship. I do not say that the Secretary for the Colonies or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has done anything to lower the standard of proud pre-eminence which we enjoy as a country in this matter. What I do say is that they have given legitimate ground for uneasiness, and, above all, they have established precedents, which, if they are followed, would lead to something infinitely worse than anything I have spoken of to-day. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
MR. SOAMESin seconding the Amendment, said that the hon-

419
Member for Carnarvon had brought forward certain specific charges which, no doubt, were deserving of explanation, but he did not propose to follow the hon. Member in that line for two reasons. In the first place, the hon. Members referred to had not yet had an opportunity of offering any explanation of the matters in question; and in the second place he desired to keep any observations he made free, from any personalities. The subject was far more important than the personality or position of any member of this or any other Government, be he never so conspicuous. It was the purity, dignity, and honour of public life in this country. The principle the Amendment endeavoured to enforce was that under no circumstances should a Minister of the Crown, or any member of the Government, be involved or interested in any commercial undertaking in such a manner that his private interests might conflict, or even appear to conflict, with his duty as a trustee for the interests of the nation. This principle had been recognised many times and in many ways. As was well known, there was an Act of Parliament dealing with the position of M.P.'s and the contracts of the Government passed in the 22nd of the reign of George III., which prohibited any private Member from being interested in any Government contract. That Act, as was pointed out by Sir Erskine May in his "Parliamentary Practice," did not affect incorporated trading companies, but it imposed a penalty of £500 on any Member for sitting or voting if he was interested directly or indirectly in any Government contract. This Amendment asked the House to go one step further as regarded Ministers than the Act of 1782, and to say that they should have no interest in any Government contract even as shareholders in an incorporated trading company. He thought there was very good reason for asking the House to take that step, because since 1782 the growth of incorporated trading companies had been such that we had now to deal with a state of things which was never contemplated by the framers of the Act of that year. The growth of companies had been extensive, and sometimes peculiar. There was the one-man company and the practice of giving a small share to clerks and others in order to form a company, which was an evasion of the spirit of the law. The whole capital of
420
a company with the exception of one £10 note might be held by two gentlemen, one of whom might be the head of a Government Department, giving contracts to that company, and yet he would be within his legal rights in so doing. He did not suggest that there was any probability of such a scandal occurring, but at the same time it ought not to be possible for it to occur. He agreed with the Secretary for the Colonies, when speaking of the case of Sir Hercules Robinson, that the principle of Cæsar's wife was the only true principle which should govern the action of Ministers where any suspicion of possible conflict between public duty and private interest might arise in the mind of even the most censorious of critics The connection of members of the Government with an undertaking of a private description had been a subject of strict scrutiny in the past. The late Mr. Gladstone made it a rule that no members of his Cabinet should be directors of companies. The House rejoiced that the new President of the Board of Trade had resigned a directorship which he held, and that Lord Hardwicke, on being appointed Under Secretary for India, had relinquished his active connection with the Stock Exchange. The late Mr. Mundella, a man of the highest integrity, resigned the president ship of the Board of Trade under circumstances which would be remembered. In 1876 the late Lord Henry Lennox, Commissioner of Works in Mr. Disraeli's Government, was director of the Lisbon Tramways Company, promoted by the late Albert Grant. An action was brought in the High Court and it was disclosed that there had been fraud on the part of the promoters and want of proper care on that of the directors. The matter was commented on by the then Lord Chief Justice. The attention of Mr. Disraeli was called to the matter, as it did not appear that either he or Lord Henry Lennox would take any action, and Lord Henry Lennox immediately resigned his office. The Times, commenting on the resignation of Lord Henry Lennox and upholding a standard of political purity, said—
"It was clear something would have to be done. It was the duty of someone to open an inquiry, but who would do it? It appeared yesterday that Mr. Trevelyan undertook the necessary, if ungrateful, duty of showing that the House of Commons was not careless of the character of its Members, especially when also Ministers of the Crown."

421
And it was this necessary, if ungrateful, duty which they had undertaken that day. He regretted that there should have been any necessity to restate the principle which should govern the action of the House and members of the Government—the principle of Caesar's wife—and he had presumed to restate it because it was of vital importance to the welfare of public life in this country.
Amendment proposed—
"At the end of the Question to add the words, 'And we humbly beg to represent to Your Majesty that Ministers of the Crown and Members of either House of Parliament holding subordinate office in any public Department ought to have no interest direct or indirect in any firm or company competing for contracts with the Crown, unless the nature and extent of such interest being first declared, Your Majesty shall have sanctioned the countenance thereof and when necessary shall have directed such precautions to be taken as may effectually prevent any suspicion of influence or favouritism in the allocation of such contracts.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
Colonel MILWARD: I should not have intervened in this debate but for the fact that represent a Midland constituency, in addition to which I take a very deep interest in the honour and welfare of my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary and my hon. friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The honour of all public men is the property of the nation, but those who live in the immediate neighbourhood of the Colonial Secretary and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and have taken so great an interest in their political career, have a peculiar interest in defending them. The House must not hide from itself the fact that under the somewhat specious garb of an Amendment, there might be a desire, and the result of this Amendment if carried will be, to hurl the Colonial Secretary from public life. The inference to be drawn from the Amendment is that the influence of the Colonial Secretary has been used to obtain Government contracts for firms in which members of his family were interested, and, of course, if such a charge could be maintained it would be impossible for a man to maintain his position in public life. For years accusations have been made with that object, and last year
422
letters were purchased from a discharged clerk in the hope of terminating his career. They could not wonder under the circumstances that hon. Members on that side of the House, and many on the other side, should desire that these matters which had been mentioned in the press of this country, and also in foreign countries, should be cleared up, or at all events that the House should be put in possession of the facts. He was not entirely in accord with what fell from a previous speaker in regard to directorships. There were directorships and directorships, and so long as the House of Commons and public life in this country was constituted as it was, and so long as men engaged in business pursuits were expected to take part in the Government there would be Ministers connected with trading companies, for it was impossible for a man to give up his whole career in life for a year or two in office. He presumed that many Members of the House were shareholders in the Army and Navy Stores or the Civil Service Co-operative Stores. Was it possible to go and ask whether they were contractors-to the Government or not? That was exactly the case with regard to the major part of the accusations against the Colonial Secretary. There were many Members in the House who could not say whether the companies in which they were interested were benefited by Government contracts. Mr. Arthur Chamberlain was well known in the Midlands as a man with splendid business qualities; his connection with Kynochs had raised that firm from a very low ebb to a position of prosperity, and it was ridiculous to susgest that he should sever his connection with the business because his brother became Colonial Secretary. If there was any special preference shown to Kynochs it was shown first of all by the late Administration. He entirely approved of their having an order for ammunition. We must maintain every ammunition company in order that we might have the supplies we wanted in time of war. He did not know anything about the question whether one company got more orders than another. He had no doubt that when Mr. Arthur Chamberlain presented himself at the War Office, either during the last Administration or this, the fact that he bore the name of Chamberlain must have been a point in his favour. If anyone called there bear-

423
ing the name of Campbell-Bannerman or Harcourt it would undoubtedly create a feeling in his favour. The Colonial Secretary did not hold a share in the company, and, though naturally connection with the family of a well-known public man was a point in his favour, Mr. Arthur Chamberlain was strong business man enough to obtain orders for cordite or any other ammunition without that connection. The firm of Hoskins was mainly the business of Mr. Neville Chamberlain, and in it the Financial Secretary held a twelfth of the capital, and it had been stated that the firm enjoyed a small Admiralty contract bringing in about £600 a year. He could not see that in this the Financial Secretary was the least to blame. Of the Birmingham Trust Company he had some knowledge, and undoubtedly the reputation of the Chamberlain family as men of business led business men to invest in the company. Among other businesses the Trust Company invested in Tubes (Limited), and the Colonial Secretary had made the statement that he held no shares in the company. One of the grossest insults he had ever heard in the House was levelled against the Colonial Secretary by the hon. Member for Carnarvon, but upon the question whether the right hon. Gentleman made a truthful statement in this instance there was the balance-sheet of the company. There was not a single word in the balance-sheet to indicate to the Colonial Secretary, or to anybody, that the Birmingham Trust held any shares whatever in Tubes. Limited; and the secretary to the Trust, to whom he had telegraphed on Saturday for the balance-sheet, wrote stating that it was not the custom of that company to publish a statement of its investments in any more detailed form than they had given. With regard to Elliot's Metal Company, the Colonial Secretary did not hold a single farthing in it, nor did his son, except as a trustee. As to the only remaining company—the Ceylon Commercial Company—he believed the Colonial Secretary was one of the original holders in that company twenty-five years ago. It was true that last year they obtained some contract, he did not know what, to build huts in Ceylon; but was it possible to imagine that the Colonial Secretary could have been aware of a contract given away in Ceylon in the middle of last year? Was
424
there anything whatever to bring it to his notice? Even if there were, was ever a charge of corruption founded upon such a slender basis? He knew something about small Government contracts, and, as far as he knew, no house in the Midlands sought them. The Government did not do its business on the same lines as private enterprises; there was none of that long association, and it was often simply a question of a fraction of one per cent. He hoped the House saw that the case for the prosecution was exceedingly slender. He believed so greatly in the honour and honesty of the Colonial Secretary he was perfectly certain that years after his critics and traducers had ceased to be remembered he would be remembered as one of the great Empire builders of this century, and that he would leave to his sons, and to the nation at large, a name that would be remembered for honour and for probity.
MR. ROBSON: I hope that the Colonial Secretary and the Secretary to the Treasury will not leave the point so entirely untouched as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I think if my hon. friend the Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs has made one thing clearer than another it is that he does not desire to mix up with this purely public question of administrative purity and propriety any charge of personal corruption. Nobody can deny the facts put forward by the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs, and it is a very serious and significant circumstance that hon. Members opposite should think that that is the natural inference from these facts. The country will be as careful as ourselves to exonerate the Colonial Secretary and the Financial Secretary from charges of personal corruption. I desire to make clear my own personal opinion that it would be in the highest degree unfair to suggest that the Colonial Secretary or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury have directly or consciously sought to influence any contract whatever. I shall be very sorry indeed if in the course of the few observations I propose to make on the subject I should say anything inconsistent with that declaration. It is really a question of public interest and importance that the House has now to consider. It is a question affecting administrative

425
propriety as well as purity, and there cannot be a question of more importance put before the House. The later traditions of the English public service have been all in the direction of preventing public officials from taking up any private interest that might conflict with their public duty. That, certainly, has been the tendency and rule of the Civil Service, and it is also the tendency in municipal corporations. Once let it be thought that this House is disposed to relax the severity of the general understanding, depend upon it, you will very easily have a relapse in administrative purity on the part both of Civil servants and municipal corporations throughout the country. I think I may fairly say this, that the Colonial Secretary, or if not he, at all events the Secretary to the Treasury, has without being conscious of it, without appreciating what was being done, fallen below the municipal standard. They have certainly fallen below the high standard set up by the Colonial Secretary himself, which has been succinctly described as the principle of Caesar's wife. I have always thought that standard was unreasonably high. It resulted in many grave injustices to the lady to whom it was first applied, and I should not like to judge the Colonial Secretary by the standard he has himself set up, but that well-known reference to Cæsar's wife indicates the essential principle on which the statutes on this subject have been based. It would be perfectly idle to make a rule that public officials should not be corrupt or act unfairly in the distribution of contracts. Of course, the object which everybody aims at is to prevent corruption and unfairness, but in order to achieve that you must go a great deal further than that object simpliciter. Your rule must be not only that officers must not be corrupt. That is a matter of opinion as to which people may differ. A rule, if it is to be of any service at all, must prevent public officials from putting themselves in circumstances where there is likely to arise any temptation to a conflict between private interests and public duty. It must seek to put them above suspicion. I am sure that no English Minister occupying a position so much attacked as that of Colonial Secretary is likely to do it. Nobody, indeed, can put himself above suspicion, but you can avoid putting yourself in circumstances to which suspicion would natur-
426
ally attach. That is the utmost, I think, that Caesar would have the right to ask of his wife; it is the utmost we have the right to ask of any public official, high or low. But we have the right to ask chat much. If we merely make a general regulation against corruption or unfairness the result would be that a Minister or official might easily enough take up some private interest which it might become his public duty to check or to oppose. Everybody would naturally suspect that ho would not very adequately fulfil that duty of checking or opposing that private interest. They would suspect; he would deny, and he would have a perfectly clear field for denial, because, of course, no record, no documents were made. If they were made they would not be preserved, and so a kind of gentle pressure might be exercised by one Minister upon his colleagues in order to influence contracts. Any suspicion which might arise would absolutely never be proved in any way whatever, and it would have to remain matter of suspicion. Suspicion would be met on the one hand by the Minister in question with abusive epithets, and, on the other, with charges of corruption. The Minister would be believed by his friends, disbelieved by his enemies, and suspected by a large number of persons who belonged to neither category. That is not by any means a satisfactory position with regard to a public servant in a country like this. It is in order to prevent that condition of things that this sensible rule of the Civil Service has been laid down, and by no one in stronger terms than the right hon. Gentleman himself, that no public servant should take up a private interest which in his public capacity he may be called upon to check. Has the Colonial Secretary or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury broken that rule? That is the point. We do not need to enter into questions of motive, for questions of motive in the strict sense are not really relevant to this inquiry at all. In discussing a question of this importance we ought as far as possible to keep the question of motive out of account altogether. We have to ask, first of all, what is the rule to be observed, and next, has that rule in any serious or substantial sense been infringed? Are these questions decided by the very extraordinary defence put forward by the hon. Member for

427
Central Bradford on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman? I can scarcely think that the Colonial Secretary would authorise such a case as that, for what does it amount to? It ignores the questions I have just stated, and says that it ought to be generally known that in entering public life the Colonial Secretary has lost opportunities by which he might have been many times a millionaire. In other words, he has lost money by the public service. What Members of this House are not in exactly the same position? We have all lost money by the public service, and we are proud of it. It is the special pride and glory of this House that its Members, one and all, are prepared to sacrifice for other, and I hope higher motives, pecuniary gain. I cannot imagine a defence which puts a more unmerited slur on the House at large than the defence put forward by the Colonial Secretary's friend. The rule to which I have referred is not merely to preserve the public official himself from temptation or suspicion. There is another and certainly not less important reason, and, that is that if once it is known that a public official of importance is a shareholder or is pecuniarily interested in some company contracting with the Government it greatly facilitates the task of other persons belonging to the company—entirely without the knowledge of the Minister or official—going to the public departments, and seeking to get a contract on the strength of his name. That appears to be the true inference to be drawn from many of the charges put forward by the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. I do not for a moment suppose the Colonial Secretary knew anything about the investment in Tubes or Elliot's Metal Company, but when a public official gives his name as a shareholder in a company, and that company is competing for public contracts, it would be a very remarkable man of business indeed—and certainly it would not be the brother of the Colonial Secretary—who did not, if he could fairly from his point of view, take advantage of the circumstance. We have been told that Mr. Arthur Chamberlain is one of the Best men of business in Birmingham. I certainly am not in a position to make any charges; I only draw the inference from the facts as stated, and it certainly would not be a matter for which the Colonial Secretary should be held responsible, but
428
it is not unlikely that Mr. Arthur Chamberlain has used the name of the Colonial Secretary in connection with this company.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a charge against an absent man. On his behalf I may say that he has never done anything of the kind.
MR. ROBSON: Of course, I unhesitatingly accept the statement of the Colonial Secretary, and I have ill-phrased my observations if it was not made apparent that really what I was seeking to do was to illustrate the mischief of the name of any public official appearing on the share list of any company seeking for Government contracts. I entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and I am sorry I made any reference of the kind. Still, it does not at all deprive my observations of their force as general observations. Look at the inference which is not unnaturally drawn. When one hears of companies in a very unsatisfactory financial position being taken up and put into a most satisfactory financial position in some instances, and into a better financial position in others, it is by no means unnatural that such an inference should be drawn. Has there been any infringement of this rule? It seems to me upon the facts as stated that there has been a substantial and, in one case, a deliberate infringement of that rule. In the case of the Hoskins Company there has been an infringement which may be great or small. The hon. Member who has just spoken made some references to the amount of turnover which may properly be attributed to Government contracts. I do not care whether the amount be great or small. If we were making charges of personal culpability against the Colonial Secretary it would be most material to inquire whether the amount were great or small, but when the charge is one of a breach of a regulation the mere amount is of no importance. What are the circumstances as laid before us of the Hoskins Company? The company is formed among other object to take Admiralty contracts, and in order that it may take such contracts without bringing the promoters within the scope of the statute the number of shareholders is increased to ten or twelve, five of whom are clerks and other persons holding only one share each. It is certainly somewhat curious that the gentlemen promoting this

429
company instead of making the number of shareholders seven, as in the formation of an ordinary company, should have increased it to ten—obviously in order that it might come within the exceptions, and to enable the company to carry out its object of obtaining Admiralty contracts, although its members were members of the Government. It certainly seems that there there is a deliberate intention of forming a company which can take Admiralty contracts and yet not render members of the Government who are also members of the company liable to any penalty.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAM BERLAIN,): There is only one member.
MR. ROBSON: Only one? Well, one is quite enough. I am dealing with a question of principle, and whether there is one or half a dozen does not matter. Is there, or is there not, in this instance a breach of this admirable rule? If there has been a breach, what action does the Government propose to take in the matter? There have been other breaches of the ordinary understanding with regard to contracts. My hon. friend has referred to Kynochs, and he says that the official responsible for the contract being given to Kynochs has been in a somewhat rude way dismissed. That official has not been dismissed; he has been made a Privy Councillor; he has received one of the most distinguished honours the Crown can confer, and I do not for a moment suggest that he is not worthy of the honour. But I ask whether that is not to be taken rather as an approval than otherwise of his conduct. Are the Government going to approve or disapprove of the conduct of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in relation to contracts? If they are going to justify it they will approve it. If they do not justify it let this House not allow them to escape upon any assumed charges of personal corruption. Such charges are not made. I gather that the Colonial Secretary and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury are going to treat this question as involving a charge of personal corruption. Very well. If they do so, let them not forget the other charge, which we say is the only charge that we advance. Let them not forget that, if the facts are as stated, there has been a
430
deliberate breach of a rule which is absolutely essential to the purity and good administration of the English civil service, and we have a right to ask the Government whether they mean to approve of this irregularity. If they do, then what might be a very trivial breach, becomes a very serious constitutional matter. The dilemma before the Government is this: either there has or there has not been an irregularity. If there has been they must take some action in regard to it. They must, if it be only by way of a definite expression of opinion, take care that this irregularity is not to be construed as a precedent, and is not to be enlarged into a principle. We are entitled to have either an explicit defence or an explicit disapproval. I pass now to the Colonial Secretary's conduct in regard to Kynochs. The right lion. Gentleman will probably point out that in regard to the bulk of these companies he is not personally concerned in any way whatever, that he knew nothing about the character either of their business or of their profits, and perhaps that he did not know how many companies gather round his own table and under his own roof. Whatever he says I am prepared to accept. But while a public man cannot prevent his family forming themselves into companies to any extent they like, there is one thing he may and must do: he must be careful that he, at all events, does not aid their business purposes without disclosing exactly the relation in which he may stand towards them. Has the Colonial Secretary always done that? The famous cordite debate has boon referred to, in which the then Opposition reproached the Government with not having enough ammunition. The Colonial Secretary was quite entitled to get up as he did and say they ought to get more; he was entitled to say they should get more from Kynochs. But what he said was that he proposed to address the House because of the quite legitimate interest he had in Kynochs. His words wore that—
"He believed he was the first Member who had risen who had any kind of connection through his constituency with the manufacture of cordite. He did not think the cordite was actually manufactured in Birmingham, but the firm of Kynoch and Company, whose headquarters were at Aston, a suburb of Birmingham, were cordite manufacturers, and therefore he had the legitimate interest in the matter which, as representing

431
his constituents, he might be expected to have."
What would be the meaning which any listener to that declaration would naturally attach to it? He would, of course, take "legitimate interest" to mean that the right hon. Gentleman's interest was purely political, that it was legitimate, as being the interest of his constituents.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: So it was.
MR. ROBSON: I daresay it was, but it was also the interest of other than his constituents. I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman, as Member for West Birmingham, in the debate, was not acting upon a legitimate public interest, but when he puts forward the legitimate interest as being that of his constituents in a way which leads the House to suppose that there is no personal or family interest, but purely the interest of his constituents and the interest of the public, does not the right hon. Gentleman then refrain from informing the House, perhaps quite unintentionally, of a very important and material circumstance, namely, that the company he is recommending is a company in which his family is overwhelmingly interested? If the right hon. Gentleman does not think it necessary to inform the House of Commons of the real character of his interest in Kynochs, why should he think it necessary to inform his colleagues; and if he does not think it necessary to inform his colleagues, we have the Colonial Secretary putting up a standard of propriety which involves very grave danger indeed to the public service. He ought, on that occasion, to have been more candid with the House, and he has himself to thank if, after that declaration, when it is discovered that Kynochs now get these large contracts, and this "most favoured nation" treatment, people will suspect him of doing with his colleagues what he did with the House of Commons. Therefore, although I am certain that if the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the circumstances he would have made the declaration which I suggest he ought, yet he cannot very seriously or fairly assume an attitude of indignation at the inferences which he says are being so cruelly and unkindly drawn from his conduct. It is himself who has given the strongest ground for suspicion. I have put the question which lies before the House, and I have put it in order to
432
invite the House to keep the Colonial Secretary and his friends to the real point—namely, what is the rule to be observed, and has it been infringed. What concerns the House is the maintenance of that high standard of administrative purity of which the House and the country has always been so proud.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I approach the subject which has been under discussion in the House with a repugnance which, I think, the House will feel to be natural. I do not think I am unusually thin-skinned. I believe I am ready to take blows in a fair contest with a smiling face. I have often been hard hit with reference to my public actions, and I have never complained, but I have endeavoured I to give as good as I got. I have never complained of any attack made upon me in a fair field and in regard to my public I action; but this is not fair fighting, and I do think it hard that, after twenty five years of Parliamentary service, I should, in the full light of day, have to stand up here and explain to my colleagues on both sides of the House that I am not a thief or a scoundrel. It is all: very well to make unctuous repudiations, such as the hon. and learned Gentleman has just done, of any intention to attack my personal honour—but it is my personal honour that is in question. I hold this feeling so strongly that at one time I decided that when this matter came on; I would make no reply at all, that I would throw myself on the judgment and good feeling of the House. I have thought, however, that that course was not open to me, for reasons with which I need not trouble the House. I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible, and I shall confine myself to the facts and to the general aspect of the Amendment which has been put upon the Paper, about which not a word has been said by any speaker, but upon which the House is to be called upon to vote. Of course, the I Amendment is only a peg on which to hang this personal attack; but it has been S very badly drawn. It is a perfectly monstrous and absurd Amendment, and before hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House vote for it—and again I appeal to both sides—I hope they will allow me to point out to what they will be committed. First of all, I would explain the facts of the case. Now what has happened? Two or three

433
days before the election a certain attack was made upon me, it was continued throughout the election, and pressed even down to the present time. It took the form of a series of statements, alleged facts, many of which I absolutely deny to be true, and which have been repeated tonight—it took the form of a number of alleged facts as to certain companies with which my name was connected by the comments of the writers who dealt with the subject. At the time, I took no notice whatever of them—I had other work to do; and I must admit that they do not appear to have had much influence with my countrymen. Now, what was the general effect of these statements? The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down was careful to repeat again and again that he made no imputation upon my personal honour. That is what these papers said at intervals in the course of the conspiracy of slander to which they lent themselves; and it is true that nobody has made an accusation. It has been a conspiracy of insinuation—which is infinitely worse. Sir, I think that no one has the right to insinuate, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has just done, anything against the honour of a fellow-member, or, indeed, against the honour of any man, unless he is prepared to support it by a direct accusation. What is the result of the form in which these statements have appeared? Why, I do not suppose there are many Members of the House who took the trouble to read them; but let those who have read any of them say whether the suggestion which they were intended to convey was not that I had made an improper and corrupt use of my political and official position in order to benefit either myself or some members of my family. It is all very well for those who made these insinuations to deny the effect which they produced; but I could bring to the House, if I thought it desirable to mix myself up with all this mud, speech after speech made by hon. Members of this House, and by their supporters, in which I was directly charged, in consequence of these insinuations, with fattening upon the profits which I had made out of a war which I had provoked. After all, these, gentlemen may be relieved by the care that they have taken from legal responsibility, but they are not relieved from moral responsibility. The suggestions were intended to be equivalent to
434
charges. There was no accusation! When I had time to give to the matter, I had these papers—the worst of them, the-gutter press—submitted to the highest legal authorities from whom I could obtain any opinion. They have advised. I me that there is no passage which they can find—so carefully has all this business been conducted—that there is no passage which they can find which contains a definite charge upon which I can proceed. But the fact, however, remains that, although there is no charge which I am able to bring to the test of a judicial tribunal, there has yet been produced, not to any great extent in this country, but abroad, an impression that I have been guilty of conduct which would be disgraceful in any man, not to say in any Minister. Now that is the state of facts with which we have to deal. We have heard to-night a réchauffé—an imperfect and incomplete réchauffé—of those: attacks which appeared in certain journals, which must have been carefully prepared beforehand and been obtained with great-trouble and at considerable expense. For months past two gentlemen at least have been employed at Somerset House endeavouring to ferret out everything concerning my private affairs and those of my relations. As far as I myself am concerned they are welcome to all the knowledge they have obtained, and, indeed, if the hon and learned Gentleman had come to me beforehand I would have given him the particulars myself. But they chose to employ these people, and I say it is evident this work must have been done with a particular purpose. It was done in preparation for the General Election, for the time which was selected for the use of the information was about a couple of days before the General Election. In the réchauffé of the facts which has been presented to the House—again I beg the House to understand I do not admit the facts; some of them were facts, many of them were entirely untrue—in this réchauffé of the companies you have an account, more or less imaginative, of a number of companies. You would suppose that the transactions of these companies had something to do with the Amendment which is on the Paper, that if they had not anything to do with the Amendment at least they had something, to do with the Colonial Secretary or with my hon. friend and relative, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who it appears

435
I learn to my great regret, is as bad as his father. But will it not surprise hon. Gentlemen opposite to know that of all the companies that have been mentioned to-night—well, I do not know; I admit I have not read these papers myself—but, as far as I know, of all the companies that have been mentioned in these papers there are only two in which I am a shareholder. Is that not something in the matter? What is the charge? To this I call the attention of the hon. Gentlemen, especially to those whom I see on the Bench opposite, because they have been in the Government, and they may expect to be in a Government again. The attempt in this charge is to make a pubic man responsible, not for his own acts, but for the acts of his relations. I am interested as a shareholder in two of the companies which have been mentioned, and I will deal with them directly. My relations are interested, I have no doubt, although I know nothing about the alleged amount of their interest and details of that kind, but my relations are no doubt interested in the other companies which have been mentioned. And it so happens—fortunately, perhaps, as I think—that those attacks, those scandalous insinuations, have taken a form even more offensive and definite in the case of my relations than they have done in the case of myself, and it also happens that my relations, not being public men, the slander in their case is not protected by that rule of law which gives a great privilege to comments upon public men; and, accordingly, as those who have spoken well know, my relations and those who have been attacked either have taken or intend to take legal proceedings. So far as they are concerned, therefore, we shall see whether the abominable imputations, which may be protected by the privilege of this House, which are protected to a certain extent when they are merely spoken matter, will lie protected when they are in written form, and can be brought in that form before the Courts of law. I have always understood that, when a matter was sub judice and the subject of legal proceedings, it was the ordinary course of this House to refrain from comment. I, at any rate, am not going into the details of companies in which I myself am not a shareholder and in which the only connection I can be alleged to have is that I have got relations who are shareholders. My relations stand for them-
436
selves. I am perfectly certain none of them have done anything to forfeit the character I which they have won in their own districts among those who know them for honourable conduct. It is not my business and I am not going to defend them at the present moment. But now, what I is the motive? The House has listened, as I have said, to what I consider to be a fair second-hand abstract of statements which have appeared in those journals of which I can only speak with the greatest contempt, but what was the impression produced on the House by that long tirade, that dreary flow of potty malignity? Surely everybody must have felt, if the words mean anything at all, that those companies were all companies in which I was directly concerned. What is the motive for bringing in the investments of my relatives, over which I have no control, in which I really have no interest? The motive is to bring me into it, to make me responsible for a thing; over which in no conceivable circumstances can I be responsible. I ask the House, I ask, again, hon. Gentlemen opposite, do they know what are the investments of all their relations? I am not in that position. They do not tell me what they do. I know nothing whatever about it in the vast majority of cases; I do not meddle with their private affairs, and my own public affairs occupy I the whole of my time. Well, Sir, the motive is, and this is the effect of the Amendment—it is a serious business to vote for an Amendment without understanding what it means—the meaning of the Amendment, as explained by those who have supported it, is that a public man is to be held responsible not only for his own, but also for the investments of his relations. ["No, no"] Yes, it is so. It says "any interest, direct or indirect," and "indirect interest" has been explained to be a sort of interest which a. man has in the investments of his family and his friends. Now, Sir, I say that if that view is accepted there is no man who is not a pauper, and all of whose relations are not paupers, who can safely accept public office in this, country. I am not going to retaliate upon attacks which have been made upon me by introducing the names of other people. I think that the facts which have been stated, in so far as they are facts with regard to myself, do not constitute any charge, and accordingly if

437
similar facts can be stated against anybody else, they also do not constitute a charge—the attack is a personal one due to special circumstances—and I do not want to bring anyone else to share my burden. It is not a pleasant thing to be brought into an attack of this kind. But I can speak in general language, and say that if this Amendment and this rule which the House is now asked to sanction had been in operation only a few years ago some of the most distinguished, the most prominent, the most honoured names in our public life, are the names of public men who could never have accepted the the high public offices which they filled with so much distinction. I beg hon. Members on the other side of the House not to be led away by prejudice in this matter. Lot them consider what they arc doing. If they are now going to lay down that rule I bog them to consider that by so doing they will be casting blame on people who I am perfectly certain they would not wish to blame, and they will be putting difficulties in the way of public servants in the future which are really incalculable. Let me ask men of business on both sides of the House—how could it be otherwise? Why, according to this resolution no Minister, and no relation of a Minister, no near relation, and, I suppose, no near friend—beeause some people care more for their friends than for their relations—no one who is near and dear to a Minister must hold investments which involve any possible conflict between his personal interest and the interest and work of the Government to which he belongs.
MR. McKENNA: That is not the Amendment.
MR. J. CHAMBEELAIN: That is the Amendment.
MR. McKENNA: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is "declared."
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member did not draw the Amendment, and I do not think he is entitled to explain it. Now let us see. I say that is the principle of the Amendment, which is very badly drawn. There are distinctions which it is absolutely impossible to observe. For instance, the only persons who are proscribed are "firms and companies competing for contracts with the Crown." Hoes the hon. Member who drew- this Amendment, whoever ho may be, moan to say that a man who competes
438
for a contract is to be proscribed, and a man who gets a contract without competition is to be allowed to go free?["Oh, oh!"] It is absurd. [Opposition cheers.] Then, I understand it is agreed ["No."]
MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I bog the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. [Ministerial cries of "Order, order!"] Have patience for a minute. I only want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, and you will surely allow me to do that. If an officer of the Crown holds a Governmont appointment, has he aright to enter into any contract to supply a Government with stores?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The question is a very proper one, but it is absolutely irrelevant. I think there must be some misunderstanding as to what the argument is. My argument is that this principle, that the private interests of no Member in the position of a Minister shall conflict with his public interest as a Minister, must go much further than the I resolution provides. If the resolution I were passed to-night we should have to amend it to-morrow in the direction of extending it; and in the first place we should have to say that a man who deals with the Government without a contract is, of course, more properly put under supervision than the man who deals with the Government by open tender with some of his competitors. Surely that follows as a matter of course. But there is something much more important than this. For some reason unknown to me, the mover of the Amendment has omitted investments in land, in Consols, in foreign and colonial securities. Now surely it is a matter of common sense: that you could not exclude them on this principle. It is perfectly clear and conceivable that a person who has invested in land or in Consols or in foreign or colonial securities may have a greater personal interest in a direction opposed to the public interest than the man who happens: to have taken an insignificant contract with the Government. That is all I am pointing out. If you are to deal with; this thing you must deal with it widely and broadly, and you must exclude every; probable conflict of interest between the I pecuniary interest of the Minister and the public interest of the Crown. No one will deny that. Will hon. Members consider in these circumstances who in future

439
should be a Minister of the Grown? I have been trying to find out. I have gone through, the list of securities. You cannot invest in railways: railways come under the Amendment, because they may have a contract with the Crown. You cannot invest in shipping companies; you cannot invest in mines or in trust companies, because they have an investment in some other security which does contract with the Government. You cannot invest in a trading or manufacturing company, because there is nothing which is made in this country which is not an article required by the Crown in connection with one or other of its departments, and which may not, therefore, be a subject of contracts with them. Therefore, I wish again to call attention to the fact that by accepting the principle of this Amendment you will be practically prohibiting any one in future from being a member of a Government who has any money whatever outside the salary of his position.
AN HON. MEMBER: You should not give out the contracts.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think this is an occasion when at least the man who is making a defence against an attack of this kind might be allowed to proceed without interruption. The hon. Member, I understood, stated that I should not give out contracts. I have not given out any contracts—certainly no contracts connected with any one of the companies to which reference has been made. Now, I press on the House the fact that a regulation of this kind, very strictly limited as it is, is enough to prevent, I confidently believe, every single member of both front benches from again taking office. Remember, it goes further. You have not only to answer for yourselves. If it were possible, which I do not think it is, for anyone who has any investment whatever to answer for himself, it is not possible for him to answer for his relations. It is perfectly absurd and ridiculous; and yet if his relations, even without his knowledge, have an interest in any of these companies specified which come within the principle of the Amendment, he is to be held indirectly responsible. That is so, and I beg hon. Members who have any responsibility, who are dealing with this question on grounds of public interest and not on grounds of personal feeling, to consider what they are doing
440
what they will bring on themselves. If they commit themselves to this principle they cannot complain hereafter if their private affairs and those of their relations are examined in order to see whether they have any interest, however small, in contracts. What is the case with regard to these companies in which my relations are interested? My relations are all men of business. They are all men who have to make their own fortunes or obtain their own subsistence. I come of a family which boasts nothing of distinguished birth, or of inherited wealth; but who have a record—an unbroken record of nearly two centuries—of unstained commercial integrity and honour. It may be weakness, but I admit that an attack upon that affects me more than any other attack that could be made. Sir, my relations, as I say, have this character where they live. They arc largely engaged in business on their own account. They are sought for as directors and as the chairmen of companies because they are known not to be, to use a proverbial expression, "guinea-pigs"; never to go into a company without having a large proportionate interest of their own, and without giving the best of their time and labour to the work of the company. Really, Sir, I do not whether I ought to reply; and yet, when the honour of an absent man is in question, it hardly seems fair to let these abominable insinuations pass. It is insinuated that my brother, who has" a very high reputation for business capacity, raised the shares of a company, to the chairmanship of which he was invited, by some statement intended to convey to the shareholders that he had an influence, an improper influence—for it would have been improper if he had had it—which he would exercise on their behalf. The statement is absolutely false. Nothing of the kind was said; nothing of the kind was believed by any person present. The shares of that company, which was in a bad way, went up, in spite of the depressing account of the circumstances of the company by my brother, because people believed, whether rightly or wrongly, that when a man of my brother's capacity took the reins matters would improve. And they have improved. But not for the reasons which were given to this House—reasons purely imaginary, imputations of motives all imaginary, suggestions all dictated by a malice which really seems to me phenomenal.

441
About the companies in which my relations are engaged, I leave them to defend in themselves in the law courts from the special slanders directed against their name; and I say, with regard to them, that I cannot prevent, whatever anyone else may do, my relations from investing in anything they please. They never consult me I cannot control them; I should not have the slightest influence j upon them if I interfered; and I cannot prevent them from taking Government contracts, if they can get them in the j ordinary course of their business. But I this I can and do say, and I think it is all I that the House, in its fairness, will ask of any Minister—that whether as a private Member or as a Minister, never have I been asked to interfere, nor ever have I interfered, never have I been asked to use my influence, nor have I ever used it, in order to secure any pecuniary gain for myself or for my relatives in any improper way whatsoever. It may be said, "Why do you make that qualification?" Because it might be said that I sought office for myself, and that that was a pecuniary gain. I am obliged to be careful, because comment upon my language has become so severe. I mean, what I think the House understands, that I have never assisted anyone who has any connection, either as friend or relative, to obtain a contract or to gain any kind of advantage. Now, as to two cases—for there are only two cases—in which I am admittedly interested. I am a shareholder in two companies—the Colombo Commercial Company and the Birmingham Trust Company. Sir, I used to think that the extreme of virtue to which the Opposition desired to bring us was that rule which they themselves adopted, and by which they precluded any members of their Government—
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, their Cabinet.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, I thought it was their Government—or their Cabinet, then—from holding any private directorship. Well, I think it is a great mistake to make any rule of that kind, as the circumstances under which directorships are held are so different that you might prevent the country from having the advantage of the services of the most desirable men by making a general rule. Of course I can see, however, that there are arguments with
442
regard to many directorships which would lead to such a result with any practical, right-thinking man. But if that were all that were asked for, I, at any rate, am free from reproach. Almost immediately after I entered Parliament, I gave up my directorships, and I have never accepted the many offers of directorships which have been made to me since. Not at all because I think that there was any necessity for such a self-denying ordinance, but because I have preferred to have my time entirely at my own disposal, to be able to give it without reserve to my public work. But this Amendment goes a great deal further than the late Government. Are right hon. Gentlemen opposite prepared to accept it and say that in future, if they are called upon to form a Government, they will not allow any of their colleagues or their relations to hold shares? I am content to take it merely that they will themselves hold no shares which can possibly bring them into conflict with the work of the Government. Even in that respect—if this resolution is aimed at me, as I believe it to be—it does not touch me. Under the circumstances in which I stand I should not have to make any such declaration as is suggested in the Amendment before the House. Why, Sir, I admit that I am almost ashamed to have to talk about matters which most people like to keep private; but I am bound to do it, and I hope that the House will boar with me. When I went into public life I gave up private business altogether. I withdrew my capital, such as it was. I had to invest it somehow, but I have endeavoured in the whole course of my public life to be in the position in which Caesar's wife should have been—to give no cause even of suspicion to the most malicious of my opponents. I have done what I could, I defy anyone to do more, I to keep out of investments that seemed likely to bring me into relationship with the Government or public works. I will I take one wise. I was a considerable share holder in the Small Arms Company and in another company, Kynochs. Now, what I did I do? I sold out of both companies, and I sold out of them at a loss; not that I held or hold that there was any moral obligation on me to do so, or that anyone should follow my example—not at all—but because, knowing the kind of criticism to which I have been so frequently subjected during my public life,

443
I thought it desirable in the work which I had to do that I should not be hampered in the discharge of that work by having to reply to charges such as these. That was my reason. I am merely now stating the facts, and I can assure the House that I am not taking any credit for what I did. But what has been the result of my action? The result I will give to the House in a very few words. The result was that, when some charges of the kind I refer to were brought against me in the last session of the last Parliament, I was able to say that I had no interest, direct or indirect, in the supplies of ammunition or of warlike stores to the Government. Sir, that is perfectly true, so true at any rate that no possible exception can be taken to it when I repeat it. But, of course, when I spoke of "indirect interest" I did not mean the interest of my relations. Because, and it is part of my statement, my brother, as is well known, is chairman of Kynochs. That is a great company, carrying on a great business, employing thousands of hands, and doing, as I have said, an enormous trade, and the fact that my brother was chairman was one that could not be hid under a bushel. But by "direct or indirect'' I mean direct or indirect pecuniary interest. I have troubled the House with this statement because the accusation has been made, and it has been repeated to-day, that I was in connection with the two public companies to which I have referred. Sir, those statements as to my connection with the companies and us to I my interest in them are untrue. Now I come to another matter, which has reference to another company—the Colombo Commercial Company. I think somewhere about thirty years ago I obtained an interest in some tea and coffee concerns in Ceylon. I have long since ceased to have that interest. Both companies advised their shareholders that it would be in their interest that another company should be formed in order to act as commission agents for them, to pack their goods, deal with matters of exchange, and things of that kind. On these recommendations I joined the company on its formation twenty-three years ago. As it happens, the company has never had a quotation on the Stock Exchange, and accordingly if I wanted to get rid of my shares I had no means of doing it, but I did not want to get rid of them. I mean to keen them.
444
So far as I know, and as the report shows, the business of commission agents has been conducted by them ever since. I know nothing whatever of any change in the business of the company—nothing whatever—which, as I have said, I joined twenty-three years ago. When I saw this statement in the papers I telegraphed to Colombo, and I find that in an emergency, having to provide for Boer prisoners, without communicating with the Colonial Office, the authorities in Ceylon on their own responsibility gave an order to this company as well as to others to build a certain number of huts for the use of the Boer prisoners. As far as I understand about the business, the contract was not a large one. I can only speak from my understanding of the telegram which was sent to me. I imagine that this contract amounts to about £5,000. Now no accusation is, we are told, made against the Colonial Secretary, yet twice in this House already, and last by the hon. and learned Member, who is the very last person from whom I should expect such a blow, it has actually been suggested that the Colonial Minister sent the Boer prisoners to Ceylon in order that the company in which he was interested might reap a profit.
MR. ROBSON: I hope I may be allowed to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. It is quite a mistake. I made no reference whatever to the Boer prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman is evidently confusing the remarks of some other speaker with mine. I certainly made no allusion whatever to the sending of Boer prisoners to Ceylon.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I accept that statement of the hon. and learned Member with the greatest pleasure; I accept the repudiation; but there are others, perhaps not himself, who have made that insinuation against me. Now I ask the House to consider this case. Here am I solemnly arraigned before the High Court of Parliament and before the whole nation because twenty-three years ago I invested in a company of my interest in which I have been unable since to divest myself even if I had wished to do so. If I wanted, on principle, to protect myself, to choose a company which would not implicate me, or which would have no part whatever in any Government contract, I think I could not fairly have chosen a better company than this in

445
Ceylon. And it is on this flimsy foundation that these insinuations are based. Sir, then there is a company called the Birmingham Trust Company. It is one of the many companies of that description which exist in all our largo towns. It is formed to invest money chiefly in local concerns and securities generally. People like myself who have no time whatever to deal with their own private affairs find such a company a convenient means of investment. The chairman of the company is a highly respected Birmingham Alderman, who has a reputation for shrewdness and business capacity, in whom great confidence is felt. I was very glad to entrust a small sum to his care in the hope that he might invest it for me; but it never entered into my head that under any conceivable circumstances that could bring me any responsibility for the investments which that company might make without my knowledge. Part of the business of this company is that it should not disclose its investments, for to disclose its affairs would destroy the chances of profits. These trust companies are truly trust companies, because those who put their money into them have to trust the directors. I knew absolutely nothing as to the nature of a single investment that this company had made until I was told that they held an investment in "Tubes." If I had known that, I should have thought nothing about it. All I know about Tubes is that it was one of the companies established during the cycle boom to make tubes and cycles, and that it had come to great disaster. Well, since these imputations hare been put about I have made inquiries. I am told that the Birmingham Trust Company has £400,000 invested, and that the value of its investments a short time ago in Tubes was £1,500. It was put higher to-night. I do not know where the information comes from, but that is the information which I have received, and the explanation of the difference may be that, as in other cases that were quoted to-night, the nominal value of the shares may have been taken instead of their actual value. As an hon. friend of mine pointed out, these shares, which are nominally £1 shares, were some time ago quoted on the Birmingham Stock Exchange at 2s.! Now, will the House please follow this out 1 I hold, roughly, I do not know exactly, one-
446
twenty-fifth part of the capital of the-Birmingham Trust Company. It is a very small capital—£120,000 or something like that. Therefore my investment in Tubes is £60! Then let us-follow it a little further. Tubes, we are told, is a company which depends absolutely upon the Admiralty—a company the whole of whose business is done with the Admiralty. I am afraid to say what, but only a very small, percentage of its business is done with the Admiralty. "Tubes" still make, I believe, cycle tubes, but when the boom ceased it had to find some other way of getting rid of its manufactures, and it does make boiler tubes. But a large proportion of its-trade is with private contractors and not with the Government, and since my brother has taken over the business; the direct business with the Admiralty has. very considerably decreased. So that if, as was kindly suggested, my brother indicated to his shareholders that they might rely on his influence with the Government to get good orders, to raise Tubes to a position of prosperity, it appears that he has not carried out his beneficent intention, but that, on the contrary, he is so little satisfied with the transactions with the Government that he prefers to deal with private individuals. Again, let me ask the House, is it not hard to deal with such rubbish as this? Here, without my knowledge, involuntarily, by a casual accident which I could not possibly fore-I see, it appears that I, in investing in a neutral company, become interested to-the extent of £60 in a company which does perhaps 5 per cent.—I do not know what it is, but let us say 5 per cent.—of its business with a Government Department. Work it out arithmetically, and it will be found that my interest in Government contracts in this matter is-confined to a few pounds or a few shillings. And for that the House of Commons is called upon to pass a solemn resolution, which will no strike me, but which will be a self-denying ordinance for many members who do not, however, anticipate that result. It would not strike. I me. If it had been in operation, how could I have "declared" that, holding shares-in the Colombo Commercial Company, a company which acted as commission agent, for tea companies—how could I possibly-have known that that company would, have competed for contracts, or would

447
have been given a contract by a Government which acts for itself, and over which I have no control? How could I have "declared" the Birmingham Trust Company, about whose investments I knew nothing and could know nothing? No, Sir, I think that my opponents in this matter have gone altogether beyond what was necessary in the endeavour to injure me, and they have proceeded in a way which is calculated to lower the character of the House of Commons. I have said, I think, all that I consider necessary. If the object of those who entered into this conspiracy was to give pain, I must admit that they have succeeded. They have given pain to a great number of people, private individuals, who are not politicians, who are not public men, who have seen their private affairs, with comments of the most malicious character, dragged into the fierce light of public criticism, for no crime except that they happen to be related to the Colonial Secretary. They have not injured me. They have not injured my cause. I have never received so many kindly letters and assurances of support and sympathy as I have done during the last few weeks. But they have introduced into our public life methods of controversy which are unworthy, and have made it more difficult for honourable, sensitive men to serve the State.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am reluctant to trespass further upon the time of the House with personal matters, following closely upon a relative of my own. But I have been joined in these attacks, my name has been frequently mentioned in the course of the debate, and I think it is due to the House that I should make a statement—I hope a very brief statement—of my position as far as I am concerned in these matters. I have been attacked in two capacities. I am attacked because I hold shares in a company called Hoskins and Sons (Limited), and because I hold shares in other companies, not on my own account, but as a trustee for others. I may say, as regards all the other companies with which my name has been connected, that I have no personal interest of my own in them, and the shares which stand in my name are not my shares, but shares which I hold with other people as a trustee, and I hardly think that the House will expect
448
me to say much more about them. I do not think they will wish to lay it down—although the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs put both classes of shareholders on the same basis, and submitted to the House that it was as incompatible with the duty of a Minister of the Crown to hold shares as a trustee for others in one of these companies as to hold shares for himself—that a man is to be incapacitated from discharging the duties which he has promised to undertake as trustee because the major portion of his time is given up to the public service. I now come to the Hoskins Company The charge in regard to that company is twofold. I have been attacked for holding shares in that company at all, and, not content with that, the mover: seconder of this Amendment proceeded to allege that on the formation of that company I had deliberately taken steps evade the law on the subject of the. I interest of Members of Parliament in public companies doing business with the Government—that I had departed from the ordinary practice in the promotion of companies with the deliberate intention of being able to trade with the Government. In stating that charge against me. it was said by the hon. Member for Carnarvon that it was the almost universal practice to have seven people named in the formation of a company, and that for the purpose of evasion I had used tea names in connection with Hoskins Company. I might content myself with replying that I had nothing whatever to do with the formation of the company. But I go further, and, having inquired into the matter, I am informed that what the hon. Member stated as facts—as he stated every insinuation, every allegation, and every invention in the course of his speech was a fait—are not facts at all. I am told that the company was formed with seven shareholders—the vendor- of the company, the manager of the vendor, who is now the managing, director of the company, and five clerks in the office of the solicitor who dealt with the legal matters connected with the formation of the company, these clerks, being put in, as I believe is usual in such cases, for the convenience of dealing with documents which have to be signed and holding the necessary meetings which are preliminary to the formation of the company. Therefore the company was formed in the ordinary way with the number of.

449
seven, and the other shareholders came in later. That is my answer to the insinuation that I went out of my way to defeat the law, or to evade the intentions of Parliament. Now, about my holding shares in the company. I held these shares whilst I was at the Admiralty. A very small portion of the company's business was done with the Board of Admiralty, and it was no part of my duty as a member of the Admiralty Board to deal with this class of contracts. I never knew when ^tenders were invited. I never knew what firms were invited to tender. I never saw the tenders, and never knew when the contracts were given out, or to whom they were given out. Did the Leader of the Opposition make an?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did not speak openly. But what I said was that probably, being a Civil Lord, you had nothing to do with them. It was not in your Department.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is perfectly right. Being a Civil Lord, I had nothing whatever to do with these contracts. In the words of the right hon. Gentleman, it was not in my Department. I wish he had pointed out that fact to the hon. Members behind him who have made these accusations. These are the facts, as far as I am concerned. I have only one word more to say. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment accused me—I am dealing with what concerns myself—of having set a bad precedent. The hon. Gentleman opposite said—he made no charge—he only said that we had committed a deliberate breach of a rule essential to the purity of the Civil Service. What does he mean by that? What is the rule, hitherto maintained, which I have broken? I held a directorship while I was at the Admiralty. I have not been accused on that account to-night. Does the hon. Gentleman mean that there was a rule against directorships? He knows or ought to know—although it appears to be forgotten—that the late Government never laid down a rule that its members should not hold directorships, and I myself sat, until I joined this Government, on the board of a company with a member of the Front Bench opposite. I make no charge against him. But I say that at least hon. Members
450
opposite, before they accuse us of having broken down that high standard of public honour which they say they set, should know what their own standard really was. Do they mean that it was a deliberate breach of this essential rule that I should hold shares in a company which did business with the Admiralty as I myself was a member of the Board? If they mean that, this rule, which has not existed in the past, if it had existed would have excluded from Boards of Admiralty chosen from their own side of the House some of the most distinguished and most honoured naval administrators. I have made no new departure in the action which I have I taken; I have set no precedent; I have trodden on ground where the footsteps of my predecessors were before me; and, as I bring no charge against them, and I hold that no charge can be brought, so I feel that I have nothing to be ashamed of, and that nothing that I have done has brought discredit upon the position which I have had the honour to hold in this | House or in the Government.
MR. HALDANE: I have listened with close attention to this debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary said at the outset of his speech that it was with deep repugnance he entered upon the consideration of this matter, but I can assure him that it is at least with as deep a feeling of repugnance that I feel it my duty to take a part in this debate. I accept unreservedly—I have never had any doubt about it—the assurance of the absolute purity of motive which has actuated both the right hon. Gentleman and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I have known but little of this discussion. I never referred to contracts during the elections, nor were they discussed in my constituency. Neither did I ever make any charge against the Colonial Secretary, for whose ability, in many respects, I have high admiration. But when I listened to all that he said, and to all the hon. Member who has just spoken has said, I remain with the feeling that there is something yet which remains unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman said that the motion of my hon. friend was not fair fighting. He also said that he was not a thief nor a scoundrel, and ho spoke of personal attacks and investigations at

451
Somerset House. The right hon. Gentle man seems to me to misapprehend altogether the position of the attack—if he likes to call it so—made on him by hundreds and thousands of reasonable people in various parts of the country who have, no dislike to him. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that this matter can be disposed of by being reduced to a personal attack. I would reply in the language of the Spectator, which the other day in a leading article on this very topic said—
" But, in spite of these high qualities, he would lie very much better for a little more discretion and more prudence, and a little more ability to see that the world cannot be run on the dilemma: Either I am trustworthy or I am not. If I am worthy of trust, then it is shameful and malignant not to trust me all in all.' He forgets that we must think of other people besides himself, and of other generations besides the present."
As far as I am concerned, my case is just the case which has been put by the Spectator newspaper. I feel that these things produce a sense of unrest and uneasiness in the public mind. Remember how the man in the street looks upon the Government. He regards the Government as a national institution of which he is proud, and he looks upon it in the same light as he looks upon the judges of the land. Let us remember the case of other people besides those holding high office in the Government. If any judge of the land were to give judgment in a case in which he was interested to the extent to which the right hon. Gentleman is interested in these matters, his judgment, not from any implication of personal motive, but on high grounds of public policy, would be void. That has occurred over and over again. Take the case of civil servants. I am reluctant to quote once more the rule which the right hon. Gentleman himself laid with regard to civil servants and which was as follows—
"No officer shall be allowed to engage in commercial pursuits or purchase shares in any local land company, nor shall any officer make or continue an investment which may interest him privately in any private or public undertaking with which his public duty is connected. All officers shall confidentially consult the Government as regards the investment which may be reasonably open to doubt."
That may be an extremely difficult thing, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, for any Minister to carry out. I know how difficult it is to find investments, and I know how careful Ministers have to be,
452
but yet Ministers are under special obligations. I am perfectly certain—I accept his word most implicitly—that the right hon. Gentleman has neither the time nor the inclination to give attention to these matters. I recollect the debate which took place in this House on the holding of directorships, and I remember a plain speech delivered by an hon. Member on the Government side, the Member for the Whitby Division, an hon. Member of large business experience, in which he told the Government that the difficulty about these things was not what Ministers did, not the purity of their motive, but the misconstruction to which their action gave rise in the public mind. I, for one, feel that it is desirable in the highest degree that there should be no misconception. How does the matter stand? I do not for a moment attribute any sinister motive to the right hon. Gentleman or to anyone connected with him. But these are bad things to happen. I think the Government in the beginning of its career in 1895 had not been careful to maintain the high standard to which we are accustomed, and I trust the time will come when this House will go back on the standard which was laid down long ago. [An Hon. Member: What standard?] First of all the standard I have referred to in the case of judges and civil servants, and now I refer to the spirit of the Act of Parliament.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Why do you not refer to the standard set by the previous Government?
MR. HALDANE: The standard of I the previous Government was a very different standard from that of this I Government. I know a case in which a Minister on accepting office sold out investments at great sacrifice, which were as nothing in connection with his position in the Government, compared with those which have been spoken of to-night.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is relations you want to sell out.
MR. HALDANE: The right hon. Gentleman is giving the go-by to the real point.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, it is you.
MR. HALDANE: I am replying to the case put by the right hon. Gentleman,

453
and I am pointing out that these high standards were insisted on and acted up to.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, they were not.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Not in all cases.
MR. HALDANE: I suppose the right lion. Gentleman knows exactly the course adopted by all the members of the late Cabinet.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: By some of them.
MR. HALDANE: The right hon. Gentleman admits that some members of the late Cabinet set a high example.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I do not. I believe they all set a high standard, but what I say is that some of them—as to the others I know nothing—were in the same position that the hon. and learned Gentleman is now stigmatising.
MR. HALDANE: I am in this different position from the right hon. Gentleman: that I know one case where a Minister sold out investments far exceeding in value anything we are discussing to-night. What we have got to consider is the spirit of the rule which Parliament has laid down, It was in the last century that the Act regulating these things was passed, and it declared that no person occupying a public position should have an interest in Government contracts, and the exception to that was the case of incorporated companies. In those days incorporated companies were comparatively rare things. The companies such as we know to-day had not come into existence, and when we consider that incorporated companies in those days were rare, and when we consider what the principle of j the Act was, the rule is clearly laid down that it is undesirable that persons in j public positions should be materially concerned in transactions with the Government. We are to day face to face with things that have caused unrest and uneasiness in the country, and, further, I say we have not got to the end of them. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman, but if these things are allowed to go further, and if the example he sots is followed by others, we shall open a floodgate which we will never be able to close. The right hon. Gentleman asks, what is the charge
454
which we bring and what is the criticism we make? I say the criticism we make is that these things produce unrest and uneasiness in the public mind, and that they afford a bad example. [An Hon. Member: What things?] The things are the holding of shares, or being indirectly interested in lithe shares of companies which contract: With the Government. Take the case of Hoskins. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury says that he is a considerable shareholder in Hoskins; so are other members of his family. I say that these things show a want of attention. What is the real interest of the public in the matter? It is that the Ministry should, by their conduct, be free from all misconception or suspicion in the public I mind. I accept implicitly the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that no motive of a sinister kind entered his mind. But I feel certain—and those who think as I do will agree—that I would be wanting in a sense of duty if I did not in this House have the courage to put the facts in the course of this debate.
MR. McKENNA: May I correct the right hon. Gentleman on two matters of fact, before I proceed to say what I have got to say on the Amendment. One is that Tubes, Limited, was chiefly concerned with private contracts, and not with making water tubes for the Admiralty. The fact is that the business of the company is practically confined to making weldless tubes required for water tube boilers by the British Admiralty. That was stated by Mr. Arthur Chamberlain, the chairman of the company, in December, 1899. The second correction which I have to make is with reference to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, in an interruption to my hon. friend, as regards Kynochs' advertising the fact of their connection with the Colonial Secretary. I hold a copy of the letter of introduction used by travellers acting for Kynochs, which states—
"You will be interested to know that the chairman of' the company is Mr. Arthur Chamberlain, brother of the present Colonial Secretary."
I quite agree that that has not very much to do with the matter, but I only desire to correct two matters of fact which have erroneously been put before the House by the Colonial Secretary. The point which the right hon. Gentle-

455
men the Colonial Secretary and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury have persistently evaded is the effect on the official mind of any known or partially known connection between members of the Government and firms contracting with public departments. I should like to inform the House as to what the official mind is concerning companies in which Members of Parliament or members of the Government may be connected. In the course of the inquiry before the War Office Contracts Committee one of the subjects we had to discuss was a certain contract held by an hon. Member of this House acting on behalf of a shipping company. It appeals that this shipping company had for the first time taken from the War Office a contract for hay, and I think for coal. However, the hay contract is the one to which I am about to refer. This shipping company had never before had any other contract for dealing with hay, and its sole connection with hay was in supplying it to the War Office. The Director of Army Contracts was questioned as to how he gave a contract for hay to a shipping company, and the reply of Mr. Major was that in view of Mr. Houston's position in the country, and he being a Member of the House of Commons, they had a very strong guarantee in these circumstances that they would get only first-class quality hay. I quite agree. I believe that any hon. Member connected with the Government would do his work quite as well as any contractor outside the House, but the point to remember is that officials are inclined to give preference to companies which have behind them the support of Members of this House, and if officials are inclined to that view à fortiori it would be strengthened when a company has the support of a member of the Government. I would wish for one moment that this subject were treated as if there were no question of the Colonial Secretary concerned. I wish the House would look at what happened before the War Office Contracts Committee, and draw with me the moral which we must draw from that inquiry what did we find on that Committee? We found that a particular firm had received a larger share of the orders for cordite than any other firm: the officials were examined as to why they had shown this preference to Kynoch and Co. It was not a small matter The House must remember that
456
the cordite contract given to Kynoch and Co. averaged £100,000 a year for five and a half years, and when we look at the prices charged by them and compare them with the prices charged by other firms, it will be seen that the profits could not have, been less than many thousands a year on those contracts. The question arises, why did the officials select Kynochs' and Co. for this preferential treatment? The Committee in the end found, and I think very properly found, that in all the officials had done they had only been actuated by good motives in the public interest. There was not a shadow of a suggestion cast on the officials, and, therefore, we also exonerated those who served this company from any suggestion of corrupting' the officials. There was no suggestion. But what were the facts? The official witnesses gave their explanation of tin's preference. They stated as reasons, the superiority of Kynochs' deliveries, and that they were a capable and efficient firm. They gave every conceivable ground for the superiority of Kynochs as against other firms. I believe the officials gave that evidence absolutely honestly, and that they believed it to be true. But what were the facts disclosed in subsequent cross-examination? It was shown that the officials were wrong on every point: that Kynochs had not been quicker, but had been slower in their delivery, and that they had a greater proportion of rejections. How are we to reconcile the official statements with the facts ultimately proved, and how are we to believe in the incorruptibility of the officials in the face of the difficulty of reconciling their explanation with the facts? The fact is that when officials have to deal with companies which have the guarantee of great names behind them their judgment and independence arc paralysed. I know one example in which I can assure the House the officials could not have being taken the trouble to make the most elementary inquiry into the facts concerning a particular company. I have details that were elicited as the truth about Kynochs was elicited, as the result of returns made by the Admiralty and the war office we have Had fats disclosed to us which ought to have been known to the officials if they had taken the trouble to inquire. But it is idle to dispute the fact—it is within the knowledge of everyone—that officials, like other persons, are human beings, they do not exercise the same

457
caution, and they allow their judgment to be paralysed when they are dealing with persons who are their official superiors, or who are intimately associated with their official superiors, What has been the connection of the Colonial Secretary with Kynoch and Co? His connection, as he has stated, is, as far as holding shares is concerned, nil.In the whole course of the inquiry before the Contracts Committee there was no shadow of a suggestion of corruption made against the Colonial Secretary, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or any other member of his family. That was never suggested, and any hon. Member can read the evidence and satisfy himself on that point. What was his connection with Kynochs? His public connection was that unfortunate speech of his in 1895. That speech has been already twice referred to, but I wish to call the attention of the House to one point in connection with it, and to emphasise the disastrous effect it must have had. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had a legitimate interest in the matter—that is in the cordite contract—which, as representing his constituents, he might be expected to have. The interest of his constituents in relation to cordite was absolutely nil, because Kynochs never manufactured one ounce of cordite either in Birmingham or in the neighbourhood of Birmingham. One factory was in Arklow, in Ireland, and the other was on the Thames. The only interest that Kynochs had for the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman was the interest of the shareholders of Kynochs. It was known to the officials of the War Office that Kynochs were not manufacturing any cordite in Birmingham, and that the legitimate interest of the right hon. Gentleman was none other than his interest in the shareholders of that company. I have seen a list of the shareholders of that company, and I am well within the mark when I say that of all the shareholders in Birmingham and its neighbourhood by far the largest were the right hon. Gentleman's own relatives. Outside Birmingham the shareholders were drawn from all over the country. The effect of that speech on the official mind must have boon to create the impression that the right hon. Gentleman wished to see the company prospering. It was a most unfortunate speech, and although it was referred to twice before the right hon.
458
Gentleman spoke, he did not mention it in his reply, and so far as that is concerned I think his reply as regards Kynochs is altogether unsatisfactory. When the right hon. Gentleman sanctioned the Minute forbidding officials in Ceylon to invest in land or other companies which might conflict with their public duties, he did not charge them with corruption or improper conduct. It was the duty of the Colonial Office to see that they did not use their power improperly. Now it is the duty of the House of Commons, to exorcise very similar control over Ministers of the Crown, and to say that they must not do anything which might interfere with their public duties. It is in that spirit and that spirit alone that I will support the Amendment, which to my mind caries out fully the object we desire. As to the right hon. Gentleman's, mere verbal criticism of the Amendment., he can only have been induced to make it by the fact that he had not read the Amendment. All that the Amendment does is to declare that every member of the Government should on taking office publicly declare to Her Majesty what investments he has, and if any of the investments, are in companies on the contractors list of any public department. As to the question of the right hon. Gentleman's family being concerned, when it pleases him he understands "indirect" not to include his relations What the House is asked to do is to establish a principle which nobody will deny would be advantageous to the service of the country. Forgetting these unfortunate incidents, and the supposed, attack on the Colonial Secretary, I hope the House will accept the Amendment.
MAJOR RASCH: As a member of the Contracts Committee, and as being in a humble way responsible for its appointment, will the House permit mo to briefly state my personal experience with reference to it, in opposition to the Amendment. I attended, I think, nearly every meeting of the Contracts Committee, and endeavoured, as far as my limited intelligence would permit, to get a full hold of the matter. I heard the evidence of Mr. Arthur Chamberlain and his examination and cross-examination, and the impression left upon my mind was that the relations between the War-

459
Office and Kynoch and Co. resembled a contest between a swordfish and a whale. The officials of the War Office, who had not much business experience, were set against some of the sharpest business heads in the Midland Counties, and the result was undoubtedly that Kynochs got the lion's share, or a very large share of those contracts, although they were late in their deliveries, sometimes turned out indifferent stuff, and had a larger percentage of rejections than any other of the explosives companies. Who was to blame for that? Certainly not Mr. Arthur Chamberlain. He did the best he could for his company, and he was perfectly right in doing so. Still less the Colonial Secretary or his family, regarding whom we had not a shred or a shadow of evidence to implicate them directly or indirectly in any conceivable way. You must look elsewhere if you want to find who are responsible. I think it is not very difficult. I think if we go to Pall Mall we will find what we are looking for pretty easily. From my own personal experience in the matter I believe it is solely due to the stupidity, fatuity, and want of business training at the War Office that these contracts were made. So long as the country allows the War Office to continue as it is, so long will contracts be made which will be of no use to the country, and which will enable contractors to take money out of the pockets of the taxpayers.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies treated this matter as if were starting some new idea, imposing some new principle, and as if this resolution was making a new departure altogether in the great question—the great and delicate and difficult question—of the proper relations that ought to subsist between the public duties and the private interests of public officials. But I think I shall be able to show before I sit down that, on the contrary, the Amendment now before the House merely puts in a more explicit and precise form that which has always been the ideal and conception of those relations in our public service. I must disown any intention whatever to bring those wild accusations against the Colonial Secretary which he so naturally repelled. If anyone was seeking to make out, as he said, that the right hon. Gentleman was a scoundrel and a thief, I can
460
well understand that he showed indignation, which I think has now carried him out of this Chamber altogether. [Mr. Chamberlain re-entered the House.] I was saying that there was nothing in this Amendment which imputes to the right hon. Gentleman those charges which he naturally repelled with so much indignation. But in supporting this Amendment those who act with me on this side of the House are merely repeating to-night a similar line of action to that they took in 1899 and again last session. On those two occasions we called attention to the largo number of directorships held by members of the Government, and of proposed certain words for the acceptance of the House condemning the holding of directorships by members of the Cabinet. We were received then with exactly the same display of indignation we have met with to-night. We were assured they were all men of high honour, and that our action was an imputation on their honour. We disowned any such intention, but we argued to the best of our ability that the holding of directorships was an indication that the public officials who held them were subject to certain influences which might in some cases lead them away from the straight path of public duty, and that if they were subject to that suspicion, if they did not remove the appearance of evil by divesting themselves of their directorships, harm would be done to the public interest. I remember that an hon. Member on that side of the House brought forward a notable instance of a great man and a very strong man, quite as strong a man, I think, as the Colonial Secretary himself—I mean Prince Bismarck—who not only held a very strong opinion as to any official occupying the position of director of a public company, but also as to his haying any investment of his private money which would lead to his having an interest in any way different to that which the public welfare suggested. That is the line we took, and we were received with indignation. But if we were wrong last year in objecting to members of the Government holding directorships, why has Lord Selborne given up his directorship of the P. and O. Company? Why has the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade declared, with a little appearance of self-satisfaction, as if he thought—and he was right in think

461
ing—that it was right that he has given up, all the directorships he held? If that was a right thing to do why did he not do it last year when attention was called to it?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Gerald Balfour,): I did not do it last year because I held a different office. The office I hold now is specially connected with companies, and it was as holding that office that I was attacked by Lord Rosebery in the House of Lords.
SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am only sorry that the right hon. Gentleman's action was taken on narrower grounds than I have been given to understand. Now, Sir, coming down to this question of an interest in a contracting firm. Is that any new doctrine? There is nothing more hallowed in this House than the principle that no Member of the House is to vote if he has become a contractor to any Government Department for the supply of anything required for the public service. I remember two applications of that rule which occur to mo, the very insignificance of which shows how fastidious the House has been in this matter. I remember one case was that of Mr. Bisley, one of the most honoured men in Manchester, who was elected as Member for Manchester. After he was elected it was discovered by himself, as well as by others, to his great surprise, that be was interested and had a share in some pottery works which supplied some kind of article to the Navy. Another case was that of a Scotch Member who was a large landowner in the island of Islay, and was elected for a constituency in Scotland. He could not take his seat because, not for pecuniary gain, but for the public advantage of Islay he had a small share in a small steamer which contracted with the Post Office to take the mails to Islay. I quote these cases to show how particular and fastidious the House of Commons and the law have always been in this matter, When it became known at the War Office that the right hon. Gentleman, either through himself or through his family, was so widely connected with such a large number of firms, all coming under the category of trading firms, I think it was very natural that great attention should be attached to it. The right hon. Gentleman complains of his relatives being
462
brought into the matter, and especially that his brothers should be held up as. guilty persons because they hold interests, in firms which contract with departments-of the Government. The Colonial Secretary is himself largely to blame in that respect, because he made that strong, declaration in the House that he was "neither directly nor indirectly" concerned in any firms supplying materials for the public service. The word "indirectly" is obviously capable of different interpretations——
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The statement to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was accompanied immediately afterwards with an admission that my brother was chairman of Kynochs, which was an open secret. Accordingly no one who heard me then could possibly have mistaken "indirectly interested" to mean that none of my relatives were interested.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That precisely accords with my view of it, because I do think it would be carrying, matters to the pitch of absurdity to say that a man is to be responsible for the investments and conduct of his brother. But, where you have members of your own household directly benefiting, I think the case may reasonably be brought under the word "indirectly" The right hon. Gentleman was somewhat inconsistent in two parts of his speech, because he claimed that application of the word "indirectly" when he was criticising our Amendment, but repudiated it when he was speaking of his own statement. The object of the Amendment, and what the object of all right-minded men who have the public interest in view ought to be, could not be better expressed than it is by a passage in the Economist of Saturday last. It is there said—
"If a Minister happens to be connected directly or indirectly with any company whose dividends arise mainly or largely from Government contracts which lie can in any way influence, the country expects him to sever his connection with such companies before taking office."
That is a very exact and correct statement.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That does-not affect either of us.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThen the right hon. Gentleman has at least the satisfaction of knowing that he has been the occasion of this question.

463
being raised. If he can make out with greater clearness than he has yet been able to do that he is neither directly nor indirectly concerned in any company whose dividend mainly or largely arises from Government contracts, I congratulate him.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I said so.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But the country expects any man in this position to sever his connection with those companies. The Amendment, however, is not that he should sever his connection, but that he should declare his interest on taking office. That contains clearly the gist of what it is sought to enforce, and I think that the excitement that has existed in the public mind at the discovery that certain persons engaged in the public offices are so closely connected with supplying firms shows how deeply the country feels on this matter, and how necessary it is for us to maintain the old rules of perfect impartiality and freedom from suspicion. I will not say from corruption, but from the undue influence that might arise. Why, the right hon. Gentleman himself was indignant against strong rules of this sort being applied in cases where the holding was small or that some other qualifying fact existed, but what did he say to Sir Hercules Robinson? He held that the fact that he had once held shares was a disqualification for office in a region of the world where connection with a company might affect his impartiality.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I believe the right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what I said. I have not referred to the matter since it occurred, but my belief is that my reference to Sir Hercules Robinson related solely to his chairmanship of one great public company and to his directorship of another.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I looked at the right hon. Gentleman's words not long ago, and I think I have not inaccurately represented him. The right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity of explaining his connection with all these companies.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: With two.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I give him the benefit of that. He has had the opportunity of meeting those who have made violent attacks upon him—none of whom, I think, are in this
464
House—and I think we may be left to record our strong opinion that the dangers we see in this matter ought to be strictly avoided in future.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has thought it judicious to minimise as far as in his power lay the attacks which have been made upon my right hon. friend. Why? Because my right hon. friend, with the sympathy, I believe, of the other side of the House, with the absolute approval of this side of the House, and with the approval, I believe, of the whole country when they read the debate tomorrow, will have conclusive proved that this debate, so far as it was an. attack upon himself, is an attack without the shadow of a foundation, animated by motives on which it is not now necessary to dwell. How vain is the attempt of the right hon. Gentleman to persuade us at this time of day—or night—that he and his friends are fighting for some abstract principle of purity which shall henceforth regulate the conduct of Governments and of Ministries I suppose it was in support of this abstract doctrine that for months past there have been paid gentlemen searching the records of Somerset House, searching out all the private investments of my right hon. friend and of my hon. friend near me (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), and of all their relations—their uncles, sisters, cousins, and aunts. It was in the interest, I suppose, of this abstract principle of purity that the constituencies have been flooded with literature, whose malignity was only equalled by the ingenuity with, which it was so contrived as to avoid the direct consequences of an action for libel. It was in the interests of this great cause he would have us believe that the hon. Gentleman has brought forward this motion to-night and that his embattled forces have been arrayed for the Division. Nothing of the sort. We all know how flimsy is the pretext. It is not in the interests of purity, but it is an attack upon one man who has made his power felt through the country, and whom hon. Gentlemen opposite honour with their special aversion. Surely labour might have been better bestowed than in these underground burrowings. Why, Sir, if half the trouble and expenditure had been devoted to elucidating in the Record Office some obscure point

465
of history, we should have had some result at all events. The cause of history would have gained. But the sole purpose to which these gentlemen devoted their time was to get a case against one man to whom they object. They have failed in the country. Their humiliation has been as great to-night, when they are brought face to face with the man whom they have so pitilessly traduced. The right hon. Gentleman quoted as an exponent of his view a sentence from the Economist, in which the writer lays down that no Minister ought to hold investments of which the interest is mainly or largely produced by the results of Government contracts. That may be a very good principle. It is not a principle which has been traversed by my right hon. friend; it is not a principle which the right hon. Gentleman can pretend has been traversed by my right hon. friend. Two companies, and two companies only, of those which have been mentioned tonight has he got shares in. One of them is the Ceylon Company, in which he invested twenty-three years ago. Is it pretended that the dividend of that company has, during these twenty-three years, or during the last year, been "mainly or largely produced by Government contracts"? The other company is a trust company. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the investors in trust companies are bound to investigate the circumstances, if they can discover them, of the subsidiary companies in which the trust company invests? They could not if they wished, considering that the whole object of a trust company is that every investor should escape the labour which he may not have time or opportunity to carry out. Is it reasonable to pretend that a Member of the Government, or of the House, or anyone else is impelled to make himself sponsor, not merely for the general conduct of that trust company, but the conduct of over subsidiary company in which that trust money is invested? There remains the case of my hon. friend near me. Is the company in which he has been charged with having improperly invested one in which the dividends are "mainly or largely drawn from Government contracts?" He informs me that the business done with the Government amounts to 2 per cent, only of the whole business of the company. Is that a case of "mainly or largely"? On
466
the right hon. Gentleman's own principles I think he ought to have made a fuller amende to my right hon. friend for the attacks which to-night, on many previous nights, through many weeks, almost through months, he has been made the object of. What is the pretended motive of all these attacks? It is that an English Minister should be above suspicion; that no suggestion should ever occur to foreigners in general, and to the Boer prisoners in particular, that a member of the Government can directly or indirectly be connected with a Government contract. What Boer prisoner in Ceylon would ever have heard of the investment in the Ceylon Company if it had not been for the strenuous, persistent, and the costly efforts of the hon. Member opposite and his friends? To what foreign Government or nation would it have occurred that a British Minister had invested his money otherwise than he should have done, if this stream of calumny had not been poured upon him? These are the gentlemen who foul their own nests in the interest of domestic cleanliness. I confess, Sir, that it is with deep regret that I find the House of Commons engaged in these personalities. I say nothing of the Amendment which we had earlier in the evening directed against throe or four members of Her Majesty's Government. That is a small matter which need not be considered. In any case, it does not attack personal character-. It does not attack private character. It was reserved for the Amendment which we are now discussing to give occasion—in faint colours indeed, and in relatively doubtful and waving outline—to repeat in this House that lurid picture. which has been presented to half the constituences of the kingdom. I do not know, on the principles of the hon. Member, whom he regards as eligible as a Member of the Government. No Member of the house of Cecil, of course; but, putting them aside, I suppose that nobody who has any relations, and nobody who has any money himself to invest, and nobody who has any relations who have any money to invest, and nobody who inspires sufficient confidence to be made a trustee, is eligible. Wanted, a man to serve her Majesty, with no money, no relations, and inspiring no general confidence I do not think, Sir, that by that means the great traditions of

467
the purity of English public life have been built up. I so dislike all this kind of recrimination that refrain from giving, as I could give, cases of men of the highest honour who have served Her Majesty recently—gentlemen sitting opposite—who are as open to the attack on this matter as is my right lion, friend. [Cheers, and cries of "Name."] If lam challenged I will give the names now; if not, I am prepared to give them in private to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. But I would rather not. I think we have had enough of dragging these perfectly innocent particulars of private life into public notice; of holding them up as if they were worthy of public reprobation. Sir, they arc not worthy of public reprobation. Although every one who heard my right hon. friend must feel, as I feel, from his speech how great is the pain necessarily inflicted by this kind of attack, even upon those most hardened to the wounds of public conflict, yet I can assure him that I believe the general result has been to excite in his behalf an amount of sympathetic appreciation which, perhaps, even his great services would hardly have elicited had he not been made the subject of those malevolent and venomous attacks. And, though I do not suppose for one moment that that will otter a complete compensation for all that he has gone through, yet it cannot be wholly indifferent to him that, as I believe, he has never stood higher in the general opinion of his countrymen than he does at this moment.
MR. JOHN BURNS: History records of the Spanish nobility that when they were arguing amongst themselves as to the antiquity of their patents of nobility, the Moors—[Interruption]—I repeat it, because the younger scions of the aristocracy do not know history. Mr. Speaker, history records that when the Spanish nobility were discussing the antiquity of their patents of nobility, the Moors, their enemies, were breaking down towns, entering citadels, and subjugating the Spanish Army. There is a parallel to what happened to Spain in her decadence in the proceedings of the British House of Commons this evening. When this old country is at war with a foreign enemy, when perhaps we should have been engaged in re-organising our Army,
468
seeing to the Navy, and raising taxes to meet our external foes, for eight hours the British House of Commons has been discussing what proportion of one family should dominate unduly the Government of the country; and for the last six hours we have been discussing whether or not what is good for the Civil Service of the country shall or shall not be good for a Minister of the State. Now I regret that this discussion should be necessary. [Interruption and cries of "Divide!"] There is one thing the House of Commons will do, through its Speaker, and that is to get order for a Member to speak. I regret that this debate should have been necessary, but as long as the public take a genuine interest in the honour of this House, as they do—[Interruption]—do you deny it?—such debate is necessary. What differentiates the British Parliament from any other parliaments in the opinion of hon. Members opposite 'I It is because it does not "Panama" as the French Parliament has occasionally done. It does not do what "Tammany" has done in America, and it has not yet been under the influence of "the chosen people," of capitalist rings and other monopolists that are accustomed to reign in the representative institutions in other parts of the world. It is because you think this House is superior to many other Parliaments that you have listened for eight hours to questions which must be discussed, and which the people of this country arc demanding shall be settled on a permanent and just and fair basis. Such a basis demands that no Member shall hold shares in a firm that contracts for the Government. I am not going to be switched off the path by the speech of the Colonial Secretary. I am not going to be diverted from my duty as a Member of Parliament by the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury, dictated less by an appreciation of the facts than by a desire for political reasons to shield a colleague who has not shown the discretion in his high office which he should. The first Lord of the Treasury, who is esteemed in the humblest street of my own parish, in every workshop in Great Britain and Ireland, and in every pit, mine, and factory, who has endeared himself to the House, and to all of us—has found it possible to serve the State and yet not to make ammunition. He has shown the world that it is

469
possible for a Scottish gentleman and an Englishman of honour to "scorn delights and live laborious days," and yet have no commercial entanglements. And if that can he done by him and his distinguished uncle, that is precedent enough for me. Now what does the Colonial Secretary say after "twenty-rive years of faithful services"—although other men can say the same? He says he is asked to defend himself. I have to defend myself every hour of the day from similar suggestions, and I do not regard it as repugnant to my nature, or hostile to my disposition. Why? None of my relations are Government contractors, and my answer is ready and to the point. Unlike the Colonial Secretary, I have not two centuries of commercial integrity at the back of my family. I have better than that. All my relations avoid any charges of this kind by remaining poor, and I am not to be diverted from my duty by spuriously indignant statements of that sort. It is no good for Ministers in these days when Manchester is dismissing Mayors, when Salford is dismissing councillors, and when London vestries are excluding men because they give one of their visiting cards to a sanitary inspector—for a man to come down to this House, with a tear in his throat, and simply as an answer to charges of fact talk about his integrity. What are the facts? The Colonial Secretary says that this Amendment is only a peg on which to hang a personal attack upon himself. I do not believe the Colonial Secretary is justified in making that statement. I put aside any suggestion that I am going to make a personal attack upon the Colonial Secretary. When I do that he will remember it. But I will come to the facts. Who is this high toned, sensitive, delicate organism that complains of criticism? What was he engaged in doing before the election? He said he took no notice of these charges because he was otherwise engaged. How engaged? I leave that to him and to the candidates against whom accusations of treason and dishonourable motives and acts, and so forth, were directed. His stilted suggestion about a conspiracy of slander and insinuation does not influence me, and will not prevail with the British public, and will not appeal to thorn to-morrow morning. What will appeal to them
470
is the simple fact that a Colonial Secretary has owned up to having shares in two companies. One is enough, for, like Mercutio, we can say, "Tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church door; but 'tis enough, twill serve. "For his son, personally, there is no one for whom I have a greater regard I have always expressed it, and I think we all like him. His son owns up to having at least one interest in one share. [Laughter.] I am not used to Throgmorton Street, so you will pardon me if I use a wrong expression. I could have sold the honour of this House by taking a place in Throgmorton Street, but I prefer to be a Member of Parliament and not a guinea-pig. But the hon. Gentleman does own up to be in some company that contracts for the Government. It is enough that the public should know that between the right hon. the Colonial Secretary, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and their family there is a substantial sum at stake, between £300,000 and £400,000. My answer to the Colonial. Secretary is this: We only ask him to do what he asked the London County Council to do years ago, and you can judge the Colonial Secretary by his own utterances. Five years ago, in order to prevent corruption, the London County Council was driven to follow the example of Birmingham, and commenced a Works Department. But when that was done, and a slight irregularity occurred in which no. member was implicated, what did the Colonial Secretary say to the London County Council? He said that the result of a policy of that kind was certain in time to lead to jobbery, and that gigantic-works would not be removed from the personal supervision of responsible contractors without jobbery resulting. And he wound up by saying that the County Council was approaching to Tammany, and making baseless insinuations of that sort. Now what was good enough for the County Council is good enough for Birmingham. If the Colonial Minister and his family put themselves in the position they have done they cannot escape criticism, but must expect it. [Cries of "Divide."] I am not going to divide until I have concluded my pertinent observations. The Colonial Secretary says that this Amendment would exclude the best men from public life. What happened with his own colleague, Lord Lansdowne, when he became Minister of

471
War? Like the gentleman he is, he I said—
"As Minister of War I shall be brought into; contact with Government contracts. I am a big shareholder in the Elswick Works at Newcastle, which have large, contracts with the Government."
He not only resigned his position as director, hut, to his credit, he sold out every single share he had in the Elswick Company. That transaction did not deprive the country of his services. But let us go a bit further. [Cries of "Divide."] If the hon. Member who cries "Divide" wishes to go home, the Serjeant-at-Arms will clear a passage for him at once. Lord Selborne, who is now the First Lord of the Admiralty, I was a director of the P. and 0. Company, which takes £300,000 to £400,000 in mail subsidies and for transport of troops per annum. Immediately he became First Lord of the Admiralty he could see that his interest as a shareholder and director would conflict with the just discharge of his duties as First Lord of the Admiralty, and he resigned. But, better than all, the new President of the Board of Trade on assuming office sold out all interest in the companies with which he was connected, because his office at the Board of Trade brought him in contact with those companies.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have sold out no shares of a company with which I was connected. I resigned a directorship on the ground that the Board of Trade is directly connected with the company.
MR. JOHN BURNS: The right hon. Gentleman does not diminish the force of my point; it is only one of degree. He has resigned his directorship, and the very motive that induced him to do so is the motive which should induce the new-Secretary to the Treasury to sell his shares in his company. The Colonial Secretary said that if the Amendment were adopted it would exclude men from public life who hold Consols. If he read the Standing Orders he would find that they do not. What do the Standing Orders say? An hon. Member is not entitled to vote on a question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, not held in common with the rest of the subjects of the Crown. Consols can be held in common, as they are sold and bought in the open market, as can
472
also shares in railway, steamship, and other companies. And when I am told that this would apply to a number of distinguished men, my answer is that we need not fear, because the Colonial Secretary informed us with portentous significance that the British Empire would go on after he died. I want it to go on well and cleanly and honourably, and it can only go on on these lines as long as you prevent Ministers from dabbling in companies. I will show the House how this matter affects the public life of this country. The Colonial Secretary does not know it, but seventeen years ago I was a servant of his on the banks of the Niger. He had a very substantial interest in the Royal Niger Company. I did not happen to be in the House when the Bill compensating the Niger Company went through in about half an hour, but had I been in the House I probably would not have criticised what I still think, and what every Liverpool merchant thinks, was the extravagant compensation given. But if the relations of employer and. employee, between the right hon. Gentleman and myself, had been different, then I would have criticised the Bill, and would have shown that even in that case he got more than his interest was worth. In these matters I care not whether the interest lie £60 or £500 or £50,000. The fact is that the Colonial Secretary has shares in two companies-one having indirect, the other direct relations with the Government—is, to my mind, a reason why this Amendment should be supported [Interruption.] You will not accept my view because I am only a layman, but I will give the Lord Advocate's view, which he stated on the 8th May as follows—
"There may he certain directorships which would involve a conflict of interest, and if there were such directorships I am certain nobody on this Government Bench would continue to hold them. Of course no Minister would continue to hold a directorship which brought him into contact with departments of the Crown dealing with Government contracts."
These two companies have brought the Colonial Secretary and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury into contact with Government departments, and on the showing of the Lord Advocate he ought either to abandon his shares or resign his office. I wish now to refer to the speech made by the hon. and. gallant Gentleman the Member for the

473
Chelmsford Division of Essex. He put I the case in a nutshell with regard to Kynochs. He said that they were late in their deliveries, that they had many rejections, that their prices were high and their ammunition was bad; and instead of turning his criticism to the Colonial Secretary and asking this House to safeguard the taxpayers of the country, he poured it forth on Pall Mall. Pall Mall is responsible for much, but not for the delinquencies of the Colonial Secretary. I think you will never get clerks of works, Government inspectors, and engineers who superintend Government work to do their duty fairly and impartially when firms who do work for the Government have Ministers of the Crown as directors. Why do I say that? The contracts Committee states that the law should be strengthened against officials who do not do their duty. But it also says that it is undesirable for Members of Parliament; to negotiate with departmental officials, and what is more—and it is a sinister suggestion—that when firms are asked to revise their tenders all the firms tendering should be given an equal opportunity. All these safeguards were urged against a firm in which the Colonial Secretary's family have largo holdings of shares. It is perfectly true that in former days the House appears to have been more strict than it is now, when directors and shareholders vote for private Bills affecting their companies. What is the effect of this laxity? I will tell the first Lord of the Treasury. He spoke to the Primrose League the other night, and he said that the League had to fight against the growing apathy and increasing indifference of the people of this country. What is the reason of that apathy and indifference? He who runs may read. A belief is growing up amongst the people of this country that Parliament is not so rigid in these personal matters as it ought to be, and that it is susceptible to outside financial influences. The Birmingham Post the organ of the Colonial Secretary, said that it had been the proud boast of the mother of Parliaments that the amosphere of the Palais Bourbon in Paris had never found a footing in Westminster, but it added that one had grave doubts whether that boast could over be repeated owing to the influences exercised in connection with the Petroleum Bill and the Telephones Bill. The man in the street who reads the Bir
474
mingham Post is beginning to think that our Parliament is also being "Panama-ed," and that our public life has not that high standard of honour it formerly had. What is the charge of the right honour Gentleman the Colonial Secretary against President Kruger? It is that his administration was inefficient, and his Government corrupt. If that be true, and' it has not been proved to the extent it has been stated, we ought to put ourselves in a position which would make it impossible under our Standing Orders for such a charge to be made against our Parliament or any of our Ministers. Anyone hearing the Colonial Secretary speak would think that the hub of the Universe came up through his doorstep in Birmingham; that he should be a law unto himself. We must apply the same standard of public conduct as the right hon. Gentleman himself would apply to the London County Council, when it suited his purpose. Supposing my brother had been supplying the Works Department with drain pipes or machinery, would not the Colonial Secretary deliver an eloquent homily about the inherent corruptibility of Labour Members? Suppose I sneaked behind the skirts of my good wife, and unloaded my shares on her shoulders, I should be accused—and properly accused—of ungentlemanly and unmanly conduct. But that is what he and his relations are doing. The right hon. Gentleman can say what he likes, but he has got to unload the Kynoch shares, he has got to divest himself of the Colombo Commercial Company's shares; he has got to get rid of Birmingham Trusts, and he must not look down Birmingham Tubes for Government work. He must not act under the supposition that ho can do what other men do not undertake. I say, as one of the poorest Members of this House, that I rejoice that J have this opportunity of expressing the views of the common people on this subject—[Interruption]—and that when our country is in a tight place in fighting a "corrupt oligarchy" we ourselves should be above suspicion. But I tell you that you will regret voting against this Amendment when our Civil Service takes this example and traffics in companies and commercial interests as they have a perfect right to do if you allow a Minister of State to do this. When corruption creeps in and when the evil example of the Colonial Secretary

475
brings discredit to the State, dishonour to our country, and degradation to our Parliament, you will regret the day that you voted against this Amendment. I had hoped that the House of Commons would have upheld to-night its reputation of being fair and gentlemanly. I appeal to it to remember its traditions. I beg of it not to damage this instrument of representative Government which can only exist by fair play and toleration all round. [Interruption.] But whether its Members are fair or unfair, they will not deprive me of my right which I now exercise of telling the House of Commons that if the British Parliament is to remain unsullied, and the great assembly we would all wish it to be, if it is to be the embodiment of honour and the
centre to which all other countries can look for example, inspiration, and guidance, it can only do so by passing this Amendment, making everyone declare his interests and declare to the world all the shares he holds in public companies, and until they do that the common people will say that the House of Commons is not doing its duty, but is sheltering favourites, giving privileges to a few, opening the floor to corruption, swindling the taxpayer, and becoming a disgrace to the country of which I have the honour of being a representative.
Question put—
The House divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 269. (Division List, No. 5.)

AYES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Grant, Corrie

Pickard, Benjamin

Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pirie, Duncan Y.

Asher, Alexander

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Rea, Russell

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Reckitt, Harold James

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

Rickett, J. Compton

Barker, John

Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rigg, Richard

Harlow, John Emmott

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Harwood, George

Robson, William Snowdon

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Bell, Richard

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.

Schwann, Charles E.

Black, Alexander William

Healy, Timothy Michael

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Helme, Norval Watson

Shipman, Dr John

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Brigg, John

Holland, William Henry

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Broadhurst, Henry

Hope, John Deans (Fife, W.)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Soares, Ernest J.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R.(Northants.

Burt, Thomas

Joicey, Sir James

Strachey, Edward

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Caldwell, James

Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Labouchere, Henry

Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Langley, Batty

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Cawley, Frederick

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower

Channing, Francis Allston

Leng, Sir John

Thomson, Frederick W.

Craig, Robert Hunter

Levy, Maurice

Tomkinson, James

Cremer, William Randal

Lewis, John Herbert

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Lough, Thomas

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Wason, Eugene (Clackm'nn'n).

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Weir, James Galloway

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

M'Kenna, Reginald

White, George (Norfolk)

Duncan, James H.

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Dunn, Sir William

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Edwards, Frank

Markham, Arthur Basil

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Elibank, Master of

Mather, William

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Ellis, John Edward

Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Emmott, Alfred

Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)

Wilson. Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid).

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Moss, Samuel

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

Fenwick, Charles

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

Norman, Henry

Wodehouse, Hn Armine (Essex

Fitzmauriee, Lord Edmond

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Furness, Sir Christopher

Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. John Burns.

Gladstone Rt Hn Herbert John

Partington, Oswald

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Paulton, James Mellor

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Allsopp, Hon. George

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Aird, John

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Arrol, Sir William

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Gordon, Hon. JE (Elgin & Nairn

Majendie, James A. H.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Manners, Lord Cecil

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gordon, Maj W (Tower Hamlets

Maple Sir John Blundell

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F

Baird, John Geo. Alexander

Goschen, George Joachim

Maxwell, W.J. (Dumfriesshire

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G.W. (Leeds)

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Balfour, Maj. K.R. (Christoh'ch

Greene, Sir E. W. B'ry S Edmnds

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk. G.

Banbury, Frederick George

Grenfell, William Henry

Milward, Colonel Victor

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Mitchell, William

Beckett, Ernest William

Groves, James Grimble

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hain, Edward

Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)

Bignold, A.

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Bigwood, James

Hambro, Charles Eric

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hamilton. Rt. Hn. Lord G. M'dx

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Bond, Edward

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Morrell, George Herbert

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Harris, F. Leverton (Tyne'mth

Morton, Arthur H.A(Deptford)

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Harris, Dr. F. R. (Monmouth)

Mount, William Arthur

Brassey, Albeit

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hay, Claude

Muntz, Philip A.

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire)

Helder, Augustus

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Bull, William James

Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Ballard, Sir Harry

Hickman,>Sir Alfred

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Butcher, John George

Higginbottom, S. W.

Nicholson, William Graham

Garble, William Walter

Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hobhouse, H. (Somerset, E.)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hogg, Lindsay

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. (Birm.

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside

Parkes, Ebenezer

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Horner, Frederic William

Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

Chapman, Edward

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Pemberton, John S. G.

Charrington, Spencer

Hoult, Joseph

Percy, Earl

Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Pierpoint, Robert

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Howard, Capt J (Kent, Faversh.

Pilkington, Richard

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hozier, Hon Jas. Henry Cecil

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. L.

Plummer, Walter R.

Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cook, Frederick Lucas

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Pryce-Jones, Lu.-Col. Edward

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Purvis, Robert

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)

Pym, C. Guy

Cranborne, Viscount

Kenyon, James (Lanes., Bury)

Radcliffe, R. F.

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Kenyon-Slaney. Col. W. (Salop)

Randles, John S.

Gust, Henry John C.

Keswick, William

Rankin, Sir James

Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Dewar, T.R. (T'r H'mlets, St. G

Knowles, Lees

Reid, James (Greenock)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lambton, Hon. Fred. Wm.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Law, Andrew Bonar

Renwick, George

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lawson, John Grant

Richards, Henry Charles

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Ed. H.

Ridley, M. W. (Stalybridge)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lee, Capt. A. H. (Hants, Fareh.

Ridley, Samuel F. (Bethnal Gr.)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Legge, Col. Heneage

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Duke, Edward Henry

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

Leighton. Stanley

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Rothschild, Hon Lionel Walter

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Saddler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Finch, George H.

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Lowe, Francis William

Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J.

Fisher, William Hayes

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Seeley, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

Fison, Frederick William

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sharpe, William Ed ward T.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Lucas, Col. F. (Lowestoft)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Fitzroy, Hon. Ed ward Algernon

Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

Simeon, Sir Harrington

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Macdona, John Cumming

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Forster, Henry William

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Galloway, William Johnson

Maclure, Sir John William

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks)

Garfit, William

Maconochie, A. W.

Spear, John Ward

Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H (City of Lond.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.)

Stewart, Sir Mark J.M. Taggart

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

478

479

Stock, James Henry

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Warde, Lieut. -Col. C. E.

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

Stroyan, John

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Webb, Col. William George

Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. E.R (Bath

Talbot. Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxfd Univ.

Welby, Lt. Col. A.C.E (Taunt'n

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Wylie, Alexander

Thornton, Percy M.

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Tollemache, Henry James

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell (Birm

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Valentia, Viscount

Wills, Sir Frederick

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Wilson, Arthur S. (York, E.R.)

Main Question again proposed—
MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question he now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided; Ayes, 253; Noes, 106. (Division List, No.6.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Dewar, T.R. (T'rH'mlets, S Geo.

Higginbottom, S. W.

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hoare, Edward B. (Hampst'd)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Hobhouse, H. (Somerset, E.)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hogg, Lindsay

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Hope, J. F. (Sheff., Brightside)

Arrol, Sir William

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Horner, Frederic William

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Atkinson, lit. Hon. John

Duke, Edward Henry

Hoult, Joseph

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dyke. Rt. Hn. Sir W. Hart

Houston, Robert Paterson

Baird, John George Alexander

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Howard, Capt. J. (Kent, F'versh

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Balfour. Maj K R (Christchurch

Furgusson, Rt Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Banbury, Frederick George

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Finch, George H.

Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir. M. H. (Bristol

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Kenyon, J. (Lanes., Bury)

Beckett, Ernest William

Fisher, William Hayes

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Fison, Frederick William

Keswick, William

Bignold, A.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Bigwood, James

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Knowles, Lees

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

Bond, Edward

Forster, Henry William

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Galloway, William Johnson

Law, Andrew Bonar

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middle'x

Garfit, William

Lawson, John Grant

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's L.

Gibbs, Hn. A.G H. (City of Ld.

Lee, Capt AH (Hants. Fareham

Brassey, Albert

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Legge, Col. Heneage

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Brown, Alexander H. (Shrops.

Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & N'n.

Leighton, Stanley

Bull, William James

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Leveson-Gower. Frederick N.S.

Billiard, Sir Harry

Gordon, Maj. W.(Tower H'ml't

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Butcher, John George

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Long, Col Charles W.(Evesham

Carlile, William Walter

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y

Lowe, Francis William

Cautley, Henry Strother

Greene. Sir E. W. (B. St. Edm'ds

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Grenfell, William Henry

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Groves, James Grimble

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Chapman, Edward

Hain, Edward

Macartney, Rt Hon W G Ellison

Charrington, Spencer

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Macdona, John Cumming

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

Hambro, Charles Eric

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Mid'x

Maclure, Sir John William

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W.

Maconochie, A. W.

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hare, Thomas Leigh

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Harris, Dr. Fred. R. (Monm'th

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Majendie, James A. H.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hay, Claude

Manners, Lord Cecil

Cranborne, Viscount

Heath, A. Howard (Hanley

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Helder, Augustus

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Cust, Henry John C.

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

Maxwell, W. J. (Dumfriesshire

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxford U.)

Middlemore, John T.

Purvis, Robert

Thornton, Percy M.

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Radcliffe, R. F.

Tollemache, Henry James

Milward, Colonel Victor

Randles, John S.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Mitchell, William

Rankin, Sir James

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Valentia, Viscount

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Walker, Col. William Hall

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Wanklyn, James Leslie

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Renwick, George

Warded Lieut.-Col. C. E.

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Richards, Henry Charles

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Morrell, George Herbert

Ridley, Mat. W. (Stalybridge

Webb, Col. William George

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Ridley, Sam. F. (Bethnal Gr'n

Welby, Lt.-Col A.C.E.(Taunt.

Morton, Arthur H.A. (Deptford

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

Mount, William Arthur

Robertson, H. (Hackney)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Whiteley, H.(Ashton-under-L.

Muntz, Philip A.

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex.

Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell-(Bir.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Saunderson, Rt Hn.Col. E. J.

Wills, Sir Frederick

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

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

Nicholson. William Graham

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Shaw-Stewart. M. H. (Renfrew)

Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh, N.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Parkes, Ebenezer

Smith, Abel H. (Hert. East)

Wylie, Alexander

Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Pemberton, John S. G.

Spencer, E. (W. Bromwich)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Pierpoint, Robert

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Pilkington, Richard

Stock, James Henry

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Plummer, Walter R.

Stroyan, John

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

NOES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Pirie, Duncan V.

Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud)

Grant, Corrie

Reckitt, Harold James

Asher, Alexander

Griffith, Ellis J.

Rigg, Richard

Barker, John

Gurdon, Sir William B.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Barlow, John Emmott

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford,)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh

Bell, Richard

Hayne, Rt. Hn. C. Seale-

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Black, Alexander William

Hayter. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Soares, Ernest J.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Healy, Timothy Michael

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N Hants.

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Helme, Norval Watson

Strachey, Edward

Brigg, John

Holland, William Henry

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Broadhurst, Henry

Hope, J. D. (Fife, West)

Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Button, Alfred E. (Morley)

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Burns, John

Joicey, Sir James

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

Burt, Thomas

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Thomson, Frederick W.

Caldwell, James

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Tomkinson, James

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Langley, Batty

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Causton, Richard Knight

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Craig, Robert Hunter

Levy, Maurice

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Cremer, William Randal

Lewis, John Herbert

Weir, James Galloway

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Lough, Thomas

White, George (Norfolk)

Dewar, J. A. (Inverness-shire)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.).

Duncan, James H.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Dunn, Sir William

Markham. Arthur Basil

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Edwards, Frank

Mather, William

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Elibank, Master of

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

Ellis, John Edward

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

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

Emmott, Alfred

Moss, Samuel

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Norman, Henry

Wodehouse, Hn Armine (Essex)

Fenwick, Charles

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

Palmer, George Wm. (Read'g

Mr. Samuel Smith and Mr. Channing.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Partington, Oswald

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. J.

Paulton, James Mellor

482

483

Main Question again proposed—

The House divided; Ayes, 265; Noes, 23. (Division List. No 7.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lawson, John Grant

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Lee, Capt AH (Hants. Fareham)

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Legge, Col. Heneage

Allsopp, Hon. George

Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Archdale, Edward Mervon

Finch, George H.

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol S.

Arrol, Sir William

Fisher, William Hayes

Lowe, Francis William

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Fison, Frederick William

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Fitzroy. Hn. Edward Algernon

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Main, Colonel James Robert

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Baird, John George A.

Forster, Henry William

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Mnclir.)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Macdona, John Cumming

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Galloway, William Johnson

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christ'ch.)

Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(City of Lou.

Maclure, Sir John William

Banbury, Frederick George

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Maconochie, A. W.

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brstl.)

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Beckett, Ernest William

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh W.)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gordon, J, (Londonderry, S.)

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Bignold, A.

Gordon, Maj. W,(T'wer H'mlts

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Bigwood, James

Goschen, George Joachim

Majendie, James A. H.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Manners, Lord Cecil

Bond, Edward

Greene, Sir E.W. (B'ry S Edm'ds

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Grenfell, William Henry

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Maxwell, W.J.(Dumfriesshire

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Griffith, Ellis J.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Brassey, Albert

Groves, James Grimble

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hain, Edward

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fk. G.

Bull, William James

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Milward, Colonel Victor

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hambro, Charles Eric

Mitchell, William

Butcher, John George

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G.(M'dx)

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Caldwell, James

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Carlile, William Walter

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th.

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Harris, Dr. Fred. R. (Monm'th.

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hay, Claude

Morley, Charles (Breconshire

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Bum.

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Morrell, George Herbert

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry E.

Chapman, Edward

Helder, Augustus

Moss, Samuel

Charrington, Spencer

Helme, Norval Watson

Mount, William Arthur

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

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Muntz, Philip A.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Higginbottom, S. W.

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Colston, Charles Ed. H. Athole

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Cook, Frederick Lucas

Hogg, Lindsay

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside

Nicholson, William Graham

Cranborne, Viscount

Horner, Frederic William

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Gust, Henry John C.

Hoult, Joseph

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Howard, Capt J (Kent, Faversh.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Dewar. John A. (Inverness-sh.

Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil

Peel, Hon. William Robert W.

Dewar, T.R. (T'rH'ml'ts, S. Geo.

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Pemberton, John S G.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Pierpoint, Robert

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Pilkington, Richard

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Platt- Higgins, Frederick

Hixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Kenyon, James (Lanes., Bury)

Plummer, Walter R.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Keswick, William

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Purvis, Robert

Duke, Edward Henry

Knowles, Lees

Radcliffe, R. F.

Dunn, Sir William

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Randles, John S.

Edwards, Frank

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Rankin, Sir James

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Law, Andrew Bonar

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

484

485

Reid, James (Greenock)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Welby, Lt-Col A.C.E. (Taunt'n

Remnant, James Farquharson

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Welby, Sir Charles G.E. (Notts.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich

Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

Renwick, George

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

Richards, Henry Charles

Stock, James Henry

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Ridley, M. W. (Stalybridge)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

Stroyan, John

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Rigg, Richard

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Ritchie. Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Talbot, Rt Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd Univ.

Wilson, Arthur S. (York, E. R.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

Thornton, Percy M.

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Tollemache, Henry James

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Tomlinson, William Edw. M.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

Sadler, Col. Sam. Alexander

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Valentia, Viscount

Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E.R.(Bath)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Walker Col. William Hall

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Shaw, Charles Ed. (Stafford)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Wylie, Alexander

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Shipman, Dr. John

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Webb, Col. William George

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Weir, James Galloway

NOES.

Bell, Richard

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Thomas, J. A.(Glam'n, Gower)

Black, Alexander William

Grant, Corrie

Thomson, Frederick W.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

White, George (Norfolk)

Brigg, John

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

Burns, John

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Markham, Arthur Basil

Cremer, William Randal

Partington, Oswald

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Duncan, James H.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Mr. T. M. Healy and Mr. Keir Hardie.

Fenwick, Charles

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth—
"Most Gracious sovereign,
"We, your majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to your Majesty for the Gracious speech which your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of parliament."
To be presented by privy councillors and Members of Her Majesty's House-hold.

SUPPLY.
Resolved. That this House will, this day, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Ordered, That the Estimate presented to this House on the 6th inst be referred to the committee of Supply—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)

WAYS AND MEANS
Resolved, That this House will, this day, resolve itself into a committee to consider
486
of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 7th day of this instant December, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House with-out question put.
Adjourned accordingly at half after one of the clock.
In pursuance of standing Order No.1, "sittings of the House," I hereby nominate—
The Right Hon. Charles Beilby Stuart Wortley
Mr. John Edward Ellis,
Mr. Edward Blake,
Mr. Arthur Fredrick Jeffreys, and
Mr. Henry Hobhouse,
to act during this Session as temporary Chairmen of Committees when requested by the Chairman of ways and Means.
WILLIAM COURT GULLY,
Speaker.
10th December, 1900.

VISCOUNT MOUNTGARRET.
Petition of Henry Edmund, Viscount Mountgarret, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland. Read and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
EARLDOM OF NORFOLK.
Petition of Henry, Duke of Norfolk, Earl of Arundel, Earl of Surrey, Earl of Norfolk, Lord Maltravers, Lord Fitzalan of Clun and Oswaldestre, and Earl Marshall and Hereditary Marshal of England, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Garter, praying their Lordships that he may be permitted to appear and be heard before this House and before their Lordships' Committee for Privileges by his counsel and agents in opposition to the claim of Charles Botolph Joseph Lord Stourton to the dignity of Earl of Norfolk, and that he may be at liberty to cross-examine such witnesses as the said claimant may produce, and to lodge a printed case and to produce such evidence in contradiction of any evidence that may be produced by the said claimant and also such evidence at will support the Petitioner's right and title to the said dignity, as the Petitioner may be advised to be material for the protection of his rights and interests, and that their Lordships will be pleased to allow the Petitioner reasonable time after the delivery of the case of the said claimant to prepare his case and evidence; read, and referred to the Committee for Privileges.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  I. (proceedings.) Return for the month of September, 1900.
  II. (Judicial Rents.) Return for the month of April, 1900.

  COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS.
  Reports received from the Indian Government and the Governments of Her Majesty's Colonial possessions
  324
  respecting the Regulations in force in India and the Colonies with regard to commercial travellers, and the treatment of their patterns and samples.

  Proclamations issued by Field-Marshal Lord Roberts in South Africa.

  TRADE REPORTS.
  I. Annual Series: No. 2540. Belgium (Trade of Ghent for the year 1899).
  II. Miscellaneous Series: No. 543. Commerce in the Netherlands.

  CHINA No. 4 (1900).
  Reports from Her Majesty's Minister in China respecting events at Poking.
  Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES ACT, 1863.
  Return of proceedings under the Lord Chancellor's Augmentation Act, from August 15th, 1892, to December 6th, 1900. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 5.)
  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated November 17th, 1900, declaring that Mr. Alexander MacDonald, Commander of the Cruiser "Viligant," under the Fishery Board for Scotland, was appointed without a civil service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department.

  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS (ANGLO-FRENCH PRESS TELEGRAMS).
  The Telegraph (Foreign-written Anglo-French Press Telegram) Regulations, 1900, dated November 13th, 1900.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  FUTURE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, seeing the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies in his place, I wish to ask him a question, of which I have given him private notice, with regard to the future administration of

  325
  South Africa. It has been stated in another place that the administration of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony will be vested in the High Commissioner for South Africa. The High Commissioner being at this present time Governor of Cape Colony, I wish to ask whether in the future arrangement of South Africa it is intended that her Majesty's High Commissioner shall continue to be Governor of Cape Colony, or whether the Government of that colony -will be constituted independently of him.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of Onslow): My Lords, I do not think the noble Earl has quite accurately interpreted what was said by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in another place. It is not quite accurate to say that the High Commissioner in South Africa will be the Administrator in the two new colonies. The noble Earl is, perhaps, aware that hitherto the Governor at the Cape has also been the High Commissioner of South Africa, and the commission so appointing him has applied not only to the High Commissioner but also to the Deputy Governor who might be appointed by him whenever he was absent from Cape Colony. The High Commissioner-ship of South Africa and the Governorship of Cape Colony will no longer be in the hands of the same person—that is to say, Sir Alfred Milner, who has been appointed personally the High Commissioner of South Africa, is at the present moment also Governor at the Cape, but at present Lord Roberts holds the commission for the administration of the two new colonies which have been annexed to the Crown. As soon as Lord Roberts leaves South Africa, those powers will, by a dormant commission which Sir Alfred Milner now holds, devolve on Sir Alfred Milner, but he will not be Governor of the two new colonies until such time as Her Majesty has been pleased to appoint him to that post. When he has been appointed as Governor of the Transvaal, with a Lieutenant-Governor of the Orange River Colony under him, he will then, and only then, cease to be Governor of the Cape. When that may be depends, of course, upon circumstances, and I am not able to fix the date when that occurrence will take place, but it is certainly not intended that the office of High Commissioner of South Africa and that of Governor of Cape
  326
  Colony should be held by Sir Alfred Milner at one and the same time.

  TREATMENT OF INVALIDED COLONIAL SOLDLERS.
  EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I rise to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the fact that wounded and invalided colonial soldiers who have been brought from South Africa to this country by the Government to recruit their health, are being sent back to their respective colonies as steerage passengers in mail steamers; and to ask whether some more suitable accommodation cannot be provided for them. Early in October last 170 wounded and invalided colonial soldiers arrived in England from South Africa, having been sent home—I am speaking under correction—in order to relieve the pressure on the military hospitals out there. They were men of all sorts and conditions—squatters, graziers, mining agents, bank clerks, dentists, riding masters, and the sons of Government officials. On October 11th the Government sent back to Australia in the Royal Mail steamship "Ormuz," of the Orient line, ten of these wounded and invalided Colonial Volunteers. When they got on board they found that the accommodation was not what they had been given reason to expect, and they sent to me, as honorary secretary of the Temporary Loan Fund for Wounded and Invalided Colonial Soldiers in London, the following letter—
  "R.M.S. 'Ormuz,'
  "October 13, 1900.
  "SIR,—On the expiration of our furlough we reported at the Colonial depot at Shorn-cliffe, and arranged to return to Australia. We were all distinctly led to understand that the War Office would arrange second class passages home for us, as the Canadians were receiving such. On our arrival at the ship we were met by a non-commissioned officer, who informed us, for the first time, that we were to travel steerage, thus depriving us of an opportunity of arranging ourselves for second class; in fact, one of us had at the office expressed his willingness to pay the difference, if it were needed, and was told that 'everything was arranged as he wished.' Many of us were invalided to England, mostly after enteric, and need special dieting. In England, through the magnificent hospitality of the public in this direction, we managed to obtain it; but here we have to eat food which is healthy and good for a strong man, but hardly suited for a weak stomach. There was no medical examination prior to our departure to see if we could manage the ordinary fare.

  327
  Undoubtedly we shall feel this in the Red Sea. By cable to Gibraltar or Marseilles it could be arranged for the special dieting of us in the second saloon, our sleeping accommodation being quite comfortable. We hardly consider it right to be expected to diet in a way which is certainly not suitable after enteric fever."
  This letter was signed by a corporal and two troopers of the New South Wales Mounted Infantry, two men of the Western Australia Mounted Infantry, two men of the Victoria Mounted Rifles, two men of the Australian Horse, and one man of the Ceylon Mounted Rifles. As secretary of the Fund I at once telegraphed to Messrs. Anderson and Anderson, representing the Orient Company, as follows —
  "Kindly put invalided Colonials on special dietary and comforts of second saloon. Responsible for all expenses."
  By return I received this letter from Messrs Anderson and Anderson, viz.—
  "My Lord,—We have telegraphed to the commander of the 'Ormuz' at Gibraltar that the colonial troopers on board the steamer, for whom third-class passage was ordered by the Admiralty, are to mess and rank as second-class passengers. It will be necessary for the men to retain their third-class sleeping berths, as all the second saloon cabins are let. The difference between the third-class fare and the lowest second saloon fare is £17 3s., but, as we wish to treat the Colonial Volunteers in a liberal manner, we shall be happy to halve this amount, and to accept £8 10s. per man in settlement."
  The Orient Company have very generously supplied all the men who have gone back in their ships with second-class bedding in the third-class berths. I also received the following letter, signed by the ten men—
  "On our arrival at Gibraltar we were welcomed with the pleasing news that the desired change had been effected with regard to our travelling, and we now wish to convey our thanks. After twelve months campaigning we naturally are not so fit as when we started, but owing to your very kind interest we will now have six weeks comfortable and enjoyable travelling to recruit."
  On 10th November I received a telegram from Sergeant Williams, of the Australian Horse, in which he said—
  "On behalf of Australians on board 'Ortono' please accept my very warmest thanks. Being treated excellently."
  One of the men of the New South Wales Mounted Rifles (O. A. Duffy) wrote—
  "On board the 'Omrah' we are treated very well indeed. The sleeping accommodation is
  328
  third class, but as we enjoy all the privileges of the second saloon, with the use of the smoke-room and deck, we find no cause for complaint."
  Three other Orient vessels have left since then with colonials, and have been personally inspected by Sergeant McDonald, of Kitchener's Horse, and honorary secretary of the Lord Mayor's Fund, who reported that everything lad been done for the comfort of the men. The last contingent that went out left, I think, on Saturday. Amongst them was Sergeant Legg, who belongs to one of the best Australian families. I knew the family very well when I was Governor of New South Wales. Sergeant Legg was, with Sergeant McDonald, presented to the Queen at Windsor Castle, and received Her Majesty's gracious thanks for the way he had fought for his country. He is one of six brothers, all of whom volunteered, and one of whom, I believe, has been killed. Though extremely unwell, he would have been sent back as a steerage passenger had it not been for another private fund, out of which he was provided with a separate cabin and other comforts. So much for the Orient Line. I then communicated with the Allan and Dominion Lines, and received a letter from the managers of the latter, in which they say—
  "We have pleasure in informing your Lordships that we have carried in our steamers recently several contingents of wounded and invalided men of the Royal Canadians from Liverpool to Quebec. We have made special provision for them, and have supplied them with superior third class accommodation, giving them, in most respects, second saloon privileges, and we are advised in each case that this arrangement has given perfect satisfaction."
  That is to say, third-class accommodation was provided for them by the Government, but through the generosity of the Dominion Line, they have been supplied with second-class accommodation. The Allan Line have shown similar generous treatment. They write—
  "Although paying the lowest rate of passage money, we have placed the invalided Canadian soldiers in special compartments where they have been quite equal to the second-class passengers. We also gave instructions that they were to have cigarettes, tobacco, and a reasonable amount of malt liquor without charge. We assure your Lord ship that we shall continue this treatment to all parties of returning Canadiansl who are entrusted to the Allan Line of conveyance."

  329
  I thought it my duty to bring the subject before the House of Lords at the earliest opportunity, because I was perfectly certain that it would not give satisfaction to the House, any more than to the nation at large, to know that these gallant men were sent home, a distance of 12,500 miles, packed like herrings in a barrel, with steerage diet, while they were far from being in a strong state of health I would like to ask what would be said in Australia if, when these men arrived at Adelaide, Melbourne, or Sydney, the thousands of their fellow-countrymen assembled to welcome them, saw them crawl, under-fed and overcrowded, out of the steerage of one of the Royal Mail steamers. I submit that the amelioration of the conditions of their voyage should not have been left to private charity and the generosity of the steamship companies, but should have been undertaken by the Imperial Government, which has availed itself of their services. I believe this is simply and entirely a case of mismanagement, and I have a confident hope that the Government will put an end at once to this state of things.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD RAGLAN): I am sorry to have to disagree with the noble Earl in his view of this question. The expression "steerage" is a somewhat unfortunate one, for I have to point out to the House that the men have a third class passage on board these steamers. Every man has a bunk in a cabin, and the dietary is plentiful and varied. I am informed that the third-class passage on these steamers is extremely comfortable. These men have been brought homo as invalids from South Africa in order to relieve the pressure on the base hospitals and the convalescent homes in South Africa. Wherever possible the men have been sent straight from South Africa to their homes, but where this course was not possible they have been brought to England. The men are not really invalids; in far the greater majority of cases they have recovered their health and strength, and if they have not entirely recovered they are, at least, far advanced towards convalescence, and therefore it is no great hardship to ask them to travel third-class. Where a man is considered to be in a delicate state of health and needing more attention and perhaps more luxury, he is
  330
  provided with a second-class passage. If these men, on account of their superior social position, are to be given a second-class passage, the same reason would apply to the men of many other corps, such as the Imperial Yeomanry and the City Imperial Volunteers. There are men in the ranks of the Army of a superior social position, and it is impossible for anything to be taken into consideration except the rank of the men in the Army. The men, therefore, for whom the noble Earl has pleaded have been sent home in the class of rank to which they are entitled; and I do not see any reason for an alteration.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I must say that I am profoundly disappointed at the tone of the reply of the noble Lord to the question of the noble Earl behind me. It does appear to me that something should be done when the War Office discover that there has been a failure to consider, what at all events our colonial troops themselves regard as; their absolute needs in the matter of health I feel that we should not be doing our duty if we did not dissociate ourselves entirely from the view taken by the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for War. The provision for these colonial soldiers, ought not to be left to private charity. To look after these men is the duty of Her Majesty's Government, and if some care had not been taken of them the neglect would have amounted to a public scandal in the minds of the people of Australia.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I regret that the answer of the noble Lord was not more sympathetic. The noble Earl did not raise the point as to there being any objection to these men travelling third class. He does not object to their occupying third-class bunks, and is quite willing to admit that the food given to the third-class passengers in these ships is admirably suited for men who are, in a strong state of health. He did not at all assert that they did not receive sufficient, food. What my noble friend contended for was that they should receive the particular food and comforts necessary for their weak state of health, because at the best they are but convalescents. They would not have received the special comforts and the special forms of food had it not been for the

  331
  efforts of the association of which my noble friend is president. I should like to take this opportunity of inviting the Government to turn their attention generally to the manner in which our troops, colonial and otherwise, are being-brought back from the seat of war. I daresay there will not be a great deal of complaint from the men themselves. They will be so glad to be getting home that they will be willing to put up with any hardships or discomforts, provided they are landed once more on their own shores. Ten days ago I went on board one of the recent transports, the "Hawarden Castle," which brought home the Royal Canadian Regiment, the Household Cavalry, a battery of Horse Artillery, and other troops. What was the condition of that vessel? The "Hawarden Castle" is not a new ship, neither is she a large one as vessels go nowadays; but there were, in round numbers, 1,300 men on board, packed, to use the noble Earl's expression, like herrings in a barrel. What do your Lordships imagine was the boat accommodation for these men in case of accident? Avowedly there was accommodation for 400 to 500 only. In the course of the boat drill, which was very properly carried on from time to time, provision was made so as to allow the married men to go on board the boats first, because there was not room for the larger proportion of men on board. The condensers of the ship broke down in the course of the voyage, and the men had to fall back on the supplies of mineral water on board. The electric lighting apparatus also broke down, and for ten days the only way of obtaining light was by means of small candles. In my judgment this is not a very creditable state of things. I am sure that it only needs the attention of the authorities to be turned to a state of things like this to ensure that there shall not be a repetition of what took place on board this ship on other ships carrying colonial and British soldiers. The things complained of by my noble friend are not fit things to be left to the charity of private individuals. There has, however, been too much disposition on the part of the Government throughout the last twelve months to take full ad vantage of every subscription which has been supplied by the public. The proper care of our soldiers in time of war should be a matter for Government expenditure, and the duty should not be
  332
  left to private individuals. I am sorry that the noble Lord's first answer to a question in this House was not one showing greater sympathy with our wounded and invalided colonial soldiers.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: The Under Secretary for War seemed, in his reply, to admit a great deal of the case submitted by my noble friend. I refer to the statement he made to the effect that where there was an apparent need for special treatment in the case of invalided soldiers they were given second-class accommodation. That is the point on which my noble friend wishes to rest his case. No doubt the troops as a whole were prepared to rough it in time of war, but when their health is seriously impaired by hardships and exposure there is a need created not only for some exceptional treatment, but for better accommodation. This is all that my noble friend has urged on the Government. I think, moreover, that the medical officers should be encouraged to ascertain the true position of affairs, and to invite representations in this direction, so that our soldiers should not be placed in a position of appearing to be over-particular. Everyone knows that this is not the spirit of our soldiers, colonial or otherwise. They are anxious to bear themselves in the way that genuine soldiers should, and they are slow to let it appear as if they are not easily pleased. I think the House is indebted to my noble friend for bringing the subject forward, and I feel that careful precautions ought to be taken to see that none of these men are deprived of special comforts or consideration if in any sense they can be considered deserving of them.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of Lansdowne): I entreat the House to believe that noble Lords opposite do not enjoy a monopoly of sympathy with those gallant soldiers, or of the desire that they should be treated, not only in the most considerate manner possible, but with every degree of comfort procurable when they are returned to the countries of their origin. I thought that the noble Lord (Lord Monkswell) somewhat misrepresented—no doubt unintentionally—what fell from my noble friend the Under Secretary, who was far, indeed, from admitting that the War

  333
  Office pleaded guilty to failure in this case.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I thought he ought to have admitted that the War Office was in the wrong.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: No such admission was made.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My point was that the noble Lord should have made the admission.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: He made no admission because there was no failure to admit. Though we are at one in desiring that this question should be treated in a proper manner, I regret that the noble Earl who introduced the subject should have described the case in a somewhat highly-coloured way, and in the misleading language which he employed in the course of his speech. He imported a great deal of prejudice into the argument by constantly referring to the word "steerage." No doubt in the minds of ordinary people steerage passage suggests something of the extremely sordid and squalid kind we have seen described in the novels written perhaps forty or fifty years ago. Things have changed a great deal since then. These men were not given by any means the lowest scale of accommodation on board. They were given what is known as superior third-class accommodation. I remember having occasion to look into the matter, and I think I am right in saying that there are two classes below the class in which the colonial soldiers travelled; and it is quite unfair to describe them as having been "packed like herrings in a barrel." It is a great pity that the noble Earl should use language of that kind. In the letter which the noble Earl read, the writer admitted very frankly that the sleeping accommodation was good. How is that consistent with being "packed like herrings"? The noble Earl must know that such hyperbolical statements are mischievous and unfair to all concerned. The diet was complained of, not because it was insufficient, unwholesome, or bad, but because it was not suitable to some of the men who were recovering from enteric. That is a fair point, and I think it is conceivable that some of the men may have
  334
  required special medical comforts which ought to have been given to them. Having some knowledge of this subject, I can assure the House that this matter has not been dealt with in the callous spirit which the noble Earl attributes to the War Office. While I was still connected with that department, this question was thoroughly gone into by the Quartermaster General—Sir C. Mansfield Clarke—a most thoughtful and painstaking officer, who reported to me that the accommodation secured for the colonial troops was excellent, and infinitely better than that which would have been given on an ordinary trooper. Lord Tweedmouth raised the general question, which is, of course, a very much larger one, and I do not propose to go into it. But I do not wish this discussion to close without pro-protesting against the highly-coloured language used by the noble Earl, and against the assumption that my noble friend the Under Secretary had admitted that there had been any failure or neglect on the part of the War Office.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I should like to say a word on this subject. I have no doubt that there have been some shortcomings with regard to the accommodation provided, as was inevitable having regard to the very large number of men who had to be provided for. If that is so, it is well that the matter should be brought to the attention of the Government; and I am sure that in future there will be no cause to complain. I myself have heard that in some instances the accommodation was not such as was expected by the colonial troops; but, on the whole, the men certainly did express satisfaction.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I must express deep regret that the first public utterances of the Under Secretary for War—a soldier himself, and the bearer of an honoured name—should have been of so unsympathetic a character. The noble Marquess has drawn a great distinction between steerage and third-class; but though I have travelled a great deal about the world I have never heard of such a distinction. This "superior third-class accommodation" is a new thing to me. If the men had some superior treatment, it was due to the generosity of the steamship companies.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl must forgive my rising to correct him. There are three classes of third-class accommodation perfectly well defined. The men were given the best of the three at the outset, and not be-cause of any pressure brought by the noble Earl or anyone else.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I am certainly learning something. But it remains true, and you cannot get out of it, that the wounded and invalided Australians were sent back third-class or in the steerage; and that, I consider, is not proper treatment for the men who have been fighting for their country. The Under Secretary said that the men were extremely comfortable, and were not invalids.
  LORD RAGLAN: I said that these gallant men were technically invalids, but that they were fully restored to health and strength.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I only wish that the noble Lord had seen the men for himself. I will give the House one instance. A Victorian, name Carey, who is at the present moment an inmate of Lady Carrington's Convalescent Home, and who was ordered to travel in this "superior steerage," had a temperature of 104deg. I telegraphed at once to the Agent-General, and the man was allowed to remain. I am afraid to say what would have happened to him if he had returned. There were other men who were in great pain, and some who had been shot in the head, and some who were recovering from enteric. Not a few were so weak that they could hardly get about. The noble Lord said that second-class passages had been provided for some of the men. For how many?
  LORD RAGLAN: If it were considered that a man required special attention, he was given a second-class passage.
  EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs began his speech with one very self-evident proposition. He said that we on this side did not enjoy a monopoly of sympathy for these gallant men. We have never claimed that monopoly; and I was particularly careful to say that I believed the fault was to be attributed to departmental mismanage-
  336
  ment and not to the Government. It has been far from my intention to use misleading language; but I am so disappointed with the answer given to my Question, and I know that it will have such a bad effect in the colonies, that I shall move on an early day—"That this House disapproves of the arrangements made by Her Majesty's Government in sending back invalided and wounded colonial soldiers"; and I shall certainly take the sense of the House on the motion.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: I only wish to intervene in this debate for the purpose of putting one question to Her Majesty's Government, which, if the answer is satisfactory, will help to clear up the point at issue. Was any medical examination made by the War Office before these men embarked, so as to ascertain if there were any invalids in the condition described by my noble friend behind me? If not, then I really think there is a case against the War Office on that head.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: These men were all despatched from the depôt at Shorncliffe, and it seems to me fair to assume that they were medically examined before they were allowed to leave. But the point is one on which I think the noble Lord is entitled to a categorical answer, and if he will repeat the question we shall be prepared to answer it.
  LORD STANMORE: I am not sure whether our gallant colonial troops will thank the noble earl for the advocacy which he has put forward on their behalf. To require special treatment for the sick is one thing; but to complain that the colonial soldiers were provided with third-class passages is quite another thing. The colonial troops would hardly thank the noble lord for demanding that they should have totally different treatment from that which Her Majesty's Regular soldiers and Volunteers and Yeomanry receive.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I must say that, in my opinion, there ought to have been no necessity for supplementing from private sources, or from any other than public funds, what was required for the proper accommoda-

  337
  tion of colonial forces returning to their homes. Whatever may have happened in the past, I am sure that the Government will see that there shall be no ground for complaint in the future.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five of the clock, till tomorrow, half-past Ten of the clock.