Sitting of 19 July 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  HENDON TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords]. (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. TULLY MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.) moved that the Bill be read a second time this day three months. It was, he explained, promoted by a syndicate with an American millionaire at its head, which had for its object the capture of all locomotion in London. The present scheme

  973
  was a proposal for a tram with overhead wires running from Hendon to London, and a petition had been presented against it by a number of residents in the district whose frontages were affected by it, and who, under it, were to get no compensation for the severance of their lands. This was an invasion of private rights never before attempted in a private Bill in this House, and for it they were indebted to the American millionaire, Mr. Yerkes. The people who objected to the Bill would not object to a tube railway, but they did protest against having a tram running along a very narrow road with overhead wires so close to their houses. Serious accidents had occurred there from in Dublin and in Liverpool, and at the latter place thirty people had been injured. Now, he thought the promoters of the Bill ought to give them some reasonable guarantees that the local residents should not suffer unnecessary hardships by reason of the promotion of the Bill, and that the American principle of taking other people's property without paying its full value should not be introduced in a private Bill in this House. He warned the promoters that the Bill would be strongly opposed before the Committee.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.' "—(Mr. Tully).
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that it was his duty officially and formally to move these Bills. The promoters usually got some member of the House to represent their views, and in this case he understood the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool occupied that position.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORdenied that he had any responsibility for the Bill. He had heard it suggested that the tramways would seriously interfere with the business prospects of an excellent firm of Irishmen who ran a line of 'buses, and that appealed to the sympathetic side of his nature. But, on the other hand, he was told that
  974
  the people of Hendon, through their local representative, stated that they were extremely anxious to be brought into closer and cheaper connection with the rest of London, and for that reason he was afraid he would have to abandon the cause of his countrymen and support that of the Hendon people.
  SIR E. DURNING-LAWRENCEpointed out that these trams would afford facilities for working men to live at Hendon and to go to their work in other parts, and would thus supply a long-felt want.
  MR. FLAVINasked for an assurance that the Bill would go before a Committee upstairs, where these questions could be threshed out.
  MR. SPEAKER: There is a petition against it, and so it will go before a Committee upstairs in ordinary course.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  GLASGOW CORPORATION (POLICE) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  [UNDER SECTION 9, SUB-SECTION (4) OF THE PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.] (BY ORDER.)
  Order for consideration, read.
  MR. CHARLES DOUGLASsaid that the object of his Amendment was to make it clear that the corporation should not derive from the rates to be levied by the county council anything more than would enable them to carry out the purification of the sewage works, and should not make a profit out of the rates. It could not be too clearly understood that in the Amendment there was no interference with the principle of the Bill before the House. He ventured to think that no one on behalf of the Corporation of Glasgow would put forward the claim that the city of Glasgow had any right to make a profit out of the arrangement into which it had entered. All that the Amendment sought was to make it clear that

  975
  the city of Glasgow was to be repaid for its outlay without making any profit. The Order dealt with the police administration of Glasgow, and incidentally it affected a very considerable and very important district, the lower ward of Lanark, and it was proposed that the city should have power to levy a rate upon this particular district—a rate which was designed avowedly to defray the cost of purifying the sewage. It ought to be borne in mind that this particular district had since 1891 been entitled to discharge its sewage free of cost into the sewers of Glasgow. It possessed this right, and had always exercised it, in virtue of the agreement made between the county council of Lanark and the city of Glasgow in 1891. That agreement had the sanction of Parliament, and had always been accepted by both parties as a binding agreement, and it was now for the first time in this Order that the agreement was abandoned and abrogated and made void. He hardly recognised the circumstances in which this abrogation of the agreement took place. At the time of the agreement the question of the purification of the sewage, which had become so important lately, had not emerged into the prominence it now had. What he said was that when there was a part of the transaction which it was desired to make void, care ought to be taken that the city of Glasgow ought not to make any profit out of the transaction, and that, on the other hand, the party that desired to abide by the original agreement should not have inflicted on it any hardship, or loss, or injustice. Was there to be an absolute discretion left to the city of Glasgow to impose a rate upon the county without any limit? He suggested that the just and equitable course was to limit the amount of the rate, and to provide that the amount should not exceed that which it had cost the city of Glasgow to carry out the work. It was said that other districts had been treated in precisely the same manner that it was proposed to treat this district, but that was an entire misapprehension. The Order was establishing a new platform in the matter, and it was setting a new precedent which would put all counties in the future in a much worse position for dealing with the city of Glasgow than they had been in the past.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In Schedule, page 6, line 32, after the word 'rate,' to insert the words 'but subject as aforesaid).'"—(Mr. Charles Douglas.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CAMERON CORBETTsaid if these local commissions were to do their work well, this House must support them in their work. It was absolutely impossible that they would get the sort of Members of Parliament they wanted to serve on these commissions if they were to be told that after they had carefully examined the cases brought before them their decisions were to be set aside by discussions in this House. The present proposal amounted to this—that after a very complicated arrangement had been made by a Commission sitting on the spot, they were to raise the whole matter and settle all these financial matters by discussions in that House. He hoped the House would not merely reject the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite, but would reject it in such a definite and declared way that they would not have any proposal of the kind brought forward in the future. He trusted, for the sake of these local inquiries, which had done a great deal of good, and which had great possibilities for the future, that the House would decidedly reject the absurd proposal of the hon. Member opposite.
  SIR WALTER THORBURNsaid that as a member of the Commission the House might expect him to say a few words. The provisional order was one of a comprehensive nature, dealing with sanitation, purification, lighting, and other matters. The corporation of Glasgow proposed under the Provisional Order to take in a certain area of the county of Lanark for the purpose of drainage. In the territory proposed to be taken in, a considerable portion of it had no drains at all; another portion of it bad drains. The Commission ascertained that the part which was not drained would not become a drainage area for a considerable number of years. They therefore decided that that part of the area should be excluded, but they did con-

  977
  sent to the part which was drained being annexed. The county council of Lanark then urged that the portion which was drained should be treated in exactly the same way as the neighbouring district of Rutherglen was treated—namely, that they should get compensation for their sewers in the annexed area. The Commission found that in the case of Rutherglen a very complete system of drainage existed, while in this annexed area the sewage arrangements were very defective and quite unfit to be used as intercepting sewers. They therefore decided that this area had not the same claim for compensation which the burgh of Rutherglen had. When the original arrangement was made to take the sewage from certain parts of the lower ward of Lanarkshire into the Glasgow sewers many years ago, there was no question at that time of a purification scheme. That was subsequently determined upon. The Commission considered that, as they were going to get rid of all their sewage, and so relieve themselves of the necessity of carrying out their own purification works, they were justly entitled to contribute to the cost. The Commission found the preamble of the Bill, as regards the sewage clauses, proved subject to the exclusion of the area that was not drained. When the Commission finished consideration of the case, they had reason to believe that the parties were well satisfied with the arrangement, and it was left to counsel on both sides to adjust the clauses. The Commission gave the most careful consideration to the whole case, and they thought that the judgment they arrived at was a just and equitable one. If he had to hear the whole evidence again, he must say he could not honestly come to any other decision.
  MR. EUGENE WASONsaid the whole facts of this case had been thoroughly gone into by an impartial tribunal, and now they were being asked to override the decision which had been arrived at by the local committee. A similar motion to this was made by the hon. Member for Partick in relation to another Bill not long ago, and in that case the decision of the local committee was allowed to stand. In the case before the House the measure
  978
  had gone before the House of Lords, and they had decided in favour of the local committee. The action of some of the hon. Members for Scotland upon this Bill appeared to him to be almost like log-rolling. He hoped the House would show its good sense by refusing to undo the good work which these provisional committees were doing in Scotland.
  MR. HOZIERsaid this measure would do a great injustice to a portion of the county which he represented, although the district affected was outside his own constituency. The hon. Member for Clackmannan admitted that he knew nothing about the circumstances of this case, and perhaps it would have been better if he had made himself acquainted with them before intervening in the debate. Four of his (Mr. Hozier's) best personal friends formed the Commission, but he did not think that even his best personal friends were necessarily infallible. If the county of Lanark were wrong in the course they had taken they were wrong in conjunction with his right hon. friend the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland as to the practically automatic right to an appeal. So impressed were the representatives of the county of Lanark with these opinions that they did not go into the question of the adjustment of clauses at all, being certain that there would be an appeal. The result was that Glasgow got more than she expected, and he did not know why the finding of a committee sitting in Glasgow should be considered as a sort of law of the Medes and the Persians which could not be altered at all. Lanarkshire was strongly in favour of the purification of the Clyde, and the people of the county were willing to pay their fair share, but they objected to be made a source of profit to Glasgow, and they did not see why the rural districts quite irrespectively of their own requirements should be rated at the same rate as Glasgow for this purpose. It was all very well to say that the rate was restricted to 4d. in the £, but Glasgow would profit to a much larger extent than the rural districts, which, although they were asked to contribute the same rate, would get no representation whatever

  979
  on the distributing body. Moreover the limit of 4d. was only to last for seven years, which was no boon at all, as the works would not be finished within that time. Let them consider the case of the river Thames. He was sure that the Thames required purification just as much as the Clyde, but in their very wildest moments hon. Members would never suggest that Maidenhead and Windsor should be rated pari passu with London for the purification of the Thames. And yet that was what was suggested for the county of Lanark.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)reminded the Committee that the House of Lords rejected a motion to send this Bill to a Joint Committee of the two Houses, and now what did the hon. Member opposite propose to do? He proposed, after the motion had been lost in the House of Lords, and not being competent under the statute, that they were to discuss the whole thing upon consideration. Surely it never was meant that the consideration stage should be used in that way. The decision contained in the Bill might be absolutely right or it might not. The Committee were asked to do a great deal by Glasgow on the one side and by Lanarkshire on the other, and they decided upon the course suggested as a just solution of the difficulty. He hoped the House was not going to adopt the bad precedent of inquiring into the details of this class of legislation.
  MR. COLVILLEsaid that under the present proposals the city of Glasgow desired to throw over a former agreement with the lower ward of Lanarkshire in regard to sewage. What he asked was that this district of the lower ward of Lanarkshire should not be unfairly assessed in regard to purification schemes which Glasgow might enter upon. Whatever contribution Lanarkshire made, it ought not to be such as
  would tend to relieve the ratepayers of the city of Glasgow of their proper obligations in this matter. If the suggestion of his hon. friend opposite was adopted no injustice would be done to the city of Glasgow, and those in the district affected would be prepared to contribute their full share of the additional cost in regard to all the purification schemes which Glasgow might propose. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Tradeston, that a clause had been arranged giving a reduced rate to the counties, was an illusory one, because the rate of 4d. was only for seven years, during which time the sewage scheme of Glasgow was not likely to be completed. When the sewage works did come into operation the rate upon the lower ward ratepayers would immediately be raised to that of Glasgow—6d. per £—and that would undoubtedly for so small an area be more than was required in equity. He had confidence in supporting the Amendment. It was on a matter of equity that they came before the House representing the county council of Lanarkshire. They only asked that fair play should be given to the district in the decision come to.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid that gentlemen who took upon themselves to raise such points as were now under consideration must prove that their case was not frivolous. The point now before the House was a frivolous, even a contemptible, attempt to reverse the decision arrived at. What was asked was both impossible and improper. If the gentlemen representing local districts were to be relieved from the necessity of preparing costly schemes of their own, and if the ratepayers in outlying localities were to be charged no more than those inside Glasgow, he thought they were mighty well off.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 47; Noes, 233. (Division List No. 342.)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Kimber, Henry

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lambert, George

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Macartney,Rt.Hn.W.G.Ellison

  Strachey, Edward

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Milton, Viscount

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  More, Robt. Jasp. (Shropshire)

  Ure, Alexander

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morton,ArthurH.A.(Deptford

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

  Heath,ArthurHoward(Hanley

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Heath,James(Staffords,N.W.)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Charles Douglas and Mr. Hozier.

  Joicey, Sir James

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Kemp, George

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

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

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Knowles, Lees

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Doogan, P. C.

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lawson, John Grant

  Asher, Alexander

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Duffy, William J.

  Leamy, Edmund

  Austin, Sir John

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lee,ArthurH.(Hants,Fareham

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Elibank, Master of

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Emmott, Alfred

  Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

  Balfour,RtHnGerald W. (Leeds

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lough, Thomas

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

  Bartley, George C. T.

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Field, William

  Lundon, W.

  Bell, Richard

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Bignold, Arthur

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bill, Charles

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Cann, James

  Boland, John

  Flower, Ernest

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Cameron, Robert

  Gilhooly, James

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasg'w

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mitchell, William

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Mooney, John J.

  Carew, James Laurence

  Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdmunds

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Harrington, Timothy

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Murphy, John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Chapman, Edward

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Horner, Frederick William

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Crean, Eugene

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Crombie, John William

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hoult, Joseph

  O'Dowd, John

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Howard, John (Kent, Favers'm)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  O'Malley, William

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles]

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Shee, James John

  Delany, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham

  Dewar, JohnA.(Inverness-sh.)

  Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHn.SirU

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

  982

  983

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Russell, T. W.

  Tully, Jasper

  Percy, Earl

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Valentia, Viscount

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wallace, Robert

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

  Purvis, Robert

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wason, Eugene Clackmannan

  Randles, John S.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Sinclair,CaptJohn(Forfarshire

  Weir, James Galloway

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  White, Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

  Rea, Russell

  Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tynesi'e

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

  Reddy, M.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Spear, John Ward

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Spenecer,Rt.Hn.C.R(Northants

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Sullivan, Donal

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

  Ridley,Hon.M.W.(Stalybridge

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

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

  Ridley,S.Forde(Bethnal Green)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Young, Samuel

  Rigg, Richard

  Thomas, Able (Carmarthen, E.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Thompson,DrEC(Monaghan N

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Cameron Corbett and Sir John Stirling-Maxwell

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
  City and Brixton Railway Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  BINGLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL.

      DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
      ECCLES CORPORATION BILL.
      GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
      KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL.
      Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.

      SHANNON WATER AND ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
      Lords' Amendments to be considered upon Monday next.
      SWANAGE GAS AND WATER BILL.
      Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
      LYNTON AND BARNSTAPLE RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
      Read the third time, and passed, without amendment.
      BOLTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
      As amended, considered; amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
      EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION.
      Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Edinburgh Corporation, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
      EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
      "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Edinburgh Corporation," presented; and, under 62 and 63 Vic, c. 47, s. 7 (2), ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next.
      STIRLING CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION.
      Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Stirling Corporation, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.

      STIRLING CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
      "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scot-

      985
      land) Act, 1899, relating to Stirling Corporation," presented; and, under 62 and 63 Vic., c. 47, s. 7 (2), ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next.

      WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].
      Reported, without amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
      Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

      WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
      Reported, without amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
      Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  DOVER HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
    CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    BELFAST HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
    Reported, without amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    Bill to be read the third time.

  NEWPORT (ISLE OF WIGHT) GAS BILL [Lords].
    EASTON AND CHURCH HOPE RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
      DONCASTER TITHE TRUST BILL [Lords].
      Reported, with amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

      DOVER GAS BILL [Lords].
      Reported, without amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
      Bill to be read the third time.

      HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON WATER BOARD BILL [Lords].
      Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
      LOCH LEVEN WATER POWER BILL.
      Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
      TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL.
      Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
      TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL.
      Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
      TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL.
      Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Bill."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

      MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
      That they have agreed to: Naval Works Provisional Order Bill, without amendment.
      That they have agreed to: Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Blackpool Improvement Bill; Metropolitan Railway Bill; Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Dearne Valley Junction Railways) Bill; Burton-upon-Trent Corporation Bill; Metropolitan Water Companies (Amendment of Acts) Bill, with Amendments.
      That they have agreed to Amendments to: Sheffield Corporation Bill [Lords]; Chesterfield Improvement Bill [Lords]; London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords], without amendment.
      That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Clydebank Burgh Tramways." Clydebank Burgh Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
      Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Edinburgh and District Water." Edinburgh and District Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
      And, also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to incorporate the Watford and District Tramways Company, and to empower that Company to make and maintain tramways and other works; and for other purposes." Watford and District Tramways Bill [Lords]

      CLYDEBANK BURGH TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
      Ordered, under Section 7 (2) of the Private Legislation (Scotland) Act, 1899, to be considered upon Tuesday next.
      EDINBURGH AND DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
      Ordered, under Section 7 (2) of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to be considered upon Tuesday next.
      WATFORD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
      Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  PETITIONS.
    AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT (1896), ETC., CONTINUANCE BILL.
    Petition from Uphall, against; to lie upon the Table.
    ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION BILL.
    Petition from West Ham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    BOARD OF EDUCATION (MINUTE OF 3RD JULY, 1901).
    Petition from Leek, for withdrawal; to lie upon the Table.
    CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
    Petition from Doncaster, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
    EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL.
    Petition from Cleethorpes, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
    Petition from Ryde, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Leigh; St. Germans, and Nottingham; to lie upon the Table.
    SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION BILL.
    Petition from London, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  GROCERS AND OFF-LICENCES, ETC. (BELFAST).
  Return [presented 15th July] to be printed. [No. 269.]
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATING) ACT (1899) (AMOUNTS PAID TO ADMINISTRATIVE COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS).
  Return [presented 18th July] to be printed. [No. 270.]
  ARSENICAL POISONING (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented of Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of Poisoning by Arsenic in Beer and other Articles of Diet [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SEA FISHERIES (RESTRICTIVE LEGISLATION IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Return presented relative thereto [Address 13th December, 1900; Mr. Maconochie]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 271.]
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) (ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS).
  Copy presented of Report of the Proceedings of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales under the Endowed Schools Acts, 1869 to 1889, for the year 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (VOLUNTEERS).
  Copy presented of Draft of a Scheme relative to the Efficiency of the Volunteers in substitution for the Scheme contained in Her late Majesty's Order in Council dated 31st July, 1880, as amended by subsequent Orders in Council [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS.
  Copy ordered "of new form of Contract adopted by the Admiralty."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA—SETTLEMENT OF THE NEW TERRITORIES.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the speech of Sir Gordon Sprigg, wherein he declared that it was intended to promote a system of immigration of loyalists from Great Britain and the rest of the Empire to the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, and whether His Majesty's Government are contemplating any such scheme as this; if so, whether any particulars of it can be given to the House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have to refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Northampton yesterday.* I have nothing to add to it.

  PRESENT SITUATION IN CAPE COLONY.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of Boer invaders and of British troops respectively in the Cape Colony at the present time, in what districts of the colony and within what distance of Cape Town are the invaders operating, and in what numbers have they been joined by British subjects; and whether the civil courts are open throughout the whole of that portion of the country which is untouched by the invasion, and upon what grounds that portion is still subjected to martial law, and how long it is proposed to continue the administration of martial law.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I do not think it is desirable to give this information. The institution of martial law in the Cape Colony was necessary in all districts which were either invaded or
  *See page 816.
  990
  open to invasion, and it will be continued so long as circumstances may require it.

  PROMOTIONS FROM THE RANKS DURING THE WAR.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of men in the Imperial and Colonial forces who have been promoted to commissioned or non-commissioned rank as the result of military operations in South Africa since the commencement of the war.
  MR. BRODRICK: Two hundred and forty-six commissions have been granted. Further, forty R. A. warrant-officers have been promoted to be district officers, quarter-masters, or riding-masters on augmentation of establishments, and fifteen warrant and non-commissioned officers of cavalry and infantry to be quarter-masters or riding-masters.

  FLOGGING OF PRISONERS BY BOERS.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has any official information showing that Mr. Botha, a member of, the Cape Parliament for Aliwal North when captured lately by the Boers, was flogged and his farm burnt; whether, in view of the fact that the flogging of prisoners by the Boers is contrary to the Hague Convention, Lord Kitchener has protested against such action; and whether he will direct such steps to be taken as will prevent Mr. Sauer, the other member for Aliwal North, from being subjected to a like treatment at the hands of the Boers.
  MR. BRODRICK: Mr. Botha and his brother have sworn affidavits to the effect that they were flogged by the Boers. I am not aware of what action Lord Kitchener has taken, but any members of commandos guilty of such outrages who may fall into our hands will meet with exemplary punishment.

  BURGHER POLICE.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what are the numbers and composition of the South African

  991
  Burgher Police Corps, what are its special duties, and whether it is used for military purposes as well as for police work.
  MR. BRODRICK: This is a local corps, and I know nothing of its composition.

  ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT— IRISH GRADUATES.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many Irish graduates are in the Army Medical Department, and in what proportion they are to the English and Scotch graduates.
  MR. BRODRICK: The number of Irish graduates is 334, being 37 per cent., as compared with English 35 per cent., and Scotch 28 per cent.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Sir William Thompson has refused to serve on the Committee he has appointed?
  MR. BRODRICK: I hope to be able to say in about twenty minutes time.

  CHANNEL ISLANDS GARRISONS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether there is any intention of withdrawing the Imperial troops from the Channel Islands
  MR. BRODRICK: There is no intention of withdrawing the Regular troops provided the Government of the Islands carry out the reorganisation of the Militia.

  RETURN OF THE SEAFORTH MILITIA.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the fact that M'Brayne's steamer "Lovedale," which was provided to convey the Seaforth Militia from Kyle of Lochalsh to Stornoway on their return to their homes from Egypt on the evening of the 11th June, broke down in the Minch, and was delayed a considerable time, will he state
  992
  when, where, and by whom she was last surveyed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The "Lovedale" was last surveyed at Glasgow in October and November last by one of the Board of Trade surveyors at that port.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, having regard to the fact that the West Highland mail steamer supplied by Mr. David M'Brayne on the night of the 11th June for the conveyance of the Seaforth Militia from Kyle of Lochalsh to Stornoway was provided with such inadequate shelter that two of the men have since died from exposure to the weather, whilst many others have been invalided, whether he will take steps to secure steamers with better accommodation for such purposes.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): Accepting the hon. Member's statement of the circumstances, the Postmaster General regrets the occurrence referred to. But the steamer is provided primarily for the conveyance of mails, and the contract under which the service is performed contains no provisions with respect to accommodation for passengers. The Postmaster General has, therefore, no power to interfere.

  WEST HIGHLAND STEAM SERVICE—TREATMENT OF SOLDIER PASSENGERS
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a Lewis Reservist, who had the calf of his leg shot away at Magersfontein, South Africa, on making his way home to the Island of Lewis by M'Brayne's mail steamer "Clydesdale" recently, found himself unable to go down the steep stairs to the second class cabin for refreshment, and that having had recourse to the more accessible chief cabin was called upon to pay the excess fare; and will he communicate with Mr. David M'Brayne, who holds a monopoly of the West Highland steamer services, with a view to secure some special arrangement

  993
  such as will meet cases of this kind without extra charge.
  MR. BRODRICK: This case should be brought before the general officer commanding, Scotland. I cannot undertake under any system of decentralisation to deal with these matters by question and answer in Parliament.

  MEDITERRANEAN FLEET—MAIL DELAYS.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state in what manner the delay in the departure of the Mediterranean Fleet from Gibraltar was the cause of the delay of several days in the delivery of letters for the fleet.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The delay in the delivery of the mails was due to a rearrangement of the programme, which led to the ships being detained at Gibraltar longer than was originally anticipated. Meanwhile letters had been sent to Rapallo in accordance with arrangements previously made.

  ALGECIRAS BAY—ALLEGED NIGHT VISITS OF FRENCH WARSHIPS.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has any official information to the effect that, during the recent stay of the Mediterranean Fleet at Gibraltar, certain French vessels of war, with lights extinguished, entered Algeciras Bay at night without being detected by the look-outs at Europa Point; and, if so, whether the secret practice is in accordance with usage, and whether he can state in what manner the men on duty explained their failure to detect the French vessels in question, and whether they are provided with night glasses.
  MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative. Night glasses are supplied for use in His Majesty's ships.

  NAVAL INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admi-
  994
  ralty, in view of the fact that the Director of Naval Intelligence is empowered to make representations but cannot command their adoption in any particular, whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to expand and strengthen the Department of Naval Intelligence, with a view to giving it more influence at the Admiralty.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is considered that the Naval Intelligence Department is capable of performing all the services demanded of it, and it is not intended at the present time to expand it or to alter its constitution and functions.

  TORPEDO DESTROYERS FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN FLEET.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if the torpedo destroyers required for the reinforcement of the Mediterranean have left England.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: As stated in reply to the hon. Member for Caithness, it is not proposed to despatch any additional destroyers to the Mediterranean until after the conclusion of the manœuvres.

  CAPE-AUSTRALIA CABLE—LINE FROM COCOS TO CEYLON.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the establishment of the Cape-Australia cable, he has in consideration the desirability of a spur line from Cocos to Ceylon in association with the Imperial Government as a practically all-British route from the United Kingdom to India.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): An inter-departmental Committee is now sitting to consider and report upon the question of cable communication generally. I have reason to believe that their attention has been called to the matter to which my hon. friend's question refers, and I await the receipt of their report.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: Will the noble Lord make special inquiry on this point?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Committee was specially appointed. I rather fear that if I made further inquiry it would delay the object which my hon. friend has in view.

  UGANDA—SIR H. JOHNSTON'S REPORT.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Report by Sir H. Johnston on Uganda will be in the hands of Members before the discussion on the Foreign Office Vote in Supply.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): Sir H. Johnston's Report has only been presented quite recently, but I have every hope that it will be in the hands of Members by next Friday.

  DISTURBANCES IN ARMENIA.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office is in possession of any information as to recent disturbances in the Tchem district of Thassanjak, as to the destruction of the village of Uhlbush by armed Kurds, as to the killing and wounding of Armenians, and as to the demolition of buildings, including the church and the school; and what representations, if any, have been made by the Government to the Government of the Sublime Porte, in respect to its treaty obligations in regard to protection of its Christian subjects.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I have no information as to the particular incident referred to, but His Majesty's Government have recently received reports from His Majesty's consular officers of disturbances created by the Kurds in the districts of Bitlis and Moush, and in the Tiari mountains. His Majesty's ambassador at Constantinople has called the serious attention of the Turkish Government to the state of affairs prevailing in these districts.
  MR. FLYNN: In view of the fact that the last massacres were initiated by disturbances of this kind, will the Government keep constantly before the Porte its treaty obligations!
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I have said so in the last paragraph of my answer.

  STORNOWAY MAIL STEAMER.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that McBrayne's mail steamer "Clydesdale," which runs between Mallaig, Kyle, and Stornoway, is thirty-nine years old, and in rough weather unable to bear the strain of her engines running at maximum speed, in consequence of which it not infrequently happens that a longer time is occupied on the passage to and from Stornoway than would otherwise be the case, with the result that the mails, passengers, and cargo are delayed, and will he cause some inquiry to be made with a view to ascertain whether the "Clydesdale" should be allowed to continue to make the passage through these seas in all weathers.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The "Clydesdale" has a Board of Trade passenger certificate. I am advised that she is a strongly built, well-proportioned vessel, and that there are no signs of her having been strained, or that she has suffered from vibration due to the engines working at their maximum speed. She has been well kept up, and her present boiler, although made in 1881, was not put into use until 1893. I have, in fact, no reason to doubt that the vessel is in good condition, and quite fit to continue her present employment in all weathers. As to her speed, the Board of Trade have no jurisdiction.

  MANNING OF THE MERCANTILE MARINE—THE "PRIMROSE HILL."
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if there is any rule regulating the number of apprentices to be carried by sailing ships in proportion to the total number of the crew, and whether he is aware that in the case of the "Primrose Hill" there were twelve apprentices, five of whom had never before been to sea, and that the jury, at the inquest held on the victims of the "Primrose Hill" disaster, declared that in their opinion the ship was lost through, amongst other things, having too many apprentices on board.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is no rule regulating the number of apprentices in proportion to the whole crew of a vessel. The finding of the court of inquiry, which on such a question I regard as more authoritative than that of a coroner's jury, did not ascribe the loss of the vessel to the inadequacy of her crew, either with regard to the number of apprentices or otherwise, but expressed the opinion that the managing owner would have been better advised if he had more closely considered the fact that five of the apprentices had not been to sea before. As a matter of fact, as I have already informed the hon. Member more than once, the manning of the "Primrose Hill" complied with every statutory requirement, and with either of the scales recommended by the Manning Committee.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that this vessel carried twelve apprentices, five of whom had never been at sea? Will the Board of Trade, in order to promote safety, consider the advisability of making arrangements limiting the number of inexperienced first voyage apprentices to be carried by ships of this description?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I see no necessity for it.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I shall call attention to this matter on the Board of Trade Vote.

  PAUPER ALIENS IN EAST LONDON.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the recently issued reports of the medical officers of health for the late Limehouse Board of Works and the late St. George's-in-the-East Vestry, wherein Dr. Thomas (Limehouse) states that the overcrowding is almost entirely due to the immigration of pauper aliens, and Dr. Rygate (St. George's-in-the-East) says that the population is 200 per acre, while for London it is 61·5 per acre, and that the alien characteristics of the parish are annually more pronounced, and in time the population will become almost entirely foreign, and that the
  998
  population per house is 8·7, reckoning tenements in industrial dwellings as one house; and, in view of these statements, can he hold out any promise of remedial legislation.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I have seen the reports referred to in the question. I gather that the legislation which my hon. friend desires would have for its object the checking of alien immigration. This is not a matter within the province of the Local Government Board, and I cannot hold out any promise of legislation with regard to it.

  INSTRUCTIONS TO INSPECTORS OF SCHOOLS.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education the cause of the delay in the issue of the instructions to inspectors of schools, and if he can state the date at which it may be expected to be in the hands of hon. Members.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): I regret the delay in issuing this Paper, which has been unavoidable. It is now in the hands of the printer, and will be issued shortly.

  SCOTTISH EDUCATION REPORT.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state when the General Report on Education (Scotland) (North-Western Division) for the year 1900 will be issued.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): There is no North-Western Division. The Report for the Northern Division was delivered on 16th July; that for the Western Division is in type, and will be presented on an early date.

  QUEEN VICTORIA'S MEMORIAL—DESIGNS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the competing designs for the late Queen's

  999
  Memorial will be exhibited to the public before one of them is selected and finally approved.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The responsibility of selecting the design for the late Queen's Memorial, as the hon. Member is aware, in no way devolves upon me, though by courtesy I am able to state that a design has been selected by the Executive Committee, and will be submitted to the King and to the general Committee next week. I will undertake to inform the Committee of the hon. Member's question. I have already stated that, should the selected design involve an alteration of the Mall, I think I can undertake to exhibit the design to the House.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: May I ask, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take any action in connection with the decision in another place, that models of these designs should be exhibited publicly?
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: No, Sir.

  CARRIAGE OF BUTTER ON IRISH RAILWAYS.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is yet in a position to state what is the result of the inquiry by the Department of Agriculture into the statement of Mr. Herbert Sullivan, of Curramore, Broadford, Charleville, a butter exporter, to the effect that, before the amalgamation of the Great Southern and Western and the Waterford and Limerick Railways, his consignments of butter were taken from Newcastle West, county Limerick, to London within eighteen hours, and that, between the dates 18th April and 26th June of this year, twelve similar consignments of his from Newcastle West to London on twelve different dates were not delivered until four or five days after shipment; and, if found to be correct, whether he will take any and, if so, what action to induce or compel the Great Southern and Western Company to give a better service to the public, so that Irish farm and other products may be expedited to English markets.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): It is not yet possible to state the result of the inquiry referred to.

  QUEEN'S COLLEGE—MEDICAL PROFESSORSHIPS.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state why the appointments to certain medical professorships in the Queen's College, Belfast, have been limited to a term of seven years, whereas in the Queen's College, Cork, similar appointments have been recently made for life.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The system of limiting these appointments to a term of seven years, with power of re-appointment on the expiration of the period, applies equally to each of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. There are two cases in the Cork College and one in the Belfast College to which the practice, through a misunderstanding or oversight, was not applied.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN COUNTY CORK.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that as the result of an inquiry held at Midleton, county Cork, in January last, the Local Government Board inspector has rejected fifty-four applications for cottages although these applications were supported by sworn evidence, and has thus deprived many labourers of the benefits of the Labourers Acts; and can he explain the reason for the rejection of the application of a labourer named Smiddy, residing in the electoral division of Ightermurragh, Midleton Union, in view of the fact that the house on the lands described by the inspector as a suitable dwelling has been used as a sheep shed for the past fifteen years.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Of the 191 cottages proposed to be erected the inspector recommended 137. No reason was assigned for the erection of a cottage on the lands mentioned in the second paragraph. The man Smiddy never worked for the occupying owner of these lands, but, usually, for other farmers with

  1001
  larger holdings. The necessity for the erection of a second cottage on the lands in question was not established, and the district council appeared to be satisfied with the result of the inquiry.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask whether, in view of the large number of labourers who were deprived of decent dwellings by the action of this inspector, their case will be considered by the Government?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think the hon. Gentleman states the facts accurately. The claims are sent forward and left to the determination of the Board. It is open to the local authority to re-submit at a future date the rejected claims.
  MR. CULLINAN: As great dissatisfaction exists in Ireland on this subject, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will in future have the reasons assigned by the inspector for rejecting these claims laid before Parliament?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I will consider that. In many cases the district councils are glad to be relieved of the responsibility of arriving at a decision, and prefer that it should rest with the Local Government Board.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is it not a fact that the inspectors make recommendations—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: May I ask on what grounds the right hon. Gentleman states that the district councils are glad to be relieved of the responsibility?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it not a fact that these applications are always supported by sworn evidence from the locality?

  IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS' SALARIES.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there are in the service of the National Board of Educa-
  1002
  tion any teachers having more than three years efficient service whose salaries are now fixed at the minimum salary for the lowest grade; whether any provision has been made whereby teachers shall receive credit for service rendered before the 1st April, 1900, and whether such teachers shall at once receive such increments to their present salaries as shall make their positions equal to those of future teachers having the same length of service.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There are in the service of the National Board of Education teachers having more than three years of efficient service whose salaries are now fixed at the minimum salary for the lowest grade. For service rendered before 1st April, 1900, all teachers received credit as provided by the rules which up till that time were in force. Grade salary and continued good service salary by triennial increments date only from 1st April, 1900, and all teachers may receive such increments under the same conditions.

  LAND PURCHASE IN COUNTY MAYO.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that application has been made to the Land Commission by James Brannick, Scaurdaun, Claremorris, for an advance of money to enable him to purchase a large grazing farm at Brize, near Claremorris, county Mayo, and which has been let for grazing purposes for some years past; and can he state the amount applied for, and whether it has been granted.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that no such application has been made.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a grazing farm, the property of Mr. Alexander Martyn, Ballinrobe, situated at Brize, near Claremorris, is about to be sold; and whether, with a view of relieving the congestion in the district in which the farm is situated in Mayo, by purchase of this farm for purposes of redistribution among the people, he will urge the Congested Districts Board

  1003
  to open negotiations immediately with Mr. Martyn towards that end.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The purchase of this farm is already the subject of negotiation between the Congested Districts Board and Mr. Martyn.

  DELMEGE ESTATE, CO. LIMERICK.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the land judges of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, as far back as eleven years ago, ordered the sale of part of the lands of Ballygrennane, the owner then being John Christopher Delmege, and the tenant being John Casey, the said townland of Ballygrennane being in the barony of Publebrien and county of Limerick; is he aware that later on the sum of £720 was fixed on as the price, the tenant consenting, and can he state whether this sale was later on brought under the 40th section of the Act of 1896, or what has caused the delay in bringing the sale to an issue, and will he take steps to bring about such sale.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The sale of this estate is not taking place under the 40th section of the Act of 1896. I am informed that Mr. Casey, in May last, offered to purchase the fee simple of his holding for the price mentioned, and that an agreement for sale to him at that price is now in course of preparation.

  ELPHIN POSTAL SERVICE.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that inconvenience has been caused to the inhabitants of Elphin owing to not receiving their letters daily till 4 p. m., as the mail car must come from Longford through Strokestown to Elphin; whether, seeing that if the letters were despatched by a mail car from Carrick-on-Shannon on the arrival of the limited mail they would reach Elphin at 11 a.m. each day, he will take steps to have this change carried out.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General will cause inquiry to be made whether it would
  1004
  be feasible to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion for improving the postal service to Elphin, and will communicate to him the result.

  IRISH GOLD ORNAMENTS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will grant the Return relative to the case of the Irish gold ornaments standing on the Order Paper.†
  I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will state how the case of the Irish gold ornaments stands; and what steps the Government propose to take in the matter.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): With regard to the first question, I should like to see the Papers before I can say if they can be given in the form of a Return. I am told that the opinion of the joint committee of law officers of England and Ireland has been taken in regard to the custody of the Irish gold ornaments. We have not yet received the opinion of these officers, but I will communicate with the hon. Baronet as soon as I obtain it. The law's delays in this matter are most remarkable.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind the long time this matter has been before the law officers of the Crown, and also the fact that a year has passed since he promised that these gold ornaments should be restored to Ireland, see that there is no more unnecessary delay?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir. There has been delay of an extraordinary kind, but I do not think that the law officers are to blame. As soon as one question has been decided by the law officers the ingenuity of certain gentlemen is exercised in raising new points which also have to be decided.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Well, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to use some of his well-known ingenuity to get this matter settled.
  † Return giving the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in the matter of the Iris h gold ornaments, together with copies of the documents in the case.
  LORD BALCARRES: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks favourably of the suggestion to grant the Return asked for, will he be so good as to see that all decisions in these cases are also issued?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will consider whether the substance of the various decisions can be issued in the Parliamentary Papers. We possibly may be able to give the substance, but not the actual form of words, as these documents are always regarded as confidential.
  LORD BALCARRES: Then can we have the substance in all other cases?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will consider that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now state whether he has reason to anticipate that the Committee stage of the Education Bill will be taken on Monday, and, if not, I would express a strong hope that he will not proceed with the Rating Bill on that day, because so many Members interested in it will be taken by surprise.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry to say that I do not think the condition of health of the Chairman of Committees is such as will enable us to proceed in Committee on Monday; and unless I hear more reassuring accounts of his health I should not propose to take the Education Bill next week at all, but on that point I cannot make a decided reply. The right hon. Gentleman appeals to me not to take the Rating Bill on Monday. I will meet his views in that respect, and propose, if we cannot take the Education Bill, to take the Rating Bill on Tuesday. On Monday the first business will be the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule for the rest of the session, with the accompanying statement with which the motion is usually prefaced at this time of the year. When that is disposed of I propose to take the Second Reading of the Yeomanry Bill and some departmental Bills.

NEW BILL.
  SHOP CLUBS.
  Bill to prohibit compulsory membership of unregistered Shop Clubs or Thrift Funds, and to regulate such as are duly registered, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Samuel, Mr. Strachey, Sir Albert Rollit, Sir Charles Dilke, Sir Harry Bullard, Mr. Yoxall, Mr. Hay, Dr. Macnamara, Mr. Holland, and Mr. George White.
  SHOP CLUBS BILL.
  "To prohibit compulsory membership of unregistered Shop Clubs or Thrift Funds, and to regulate such as are duly registered," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 270.]

SUPPLY [17TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [17TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1901–2.

    CLASS V.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £265, 052, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the Expenses of His Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad, and of the Consular Establishments Abroad and other Expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote."
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEcalled attention to the work of the commercial attachés and agents. The last time the matter was before the House was in the February of the preceding year, when reassuring information was given as to the intentions of the department in regard to it. Owing to the fact that these commercial attachés were only six in number, and that they were responsible for the whole of Europe, as well as for part of Asia and America, the

    1007
    districts allotted to them were over-whelmingly large, and they could not possibly exercise any real influence or acquire any real knowledge of the trade of the country to which they were nominally attached. For instance, the commercial attaché for Austria covered Austro-Hungary, Italy, and Greece with a combined population of seventy-five millions and a trade of 260 millions sterling. The attaché for France covered also Switzerland and Belgium, with a population of seventy-eight millions and a trade of 560 millions; while the one in Germany was responsible for Holland, Sweden, and Norway as well, the population being sixty-two millions, and the trade 150 millions. The fact was that all these gentlemen had districts allotted to them which were far too large. Besides, they had other duties to perform. The French commercial attaché was a director of the Suez Canal; the one in Spain was called upon to translate official documents at the Madrid Embassy. The commercial agents had even greater districts to deal with. The one for Russia had a district with a population of 120 millions, and a trade of 1,270 millions, while the United States commercial agent had a district of three million square miles, with a trade of 450 millions. What he wished to press upon the Under Secretary was, that if these gentlemen were to do any good they should be in positions of financial and diplomatic importance. The commercial attachés had a certain diplomatic standing, but the commercial agents had been deliberately refused it. They certainly ought to be men of social and commercial standing. To get the proper class of people to acquire information they must have men of more social and commercial standing than they were able to procure at present. What he would suggest was, that the work of the commercial side and of the diplomatic side of the embassies should not be kept completely separate. Anyone who was conversant with our foreign relations must know that a great deal of the diplomatic work of the country was very closely connected with the trade of the country, and it would be perfectly possible to make the diplomatic and the trade work of the embassies interchangeable, just as in the Indian
    1008
    Civil Service judicial and administrative work was interchangeable. There was at the present moment in all our universities and other centres of learning a desire to establish commercial education on a larger basis than hitherto. The London University had already created a faculty of economics, with commercial and industrial sides, and lectures were already given on commercial geography and national trade which must have an inspiring effect on the rising generation of traders. He thought it was clear that the rising generation was awakening to the advantages which could be gained from the information put at their disposal by the commercial attachés. There was another point he wished to press, and that was that the dissemination of the information was quite as important as its collection. He suggested that, in conjunction with the Board of Trade, permanent exhibitions of British industry should be established in connection with our embassies, so that foreigners could see at first hand the products of this country. The fact was that trade compepetition was increasing very severely, and that we were fighting not so much for our old supremacy as for our very existence as a commercial nation. Too often merchants in this country would not pay attention to the small particulars on which the trade of foreign countries depended, and he hoped that the Foreign Office would not slacken their endeavours to obtain all possible information in regard to the course of trade in foreign countries.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought that something might be done in the development of the consular into the diplomatic service. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman in regard to the great value that attached to reports of foreign trade from our consular and diplomatic agents abroad; but at present the consular trade reports were often quite without value, because the reports never bore any date. [Lord CRANBORNE dissented.] Yes, the date proceeded from the Foreign Office, and there were constant allusions to what happened last year or the year before, but there was no date to show when the report was really written. The suggestions which they contained were generally

    1009
    childish, such as that we should adopt the metric system and so on, which were not worth printing. His conviction was that British merchants had nothing to learn from the consular reports; at any rate, he had seen nothing in these reports which was likely to teach British merchants anything they did not know already. This Vote travelled over the whole habitable earth—Russia, Turkey, Persia, Germany, France, Spain, etc. His complaint was that, for some reason or other, our diplomatic agents had not been successful in performing their functions. It would not be strictly in order to discuss on that Vote the policy with which they were charged. But he would take the case of our Ambassador to Russia. So little influence had he, that no sooner had the war in South Africa broken out than Russia sent 6,000 men to Kertch. If our Ambassador had performed his duties with complete success, that would not have happened with a friendly country with whom we were on terms of peace. There was a railway now being built right through Persia to the Persian Gulf, and the only result of the action of England in Persia in recent years had been to hand over that country almost completely to Russia. The same was true with regard to the British Ambassador in Turkey, which, however, was partly due to personal causes. There again the whole of Asia Minor was being parcelled out, the northern portion to Russia and the southern to Germany; and the Germans were running a railway to Bagdad and on to the Persian Gulf. All that represented a very serious failure of our diplomatic action, and if it were in order he might trace it to the fountain head. Whatever the cause was, whether it was deficient instruction from home, or deficient pressure abroad, he would not now ask. But he would state that; in spite of the enormous expenditure which the country was asked to provide for diplomatic agents, the influence of England was diminishing in the countries he had mentioned. He would not dwell on the enormous importance that that decreasing influence of England had, but he believed it very seriously imperilled the defence of India. Then, again, it was impossible to avoid a similar conviction nearer home. The British Ambas-
    1010
    sador to Spain had not been able to preserve the full amity of that country; neither was the British Ambassador to France. That was not due to the Ambassadors themselves, but to imprudent utterances and imprudent action at home. He would ask the noble Lord with regard to the matters he had touched on, very briefly and not at all in proportion to their importance, whether he could give the Committee a reassuring statement as to the position of England in the countries he had named, and the amount of influence that the British ambassadors were able to exercise in Russia, Persia, Turkey, Spain, and France. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to give a satisfactory reply, and that he would also be able to say something with reference to the suggestion as to the interchangeability of a certain portion of the consular service. He should also be glad to know if the noble Lord would consider the value of the consular reports with reference to trade. He was not now speaking of statistics, but as to the manner in which consuls went out of their way to offer advice on questions of trade, which, as a rule, they imperfectly understood. He thought it would be worth while to consider whether the reports should be continued in their present form.
    MR. TAYLORsaid he had long desired to know on what principle British consuls and commercial attachés were appointed. He had himself personal knowledge of consuls in distant countries, and, as most men did who travelled, he found them very courteous and very gentlemanly and very useful for social purposes. But he felt that the commercial attachés and consuls, particularly in the Far East—although he was not speaking from personal experience, but from knowledge derived from several business men—lacked practical business knowledge. It was quite right that British consuls abroad should be able to dispense social advantages to travellerson pleasure bent, but it seemed to him that consuls and commercial attachés who were appointed for commercial purposes ought to be men of commercial training. He had an instance in his mind which showed the complete inefficiency of at least one

    1011
    consul for the purposes of trade. A friend of his, representing a large commercial house in Bradford, and one of the ablest business men he had ever met, went out to the Far East to open up a trade in Burma, China, and Japan. He went to one of the British consuls in China, and asked him for a list of traders in a particular line of business. The consul handed him a general list of traders, whereupon his friend informed the consul that he was travelling in textiles, and only wanted the houses which dealt in textiles. "Oh," replied the consul, "if you think I am here for the purpose of making business easy for commercial travellers, I am not your man. If you want anything in a general way I shall be glad to help, but if you want anything with reference to a particular business, you will have to go over the way to the German consul, who, I believe, has assorted lists of traders." His friend went to the German consul, and got all the information he desired. That was an absolute fact, and he was afraid it was typical of the way in which British consuls did their business. He should be glad to know whether in appointing a consul any effort was made to secure a man of commercial knowledge and experience, or were men pitchforked into consular positions because of their general ability and respectability, without any regard to their capacity to advise on commercial questions. He was afraid they were losing a great deal of trade abroad owing to the lack of practical knowledge on the part of their commercial attachés and consuls. With reference to the Board of Trade Journal, no doubt it contained a great deal of very useful information, but the statement that English merchants did not send out commercial travellers was repeated over and over again; and also the statement that catalogues were sent out in the English language. That was all very well, but they had had enough of it. What was required was specific information, and he was glad to observe that more of it was now being given. He was also quite sure that the samples which were being sent home would bear fruit by and by. But his main point was that the Government in appointing consuls and commercial attachés should select men not only for their general
    1012
    capacity, but also, as far as possible, for their commercial training, knowledge, and experience, which were very useful in the important outposts of British trades in which they were stationed.
    MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid he understood that the hon. Member who opened the debate did not move a reduction. He wished to know whether he would now be in order in moving a reduction.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,)said it would perhaps be more convenient if he now replied to the general observations which had been addressed to him. He was quite confident that anything he would say would not interfere with the desire of his hon. friend to move a reduction. The observations which had been made to the Committee by the two hon. Gentlemen opposite were mainly devoted to questions of trade and to British agents abroad with reference to trade. He would at once admit that during the short time he had occupied his present position he had been very much impressed with the importance of developing as far as it reasonably could be developed that side of the Foreign Office work which had reference to the collection and distribution of commercial intelligence. He had discussed the matter with his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade, and he could assure the Committee that everything that could be done towards the reasonable development of that side of the work of the Foreign Office would be done. He should, however, like to impress on the Committee that it was a new departure. When hon. Gentlemen criticised British agents abroad, because in their judgment they did not give enough time to collection of commercial intelligence, it ought to be remembered that they had not yet had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the new state of things. The Foreign Office would do its best, but he should be sorry if the Committee or the country thought that the Foreign Office could do a great deal. The success of British trade must depend on the traders themselves. It was the energy of the trader, his enterprise, and his skill in finding out what

    1013
    was required, that was going to keep English trade in the high position it at present occupied. He confessed he would have a certain feeling of disappointment if it were true—and it was not true—that English traders had nothing to rely upon except the assistance of public officials. However good officials were, they could not do what was required, except to a very small extent. The hon. Gentleman opposite said he did not wish to hear any more in the trade reports about commercial travellers. He should be very sorry to bore the hon. Member, and he would not talk about commercial travellers; but the difference between the way in which British trade was pushed abroad and the way in which foreign trade was pushed was that the foreigners had commercial travellers, whereas English traders practically had not. He was not a trader himself, and, as the Committee would understand, he had only an amateur knowledge of commercial matters; but he was confident that the success of foreign trade turned on the excellence of the commercial travellers who were employed and on the systematic way in which they went to work. Therefore, although the reiteration might be tiresome, he did not think the time was thrown away in pressing in season and out of season the importance of commercial travellers. The hon. Member who initiated the discussion spoke of sample exhibitions. That had been tried by one or two countries, and, as far as he had been able to make out, with some success. The matter was now under consideration, and it might possibly be tried in order to see how it worked. The Board of Trade Journal, as the hon. Member opposite said, was a very useful publication, and the intelligence in it, as far as foreign countries were concerned, was provided by the Foreign Office. The hon. Member opposite spoke of commercial attachés. Although they dated long before his time, he thought that commercial attaches were not originally established with a view to providing that kind of detailed information to which the hon. Member referred. They represented in practice the commercial side of each embassy or legation. The hon. Gentleman knew that an enormous number of despatches had to be written with reference to commercial matters
    1014
    on which negotiations were in progress in foreign ports, and in respect of which the commercial attachés acted as intermediaries.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that it was stated in the House on the 3rd August, 1899, by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War, who was then Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that commercial attaches were not only entitled but directed to correspond with traders with reference to foreign trade.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid his right hon. friend was very much impressed with the inconvenience with which that side of the work of the Foreign Office was carried on, and he instituted the system of commercial agents, and it was to commercial agents they really had to look for detailed information. His hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn referred to the appointment of consuls in the Crimea. There were a very large number of consuls in the Crimea, and they were paid, and promotion was opened to them. They might, for instance, become consuls-general, which was a very important post. His hon. friend spoke with a certain amount of disdain of the consular reports on trade. Undoubtedly some were very much better than others, and he hoped one of their efforts would be to bring all the consular trade reports up to one high standard. For that purpose it would be necessary to determine a model on which the reports should be framed, and in that way they might arrive at a common form of report which would be useful for all practical purposes.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked what about the dates on the reports.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid his hon. friend would find the dates inside. He thought it did not matter whether they were inside or outside, but he would look into the matter. His right hon. friend who preceded him in the Foreign Office instituted the experiment of commercial agents, whose duty it would be to collect information for transmission to the Foreign Office, and act as a sort of bureau of information for traders in

    1015
    England who wanted it. The idea was that any merchant or trader in England who wanted information on any particular topic would be able to receive it, and that a small fee would be charged. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the anxiety of the British trader for information and the reluctance and inefficiency of the Foreign Office to provide it. But he thought it ought to be known that the system instituted by his right hon. friend so far as it had gone was a dead failure. Since the commercial agents had been appointed the Foreign Office had only succeeded in collecting about £20 in fees, and that had regard to the whole area regarding which the commercial agents were supposed to have information. That was to say, that the great demand for information on the part of traders was not valued even at the small fee which was charged. The Foreign Office might provide the information, but they could not drive it down the throat of the English trader. He himself was inclined to think that in most cases the trader did not require information, and that the best commercial houses were able and willing to obtain information for themselves. They trusted to themselves, but the Foreign Office was most anxious to do anything that was wanted. They had offered to supply information, and the offer still remained open, and it was possible that they might be able to make a mitigation in respect even of the small fee at present charged in the hope of making the experiment a success. They earnestly hoped that any hon. Gentleman or any other person who had a suggestion which might be valuable towards helping forward British trade would communicate it to the Foreign Office. His hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn wandered into the wider elements of the diplomatic position of the United Kingdom throughout the world. His hon. friend said that foreign countries did not always act exactly as England desired, and that therefore the British ambassadors were inefficient. His hon. friend knew perfectly well that they were the objects of the greatest jealousy on the part of the Continent, and it was a matter of much surprise to Englishmen why that should be. He could only attribute it, not so much to their own merits, as probably to
    1016
    the great success which had waited on them in the past, and to the high position they had attained. With recent history ringing in his ears, his hon. friend had strangely misread the influence of the British ambassadors in Russia, Persia, and elsewhere. He did not admit the correctness of his hon. friend's facts with reference to Persia.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if he understood the noble Lord to deny that Russia, on the outbreak of the South African War, marched 6,000 men to Kertch, within thirty-five miles of Herat; that Russia had obtained the right to construct a railway right down to the Persian Gulf; and that Germany had a right to run a railway to the other side of the Gulf
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid he did not deny that Russia had certain rights in Persia, but he did not admit by any means that they extended to the extent suggested by his hon. friend. Many of those rights dated long before the outbreak of the South African War; but, as his hon. friend had mentioned South Africa, he should like to remind the Committee of one marvellous fact, and that was that, notwithstanding that we had been engaged in a tremendous war, which had put an enormous strain on our resources, we had nevertheless been able, he thought he might say in all parts of the globe, to take as leading a position as we had ever taken. If the Chinese policy of the Government was examined it would be found that, notwithstanding the great stress the country had been undergoing, practically on all the turning points in the Chinese question Great Britain had been able to take the lead. He did not say it in any boasting spirit, but our diplomatic successes were such that in crisis after crisis, not only in China, but elsewhere. the suggestions of this country had been adopted by Europe. That was a matter of gratification, and should convince the Committee that the position of this country abroad was still one of very great respect and importance. If we did not push on as rapidly as some hon. Members desired, it was because we were a business people. Other countries might not adopt the same principle; we did not

    1017
    criticise them for not doing so, but we were content with our traditional policy which had hitherto been successful. To his mind the more important part of the discussion had been concerned with trade, and everything that could be done to develop that would be done.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid the discussion had followed the accustomed lines, and while some Members had shown a tendency to introduce large questions of foreign policy, others had wished to confine the discussion to the business aspects of the Consular Vote. He agreed with the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that on the Diplomatic Vote, and still more on the Consular Vote, it was exceedingly difficult to introduce with public advantage any discussion on important questions of foreign policy. The proper occasion for such discussion was on the Foreign Office Vote. An additional inconvenience of raising questions of foreign policy on the present Vote was that one was always in danger unintentionally of appearing to attack the conduct, wisdom, or foresight of ambassadors, who, from their position, were not able to speak for themselves; while, on the other hand, if their conduct was impugned on the Foreign Office Vote that Office, being really responsible, was able to speak with full authority and without any danger of going outside the limits of the Vote. The remarks of the hon. Member for King's Lynn were an illustration on the point. It would not be possible to enter on the question of the wisdom or foresight of the ambassador at St. Petersburg in regard to the conduct of Russia at the time of the outbreak of the South African War without entering on the whole question of our position abroad and the relation of this country to the general European situation. The question could hardly be adequately discussed without considering, for example, the position of this country in relation to the Triple Alliance and the Dual Alliance, but any reference to the matter would doubtless be at once met by a request from the Chairman for the discussion to be kept within proper limits. The same observation would apply to the remarks of the hon. Member for King's Lynn in regard to our position in
    1018
    Spain. In regard to Turkey it was, perhaps, easier to say something strictly relevant to the Vote. He had already asked the noble Lord certain questions, more from a business and commercial than a purely political point of view, in regard to the position of Great Britain in the matter of the Asiatic railways, and he understood that certain papers, presumably consular reports, were to be presented, showing what had happened and was likely to happen with regard to the development of railways in Asia Minor, which he ventured to say was one of the most important movements now going on. As far back as 1872, or thereabouts, a Committee, presided over by Sir Stafford Northcote, presented a Report on Asiatic railway communication, and even then, in the opinion of practical politicians, men of business, the very class of men who watched these matters with the greatest interest, there was a great deal to be said for the view that within a measurable distance of time the importance of the route through Asia Minor, the Persian Gulf, to India, would be restored to the march of civilisation through the great mechanical and scientific discoveries connected with railways, telegraphs, and so on. Events had marched even more rapid than Sir Stafford Northcote and his colleagues anticipated, and at the present moment there was an eager competition in the commercial world to get the ultimate control of these railways. He made no charge against the Foreign Office; he had no knowledge. His reason for alluding to the question was that it was one of the greatest importance to this country. If there was one thing more painful than another in regard to the present commercial position of Great Britain—which was admitted to be one of great anxiety—it was the way in which British trade and commerce was gradually being driven out of those countries in which, even within the memory of people now living, it not only had a leading place but almost a monopoly. At one time there were great English commercial houses at Constantinople, but one by one they had died away, and been supplanted very largely by German houses or houses having their centre in Austria and Hungary. He did not believe there was any necessary antagonism between

    1019
    this country and Germany, but he held that Great Britain ought to be able to command a large share of the trade of that part of the East. The question had been raised as to whether the blame for the loss of trade was to be placed on the consular representatives or on English commercial men themselves, or divided between the two. Without at all desiring to constitute himself a thick and thin champion of the Foreign Office, he thought that for several years past there had been a certain want of appreciation of the efforts which had been made honestly, conscientiously, and steadily, even if not altogether so successfully as might be wished, by the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade to improve trade relations with the commercial world, and to improve the information given in consular reports. As far back as when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean held the office now occupied by the noble Lord, the Foreign Office was extremely active in that direction, and there was no man who commanded the confidence of the commercial classes in England more than did the Gentleman who at the time was head of the commercial side of the Foreign Office—Mr., afterwards Sir William, Kennedy. He was modest and never asserted himself, and, perhaps for that reason, did not obtain, in some quarters, a recognition of the enormous work that he carried out. That work had, he believed, been followed up, and the consular reports now produced, even admitting their defects, showed great progress as compared with those of former times. When the information for which he had previously pressed was obtained he hoped and believed it would be found that the Foreign Office on its commercial side, and the consuls, had not been deficient in either interest or action. The same class of observation applied to the lamentable manner in which British trade had been shouldered out of all those developing countries on the Adriatic and the seas in which Salonica, next to Constantinople, was the most important commercial centre. In by gone days Salonica held a magnificent position as one of the most important centres of commerce and civilisation; and it was certain that in proportion as railway
    1020
    communications improved in what he might call diplomatic Turkey, trade there would develop, and unless this country, through its consular department, showed much activity in that part of the world the trade would gravitate more and more into the hands of the commercial men of Buda Pesth and elsewhere. Owing to the organisation of the trade and commerce of Germany and Austro-Hungary, British trade had been, comparatively speaking, driven out of these parts. When he was at the Foreign Office he obtained reports from the consular representatives, which even now might be referred to as showing the only means by which this country could fight against the competition of the interests to which he had referred. There was another and an even greater responsibility attached to the Foreign Office. It was admitted that the great weakness of English commercial men abroad was their ignorance of foreign languages, and until that was rectified our trade would suffer in all parts of the world where something besides a knowledge of English was required. He was talking not long ago to an Austrian commercial traveller on the Danube, and he said that it was necessary for a traveller to know seven languages to do business in the countries where he did business. He said that he spoke nine languages. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member opposite said "Oh, oh!" but if he would inquire into the retail trade abroad, which depended so much upon small profits, he would find that a traveller required to know not only German and French and English, but also Hungarian and all the different dialects and languages, which were spoken by the different peoples who lived along the Danube. He was mentioning this fact, not because he expected that British commercial travellers should know nine languages but simply in order to show the sort of people Englishmen had to compete with. If they sent an English commercial traveller abroad they would find that in most countries he stood at a very great disadvantage when compared with the commercial travellers of other nations. About three years ago a very interesting Blue-book was presented to this House in which answers were given almost from every capital

    1021
    in Europe upon this subject, and in almost every case the answer came that the English commercial traveller did not possess a thorough knowledge of foreign languages. The remedy for this state of things was closely connected with the organisation of our system of secondary education. Until the same opportunities were given to English commercial men of obtaining instruction in foreign languages as were possessed by the commercial men of Germany, English trade would continue to lose ground.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESdissented.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid he noticed that the hon. Member for King's Lynn shook his head, but had he got any better remedy to offer?
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: With good work and low prices, it does not matter what language you talk. It is purely a question of price.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid those were the considerations which he desired to place before the Committee, and as for the larger questions he wished to raise, he thought they could be discussed with greater advantage upon the Foreign Office Vote.
    MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid he wished to move a reduction of this Vote because, in his opinion, the War Office conducted this business with absolute extravagance, and in many cases the expenditure was useless. They had all listened to the noble Lord's conciliatory remarks with interest, but he did not attach very much weight to them, and he should have preferred some assurance from the Prime Minister that he would give the matter of the inefficiency of the diplomatic and consular services his most serious attention. Although he did not wish to say that they did not require able men as Ministers in foreign countries, he desired to point out that, in his opinion, it was useless to have highly-paid officials in places like Bavaria, Darmstadt, Saxony, and Montenegro. The amount charged in the Estimates for the Minister Resident in Bavaria was £1,500 a year, and £200 for a house; for Darmstadt the amount was £500 for the Secretary of Legation, and £200 for a house; in Montenegro
    1022
    the Minister Resident received £1,300 and £200 for a house; and in Saxony the Minister Resident was paid £950 and £200 for a house. He thought the Committee would agree with him when he said that those were items of great extravagance. He wished to associate himself with the hon. Member who had laid stress upon the fact that this country ought to have more commercial attachés. In the Estimates he noticed that they had no commercial attaché in the United States.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: No, but we have a commercial agent.
    MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRpointed out that they had commercial attachés in Spain and in Portugal, but they had not got one in Germany. He found that Germany, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, and Norway were grouped together under one commercial attaché. He considered that he had made out his case that Foreign Office affairs were conducted on obsolete, extravagant, and, in many cases, useless methods, and that they ought to be put upon a commercial basis.
    The cost of their diplomacy in Darmstadt, Bavaria, and Saxony amounted to some £5,000 a year, while they only paid some £5,000 a year altogether for commercial attachés throughout the world. That was the niggardly sum which they were able to extract from the Foreign Office for this purpose. In his opinion the country suffered immeasurably because of the want of attention and business aptitude on the part of this Department. It was every day becoming more necessary for England to keep pace with foreign nations in those matters. Germany had commercial attachés over here investigating English inventions, and it was absurd for England to rely upon private traders in this matter. With regard to the expenditure in rent upon these commercial attachés, if those attachés were doing their work efficiently they ought not to require a house. They ought to be travelling through all the principal cities making themselves acquainted with the various factories and trades. He agreed with what had been said as to the need on the part of our representatives abroad of a knowledge of foreign languages. Unless our commercial attachés were able to speak

    1023
    fluently the language of the countries to which they were sent, they could not supply reliable reports. It was imperative that our commercial interests should receive more attention. In South America they had a most inefficient staff, although trade with that part of the world was increasing daily. He had learned for the first time in that debate that they had a kind of commercial agent in the United States, and he wished to know what that commercial agent got.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: He gets £500 a year.
    MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid that they paid £500 to the commercial agent in America, while in a small State like Bavaria they paid £1,700 for work which was very inefficiently done. He simply wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that it was necessary that their commercial interests abroad should receive more attention, because they had to compete with other nations who were now able to oust them in the various markets of the world. So long as those interests were maintained, and so long as the British Government were alive to the value of those interests, he considered that they would always be able to hold their own in any commercial enterprise which they undertook. If some assurance could be given that useless Ministers would be recalled and proper commercial attachés would be appointed, he thought the nation would be reassured that the prestige of the country which they were fast losing would be upheld.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £3,550."—(Mr. Louis Sinclair.)
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I hope my hon. friend will not press this matter, for this reason. I have already recognised that something ought to be done in the Foreign Office in order to develop still further the commercial work which has been undertaken, but Rome was not built in a day. With the great competition which we now see, I do not deny that a new era has been entered upon, and that we require to use our diplomatic channels for the purpose suggested. The information my hon. friend requires, however, is not to be obtained centrally—
    1024
    that is, by a particular attaché in a particular country. It will be necessary to subdivide to a much greater degree, and a great charge will be entailed on the public revenue. It really lies as much with the House as with the Government to determine what we are to spend on the Consular service. Not long ago the Government were approached on behalf of the chambers of commerce and it was urged that we had not enough consular representatives in the inland towns of France. When, however, the question was asked where new consular appointments were desired, only one town was suggested. Do not let the Committee imagine that I am bringing any charge against the chambers of commerce, but, in the face of an attitude of this kind, it is impossible to feel so strong on this point as my hon. friend who last addressed the Committee.
    MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRasked if the noble Lord would say something about the useless Ministers in Bavaria, Darmstadt, Saxony, and Montenegro.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The gist of my hon. friend's argument was that we ought to have more representatives abroad.
    MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: Not Ministers; commercial attachés.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: We want some change by which reliable information can reach us on this question. If the Foreign Office changes its policy, and goes more fully into commercial questions, these legations might serve as centres from which commercial information might be supplied; therefore I think it will be very unwise to destroy these missions.
    MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid he mentioned Montenegro specially.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I think the hon. Member has been a little too hasty in his criticism. What the Foreign Offices wishes to do is not to restrict and reduce the number of these officers, but to multiply them. Montenegro is an undeveloped country, where it would be most unwise to remove the Minister.
    MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid that after the assurances which had been given by the noble Lord he would ask permission to withdraw his motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he sympathised with the views expressed by the hon. Member who had just withdrawn his motion, and he hoped something would be done in this direction next year. In former days small German legations were of importance, although their importance had now diminished. There were also justifiable grounds for the attacks which had been made on the Foreign Office with regard to the distribution of the consulates. The particular matter which he desired to bring before the Committee was one which had very often been considered by the Committee in the past, and in bringing it before the Committee upon this occasion he would try and confine himself to new information, without repeating what had been said in previous debates. This Vote contained the salary of the Consul-General at Zanzibar in respect of his general supervision of British consuls in East Africa, and he wished to draw attention to the policy pursued in Zanzibar and along that coast, and to the opinions held by those who more or less represented this country there in regard to the subject of slavery. Some other questions connected with British East Africa, such as the war which the Foreign Office had carried on and the extraordinary finance of the protectorate, would arise more properly on another Vote. He noticed that there was a Vote in aid of the revenues. They had already passed a very large Supplementary Estimate for this purpose at the beginning of the session when they discussed this matter. The Foreign Office had come to this House every year twice for many years past for a Vote upon this item, and for Supplementary Votes for very large amounts.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Not for the war.
    SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid there was no separate account for the war, and the money was spent in aid of the revenues of British East Africa. The matter which he proposed to discuss was connected in the minds of many with the general view which they entertained that the
    1026
    Foreign Office was not a Department which existed for the purpose of governing territories or carrying on wars, and was liable to make mistakes which a Department accustomed to administration would be less likely to make. The best friends of the Office also believed that its energies were distracted from its proper work by the attempt to govern territories. He would now point to certain new facts. A Paper had been circulated that day relating to the Uganda Railway, which contained an observation by the able Indian officer who had been called in to advise the Foreign Office, which went to the root of the whole question, and which raised the subject which he was now raising. He said—
    "The truth, I think, is that more could have been got out of both the Indians and natives of Africa if the officers who were placed over them had been better acquainted with their language and customs."
    Our employment of persons who were not properly educated to deal with such very difficult districts really lay at the root of the whole question, for we had been forced in Zanzibar and the coast strip to rely largely on former employees of the Sultan of Zanzibar. These Zanzibar gentlemen held views in regard to slavery which were not the views held in this country. Certain correspondence had been presented that session which threw an entirely new light on this question of slavery so far as its defenders were concerned. Statements had been frequently made in the past as to the way in which our hands were tied in East Africa on account of the assurances which were given when the mainland territories of the Sultan were taken over that the religion, laws, and customs of the people would continue to be respected. The defence of the Foreign Office for years had been that promises were given in the name of the Government. Those who were opposed to slavery in East Africa had always pointed out that the Sultan of Zanzibar was bound to this country by long-standing engagements to put down slavery, but in spite of the engagements they had always been told of these promises. The Blue-book recently published contained in a memorandum received in April of last year and laid before the House this year, in which Sir Lloyd Mathews gave his own account of what took place

    1027
    when the administration of the mainland territories of the Sultan was taken over by the Government from the British East Africa Company. Sir Lloyd Mathews said that Sir Arthur Hardinge asked him to address the people and explain to them the change which was taking place, and tell them that it made no difference to His Highness's subjects; and he informed those present that their religion, laws, and customs would continue to be respected, and that the religion of Islam would remain the religion of the people. That was a very general promise. It was almost exactly in the same terms as had always been made in India when we had occasion to take over a new dominion. In the case of the annexations in India early in the last century, although a promise had been made in similar terms, it had never been held to bind this country with regard to slavery, and it had never prevented this country from applying the ordinary laws to the custom of slavery in India. Sir Lloyd Mathews admitted that slavery was not mentioned. He submitted to the Committee that this memorandum put a wholly new complexion on the promise which they had always been told was given in regard to slavery in British East Africa. Sir Lloyd Mathews did not profess that any allusion was made to slavery on that occasion. All he said was that the people must have understood that slavery was included in the assurance which was given in regard to religion, laws, and customs. He could not hold that what Sir Arthur Hardinge said constituted the pledge which had always been supposed to tie our hands in British East Africa. In the annual report of our representative in German East Africa it was stated that persons who were arrested by the German authorities at Bagamoyo for engaging in the slave traffic earned their livelihood by kidnapping children and selling them in Zanzibar. That official statement went a long way to confirm their views and to corroborate the statement made by an Austrian officer that he had seen slaves sold in Zanzibar. He confessed he did not believe the statement when it was first made.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: What date?
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Last year. He entirely discredited the statement
    1028
    until he read the report from our own official representative in German East Africa. The opponents of the slave trade had had on their side not only Sir John Kirk, a former representative of this country in British East Africa, but also Colonel Lugard, who in constantly passing through the territory had the opportunity of forming a clear opinion on the subject. There were also unofficial persons like Bishop Tucker, who had told the country that the time had come when the legal recognition of slavery there ought to be got rid of. The right hon. Gentleman urged that the immediate abolition of the legal status of slavery in the coast strip would be perfectly consistent with the general promise which was given to observe the customs of the people, and moved to reduce the Vote, in respect of the salary of the Consul-General in East Africa, by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item P (Consular Salaries) be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salary of the Consul-General in East Africa."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
    MR. J. A. PEASEin supporting the protest of his right hon. friend, said the reduction of the number of slaves in Zanzibar and Pemba from 100,000 in 1897 to 53,000 to-day was attributable, not to action on the part of our officials, but mainly to a horrible mortality, 30,000 having died within the last three years. Owing to an epidemic of small-pox 20,000 died, and it was admitted that 5,000 had disappeared in some way or another. It was also admitted that of these 5,000 a large number had been kidnapped almost before the eyes of our officials and taken to other countries. They were informed on such authority as they could get—such as Bishop Tucker and Mr. E. J. Martin—that there were upwards of 200,000 slaves on the mainland strip of the Sultan of Zanzibar's territory. There were about 2,000,000 negroes in East Africa proper, and about 4,000,000 negroes in Uganda and neighbouring territory. A large number of these, if not in actual slavery, were, at any rate, in a kind of domestic slavery very near akin to it, and therefore the question was a very important one. He believed the people of this country, if they only realised that the British flag was

    1029
    flying over an enormous number of slaves in our African Protectorates, would denounce the Government for not taking stronger action than they had. He admitted that the Government had taken action during the last five or six years, but that was attributable to such debates as the present, and to the constant pressure brought to bear on the Government with the view of obtaining the amelioration of the slave population. A decree was passed forbidding the importation of slaves into the island; the slave markets were closed; the exchange of slaves was prohibited; a decree was passed limiting the right of inheritance; a decree was passed declaring that all children born after 1900 should be free; and a decree was passed in 1897 whereby the whole of the slave population in the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba were to be allowed to obtain their freedom if they applied to certain courts. In 1895 the First Lord of the Treasury promised that steps should be taken to abolish slavery on the mainland, and the promise was renewed two years later. But when fulfilment of this promise was pressed for, Lord Curzon said the time was not opportune, owing to wars, and Lord Selborne subsequently said the unsettled state of Uganda prevented it. Then, later, the Foreign Office found an excuse in an undertaking given by Sir Lloyd Mathews at an indaba to the Arabs that their customs should be preserved, and, therefore, according to the instructions of Lord Kimberley, slavery was permitted. He wrote to Lord Kimberley asking definitely whether instructions had been given to permit slavery, and he was informed in reply that the instructions did not deal with slavery. But from that day to this the Foreign Office had not attempted to put the right interpretation upon those instructions, and surely the time had come when something should be done to abolish the system of slavery on the mainland. He recognised fully how loyally our officials had endeavoured to work in East Africa, but they seemed more actuated by a desire to secure the material prosperity of the islands and increase of revenue than by those humanitarian considerations that should have influence in territory under British protection. Now that the slaves could obtain freedom on the islands there was an unpopularity
    1030
    connected with freedom which deserved the consideration of the Foreign Office. Dr. O'Sullivan-Beare in his report upon the island of Pemba for 1899 said—
    "A very satisfactory feature in connection with the Anti-Slavery Decree is the fact that it has caused the development amongst the Arabs of habits of energy and of self-help, in which they had formerly been so sadly lacking. To me it has been very interesting to note the gradual improvement in their character from many points of view, under the influence of their changed conditions. … The fact that the Pemba Arabs have shaken off, to a great extent, their former habits of sloth and indifference is obvious and indisputable. At first when the terms of the Anti-Slavery Decree had been made known to them they were completely discouraged, and gave ear only to the counsels of despair. They regarded life as intolerable without the ministrations of their slaves in all capacities, and they were utterly unable to grasp the possibilities and advantages of paid labour. Gradually, however, they have plucked up their courage and they are now grappling manfully with the difficulties of their altered circumstances. … Again, it is to be noted that Arabs of good family compete keenly for those situations under Government which are open to them, but the acceptance of which, formerly, would have entailed upon them the loss of that "heshima" (respect) to which Arabs attach so much importance. … The abolition of the legal status of slavery appears to be exerting a beneficial influence already with regard to the birth-rate among the servile population, which formerly was abnormally and suspiciously low. The insufficient diet of the women and the hard labour which they had to perform were doubtless factors which accounted, in part, for the paucity of children amongst a people who are very prolific by nature."
    Mr. J. P. Last, Zanzibar Government Commissioner, summarised the situation as follows—
    "The freed slave, in fact, becomes an outcast as far as all his past associations and companions are concerned. His former owner will not know him, and his late companions will not recognise him. He has no home, no friends or companions, no one to go to in the time of trouble; he may die of sickness and want, and few there will be to lend a helping hand. The slave freed by law (or the white man, which is the same thing to the native mind) loses nearly all he has of any material advantage to him when he accepts legal freedom, and in place of enjoying these advantages he finds himself almost a pariah and alone in the world."
    The passing of the decree had been in the main satisfactory, and it only required certain regulations to be passed by the Foreign Office to prevent a system growing up which made freedom unpopular. The conditions among the slave population on the island of Pemba were, he believed, different from those on

    1031
    the island of Zanzibar. A missionary who had just returned from the island of Pemba informed him that there was no such thing as social ostracism on that island. The regulations of the Foreign Office were really responsible for slavery being a popular institution on the island of Zanzibar. Over and over again they had protested in this House, and experience had proved that free and forced labour never worked well side by side. The one must be taken away from the other. He was sure the people of the British Empire desired to see an entire system of free labour adopted. We ought to put an end to the legal status of slavery, as we did in Algeria, India, and elsewhere. The jails of Zanzibar were filled almost exclusively with vagrants who were formerly slaves, but that was entirely due to the system of compensation set up by the Government. He was not surprised that our African officials were now protesting against the continuation of that system. Sir Lloyd Mathews, in his memorandum, dated 19th January, 1901, described a simple form of verbal contract which he had seen carried out in a large plantation in Zanzibar, by which the labourers paid in work a fair equivalent for their houses, holdings, and care during sickness, and he added—
    "If such can be carried out, the question of compensation will be almost entirely done away with, and plantation labour will become organised and more satisfactory. With local contracts in force we may then estimate the number of labourers we fall short of in the islands. To supplement these I suggest asking Her Majesty's Government to allow us to draw upon the mainland Protectorate, from the Wadigo, Wadruma, Wanyika, Wagiriama, Wakamba, and Wa Teita, from Mombasa, and, if necessary, to make arrangements with the Uganda Protectorate for a supply of labour through Mr. James Martin. Also that having known these tribes intimately in the past, and Mr. Alexander having known them within the past few years, when the time comes and supplementary labour is needed, we may be allowed personally to proceed to the East Coast Protectorate to make our own arrangements with the tribes and Protectorate officials. There is little to ask of the Protectorates in return for the many thousands of porters and soldiers we have supplied the Imperial Company and Her Majesty's Government with for the last twelve years. … If such a scheme was undertaken by one of the Zanzibar firms, or a company, the labourers instead of contracting with the owner of the plantation, would be drafted in gangs by the merchant to wherever they were required, and the merchant would alone
    1032
    be responsible for their wages and up-keep, he making his own terms for their employment."
    There was a direct recommendation in Mr. Last's letter of 10th January, 1901, that compensation should be abolished. When he put a question the other day to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the recommendation would be carried out the noble Lord replied that the matter was one for the Sultan of Zanzibar.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: In the first instance.
    MR. J. A. PEASEsaid he was quite sure that if a little pressure were put on the Sultan by the Foreign Office he would readily conform to the suggestions emanating from that quarter in connection with this matter. What happened when a slave went into court and obtained freedom? The master got compensation, and the slave left that master to seek work elsewhere.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Not always.
    MR. J. A. PEASE: Very frequently. He thought the noble Lord would find, if he perused the Papers again, that there was a passage in which allusion was made to the fact that the slaves, after being freed, endeavoured to find work with somebody else. The very fact that there was a certain amount of social ostracism in the Island of Zanzibar tended to drive the freed slaves from the masters with whom they were accustomed to serve to other masters elsewhere. If we could only put an end to this system by naming a day in advance after which no compensation would be paid, he felt satisfied that advantageous results would follow from that course. Let slavery be abolished absolutely, for gradual emancipation had not proved a satisfactory method of dealing with it. There was a labour difficulty in the islands, but he believed a remedy would be found in giving freedom to all the slave population rather than by carrying out a suggestion from Sir Lloyd Mathews that men should be brought from the mainland, for that would be little better than introducing a system of forced labour. What he asked the Government to do was to meet, as far as they could, the reasonable views which were held by all

    1033
    humanitarians, no matter to what party they belonged. He asked that something should be done to prevent the continuation of slavery owing to a misinterpretation of the law. He wanted the Government to carry out the recommendations of their consuls with regard to the establishing of farms to promote the cultivation of the soil under the Supervision of skilled and capable men. for the production of coffee, rubber, indigo, etc. The Arabs had very little initiative in regard to new industries, but he hoped efforts would be made in the direction indicated, not only on the island, but on the mainland. He trusted the people of this country, who were agreed as to the wisdom of the extension of the British Empire in East Africa, would supply the necessary means to deal, not only with material prosperity, but the humanitarian side of the problem.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The question which the Committee are now engaged in discussing is one which appeals to the right feeling of the country. The settled policy of this country is to abolish slavery, not only in our own dominions, but elsewhere; and I should very much regret if any words of mine should lead anyone to believe that the zeal of the Government or their supporters for the abolition of slavery has weakened in any way. But before referring to that matter I should like to say one or two words with reference to the remarks of the right hon. Baronet in criticism of the Foreign Office generally with regard to the Protectorate. It was said that the officers in charge were not fully acquainted with the management of the natives of Africa and those from India. What Department could the right hon. Gentleman suggest that would manage the matter or understand it better?
    SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid in the case of all the other Departments they had trained civil servants who spoke the language of the people.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: No doubt that was the case, but what experience had the Colonial Office of a question of this kind? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Colonial Office would be better qualified to deal with Zanzibar than the Foreign Office? Zanzibar is a happy hunting ground in the diplo-
    1034
    matic business, but in my opinion no arrangement could be more unsuitable than that it should be in the hands of the India Office or the Colonial Office. I firmly believe that the Foreign Office is better qualified than any other to deal with Zanzibar. But I have risen to deal with the question of slavery. The hon. Member quoted a passage from a consul's report in which it was stated that the writer had heard that certain natives whom he met gained their livelihood by selling children in Zanzibar. I need not say how absolutely contrary this is not only to our sentiment but to the express law which governs Zanzibar and our Protectorate. If such a thing exists it ought to be put down with the strongest hand. I confess I do not believe it. I do not call in question the good faith of the consul, much less that of the right hon. Baronet, but I cannot help thinking that this rumour has little foundation. Wherever we have authority the slave trade is put down absolutely. I cannot believe that our officers could not have heard of such a gross, flagrant violation of every rule made for the government of that dependency. Where we have power there is no slavery—no buying and selling—and large sums are spent annually in putting down the traffic in slaves. We are as convinced as the hon. Member that slavery is as bad for the master as for the slave, and perhaps worse. The existence of slavery produces idleness, sloth, and cruelty, and a whole crop of vice. I do not say that the freed slave is always happy. Let us in this Committee speak the truth to one another. The freed slave, I repeat, is not always happy. On the contrary, there is evidence in the Blue-book to show that the position of a freed slave is in many respects not so happy as when he was still in slavery. As a slave he had a master on whom he could rely, and who had obligations thrown upon him. In saying that I do not mean that I am in favour of slavery—on the contrary; still it is important that the Committee should recollect that we are dealing with a subtle and complex problem. What, then, are the limiting conditions of this very subtle problem? In the first place, slavery must be abolished. That must be the groundwork of the policy of any Government; but we must beware of

    1035
    undue precipitancy in carrying out what is essentially a good policy. As a matter of fact, the evidence from the Blue-books shows that in many cases the slave does not want to be freed. It would not be very respectful on my part to criticise former Acts of this House, but if anyone were to read the Papers he would see the great difficulties under which the pressure of the House of Commons has sometimes put the British Administration. At one time, for instance, the courts of Zanzibar and Pemba insisted that when a slave applied for his freedom he must show that he had some means of subsistence before he got it. A great "row" was made in the House, and the Government sent peremptory orders that the practice was no longer to obtain. What was the result? The number of convictions for petty offences at once nearly doubled themselves; prostitution increased greatly in Zanzibar, and in Pemba nearly every unmarried native woman had become a prostitute. That is according to the statement of Mr. Cave. The Government do not propose to go back on their decision; but these facts show the dangers of precipitancy; for prostitution is an infinitely worse evil than slavery. The right hon. Baronet made light of the promise which has been given; but His Majesty's Government cannot make light of any promise made by this country, whether to British working-men or to slave-owners. That promise must be kept. The words of Lord Kimberley's despatch are clear.
    "You may take steps, on taking over the administration, to make it clear that, as regards religion, law, and the Sultan's sovereignty, no difference is made by the change."
    Slavery is part of the Mohammedan religion; and the impression which those words produced on Sir A. Hardinge and Sir Lloyd Mathews was that slavery was included in them; and the latter officer declared that "all ancient customs would be allowed to continue." Whatever Lord Kimberley may have intended, the point is that on the strength of his language his subordinates entered into certain engagements when we undertook to administer the Protectorates. The Government cannot go back upon that promise. But it must not be imagined that this slavery is the odious thing generally understood. No slave trade is allowed. No one is born a slave; and
    1036
    no one can inherit slaves except in the direct line. So that, at the very worst, slavery is a dying and disappearing thing. But that is not all. The great vice of slavery consists in the uncontrolled power of one man over another, and in the awful cruelty and immorality which follow. But on the mainland, if any owner is cruel to his slave, he is brought before the courts and severely punished, and not only the slave in question but all his fellow-slaves are set free. The whole effort and tendency of British administration is to abolish slavery; and in Mombasa it has actually disappeared, because it is incompatible with British government. The Government do not say that they must go no further. On the contrary, we believe that slavery must be abolished in all its details: but the change must be gradually brought about, and there must be an intervening period. Do those who accuse the Government of meanness and want of energy in this matter reflect on what the Government have done in building the Uganda Railway? No accusation of meanness or want of energy can be brought against the Government when it is recognised what sums of money they have expended, and what energy they have displayed in making the Uganda Railway. The Government both in expenditure and effort have done a great work in civilising that part of Africa, and especially in abolishing slavery. They will complete the work they have commenced, and I earnestly hope the Committee will have confidence in British Ministers and officials.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he had listened with profound disappointment to the speech of the noble Lord. He had hoped that when changes were made in the Ministry they would have had a new broom, sweeping better than the old. Nobody desired to say anything against Sir Arthur Hardinge as an official, but it was quite clear that his sympathy was not with the freeing of the slaves—that was seen from his despatches. He had listened with great care to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman, and he himself had taken part in many debates in the House, but he had never heard the principle, which he thought was held by every Englishman, that slavery should

    1037
    not exist under the British flag damned with such faint praise as it had been by the noble Lord. He had used every argument that could be urged by Foreign Office officials in favour, first, of doing nothing; secondly, of going slowly; and, thirdly, of letting the matter rest whenever possible. The noble Lord and the Foreign Office had done, of late, little or nothing in favour of freeing slaves in the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. It was obvious from the Blue-books on this subject that the officials on the spot were imbued with the feeling that the question of slavery was of no great moment in England, and that to raise it made their administration more difficult. You could not make an omelette without breaking eggs, and slaves could not be freed without trouble and expense. The Foreign Office had always, as a Department, lagged behind public opinion in regard to the freedom of slaves. It had always seen a lion in the path, and it had always been anxious to delay, or to deal with this matter with caution, and to avoid the "precipitancy" which the noble Lord so much dislikes—that had always been its attitude. In the case of Zanzibar and Pemba the noble Lord seemed to think they might rest satisfied with the present conditions of slow progress, because year by year so many slaves received their freedom, but out of 100,000 slaves—
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: No, 50,000 at the outside.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am including those on the mainland.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I mean on the islands.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid if they took the figures of the noble Lord, out of 50,000 slaves the Committee would hardly credit the fact that the number of slaves manumitted since the law came into force was only 12,000.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: 13,000.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Well, 12,000 or 13,000.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid the slaves he spoke of had been freed by process of law. Others had been freed in other ways.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONcontended that during the six years that the decree
    1038
    had been in force only a small proportion of the slaves in Zanzibar and Pemba had received their freedom. He was anxious to deal with this matter with patience, and they were certainly not so impatient as the Colonial Secretary was in 1894, when he said that the Liberal Government had done nothing at all in this matter. But, even if the question was not to be dealt with wholesale, the Government had done little to carry out the pledges given and the promises made by the present Colonial Secretary five or six years ago. He would not again refer to the islands, because there the gradual freeing of the slaves was going on, though very slowly. But on the mainland practically all that had been done during the last ten years of British control was that children born during that time should be free and the slaves of those dying without children should also be free. The Government should take some practical step in regard to this matter; but their idea was to do nothing at all, but to let the matter drift With regard to the expansion of the Uganda Railway as a method of enabling slaves to obtain freedom, the base of the railway ran ten miles by the coast, through territory in which slavery was practically recognised under the British flag. Year after year the Government had made excuses for delay. Last year they fell back on what they considered was an absolute bar to progress—that in 1895, Lord Kimberley—then Foreign Minister—through the mouth of his representatives gave a pledge in regard to slavery to which this country must adhere. But this was an after-thought. It was introduced to give the Government a further excuse for doing nothing, because if that promise was given at all, it was given in 1895. It was given by Lord Kimberley, but before it was ratified the Liberal Government had resigned and Lord Salisbury was Prime Minister; and Lord Salisbury had the conduct of this matter in 1895. But in 1897 the present Leader of the House gave as complete and emphatic a pledge in regard to this matter as any Minister could do. He said the Government earnestly desired to carry out on the mainland of the East Coast Protectorate what they were carrying out on the islands. That was to say, he gave a pledge that in a short time slavery should be abolished on the mainland as

    1039
    in the islands. The Government, he thought, owed the Committee some explanation in regard to this matter. It must be obvious, he felt sure, that no British Minister could have intended for one moment to give a pledge, in a territory over which they were to have full control, that for all future time slavery was to exist under the British Crown.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Certainly not.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that if Lord Kimberley did not give that pledge, what was the object of the noble Lord the Under Secretary saying that "he gave a pledge and we must stick to it"? That Lord Kimberley never intended to give such a pledge was evidenced by Sir Lloyd Mathews himself—the local agent by whose words they were supposed to be bound—who had declared that all he said was in regard to law and religion, and that he did not say anything with regard to the question of slavery. That was not a pledge, he submitted, which should bind the House in regard to this matter. But, even if the pledge existed, there was an alternative—to compensate the owners, and so to get rid of slavery. And, rather than that slavery should exist under the British flag, he should be prepared, even under present financial difficulties, to pay any matter of compensation, within reasonable limits, that might be necessary in order to get rid of this curse to society. It was idle to suggest that the Sultan of Zanzibar was a difficulty or stumbling block in this matter, because when two years ago it was desired to promulgate the law of 1889 to which the Sultan objected, as he thought it would make his position more difficult, the British Government promulgated the law over his head. The Government, if they were really earnest in this matter, ought to have come down to the House and made some proposal in regard to it. He did not desire to make this matter a party question, but he could not help expressing his profound regret at the tone of the speech of the noble Lord. He had hoped that the noble Lord might have broken through the traditions of the Foreign Office in this matter, and he still hoped that when he had been longer in the office he so worthily filled they might
    1040
    be able to welcome him as a convert to the principle of the immediate and rapid emancipation of the slaves, both on the islands and on the mainland, and that he would remove a grave scandal from the British name.
    MR. THOMAS BAYLEYsaid that it was perfectly plain from the letters in the Blue-book issued upon this subject that slavery was largely due to the absence of men-of-war in these waters. He would like to know why those men-of-war were removed; they were the police of these seas, and money had been voted by the country to retain them there, and they had no business to be removed. In his opinion a census should be taken of all the inhabitants of these islands, both those who were free and those who were not, showing what privileges each person had. It would not be an expensive thing to do, and a great deal of useful information would be thereby obtained with regard to slavery in the islands. The Committee had not heard in this debate quite so much from the noble Lord as from his predecessors in the office which he held as to what the Mohammedan feeling was with regard to slavery. It was an extraordinary fact that a similar State with a native government—the State of Egypt—was far in advance of the Foreign Office with regard to this matter. Egypt, with the assistance of the Mohammedans, had abolished slavery. They had a small corps of armed men whose duty it was to suppress what little slavery there was, and he would like to know why nothing of a corresponding nature was being done in this part of Africa. The Government were not spending a penny in the suppression of slavery, and they were very far behind public opinion in this matter with regard to what was going on in these two islands. If Lord Cromer was in the position of Foreign Secretary for three days they would see an entirely different view taken of the slave trade in Zanzibar and Pemba. All right-minded Mohammedans were against it, and if the noble Lord inquired of Lord Cromer with regard to this matter he would find that their opinion was in favour of England going further than it was going to-day, and that we were holding back when we ought to be leading the way to liberty.
    MR O'SHEEsaid that it seemed to him absurd not to grant freedom to a slave except he was able to show that if he were free he could procure a domicile apart from that which he had as a slave, and also that he should have to show a means of subsistence. The essence of slavery was that the slave had no means except those of his master. It was one of the extraordinary instances of British administration in Zanzibar and Pemba that the slave should have to show that these two things were in his possession before he could succeed in getting his manumission. The most extraordinary part of the noble Lord's speech was that in which he relied in a great measure, for freeing the slaves in these regions of East Africa, upon the making of the Uganda Railway. Already something like £5,000,000 had been spent upon that great and ghastly failure, and no good had been done. If that sum had been devoted directly to the freeing of slaves, he had no doubt whatever that it would have immediately freed the 50,000 slaves which existed in these islands. If the noble Lord instead of attempting to cure slavery by a railway—the only result of which was to enable German merchants to send up inferior and poisonous spirits to these unfortunate people—had expended the money directly towards the freeing of the slaves, the best results might have been obtained. The noble Lord had said that the vice of slavery existed in the uncontrolled power of one man over another, which promoted cruelty and immorality, and he pointed out that where a case of cruelty was brought before
    the courts, at once as a punishment all the slaves of that man who had been guilty of cruelty were set free. Such a penalty as that would undoubtedly tend to bring about the evils to which the noble Lord referred. It was absurd that for a case of cruelty to one slave such a penalty should be enforced, when no attempt was made in any way by the enforcement of the law to bring about the freedom of the slaves of the neighbour of the man whose slaves had teen freed. He thought the speech of the noble Lord had been characterised by the hon. Member for Poplar, who showed that the Government had tried first to do nothing at all, and secondly to. delay as long as possible doing anything. He did not think it was fair that the officials who administered the law out there should have blame cast upon them. The difficulty was that provision had to be made for the slaves, and if that had to be done the British Government would have to be prepared to put their hands into their pockets and find the money to pay a certain sum for each slave freed, that would be sufficient to carry out the promise which was supposed to have been given that the right of property in slaves was recognised, and if in addition something was given to the slaves themselves in order that they might obtain a domicile, he thought the Government would be spending their money far more wisely than in prosecuting this ghastly failure of the Uganda Railway.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 90; Noes, 132. (Division List No. 343.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Aird, Sir John

    Brassey, Albert

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Balcarres, Lord

    Buxton Sydney Charles

    Colville, John

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Caldwell, James

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Kimber, Henry

    Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lambert, George

    Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Macartney,Rt.Hn.W.G.Ellison

    Strachey, Edward

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Milton, Viscount

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

    More, Robt. Jasp. (Shropshire)

    Ure, Alexander

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morton,ArthurH.A.(Deptford

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

    Heath,ArthurHoward(Hanley

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Heath,James(Staffords,N.W.)

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Charles Douglas and Mr. Hozier.

    Joicey, Sir James

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Kemp, George

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

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

    Kennedy, Patrick James

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

    Knowles, Lees

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Labouchere, Henry

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Doogan, P. C.

    Law, Andrew Bonar

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Lawson, John Grant

    Asher, Alexander

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Duffy, William J.

    Leamy, Edmund

    Austin, Sir John

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Lee,ArthurH.(Hants,Fareham

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Elibank, Master of

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Emmott, Alfred

    Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham)

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

    Balfour,RtHnGerald W. (Leeds

    Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Lough, Thomas

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

    Bartley, George C. T.

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

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Field, William

    Lundon, W.

    Bell, Richard

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Bignold, Arthur

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Bill, Charles

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    M'Cann, James

    Boland, John

    Flower, Ernest

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Cameron, Robert

    Gilhooly, James

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasg'w

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Mitchell, William

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Mooney, John J.

    Carew, James Laurence

    Greene, Sir EW (B'rySEdmunds

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

    Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

    Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Harrington, Timothy

    Mount, William Arthur

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Murphy, John

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Chapman, Edward

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

    Coddington, Sir William

    Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Horner, Frederick William

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Crean, Eugene

    Horniman, Frederick John

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Crombie, John William

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Hoult, Joseph

    O'Dowd, John

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Howard, John (Kent, Favers'm)

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Cullinan, J.

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

    Cust, Henry John C.

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    O'Malley, William

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles]

    Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    O'Shee, James John

    Delany, William

    Joyce, Michael

    Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham

    Dewar, JohnA.(Inverness-sh.)

    Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHn.SirU

    Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

    982

    983

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Russell, T. W.

    Tully, Jasper

    Percy, Earl

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Valentia, Viscount

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Wallace, Robert

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir William H.

    Purvis, Robert

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Pym, C. Guy

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Wason, Eugene Clackmannan

    Randles, John S.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Sinclair,CaptJohn(Forfarshire

    Weir, James Galloway

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    White, Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

    Rea, Russell

    Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tynesi'e

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

    Reddy, M.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Spear, John Ward

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Spenecer,Rt.Hn.C.R(Northants

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Sullivan, Donal

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

    Ridley,Hon.M.W.(Stalybridge

    Taylor, Theodore Cooke

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

    Ridley,S.Forde(Bethnal Green)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Young, Samuel

    Rigg, Richard

    Thomas, Able (Carmarthen, E.)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Thompson,DrEC(Monaghan N

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Cameron Corbett and Sir John Stirling-Maxwell

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Ropner, Colonel Robert

    Thornton, Percy M.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kinloch, Sir John George S.

    Ambrose, Robert

    Doogan, P. C.

    Leamy, Edmund

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lundon, W.

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Bell, Richard

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Boland, John

    Fenwick, Charles

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Field, William

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Burns, John

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Mooney, John J.

    Buxton, Sidney Charles

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Murphy, John

    Caldwell, James

    Gilhooly, James

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Newnes, Sir George

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Harrington, Timothy

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'r' ry, Mid

    Colville, John

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

    Crean, Eugene

    Horniman, Frederick John

    O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

    Cullinan, J.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo. S.)

    Delany, William

    Kennedy, Patrick James

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    O'Dowd, John

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    Weir, James Galloway

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

    O'Malley, William

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    O'Shee, James John

    Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Partington, Oswald

    Sullivan, Donal

    Young, Samuel

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Taylor, Theodore Cooke

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Joseph A. Pease.

    Rea, Russell

    Tully, Jasper

    Reddy, M.

    Wallace, Robert

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Fisher, Wm. Hayes

    Mount, William Arthur

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

    Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Foster, Philip S. (Warwick S W.

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

    Bain, Col. James Robert

    Gardner, Ernest

    Newdigate, Francis Alex.

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

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

    Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

    Gretton, John

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bigwood, James

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

    Purvis, Robert

    Bill, Charles

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Pym, C. Guy

    Bond, Edward

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Randles, John S.

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Rasch, Maj. Frederic Carne

    Bousfield, Wm. Robert

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

    Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Bull, William James

    Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.)

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

    Renwick, George

    Butcher, John George

    Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

    Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

    Cavendish. V. C. W (Derbyshire

    Hoult, Joseph

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Robinson, Brooke

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Chamberlain J. Austen (Worc'r

    Keswick, William

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex.

    Charrington, Spencer

    Knowles, Lees

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Laurie, Lieut. General

    Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Law, Andrew Bonar

    Spear, John Ward

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lawson, John Grant

    Stauley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

    Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lowe, Francis William

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Wason, John C. (Orkney)

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Manners, Lord Cecil

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

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Moon, Edward Robt. Pacy

    Younger, William

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamst.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. WEIRwished to impress upon the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the desirability of obtaining fuller consular reports with regard to the commercial aspects of Borneo. The island, which was capable of great developments, was very rich in timber, tobacco, and coal, and something like a hundred miles of railway would shortly be finished. One of the bays afforded the finest anchorage in the world for ships of war, and might be
    1044
    made an important coaling station. An illustration of a system to which he had before objected was afforded by this Vote. The consul at Borneo received a salary of £400, but the altogether disproportionate amount of £200 was added for office expenses. Further, under the heading of Brazil, the consul received £800 as salary, and £200 were given as a "personal allowance." What was the meaning of that? If the official was worth £1,000 a year he should be paid that sum as salary. The system of making personal allowances was a bad

    1045
    one, and should be discontinued. The same thing occurred with regard to the consul at Para, and as a protest against the practice he moved to reduce the Vote by £200.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid he was aware of the hon. Member's interest in Borneo, because a few days previously he had asked a question with regard to a railway extension there. He could assure him that he had the greatest desire to promote the commercial interests of this country, and would, if necessary, use the diplomatic and consular service to that end. With the greatest pleasure, therefore, he would undertake to consider the possibilities of Borneo and our consular relations with that island, with a view to its commercial development. As to the hon. Member's criticism of the office allowances, he thought the amount in this case was neither excessive nor unprecedented. He thought if the hon. Member glanced down he would see it was not altogether surprising, because if it was looked into carefully it would be found that there would be one clerk and sometimes more, and a clerk could not be got for nothing even in Borneo. The hon. Member criticised the £200 a year personal allowance for the consul at Para. This personal allowance was really made in the interests of economy. It was made to a gentleman whose services the Foreign Office were anxious to retain, but who was entitled, because he had held a place at the salary which he now enjoys previously, to a higher salary than is actually proposed. The question, therefore, which the Foreign Office had to consider was whether they should raise the general salary of the post, and in many cases such a proceeding would be not only a pity but most uneconomical, or whether in this particular case they should make a personal allowance, which was not only in the interests of economy but also in the interests of the taxpayer, because the salary of the office was retained at the old figure, and in that way a permanent and undue burden was not put upon the taxpayer.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that it was impossible to explain more clearly than the noble Lord had done the principle upon which the Foreign Office acted in this matter. The principle was to give a man £1,000 a year in order to maintain
    1046
    a doctrine that he ought to have £800 a year the extra £200 was given as a special personal allowance, and would be left out on another occasion. He hoped that the hon. Member would be satisfied with that explanation.
    MR. WEIR: I have the explanation of the noble Lord, and I am most anxious—
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that if the hon. Member proposed to withdraw the Amendment he had nothing further to say, but if the explanation of the noble Lord was not satisfactory he wished to dwell upon it a little.
    MR. WEIRthought that the noble Lord was quite capable of dealing with the matter.
    MR. CALDWELLthought the noble Lord had given a very imaginary view of the way in which this man got his £200. He did not gather from the noble Lord what the real reason was, because the noble Lord had only said that there were cases where it might be advisable to give an extra £200. That was not the sort of answer the Committee expected from a Minister of the Crown; they wanted the particulars of this special case.
    MR. WEIRsaid he regretted that time had been wasted by the hon. Member for King's Lynn in trying to fight the battle of the noble Lord. He had desired to rise directly the noble Lord sat down, in order to say that he accepted the explanation, although he did not consider that it was a satisfactory method of conducting business. That being so, he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I call your attention, Sir, to the fact that there are not forty Members present?
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I have recently satisfied myself that forty Members are within the precincts of the House. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member, as I did not put the hon. Member's motion formally, I shall now put the original question.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £210, 049, be granted to His Majesty, to complete

    1047
    the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for Grants-in-aid of the Expenses of the British Protectorates in Uganda and in Central and East Africa, and under the Uganda Railway Act, 1896 and 1900"
    SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he was always one of those who were glad to get on to these Votes, because, under the present rule, it was to the advantage of the Committee generally, and independent Members in particular, that they should have an opportunity of discussing the most interesting Votes in Committee. Three out of the four items contained in this Vote were Foreign Office cripples, and made very large demands upon the public purse, and for reasons which would not bear very strict investigation those demands were increasing. Central Africa had very little history; it was a very small protectorate which had only recently been extended to large districts around it. He was afraid that in those large districts troubles would eventually arise, but they had not yet arisen. The other three were especial cripples of the Foreign Office. The Votes for Uganda, East Africa, and the Uganda Railway made enormous demands upon the public purse which were increasing. On this occasion he proposed to call attention to the first of these three items, the Vote for Uganda, and the reason for the reduction he proposed to move in respect of that item was because, although the Foreign Office had had in their possession for a considerable time the full Report of their Special Commissioner, Sir H. Johnston, they had not yet presented it to the House. On that Report alone could this special Vote for Uganda be defended, but all that they had seen was Sir H. Johnston's short preliminary Report made in July of last year. The Foreign Office could have had no difficulties with their printers, who were established in the basement of their own building, and were entirely under their control, and the Committee ought to have all the information before them before this Vote was asked for. It could not be said of Uganda, as was said in the case of the Niger Coast Protectorate, that Parliament gave no grants-in-aid, and that
    1048
    therefore we need not refer to it because it paid its own expenses, for from our first connection with Uganda we had always given grants-in-aid. Sir Harry Johnston declared Uganda to be very unhealthy in many parts, and he pointed to the enormous decrease in the population of the territory, which of itself was a severe reproach upon Foreign Office administration, which he said was due to civil war, invasion, and famine, which latter had recently caused from 4,000 to 6,000 deaths. In South Africa, under British rule, the population had largely increased. In Sir Harry Johnston's opinion the country ought to provide £165,000 by taxation, but he was doubtful whether more than £15,000 or £20,000 would be got. But the general drawback to the development of Uganda was a much larger one. The market for tropical produce was very limited as compared with the enormous areas of the countries from which it was derived. If tropical produce was only saleable at such prices that we were unable to make it pay in the case of the West Indies, it seemed to him that we should never make it pay in countries which had to rely on land carriage for enormous distances. It was out of the question to speak of leaving Uganda, but those who knew the country said that the British East African administration was crippling the administration of Uganda, and they were in favour of the amalgamation of the two Protectorates. He had one practical suggestion to make Men who had seen most of the country during the last two years were of opinion that a kind of war was going on between the two Foreign Office Protectorates, and he himself believed that the best thing they could now do was to secure the strongest and ablest man whose services they could command, and send him out to govern Uganda and British East Africa, abolishing the nominal frontier between the two Protectorates. It seemed to him that in the long run the upper country must be under the same control as the coast line, and he thought the time had come to have effect given to that. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Uganda, Grant-in-Aid) be reduced by £100."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he thought the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean was perfectly justified in what he had said about the Vote being brought on without any information being available to the Committee. He himself could not understand why that particular Vote should have been put down, as it could very well have been postponed until the Report had been issued. He was bound to say that unless the noble Lord gave some more satisfactory reason as to why the Report was so long in his hands—in fact, he was not sure it was not at that moment under his eye—he should feel in honour bound to vote with the right hon. Baronet. The Committee was entitled to a certain amount of respect, and it was not treating it with respect to withhold such a Report. He had two other reasons for opposing the Vote. He had always been an enemy of the Vote, on whichever side of the House he sat. In the first place, he objected to putting on the Foreign Office, which was organised for negotiation and had to discharge the fine network of duties connected with it, the entirely different work of administration. Conquest administration and railway administration were all bound up in Uganda, and he did not know why it came under the Foreign Office at all. He thought that even the Foreign Office was not capable of discharging all the duties of the State. He believed the Foreign Office performed its proper duties—negotiations, protocols, treaties, conventions and such like—with a certain amount of ability, and there had been even Foreign Office successes of a most remarkable kind once or twice in a century; but there had never been a Foreign Office success in the work of administration, for which it was never intended. He expected that one of the things the noble Lord proposed would be that the Foreign Office should be relieved of work that did not properly belong to it, and he had some hope that the noble Lord would announce in his reply that that was the last occasion on which the Foreign Office would be responsible for the affairs of Uganda, and that they would be handed over to a department less capable of negotiation but more capable of administration. He had another objection to the Vote. The Vote was a grant-
    1050
    in-aid given for a specific purpose. It amounted to £172,000, but if any portion of it was not expended for that purpose it was not to be returned. He really thought that was the most modest announcement which even the Foreign Office had ever made to the House of Commons. It took a sum, not a small, sum, for a specific purpose, and it then said that if it were not all expended a farthing of it would not be returned. That was in itself a very serious financial objection to the Vote. He maintained that any portion of a grant-in-aid which was not expended for the purpose for which it was voted should be returned to the Exchequer. Accordingly he had the greatest possible objection to passing the Vote in its proper form. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to give some satisfactory explanation with reference to the absence of the Report, without which they could not possibly discuss the Vote, and without some explanation as to the action of the Foreign Office in asking for a sum of £172,000, and reserving to itself the right to expend it or not expend it, he should be compelled to oppose the Vote.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid it was grossly unfair that this Vote should be taken at a period of the financial year when Members of the House of Commons were obviously unable to discuss it. One solitary piece of consolation in connection with the Vote which appeared to have escaped the notice of hon. Gentlemen opposite was that there was a decrease of £32,000 for the current year. With that exception it was the most unsatisfactory Vote yet presented to be House. Being deprived of information from the sources from which they were entitled to get it, they were thrown back on sources of information which could not be altogether satisfactory, such as past reports and newspaper and magazine articles. He gathered that, so far from encouraging free settlements in Uganda the practice prevailed, whether it was to obtain revenue or to check the too abundant influx of population he could not tell, of making a charge of £10 per acre for the land placed at the disposal of settlers. If that was the practice he could not conceive any source of revenue more objectionable in itself, or more productive of delaying the prosperity of this particular

    1051
    place. It appeared that the country had not been thoroughly and accurately surveyed. The inconveniences and disasters which had been experienced in the South African War had arisen through the absence of proper surveys of the territories, which ought to have been made years ago. We might at no far distant date find ourselves engaged in war without proper surveys of the territory referred to in this Vote. It was quite certain that some portions of Uganda were suitable for the growth of cereals and the same kinds of food which we could boast of in this country. He hoped that the money which many Members of the House granted very reluctantly to the Government for Uganda would be employed, not so much in punitive expeditions, but in increasing the natural products of the soil which would, at however distant a date, give some return.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid he was quite ready to apologise to the Committee for the absence of the Reports, but the suspicions which were entertained in that matter by many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were entirely unfounded. He assured the Committee that every attempt had been made to have the Report of Sir Harry Johnston ready in time; but he had not seen the Report, and the Secretary of State had not seen it. The Report had been presented about a week ago, but it had not been considered. It was regarded as a matter of great importance, even by the Foreign Office itself, and he did not think that the House of Commons would charge him with keeping it back. He did not deny that there was great inconvenience in discussing the Uganda Vote without that Report, but he could assure the Committee that there was no malign intention on his part to withhold the information. It was not true to say that the Department was without knowledge on this subject. The gentleman who was at the head of this Department in the Foreign Office had recently himself been to the Protectorate in order to study the question on the spot. He had also visited Somaliland, and he had placed at their disposal all the information he had collected. He, therefore, thought the criticism was unfortunate at the present moment, when they had in this country
    1052
    Sir Harry Johnston himself, who had special knowledge of the South African question. The state of things in Uganda was, on the whole, he thought, very hopeful, and, so far as one could judge at an early stage, very satisfactory. Did the Committee realise how early it was? Did they imagine that after eight years existence they could speak of it with absolute confidence as to the future? But, as far as matters stood, the revenue of the year just closed was far higher than it was expected to be. The expenditure was gradually decreasing. The revenue for 1901 was £66,000. That was a very trifling sum when contrasted with the figures dealt with in the British Empire, but it was, he believed, the small beginning of what would be a great empire. They were only asking £174,000 this year, as against £200,000 last year. The right hon. Baronet who criticised the operations in Uganda had said that the famines and so forth were very discreditable to the Foreign Office, but it should be remembered that effective control over Uganda had not yet been established, and that during the period when these famines and other disasters occurred the control of the administration was even less effective than it was at the present moment. The right hon. Baronet had declared that it was an unhealthy place.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I only quoted Sir Harry Johnston.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid a map of the country had been prepared on which the unhealthy parts were left white and the other districts were coloured different shades according as in Sir Harry Johnston's opinion they were more or less healthy. He found that about one-third of Uganda might be classed as very unhealthy, but there were many places where the climate resembled that of Scotland. There was a good deal of damp and mistiness, but, on the whole, healthy. Of course, not all the country was so high and healthy as that of which he had spoken; there was every variety of climate and produce. The list of productions included wheat, barley, oats, rice, potatoes, tomatoes, tobacco, grapes, coffee; rubber was abundant, splendid timber, fit for many purposes, the sugar cane thrived, oranges, lemons, mangoes,

    1053
    and many varieties of English vegetables; it was a good horse country, and the wild ass was indigenous.
    MR. WEIR: Are there any deer forests?
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid there was everything man could desire in the vegetable and animal kingdoms. On the whole, Sir Harry Johnston gave a most encouraging account of the progress of Uganda in civilisation. He spoke of the great work the Anglican and Roman Catholic missionaries had done there, but, he added, it was not to be imagined that the nations of Uganda had none of the old Adam in their disposition since they accepted Christianity. Among the native population there was a thirst for information; men, women, and children learned to read, and several chiefs used typewriters. While Uganda was only under partial control it was not altogether safe to allow an influx of white settlers, but that period was rapidly passing away; and in the near future facilities for land settlement would be afforded to a much greater extent than hitherto. Punitive expeditions, of course, were to be deplored, both because of the lamentable loss of life and the check to administrative progress. They could not be avoided, and, with a view to their being conducted with more economy, the force in Uganda would be increased and organised in imitation of what had been done by the Colonial Office in West Africa. There was every reason to believe from the reports received that the duty we had inherited of governing and civilising great dependencies in various parts of the world would be beneficently exercised in the development of this great area in Africa.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the desire was that the Home Office Vote should be taken that day, but it was delayed because the report of the inspector was not ready. In regard to the Vote they were now discussing, they were in the same position, the necessary information not having been supplied to members. This was another instance of the extraordinary way in which the business of the House had been mismanaged and muddled this session. Votes fixed for certain days were post-
    1054
    poned, and other Votes were unexpectedly taken. He was not blaming the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, because he was not responsible for the arrangement of the business of the House. The information of the noble Lord was three years old. The policy of the Foreign Office in administering Uganda had been a policy of war and muddle—war against different tribes and muddle in administration. He certainly imagined that the punitive expeditions had been sent out by the Foreign Office because there had been some outrages, but it seemed that the Foreign Office had taken a leaf out of the book of the Colonial Secretary and had encouraged wars and had enjoyed them, and had considered them a feather in their cap, although they had cost such an enormous amount of expenditure of money to this country.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The wars have not been wantonly undertaken. It is perfectly possible that, by discretion on the part of our representatives, the causes which render the punitive expeditions necessary may be avoided in future.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that he hoped that in these punitive expeditions in future they would have more experienced officers, and indeed that such punitive expeditions would not be rendered necessary at all. He was glad to hear the noble Lord say that the Government did not intend to enter into these punitive expeditions except where they were necessary. The noble Lord thought that they would be able to manage affairs with tact, patience, and discretion, and he was very glad to hear that the Foreign Office was going to carry out a different policy in the future, and that they were going to reduce these punitive expeditions. He knew that if there was any one who hated war, it was Sir Harry Johnston, and he was very glad to hear his views in regard to Uganda. Something had been said in regard to Uganda being like Scotland, and they hoped that there was some likelihood that, with the development of trade and industries in that country, some of the money they had muddled away over the Uganda Railway would result in

    1055
    some profit, and that they would be able to pluck a plum from the pie. He, however, recollected that Sir H. Johnston, in his Report, stated that the negroes were too lazy to do any work, that they were entirely naked, and that they did not want to be covered by our cloths. He was afraid, therefore, that the noble Lord was taking a too sanguine view of the future of Uganda. The total amount of the expenditure on Uganda was £65,000, and the revenue was only £15,000, and nothing had been said to show that this country should be under the control of the Foreign Office rather than that of the Colonial Office. The fact of the matter was that the Foreign office had spent something like seven millions sterling on Uganda, and that only eleven Europeans were settled in that vast territory. He would rather see it in the charge of the Colonial Office than of the Foreign Office if that was the rate at which the country was to be colonised. As to the question of the control over expenditure, it seemed to him that if ever there was any national expenditure which required full Treasury cantrol, it was this administrative expenditure of the Foreign Office. He ventured to say that no member of the House had any idea of the control of that expenditure. He was one of those who was prepared for any legitimate expenditure for the extension of the Empire, but he maintained that the expenditure in regard to Uganda and East Africa generally was not the sort of expenditure which attracted those who wished to see the country placed on a business footing.
    MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTONcongratulated the noble Lord on the progress he had made in dealing with foreign affairs. The Opposition had been from the very first opposed to the taking over Uganda, to the making of the railway, and to any expenditure in developing the resources of that country. He was sorry that Sir Henry M. Stanley, who might be said to have discovered that country, was not now in the House, because he might have been able to show what a marvel had been achieved in extending civilisation in that country within the last ten years. The Report of Sir Harry Johnston showed what a development of the human race had
    1056
    taken place in that part of Africa. He did not often intervene in the debates of the House, and he trusted that he would be pardoned for saying these few words. He felt very strongly that in adding Uganda to the British Empire the nation had done good service to that territory, and had done something worthy of the British name and had added honour to the British flag.
    MR. LAMBERTsaid that the hon. Gentleman who spoke last was slightly inaccurate as to who had discovered Uganda. He rather thought that it was Adam, and not Sir Henry Stanley, that had discovered that country. They had been told by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that Uganda was a great cattle country, that it bred splendid horses and wild asses, that the air was very much like that of Scotland, and that some of the native chiefs employed typewriters; but he wondered whether these native chiefs used in their type-writing English or Ugandese? He must say that the remarks of his noble friend below him had thrown a considerable douche of cold water on the prospects of Uganda, especially when it was mentioned that the only European settlers were eleven Germans. He very much doubted whether this country would ever receive any real return for the expenditure of five millions on the Uganda Railway. He wished to express his appreciation of the manner in which the noble Lord had dealt with the matter. They had all enjoyed the noble Lord's speech, and he sincerely hoped that Uganda would turn out as well as the noble Lord expected it would do.
    MR. O'MARAsaid that millions of money had been wasted on Uganda, and the reports received in regard to the prospects there were far from encouraging. He did not think that the expenditure on Uganda would be ever reproductive, and therefore he would vote for the reduction of that expenditure. The way the House had been kept in the dark in regard to the expenditure in Uganda was a scandal, and he doubted very much whether that country would ever repay any part of the money spent upon it. The money spent on Uganda was spent for the

    1057
    purpose of starting punitive expeditions, and not for starting settlements of Englishmen on the soil. He objected to this policy of supplementing the black nations by white people who were quite unsuited to take their place. Just imagine, there were only eleven Europeans in the country where we were spending five millions of pounds sterling! The noble Lord said that some five natives chiefs were using typewriters, but that was at the rate of a million of pounds apiece. The levity with which the noble Lord addressed himself to the question of the typewriters used by the native chiefs showed in what a careless way he regarded the public expenditure. He did not suppose that this country would ever expect to get more from Uganda than a few tusks of ivory. He thought that the £5,000,000 spent on the Uganda Railway might have been better spent in relieving the poor of Ireland than in trying to develop a swamp for eleven Europeans, including two Germans.
    MR. MANSFIELDsaid that the hon. Member for King's Lynn adopted many roles, but shone most conspicuously as a critic of the Government. He acted in this capacity so often, and with such success that he expected some day to find him sitting on the Opposition side. His case to-night was that the Foreign Office, by its traditions and habits, were unfit to administer a great province like Uganda, and the work ought to be relegated to a department whose forte was not so much diplomacy as administration. The noble Lord had answered this charge, and in doing so had completely proved the case. He told the Committee that Sir Harry Johnston's Report had been at the Foreign Office for a week, but that the Foreign Secretary had not seen it, and he himself had not seen it, and it was only on that day, when he saw a question on the Paper, that he had hurried it off to the printer. Surely this instance was enough to prove that the wheels of the Foreign Office moved too slowly, and they were unfit for the bustle of an administrative work. The noble Lord had deprecated criticism, because Sir Harry Johnston was in this country. It was to be hoped that when he called at the Foreign Office
    1058
    he would be treated with greater respect than his Report had been, and not kept waiting there a whole week before he received any attention at all. If the Foreign Office are to continue to administer Uganda, then something must be done to rouse the Foreign Office. He had been deeply interested in the Report read by the noble Lord as to the products of Uganda. They had heard of wild asses and orchids—sometimes they were associated—and they had heard of various useful and ornamental things which delighted the heart and nostrils of man. But what struck him most was to hear that the people of Uganda had a great thirst for education. He wondered whether a way might not here be found out of the difficulty we were in by sending Education Bill No. 2 to them. He was sure they would appreciate it much more than the people of this country do, and it would be a very happy way out of the difficulty. The Government does not know what to do with it; the country does not want it; and if we could make the Ugandese a present of it it might be very helpful to everyone.
    COLONEL WILLIAMSsaid the remarks of the hon. Member for South Kilkenny had only shown his ignorance of the condition of things in Uganda. No doubt upon the borders, where they got into the Congo Free State, the tribes were very debased, but that was not so with regard to the whole of the Protectorate. It had been said that there were not more than seven or eight Europeans in the whole of Uganda—seven or eight settlers. Of course there was no means of arriving at what number of settlers there were, but considering that there were thirty or forty European missionaries in Uganda, of whom a good many were ladies and laymen, and that there were a considerable number of French priests of the Roman Catholic faith—
    MR. O'MARAsaid that he had quoted from the same Report as the noble Lord had quoted from; they were then speaking of trade, and the noble Lord had given rather a sanguine view of the country; and he had pointed out that Sir Harry Johnston had said that there were only eleven European settlers—traders.
    COLONEL WILLIAMSsaid the hon. Member spoke of the light way with which the subject had been treated by the noble Lord. The Committee would, perhaps, allow him to say that Uganda had a very great future before it. It was inhabited by a tribe which was the most intelligent in Central Africa—a tribe who had such a high state of civilisation of their own that the Commissioner had intrusted to them a large part of the administration of the country. They were a people who took naturally to learning, and who not only educated themselves as far as they could, but had a great desire to spread that education amongst their neighbours. He believed if we could only get hold of this people by following up the efforts that had been made by missionary societies during the last ten years, we should establish in Uganda a state of things which would be of the greatest advantage to the Empire. It had been stated that the Protectorate was nothing but a swamp. It was nothing of the kind. A great part of the country, so far from being a swamp, lay at an altitude in which Europeans could live and work, and if there were now only a few settlers the reason was that the cost of transport to the coast was so great. When the railway was finished, in connection with which mistakes had no doubt been made, it would bring down to the coast a large mass of produce which would be extremely valuable, and would make the province a real outlet for our surplus population, and be another Cape Colony in its credit to England.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he should not have intervened in this discussion but for the remarks of the last speaker, who had charged his hon. friend the Member for South Kilkenny with a certain amount of ignorance. There were some points, however, upon which the Irish could not be accused of ignorance. They knew that millions were being spent out there without any return, whilst at home they found the greatest difficulty in getting a few pounds to promote any useful purpose, and that they were always called upon to pay their share of this useless expenditure. There was no ignorance on those points, and he considered that the protest of the hon.
    1060
    Member for South Kilkenny was amply justified.
    COLONEL WILLIAMSsaid he did not suggest that the hon. Member did not know all about Ireland he suggested he was ignorant of Uganda.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDcontended that so long as Ireland was called upon to pay her share of this expenditure Irish Members were justified in protesting against it. He was surprised that the hon. Member for South Belfast should have approved of this expenditure, because the hon. Gentleman, although he did not agree with Nationalist Members, must be aware that while Ireland required so much to be done to develop her resources it was so very difficult to obtain any assistance from the Government for that purpose, and that being so it was most unjust to ask Ireland to contribute so much from the Irish point of view. If the Government were so anxious to develop Uganda and spread civilisation and education in that Protectorate, they were quite entitled to do so, but they should do it at their own expense; though the people in Ireland were benighted enough to believe that the people in Uganda would be very much better off if left to themselves. They believed that the pursuance of the policy of the Government must result in the future, as it had done in the past, in the shedding of blood and the greatest injustice to the people. England could not expect everybody on the face of the globe to accept the British ideas of civilisation, and he believed that if left to themselves these people would be infinitely better off than if they were dragooned into accepting the British system of civilisation. But if England persisted they must pay for it. Irish Members protested because they would not go back to their own constituencies and admit that while they were unable to obtain money to develop Ireland they were obliged to vote large sums to develop Uganda. The whole expenditure on Uganda was worse than useless. Millions were being expended on a railway from nowhere to nowhere, which would never make any return for the enormous sums spent upon it, and yet these grants were made when money was wanted so badly at home. He was

    1061
    astonished at the action taken by those who claimed for themselves that they were the representatives of the democracy of this country. If ever there was a case in which the Liberal party ought to come down and oppose at every stage, it was this Vote. Yet, although they were voting a £200,000 grant for Uganda there was not a single protest from any Member of the Liberal party. Some of them, he believed, were dining out somewhere. If they would give up these new-fangled ideas of dining out, and would come down to their places and protest against such expenditure as this, the country would be better pleased. The speech of the noble Lord had reminded him very much of the speech of an auctioneer who wished to dispose to advantage of an undesirable property, and had discoursed upon all the advantages that he could possibly find in it. He was also reminded by that speech of a lady in one of Dickens's novels named Mrs. Jelly by, who neglected her home, her children, and her own work in order that she might apply herself with all her heart and soul to raising up the natives of the district of Borrioboola-Gha, in Africa. That was what the Government were doing; they were neglecting all their duties at home, and the whole energies of the Foreign Office and Colonial were directed, not to the interests of the British people, but to the inhabitants of this Borrioboola-Gha—Uganda. He was reminded of another creation of Charles Dickens's by the speech of the noble Lord. He was reminded of the interesting gentleman who induced Martin Chuzzlewit and Mark Tapley to go to the City of Eden, a city which "offered large opportunities for young men of energy." He ventured to say that anybody who was deluded by the promises held out by the noble Lord with reference to Uganda would have the same awakening with regard to that country which Martin Chuzzlewit and Mark Tapley had with regard to Eden when they set foot in that city. This matter was being treated as if it were only a small matter, but as a matter of fact it was a very serious one, involving an annual expenditure of something like £200,000 by way of grants in aid and of £5,000,000 sterling for a railway which up to the present had given no return whatever for the money already expended.
    1062
    These Protectorates were the very things which weakened the British Empire. The British Empire was wide enough as it was, and it would be infinitely better if the Government concentrated their attention upon developing and defending and looking after territories which were naturally theirs and inhabited by white people in every quarter of the globe, than pursuing their present policy with regard to Uganda, which involved the expenditure of millions of money upon a country unsuitable in climate for Europeans, and upon a people unsuited to British civilisation. He protested against such wasteful and wanton expenditure.
    MR. WEIRsaid that no one would charge the noble Lord with lack of courage with regard to this matter. He had performed a feat the like of which had never been witnessed during the last ten years. The noble Lord had come down and spoken for forty minutes with an old Report in his hand. Why was not the Committee supplied with the Commissioners' last Report? Why did not he give Sir Harry Johnston the opportunity of sitting in the Distinguished Strangers' Gallery to listen to the debate raised upon his Report? The proper thing to do would be to withdraw Item A from discussion altogether until the Report of Sir Harry Johnston is in the hands of the Committee. It is unfair to the Committee that business should be conducted in this manner. He objected to nearly £200,000 going to Uganda when he could not get even a little money to provide a suitable steamer for the Stornoway mail service. The noble Lord had drawn a picture of a brilliant future for Uganda. He had said that it would be great and prosperous, and that we should do a large trade. The right hon. Baronet who had moved the reduction had informed the Committee that the population was diminishing. Under those circumstances would the noble Lord make some inquiries, and see whether that statement was correct, because he could only assume that if it were so the Germans were pouring their poisonous gin, rum, and whisky into the country. The noble Lord drew a charming picture, and likened the country to that of Scotland, but he would point out that the mountains of Scotland did not produce

    1063
    wild asses. It was said that the protectorates would be opened up to trade in manufactured goods; but if the people went about in the state of Adam and Eve before the fall, what goods would they purchase? He did not see how the magnificent trade which was spoken of was to be opened up. The noble Lord said that wheat and barley and oats would be obtained from the country, but as long as they allowed poisonous drink from Germany to be imported, the wheat, the barley, and the oats would be exchanged for drink. He hoped the system of education would be conducted differently from what it was in some parts of the Highlands of Scotland. Imagine a Uganda child being sent to a school to be taught English without anyone to interpret the meaning of it? That was the policy which was undertaken by the Government in many parts, including, he might mention, Malta. He would appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to remember the home of his childhood—
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must confine his observations to Uganda.
    MR. WEIRsaid his contention was that the large sum of money which was being expended might be used to better advantage in Scotland or Ireland. It was a wicked thing to sink £5,000,000 in Uganda. The noble Lord put forward an old Report in order to throw dust in the eyes of the Committee. It was unfair and unjust to ask the poor crofters and fishermen he represented to pay their quota of the enormous sum expended year after year by the Government, who would not take the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the matter of economy.
    MR. J. W. WILSONsaid he could not help thinking that while they had had many amusing speeches during the evening they had had very little help or criticism with regard to the future of Uganda, for which this country was responsible. From what they had heard during the last five or six years, he believed there was a great future for Uganda, and especially for the railway. But the whole subject had been a great bone of contention
    1064
    between parties in the House. It was not confined to the party now in power; it went back to the time when the party opposite were in power; and the same criticisms that they had heard during the evening were then employed. With reference to the detestable form of slavery which all Englishmen felt was a disgrace in any British possession, he had heard many discussions on the subject during the short time he had been in the House. But he must say that successive Under Secretaries for Foreign Affairs had not impressed many hon. Members with the administrative power that they had brought to bear on it. The question of slavery had been already discussed, and many hon. Members thought that they had had a very unsatisfactory answer from the noble Lord. His short experience showed him that whether a Liberal or a Conservative happened to be in charge of these great Protectorates, it did not seem to rest with the Minister but with the Department, and he felt it was time that the administration of these great possessions should be taken from the Foreign Office, which was a diplomatic office, having plenty to do with European and other complications, and put under the Colonial Office. They had had much to convince them in the administration of the Colonial Office that affairs could not be managed worse and would be managed very much better by an office and staff accustomed to administration, rather than by an office and staff that did not seem to be able to get hold of the executive power of administration that was required. That was the conclusion he had derived from the history of the last ten years. The subject had always been a bone of contention between the two parties in the House, and he felt that the reply of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was a further illustration of that. He hoped, however, that a change would be brought about before long.
    SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that unless some hon. Member desired to divide on the Vote he did not intend to press the motion to a division. He appealed to hon. Members to have a division at once if they desired it, in order that the discussion might be directed to the next item.
    MR. O'MARAsaid that his statement that the net result of all the expenditure under the Vote had been that eleven traders had settled in Uganda had been challenged. An hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that there were also from thirty to forty missionaries in the country—but would they be regarded as a financial asset? Sir Henry Colville, in his very interesting book on Uganda, stated that the missionaries were partly Roman Catholic and partly Protestant, that the inhabitants were equally divided between the sects, and that they spent their time in fighting each other, with the result that Uganda was no better than Belfast on the 12th of July. The missionaries were not a financial asset, and the only result of the expenditure was the settling down of eleven traders. That result, in his opinion, did not justify the expenditure.
    SIR FRANCIS EVANSsaid he deprecated anything that had been said against the Uganda Protectorates. His business was connected with the East Coast of Africa, and he wished to say that he upheld in every particular all that had been done by the Government to develop that country. There was an enormous country stretching away from Mombasa to the lakes, and England would be foolish in the extreme if she allowed the chance of developing it to escape her. There was not a step taken in connection with the Uganda Railway or the development of the Protectorates that he was not in hearty sympathy with. It was his business to know something of the country and its coast, and he was sorry to have heard remarks deprecating the small expenditure that had been incurred. [An HON. MEMBER: Seven millions!] What was seven millions? Why, the interest was only £150,000 a year. What was that compared with the great wealth that lay behind the coast? They who were only too anxious to run along that coast and benefit by the trade coming down to it, would say that England would be most foolish indeed if she had abandoned that great country. There had never been a wiser policy followed by any Government than the policy of expending money on the Uganda Railway. He knew very well that fault had been found
    1066
    with that expenditure, which, however, was as nothing compared with the revenue that would be derived from the country. He hoped that nothing more would be said against the action of the Government. When the Government were at fault no one was more ready than he was to oppose them, but when they were right, when they were pursuing a wise policy and doing the best they could for the Empire they ought to be supported. He did not agree with the Government in all things, but he agreed with them in reference to Uganda. Let them go on as they were going and the Empire would receive much greater benefit than could be measured by the amount of the expenditure.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that the speech of the hon. Gentleman compelled him to say a few words by way of rejoinder. The hon. Gentleman from his point of view might be perfectly right and perhaps, as he had forecasted, great benefit would result to England from that expenditure. But why should his poor constituents in Clare be asked to embark a single shilling in the enterprise. The hon. Gentleman said, after all, what was £150,000? From the English point of view that might be all very well, but his constituents were not in a position to talk in that lordly way. Let them develop the Empire and build railways in every hole and corner in Africa and make markets, but let them not in the name of common fairness and honesty ask the poverty stricken people of Ireland, who found it hard enough to make both ends meet, to bear part of the expenditure. After all, Ireland never expected to get the slightest return for the expenditure. He did not object to the hon. Gentleman's wealthy, magnificent point of view, but it was quite different with the people of Ireland, who were hard put to it to keep body and soul together. If England wanted to pursue that policy, let her pay the expense herself, and not be mean enough to ask Ireland to bear a share of it.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 169. (Division List No. 344.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, Wm. (Cork,N.E.)

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Dowd, John

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Harrington, Timothy

    O'Malley, William

    Bell, Richard

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Mara, James

    Boland, John

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    O'Shee, James John

    Caldwell, James

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Partington, Oswald

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Rea, Russell

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Joyce, Michael

    Reddy, M.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kennedy, Patrick James

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Craig, Robert Hunter

    Leamy, Edmund

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Crean, Eugene

    Lundon, W.

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Cullinan, J.

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    M'Cann, James

    Sullivan, Donal

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Taylor, Theodore Cooke

    Delany, William

    Mooney, John J.

    Tomkinson, James

    Dilke, Sir Charles

    Murphy, John

    Tully, Jasper

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Weir, James Galloway

    Doogan, P. C.

    Newnes, Sir George

    White, Luke (Yorks, E. R.)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Young, Samuel

    Ffrench, Peter

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Field, William

    O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. William Redmond and Mr. Power.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.)

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Knowles, Lees

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Law, Andrew Bonar

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Bain, Col. James Robert

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Lawson, John Grant

    Balcarres, Lord

    Elibank, Master of

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)

    Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Fergusson,Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Manch'r

    Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham)

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

    Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Bristol)

    Finch, George H.

    Lowe, Francis William

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Bignold, Arthur

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Bigwood, James

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

    Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Brassey, Albert

    Gardner, Ernest

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH' mlets

    M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs.

    Bull, William James

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Butcher, John George

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Greene, Sir E. W. (B'rySEdm'nds

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Gretton, John

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Chamberlain,Rt.Hon.J.(Birm.

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    More,Robt.Jasper(Shropshire)

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w

    Charrington, Spencer

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

    Morgan,Hn.Fred.(Monm'thsh.

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'donderry

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

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

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Mount, William Arthur

    Colville, John

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, N.)

    Heath,James(Staffords.,N.W.)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Helder, Augustus

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Henderson, Alexander

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Hoult, Joseph

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    1068

    1069

    Purvis, Robert

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Wason,JohnCathcart(Orkney

    Pym, C. Guy

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Randles, John S.

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-un.-Lyne

    Rankin, Sir James

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Seton-Karr, Henry

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

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

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

    Renwick, George

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Ridley,Hon.M.W.(Stalybridge)

    Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

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

    Ridley,S.Forde(Bethnal Green)

    Spear, John Ward

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Ritchie,Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Round, James

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Russell, T. W.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Rutherford, John

    Valentia, Viscount

    Original Question again proposed.
    SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the most conspicuous example of the failure of Foreign Office finance and administration was afforded by the British East Africa Protectorate. Every year since that territory came under the control of the Foreign Office there had been two Votes brought in, and very often the supplementary had been larger than the original Vote. In 1900, when a large Supplementary Vote was asked for, the present Secretary of State for War promised a substantial reduction this year, but notwithstanding that assurance the Committee were asked to pass a Supplementary Vote of a larger amount than the normal estimate. The usual explanation of the excess had been given, namely, that it was the result of a war. The Foreign Office so managed its affairs in British East Africa, as well as in Uganda, that it was constantly engaged in wars. In the Papers supplied to the Committee, the Foreign Office pointed out how absolutely worthless the northern portion of this territory was, and as a reason for the continuance of the war in the present case, it was stated on page 48, that—
    "some show of military force should be maintained in Jubaland, since we have spent so much money and trouble upon it, in order to impress upon the Somalia the fact that we are not retiring from it."
    That was the best reason the Foreign Office was able to give. He was not, and had never pretended to be, an economist; he believed in a large expenditure—an expenditure even larger than that incurred at present— but he did not believe that any and every expenditure was justifiable. In the present state of the national finances
    1070
    they must surely choose between that which was essential to the country and that which was not. The gross waste that had taken place in British East Africa, and the gigantic expenditure now being incurred without the Foreign Office officials out there even professing that they would be able to show any return for the money, was absolutely deplorable, and contrary to the highest interests of the country. The hon. Member for Maidstone, in an impassioned speech, had spoken with peculiar knowledge, and perhaps peculiar interest, in reference to this question. The Uganda Railway spent between 103 and 104 rupees a ton on British coal, perhaps carried by the hon. Member, who, with his great fleet of ships parading the coast of Africa, was, of course, in favour of the annexation of the whole. The hon. Member naturally did not pick and choose his parts of Africa, but the Committee ought to do so, and to see some chance of obtaining a return for the money expended. The case of British East Africa was an example of the extraordinary rashness with which this country had rushed into territorial annexations—which he would be the first to welcome if he thought they added to the strength of the Empire, but which he deplored and regretted when they added to our responsibilities without conferring any benefit upon us. He moved to reduce he Vote by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed "That Item C (British East Africa, Grant-in-Aid) be reduced by £100."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
    SIR FRANCIS EVANSsaid he recognised the extensive knowledge possessed by the right hon. Baronet of many

    1071
    subjects concerning all parts of the world, but he had betrayed a lack of knowledge in his references to himself. He did not carry the coal used in Uganda, and therefore the bias which had been suggested did not exist. It was said that it had cost £7,000,000 to build the railway from Mombasa to the lakes. He maintained, and he believed that future years would bear out the statement, that there had never been a wiser expenditure on the part of this country in any new and unopened country in the world. He was not a political supporter of the Colonial Secretary, but in his opinion the right hon. Gentleman had never taken a wiser step than when, in the face of much opposition, he pushed forward the Uganda Railway. It was quite true that for many a mile it passed through a desert, and would gather no particular trade along its line of route; but once it touched the take district, and got, so to speak, into the main channel of the inner line in East Africa, it would touch a great trade, to the great benefit of this country. It was not necessary to enter into details on that point; it was rather for the right hon. Gentleman himself to defend his own schemes.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for all the kind things he is saying about me, but I am afraid he is saying them under a misapprehension. This is a matter which concerns the Foreign Office, not the Colonial Office, and any praise there may be must be given to that Department.
    SIR FRANCIS EVANSsaid reference had been made to the question of slavery and the small amount of attention paid to it by the Government. His father, with whom he worked for many years, was president of the Emancipation Society of this country, and the Government would find nobody more hostile than himself if it attempted to do anything that would perpetuate slavery in any part of the world.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must remind the hon. Member that the question of slavery has already been discussed and disposed of on the previous Vote.
    SIR FRANCIS EVANSsaid he desired to make only one point, and that was that there was no greater emancipator than a railway. He hoped the Foreign Office would continue and finish the railway in spite of any possible opposition. As to £7,000,000 having been spent, that represented only about £170,000 or £175,000 a year, and a very small amount of business on the Uganda Railway would meet every shilling of it.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEdesired to emphasise the remarks of the right hon. Baronet as to the absolute worthlessness of this particular place. In the Blue-book just published it was stated by the local Commissioner that Jubaland was absolutely worthless, that it contained neither natural nor artificial wealth, that it was the most desolate wilderness he ever met with, and that no officer in his force would care to take upon himself the garrisoning of the country. Sir Charles Elliott, the official superior of the local Commissioner, stated that the country was not worth the money expended on it, and that it consisted chiefly of scrub and sandy desert. Surely that was not a country that even the most ardent Imperialist or Jingo would desire, at the risk of the lives of British officers, to add to the Empire. If to maintain this worthless country it was unavoidable that there should be British officers there, he hoped the policy foreshadowed in the last pages of the Report would be carried out, and the British posts withdrawn to the coasts, where, at all events, an adequate force could be kept.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid the criticism of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had been singularly unfair. The right hon. Gentleman must have been aware that the Supplementary Estimate was rendered necessary by an expenditure which was unavoidable. When a British official was murdered, it was absolutely necessary to vindicate the authority of the British Government, and the sanctity which ought to attach to the lives of its officials in these barbarous regions. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State for War had expressed the hope that there would be no more Supplementary Estimates, but he could not have foreseen the possibility of one

    1073
    of our officials being killed, and the consequent necessity for a punitive expedition. It was singularly unfair to ignore the explanation he himself had given a short time ago, and to regard it as a mere pretext to enable the Foreign Office to come down with a Supplementary Estimate. That was a senseless form of criticism to come from one who was so well qualified as the right hon. Baronet to offer reasoned criticism.
    SIR CHARLES DILKEpointed out that for six years the Foreign Office had annually brought in Supplementary Estimates, a thing which no other Department had ever done.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid it was a great mistake to regard the whole of East Africa as being of the character of Jubaland. Large parts of the country were very fertile, and it was hoped they would be remunerative. As to the particular districts which apparently were not fertile, the Foreign Office had read and appreciated the criticisms made by its own officials on the spot. It had to be remembered, however, that many countries that we had occupied had at first appeared to be of little value, but had afterwards proved to be of great value. For the present, the Government intended to develop the more valuable portions of the country before spending more than they could help on the less valuable parts, and that he thought was a very business-like method of procedure. In these circumstances, all the Government intended to do in Jubaland was not to send officials flying on vague missions into the interior, but to hold the posts near the coast which we at present occupied, with a view to developing, at a future date, Jubaland, and especially the hinter-
    land, which was not a desert, but very valuable. He did not agree with the right hon. Baronet's criticisms of Foreign Office administration. The right hon. Gentleman might usefully study the work of the German Protectorate. The Germans were making a very gallant attempt at a difficult task, and they had been fairly successful, but they were not more successful than we were; on the contrary, they were less successful. If the amount of money we had spent in East Africa was compared with the amount spent by the Germans, it would be found, he thought, from an investigation of the Estimates he was submitting to the House that we were going to make a very much better thing of it than the Germans. As to the Uganda railway, notwithstanding all the criticisms that had been passed upon it, it had in point of fact been made, for by the end of the year it was hoped it would be completed so as to run through trains. The cost of the railway per mile was not much more than the amount the Germans proposed to spend on their railway, and, in view of the enormous physical difficulties of the country that had to be crossed by our railway, he thought it would be admitted that ours was the cheaper of the two. He therefore could not admit that the administration of the Foreign Office was open to the criticism which had been directed against it. In his view we should show an immense want of confidence in our own powers, besides throwing away the money we had spent, if we did not go on to earn that reward for our exertions which he thought we deserved.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 75; Noes, 154. (Division List No. 345.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

    Cullinan, J.

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

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

    Delany, William

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness sh.

    Jones, William Carnarvonsh.

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Joyce, Michael

    Bell, Richard

    Doogan, P. C.

    Kennedy, Patrick James

    Boland, John

    Elibank, Master of

    Lambert, George

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Ffrench, Peter

    Leamy, Edmund

    Caldwell, James

    Field, William

    Lundon, W.

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gilhooly, James

    Mooney, John J.

    Colville, John

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Murphy, John

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Harrington, Timothy

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Craig, Robert Hunter

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Crean, Eugene

    Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    O'Shee, James John

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    O'Brien, J. P. (Tipperary, N.)

    Partington, Oswald

    Sullivan, Donal

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Tomkinson, James

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Rea, Russell

    Tully, Jasper

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    Reddy, M.

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    O'Dowd, John

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    O'Malley, William

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Charles Hobhouse.

    O'Mara, James

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt Sir Alex. F.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamst' w

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

    Mount, William Arthur

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Balcarres, Lord

    Greene, Sir EW (B'ryS Edm'nds

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

    Gretton, John

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Purvis, Robert

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

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Pym, C. Guy

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

    Randles, John S.

    Bignold, Arthur

    Hamilton, Marqof (L'nd'nderry

    Rankin, Sir James

    Bond, Edward

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Brassey, Albert

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Renwick, George

    Bull, William James

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

    Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

    Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

    Butcher, John George

    Helder, Augustus

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Henderson, Alexander

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

    Round, James

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Russell, T. W.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hoult, Joseph

    Rutherford, John

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

    Howard, John (Kent, F'versh'm

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Charrington, Spencer

    Knowles, Lees

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

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

    Law, Andrew Bonar

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Lawson, John Grant

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

    Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Spear, John Ward

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

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

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lowe, Francis William

    Valentia, Viscount

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

    Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

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

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Maconochie, A. W.

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

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

    M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs.

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

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

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Finch, George H.

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Original Question again proposed.
    Objection being taken to further proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
    Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve of the clock, till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
  Derby Corporation Bill
  ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed; read, and agreed to.

  LONDON AND INDIA DOCKS (NEW WORKS) BILL.
  The King's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
  GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    LLANELLY HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
    Reported with Amendments.
    DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY (NEW ROSS AND WATERFORD EXTENSION) BILL.
    Reported without amendment.
    WATFORD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    LONG EATON GAS BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments; a further amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
    WISBECH WATER BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  TOTTENHAM AND HAMPSTEAD JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
    YORKSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
    LYNTON AND BARNSTAPLE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.
    PAISLEY POLICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
    Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
    BLACKBURN CORPORATION BILL.
    Reported with Amendments.
    MOND GAS BILL.
    Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  WEST CUMBERLAND ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
    CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER BILL.
    The King's consent signified; and Bills reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
    PAISLEY DISTRICT TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
    A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Paisley District Tramways; was presented by the Lord Balfour; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Friday next. (No. 169.)
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
    Moved, "That the Order made on the 21st March last, 'That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 27th day of June next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a"; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  ARMY (VOLUNTEERS).
  Proposed amendment of the scheme relative to the efficiency of Volunteers under Order in Council dated 31st July, 1880, as amended by subsequent Orders.

  959
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SOUTH AFRICA (CONCENTRATION CAMPS).
  Return of numbers of persons in the Concentration Camps in South Africa, June, 1901.
  ARSENICAL POISONING (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of poisoning by arsenic in beer and other articles of diet.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2663. France (Réunion).
  No. 2664. Austria-Hungary.
  No. 2665. Netherlands (Java).
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law with reference to international arrangements for patents, was presented by the Earl of Dudley; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 168).

  SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, in accordance with the notice standing in my name, I rise to draw attention to the Report of the Irish Inland Fisheries Commission, and to present a Bill. I think I can justify my position with regard to this matter by saying at the outset that I am devoted to the gentle art. It was evident some years ago that the rivers of Ireland were gradually becoming depleted of salmon. A committee of the Irish Tourists' Association considered the matter in 1896, and decided to send out a series of questions to gentlemen interested in the different rivers in Ireland. I must draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that, being a tourists' association, we were only able to deal with rod-fishing. The questions asked were: (1) Has the rod-fishing for salmon, sea trout, and brown trout deteriorated in your district? (2) Has the net-fishing
  960
  for salmon, sea trout, and brown trout deteriorated in your district? Causes of deterioration (if any)? (4) Do the constabulary take any active part in enforcing the Fishery Laws? (5) Do the coastguard take any active part in enforcing these laws? And (6) what remedial measures should, in your opinion, be adopted in your district? We received 103 answers to those queries, and a Report was drawn up which stated that—
  "The deterioration in Irish angling has been most noticeable during the last ten or twelve years, in which space of time matters seem to have been going from bad to worse. The lakes and rivers, except in some few favoured districts, seem to be without supervision of any kind, at the mercy of poachers, whom the law seems unable to reach. In Ireland there are the most perfect natural salmon and trout rivers in the world; rivers whose upper waters offer the best possible spawning ground, and whose deeper and lower reaches afford everything necessary in the way of suitable shelter and haunts for mature fish. The causes militating against an adequate supply of fish are found to be poaching and the want of proper protection."
  A quickening of the authorities took place after that, and in some cases, no doubt, the constabulary gave assistance by stopping the poaching of salmon whilst the fish were spawning. About two years later it was suggested by Mr. Maguire, of the Board of Conservators of the Drogheda District, that a conference should be held of the different boards of conservators in Ireland. These boards met and sent delegates to a conference, at which most conflicting interests had to be dealt with—the interests of net men and rod men, and also the milling interest. The conference appointed committees to deal with certain points, and met again to receive the reports of the committees, and it was then decided to go in a deputation to the Lord Lieutenant. The movement began in 1896, and the deputation to the Lord Lieutenant took place last year or the year before. I had the honour of being chairman at the conferences, and also spokesman of the deputation to the Lord Lieutenant. The result was, his Excellency appointed a Vice-regal Commission, the Report of which has been laid on the Table of both Houses. In Ireland we are most satisfied with the Report of that Commission, and I will read to your Lordships the names of the Commis-

  961
  sioners. They were the Right Hon. Samuel Walker, Lord Justice of Appeal in Ireland (Chairman); Professor Daniel John Cunningham, M.D., Trinity College, Dublin; Sir Thomas Esmonde, Bart., M.P.; Sir R. U. Penrose Fitzgerald, Bart., M.P.; the Rev. William Spotswood Green, M.A., one of H.M. Inspectors of Fisheries in Ireland; Professor William Carmichael McIntosh, M.D., St. Andrews University; and the Rt. Hon. O'Conor Don. In their Report the Commissioners stated that they received evidence as to all the principal rivers, estuaries, and fishing waters in Ireland, and also made personal inspections of the Shannon from Killaloe to Scattery Island, the Laune and Killarney Lakes, the Lee, the Black water down to Youghal, the Boyne, the Moy, the Sligo river, the Ballysadare, the Bush, the Bann, the Foyle, the Galway river, and the Slaney. They say—
  "We consider that the principle of preserving the supply of salmon and trout for the use of the public, and maintaining the benefits which, directly and indirectly, accrue to the country from the maintenance of a sufficient number of fish in the rivers, estuaries, and waters of Ireland, underlies the granting of the present Commission; and we have carefully kept this fact in view throughout our entire inquiry."
  The former Irish Fisheries Commission was in 1837, and an Act was passed in 1842, but after that things went from bad to worse. Then we had a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1863. This led to the passing of a most important Act, which swept away a number of those engines and machines that impeded the salmon from ascending the rivers. There important legislation stopped, but we hope to get further legislation as the result of this Commission. One of my reasons for bringing this Report before your Lordships is the statement of the Commissioners with regard to salmon and trout being valuable food. I should like to see this harvest of our inland fisheries sold at 6d. per 1b. in the markets of the United Kingdom, and there is no reason why, with proper regulation and due regard to all the interests involved, this should not become a fact After the Report of the Commission was laid on the Table of both Houses the conference of delegates from the different boards of conservators met again, and that meeting was better attended than
  962
  the previous ones, sixteen out of the twenty-four boards being represented. The Report was fully discussed, and although all the boards did not send delegates there was no hostile feeling shown, and nothing adverse appeared in the Irish press. I will deal, firstly, with the recommendations of the Commission. It was found undesirable to introduce in the Bill, which I hope to present to your Lordships' House when I conclude my remarks, provisions dealing with the constabulary, which are under the Irish Executive. The Commission in their Report say—
  "We are strongly of opinion that the public interest makes it desirable that it should be made part of the duty of the constabulary to assist in the protection of salmon and trout during the spawning season and on the spawning beds."
  That is all we can hope that the constabulary will do for the present. I will only quote the evidence of one witness out of the many who were examined by the Commission. Lord Morris, whom we hope soon to see back in his place, said—
  "I want to state, after long experience, not indeed in a fishing way, but I went fifty-three circuits through Ireland as judge, and in my opinion there will never be anything practical in the way of putting down poaching unless the constabulary are to do it. I look upon everything else as the merest palliative—utterly useless unless the police are authorised and empowered to put it down. It is illegal under various statutes. Why should not the police put down what is illegal, as they do illicit whisky? … … Therefore I have no belief in anything unless the police are to be employed to put down poaching."
  The question was asked—
  "That would be on the spawning beds?"
  and Lord Morris's reply was—
  "Of course, during the illegal time."
  He was next asked—
  "They are no man's property, then?"
  and his reply was—
  "They are no man's property; they are not mine. I could not meddle with the fish myself. And why is it supposed to be the duty of the owner of the fisheries to put down an illegality at the time that he has no control over it, no more than any other member of society? Therefore, I think it is entirely a police duty. I cannot understand some suggestions I saw about taking the police out of their proper sphere, and all that sort of thing. What is their proper sphere but to assert the law? This is a breach of the law."

  963
  I trust I have made it clear that what we hope will be done is to protect the fish on the spawning beds. The coastguard question is a very difficult one to deal with, because, broadly speaking, the attitude of the Admiralty is unfavourable. The Commissioners say—
  "We are unable to see why the powers, given by the law to the coastguard, should not be carried out, and we are of opinion that the interests of the public in the fisheries render it most desirable that the restrictions imposed by the authorities at the Admiralty should be removed and the coastguard authorised to assist in the enforcement of the close seasons.',
  At one time gunboats did seize nets, but when the bad times came in Ireland it was thought advisable that there should not be collisions between our bluejackets and the people on the coast, and since then no action has been taken by the coastguard. The recommendations of the Commissions with regard to hatcheries have not been embodied in the Bill, because it was felt that our new Department were dealing with the matter and that they should have a fair trial. The Commissioners state that the establishment and maintenance of hatcheries formed a question so important that a very considerable portion of the evidence submitted to them was naturally devoted to that subject. I wish to draw attention to the effect of hatcheries on the Atlantic seaboard of America. The evidence was that on the Atlantic seaboard of America salmon, after having been practically exterminated by poaching and other causes, were reintroduced by the artificial hatching of eggs obtained from Canada. Evidence of a similar nature, although not so striking, was forthcoming from other countries. The Commissioners recommend that a central hatchery should be established in each province of Ireland, which should be erected, fitted up, and maintained out of funds under the control of the fishery authority, and be directly under the supervision of the Department, and that the capture and sale of salmon and fry, in connection with artificial propagation, should be made lawful. Since this report Mr. S. Jaffé, of Osnabrück, in a letter in the Field of July 6th of this year on the success of the salmon hatcheries in the River Weser, where natural spawning has practically ceased since 1892, gave
  964
  the following statistics, which are founded on the number of fish caught in the third, fourth, and fifth years after the fry were planted in the river—

  Fry planted.

  Salmon returned and were caught in

  Caught.

  Percentage of salmon returned to fry planted.

  1892.

  1894.

  1895.

  1896.

  Total.

  1,411,250.

  2,556

  3,204

  2,060

  7,820

  over 5½ per 1000. *

  1893.

  1895.

  1896.

  1897.

  1,085,850

  933

  1,606

  659

  3,198

  under 3 per 1000. ‡

  1894.

  1896.

  1897.

  1898.

  1,264,200

  1,384

  1,538

  1,046

  3,968

  over 3 per 1000. §

  1895.

  1897.

  1898.

  1899.

  1,263,000

  1,166

  1,918

  919

  4,003

  over 3 per 1000.

  * Being 5,547 salmon per million fry planted, † Being 2,945 salmon per million fry planted. ‡ Being 3,138 salmon per million fry planted. § Being 3,169 salmon per million fry planted.

  The proportion of about three per 1,000 of returning salmon to fry planted, that is to say, three adult salmon returning to every 1,000 fry planted artificially, may appear small at first sight. Considering, however, that the cost of 1,000 fry planted on the Weser does not exceed 7s. 6d., for which we get three salmon of an average of 12lb. each back, we get a very fair return for our money on a river on which we now depend wholly on artificial planting for our catch.
  Mr. Jaffé concluded by saying that he thinks these percentages will become considerably higher owing to new and improved means of planting the fry. All this has come as a shock to those who have attempted to minimise the importance of hatcheries, and is most interesting.
  As to the scientific investigations recommended by the Commission, I may say that the new Department have taken the matter in hand, and are commencing, or have commenced, work. The Commission also recommended that a fishery board should be constructed. With regard to that there was a difference of opinion at our conference, but I stopped discussion on the matter by pointing out that we should give our new Department a fair chance. I said I thought it better that the new Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, which had appointed a Fishery Committee, should for the present deal with the matter. I think I have said enough with regard to the matters recommended by the Irish Inland Fisheries Commission. You will have seen how step by step, since 1896, those interested in the matter have done everything in their power to obtain this Commission, and I think you will allow that we have done our duty in the matter. Conflicting interests

  965
  have been reconciled. Nearly all the members of our conference were witnesses before the Commission, and now we trust that His Majesty's Government, as represented by the Irish Executive, will take measures which will lead to the improvement of our inland fisheries. There is one form of poaching peculiar to Ireland—namely, the poisoning of the rivers in Kerry by means of a plant commonly called spurge, of which the botanical name is Euphorbia Hibernica. I now beg to present my Bill, which is entitled Salmon Fisheries (Ireland) Bill, and embodies two principles—the free passage of the fish and the protection and enforcement of the law.
  Bill to amend the laws relating to the salmon fisheries of Ireland, presented by the Earl of Mayo.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 1a.— (The Earl of Mayo.)
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I do not know whether any remarks from me are called for, because it is not possible to say anything with regard to a Bill we have not seen. But I can promise my noble friend that his Bill will be regarded with great interest and attention, and although, of course, it is impossible to carry out anything in the way of legislation this year, it is very likely that some provisions of this Bill may afford a practical basis for useful legislation afterwards. The recommendations of the Commission may be divided into two classes—those which require legislation, and those which do not. The noble Lord has touched upon one or two of the recommendations which he said could be carried out by the Executive without legislation, and I think I shall be able to show your Lordships that the matter is not being allowed to sleep. With regard to the question of hatcheries, the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction began last year a system of developing hatcheries, offering the owners of hatcheries £25 for every 100,000 fry turned out over the output of the year before. Four hundred and twenty-four thousand beyond their average output were turned out by five hatcheries. This system has worked very well, and
  966
  will be repeated. In addition to this the Department have issued to boards of conservators and others a scheme for the establishment of new hatcheries and the further development of existing ones, although on somewhat different lines from those of the plan suggested by the Commission. It was also in the interest of the salmon fisheries that the Department entered an opposition this year before Parliament to the Shannon Water and Electric Power Bill, on the ground of the injury the scheme was calculated to do to the spawning beds, and they only withdrew their opposition on terms which they believed would adequately protect the interests of salmon fisheries. These included the contribution of £2,500 by the company towards the construction of a special hatchway. Scientific investigation into the life history of salmon is being undertaken almost precisely on the lines recommended by the Commission. As to the protection that the constabulary can give, and the suppression of poaching, the Department have entered into communication with the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary on the subject of the co-operation of the constabulary, and the result has been the issue of a circular to the men of the constabulary. I hope these statements will be satisfactory to the noble Lord, who may rest assured that the Government will do all they can to promote this question.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 1a accordingly; and to be printed. (No. 170.)

  ROYAL DECLARATION BILL [H.L.]
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL: I rise, my Lords, to present a Bill drawn up in pursuance of a Report made a short time ago by a Committee of this House upon the Royal Declaration required to be made on the accession of the Sovereign. The Bill is almost exactly in the terms of the Report; there are only two slight modifications. During the debate in the House a few days ago it was noticed by some of the Roman Catholic peers that the words "adoration of the Virgin Mary" were not in their view theologically correct, and it was

  967
  evidently felt to be a matter of some importance that these words should be corrected. I can only say that the fault is not ours; it is the fault of our ancestors in the time of Charles II., who drew up the Declaration in this form. I should have thought myself that, if they knew anything, they knew something of mariolatry.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: Titus Oates?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Titus Oates was not in Parliament. I do not know how they came to make so great a blunder. However, what we have done is to leave out the words to which the Roman Catholic peers objected. Then there was another objection taken—that, on account of the vague grammatical structure of the sentences, we had used language which, as was observed in the course of our recent debate, would make it possible for the Pope himself to make the Declaration. I always thought myself that this was a somewhat hypercritical mode of construing the Declaration; but, however, when the blot was pointed out it became necessary to remove it, and we have added the words "in which I believe" after the words "are contrary to the Protestant religion," making clear the declaration of his belief on the part of the Sovereign making the Declaration. I do not see that this was a very necessary change, but still notice having been taken of the blot, it is right to make the correction. These are the only changes we have made, though, as your Lordships are aware, other changes have been asked for. There are some peers who have asked for the abolition of the Declaration altogether. To that I can only say that it is not a matter worth discussing at this moment, but so far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, and I believe a very great majority in both Houses of Parliament are concerned, there would be strenuous opposition to the abolition of this time-honoured Declaration. A further question, which I admit is not nearly so important, is whether the mode of expressing the King's refusal to be bound by the Roman Catholic religion is made in the most suitable and felicitous
  968
  terms. As to that I believe, and I have only learned it lately, some of the Roman Catholic peers think it would be more satisfactory if there were no Declaration of the kind, but simply a repudiation of Roman Catholic adhesion on the part of the Sovereign. My Lords, I will only say about that that I am not quite sure that the precise set of motives and considerations which have guided Roman Catholic peers in their observations expressing their desire may not operate in a precisely inverse fashion upon the minds of Protestants in this and in the other House of Parliament. Until I hear the matter discussed I will not express an opinion on the point. I am bound to take the form of the Declaration as it has come down to us, with the correction of what were obvious defects, and I think it would be wiser to make as few changes as possible. Upon that, however, when we arrive at future stages of the Bill we shall be able to ascertain more clearly the opinion of the House. I beg to move that the Bill be read a first time.
  Bill to modify the Declaration required by the Bill of Rights to be made by the Sovereign, presented by the Lord Privy Seal (M. Salisbury.)
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Marquess of Salisbury)
  LORD HERRIES,who had given notice to ask His Majesty's Government what course they proposed to pursue in consequence of the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the Declaration of the Sovereign against Transubstantiation, said: The noble Marquess the Prime Minister has anticipated the question I intended putting to him. I am glad the Bill has been brought forward, and that the Government are going to modify the Declaration. When the Report of the Committee was discussed on a former occasion the Government intimated that they would be prepared to consider any Amendments that might be brought forward. I think it would be more proper that these Amendments should be considered at a later stage of the Bill.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I agree with the noble Marquess that the Second

  969
  Reading is the proper time for discussion. But, as my position was somewhat different from that of the other Members of the Committee, I should like to say two or three words. I rejoice that His Majesty's Government have thought it right to introduce a Bill on this matter, and I am also glad to hear that the alterations have been made to which the noble Marquess referred. I deprecate any attempt to materially alter the form of the Declaration. On the Committee I did not entirely agree with the form, and I had considerable sympathy with those who desired to exclude all references to doctrine; but, considering the very strong feeling which exists in the country in favour of maintaining the ancient Declaration to secure that it shall always be a Protestant on the Throne of England, I came to the conclusion that it was impossible to alter its form beyond that recommended by the Committee. I trust that, when the discussion comes on, material alterations will not be pressed, and that we shall be content with the old Declaration as amended by the omission of the strong expressions which to my mind were justly offensive to Roman Catholics.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: Can the noble Marquess tell us when the Second Reading will be taken?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I propose to ask the House to take it on Tuesday.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I think that would be allowing a very short interval for the consideration of a question upon which the people of England have not yet made up their minds. The House should not proceed hastily, nor is there need, for the reigning Sovereign has already made the Declaration. Recalling the circumstances of the discussion a short time ago, I hardly think we shall be in a position to come to a wise decision on this important question. I would be thankful if the decision could be postponed to next session. Many peers are now away from town, and will be unable to return to the House by Tuesday. Delay would be an advantage.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I hope the Government will not yield to the appeal
  970
  of the right rev. Prelate. If we are to deal with this subject at all we should deal with it at once. The session is already far advanced, and if we were to postpone the consideration of the matter for some weeks it would mean its postponement till next year. I hope the noble Marquess will adhere to his decision to take the Second Reading on Tuesday next.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am bound to say I do not think there is much foundation in this case for a plea of delay. We have had this matter before the House for a month or six weeks, and it has been perfectly well known what the points at issue would be. Roman Catholic peers have been urging us to deal with the matter for some weeks past, and obviously you cannot delay the Bill now without putting it off to next year. It is a subject of a disturbing and exciting character, and should not be left over for an unnecessarily long period.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 1a accordingly; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 171.)

  UNSEAWORTHY SHIPS—DECK LOADS.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether at the recent Board of Trade inquiries into the loss of the ss. "Mobile," with all hands, and the casualty to the ss. "Huddersfield" with loss of life, it was found that, owing to their carrying deck loads in the winter time in the North Atlantic, both vessels were sent to sea in an unseaworthy condition: whether this is an infringement of Section 457 of the Merchant Shipping Act regarding the sending to sea of unseaworthy ships, and whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to take prompt action thereupon for the purpose of preventing such needless sacrifice of life in the future. To previous questions on the subject of unseaworthy ships the reply has been that the Board of Trade has no jurisdiction over any vessels sailing from ports outside the United Kingdom to other foreign ports. This is a curious decision in view of the fact that when a British vessel is lost the Board of Trade

  971
  hold an inquiry, and decide what, in their opinion, was the cause; and should the captain survive, he is tried at the same time, and his certificate suspended if it is ascertained that the vessel went to sea in an unseaworthy condition. Under the Merchant Shipping Act the Board of Trade have jurisdiction over every ship sent to sea in an unseaworthy condition, and I fail to find any provision that the vessel must sail from or arrive at a port in the United Kingdom. A master of a British ship is supposed to have discretionary powers as to whether or not his ship is so loaded as to be unseaworthy; but, as a matter of fact, he has not, because if he refused to take her he would probably be told that his services were no longer required. This is a matter in which some action by the Board of Trade is very much needed.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE: My Lords, I am afraid the Board of Trade are unable to take any action in the cases mentioned. The vessels went to sea in an unseaworthy state; one foundered, and the other was caught in a gale of wind, and loss of life was sustained. These matters are governed by two sections of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. Section 451 deals with the question of deck cargo, and it was with reference to that section that I gave the answer to my noble friend the other day that the Board of Trade had no jurisdiction in the matter. That section lays down that where a vessel leaves a port abroad for a port in this country with a deck cargo over a certain height she can be detained on her arrival here. But it is obvious that if the vessel does not come to a port in the United Kingdom she does not come under the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade. Section 457 does undoubtedly give to us the power to prosecute, on sufficient evidence, any owner or master who sends his vessel to sea in an unseaworthy condition. In the case of the "Mobile" the vessel was lost with all hands. We are, therefore, obviously unable to proceed against anybody. There is no evidence to show that the owner in that case is in any way responsible for the vessel going to sea in an unseaworthy condition. The master has been held
  972
  by the court of inquiry to blame, but the master has, unfortunately, lost his life. In the case of the "Huddersfield" the court of inquiry found that, although the ship was undoubtedly unseaworthy, the master was not to blame. They found it to be an error of judgment, and we are advised by our legal advisers that, that finding having been arrived at, it is impossible to prosecute the master with any hope of a conviction. For these reasons, therefore, we do not propose to initiate any action against the master or the owner of that vessel. I agree that there may be cases in which an understanding has been arrived at between the owner and the master of a vessel practically to evade the law, but my noble friend knows perfectly well that it is extremely difficult to bring home a charge of that character, and I am afraid that in that respect the section is of but little value.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (BOARD OF TRADE SURVEYING STAFF).
  Return respecting; laid before the House pursuant to Order of the 18th of June last, and to be printed. (No. 172.)
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five of the clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven of the clock.