Sitting of 17 February 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
Message to attend His Majesty.
The House went, and being returned—

WRITS ISSUED DURING RECESS.
Mr. SPEAKERinformed the House, That he had issued Warrants for New Writs during the Recess, for Liverpool (West Derby Division), in the room of Samuel Wasse Higginbottom, esquire, deceased; County of Antrim (South Division), The Right Hon. William Grey Ellison Macartney Deputy Master of the Mint.

SENTENCE ON A MEMBER.
Mr. SPEAKERinformed the House that he had received the following letter relating to a sentence upon a Member.
Royal Courts of Justice,
London,
23rd January, 1903.
The Right Honourable
The Speaker of the House of Commons.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that Arthur Alfred Lynch, Member for Galway, was at a Trial-at-Bar, before Mr. Justice Wills, Mr. Justice Channell, and myself, to-day convicted of high treason and sentenced to death.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
ALVERSTONE.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: I beg to give notice that when motion is made for the issue of a New Writ for the borough of Galway, I shall move that it be issued that day six months.

NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the County of Perth (Eastern Division), in the room of Sir John George Smyth Kinloch. Baronet (Manor of Northstead).—(Mr. Gladstone.)

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
Charles Day Rose, esquire, for County of Cambridge (Eastern or Newmarket Division).
William Watson Rutherford, esquire, Liverpool (West Derby Division).

ELECTIONS.
Ordered, That all Members who are returned for two or more places in any part of the United Kingdom do make their election for which of the places they will serve, within one week after it shall appear that there is no question upon the return for that place; and if anything shall come in question touching the return or election of any Member, he is to withdraw during the time the matter is in debate; and that all Members returned upon double returns do withdraw till their returns are determined.
Resolved, That no Peer of the Realm, except such Peers of Ireland as shall for the time being be actually elected, and shall not have declined to serve, for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, hath any right to give his Vote in the election of any Member to serve in Parliament.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament, or other Peer or Prelate, not being a Peer of Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any Peer of Ireland, at such elections in Great Britain respectively where such Peer shall appear as a candidate, or by himself, or any others, be proposed to be elected; or for any Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his Commission, to influence the election of any Member to serve for the Commons in Parliament." —(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
*MR. JAMES LOWTHERmoved to omit all words after the word "Kingdom "in line 2, down to "for "in line 8, the effect of which, he explained, was to restrict the application of the Sessional Order to Lords Lieutenant, as distinct from Peers.
MR. GALLOWAYseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'Kingdom,' in line 2, to the word 'for' in line 8."—(Mr.James Lowther.)
Question put, "That the words pro
posed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House devided:—Ayes, 270; Noes, 68. (Division List No. 1.)

Price, Robert John

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Purvis, Robert

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Valentia, Viscount

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Randles, John S.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wallace, Robert

Ratcliff, R. F.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Rea, Russell

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Weir, James Galloway

Reddy, M.

Smith, HC(North'mb.Tyneside)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Spear, John Ward

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Spencer, RtHnC.R.(Northants)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Reid, James (Greenock)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Remnant, James Farquharson

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Ridley, S.Forde(Bethnal Green)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Rigg. Richard

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Robert, John H. (Denbighs.)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Sullivan, Donal

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

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Tennant, Harold John

Wodehouse, RtHn.E.R.(Bath)

Rose, Charles Day

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Woodhouse, SirJT(Huddersf'd)

Rothschild, Hon.Lionel Walter

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

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

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Thomas, F.Freeman-(Hastings)

Wylie, Alexander

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Thornton, Percy M.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Tomkinson, James

Yoxall, James Henry

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Toulmin, George

Sandys, Lieut.-Col.Thos.Myles

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Seely, Maj, J.E.B.(Isleofwight)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Tufnell, Lieut-Col. Edward

AYES.

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

Delany, William

Johnstone, Heywood

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Denny, Colonel

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Aird, Sir John

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Joyce, Michael

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Kemp, George

Allsopp, Hon George

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Ambrose, Robert

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Donelan, Captain A.

Kimber, Henry

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Doogan, P. C.

Knowles, Lees

Arrol, Sir William

Doughty, George

Lambert, George

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

Bain. Colonel James Robert

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Lawson, John Grant

Baird, John George Alexander

Duffy, William J.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man r)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

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

Dunn, Sir William

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Barlow, John Emmott

Edwards, Frank

Levy, Maurice

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Emmott, Alfred

Lewis, John Herbert

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lloyd-George, David

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lockie, John

Beckett, Ernest William

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Bell, Richard

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Bigwood, James

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fisher, William Hayes

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

Boland, John

Fison, Frederick William

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Brigg, John

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lough, Thomas

Broadhurst, Henry

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Flower, Ernest

Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Forster, Henry William

Lundon, W.

Bryce, Right Hon. James

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Macdona, John Cumming

Bull, William James

Gardner, Ernest

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Gordon, Hn.J.E.(Elgin & Nrn)

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Caldwell, James

Gore, Hon. G. R. C. Ormsby-

M 'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Cameron, Robert

(Salop).

M'Govern, T.

Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg.)

Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc)

M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Greene, Sir E.W.(Bury St. Ed.)

Milvain, Thomas

Causton, Richard Knight

Grenfell, William Henry

Mitchell, William

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

Griffith, Ellis J.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Cavendish, V C W (Derbush.)

Groves, James Grimble

Morgan, DavidJ.(Walth'mstow

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morrison, James Archibald

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hain, Edward

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J A (Worc)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Murray, RtHn.AGraham(Bute)

Channing, Francis Allston

Hambro, Charles Eric

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld.G.(Midx)

Myers, William Henry

Chapman, Edward

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

Newnes, Sir George

Charrington, Spencer

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, south)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Norman, Henry

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N)

Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

O'Malley, William

Craig, Robert Hunter(Lanark)

Hermon-Hodge. Sir Robert T.

O'Mara, James

Cranborne, Viscount

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Hope John Deans (Fife, West)

Palmer, SirCharlesM.(Durham)

Crombie, John William

Horniman, Frederick John

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Crossley, Sir Savile

Houston, Robert Paterson

Paulton, James Mellor

Cullinan, J.

Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Percy, Earl

Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardign)

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fr

Pretyman, Ernest George

NOES.

Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Atherley-Jones, L.

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries)

Baldwin, Alfred

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Renwick, George

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge)

Bignold, Arthur

Maconochie, A. W.

Roche, John

Boulnois, Edmund

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

M'Kean, John

Runciman, Walter

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Russell, T. W.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Markham, Arthur Basil

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mooney, John J.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Dillon, John

Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Murnaghan, George

Stock, James Henry

Ellis, John Edward

Murphy, John

Tollemache, Henry James

Gordon, Maj Evans-(Tr. Hmlts)

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

Tully, Jasper

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H. (Sheffield)

Guthrie, Walter Murray

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

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd)

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid)

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

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

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts)

Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)

O'Dowd, John

White, George (Norfolk)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Jacoby, James Alfred

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingt'n)

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Pickard, Benjamin

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. James Lowther and Mr. Galloway.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament or other Peer or Prelate, not being a Peer of Ireland at the time, elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament except only any Peer in Ireland, at such Elections in Great
Britain respectively where such Peer shall appear as a candidate, or by himself, or any others, be proposed to be elected; or for any Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his Commission, to influence the election of any Member to serve for the Commons in Parliament.
Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath been elected or returned a Member of this House, or endeavoured so to be by bribery, or any other corrupt

49
practices, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against all such persons as shall have been wilfully concerned in such bribery or other corrupt practices.

WITNESSES.
Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath been tampering with any witness, in respect of his evidence to be given to this House, or any Committee thereof, or directly or indirectly hath endeavoured to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence, the same is declared to be a high crime or misdemeanour; and this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.
Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath given false evidence in any case before this House, or any Committee thereof, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.

METROPOLITAN POLICE.
Ordered, That the Commissioners of the Police of the Metropolis do take care that, during the Session of Parliament, the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder be allowed in Westminster Hall, or in the passages leading to this House, during the Sitting of Parliament, and that there be no annoyance therein or thereabouts; and that the Serjeant at Arms attending this House do communicate this Order to the Commissioners aforesaid.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS.
Ordered, That the Votes and Proceedings of this House be printed, being first perused by Mr. Speaker; and that he do appoint the printing thereof; and that no person but such as he shall appoint do presume to print the same.
Ordered, That a Committee of Privileges be appointed.
OUTLAWRIES BILL.
"For the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries." read the first time; to be read a second time.

JOURNAL.
Ordered, That the Journal of this House, from the end of the last, session to the end of the present session, with an Index thereto, be printed.
Ordered, That 500 Copies of the said Journal and Index be printed by the appointment and under the direction of Sir Courtenay Peregrine Ilbert, K.C.S.I.C.I.E., the Clerk of this House.
Ordered, That the said, Journal and Index be printed by such person as shall be licensed by Mr. Speaker, and that no other person do presume to print the same.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (RECESS).
The following Papers, presented by Royal Command during the Recess, were delivered to the Librarian of the House of Commons during the Recess, pursuant to the Standing Order of the 14th August, 1896:—
1. Mines (Explosion at the MacLaren Colliery, Abertysswg).—Copy of Reports to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by S. T. Evans, Esquire, one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, on the circumstances attending an explosion which occurred at MacLaren Colliery (No. 1 Pit), Abertysswg, on the 3rd September, 1902.
2. Judicial Statistics (England and Wales).—Copy of Judicial Statistics, Part I., relating to Criminal Proceedings, Police, Coroners, Prisons, Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and Criminal Lunatics, for England and Wales for 1901.
3. Country Courts (Plaints and Sittings). Copy of Return of Plaints and Sittings in County Courts for the year 1901.
4. Census of England and Wales, 1901.—Copy of Census of England and Wales, 1901 (Counties of Bedford, Buckingham, Carnarvon, Denbigh, Anglesey, Radnor, Rutland, Montgomery, Merioneth, Brecknock, Huntingdon, Flint, Salop, Pembroke, Westmoreland, Hereford, and Cardigan;
5. Workhouse Accounts (Departmental Committee).—Copy of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the President of the Local Government

51
Board to inquire into Workhouse Accounts, with Appendices;
6. Irish Land Commission (Proceedings).—Copy of Return of Proceedings during the months of November and December, 1902;
7. Agrarian Outrages (Ireland).—Copy of Return for the quarter ended 31st December, 1902;
8. Evictions(Ireland).—Copy of Return of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 31st December, 1902;
9. Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887 (Eviction Notices).—Copy of Return of Eviction Notices filed during the quarter ended 31st December, 1902;
10. Agricultural Statistics (Ireland).—Copy of Tables showing the extent in statute acres and the produce of the Crops for the year 1902, &c.;
11. National Education (Ireland).—Copy of Appendix to the Sixty-eighth Report of the Commissioners, being for the year 1901. Section II.;
12. East India (Trade).—Copy of Tables relating to the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries for the five years 1897–8 to 1901–2;
13. Trade Reports (Extracts).—Copy of Extracts from the Reports of His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Officers Abroad, received during the year 1902, relating to particular Trades and Industries (Coal);
14. Railway Accidents.—Copy of Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the nine months ending 30th September, 1902, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers, Assistant Inspecting Officers, and Sub-Inspectors of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain Accidents which were inquired into;
15. Certificates of Origin.—Copy of Memorandum showing the Regulations existing in the principal European Countries and in Canada, the United States, and Japan, in regard to Certificates of Origin;
16. Poisons (Departmental Committee).—Copy of Report, Supplementary Report, and Minority Report of the
52
Departmental Committee appointed by the Lord President of the Council to consider Schedule A to The Pharmacy Act, 1868, to report the alterations therein which they deem expedient, and whether a third part should be added thereto, with Copy of the Minutes appointing the Committee, and a List of Witnesses examined. Part I.;
17. Poisons (Departmental Committee).—Copy of Minutes of Evidence taken by the Departmental Committee appointed by the Lord President of The Council to consider Schedule A to the Pharmacy Act, 1868, to report the alterations therein which they deem expedient, and whether a third part should be added thereto, together with Appendices and Index to Evidence. Part II.;
18. Glanders (Departmental Committee).—Copy of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture for the purpose of conducting experimental investigations with regard to the communicability of the infection of Glanders under certain conditions, and as to the arresting and curative powers, if any, of mallein repeatedly administered.
19. Crofter and Cottar Colonisation Scheme.—Copy of Thirteenth Report of the Commissioners appointed to carry out a Scheme of Colonisation in the Dominion of Canada of Crofters and Cottars from the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, with Appendices.
20. Northern Nigeria.—Copy of Correspondence relating to Kano.
21. Colonial Reports (Annual).—Copies of Reports Nos. 376 (Grenada, Annual Report for 1901), 377 (Northern Nigeria, Annual Report for 1901), 378 (British Guiana, Report for 1901–2), 379 (Mauritius, Annual Report for 1901), 380 (Basutoland Report for 1901–2).
22. Africa (No. 6, 1902).—Copy of Correspondence respecting Slavery and the Slave Trade in East Africa and the Islands of Zanzibar and Pemba (in continuation of Africa, No. 4, 1901);
23. Treaty Series (No. 17, 1902).—Copy of Final Protocol between the Foreign Powers and China for the resumption of Friendly Relations. Signed at Peking, 7th September 1901 (with 19 Annexes);
24. Treaty Series (No. 1, 1903).—Copy of Convention between the United Kingdom and Belgium regulating Telephonic Communications between the United Kingdom and Belgium. Signed at Brussels, 21st November, 1902;
25. Treaty Series (No. 2, 1903).—Copy of Convention between the United Kingdom and France for the Exchange of Insured and Uninsured Parcels between France and the British Colony of Gibraltar. Signed at Paris, 22nd October, 1902. Ratifications exchanged at Paris, 10th December, 1902.
26. United States (No. 1, 1903).—Copy of Convention signed at Washington, 24th January, 1903, for the Adjustment of the Boundary between the Dominion of Canada and the Territory of Alaska;
27. Africa (No. 1, 1903)—Copy of Correspondence respecting the Rising of the Mullah Muhammed Abdullah in Somaliland and consequent Military Operations, 1901-2 (in continuation of Africa, No. 3, 1902);
28. Nationality and Naturalisation (Miscellaneous, No. 1, 1903).—Copy of Despatch from His Majesty's Minister in Brazil, enclosing a translation of a Decree regulating Naturalisation of Aliens (in continuation of Miscellaneous, No. 3, 1893);
29. Venezuela (No. 1, 1903).—Copy of Correspondence respecting the affairs of Venezuela;
30. Trade Reports (Annual Series).—Copies of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2923 to 2935;
31. Trade Reports (Miscellaneous Series).—Copies of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, Nos. 587 and 588;
Ordered, That the said Papers do lie upon the Table.

SUGAR BOUNTIES (COUNTERVAILING DUTIES) (COMMERCIAL, NO. 1, 1903.)
Copy presented, of Correspondence with the Russian Government respecting the Interpretation of the Most Favoured-Nation Clause in connection with Countervailing Duties on Bountyfed Sugar [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CREMATION (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented, of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to prepare a Draft of the Regulations to be made under The Cremation Act, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (PARTICULARS OF PIECE WORK WAGES) (WHOLESALE TAILORING).
Copy presented, of Order, dated 5th January, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, applying with modifications the provisions of Section 116 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, to Factories and Workshops in which Wholesale Tailoring is carried on, and to Outworkers employed in Wholesale Tailoring, and the Occupiers and Contractors by whom they are employed [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (SANITARY ACCOMMODATION).
Copy presented, of Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, dated 4th February, 1903, in pursuance of Section 9 of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, determining what is sufficient and suitable accommodation in the way of sanitary conveniences within the meaning of that section [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CASUALTIES TO STEAM BOILERS (MERCANTILE MARINE).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 26th November 1902; Lord Charles Beresford]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 1.]
CASUALTIES TO STEAM BOILERS (UNITED KINGDOM).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 26th November 1902; Lord Charles Beresford]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 2.]
PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS ACTS.
Copy presented, of Patents Rules, 1903, under the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Acts, 1883 to 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE ACT, 1889.
Copy presented, of Draft Order in Council transferring to the Board of Agriculture all the powers and duties which were conferred on the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings in respect of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, by or in pursuance of Section 22 of The Crown Lands Act, 1851, or The Parks Regulation Act, 1872 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
INEBRIATES ACTS, 1879 TO 1899 (RULES FOR RETREATS) (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Rules for Retreats in Ireland licensed under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1899, dated 3rd February, 1903, approved by the Lord Lieutenant [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND), 1877.
Copies presented, of two Orders in Council, dated 17th November, 1902, giving effect to Rules of Court under The Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (PROCLAMATION).
Copy presented, of a Proclamation, dated 2nd February, 1903, revoking the several Proclamations mentioned in the Schedule thereto [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented, of Time Table of Examinations for 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented, of Additional Rule made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland varying the Rules and Programme of Examinations for 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY PENSIONS.
Copy presented, of Return showing the names of all Constabulary Officers now in receipt of Pensions, of all Head Constables, Sergeants, and Constables,
56
and of all Windows and Children to whom Pensions have been granted since the Constabulary Estimate for 1902–3 was prepared, with the amount and date of Pension in each case [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

METEOROLOGY.
Copy presented, of Report of the Meteorological Council to the Royal Society for the year ending 31st March, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CHELSEA HOSPITAL.
Account presented, for the year ended 31st March, 1902, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 3.]
TREASURY CHEST.
Account presented, for the year 1901–2, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 4.]
CONSOLIDATED FUND.
Abstract Account presented, showing the issues made from the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in the financial year ended 31st March, 1902, for the Interest and Management of the Debt, for the Civil List, and for all other Issues in the financial year for services charged directly on the said Fund; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 5.]
MILITARY WORKS ACTS, 1897, 1899, AND 1901.
Account presented, for the period ended 31st March. 1902, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 6.]
IMPERIAL OTTOMAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1855.
Copy presented of Account for the year 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES) (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT).
Appropriation Account, presented, of the sums granted by Parliament for the expense of the Ordnance Factories, the cost of the productions of which have been charged to the Army, Navy, and Indian and Colonial Governments, etc., and the Statement of the surpluses and Deficits upon the Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1902, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No.7.]
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES AND SHOP CLUBS.
Copy presented, of Regulation, dated 1st January, 1903, made by the Treasury under The Friendly Societies Act, 1896, with reference to Friendly Societies desirous of being certified under The Shop Clubs Act, 1902, [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
Accounts presented, for the year ended 20th December, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 8.]
BARRACKS ACT, 1890.
Account presented, showing the money raised and issued under the provisions of the Act, the securities created in respect thereof, and the amount expended for the purposes of the Act to the 31st March, 1902, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 9.]
SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 15th January, 1903, declaring that John Gledhill, Post Office Sub-Office Postman, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 17th December, 1902, granting a retired allowance to Mr. Henry Brown, Assistant Superintendent Second Class, Newcastle-on-Tyne Post Office, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 22nd January, 1903, granting a retired allowance to Mr. Thomas Riley, Principal Foreman in Charge of the Metal Foundries, Rolling Mills, and Quick-firing Case Factory, Royal Laboratory, Woolwich, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (GENERAL REPORTS).
Copy presented, of General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Southern Division of Scotland for the year 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented, of Annual Local Taxation Returns for Scotland for the year 1900–1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 10.]
UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN.
Copy presented, of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Aberdeen for 1901–2 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 11.]
UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH.
Copy presented, of Report on the state of the Finances of the University, made by the University Court, for the year to 31st August, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 12.]
UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH.
Copy presented, of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Edinburgh for the year 1901–2 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 13.]
UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
Copy presented, of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Glasgow for 1901–2 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 14.]
GIBRALTAR.
Copy presented, of Report on the proposed Eastern Harbour and Dock at Gibraltar (with drawings) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
Accounts presented, for the year ended 31st March, 1902, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 15.]
Copy presented, of Draft Order in Council relative to Military Manœuvres, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
1. Lunacy. Copy of Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of Visits made and the number of Patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ending on the 31st December, 1902 [by Act].
2. Lunacy,—Copy of Return of all sums received by the Visitors of Lunatics for travelling expenses, or upon any other account, from 1st January to 31st December, 1902 [by Act].
3. Local Government Act, 1888 (Rule).—Copy of Rule under Section 89 (3) of the Local Government Act, 1888 [by Act].

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
MR. GRETTON(who was heard with much difficulty) said: In rising to perform the onerous task which has been allotted to me to-day, I will ask the House to extend to me the courtesy and toleration it always gives to one who addresses it for the first time on an occasion so important as the present. I pause merely for a moment in order to refer to the great sorrow which I know is felt on all sides at the loss which the House has sustained by the terribly sudden death of Colonel M'Calmont, who last year so ably moved the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
The House, I believe, will learn with satisfaction and rejoicing that the blockade of the coast of Venezuela has terminated in the accomplishment of the objects with which the Government had undertaken it without the loss of a single life, or the destruction of any personal
60
property during the operation. During the whole of these transactions I think I am right in saying that the most cordial relations have been maintained between His Majesty's Ministers and the Government of the United States. It is a cardinal point in our policy that the friendly relations now happily long existing between the people of this country and the United States should be minatained, and this policy is founded on the broad basis of national detrimentation and mutually sincere sentiment. The principle of the Monroe Doctrine has always received the unwavering support of successive Ministries in this country, and no temporary inconvenience will cause us to waver in our adhesion to the policy established by the American people.
This time last year the war in South Africa was yet unterminated, and the Boer commandos were still maintaining their heroic but useless struggle in the field. I think the House will rejoice with me that at last the efforts of Lord Kitchener and Lord Milner secured the acceptance of terms which were honourable to both parties. Now that the war has ended, however, our task is by no means ended, for out of the discordant elements and dying embers of strife we have to set ourselves to the task of raising up a united and loyal people. Great progress has already been made with the settlement after the war. The Boer leaders have been, almost without exception, loyal to their undertakings, and we are determined that, in the performance of our share of the bargain, we shall not fall behind. I am convinced that this House will support His Majesty's Ministers in carrying out those large financial operations in South Africa which are necessary to the establishment of peaceful industry in that country. Roads, railways, personal security, irrigation, and the impartial administration of justice in the Courts of law, will do much to convince the Boers that under the British flag there are benefits worth having cherishing. It is to be hoped that the progress of the settlement may be so rapid that popular representative institutions will be established at no remote date. The House and the country are rejoiced to see the effect of the tour through South Africa undertaken by the Colonial Secretary.

61
His brilliant success in South Africa has done much to hasten the settlement we all desire. He has met with the representatives of the various schools of opinion in South Africa, has discussed with them their differences, shown sympathy with their troubles, and at the same time explained in clear and firm terms the intentions of the Government. The progress that has been thus made will be welcomed by the people of this country, and the success of the right hon. Gentleman has justified his departure from all previous precedents. He has shown that we intend to show consideration and to act justly to our late opponents. The history of the past, I fear, shows examples where we have not taken such a course; the history of our dealings in South Africa has been a history of changing policy. We have not in the past adhered to any particular line, but on this occasion we are determined not to abandon our principles.
Turning to another question dealt with in His Majesty's most gracious speech, the House will learn, I think with satisfaction, that the Government are taking action to forward reforms with regard to the Turkish possessions in Europe, and particularly Macedonia. We remember what took place in Macedonia last year, and the calamities under which these people have suffered has reached such a stage as to become a question for the Governments of Europe. Russia and Austria are the two nations most interested in settling this question, but I think the other nations of Europe will support their action on humanitarian grounds if on no other.
The great ceremony which has just passed in India, the recent Durbar, has offered another demonstration of the proof of the loyalty of the feudatory princes and the people of India to the Crown and Empire, and we heartily welcome the stupendous burst of loyalty which greeted His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught. Turning to another question, legislation is necessary to carry into effect the agreement come to at the Brussels Conference with regard to the abolition of the sugar bounties. The bounty system has ruined the cane sugar industry in the West Indies and also all those industries which were connected with it, and it has checked the development of the cane sugar industry in other parts of our Empire.
With regard to another question
62
near home: the problem of the Local Government of London has always demanded and received special attention. The normal condition of the vast area and the enormous population of the metropolis render special legislation necessary to deal with it, and, therefore, a special measure is necessary to complete the great scheme of national education, and to carry out with regard to London the great principle discussed in the Education Act which was passed last session. A measure dealing with the licensing laws of Scotland is included in the most gracious Speech from the Throne, and we shall all be agreed that some, at any rate, of the principles of the Act which we passed into law last year for England may be adopted in the Scotch Licensing Bill with advantage. The important subjects of the improvement of the law of valuation and assessments; the regulation of the employment of children; and the questions of the sale of adulterated dairy produce will receive the attention of the House, and we shall all welcome gladly the measures it is proposed to introduce with regard to them. I cannot sit down without thanking the House for the kind and patient attention it has given me.
CAPTAIN GREVILLE: Mr. Speaker, in rising to second the Address, so ably moved by my hon. friend the Member for South Derbyshire, I am profoundly conscious of my own inability to do justice to the task which lies before me without a large measure of that generous toleration that the House always accords to those in my position. I am also greatly encouraged in my attempt by the thought that the honour done me is really a compliment to the constituency that I am so proud to represent, the working class constituency of a great manufacturing city, distinguished alike for its municipal energy and intellectual activity.
The exceedingly welcome news contained in the paragraph relating to the recent complications in Venezuela will be received with the utmost satisfaction by every shade of opinion in the country. Recent events have shown how patient and considerate the action of His Majesty's Government has been through bout the deli

63
cate and difficult negotiations that have taken place between this country and Venezuela. And it is a source of satisfaction to know that in all the steps incidental to the exercise of the measures which were employed, His Majesty's Government were most careful to advise and consult with the Government of the United States, and that in the conduct of the blockade throughout, no action was taken by this country in excess of what the circumstances of the case required, or considerations of humanity demanded. If the United States could see their way to the adoption of some effective course by which these almost periodical difficulties arising between the great Powers and some of the States of South America could be prevented, I think I may say it would meet with cordial concurrence in this country.
The House will hear with pleasure the announcement of an Arbitral tribunal for the settlement of the long standing and troublesome dispute over the exact boundary that divides the United States territory of Alaska from His Majesty's Dominion of Canada, which we all trust may have a successful issue. The whole point turns upon the interpretation of the loosely expressed geographical terms used in the Treaty of 1825 between the British and Russian Governments, to the latter of which Alaska then belonged. For a long time this uncertainty caused no inconvenience, as the precise meaning was never put to the test owing to the distance of the country from the general current of business life, and it is only since the influx of miners to the Yukon gold fields in the beginning of 1898 that the question has become acute. It is not necessary to trace where the chief obstacles to a settlement have occurred, but it will probably be agreed that any English Government would do all within its power to come to an amicable settlement of this long standing controversy, consistent with the material interests of Canada, and the Government deserves our congratulations at having arrived at such an arrangement with the Government of the United States.
With regard to Aden and the difficulties which have arisen in relation to the Hinterland of that important port, and in dealing with the tribes in the neighbourhood, it is much to be regretted that the efforts made by His Majesty's Government to arrive at an agreement
64
with the Turkish Government for a joint delimitation should not, so far, have been successful. I hope, however, that the rumour which obtains that the Porte has at last given orders for the evacuation of the disputed territory is correct, as such action on the part of the Porte would greatly facilitate a settlement, which in the interest of all concerned, and of the peaceful development of that portion of the country, is earnestly to be hoped for. In the meantime it is satisfactory to note negotiations are being urgently pressed forward, so that all danger of collision and friction may be permanently removed.
With reference to the larger expedition to Somaliland, which has been rendered to necessary by the conduct of the Mullah Abdullah, it is gratifying to note that a small body of mounted infantry recruited from the Boers of the Transvaal and Orange Colonies is forming part, and I trust it is significant of a time not far distant when the two races, having learned to respect each other in the field, may forget entirely their differences in the past, and co-operate in advancing the interests of the Empire to which they both belong. The House will note with cordial appreciation the friendly co-operation of the Italian Government in forwarding the great object of the expedition.
The same call for watchfulness and vigilance in the interests of the Empire occurs also in northern Nigeria, where the work in connection with the delimitation of the boundary between the British possessions and those of France has been seriously interfered with by the hostile action of the Emir of Kano, and we are all, I am sure, glad to hear of the complete success of the expedition which that action had rendered necessary, and which has been conducted in the most brilliant manner by its gallant commander, Colonel Morland. The result has been the fall of Kano and the flight of the Emir, at happily small loss to our forces.
To turn to matters nearer home, amongst measures promised is one relating to the tenure of agricultural land in Ireland. It will be the earnest desire of every one in this House that the Government should, if possible, find a solution of this difficult and distressing problem, which has for so long baffled the statesmen of all parties, and which has thrown back the development of the country, and handicapped it in the race for prosperity.

65
If it becomes a question of compromise, let there be compromise, and if of "give and take," may there be "give and take" on both sides; I trust I may venture to impress this upon those responsible for the conduct of affairs in Ireland; may we all see the end of dissension, and a larger portion of prosperity and happiness to the fair land of Ireland.
In the paragraph dealing with the Port of London, the words are used of "National Concern," and when the Report of the Commission, on the recommendations of which, possibly, the Bill will be framed, is studied, it is at once apparent that the matter, though of vital consequence to the trade of London, yet is so stupendous in character, so far reaching in its effects, concerns so many interests and so many public bodies, and otherwise deals with so many financial questions, that no other words could fitly describe it. It is undeniable that the Port of London is possibly in danger of ceasing to be the chief distributor to the coasts of England, and even partially of the supplies of London itself The reasons for this are not difficult to find. The existing authorities are many and various, and consequently over-lapping. In many cases they are not bodies endowed with sufficient elasticity or powers to grapple with the difficulties which have arisen, and to initiate the necessary reforms and alterations necessitated by The larger tonnage of ships and the altered conditions of maritime commerce, such, for instance as the large outlay involved in deepening the river channel and increasing the dock accommodation, which the existing authorities are not in a position to meet. These reforms are of so urgent a character if the Port of London is to maintain its place amongst other competitors, both English and foreign, that the Commission have no hesitation in strongly recommending the formation of a single public authority for the Port of London. It would scarcely be fitting at this juncture to touch, even lightly, upon the mass of detail, financial and otherwise, that a measure of this magnitude will of necessity involve, but perhaps enough has been said to show the urgent necessity of legislation in connection with this subject, in the interests not only of London but of the country at large.
Amongst the minor, but nevertheless urgent measures mentioned in the latter part of His Majesty's gracious Speech is
66
the reconstitution of the Royal Patriotic Fund Commission. The necessity of such a reconstitution is admitted generally, and, thanks to the attitude taken up by H.R.H. the Duke of Cambridge and his colleagues in not allowing their Charter to stand in the way of reform, His Majesty's Government should have no difficulty in placing the fund upon a popular and effective basis that will allow of the good work now being done for the widows and orphans of our soldiers and sailors being carried out in a manner more in accordance with the views of the public.
In conclusion, I have only to thank hon. Members for the courteous and indulgent manner in which they have listened to one who today has had the honour of addressing them for the first time.
Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
"Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Gretton.)
*SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAM (Stirling Burghs): It would hardly be becoming, and certainly not in accord with the prevailing sentiment of this assembly, if in commencing the debate on this Address I failed to give some expression to the satisfaction and joy with which we have observed that His Majesty in addressing his Parliament today did so with all his wonted vigour, and gave evidence that he had perfectly recovered from his serious illness of last year, and from any more temporary indisposition which the familiar uncertainties of our climate may have induced. The whole country will rejoice in this fact, and earnestly trust that the king and Queen may be long guarded from any such season of trial as that through which they passed last year.

67
Now, Sir, we are so accustomed to the form of procedure at the opening of a session that possibly few Members have considered what a very singular procedure it is. We have all come here full of anxiety not only to be informed as to the legislative intentions of the Government, but to receive a full explanation—and, if necessary, a defence—of their conduct of affairs. We have indeed listened to the gracious Speech from the Throne. But a speech from the Throne is necessarily instinct with the spirit of reserve. If it lifts the curtain, it is only a very little. While it gives a recital of measures to be introduced and of accomplished facts in our relations with the world, it does not explain or solve, it does not even touch, the great problems that underlie them. We have here Ministers who can perfectly well step beyond the guarded limits of a Speech from the Throne and could give the information which the country desires. We have, for instance, the President of the Local Government Board and the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who would throw into some such explanation the most refreshing and unaffected candour. But above all, we have, I am glad to say, as things are now constituted, the presence of the man of all others who knows all about everything—the Prime Minister himself—who is no doubt burning with desire to tell us all that we wish to know. But none of these rise to address us. We have instead two Gentlemen, whom I am glad to congratulate on the part they have played, who have no responsibility and no knowledge beyond that which the Minister has thought it discreet to confide to them. They give us a pale echo of the speech from the Throne, which, as I have said, is already pale enough. They may indeed add to that plain and unadorned web some embroidery of their own invention, and the chief interest we have in their speeches arises from our endeavour to discriminate between the part which represents the instructions of the Minister and the part which may represent the indiscretions of the Member. I am sure I shall have the whole House with me when I say the hon. Members have discharged their part well. They have shown that among the silent, or almost silent, Members who, either from modesty, or discreetness, or that spirit of self-sacrifice which we ought all to cultivate, do not often obtrude themselves upon the attention
68
of the House, there are Members just as capable of taking an effective part in debate as many of our more practised or—shall I say—more frequent speakers. But these two Members have not given, and could not give, the information we require, and now, forsooth, it is expected that the Leader of the Opposition should get up and, in the twilight in which we are groping, discuss, criticise, and even answer the Government case which we have not yet heard. This order of procedure has often seemed to me to give a certain formality and almost unreality to the early part of this debate, which is only dispelled when the Leader of the Government in this House rises, makes a clean breast of it, and enlightens our darkness.
I have indulged in these prolegomena in order to account for the fact that my observations will be cast mostly in an interrogative mould. I have a great many questions to ask. I thing there never was an occasion when we have had greater subjects occupying the public mind with regard to which Parliament, and especially the House of Commons, was so partially furnished with the facts. There are several quarters of the globe in which our interests are closely and critically involved. I take that part of the subject first, because the questions arising in connection therewith are instant and urgent, whereas projects of legislation are always subject to conditions afterwards. Even after a Bill has been announced in the Speech from the Throne there may be changes in the mind of the Government or the disposition of Parliament, and there may be accidents of Parliamentary time, and other disturbing influences.
The questions I will speak of first are urgent, and we ought to be informed upon them. There is the question of Venezuela, there is Somaliland, there is the small but important question of Kano, there is the condition of affairs in Macedonia, and, above all, there is the great vital question of the settlement in South Africa. I propose, with the leave of the House, to say a word or two upon each of these questions in turn. As to Venezuela, the cloud has happily passed over, but it was a very black could, and most of us think it was a cloud that might have been avoided. It was a cloud fraught with the most

69
serious consequences. If we have now emerged from that difficulty, it is none the less our right and our duty to inquire why it was, and how it was, that we were led into it. Minister after Minister has made some sort of apology for it, but I find it difficult to reconcile the one apology with the other. Today there has been furnished to us a great Blue-book, full of despatches and Papers which, I venture to say—except the most recent of them—ought to have been in hands of hon. Members weeks ago. It is not enough on the very morning of the day when a question is to be discussed to fling on the Table of the House, or the tables of hon. Members, documents such as these. I confess at once that I have only given this Blue-book the most cursory examination. I have not had time to do more. It was perfectly well known that the House would meet on the 17th of February, and it ought to have been so arranged that the Papers up to date, or at least up to about ten days ago, should be placed in our hands in order that we might be able to come to a fair decision upon the questions involved.
There are two main points upon which, barring this new Blue-book, no real definite information has been given — the nature, quality and extent of our own claims, and the nature, quality and extent of the claims of Germany. I am not going to repeat what I said in the short debate we had in the month of December last. I then made the same demand that we should be informed, firstly, of our own claims in regard to Venezuela, and secondly, and I would say almost with more necessity, of the claims for another country—claims which we have undertaken to prosecute until the whole of them are settled. Now, Sir, we have heard of the fishermen of Trinidad. They have a certain kind of claim, and we now gather—this seems to appear from the protocol—that their claims are more than covered by the sum of £5,500. The fishermen of Trinidad certainly, if they were ill-treated, deserved to be compensated. All of us will agree that when a British subject in the ordinary and legitimate exercise of his calling suffers unjustifiable damage on the part of the officers of a foreign Government reparation is due. But the noble Lord who represents the Foreign Office went down to Sheffield, and he assumed at once the grand air over these fishermen—what I may call the
70
Civis Romanus sum air, the Don Pacifico air. He made this rather remarkable statement. He said—
"It was said that Trinidad was a very small and out-of-the-way colony."
I do not know that anyone has ever said that. The noble Lord proceeded to say—
"It might be said that the assaults upon British property and British liberty were small interests."
I am certain that nobody said that. And he went on—
"That might be so, but we are just as much bound to the poor fishermen of Trinidad and to maintain the interests of commerce in those seas as to protect South African millionaires."
South African millionaires! Who has been protecting South African millionaires? We have been almost at war over these Trinidad fishermen, but when were we at war over South African millionaires? I am quite aware that there were a number of people who, being of a suspicious temperament, imagined that there had been an overdue regard for South African millionaires in some of the proceedings and negotiations connected with the South African war, but those persons were immediately put down, and even shouted down, as "lewd fellows of the baser sort" and altogether unworthy of account. But here is the noble Lord, the spokesman of the Government, who goes down to Sheffield to a solemn dinner of the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce, and not only admits that we have been going to war for the protection of South African millionaires, but he assumes it to be a matter of common knowledge, and institutes a contrast between their case and that of the fishermen of Trinidad.
Well, Sir, one thing is clear. I believe there are certain habits which are regarded as being in the blood, and one of these habits is evidently that of blazing indiscretions. But really in a case like this, where the steps taken involve, or many involve, war and involve also—remotely and improbably it may be, but still do involve—the possibility of setting not two nations only but two hemispheres in arms, I think we ought to have been told what the actual value of the claims we were going to fight about amounted to. We gather from the protocol that £5,500 covers not only the claim of the fishermen but any other claims on account of damage and outrage. There is great

71
difficulty in finding out the facts upon this matter, because of the settlement that has been come to. A friend of mine who has looked into the Papers tells me that this is made even more doubtful by the Papers which were delivered this morning, but in the Papers December 2 there is a despatch of Lord Lansdowne where he says—
"His Majesty's Government will require the immediate payment of a sum equal to that which may in the first instance be paid to the German Government."
The German Government have put in a claim on the first line ground of some £68,000, but they are to be paid £5,500 in cash, in order, I presume, to meet this assumed equality. The rest is to be paid practically immediately in bills spread over some months. The whole effect is now fully disclosed. Behind these poor fishermen, who were so convenient for the noble Lord and the Government, there lies the great body of financial claims culminating in the claims of the bondholders. I venture to say that nothing could be more mischievous than that we should even seem to accept the doctrine, if it deserves to be called a doctrine, that when our countrymen invest in risky enterprises in foreign countries and default follows, it is a public duty to rescue them. Every man who invests money in a country like Venezuela knows what he is doing. It would, I suppose, not be quite accurate to say that great risks always mean high dividends, but it is more nearly accurate if you put it the other way about—that high dividends generally involve great risks; but if the whole power of the British Empire is to be put behind the investor, his risk vanishes, and the dividends ought to be reduced accordingly. So much as to our own claims.
But here I notice an extraordinary printer's error in the King's Speech. In the Clause affecting Venezuela there is no mention whatever of Germany in this matter. That must have dropped out in printing the Speech, because we know that we are not alone in this venture, for we have been closely and inseparably associated with Germany. Let me say at once, that if there are those in this country—and I fear there are—who are of opinion that we ought not in any circumstances to be associated with Germany,
72
I regard that view with no sympathy whatever. No one can be blind to the fact that in recent years in Germany, with regard to this country, there has been a strong and ever keener commercial rivalry; there has been, to a limited extent, a certain feeling of antagonism, amounting in some quarters to antipathy; and there have been in some sections of the Press common abuse and slanderous vilifications of our county. But are we to allow our temper to get the better of us? Are we to retort in like fashion—and I am sorry to see in some journals of which one might except better things a tendency in that direction—are we to retaliate with similar weapons? No, Sir. What is the proper course for a great self-respecting country in these circumstances? The only effective course, the only course consistent with dignity, is to meet the rivalry with more active, more intelligent, and more instructed competition; to beat down the antipathy by showing that while you always preserve your own interests you are anxious to show the utmost reasonableness and friendliness towards yourneighbours; and as to the abuse, treat it with the contempt it deserves. I believe myself that on the part of the great mass of the people of this country there is nothing but friendly feeling towards the great Power Germany, and this friendly feeling is withstanding the mischievous efforts of some persons who are trying to undermine it. I read with great pleasure some words used by the Prime Minister on Friday last, and I not only agree with what he said, but I thank him for having said it. These are his words—
"Let us remember that the old ideal of Christendom should still be our ideal; and all those nations who are in the forefront of civilisation should learn to work together by practical means for the common good, and that nothing can militate against the realisation of that great ideal so conclusively as the encouragement of these international bitternesses, these international jealousies, these international dislikes."
But where I part company with the right hon. Gentleman and with the Government is in the nature of the arrangements they made, the adamantine bonds with which they bound us, in ingorance of the nature of the German claims. At least I assert that it was in ignorance, although we hear contradictory information gathered from

73
these different Papers and the statements in the House. But certainly the country has been and is in ignorance of the nature of the German claims, and yet we promised never to desist except by common agreement. I say there is some inconsistency as to the nature of the claims. On page 11 of the Blue-book, Lord Lansdowne, writing to Mr.Buchanan, says "that the German Government recognised" that there was a sharp distinction between the character of the British and the German first-line claims. Nevertheless, they ought to stand or fall together. But Count Bülow, in the Reichstag, spoke of "the perfectly identical injury to the interests of both countries," as being perfectly identical to the interests of both countries. The right hon. Gentleman, in the debate we had in December, said that he could not give any precise information on subject. I am therefore left unaware of what is the nature of the information the Government has on the subject, but at all events, whether they knew or whether they did not know, it was a rash and unwise undertaking that they entered into when they said they would not desist until the last of these claims was settled. I would also venture to question the policy of any close co-operation with Germany in such a matter as this, and for two reasons—firstly, because it is known that the German hand while it is strong is sometimes rather rough, and these are very delicate situations with which we are dealing; and, secondly, because, as we know, there is an impression, I believe rightly founded, that Germany is not so favourable as this country is to that doctrine of immunity from interference which is so passionately held among the people of the United States. Our action was not so likely to be suspected in any way if we had not been so closely interwoven with the Germans. The right hon. Gentleman said, and again I am quite in agreement with him:—
"We welcome any increase of the influence of the United States of America in the Great Western Hemisphere.… We have not the slightest intention of interfering with the mode of government of any portion of that continent. The Monroe Doctrine, therefore, is really not in question at all."
I have left out one sentence because, although I entirely agree with the sentiment it expresses, from the peculiarity of its phrasing I think it rather requires
74
that it should be quoted separately. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
"We desire no colonisation, we desire no alteration in the balance of power, we desire no acquisition of territory."
There is a familiar ring about this phraseology. To everyone who has been watching the history of the last year or two I think that these words are, not by the nature of the sentiment expressed, but by the phraseology, calculated to strike terror into his breast, or at any rate to create suspicion. But I reciprocate, if he will allow me to say so, I homologate, the sentiments he expressed, but by the phraseology, calculated to strike terror into his breast, or at any rate to create suspicion. But I reciprocate to create suspicion. But I reciprocate, if he will allow me to say so, I homologate, the sentiments he expressed towards the United States, and I am sure that as an instance of friendliness we are glad that the treaty on the Alaska boundary has been ratified, from which we hope good results may follow.
Now as to the course of the negotiations, with which I cannot deal fully because I have not had time to examine the Papers, there is a further question I should like to address to the Prime Minister. When we discussed this question in December, we heard nothing of any other claims. Now the negotiations were largely protracted at Washington, on account, apparently, of the discovery—it was at least a discovery to the people of this country—that there were other claims, nay, that one country, namely, France, had actually a treaty engagement with Venezuela for the early satisfaction of its claim. I wish to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether, when they entered into this business, his Majesty's Government was aware of the existence of these claims, and especially of this arrangement with France? Was he aware of it at the time that we discussed the matter in the House of Commons, because I think we ought to have been informed of so material an element in the case? Apart from all these points, I have something to say that goes deeper. If ever there was a case, it seems to me, for settlement by arbitration, this was one. There ought to be some proportion between the sum involved and the means employed. Why should not so easy a method for so small a case—the easy method of arbitration—have been used? But besides that it was we principally who set up this standing tribunal at The Hague. It was the proposal of Lord Pauncefote; it is one of the

75
many things that the world owes to that eminent man. He was them an who brought forward the proposal for a standing tribunal. The proposal was supported by this country and accepted by the other country and accepted by the other Powers. Why, therefore, should we not have used it, and there by gained a double advantage? In the first place—I must use the word, although I have tried to avoid the use of it — we should have avoided the present "mess;" and, in the second place, we should have established a precedent and set an example, which would have been a great forward step towards the peaceable settlement of international questions. I will not say any more on the question of Venezuela.
I now come to Somaliland. The Prime Minister told us last week that the public had not taken the smallest interest in it. Well, the public ought to take an interest, and the public would take an interest, in it if they had any knowledge of it. I am bound to say that it is rather a cruel argument for the Prime Minister to use, practically to say, "Why bother about the cost of Venezuela when Somaliland will cost so much more?" It is not only the cost of this Somaliland imbroglio, but also, he says, it will have more serious consequences far beyond the time when these military operations are brought to a conclusion. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea of what the cost of the Somaliland business will be, and what these ulterior consequences will be, because there is not much in the Papers regarding Somaliland calculated to inspire confidence? The Papers, in fact, show what a hap-hazard business it is. The whole proceedings, according to the papers, are seriously based upon and fortified by the analogy of the Soudan. There was a Mahdi in the Soudan; there is a Mullah in Somaliland. We for many years in Egypt tried a defensive policy, which led to increase of the Mahdi's power, and then came a series of campaigns by which he was finally crushed. The Mullah, they say, is following in the Mahdi's they footsteps—a Curious phrase to use—and therefore, they say, "Advance against him." But surely there is a vital difference between the two cases. The Mahdi was in possession of the whole of the
76
Soudan, which was claimed by Egypt as belonging to her; she had no occupation of it, but claimed to have original possession of it. And the greatest argument in favour of pursuing the Mahdi was that it was necessary,—whether a good argument or a bad one, it was at all events a strong argument that it was necessary for the prosperity of Egypt to have control of the upper waters of the Nile. But what is there behind this Mullah? According to the right hon. Gentleman himself, a waterless waste peopled by nomad fanatics. That is his description of the country. How are we going to pursue the campaign against the Mullah? May I ask the attention of the House to this?
The Papers state that "it seems clear that, upon whatever scale operations against the Mullah are undertaken, we cannot predict with certainty that they will result in his capture. He may even deny us an opportunity of trying conclusions with him, and of inflicting on him exemplary defeat. In these circumstances our object must be, if possible, to take some step which will, at any rate, strike a blow at the Mullah's prestige, restore our own authority, and perhaps compel him to come to terms with us.
"It is admitted that these objects are most likely to be obtained by the occupation of the Mudug oasis, and that this can be most conveniently effected by a column using Obbia at its base.
"How soon it may be wise to leave Mudug must depend upon our success in getting touch with the enemy during our advance on that place, or upon our arrival there. In that case, we may be able at once to inflict the necessary punishment upon him. It would then be possible, if such a course recommend itself to the Italian Government, to restore Yusuf Ali to the control of the district under their authority before we move on to the north. For this purpose it would be necessary to provide him with a fort, suitable armament, and sufficient supplies, so that he would be strong enough to hold his own, and to deny Mudug to the Mullah should the latter reappear on the scene. In this event, however, it would seem to be indispensable that, at any rate until it could be

77
seen whether an arrangement could be come to with the Mullah, Yusuf Ali should receive a certain amount of support."
The House will observe how much depends upon Yusuf Ali, the chief man of Obbia. But already, before the expedition has started, Yusuf Ali has been found to be an enemy, he has been deposed and placed on board a man of war, and is now at Aden under observation, in a sort of open captivity. But the plan of campaign goes on:—
"I have indicated the later conduct which we contemplate for the expedition in the event of our successfully punishing the Mullah in the course of our advance upon Mudug, It is, however, very possible that he will have removed his cattle from the oasis and will retire in front of us, so that we cannot bring him to an engagement, or inflict serious damage upon his herds. In that case it may be necessary for the expedition to remain a longer time at Mudug, whilst small forces of mounted troops sweep the surrounding country. Even so, he may escape punishment at our hands, and we shall have to be content with an unopposed march through the heart of his country to our own Protectorate. Though a defeat of the enemy would be much more useful, we may hope that even this operation will have a salutary effect in destroying his prestige in the eyes of his followers and of raising our own."
I have read these extracts that the House may see what a haphazard business it all is. This amateurish way of carrying on war may lead us into serious difficulties, and I do certainly hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give a little more information so as to reassure the public mind on the subject.
And now, for a moment or two only, I have a word to say about Kano. I shall not go into the whole of the case. Kano is a most important commercial centre in the kingdom of Socoto between the Sahara and the Niger, and we have had an expedition there which has, fortunately, been sucessful. But the Emir has run away and is being pursued. One of the effects of many of these proceedings may be to drive both trade and influence over the frontier of our sphere of influence into the French domain. But what I particularly wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to is this:
78
that on the 9th December Questions were asked on the subject of Kano. My right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, said to the Postmaster General, who was in charge of the matter: "I understand there is no present intention of attacking Kano." This was following up some more formal Question on the Paper by a personal appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to say exactly how the matter stood. The answer given was "That is certainly my understanding. The military preparations that are being made are only preparations for the protection of the Commissioners"—that is of the Boundary Commissioners "and their supplies." That requires a little more definite and immediate explanation, because it is perfectly evident that the right hon. Gentleman had been completely misinformed, for it is not possible to reconcile his statement of that day with the facts as they have occurred.
I have only a word or two to say on the subject of Macedonia. Both the hon. Gentlemen who spoke, I think, referred to that question in very proper terms. But the condition of Macedonia has been for a very long time a European scandal; it is a scandal that it should be in such a state after all the efforts made to introduce good government, order, and reasonable conditions of life among the unfortunate people of that province. At the same time it must be remembered that this Macedonian question contains the seeds of disturbances which will go far beyond the Balkan Peninsula. We are glad to know that the Government are addressing remonstrances, and I trust that they will make their remonstrances stiff and effective, and that they will not be merely content with words of course in dealing with it. In a curious paragraph in the King's Speech, there is almost an implication that the Government are not aware of what the scheme of reforms of Austria and Russia is. It is a very fortunate thing that Austria and Russia, who are so deeply concerned, have agreed on a scheme of reforms; but the words of the paragraph rather imply that we are not aware of the nature of that scheme. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will see that the whole force and influence of this country are thrown
†See (4) Debates,cxvi., 449.

79
in the direction of making the changes as thorough-going as possible.
Lastly, Sir, before coming to domestic questions, I turn to the familiar question of South Africa. Sir, the war is over and past. We are making a new departure in South Africa and we are we are laying, we are building, the foundations of a new life and a new history in that part of the world. I desire to say emphatically, and from the bottom of my heart, that I believe we have all but one wish and one hope, which is, that these foundations should be solid and sure, and that that departure should advance from success to success. We may have had differences of opinions, but the grounds of differences are past and over. Let us work for our common purpose honestly and openly. While I say this I make the demand on the other side, which we are surely entitled to make, that we should all be free to speak out our minds frankly, and to discuss without taunt or reproach the policy which may be pursued. Sir, the Colonial Secretary has been journeying through these colonies in the most laudable endeavour to see for himself, with his own eyes, what is going on. He has shown all the energy and ability that we expected in him when addressing many assemblies of our fellow-citizens, old and new. We all of us most cordially concur in the conciliatory sentiments he has expressed, and in the desire he has evinced for the fusion of the two white races in a common citizenship. But he knew before he left this country, as well as any man, how immense were the difficulties in the way; and I believe that as the result of the conferences and meetings which have taken place in South Africa, the people of this country have begun to see these, too, more clearly than they did at first. We are debarred from discussing the questions involved in what he has been saying and doing on behalf of this country, until we have an authoritative report of what was really said and done, because we have only the fragmentary and sometimes contradictory reports in newspapers, which are almost always of a partisan character on one side or the other. When we receive the authoritative reports of all that has occurred, then we shall be in a position to form a judgment upon it. But there are two points on
80
which I would make inquiry of the right hon. Gentleman. First, of course it was a novel situation, and I want to know what position exactly the Colonial Secretary occupies, with what authority does he act and speak in South Africa? Is what he says subject to the review of his colleagues, or is he entitled, as it were, to act on his own account? I think that is a most important matter, and a situation so novel surely requires defining. Arrangements are being made which imply the approval of the Government, and which imply the approval of Parliament—though we do not hear much of Parliament in them. But when these arrangements and promises are made and exchanged, a more important point still is this: What is the authority on the other side if a bargain is being made? I do not mean to be offensive when speaking of a bargain; we are not dealing with Bishops. Laymen and, above all, public politicians live in an atmosphere of bargain, so that I do not think the word implies anything unhandsome at all. But when a bargain is made which may be a permanent and binding arrangement, who is there that has the authority to make it? Who speaks for the community in making a bargain of that sort? I will give an instance. We read of the possibility of a loan of £30,000,000, chargeable not on the mines, not on the mine owners, not on the capital of the old mines, but on the revenues of the Transvaal. Who is there just now that can pledge the revenues of the Transvaal? That is to me a mystery, and I think here we have a strong argument in favour of the earliest possible application of self-government to these colonies, as against the prolongation of the irregular and irresponsible Government which immediately on peace being declared was for some time necessary. That Government has one weakness which, of itself, invalidates its authority. It is a Government which enforces an arbitrary coercion law. Until we get rid of that state of things and ascertain what the wishes of the people, of our fellow-citizens in the colonies are, I do not understand quite how these bargains can be made. But one thing is abundantly

81
clear. The British people cannot rid themselves of responsibility and obligations to the coloured races of the Empire; and we can be no party to any compulsory labour, be the compulsion direct or indirect. It is satisfactory to read the most explicit assurance on this point by the Government of the Transvaal itself. There is a despatch by Lord Milner, dated 6th December, 1901, in which he says—
"I desire once for all formally to disclaim on behalf of this Administration any desire or intention to compel natives to enter into the service of white employers by any means whatever."
Nothing could be more categorical than that. Then the Secretary of State for the Colonies, on 21st January, 1902, telegraphed—
"I concur generally in your statement of the principles which are to guide the native policy of your administration."
Therefore, I cannot understand the references which have been made to a them to labour, because such a policy would be directly contradictory of these declarations; and I trust that on this, so vital a matter, the Government will take the opportunity of reassuring us.
Now, Sir, I wish to apologise to the House for occupying it so long, but before approaching home questions, I would just say one word of satisfaction at the success of the great pageant in India, the Durbar at Delhi. I hope it may have all the effects that are expected from it, but I do not think that even the Viceroy himself can think that the success of this State pageant can have a beneficial effect on the weather and the crops. Reading the Speech, one would think that the two things were post hoc, ergo propter hoc, but I do not think that even the Viceroy himself would hold that opinion. Now, I want a bridge by which to return from those foreign parts of the earth to the consideration of our domestic questions, and I find it in the Sugar Convention, which is partly foreign and partly domestic. I am not going to repeat the arguments advanced in the short debate on this subject last autumn. No doubt we shall hear more of the matter when the Bill in reference to it is brought before the House; but, really, all our arguments appear to be untouched, either in fact or in theory. The outstanding
82
facts are these — that this policy was adopted mainly to benefit our West Indian Islands, but it is very doubtful whether it will not do more harm than good; in the first place, because it will prejudice their interests in their nearest and best market, the United States; and, in the second place, because, according to the arrangements made, as I understand, in future if any subsidy or charitable relief is given to the sugar industry in the West Indies that will be part of a bounty, and we shall be obliged either to raise a tax against them, or to shut our ports against them. As to the effect at home, no one can tell what it will be on the price of sugar. We have already seen that the Cartel is in full operation in Austria-Hungary, and all the other subsidiary means of keeping down the price of exported sugar, and keeping up the price of sugar consumed in those countries. Of course, if the price of sugar is raised, you punish the consumer and you check a most flourishing industry. That is a direct consequence. But the third effect is the most remarkable—you place the financial and fiscal arrangements of this country in the hands of a foreign Commission in which we have only one vote as against ten. Now, there are two particular points on which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us information that we did not fully obtain in December. First, what is the effect of this Convention upon the treaties which have a Favoured-Nation Clause? There were a great many questions asked and answered on this subject before we separated, and we were left in great doubt as to the attitude of Russia upon this subject, which is the principal indication of what will be the general view.
Here we have the reply of the Russian Government—
"The Russian Note repudiates the idea that another State may in its own interest press for a change in Russian internal legislation, and that that State connected with Russia by a commercial treaty has the right, in the event of Russia not agreeing to its proposals, to apply penal measures against Russian products imported into that country without violating commercial treaties."
That is an explicit expression of the views of the Russian Government. I should like to know how that matter now stands. I have quoted from the Daily Telegraph or some other newspaper;

83
but it is most essential that we should have this despatch and all the Papers bearing on this subject. Then there is the question—How does the Convention affect our self-governing colonies, some of which give bounties? Are we to be under an obligation to shut our ports against their products? And a very delicate question that is. We know the opinions of Germany, Holland Belgium, and Austria. They are all to the effect that we cannot exempt from the operation of the stipulation our self-governing colonies. I have here a report of a remarkable speech by Baron von Richthofen, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the Reichstag at Berlin a few days ago.
It would be too great a tax on the patience of the House to quote it in full; and for that I am sorry, as it is particularly picturesque and effective. He laughs to scorn the idea that we can do as we like with our self-governing colonies, and he describes all the manŒuvres by which they drove us into the position in which we are. He discusses the question of forcing the British delegates to recognise their obligations before concluding the treaty, and says—
"England, who holds nearly all the trumps in this game, would not have consented, and the Convention would not have been signed. Or the non-English delegates had the alternative of avoiding a definite settlement of this question since no practical necessity existed for any such settlement. This was the course adopted by all the delegates of the European Powers, including the Germans. These Powers considered this the right course all the more, because by leaving the question open they were enabled to bring it before the Commission which was about to be held in Brussels."
That is the Commission upon which all our rivals in trade have ten votes against our one. I am reading this for the sake of a phrase which will amuse and interest the House. Referring to the debates in various Parliaments on the subject of the Convention Baron von Richthofen said—
"The consequence of these debates undoubtedly was that, if I may use a somewhat vulgar expression, the lion's tail was trodden upon."
When I read that I thought it was rather singular, because when we speak of a lion we generally mean the British lion, and I thought, here is the Minister of a friendly Power congratulating himself that he had managed to tread on the
84
tail of the British lion. But the expression really means that by treading on the tail of a sleeping lion you engage his attention. He says—
"The lion stretched himself in consequence, and the question was thus discussed in greater detail in the British Parliament, and the British Government was thereby compelled to take up a more decided attitude than would otherwise have been the case. Nobody in England had displayed any special interest in the question; it was only brought to the front after it had been discussed in various Parliaments, even in that of Holland," and so on.
Practically it amounts to this — they winked at it, and allowed it to stand as it is, because if they had pressed their view too strongly they would have frightened us out of the Convention. Baron von Richthofen says:—"It is all right; we will go before the Convention at Brussels, and you all know what that means." But here again when we want the naked truth on anything we have always to go to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. At the same sober and solemn meeting at Sheffield to which I have referred he talks of the Sugar Convention, and says the object of it was to help "those wretched West Indian colonies"—not a very nice phrase—and the noble Lord went on to say that he "claimed that the Sugar Convention was conceived in an Imperialistic spirit." Now we know what an Imperialistic spirit really is. It means that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to speak of the House of Commons, is to be the humble servant of a tribunal in Brussels in which there are ten men against our one representative; and it means that if Queensland or Canada sends sugar here we must either charge them a heavy duty or shut our ports against them. That is the Imperialistic spirit. One is inclined to exclaim:—"Oh, Empire, what strange things are done thy name!" Is this the end and outcome of the Zollvereinic dream? These, at all events, are important matters on which I think the House and the country are entitled to have a definite statement from the right hon. Gentleman.
Now I will come nearer home. There is to be a London Education Bill, of course. The controversies of last year are still fresh; they have not been crusted over by the desiccating effects of time. These controversies will be renewed from time to time as occasion offers or requires.

85
They are not idle disputes on random points, they are episodes in the great perennial battle in favour of democratic government and intellectual and spiritual freedom. They will be renewed as far as the character of this Bill will admit and with such variations as the circumstances of London may contribute. One thing, no doubt, is pretty sure. It will be proposed that the School Board should go. You have massacred the others, and you can barely leave this one standing—one of the finest, the most easily working, most effective and most successful machines ever created by the popular voice—it is necessary to destroy in order to gratify the hostility of reactionary rivals, and the whims of one or two theorists. What are you to put in its place? There is the rub. What is to come in its place? We wait to see; but I am not without hope that there may be some advantageous quarrelling among those who would divide the spoil, and that in the end the County Council, which is the only competent body to take up those duties, will be charged with them in addition to those which it so efficiently undertakes at present. The other great measure to be brought forward, of whose nature there is no indication, is the measure dealing with Irish land, a measure designed to bring a long and angry struggle to an end, and to give peace and contentment to the cultivators of the soil in Ireland. The better acquainted any one of us is with the intricacies and difficulties of this question the more chary will he be of forming any judgment of the scheme in anticipation. We look with the most intense interest for the production of the Government proposal, and in one sentiment we all cordially agree—in congratulating the people of Ireland, and in lesser and more remote degree the people of England and Scotland as well, on the bringing together in friendly deliberation and co-operation of classes which have long been in disastrous antagonism.
Now I must refer to one or two omissions at which I am astonished—one or two Bills conspicuous by their absence, to use the classic phrase, in the King's Speech. The first of these omissions is that no attempt apparently is being made to deal with the great and urgent question of local taxation. There is a Bill mentioned in the omnibus clause in the Speech at the end, to improve the law of valuation and assess-
86
ment, but as that is grouped with the Patriotic Fund Commission, and other matters of that kind, I do not fancy it is intended to cover the great subject of local taxation. But the Government is pledged, and has been year after year, to deal with this problem. We were told seven years ago that one part of it was so urgent that it must be dealt with, and that the rest might be put off; then we were told that the Royal Commission must report. The Commission has reported. Why, then, after promise after promise, do we not find this included in the Speech from the Throne?
There is a still more serious omission—a question of the very first importance—and that is some attempt to deal with the grave state of the law regarding trade combinations. We all know what has happened. There have been varying decisions causing uneasiness in the labour world, both among employers and those employed. It arises from the fault of Parliament and it is for Parliament to remedy that fault and to relieve the Judges from the difficulties in which they have found themselves owing to the fault of Parliament. The workmen of this country, whatever may be said of them, are, I believe, the best workmen in the world, and it has been their habit, in truly British fashion, to endeavour to win their way not by violent means but by combination within reasonable limits. It has been the accepted policy of a generation to facilitate and to regulate such combinations for men and employers greatly to the common advantage of both. If they have the right they have the responsibility, masters and men alike, but let the law define what the rights and responsibilities are. I had hoped that the Law Officers of the Crown would have urged on the Government the necessity, and I think the crying necessity, of dealing with this matter, but as this is not to be, I regard it of vital importance that those interested should have an opportunity of putting forward their case in the shape of a Bill in order to have a public discussion in the House—a Bill whereby they think such defects may be remedied. I trust if there is such a Bill introduced the Government will give all proper facilities for its discussion.
As I am on this question of workmen and employers let me say one word as to the degree of want of employment in the country. It may be partial, but in many

87
districts it is intense. But I am sure there is universal sympathy in this House with those who are suffering, and a desire that their sympathy should not take the form of bringing more men under the influence, and as we think the degrading influence, of charity. The government know better than we do what the exact position of affairs is, but I remember in 1892, when my right hon. friend the Member for Wolverhampton was at the Local Government Board, he issued a circular which attracted general approval, pointing out to the local authorities what they could do in the matter. Have the Government really considered whether the time has not arrived for, at all events in some districts, following the example of 1892? It is infinitely more important to secure the health and comfort and employment of men at home than to occupy all our energies however well directed, in remote quarters of the globe.
Now, Sir, the last paragraph to which I shall refer is the ominous paragraph on Finance. I can quite understand that it is true, as the paragraph says, that a large expenditure is inevitable; the expenditure has advanced and bounded up beyond the dreams of extravagance. No one knows that better than the Chancellor of the exchequer himself. I believe myself it is more than the people of this country can reasonable and without damage bear, and we must find some means of relieving it. I believe at present there are a great many sources of increasing expenditure. I have jotted down some that occur to me. There are payments for compensation in South Africa on a much heavier scale than was anticipated. I do not know about the garrison in South Africa, whether that is reduced so much as can be ultimately expected; and there will probably be more for repatriation. Again, there is the cost of all those little enterprises and luxuries which we have afforded ourselves in Venezuela, Somaliland, and Kano, all in their several degrees. I do not know whether there will be additional expenditure on the Army Corps system or the new recruiting plan of last year, of which, of course, India will bear her share, although the financial relations between this country and India have been much affected by what has happened in the last few years, and I doubt if we can go on charging India so much as in the past. There are the new colonies in South
88
Africa, whose civil government, outside the loan, will probably cause a large expenditure. Then there are the new grants for education, and let me add the Scottish and Irish equivalents, and when we have a Scottish Prime Minister and a Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer as well, the people of Scotland are no doubt regarding that money as if it were already in their pocket, and they cannot give it to us without giving it to the Irish people, so that it is a benefit all round. I am not speaking of the financial situation generally, but of the public expenditure, and the point in that expenditure on which, undoubtedly, public opinion has been most fastened, is the expenditure on the Army. No one can say the position at present is satisfactory; there is a good deal of the melting pot, and a good deal of indeterminate energy has been displayed without any great knowledge of what result will ensue. I put aside the deplorable incident in an individual regiment, which has attracted so much attention, and which, I have no doubt, will come before the House, but which is a thing entirely by itself and will be treated by itself. The general question is much more serious, and I hope it will not be prejudiced by loss of time in consequence of discussing the smaller question. A year or two ago the Secretary of State brought in, in a hurry, a great scheme of panic reform—the Army Corps system. I really do not know whether the Government consider that to be the backbone of their organisation, but I confess that I have gone about through the country in ordinary life and I have not met a single man who believes in it or who has a word to say in its favour. I remember at the time I moved from this Bench a Resolution condemning it as unsuitable, and though we had good support from the Unionist side, it was given rather by voice than by vote. Of course we are always thankful for what we can get; if the debate is good, though the lobby is poorly filled. The truth is that these things are not to be done, and ought not to be done, in a hurry. The excuse then was that we should apply the lessons of the war; but at the time the final lessons of the war were not ascertained. We were in the middle of the war. There is a perspective in these things; matters which then were very prominent would at the end of the

89
war fall back to their proper place; and the officers whose opinion it would have been best to take as to the real lessons of the war were most of them in South Africa. I believe the Commander-in-Chief was intercepted by this scheme at Madeira on his way home; he gave his approval of it, and like many other things it has been ever since held up under the ægis of that distinguished soldier. But this is a thing which requires much more deliberation and serious consideration, and I invite Members to brush away all theories and fancies. What we have to do is first to ascertain what our requirements really are. I am not going to examine the Army question tonight, because, I believe, there is to be an Amendment moved on the subject; but I say, let us remember that it is no question of merely adding to or taking from this arm or that force; what we ought first to do is to ascertain the military requirements of the Empire. That is a business for politicians, acting with the help of professional advice. You must do that first. Then, when you know your requirements, call in your experts and be still more largely guided by their advice as to what the particular constitution or organisation or framework of your Army is to be. But the first thing—and we have not got it yet—is to know what in future are the requirements of the British Army, not in the vague way in which we speak after dinner of the protection of these islands, the garrisoning of our great dependencies, the protection of our coaling stations, and the provision of a well-equipped force to be despatched wherever it is required— you must be more definite, and until you are, the rest is all leather and prunella. A distinguished soldier whom I met in the street the other day put it to me in this way. I told him that I was going to say this to the House of Commons, and he said that he had been wanting to see this counsel acted on for many years. He said—
"Take a business man. If he is setting up in business he calculates what the extent of his business will be, and what it will require. Then he takes his premises and engages his staff. We want to know what our business will require before we set to work to reorganise the Army."
The necessities of the country and the
90
public interest given this question the foremost place among public topics. We are all at one in our object. It is to make our country and its interests secure. It is to lay no unnecessary burden on our people; and lastly, it is to make certain that if they sustain the burden which is imposed they will obtain what they require.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by uttering some criticisms upon the mode of procedure by which we begin the work of the session; and I confess that I feel in considerable difficulty at the present moment. I cannot help feeling that the task which our customs impose on the Leader of the House on this occasion is rather a weighty one. He has put me through a catechism which, however else it may be described, cannot be called a Shorter Catechism; and I feel it not only difficult, but absolutely impossible, in the time at my disposal before half-past seven [OPPOSITION cries of "Go on."] to deal adequately with all the topics which the right hon. Gentleman has raised. I am quite aware that there are a large number of Gentlemen who would hasten down at nine o'clock to hear my peroration if I were to go on speaking over the dinner-hour, but I shall endeavour not to trouble them. The right hon. Gentleman's criticisms of our methods of procedure were based on the fact that the debate was begun, according to our ancient habits, by the speeches of the mover and seconder. I think that is the one consolation which we have on these occasions, and I congratulate my hon. friends on the manner in which they have fulfilled a function which, in my opinion, is one of the most difficult and delicate to be performed by the Members of this House. They restrained their observations within the limits of the King's Speech. The right hon. Gentleman, though I make no complaint of it, has not restrained his observations within the limits of the Speech, but has travelled over a vast number of topics, including Army reform, legislation for trade combinations, local taxation, and local government administration, on which it is really impossible that I should follow him. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that we ought to have added to the list of meas-

91
ures in the King's Speech. I notice that there are always two theories and two distinct modes of criticism applied to any Government in respect of its legislative programme. Through all the debate on the Address, and through all the earlier part of the session, the poverty and barrenness of the legislative fare proposed to the House is the constant theme of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Towards the end of the session, the enormous burden thrown upon the House by the ambition of the Government, the congested state of the Government's programme, and the difficulty of getting legislation through is the constant theme of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is quite impossible for human ingenuity to frame a King's Speech which shall be rich and full enough to satisfy the Opposition's appetite at the beginning of the session and make is sufficiently jejune and thin to meet their criticisms six months later. In these circumstances I make no apology for not having increased the number of Bills which we are asking the House to consider. If the right hon. Gentleman will project himself in imagination into the month of July, he will see, I think, that we have asked the House to do quite enough in the course of one session.
I hasten over these legislative criticisms, and the right hon. Gentleman's observations upon Army administration and local government administration, to what I think the House is more interested in—namely, the questions which he has asked on foreign and colonial affairs. In regard to the Sugar Convention, the right hon. Gentleman asked what view the Government take of the effect of that Convention on the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause. The view we take is that it does not interfere with that clause. The Russians take a different view, and we have offered in these circumstances to denounce our commercial treaties with them. The Russians, I believe, now state that they regard the question as an academic one for the present. Then the right hon. Gentleman asks me what is to happen in respect of the action we have taken to bounty-fed sugar from our own colonies. The line we have taken is perfectly clear and definite. We have never wavered in it from the beginning of the negotiations, and we made the statement of our view and emphatic condition before ratifying the treaty—that in no circumstances will we consent to penalise sugar
92
from our own colonies. Then the right hon. Gentleman asks whether other nations agree with that view. Other nations have been told the only conditions on which we would ratify the Convention, and they have been asked to signify any dissent they may feel from the position which we have taken up. No intimation of dissent has been received; and, therefore, our condition of ratification stands. But the right hon. Gentleman goes further and says: "When the time comes, and colonial bounty-fed sugar comes into the markets of Great Britain, will you not be taken before the Commission in Brussels, and overruled by a hostile majority." There is no such possibility. We have informed foreign countries that we do not mean to have this matter tried before the Commission; and if they, in despite of that observation, were to attempt so to try it, it is evident that they would be helpless and would have no means of coercing us to do that which we have given them fair warning we do not mean to do. Nor would they have any ground of complaint as to the clearness with which we made our views known. We waited until the very last moment before ratifying, in order that if any foreign country did desire to enter a protest at this stage they might do so.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): Did not five of them enter a protest?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, my hon. friend is mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman asks about the position of the Colonial Secretary in South Africa and about the loan. As regards the loan, I really do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty is. It is true that there is a distinction to be drawn between a Crown colony and a self governing colony. But a Crown colony is perfectly in a position to borrow money; and I do not understand that the right hon. Gentleman suggests either that the new colonies are incapable of borrowing money or that they could have done it for a better purpose than that of bearing some share of the cost of recent military operations. As to the Colonial Secretary, I hope that he will be back with us at no distant

93
date, and he will be able to give the House fuller information than I am in a position to do. But I may say that, of course, the Colonial Secretary has consulted his colleagues on all the important decisions which he has taken; and we entirely endorse and make ourselves responsible for the general policy which he has declared in South Africa.
Then the right hon. Gentleman asks me about Macedonia. This question has given anxiety—sometimes acute and sometimes sub-acute— to all statesmen in Europe for many years. The condition of wretchedness and mis-government under which the population of these provinces suffer makes them a constant menace to the peace of Europe. The Governments most closely interested by proximity to the scene of difficulty are, of course, Austria and Russia; and these Powers are specially qualified to take the lead in dealing with this problem, because they have the greatest influence over the other Balkan States whose action—or, I should say, the action of some of whose inhabitants—is no small element in the difficulties from which we are now suffering—from which the population primarily, and Europe in a secondary sense, is now suffering. The right hon. Gentleman said he hoped that the reforms which Austria and Russia would suggest to the Powers would be of a thorough-going description. I do not echo that hope, if I rightly interpret the phrase. What Europe wants immediately in that region is not some elaborate constitution which would, if carried out, remedy all the evils and introduce a period of freedom and enlightenment throughout Macedonia, but some improvement in the actual and practical methods of government. I do not believe the law is so utterly defective. It is the administration of the law by Turkish officials and the invasion of the country by Macedonian bands from the neighbouring territories of Bulgaria; these are the to scourges under which the Macedonian population are now suffering; and what we want is a strong and effective and incorruptible Government, so far as such a thing can be obtained, which shall introduce the primary elements of government into those districts, where too often, I am afraid, even the primary elements of good government are absent.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is the Government aware what the nature of the Russian and Austrian scheme is, and can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about it to the House?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I am not in a position to say anything about it at the present moment. I think it would be most inexpedient for me to say anything about it just now. There will be no long delay before we are in a position to give full information to hon. Gentlemen. I do not think I need, or indeed can, with advantage at the present stage of affairs say anything more about Macedonia. The general principles which we desire to see carried out in all these reforms I have sufficiently indicated, and I hope in thus indicating them I carry the general sense and approval of the House with me.
The right hon. Gentleman has asked me about events in West Africa. He did not dwell at great length upon it, but he indicated one supposed danger which I really think has no existence. He seemed to suppose that the military operations being carried on there would drive over the border of the British sphere of influence, into the limits of the French sphere of influence, the trade and commerce which would properly belong to Upper Nigeria. I think that fear is illusory. One important result of the recent military operations will indeed be to clear a great trade route and to make commerce more secure than it is at present. The right hon. Gentleman complained—and I am not surprised at his complaint—of an answer given by the Government about December 9, *in reply, I think, to a question put by the right hon. Baronet opposite. No doubt the terms of that answer would have been different in their character had we then had the information which we received a very few days later. It was, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, an answer given by my right hon. friend the Post master General in reply to a supplementary question, and was based on the imperfect information which we then had. As the House will see when the Papers are before them, we do not think that we had been kept quite sufficiently informed by the distinguished public servant who has done so much for that region, and
* See (4) Debates, cxvi., 449.

95
it was not really until December 19 that we sent a telegram approving under certain conditions of the expedition to Kano. The House was up at the time, and it was impossible, of course, for us to take them into our confidence.
The right hon. Gentleman passed from West Africa to East Africa, and put some very pertinent questions about Somaliland. Those questions were, however, largely based upon a misconception of the meaning of something which fell from me in a speech last week at Liverpool. What I stated there is absolutely the fact—namely, that the military operations in Somaliland, taken by themselves and without the collateral issues he raises, were of much greater importance, measured either by cost in treasure or, I fear, possibly by cost in life, and would have more permanent consequences as regards the districts in which the operations occurred, or with reference to which they were undertaken, than the military operations in connection with Venezuela, and I hope my meaning was not obscure. As regards the cost of the expedition, I am afraid that experience shows us that it is perfectly impossible to carry on military operations in these waterless expanses without cost in proportion, and without a force which, if it is to be adequate, cannot be otherwise than expensive; and though it is impossible for me at this time to give any estimate of the cost, undoubtedly that cost is a thing which cannot be ignored, and which I for one, in the present state of our finances, cannot but deeply regret. Well, then, the question arises, Was such an expedition necessary? I fear it was necessary. I can assure the House that no one was more reluctantly driven to that conclusion than I was; but I think it is a conclusion to which everybody would be driven who examined the facts. It was impossible to allow this fanatical Mullah to raid tribes in Somaliland who were under actual engagements of protection from us, to render the whole of that district practically uninhabitable, to lose all prestige with the natives, and to abandon a country on which our fortress of Aden in a large measure depends. We could not allow the unchecked raids of this fanatical Pretender, and since, as the House knows, our first operations against him were not crowned with the success we could have desired, it was
96
absolutely necessary to organise another expedition on a larger scale. We have done it, with the help of the Italians, in such a manner as, I hope, cannot end in military disaster, and will, I trust, permanently check any raids of the invader upon tribes that depend on our friendship, our protection, and our support. Well, I believe that, with a rapidity which I am sure the House will commend, I have answered all the questions of the right hon. Gentleman about foreign affairs, excepting the question he put to me with regard to Venezuela. In respect to Venezuela, he begged the Government to make a clean breast of it, and he bitterly complained that we had not laid Papers before parliament six weeks, I think he said, before the meeting of the House.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Ten days.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, if the negotiations had concluded ten days before the meeting of the House, of course we should have laid Papers before Parliament. But it was contrary to precedent. It would have been most inconvenient—I venture to say most improper—that in the very crisis of the negotiations, of the difficult and anxious negotiations which had not been brought to a successful termination—we should throw on the Table of the House an unconcluded story of the labours of the Foreign Office in this anxious affair.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am told that a large number of those Papers which are issued this morning are of dates antecedent to 19th December.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct, and if he thinks that that would have satisfied him it could have been done; but would it really have illustrated any matter in which the House is interested? What the House is interested in is not in the least what happened before December 19.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Oh, yes it is.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: There are some most important despatches.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, of course it is not or me to say what hon. Gentlemen wanted; but if I had been in their place, what I should have wanted would have been the whole story, and not merely the first chapters of it. We followed accurately the ordinary practice on this occasion, and I do not think it is worth while spending any time in arguing the point. Hon. Gentlemen have their Papers, and I am sure they will be able to master them before the debates on the Address come to a conclusion. If and when the subject comes up again I may perhaps deal with some of the points which the right hon. Gentleman started, but the questions that seemed to perturb him most are the character of our claims and the character of the German claims, and the grounds and nature of the engagement between the two countries with regard to enforcing those claims.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Of which we know nothing at the present time.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Those are, I think, the main points on which he asked for information. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the occasion of our entering into these operations was the insults to the flag and the attacks, the really brutal attacks, on British citizens in the neighbourhood of Trinidad and the seas adjoining thereto. The right hon. Gentleman says these claims were very small in amount. So they were; but the right hon. Gentleman does not argue, I suppose, that attacks upon British seamen and upon the British flag are never worth dealing with unless the sum involved is a large one. I have heard some criticisms of the Government for using their Fleet as a debt-collecting machine, and those are criticisms inconsistent with the attitude which I now understand the right hon. Gentleman to take up, which is that the very small character of these claims estimated in money is a sufficient reason why we should have acquiesced in the absolute refusal of the Venezuelan Government, month after month, not only to give satisfaction, but even to answer or recognise or take the smallest account of our representations. I do not think it was possible to tolerate such
98
things as Venezuela did to our subjects —things never done by any great Power to any other great Power, and which, if they had per incuriam occurred, would have been the subject undoubtedly of friendly correspondence and arrangement between them. No Power in the world, I venture to say, but Venezuela would have treated our representations with contempt, and have refused in the smallest degree to meet the just demands we made upon them.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is not what I meant when I quoted the sum, which I think the world at large was astonished at. What I contend is that there ought to be some relation between the sum demanded and the steps taken to recover it. I explicitly said that where any British subject was damaged in the exercise of his legitimate rights by the improper conduct of an officer of another nation, reparation was due and ought to be exacted.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman's interruption still leaves me a little at sea as to what his criticism was. I now understand him to say that we should have adjusted the magnitude of the steps we took for reparation to the magnitude of the sum involved—that we ought to have a small blockade if it were a small sum, and a large blockade if a large sum. That does not seem to me to be very practicable. If it be admitted that we have to exact reparation for this insult, an insult of a particularly brutal sort on British seamen, I would put this question: Would you, having other claims, have limited your claims to the very small sums which were, no doubt, the original occasion and justification of warlike operations?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I might answer the question if I knew the nature of the other claims. I have never seen what the nature of the other claims is.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Quite so. The other claims are not the claims of bondholders who tried to get a large percentage out of a more or less insolvent State by the help of British Men-of-war and

99
guns. Not at all. What appear in the Papers as second-rank claims are due to the Venezuelan Government having seized British property, having inflicted, through their troops and by their officers, injury on individual resident persons of British nationality in Venezuela; and the right hon. Gentleman will be the first person to admit that that is a kind of claim which we were perfectly justified in making and perfectly justified in pressing. That is a distinction which, I believe, is fairly accurate with regard to the whole of our second-rank claims. I admit, of course, that there may be claims of which it is difficult to say whether they should properly be placed in the first rank or the second rank. As regards the first-rank claims, you may say that they chiefly depend on brutal attacks on British seamen and insults to the British flag. As regards the second-rank claims of Great Britain, they are of the kind I have just described. They arise out of attacks by Venezuelan soldiers and officers, forced requisitions, and matters of that kind, and constitute claims which I think we were right in making and right in enforcing. Venezuela has bound herself to make some kind of equitable arrangement with the bondholders. I suppose nobody complains of that. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about Germany. He has quoted, and quoted accurately, from the Blue-book a statement made by the German Ambassador that they admitted that there was a difference between our first-rank claims and their first-rank claims. Again, I say, the difference is really one of degree. There are German claims, I believe—in fact, I know—which it would be extremely difficult do distinguish from British first-rank claims, except that the outrages on persons occurred on land and not on water. On the other hand, I have no doubt there are a large number of German first-class claims which would come rather under the description I have given of British second-class claims. But there is this important distinction between the two, which I beg the House to keep in mind. We do not profess to have examined critically, case by case, the claims put forward by our countrymen in regard to damage inflicted upon them by Venezuelan troops. The German first-class claims,
100
which amount to over £60,000, have been most carefully examined by the German Foreign Office and by the German legal advisers, and, I think, certified. I do not believe that it is denied by the Venezuelans themselves that all these cases are genuine: that they are no bogus claims; no extravagant attempts to extract money from the Venezuelan Government. Very well, then, in what consists the criticism against us? The Germans had claims against Venezuela, and we had claims against Venezuela, and it was suggested that we should make common cause. The Germans had ample international justification for going against Venezuela alone, and it is alleged that we should have acted alone. Would separate action have been a benefit to Venezuela? Could you imagine that two absolutely independent blockades could have gone on at the same time, and that that would have been advantageous to Venezuela? I do not believe that it would have made the position of Venezuela any easier. What I say is that such a course would have been recommended by no one. If you are to work with Germany, as surely you must under the circumstances I have described, is it or is it not proper to say to Germany "You must not abandon us, and we will not abandon you." Otherwise, of course, the Venezuelans would have tried to make separate arrangements—to play off one Power against another, and to produce as much international difficulty and friction as they could. But it may be said, "That may all be very true. The advantages of your policy may be very clear, but is it not an enormous disadvantage which more than outweighs the advantages described, that it should be put in the power of Germany to drag you on and on in a quarrel which may have been righteous and just in its conception, but which they carry to an extraordinary and extravagant length, and to require you to employ yourselves to enforce German claims which have no just foundation or basis?" I say there is no such demand. Recollect that the total amount of the first-rank claims of Germany and England put together, both of which were absolutely justifiable, amounted to £68,000 or £69,000 in all—an amount which I am sure a great many hon. Gentle-

101
men I am now addressing could write a cheque for without feeling inconvenience. As regards the second-rank claims, both of Germany and Great Britain, be it remembered that by our original arrangement with Germany it was impossible that we should be dragged on into indefinite hostilities because we had always agreed that they should be submitted to arbitration. The original arbitration was not the Hague arbitration, but it was an arbitration perfectly fair to Venezuela, because what we suggested was that these second-rank claims should be taxed by a Commission, in which there should be, so far as the British claims were concerned, one representative of Great Britain, one of Venezuela and, in case of difference, an overs-man or arbiter. The same arrangement was to be adopted in regard to Germany, so that Venezuela would have had a full say in discussing the character of these claims. We, therefore, always contemplated as regards second-rank claims that we, Great Britain, or Germany, should go to arbitration. And it was not possible to go on fighting for second-rank claims, because Germany herself had assented to the broad principle of arbitration which we also hold. I hope I have with lucidity and brevity explained the general policy. I do not think it is open to any of the comments which the right hon. Gentleman has made upon it in an ignorance for which he is not to blame. I quite agree he has not had time to study the Blue-book, but when he has had time to do so, I think he will see that the general line of policy which I have indicated is the right policy to pursue; and I am convinced that he will agree with us that, broadly speaking, this negotiation has been carried on by us with a great regard to the feelings, not only of the American Government and people, but with a great regard to Venezuela itself. We have not proved ourselves hard or brutal; we have only intervened when intervention became absolutely necessary in the cause of national honour And though we have interfered, we have made that interference as little injurious as possible to the country with whom we were formally in a state of hostility; and probably there never was a state of war lasting through all these weeks in which there
102
was less suffering, or less damage inflicted upon a weak belligerent than on this occasion.
I really believe, though it may sound ambitious to say so, that I have answered all the comments except those relating to legislation and Army administration which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed to me. I have not the smallest complaint to make as regards the spirit in which he has spoken. I recognise that it is his business to put questions. I hope the House will admit that I have not shirked my share of the responsibility, but have endeavoured to answer the right hon. Gentleman with as great clearness and directness as I have been able to command. I trust the House will be content with the defence I have made on behalf of the Government as a whole; and, at all events, will wait for any further elaboration of the topies on which I have briefly and lightly touched this evening until the substantial Amendments are made to the Address of the Government.
MR. SCHWANNsaid that His Majesty's gracious Speech congratulated Parliament on the successful termination of the Venezuelan question. But there was no credit due for this to the Government. His Majesty's Ministers had only succeeded in making themselves ridiculous. That had been the most conspicuous thing in connection with the whole affair. He remembered that in the month of December last, when this question was brought up before the House, a spirit of levity was shown by Members who sat on the Government Benches, who thought it was a very small affair. But he believed that in the meantime it had been found to be a very serious affair, and the Prime Minister had himself confessed that the Venezuelan "mess" had been a most anxious time for the Government. This matter, which was supposed to be of such small consideration, had lasted over two months, and two of the greatest Naval Powers had engaged their fleets upon it at considerable expense. Great risks had been run, and this country had only escaped an imbroglio with the American Government and nation in regard to the Monroe Doctrine, which was very dear to them.

103
He believed that it was the general opinion throughout England that they had been using a Nasmyth steam hammer in order to crack a nut, when they considered that the first-rank claims only meant the payment of £5,500 to each of the Allies.
As his right hon. friend the Leader of Opposition had stated, he thought that the questions which had been put in the first line by the Government were really of small moment. He quite agreed that some of them required inquiry, which however he was now afraid would not be given. He had looked into the Blue-book which had been laid on the Table of the House today, and he found, in spite of all the further explanations which had been given, that it was perfectly clear that out of the eight cases which were relied upon, three of them at least were connected with smuggling or with carrying contraband to the insurgents against President Castro's Government. The Island of Trinidad was fixed like a crescent on the North-East Frontier of Venezuela, and the distance between the extreme points was only a few miles. Further, it was a matter of history and fact that the Islands of Trinidad and Patos had been used from time immemorial as the basis for carrying on contraband trade with Venezuela. He had read some of the affidavits which were given in the Blue-book, and he found that many of the witnesses were themselves Venezuelans who had adopted English names, and in whose veracity he would not feel any very great confidence. He did not say that they told untruths, but he said that their evidence would not be taken in any court of law in England as being of the greatest weight. If they were to believe The Times newspaper the danger might still not be at an end, for on the 16th inst. The Times said:
"We are not altogether clear of the Venezuela mess, for, as our Berlin correspondent points out, contingencies are at least conceivable which might still confront us with new phases of the question not very unlike the old ones."
He was afraid that the Government would have the painful feeling of being attacked by an enemy in their own house. The St. James's Gazette said:
"From whatever source the evil inspiration of the Venezuelan adventure came, the Government of Mr. Balfour are responsible. We should see their fall with regret, but, short
104
of their dismissal from office, we hope that the House of Commons will find a way to read them a sharp lesson."
It was quite evident that even Ministers themselves did not think very highly of their own conduct, because the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs admitted that the Venezuelan mess was indeed a mess, and the President of the Local Government Board said:
"As Lord Rosebery said, we muddled through somehow or other. So long as we got through, then, with the right side uppermost, it did not much matter whether we muddled through or got through in some other way. So long as we got through with the British Empire uppermost that was all Britishers cared about."
Now with reference to the bondholders, the Prime Minister assured the House that this war was not conducted for the benefit of the bondholders. But the noble Lord in December stated that it was the bounden duty of the Government to protect bondholders in all parts of the world.
THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I said specifically in answer to the hon. Gentlemen that we would never have undertaken these operations for the bondholders, and that they were undertaken for what has since been known as the first-rank claims.
MR. SCHWANNsaid that the noble Lord stated that where the interests of bondholders were attacked England ought to go to their rescue. He himself pointed out then, and would now repeat, that there were a great number of bonds in default in many parts of the world, and he thought it was highly undesirable that the Government should use the forces of the country for the purpose of recovering bad debts for investors, who should take their own risks. It was very strange that the Chairman of the Government Stock Investment Company took a very different view of what the Government had done. He said that they ought to be grateful to the Government for doing something for the first time towards taking up the interests of bondholders.
† See. (4) Debates, cxvi, 1263.

105
As far as he himself knew, it was the first time that any British Government had declared war in the interests of the bondholders, and he hoped it would be the last. He would point out that the bondholders who invested their funds in the Venezuelan New Conversion Debt, 1881, would reap a rich harvest. They bought at £25, and the shares were yesterday quoted at £38. The initial mistake in the business appeared to him to be the alliance with Germany. If England had gone to work as she did in Nicaragua, and had given the United States notice that the Nicaraguan Government were in default, the United States would have been perfectly agreeable to England sending one or two vessels. In that instance, the Nicaraguan Government saw it would not do to have a long contest, and within a couple of days the blockade was raised and England obtained what she wanted without any long or dangerous alliance with any other country. The Germans themselves had a proverb about people who were not good to crack nuts with. Admiral Dewey said the Germans had no naval manners. He himself did not wish to speak evil of them, and only wished they would mend their manners and enter into real friendly relations with England. Even the Frankfurter Zeitung, after a scathing review of German methods, says:
"Consequently no one is our sincere friend; we encounter mistrust in all quarters; and thirty years after Sedan we are still looked upon as a parvenu with the characteristics of an intruder. Wherever a sunbeam falls we (Germans) want to be there 'in order to warm ourselves.' ""Yet" (as the critic goes on to observe) "Germany desires to build higher and higher the barricades of tariffs behind which she is intrenched. That combination excites misgivings, umbrage is taken, and 'friendships are sacrificed,' "
He trusted that in future they would be able to maintain a real alliance with Germany, and would be able to work with her in enlarging the boundaries of civilisation. At the same time, he thought that in a matter in which German interests clashed with English interests, it would be far better to work singly, and that each country should paddle its own canoe, and steer clear of its own difficulties.
It being half-past Seven, the debate stood adjourned till this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [17th February], "That an humble address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
  "Most Gracious Sovereign,
  "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament." — (Mr. Grelton.)
  Questing again proposed. Debate resumed.
  MR. SCHWANN, continuing his speech, said that when interrupted by that one touch of Nature which makes the whole world kin, he was expressing the hope that in the future Germany would walk hand in hand with this country in the paths of civilisation, and he was suggesting that loyal co-operation would be quite as successful as high-handed sentiment, but that presents of statues to the United States of America, and presents to the Sultan, were not necessarily sentiments of amity. He had noticed that in any negotiations we had with Germany we had always come worse off. He personally attributed that to the incompetence of our Foreign Office. That had been clearly shown in regard to the negotiations in connection with Venezuela. The country had had a clear statement of what our demands on Venezuela were, and the public had been able to take a clear view of the situation, and it had not redounded to the credit of the Government.
  He was afraid that in other quarters of the globe the Government were preparing fresh disasters for themselves. The Prime Minister, at Liverpool, referred to Somaliland, and said:—
  "We are at this moment, for example, engaged in military operations in Somaliland. I do not think the public have taken the smallest interest in it; but the cost will be more than Venezuela both in men and money, and the effect of the operations will be far-reaching."
  He thought that the Prime Minister had made a great mistake; the public was taking a great interest in all this expenditure of money in the wars in which we were engaged; they say how easily they were entered into, but they did not see how we were to get out of them. They had been told that the Venezuelan question was to be settled in a fortnight, and it had lasted two months; and that Somaliland was to cost only a quarter of a million, but if we were to pursue the Mullah all over the country, everybody knew that the cost of carrying supplies in Africa was enormous, and nobody could see what the extent of our liabilities would be.
  There was a prospect of another muddle in North Nigeria. Referring to the occupation of Kano by our forces, he accused the Government of ingratitude, asserting that it was largely owing to the fact that the chiefs of Kano and Sokoto remained loyal to the Niger Company that England was able to make good her claims to Nigeria against France and Germany when the delimitation of that part of Africa took place. Sir F. Lugard's action might have serious consequences. He was said to have acted precipitately and without any command from the Foreign Office, but the Foreign Office was responsible all the same. Kano and Sokoto were peopled by Mahomedans, and if the standard was raised against the "infidel Christian" we might have a repetition of the Soudan trouble in West Africa, the area of North Nigeria was not to be counted by thousands, but by hundreds of thousands of square miles; the population was counted by millions, and the whole of the Chad Basin was a slumbering volcano which one spark of religious fanaticism might set in eruption. He was afraid that we might find that in that case we had again put our hands into a hornets' nest. He would not labour the subject, as it was just possible that when Members had digested the Blue-book some Amendment would be moved to the Address with regard to this matter.
  With regard to the Venezuelan question they must take into consideration, when pressing their claims, that President Castro was attempt-
  108
  ing to put down one of the worst revolutions that the country had ever seen, and that it was not easy for a man who had the greatest difficulty in paying his own army and obtaining his own supplies to meet all claims made against the State at once. On the question of Army Reform, he advocated the appointment of a Commission, with full power to make the radical changes necessary to secure for the country an adequate and efficient army. The disclosures in connection with the Grenadier Guards showed that no great improvement would be made in the Army system until all regiments were directed and officered by professional men. He recalled the fact that Sir Clinton Dawkins indulged in some reminiscences at a dinner at the Article Club at which he was a guest, and said that, as a young man, he had been warned against a certain General who was described to him as "a damned professional soldier, and ought to be cut by everybody." But the army would never be efficient until it was controlled by professional men. A case came before his (Mr Schwann's) own notice. A young soldier, who had served in South Africa and had returned, called upon him and stated that he wanted to enter the Reserves; he had applied to the War Office, and his claim was not admitted; he had been in the regiment in which his father and his grandfather had both previously served; and for two consecutive years he had secured the prize for being the smartest man. He had also a certificate of education, and yet the War Office refused him permission to enter the Reserves. He (the hon. Member) had written to the War Office and pointed our that this was a man that ought not to be refused; that such a man not only was a good Reservist, but also acted as a recruiting sergeant, which was quite contrary to what many young men who had returned from South Africa had done.
  He regretted that the King's Speech contained no indication of any measure to make provision for the greater safety of railway servants. He pointed out that since the compulsory attachment of automatic couplings on some of the American railways the percentage of deaths and injuries to railway workers had de-

  109
  creased to a large extent, and he hoped that promises made in this direction had not been forgotten. The Government were to be congratulated on the success of the new Licensing Act, and he was glad to see it was proposed to extent the Act to Scotland, where it was certainly needed. He congratulated the Government that the almost immediate effect of the Licensing Act had been to lessen the practice of pawning among the poorer classes. More money now found its way home, and the necessity for the pawnbroker was not so great as before the passing of the Act.
  The Irish question was too large for him to deal with on that occasion, but on that side of the House the land proposal would be received with interest and a desire to carry through any Bill that promised to remove the state of agrarian warfare which had existed so long. He believed that the British public would be ready to pay any reasonable sum to bridge the division between the landlords' demands and the amount tenants were willing and able to pay. He hoped that the visit of the Colonial Secretary to South Africa would be followed by the best results, expressing his strong opposition to the legalising of forced labour there.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he rose only to call attention to two matters connected with the Metropolis in which, as a London Member, he had a special interest. The principal question on which he wished to say a word was that of education. His right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition had said earlier in the evening that he hoped if any change was made in the constitution of the London School Board, to which he referred in a most eloquent and friendly manner, it would be transferred to the London County Council, but he (Mr. Lough) hoped that is would not be too readily concluded that the view of the Liberal Party generally was that the new educational authority for London should be the London County Council. He was in favour of an ad hoc authority, which was justified by the great success of the London School Board. The most influential opinion expressed among the teachers and managers of the London School Board was that at any rate a great
  110
  part of the controlling authority should be by a directly elected body.
  Coming to the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the question of locomotion and traffic in London, he desired, in the first place, in the name of the London Members, to enter a protest against such an important and delicate matter, affecting the health and development of the Metropolis, being suddenly referred to a Royal Commission without some communication being first made to the Members for London, or to those who had devoted many years to the study of the subject. The responsibility for that rested, of course, mainly with hon. Gentlemen opposite, because the very large majority of the representatives of the Metropolis were supporters of the Government. But surely before the Royal commission was announced, they ought to have had communicated to them, in some friendly way, the reasons for the action to be taken and the proposed terms of reference, and then opinions should have been invited in regard thereto. He was bound to say that the reference was. a most extraordinary one, viz., to "consider the organisation and regulation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic." That reference might have been an excellent one, if they had had a clean slate to deal with, but in this matter they had not. Did it not seem somewhat of an interference with the work of the Chief Commissioner of Police? How could they regulate vehicular traffic, he would like to know? The second part of the reference was just as extraordinary. It asked the Commission to suggest some authority or tribunal to which all schemes of railway and tramway construction of a local character should be referred. Why should these matters be taken out of the control of Parliament? This work was going on steadily day by day; there were all sorts of schemes being carried out in London, and many others were projected. What was to become of the London railway and tramway schemes which were to be brought before Parliament this session, and upon which a great deal of money had been or was to be spent? Were they to be hung up until the Commission had reported? It seemed to him that the Government had made a great mistake in thinking that these schemes could be brought before a Royal Commission which could

  111
  throw no special light on such matters. He thought that London Members on the Opposition side of the House had great reason to the Commission. No doubt, personally, the gentlemen selected would be most excellent members, but the fact remained that the whole body of progressive opinion in London was practically unrepresented. It would have been wiser for the Government to have selected for the Commission men closely connected with London, like the members of the County Council, and, therefore, with the necessary knowledge of the problems of its traffic. Why should Sir George Barbour, for instance, have been selected to act as chairman? He was no doubt an eminent Indian official, but of what especial value would experience gained in India be in dealing with the problem of London traffic? And again, the only representative of that side of the House on the Commission was the late Attorney General, the hon. Member for Dumfries Burghs. He was a Scotchman and a lawyer, but did those qualifications specially fit him to deal with this great London question? Why had not someone more closely identified with London been chosen in his place? Again, why was there such a strong railway element introduced? Why had the settlement of these delicate questions been put in the hands of men who, by their action in the past, had proved that they thought more of the development of their own large interests than of serving the needs of the Metropolis? He could not understand why there was such a strong representation of the railway element. Further, he would ask why was not Labour represented on the Commission, seeing that it was so deeply interested in the question. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to modify the composition of the Commission, and also to inform the House what was to become of the schemes which were to be brought before Parliament this session. Were they to be hung up until the Commission had reported?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The complaint of the hon. Member for West Islington is that the Royal commission has been appointed in too great haste and without consulta-
  112
  tion with the London representatives and local authorities. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that he stands alone in this opinion. Since the Commission has been appointed I have received many communications with respect to it, but not one on the lines of the hon. Gentleman, who seems to think that, among other bodies, the London County Council will be unduly prejudiced by the appointment of the Commission. He does not seem to be aware that the London County Council has been pressing for months for the appointment of such a Commission with some such reference. The hon. Member seems to hold that the London County Council is not satisfied either with the Commission or the reference. My information is that they are not dissatisfied. On the contrary, they recognise that what the Government have done has gone a long way towards the carrying out on their own wishes. Then the hon. Member complains of the reference. He gave it a most extraordinary interpretation. He seems to think the Commission has been appointed, not merely to inquire, but actually to administer. It has no administrative power whatever. If it had it would, no doubt, constitute a precedent of a very remarkable character, but if the hon. Member will kindly take the trouble to read the terms of reference more carefully he will see that its duty is to advise on the methods that would be most effectual in developing tramway and railway communication in London. It will not be called upon to decide as to the merits of any particular scheme, but it will have to advise whether it is desirable in the case of railways and tramways to appoint a body constituted on lines similar to the Light Railways Commission or the Traffic Commissioners of New York. That is the very point on which the London County Council laid the greatest stress, I do not desire in any way to prejudge any conclusion at which the Commission may arrive, but in any case I think the hon. Member is almost alone in the attitude he has taken up. He asks what will happen to the schemes now before Parliament. In appointing this Commission the Government were aware that one on the arguments against that course of action was the possibility that enterprise might be checked; but they came to the conclusion that on the balance of con-

  113
  siderations it was desirable to appoint one, even at the risk of delaying the carrying out of schemes which might otherwise have been brought forward. It is not possible to lay down any general scheme as to the treatment the House may extend to schemes that come before it during the period of inquiry; but probably there will be some schemes which it will be desirable to stop on the second reading, others which may be sent to a Committee, and a third section as to which the promoters must be prepared to take the responsibility of going before a Committee, knowing, of course, that the Committee will be aware that the whole subject is being investigated by a Commission and that consequently it may not see fit to pass the preamble of the Bill. It is not possible to be more explicit on that subject. Another question raised by the hon. Member was as to the constitution of the Commission. The hon. Gentleman has mistaken the principle on which members of the Commission have been selected. It was felt that special interests should not be strongly represented—if represented at all on the Commission. But it was desired to have a very strong Commission, because this is a very important and difficult question. Anybody who reads the names will admit that the Commission is a very strong one. The hon. Member has made an attack on the Chairman, and has suggested that he is not a fit person to preside. But everybody who knows Sir David Barbour must be aware that he is a man of the very highest capacity. For work of this kind you must have a man not only of the highest capacity but one also of the inclination to devote himself to it.
  MR. LOUGH: I only complained of his want of local knowledge.
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That local knowledge can be acquired in the course of the inquiry, seeing that it is the duty of a Commission to take evidence; and I am sure that long before the Commission reports Sir David Barbour will be thorough master of the subject. As to the representation of the London County Council, I am not aware that that body have found any fault with the representation given to them. They have two Members, one belonging to the Progressive and
  114
  the other to the Moderate Party, and both gentlemen take a very great interest in the question of railway and tramway communication in London. I am not prepared to accede to the hon. Member's suggestion that a working man should be put on the Commission. I am not desirous that any special interest should be represented. I would reduce rather than enlarge the number of Commissioners, and I should be very reluctant indeed to put on the representative of any special interest who would serve on it with the deliberate object of dealing with the question in one particular way. That is not the type of Commissioner I have sought to obtain. I am perfectly aware that certain Royal Commissions are constituted on the principle of putting a number of partisans on the one side, and another set of partisans on the other. Sometimes it is almost impossible to avoid that particular method of constituting a Royal Commission, but where it is possible I think it is very desirable to avoid it, because I do not believe that on the whole you get the best results from a Commission constituted on that principle.
  *MR. STEVENSON: I desire to refer to certain aspects of foreign politics to which the King's Speech itself devotes rather more space than has usually been the case of recent years. Amongst those questions of foreign politics there are two, one of which might have attained dimensions of great gravity, whilst the other is becoming more and more serious every day, and may at any time attain the position of an international question of the first importance. I should not have thought of coupling together two such entirely different questions as Venezuela and Macedonia had not the Prime Minister at Liverpool a few days ago placed them in the same juxtaposition. The right hon. Gentleman used a very singular argument. He said, in effect, "How can you object to co-operation between two European Powers with regard to Venezuela when you advocate international co-operation with regard to Macedonia?" The two positions are diametrically opposite. In the case of Venezuela, what was objected to by

  115
  responsible critics, was not the fact that Great Britain intervened for the purpose of redressing certain wrongs, but the hard and fast agreement between ourselves and Germany, who, as was considered on the other side of the Atlantic, had different aims and objects. The chief objection was to the particular method and the terms of that co-operation. It was, moreover, of a temporary, incidental, and accidental character.
  With regard to Macedonia, the case is absolutely different. There, in common with other great Powers of Europe, we are under definite treaty obligations to intervene. Under the Treaty of San Stefano Macedonia was taken from Turkish rule, and placed temporarily under Bulgarian auspices. For various reasons Europe, at the Berlin Congress, thought fit to place Macedonia once more under Turkish rule. I do not desire to enter into the merits of the question. I still think that the solution provided by the Treaty of San Stefano was not a satisfactory solution, because it laid more store by the wishes and needs of the Bulgarian population than by those of the other numerous races which form part of Macedonia. But this must be obvious; that the European Powers, of which we are one, having taken upon themselves the responsibility of restoring that great province to Turkish rule, are absolutely bound, morally and by treaty, to see that the inhabitants do not suffer by that action. We have been promised in the course of a few days some Papers as to the reforms which are being urged upon the Sultan of Turkey by Austria-Hungary and Russia, with the assent of this country and other Powers. Until those Papers are presented it is impossible to go into details. But this question is not a new one. There has been a chronic state of misgovernment in Macedonia for years, and it has recently become aggravated mainly by action instigated from Constantinople itself, but partly also by the fact that certain extremists in Bulgaria, being driven to desperation by the oppression of their kinsmen over the border, have resorted to methods in themselves indefensible, but the outcome of the abominable state of things there prevailing. We have heard a great deal about the Bulgarians, but after all,
  116
  they are not the ony, perhaps not the chief, sufferers. For years tribal feuds have been going on between the Albanians and the Servians, and if the matter is looked into one will perhaps be driven to the conclusion that the Servians have had more to suffer than any other race in Macedonia. In the Southern part of Macedonia also Greeks and Kondzo - Vlacks have had their grievances, and the whole matter has been fermented by the state of misrule which prevails. The Turkish Government, by sowing dissension, and often by the employment of provocative agents, have produced a condition of affairs which they have proceeded to repress in accordance with their usual methods. That is obviously a state of things which Europe ought not to tolerate, and that it should have been tolerated for so many years constitutes a serious reflection on the indifference of the great Powers. I would urge the Government to do their utmost to secure that the reforms now being pressed upon the Sultan should be manageable reforms. I agree with the hope of the Prime Minister that they will be of a simple character. What is chiefly needed at present is adequate guarantees for life and property. It would be impossible at the present stage, with the divisions which exist between different races and creeds in Macedonia, to secure an absolutely permanent settlement. But we can, and ought, to insist on a reasonable amount of law and order being restored, and that those who at present are in daily and hourly jeopardy should have a reasonable amount of security.
  How is that guarantee to be secured? We do not know what this proposed scheme of reform is to be, but, according to reports, Macedonia is to be divided, for administrative purposes, and a Christian Governor appointed. I have considerable doubt whether a Christian Governor who is a Turkish subject would be of much avail in the present state of Macedonia. Something of the kind was tried in Crete, with the result that the condition of affairs was worse than before. A Christian Governor does not command sufficient respect among the Mohammedans, who form the principal part both of the army and of the official classes, and he would not be treated with sufficient

  117
  respect from Constantinople. In addition to that, the agencies which are constantly at work would be intriguing against him, with the result that, although the Powers might be pacified ostensibly by such an appointment, the evil of misrule would, as a matter of fact, continue. The only guarantee for sound administration is that the Governor who is to carry out the work of administration under the scheme of reform should not be an Ottoman subject. Unless the Powers are able to devise a scheme under which such an arrangement is possible, I am afraid the position of affairs will become worse and worse, and that before long we may be brought face to with one of the most serious European complications, and possibly conflagrations, of recent years.
  The Government have a serious responsibility in this matter, partly in conjunction with other Powers, and partly on account of its action in connection with the Berlin Treaty. More important even than the points I have urged is the necessity of an adequate sanction for the carrying out of these reforms. It is not the practice for the Turkish Government to yield except to a certain show of coercion, nor is it lawful under the sacred law for the Sultan to yield unless there is some such show; therefore, unless Austria-Hungary and Russia can, with the assent of other Powers, use some such means, there is little hope for the future. Fortunately we have instances in the Balkan Peninsula of provinces which have been reclaimed under the influence on good administration, such as that of Baron de Kallay in Bosnia, and if in Macedonia some scheme of reform, however simple or modest, can be carried out under the auspices of a European administrator, simply preserving the suzerain rights of the Sultan, I think a greater step in the direction of reform will have been taken than is possible by any other method under present circumstances. But no such arrangement can be of more than temporary advantage. The problem lies too deep to be solved so simply. Where you have various races whose historic course has been interrupted by invasion, it is only natural, when there is some hope of the rule of the invader coming to an end, that the old jealousies and ambitions should
  118
  revive. But even a temporary effect of a beneficial character may have the greatest possible influence in maintaining the peace of Europe, and in securing some elementary guarantee of life and property. I hope, therefore, the Government will leave no stone unturned to secure a practicable scheme of reforms, adequately thought out and adequately enforced.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Before the noble Lord replies, I wish to put to the Government certain questions, one on which concerns Venezuela and the Foreign office, and the other the Colonial Office, the latter arising out of a most extraordinary Parliamentary paper which has been placed in the Vote Office since seven o'clock this evening.
  The question of Venezuela was well dealt with by my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, but in language less strong than many of us would wish to employ. I wish to elucidate the real meaning of the defence of the Government as to our relations with Germany in this question. The Prime Minister last Friday repudiated in the strongest possible terms the suggestion that the influence of the German Emperor himself, during his recent visit to this country, had been used for the purpose of tying up the relations of this country with Germany in a way that would appear to constitute a very dangerous alliance, and on a question in regard to which an alliance with Germany was specially dangerous to the interests of this country. The Prime Minister said that during that visit no arrangements were made and no business done. That denial is very strong, but so are the facts as laid before us by the Governments themselves. The despatches which have just been circulated on this point are precisely the same as those we received on the last day of the sittings in December last. In the principal despatch, the one that ties up our interests with those of Germany in a way which is unprecedented in questions of this kind, the opening words are, "Foreign Office, November 11. The German Ambassador informed me this evening," while the Memorandum

  119
  attached to this, and communicated by the German Ambassador, is dated "London, November 13." What has struck the country, and ought, I think, to be further explained, is the fact that neither Lord Lansdowne nor the German Ambassador were in London on the dates here given. As a matter of fact, Lord Lansdowne and the German Ambassador were under the same roof at the time these transactions occurred—viz., from the 10th to the 15th November. The Prime Minister has complained very bitterly of Lord Rosebery for introducing the analogy of Mexico. In that case, in the first instance, we took joint action with France and Spain in a matter of a similar description. But that action followed the ordinary precedents, and was entirely different from the action taken on this occasion. Instead of our claims being tied up with those of the other Powers, as in the present instance, absolute liberty was left to other Governments to come in—the United States were specifically asked to come in—and liberty was left to recede at any time. As a matter of fact, we did afterwards recede. A convention provided for the appointment, by each of the three Powers, of a Civil Commissioner, with full authority to determine for each Power all questions as to the money to be recovered; each Power had control over its own action.
  In asking these questions specifically as to the authority, precedent, and origin of this proposal, I should like to put it to the House that it was most dangerous to tie us up in this way. In the case of Venezuela the question is one of peculiar delicacy, and it is most dangerous to tie up our interests with those of Germany. In America, Germany has undoubtedly been suspected of having designs on the southern province of Brazil which are at variance with the Monroe Doctrine. In this country there is an overwhelming opinion in favour of the Monroe Doctrine; we have an enormous customer in the Republics of South America. In 1900 we sent to the Continent of America £51,500,000 of the produce and manufactures of Great Britain. Of that amount £23,000,000 went to the Latin Republics, £20,000,000 to the United States, and £8,500,000 to the British
  120
  Colonies. This enormous trade gives this country an overwhelming interest in the maintenance of the Monroe Doctrine, in the maintenance of the virtual status quo on the American Continent. The German interest is not the same, and to tie ourselves up in direct defiance of the precedent of Mexico seems to me to be a peculiarly dangerous and reckless act. Those on the Opposition side of the House who entertained doubts as to the policy of this action had ground to think that there was in the minds of some Members of the Government the idea of an alliance with Germany which had sometimes led to action a little like blacking the boots of Germany. There has been a continual harking back to the idea of a German alliance, a continual hankering after it. Between the July proposal as to joint action with Germany and November 11 and the tying up of our interests with those of Germany, occurred the most unfriendly action of Germany towards this country at Shanghai. I should like to know whether there is any truth in the very direct statement of The Times correspondent in China on this subject. The correspondent of The Times has frequently informed the country, and there has been no contradiction of the statement, that Germany presented a secret Memorandum to the Chinese Government as to the date on which they would leave Shanghai and withdraw the German troops. This was done behind the backs of our Government, and at the moment when the Venezuelan operations were in contemplation.
  The other one of the two subjects which I should like to ask certain questions about is one which has been affected and changed since the Leader of the Opposition put his question to the Government at the beginning of this debate—I refer to the Kano expedition. The position has been affected by the issue of a most extraordinary Paper, which has not yet been circulated to hon. Members, but to which, by the kindness of the Government, my attention was called before we separated this afternoon. The Kano expedition has led to a most painful censure upon a very distinguished officer, namely, the

  121
  Commissioner of Nigeria, in words which are very strong. What the House ought to be quite clear about is that that censure is deserved by the Commissioner and not by the Government, and I will just ask my question in order to put hon. Members in possession of the special points of the case. Our suspicions as to the intention of an attack on Kano were first aroused by the proceedings of some distinguished clerics, who, in the course of an interview, stated that Kano "must be dealt with." This statement was telegraphed all over the world, and the phrase even occurs in the Lugard despatches. In the belief of the Government the preparations for the expedition to Kano were for an escort to accompany the Anglo-French Commission for the delimitation of the frontier. Before the date at which the Government changed their minds on the subject and addressed remonstrances to the Commissioner in Nigeria, it was known in France that the delimitation of the frontier would have to be postponed on account of the British expedition to Kano. The arrangement of the despatches in the White Paper is a little confusing, but the first telegram is dated 10th December, the day after the Question was put in the House, to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred. That telegram begins:—
  "Reuter states that it has been decided to undertake hostile operations against Kano, but I presume that you are only taking necessary precautions for safety of Boundary Commissioners."
  That suggests that the Questions put in this House were only put upon the basis of that Reuter telegram, but it is not the case at all. The information which was in my possession, and in the possession of my hon. friend the Member for Oldham, the hon. Member for Manchester, and several Lancashire hon. Members, was of two descriptions. We had information from commercial houses in Liverpool and Manchester who knew of this expedition, and also from officers who had been recalled to service for the purposes of this expedition. It was upon that information that we put our Questions. The Government telegraphed five times before they got any answer to their telegrams, and at last they sent a very emphatic telegram on December 24th, which will be found on page 3 of the correspondence relating to Kano.
  122
  The telegram states:—
  "Referring to my telegrams of 19th December and 22nd December, His Majesty's Government must have information asked for before any expedition starts for Kano."
  The first telegram, which clearly replies to those five telegrams, is one of a most unsatisfactory kind. The High Commissioner states that reports have been spread throughout the Protectorate concerning the movement of troops, and he seems to think that that is a good reason for an expedition. He added:—
  "I must dispose of Kano before withdrawing troops. I cannot send adequate escort Boundary Commissioners until threat of Kano is removed."
  On January 2nd the Government asked a question which, in my opinion, it ought to have asked long before. It was alleged in Liverpool, in the Press, and in that House that the difficulty with the Emir not only of Kano, but of Sokoto, had arisen through the suspension of the payment of the annual money grant which had been given by the Niger Company. The Earl of Onslow, on January 2nd, wrote to the High Commissioner stating that he should be glad to receive from him a despatch explaining generally the action he had taken with regard to the subsidies formerly paid by the Niger Company, and detailing more especially the circumstances in which he decided to suspend the subsidy to the Sultan of Sokoto. There is no answer to the Earl of Onslow's despatch, and we are left, therefore, in unhappy doubt as to the justice and the origin of this campaign. Now we come to the actual terms of the censure on the High Commissioner. The High Commissioner sent a long and somewhat indignant despatch stating that on previous occasions he had given information which clearly showed that he intended that an expedition should be sent to Kano, and he refers to four despatches from which he says the Government ought to have clearly understood his view. He gives another reason, and says:—
  "It is now the universal belief among the native chiefs that an immediate advance on Kano is intended."
  He further states that:—
  "Events have, therefore, been precipitated by the action of those opposed to us. I had hoped that this crisis might have been postponed till late in January."

  123
  Having stated his case, he was afterwards censured by the Government. In a despatch dated January 28th, the Earl of Onslow, writing to the High Commissioner, says—
  "There was nothing to indicate that you were then contemplating an expedition against Kano, but it was understood, and I think rightly, that your military preparations would be confined to taking such measures as might be necessary to ensure the safety of the Boundary Commissioners, and to guard against the possibility of hostile action on the part of the rulers Sokoto or Kano. It was, however, evident that, in consequence of the extension of the area of effective occupation to the westward as far as Bornu, it was desirable to increase the military force in Northern Nigeria, and you were informed by telegram of 20th December that His Majesty's Government were prepared to approve of your raising in 1903–4 a third battalion, 1,000 strong, in addition to the 400 mounted infantry and 500 civil police proposed by you in your despatch of the 28th August."
  It is an extraordinary fact, but that battalion and the whole of that force is paid for out of the Civil Service Estimates, and is not under the War Office, and does not come under the military expenditure of this country. Now we come to the actual terms of the censure:—
  "His Majesty's Government regret the necessity which has arisen for taking action against Kano. They think that you should have kept them more fully informed of what was passing, and that you should have given them an earlier opportunity of considering, with the knowledge which they alone possess of the general situation in other parts of the Empire, whether it was necessary to send an expedition to Kano, and whether it was expedient to do so at this time and with the force which is available."
  That is the censure with which the despatch concludes. I remember that when General Lugard was attacked for his operations in Uganda, many of us sided with him, I am not quite sure, after reading the Papers, as to whether the censure upon Sir F. Lugard is thoroughly deserved, and I am doubtful whether we ought not to censure
  124
  the Government for not having kept their eyes open to what was going on, and to what had been going on ever since that interview with Bishop Tugwell, and to the preparations with which many hon. Members were acquainted, which were known to every one in Liverpool and Manchester, and of which the Government alone seem to have been ignorant.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (): I hope the House will excuse me if I reply now to what has been said upon this question. I think the speech which the right hon. Baronet has just made ought to receive an answer at once with regard to the question of Kano. I must frankly admit, as my right hon. friend admitted upon an earlier occasion in the course of this debate, that when I answered the right hon. Baronet just at the close of the Autumn session of Parliament, I used language in reply to a supplementary Question, of which I had no notice, which I would not have used if I had been in possession of the information which came into the hands of the Government a few days later.
  The right hon. Baronet has spoken of the reports and rumours which were current in different circles at that time, and which he thought ought to have been a warning to the Government as to what was proceeding. But reports and rumours are very rife in Africa. They are often very untrustworthy, and I do not think it would be safe to answer questions basing one's answer on such rumours as might be rife. The right hon. Baronet cited the declaration of Bishop Tugwell; but that was not binding either on the High Commissioner or on the Government. I have not risen to explain my previous answer or to expand the statement of the

  125
  Prime Minister, but because the right hon. Baronet has spoken several times of the censure inflicted on Sir F. Lugard, the High Commissioner of Northern Nigeria, and the right hon. Baronet on the first occasion alluded to "the very grave and severe censure." I think if hon. Members have not read the Papers they will be altogether misled by the adjective the right hon. Baronet has used in his description of the view taken of Sir F. Lugard's conduct by the Government. That which the right hon. Gentleman describes as censure is an expression of regret in Lord Onslow's despatch of January 28. The right hon. Baronet quoted the words. The Government regretted that Sir F. Lugard had not informed them earlier as to the circumstances that were present to his mind, which the Government could only know through him, and which led him to consider the expedition justifiable and necessary. When the Government obtained the information they asked for, they agreed in the view taken by Sir F. Lugard. We have absolute confidence in his proved judgment and great experience; and I am confident the right hon. Baronet will be the last man to accuse this distinguished African administrator of such wide experience, and who has rendered such great service to this country, of rashness—of any unnecessary provocative action in the protection of the interests committed to his care.
  What are the circumstances which led Sir Frederick Lugard to consider this expedition necessary? Ever since the Anglo-French agreement for the settlement of the disputed boundary question on the West Coast, the Government have been under agreement with the French Government to send a Joint Commission for the delimitation of the frontier, the
  126
  general lines of which were already settled. That Joint Commission ought to have started, and it was intended that it should start, at once; but it was delayed, at our request, because the Government were not in a position to give the necessary protection to it during its work. The Government would have been glad not to have been obliged to have brought their relations with Kano to the present stage; they would have been glad to have waited longer in hope of a friendly solution of difficulties. But it is undesirable to have an indefinite frontier between the possessions of two great European Powers in Africa, because that position is very apt to lead to friction and unfortunate incidents, the results of which may be very serious and very much to be regretted by both of the great countries concerned. It has been necessary for the French to pass through our territory to their own, and there are circumstances that make the delimitation of the boundary necessary. The Boundary Commission had to pass behind the territory of the Emir of Kano and that of the Sultan of Sokoto, and it had to be protected during the time it passed, and had to be revictualled through Kano in the course of its operations. Sir Frederick Lugard had to make provision for these operations, and while considering these, the Emir of Kano, so far from showing any disposition to become more friendly, was making preparation for an attack upon our post at Zaria, and, on 13th December, Sir F. Lugard telegraphed—
  "Information received that Kano preparations completed for provoking war, demonstration in favour of murderer of Moloney. Safety of garrison of Zaria, prestige of British Government, possibility of delimitation of frontier depend on energetic action."
  The murderer of Moloney, a British officer, was protected by the Emir of

  127
  Kano. I think that telegram discloses very grave and sufficient reasons for the action Sir F. Lugard thought it necessary to take, and which the Government have sanctioned.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: The Government did not say so, for on 1st January they said that the expedition was not to take place.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; they did not say that it was not to take place, but they said it was not to take place until they sanctioned it. The right hon. Baronet would have been the first to criticise us if we had not acted. The right hon. Baronet said it was stated in a French paper that the Anglo-French Boundary Commission had been postponed on account of our military operations. It was not postponed on account of the military operations, but it could not be undertaken until the military operations had been brought to a successful conclusion. The right hon. Baronet said he was in grave doubt even now as to the justice of our action, and suggested that all the trouble with the Emir of Kano arose from the British Administration having failed to pay a subsidy, or subsidies, which had been paid, or were payable, by the Niger Company when it was the governing and administrating authority in that territory. There never was any such subsidy, either paid or payable, to the Emir of Kano; and, whatever questions may arise about subsidies, they do not affect our relations with Kano, and cannot be an excuse for his hostile preparations against the British Administration, or his treatment
  128
  of the representations sent to him by Sir F. Lugard. The Emir of Kano has, unfortunately, shown himself persistently hostile to the British Administration; but I am glad to say that the anticipations which Sir F. Lugard has formed, that the great mass of the people would regard us as deliverers rather than as conquerors, appear to have been justified by the results. The Haussa population and the merchants appear to have welcomed our occupation of the capital as bringing with it security and freedom of trade, and an assurance that slave-raiding and the tribute of slaves that has been paid by Kano would no longer continue.
  The only subsidy agreement with which the Government were concerned was an agreement to pay a subsidy to the Sultan of Sokoto. As to that, the Government are not in possession of full information, and we have asked Sir F. Lugard to supply the facts and give a full account of the circumstances. The Sultan of Sokoto did receive a subsidy from the Niger Company. There is reason to think that the Niger Company had already decided that they would not continue to pay that subsidy any longer to the Sultan of Sokoto when their administration ceased and passed to the British Government. We have reason to think that the Company had taken that decision on the ground of the very unsatisfactory nature of their relations with the Sultan of Sokoto. Sir F. Lugard, when the Niger Company's administration was taken over, sent a messenger to the Sultan of Sokoto to inform him of the transfer; but the Sultan of Sokoto refused to recognise the transfer in any form, and has treated all the attempts of Sir F. Lugard to open friendly relations with contumely and contempt. I do not think the right hon. Baronet would

  129
  contend that in such circumstances it would be desirable that we should pay the Sultan of Sokoto a subsidy, even if there had been good ground for such a payment. However that may be, as I have stated, the Government's information on that subject is not complete' but that cannot affect our operations at Kano or our relations with the Emir of Kano. The right hon. Baronet would make a great mistake if he supposed that the Government had in any way lost confidence in Sir F. Lugard, or if he attached a graver meaning to the expression of regret that the Government were not earlier informed of the facts that were within his knowledge, than the very simple words in which that expression of regret was couched would warrant. We retain full confidence in that most experienced administrator, and we are quite certain that he will act with all forbearance and with great discretion in dealing with the circumstances which arise in the great area under his control.
  *MR. TOMKINSON: I desire to say a word in regard to the Sugar Convention. The debate last session was confined to a single sitting, and that, I consider, was far too short a time for the discusson of so important a subject. It will be remembered that the Colonial Secretary spoke at considerable length, and had the last word on the subject. I remember that two of his chief arguments in favour of the Convention were, firstly, that the country was pledged to it in honour by reason of its agreement with foreign countries, and that to withdraw from it would be to incur the charge of mala fides; and secondly, that very great injury had been done to the sugar
  130
  refining industry of this country, and that that industry might have been an extremely large and flourishing one but for the bounties paid by foreign countries. What is the real case of the sugar refiners? It is, forsooth, that the interests of 40,000,000 of consumers, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of hands engaged in various industries, are to be imperilled and set aside by the Convention lately entered into, a Convention on which the country has not had a word to say, on which it had not a word of warning beforehand, and about which no word was said at the General Election. The people of the country are committed to it without having a word to say in the matter. Well, now, what is the case of the sugar-refining industry? The fact is, that, so far from having been crushed out and destroyed by the sugar bounties, it is, I believe, well known that it had already begun to be a declining and diminishing industry before these bounties were paid at all. It is a fact that a very large diminution in the number of sugar refineries in the country had taken place before the sugar bounties came into force. I think they had diminished 50 per cent. before the introduction of the bounties. The fact is that sugar refining is now very largely and more profitably carried on on the spot where the sugar is grown, and that the greater portion of the sugar imported into this country comes into it in a more or less refined condition. Therefore it is a mistake to say that the great decline in the sugar-refining industry is the direct consequence of the sugar bounties.
  We have become more or less accustomed to strange departures on the part of His Majesty's Government. We have

  131
  seen our system of absolutely free imports of food broken down, and a tax placed upon the bread of this country, which, however small it may be said to be, nevertheless does amount to a bonus of 4s. or 5s. per acre of wheat grown in this country. A tax on wheat of 1s. 1d. per quarter means a 4s. or 5s. bounty or bonus on every acre of wheat in this country. If that tax had been proposed in that form instead of a duty of 3d. per cwt., I wonder what the people of this country would have said of it. In this case the proposal of the Government to do away with sugar bounties is one of the strangest and most indefensible of the strange things which this Government have done. It is a fact, no doubt, that protective duties do injure our trade with foreign countries in manufactured articles, but, after all, the great rivals who impose these tariffs—France, Germany, and America—are our best customers, and take more of our manufactured goods than any other countries in the world. Then take the comparative values of the imports of sugar from the West Indies and those from other sugar-producing countries. I believe that of every 100 Ib. of sugar that come into this country only 2½ Ibs. come from the West Indies, and those colonies are already in the most favoured position in regard to five-sixths of their total exports. They have in the United States a country in which they have a free market, and which already places a countervailing duty on bounty fed sugar. As my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, it is doubtful whether we shall not be doing the West Indies considerably more harm than good by putting an end to the bounties. And, worst of all, as has been
  132
  said, we are placing our fiscal arrangements for the first time in the hands of a foreign council. Last, not least, we may be incurring the greatest difficulties with our own colonies, for we may be brought by this very convention under obligation of closing our ports against the import of sugar from Queensland and other colonies of the Empire. On all these grounds I think that we on this side of the House ought to give the strongest possible protest we can against the ratification of the treaty.
  DR. MACNAMARAthen moved the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. STEVENSONasked whether the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs had any statement to make regarding the Macedonian question.
  LORD CRANBORNE: I should be sorry if the hon. Member thought I had been discourteous towards him in not rising to answer him, but as the debate proceeded it diverged from the affairs of the office with which I am connected. I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is not a particularly appropriate moment to discuss the Macedonian question; but, if he wishes to take further opportunity of raising the subject, I will do my best to give him an answer.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Dr. Macnamara).
  Put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.
  Adjourned at ten minutes after
  Eleven o'clock.

THE KING'S SPEECH.
THE KING, being seated on the Throne, and the Commons being at the Bar with their Speaker, His Majesty was pleased to make a most gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, and then retired.
His Majesty's Speech was as follows—
"My Lords and Gentlemen,
"My relations with all the Foreign Powers continue to be friendly.
"The blockade of Venezuelan ports, rendered necessary by outrages on the British flag and wrongs inflicted on the persons and property of British subjects by the Venezuelan Government, has led to negotiations for the adjustment of all the matters in dispute. I rejoice that a settlement has now been arrived at which has justified the blockading Powers in bringing all hostile naval operations to an immediate close. Papers on the subject have been laid before you.
"Negotiations have taken place for the adjustment of the questions which
2
have arisen with regard to the boundary between My possessions in North America and the territory of Alaska. A treaty providing for the reference of these questions to an Arbitral Tribunal has been signed and ratified.
"The condition of the European provinces of Turkey gives cause for serious anxiety. I have used My best efforts to impress upon the Sultan and his Ministers the urgent need for practical and well-considered measures of reform. The Governments of Austria-Hungary and Russia have had under their consideration what reforms it would be desirable that the Powers who were parties to the Treaty of Berlin should recommend to the Sultan for immediate adoption. I trust that the proposals made will prove to be sufficient for the purpose, and that I shall find it possible to give them My hearty support. Papers on the subject will be laid before you.
"I regret that the efforts which My Government have been making to arrive at a joint delimitation with the Turkish Government of the boundaries of the tribal country adjoining Aden have hitherto failed to bring about a settlement. Negotiations upon this subject are being urgently pressed forward.
"A body of My troops, including a small corps of mounted infantry raised from the inhabitants of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, has been disembarked at Obbia, in Italian Somaliland, to operate against the Mullah Abdullah, and an advance inland is about to be made. The co-operation of the Italian Government in this undertaking has been most cordial, and I trust that as a result of these operations the tribes of both Protectorates may be secured from further molestation.
"The progress of events in South Africa has been satisfactory. The visit of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to that portion of My dominions has already been productive of the happiest results; and the opportunity which it has provided for personal conference with Lord Milner, with the Ministers of the self-governing Colonies, and with the representatives of all interests and opinions, has greatly conduced to the smooth adjustment of many difficult questions, and to the removal of many occasions of misunderstanding.
"It has been found necessary to send an expedition to Kano in consequence of the hostile action of the Emir of that place. My troops have successfully occupied his capital, and I trust that it will now become possible to proceed in safety with the delimitation of the boundary between My territory of Northern Nigeria and the adjoining possessions of the French Republic. Papers upon this subject will at once be presented.
"My succession to the Imperial Crown of India has been proclaimed and celebrated in an assembly of unexampled splendour at Delhi. I there received from the feudatory Princes and Chiefs, and from all classes of the peoples within My Indian dominions, gratifying marks of their loyalty and devotion to My Throne and family. I am glad to be able to state that this imposing ceremony has coincided, in point of time, with the disappearance of drought and agricultural distress in Western India, and that the prospects both of agriculture and commerce throughout My Indian Empire are more encouraging and satisfactory than they have been for some years past.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"The Estimates for the coming year will be laid before you. Although they
4
have been framed with due regard to economy, the needs of the Country and of the Empire make a large expenditure inevitable.
"My Lords and Gentlemen,
"A Bill will be laid before you which will, I trust, complete the series of measures which have already done much to substitute single ownership for the costly and unsatisfactory conditions still attaching to the Tenure of Agricultural Land over a large portion of Ireland.
"Proposals will be submitted to you for completing the scheme of Educational Reform passed last session by extending and adapting it to the Metropolitan area.
"Measures will be introduced for the purpose of carrying into effect engagements arising out of the Convention for the Abolition of Bounties on Sugar which has recently been ratified at Brussels; and for guaranteeing a Loan to be raised for the Development of My new Colonies in South Africa.
"A Bill will be laid before you for Improving the Administration of the Port and Docks of London, the condition of which is a matter of National concern.
"A measure Amending and Consolidating the Licensing Laws in Scotland is greatly desired in that country, and I trust will pass into Law.
"Measures will also be proposed to you for Improving the Law of Valuation and Assessment; for Regulating the Employment of Children; for dealing with the Sale of Adulterated Dairy Produce; for Amending the Law relating to Savings Banks; and for Reconstituting the Royal Patriotic Fund Commission.
"I pray that the guidance and blessing of Almighty God may direct all your labours."

NEW PEERS INTRODUCED.
Randall, Thomas, Lord Arch bishop of Canterbury was (in the usual manner) introduced.
John, Lord Bishop of St. Davids, was (in the usual manner) introduced.

The Lord Acton sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
ROLL OF THE LORDS.
Norroy King of Arms attending, delivered at the Table (in the usual manner) a List of the Lords Temporal in the Fourth Session of the Twenty-seventh Parliament of the United Kingdom; the same was ordered to lie on the Table.
SELECT VESTRIES.
Bill, pro formâ, read 1a.

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
THE DUKE OF ROXBURGHE: My Lords, I rise to move that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne. In doing so I avail myself of the ancient tradition of your Lordships' House, which allows this task to be undertaken by even the least accomplished of its Members. I fully realise the difficulties of my position, but gain encouragement when I remember that this duty has been performed under similar circumstances by many noble Lords, who will readily grant me that indulgence which they received in their time. We are assured that our relations with foreign Powers are friendly. This is a familiar term, but none the less comforting in view of the Venezuela difficulty. This difficulty arose owing to the outrages committed on British subjects and British shipping, which rendered it necessary that His Majesty's Government should seek satisfaction and demand a guarantee against a continuance of this state of affairs. To this end the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when approached by the German Ambassador, whose country had similar causes of complaint, informed him that His Majesty's Government were prepared to take joint action until the claims of both countries had been satisfied. This very natural course has been most
6
severely criticised, and somewhat inaccurately described as a debt. collecting process. It has further been stated that our action was likely to jeopardise our hitherto very friendly relations with the United States. No one can value more highly than His Majesty's Government the friendship of the Government and people of the United States of America; but the friendship of a people so intelligent and so practical is not likely to be secured by an attitude which would appear to indicate on our part any desire to obtain it by unworthy concessions, or by any indifference to the just claims of our own people. I feel confident that they will not regard with unfriendly eyes our efforts to secure for British subjects that justice and redress which they would demand for their own citizens.
The question of the Alaskan boundary is one of great complexity, depending as it does upon the interpretation of a treaty couched in somewhat ambiguous terms, and concluded more than seventy years ago, when the geographical features of that country were very little known. It has, however, of late assumed a more prominent position owing to the discovery of gold in Klondyke, and any steps towards the settlement of a question which might have involved us in serious difficulty with the United States must be welcomed by both countries.
The condition of the European provinces of Turkey has for the last two years given increased cause for anxiety, both on political and humanitarian grounds. It is, nevertheless, satisfactory to note that the great Powers, and especially those two which, on account of their geographical position, are most closely interested and best able to exercise influence in the region of the Balkan States, should have devoted themselves seriously to the task of promoting a better condition of affairs in these sorely-tried districts. I feel confident that His Majesty's Government will render freely every assistance towards the promotion of any well-considered measures for this purpose.
We must all rejoice that in the military measures which we have been forced to take for the security of our Protectorate in Somaliland we have been working in complete accord with the Govern-

7
ment of Italy. The interests of the two nations in that region are identical, and it is earnestly to be hoped that our cooperation there may tend to still further prolong that friendly feeling which so happily exists.
Reference has been made in the gracious Speech from the Throne to the mission of the Colonial Secretary, undertaken with a view of bringing about, at the earliest moment, the reconciliation and union of the Dutch and English races, with due consideration to the interests of the coloured people. The immediate outcome of the right hon. Gentleman's arrival in Natal was the voluntary surrender by that colony of all claim to compensation for losses sustained during the war. As your Lordships will remember, these were heavy, and amounted in all to £2,000,00. Surely this is no mean sacrifice. Proceeding to the Transvaal, the Colonial Secretary discussed with the leading representatives of the mining interest what sum they would willingly undertake to contribute as their share towards the cost of the war. This sum was fixed at £30,000,000, payable in three years, but in return, a guarantee was requested for £35,000,000 to be applied to existing obligations and to the further development of the country. In Cape Colony the Colonial Secretary addressed many meetings, warning Cape politicians of the danger they incurred by allowing the loyalty of their colony to be doubted. The main objects of his mission have already been attained, and the Boers are convinced that not even their natural pertinacity will extract further concessions from Great Britain, whose earnest desire is to welcome them as new partners of the Empire, to protect them in the enjoyment of religious and civil liberty, and to develop the vast resources of their country.
The celebration of the succession of His Majesty to the Imperial Crown of India has been remarkable, not only for the brilliancy of its ceremonies and pageants, but even more so for the cordiality and unanimity with which the Chiefs and Princes of India, and, indeed, all races in that country, have availed themselves of the opportunity of expressing their loyalty to the British Crown, and their gratitude for the benefits they
8
derive from British rule. It is also most satisfying to note that the occasion of these celebrations has been marked by the expression of a confident hope on the part of the Indian Government that they may shortly be able to somewhat alleviate the burden of taxation in that country.
His Majesty's Speech makes mention of a Bill for extending and adapting to the Metropolitan area the scheme of educational reform passed last session. It is a matter for congratulation that, notwithstanding the bitter differences of opinion and somewhat acute controversies which marked the discussions on the Education Bill last session, the new authorities, whether county or municipal councils, are prepared to assume the duties assigned to them in that Act in a loyal and patriotic spirit. The peculiar conditions of the Metropolis, which as to local government differ so materially from those which prevail both in our counties and large towns, render the education problem in London one of no small difficulty. It is earnestly to be hoped that it may not be rendered more difficult by a revival of those controversial discussions which somewhat protracted your Lordships' proceedings last year, but that Members may be prepared to accept the principles of the present Act as having been settled, at least for the moment. I thank your Lordships for the gracious hearing you have accorded me, and beg to move.
*THE EARL OF LEITRIM: My Lords, in rising to second the Address I must ask your Lordships to grant me a full measure of that kind consideration which you have always extended to those who have the privilege of addressing you for the first time. Not wishing to traverse the ground so well covered by the noble Duke, I will at once pass to that portion of the gracious Speech from the Throne referring to the question of land purchase in Ireland. The system of land tenure in Ireland—practically that of dual ownership—having been found to lead to litigation, confusion, and inconvenience almost amounting to impracticability, His Majesty's Government is desirous of bringing forward a large and comprehensive measure, sufficiently large to cover the primary object of turning judicial tenants into occupying owners, and especially adapted to meet,

9
as they may arise, the many difficulties which such an operation will entail, and a measure, moreover, which can be expected to accomplish this without protracted delay. It must be a source of satisfaction to your Lordships to know that under the present procedure 80,000 tenants have already purchased their holdings, and that the result has proved a success. But the operation cannot be arrested at this juncture, and further steps are required to terminate the perpetual litigation caused by dual ownership.
Neither landlords not tenants can be expected to expend either their capital or their labour for the improvement of agriculture when every fifteen years it has to be decided in a court of law, by State-paid officials, what return they are to have for doing so, and the country cannot prosper when men's minds are concentrated on a judicial war. The landlords of Ireland yield to none in their love for their country and in the desire that she should prosper and be part and parcel of this great Empire: rejoicing to concur loyally in what is best for her welfare, so long, as it does not mean placing them in such circumstances as would necessitate their leaving that country; so long, as it does not mean injustice. As, however, it has been found desirable to put an end to dual ownerships, it is equally desirable to so effect the change that it may enable those, who have ever been loyal to their Sovereign and their country, to live among and promote the welfare of their own people, with whom, in spite of the adverse circumstances of landtenure, their relations as landlord and tenant have been in several instances of so cordial a nature. It would be wrong of me as an Irishman to neglect to call your Lordships' attention to the tendencey which exists among Irish farmers of subdividing their already small holdings, an evil which the landlords up to now have done all in their power to prevent, and which, in the event of the tenant purchasing his holding, is guarded against until such time as the entire sum of the purchase money shall have been paid, after which date there is no guarantee that a tenant will not sub-divide his holding. Doubtless His Majesty's able Chief Secretary for Ireland will give this matter his consideration.
10
I should like to dwell for a few moments on other interests besides that of land tenure which are occupying the hearts of Irishmen. Industries have been established throughout the country, and the spirit of co-operation for furthering the interests of trade is increasing. From the North and West a debt of gratitude is due for the grant to be expended under the Marine Works Act. This will go far to promote not only the large fisheries instituted there, but also the use of small trading steamers for the conveyance of the produce of the country to the markets of Great Britain, which has proved so successful in other parts. There is also another large opening for the North-west as being specially adapted for inter-communication with America, from which such great benefits can be anticipated. It is these and similar objects, which tend to advance the commercial prosperity of the Empire, that all Irishmen, whatever their political opinions, should have at heart.
There is another Bill mentioned in the gracious Speech to which I should like to refer—namely, that dealing with the Post and Docks of London. That is a question of the most intricate nature, and of vital importance to the commerce of the nation. We may hope that a public trust may be formed with such powers as will enable it to deal with the necessary duties entailed by the vast increase of our trade, and to be responsible for the policy of the river, but, at the same time, to steer clear of all matters connected with private enterprise.
I think the remaining points in the gracious Speech from the Throne require no further comment from me. But, in conclusion, I should like to return to the subject of my fellow countrymen, and to recall to your Lordships' memories the gallant behaviour of the Irish troops in South Africa, which called forth such a spontaneous mark of sympathy and approval from our late beloved Sovereign—so much so that one of the last great acts of her long and glorious reign was to visit their country, where a welcome awaited her such as only Irishmen know how to give; and if the proposed welcome visit of His Most Gracious Majesty to Ireland were to become an accomplished fact, it would go far to bring into closer touch the sincerely loyal hearts of my countrymen with the Throne and the

11
Empire at large. I thank your Lordships for the kind forbearance with which you have listened to my remarks, and beg to second the Address.
Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne."—(Duke of Roxburghe.)
*EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I have to congratulate the noble Lords who were entrusted with the duty of opening the first debate in your Lordships' House in the present session. I can do so with perfect sincerity. We always listen with pleasure to those who for the first time address this House. We do so because, often, we know them personally, or because, more often in the case of older men like myself, we have known their predecessors, and always because we welcome the introduction of fresh blood in our debates. I think your Lordships will agree with me that the noble Duke and the noble Earl acquitted themselves with exceeding good taste and exceeding ability. I would only make this one criticism, that they were too brief in what they said. Their remarks were full of good sense and of admirable quality, and they might have continued them at greater length. One of the noble Lords represents the northern part of Great Britain, and we welcome him here. The other represents the sister kingdom of Ireland, with which I for one have been so much connected. That country has been, and is, strongly represented in this House, and I think its representatives will welcome the addition to their ranks of one who has such large interests in that country and its welfare so much at heart.
It will be my duty to touch on various parts of the gracious Speech from the Throne, but I hope I shall not exceed the limits of such an occasion as the present one. The first remark I have to make is upon a matter of very great importance. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has, on more than one occasion, in answer to Questions which I have addressed to him, dilated upon our relations with Russia and China, and also upon affairs in the Far East. It is of good augury that no reference is made either to China or to Russia in His Majesty's Speech. I trust
12
from that that the information which is at the disposal of the Foreign Office is satisfactory in this respect, and that our relations with Russia and with all the Powers interested in the Far East are eminently satisfactory.
Now, my Lords, I come to a question which for some months past has been occupying most deeply the attention of the nation. I refer to Venezuela. I rejoice with the noble Duke who referred to the settlement of that question. But why has it been such a matter of anxiety? For two reasons, which I shall shortly give. We in this country are very jealous now of anything that might disturb our good relations with the United States of America. We felt that a subject like this might involve great questions between us and that Republic, and we were very anxious that we should not in any way diminish the good feeling which, happily, has sprung up within the last few years between that country and ourselves. There was also a fear that we might, by co-operating with another Power, be led into considerable difficulty. Now, with regard to that, I at once say that, though I know there has been considerable ill-feeling in Germany and in this country against one another, I for one would hail with joy and satisfaction anything which would bring about a better feeling between this country and Germany. Therefore, in the remarks which I make I am not going to say anything that might detract from the good feeling which, I hope, now exists between us. But I must make some criticisms upon these proceedings, because, in my opinion, there are questions upon modes of operations which might lead in future to considerable difficulties. I shall pass over the first cause for which we had to seek reparation from Venezuela. I imagine there are few people in this country who will criticise His Majesty's Government for taking steps to get reparation for certain outrages on ships and on British subjects by that Power. We all agree that that was necessary. But we have some doubt whether joint action in these matters may not, unless very carefully guarded, bring about very disastrous results. In my opinion, His Majesty's Government have been backward in one respect, and that in that respect they have committed

13
an error which to a great extent intensified the anxiety which existed. They have not early enough put us into possession of all the despatches and all the communications which have been made between them and the two Powers. First of all there is the communication with the United States. It was of the utmost importance that we should know that we had a through and complete understanding with that Power before we entered upon these proceedings. Then, with regard to the co-operation with Germany, there are some very important considerations to be kept in view.
It strikes me as an exceedingly difficult thing for two countries to co-operate to make claims—both from their own point of view—on a particular country, and unite absolutely in getting reparation. First of all, there is this point. Have we exactly the same claim to make as the other country? If two countries act together and demand reparation for injuries done to them, each country must know thoroughly what the other country is demanding. It may be that one country may demand things from the Power that has been offending them which the other Power could not possibly give. The last despatches which have been laid before your Lordships may show this, but we do not see clearly how this has been defined and arranged between the two Powers. I must complain of this—I do not say it is the fault of His Majesty's Government—that we only have the later Papers on this subject put into our hands at the very last moment. I certainly found that a friend of mine in the House of Commons had them, but I only found that out when it was too late to refer to them effectually. The actual Papers only came into my hands when I came into your Lordships' House. That puts a great difficulty in our way in considering this question; and I hope some steps will be taken, when important matters of this sort are brought forward, that your Lordships may have the whole information which is given by the Government speedily and in proper time before they have to take up the matter for consideration.
Now, my Lords, with regard to this, I should rather like to ask certain questions. I understand that reparation has often been asked, and has been asked in this case, for injuries done to ships, or property, or the persons of British sub-
14
jects; but on no former occasion, so far as I know, has any reparation been asked for deficiencies in payment by public bonds or railways in a foreign country. I am very doubtful as to how we stand in regard to this. So far as I know, during the last session, in another place, it was always stated that no demands were made on Venezuela for non-payment of bonds, or other matters of that kind. Well, in the Papers which have now been submitted to us I find, as far as I can understand, that is not the case; that we have been demanding, with the Germans, certain payments with regard to the railway bonds of Venezuela. In that respect there is, I conceive, a new departure in the foreign policy of this country. Have we ever sought to recover bad debts for private individuals who may have embarked their capital in consideration of high interest in Venezuela?
I should like to make another remark upon this, although there has been some new light thrown upon it in the despatches issued today—I am surprised that His Majesty's Government did not press earlier for the reference of this dispute to The Hague tribunal. So far as I can make out now the settlement is tripartite. The President consents to pay down certain sums to the two countries for certain claims; for certain other claims there is a mixed commission to be appointed, with an umpire to be appointed by the President of the United States; and, thirdly, there is the reference to The Hague tribunal. I should like to ask, considering the importance of the institution of The Hague tribunal, and the desirability of submitting to it every case that can be submitted by a country without sacrificing national honour—why an earlier reference to The Hague tribunal was not made in this case. I readily admit, and agree, that now certain matters have been referred to that tribunal; but in my view it seems most unfortunate that this was not done at an earlier date. In that case, as I think the noble Marquess states in one of his despatches, a much earlier deliverance from the blockade could have been brought about, and all the dangers and bitterness, and the results of force being used, would have been removed. I merely wish to ask these specific

15
questions of His Majesty's Government, which seem to me of some importance. I repeat that I rejoice exceedingly that this dispute, arising, no doubt, out of just grounds, but really amounting to a very small affair—through it might have given rise to very serious difficulties between us and other countries—has been successfully brought to an end. I sincerely hope that that settlement will be entirely satisfactory, and that it will tend to good feeling being established between this country, Germany, and the United States.
The next point is one on which I can heartily congratulate His Majesty's Government. We know that for many years there have been grave difficulties from time to time with regard to a very difficult question—namely, the boundaries between Alaska and Canada. I need not go into the history of the past; but attempts have been made more than once to come to a satisfactory settlement about that; and I rejoice. to see that, at all events, the United States and this country have now agreed upon referring this question to a Commission. I sincerely trust that that Commission will be able satisfactorily to dispose of this matter, which might raise great difficulty between ourselves and our American cousins. I next see an allusion in the Speech from the Throne to a matter which in years gone by has caused wars and the greatest difficulties in Europe—I refer to the question of Macedonia. I notice that His Majesty's Government promise that Papers will be laid before us. We have had at present very little information about it. At the same time, those who are interested in foreign affairs have probably had before them public Papers from other Governments which throw a great deal of light upon this subject. There is a very interesting Yellow-book which has been issued by the French Government. Anybody who has studied that book will see that a very grave and serious position of affairs has arisen in Macedonia. I am not surprised, after reading that book, to find these words put into His Majesty's mouth—
"The condition of the European provinces of Turkey gives cause for serious anxiety."
My Lords, if you have read these Papers you will have seen that there is abroad in Macedonia a feeling of unrest
16
and dissatisfaction, and a feeling of acute grievance existing, which has not existed to so large an extent for many years past. There have been risings, and lives have been lost in skirmishes between the Turkish constabulary and the rebels. There has been a great disturbance of feeling caused in Bulgaria, where so many people from Macedonia go, and where the interests of Macedonia are very much felt. There are also evidences of a large collection of forces on the part of the Sultan, and also on the part of the Bulgarians. It seems to me there is all the evidence that these Powers consider that a very grave state of things may arise, and that force may have to be resorted to for the quieting of these districts. Anyone who has any interests in these matters, who considers what the Government of Turkey is, will be in despair as to the way in which Turkey fulfils, not only its obligations under such engagements as the Berlin Treaty, but its other engagements as to good governments which it ought to maintain. We hear the news, which seems to be confirmed, that two of the Great Powers, Russia and Austria-Hungary, have made proposals to Turkey with the view to putting an end to the troubles of those unfortunate people who are under Turkish rule in that part of the Turkish Empire. I regard with some satisfaction the indications which are given that His Majesty's Government are inclined to foster the representations of those two Powers. But what the Government say in the Speech from the Throne does not, I must say, inspire me with great hopes; but I sincerely trust that His Majesty's Government will do their very utmost to support those two great Powers, and try as far as they can to moderate and improve the existing state of things in that part of the world.
The next point to which I wish to refer in a very few words is the expedition, which, I regret, is still going on, or is about to take palce—I hardly know which— in Somaliland. We know very little about the business. All we know is that a certain Mullah exercises great power there, and that we intend to attack him and to destroy his power. But, unfortunately, it appears that the Government, or those responsible in that district, did not sufficiently gauge the power of that man, and that an insufficient force was sent out to cope with him, so that we

17
suffered something like what, I am sorry to say, was a reverse. I need say no more; but we should like to know what the present position may lead to. It was not long ago that the Prime Minister made a speech at Liverpool, and he referred to this subject, using words which I cannot help thinking are, or may be, ominous. Among other things he said, after referring to the loss of life and comparing the expedition with another, that the result of the present expedition might be very far-reaching. Those were, I think, his words. But what was the meaning of the words? Are we going to occupy any vast tract of desert? Are we going to employ our forces, many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of miles in the interior of a wild country of very great extent, and are we going to occupy and hold that country, of which we know very little? I think Parliament has some right and some reason to ask what we are doing there and what we intend to do.
I now come to the more pleasing question of South Africa and the speeches made there by the Colonial Secretary. Now, I should like to say this at once, that personally I do not think it a desirable thing if the heads of our great offices were to become travelling secretaries and were to be continually going to and fro gathering such information as they could in distant parts of the world. At the same time, there are exceptions to the rule I suggest; and we have had a notable instance within our recollection. The last instance, I think, was when the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) whom I am glad to see in the House tonight, and the Prime Minister of that day, went to Berlin and took part in an important conference there. But, as I have said, I cannot approve of those who are responsible to the nation for the conduct of affairs continually leaving the country and taking such a part in affairs as may seriously interfere with the responsibilities of those who are the governors and managers of affairs of distant countries. But, having said that, I wish at once to add that this is a very exceptional case. We had just concluded a great war, and the country was beyond doubt in a very difficult condition. There were conflicting questions of finance and questions as to labour and other matters which had to be settled; and I confess that I admire the energy, the will, and the ability of the Colonial Secretary in his endeavours
18
to bring things to a happy conclusion. Whatever the Party to which we belong—and the Party that I belong to have never admired the policy of the Government or of the Colonial Secretary in South Africa—we all sincerely desire the success of the efforts of the Colonial Secretary to bring about an agreement between the rival races there, and so arrive at a happy solution of the existing difficulties, and so bring about what we all desire—good government in South Africa. It is not possible for us to go into the questions which have been before the Secretary of State during his journey; we only know what has been done through the newspaper reports. We have no official Papers with regard to what has been done by the Colonial Secretary in South Africa, and it requires consideration and time before we can take a full view of the subject. No doubt it may well be that it will be necessary for Parliament to take these matters into consideration when they come fully before us, and I hope that the Papers will be very full.
I come now to the next subject—the occupation of Kano. Well, we know that this apparently large town has been occupied; but we know little beyond that. I may express the hope, however, that we shall have no more trouble with the tribes in that district, or any difficulties—African or European. Now I come to the latter part of the gracious Speech of His Majesty, in which we are told of those measures which the Government are going to bring before Parliament this session. I notice, first, the reference to Ireland. There is a statement in the gracious Speech that the Government intend to deal with the land question in that country. I have been intimately connected for many years with that subject, and I know it is a difficult one. It appears to me that His Majesty's Government have great courage, and are exceedingly sanguine in what they say with regard to that subject.
The question of Irish land has been before Parliament for many years—for forty or fifty years. Government after Government have tried their hands at it, and they thought they might go a good way toward a final settlement of it—but they have never succeeded in this. I fully agree as to the enormous importance of this question being settled, and I hope that the Government are not taking too sanguine a view when they say that they

19
hope their Bill will make a final settlement. I have noticed with some satisfaction what has taken place recently in Ireland on this question, but I do not know enough to formulate any definite opinion. I cannot say whether the proposal to which the noble Earl who presided over the conference of owners and occupiers of land in Ireland has given his assent should be accepted; but it is a matter of great importance that two parties who have been for so many years in antagonism should be able to come together and to discuss a question of this enormous magnitude in an amicable manner, and come to what appears to be a satisfactory conclusion. I shall not go into the question at greater length now; but I need hardly say that if on sound financial and political grounds we can approve of the Bill of the Government we shall be glad to do so, and so remove one of the great difficulties of recent years.
The noble Duke referred to another matter—the question of the Education Bill for London, and he expressed a hope with regard to that Bill. I am afraid in that the noble Duke was a little too sanguine. I have always said that it was the duty of those connected with educational and local bodies to do all they could to work out the principles of the Act of last year within the Act, and not try to force changes not to be found in the Act. At the same time, I maintain the strongest feelings of opposition to many of the principles contained in the Act of last year, and at every legitimate opportunity—at elections and in Parliament—I shall endeavour, and the Party of which I belong will. I believe, do the same, to carry out our views and effect a modification of that Act. Feeling this, I cannot concur in the opinion that because local authorities are doing their duty, and trying to work, as smoothly as they can, the Education Act of last year, we should abstain from opposition to those principles when the London Bill is brought forward. As the noble Duke has said, the position of London is exceptional from its enormous extent and its local conditions, so different from those of other great communities in relation to education matters. No doubt London must be treated in a somewhat different way from that in which other localities have
20
been treated. But, at the same time, without going into the matter now, I maintain that the great principles which our Party advocated last year still hold the field; and we shall endeavour to have those principles carried out in dealing with the great Metropolis. We shall certainly not tamely submit to the imposition upon London of those conditions in regard to education which we strongly resisted last year when they were applied to the rest of the country.
I come now to another topic, which I consider of great moment, and that is the Convention for the Abolition of Sugar Bounties, lately ratified. We had but a short discussion on the subject in this House before the ratification, though in the other House there was a long debate and a division. Now, I should like to know what has taken place since the ratification. According to the treaty, His Majesty's Government were, if not bound to offer their good offices, bound to bring the Convention before our self-governing colonies with the hope that they would follow the lead of the mother country and do away with bounties. I should like very much to know whether His Majesty's Government have communicated with the self-governing colonies and received answers from them. I would go further, and call attention to what has been said abroad in various Assemblies in regard to this very important matter. What are His Majesty's Government prepared to do in case the Brussels Commission declares that certain of our colonies give direct or indirect bounties? Of course, so far as I know, it is perfectly clear a good many do this; and what will His Majesty's Government do in that respect? Will this country impose countervailing duties against its own colonies? This matter has been referred to in various ways; it has been referred to in Berlin, it has been referred to at The Hague, and there have been many comments made. I saw in a newspaper, not long ago, a report that the Dutch Government agreed with Germany and Austria that Great Britain was bound to take this course. Some papers say it was made the subject of a proviso that Great Britain would not penalise her bounty-giving colonies. The German Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated in the Reichstag that, while holding the

21
British Government bound as above stated, the European Powers had held the question over until after the ratification, because it would then be decided by the Brussels Convention, on which Great Britain would only have one representative. It was incidentally remarked that the "lion's tail was trodden upon." This is an important matter, upon which I think we are entitled to ask for information. I have in my hand papers from the West Indies which show that those colonies are waking up to the fact that, instead of doing them good, the Convention will almost destroy their trade in sugar. The colonists are up in arms and say, "We are Crown colonies, forced to do without bounties, direct or indirect, and at the same time self-governing colonies are going on just as they were." This is an important matter, and I press it in the hope of getting an answer tonight.
There are other portions of His Majesty's Speech I might refer to, such as the London port and dock proposals and the improvement in the law of valuation and assessment, and as to the latter I should like to know what it means. It might be a very far-reaching measure, or it might go a very short way. I have on a previous occasion spoken of the interest taken in the proceedings of the Commission presided over by the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland, and I hardly think the Government will have the courage to go to the extent of the report of that Commission. Having touched upon these matters referred to in His Majesty's Speech, I feel it my duty to mention one subject which has been omitted, although I might allude to several others. There is no mention whatever of what His Majesty's Government intend to do in regard to reform and reorganisation of the Army. There is a very deep feeling throughout the country upon this subject. A plan was put forward and met with much criticism, a plan copied from foreign models and not adapted to our requirements, a plan for the establishment of army corps all over the country. That plan was an exceedingly expensive one, and in the opinion of many would not fulfil the requirements for our Army. As I understand, the organisation exists on paper only; generals have been appointed
22
to divisions, and even to army corps, and have no soldiers, or very few, under their command. This is a very serious matter, this question of army organisation; and I think we should know what has taken place and what His Majesty's Government intend to do. Of course we have gained a great deal of knowledge and experience from the late war, and the Commission presided over by Lord Elgin ought to provide very valuable assistance. Unfortunately, the country knows very little of the proceedings of that Commission, for they have practically been conducted in secret, and we do not know the nature of the evidence given. I hope the Government will, if not tonight, then at an early date, make some statement on the subject. It is without doubt a matter in which the country takes the deepest interest. We require an army for general purposes, a regular army as efficient as it can possibly be made in the various arms, an army not on an extravagant scale. At the same time, we require a defensive army for the country in case of invasion. I cannot say more on the subject tonight, and conclude, expressing the hope that full information will be forthcoming.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duck of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I must express my entire and cordial concurrence with the well-merited tribute paid to the ability and good taste with which the difficult, and I am afraid sometimes thankless, task of moving and seconding the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne has been discharged by my two noble friends. The noble Earl has remarked upon the brevity of their speeches. Both my noble friends are fortunately extremely young men; and I admit that it is quite possible that had the duty been placed in the hands of more experienced Members of the House the topics adverted to in the Speech might have been touched upon at greater length and with less diffidence than has been exhibited by my two noble friends. But I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is a very great advantage that men occupying hereditary positions in this House, and who have before them, both in this House and in the country, large opportunities of devoting themselves to political and other work, should as early as possible be introduced to the performance of public duties. I am quite certain

23
that the speeches of my two noble friends will leave no doubt in our minds that they will in future prove valuable and useful Members of this assembly. The noble Earl made something in the nature of a complaint about the multiplicity of topics adverted to in the Speech from the Throne. I do not think he has shown that any of those subjects were superfluous. If the Speech is, as I admit it is, a long one, I think, on the other hand, I may claim for it the merit that it has presented the topics referred to in a manner as little provocative or controversial as possible. I am bound to say, also, that in the observations which the noble Earl has made on the Speech he has done nothing to import any elements of controversy into this debate which are not provided in the Speech itself.
The noble Earl touched, in the first place, upon the question of the Venezuelan negotiations; and he did no more than I expected from him in offering to the Houses of Parliament and the Government his congratulations on the result of those negotiations, so far as they have yet proceeded. Your Lordships will have observed that the cautious and moderate tone of the Speech, which I think I can claim for almost every paragraph, is to be found in the paragraph relating to Venezuela. The noble Earl used some expressions which led me to think that he was under the impression that these negotiations were still more completely concluded than they are actually. I think he used the expression that the negotiations had resulted in the settlement of all matters in dispute.
*EARL SPENCER: I did not go quite so far as that. I said, with the exception of certain matters which were referred to the Court at The Hague.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: That would certainly have been a statement going beyond the facts of the case. There are matters which still have to be referred to arbitration; and it is impossible to say that, even with the assistance of a court of arbitration, questions of controversy may not yet arise between us and other Powers who have been concerned in these negotiations. All that the paragraph asserts—and that is, I think, quite sufficient ground for congratulation — is that the negotiations have proceeded to such a point as to
24
enable us and the other Powers concerned to give orders to raise the blockade and bring all measures involving the use of force to an immediate conclusion. Therefore, that eliminates, although it may not be an absolute settlement, all those elements which formerly contained possibilities of danger. It cannot be denied that these proceedings have involved certain elements of risk and danger. It could not well be otherwise when several great Powers have found it necessary to make claims, not only of a pecuniary character, but also of a moral character, affecting the honour and interests, and even the lives and safety, of their subjects, upon a small State which, for reasons with which we are all familiar, does not possess at the present moment a Government of a very responsible character. And all these elements of danger were not removed by the fact that the proceedings of these States were known, were watched with intense interest—I will not say jealousy—were rightly watched with the closest attention by the Government of another great State, the United States, who were properly jealous of any interference on the part of European Powers with the affairs of any American State. That these negotiations should have been brought to the satisfactory point to which they have now been brought, without any serious consequences to the good relations of any of the Powers involved, says, I think, a great deal for the moderate temper of all parties concerned; and I think it says something also for the skill and prudence of those diplomatists who have conducted these negotiations.
The noble Earl complained that this correspondence has not been presented at an earlier period, and I think he said that the anxiety of the country would have been less if at an earlier period we had had a fuller knowledge of the communications which had passed between our Government and that of the United States. It will be found that the Papers which have been laid on the Table today contain much information, not only of what has taken place since Parliament was prorogued, but also a considerable amount of information as to the previous negotiations, which it was impossible to give at an earlier time. The noble Earl must remember that it is the invariable

25
practice of all Governments before making public any despatches relating to such negotiations to consult the Governments concerned as to whether they have any objection to the publication of those Papers in the form proposed; and it was impossible before the prorogation of Parliament to obtain the consent of all the other Powers to the publication of the Papers which the noble Earl complains were not published at an earlier period. I think, considering the short time which the noble Earl has had to study these Papers, he has displayed a most remarkable acquaintance with some of their contents. But I can hardly imagine that even he himself is satisfied that he has so thoroughly mastered their sense that it may not be necessary for him to refer to them at some future period; and I think that any debate upon the manner in which this case has been conducted had much better be postponed until your Lordships have had the opportunity of fully digesting the contents of this Blue-book, and until my noble friend the Foreign Secretary is in a position to make a full statement upon the subject.
It is extremely easy to say, as some have said, that this matter was never worth the trouble and risk which have been incurred, that it would have been far better to leave the matter alone, and that we should have taken no steps to enforce the claims which we have so repeatedly made, the greater part of which are for extremely small amounts, but which have been utterly ignored and disregarded by the Venezuelan Government. I think that in a matter of this sort such a policy would have been extremely shortsighted, and that such conduct on our part would have proved in the end most unsatisfactory, not only to ourselves, but also to the Government of the United States. Accepting as we do fully and unreservedly the Monroe doctrine, to which the Government and the people of the United States attach so great importance, I cannot conceive that anything could have had a greater tendency to lessen the force and acceptance of the Monroe doctrine by the European Powers than any endeavour to import into that doctrine consequences and principles which have never been claimed for it by its authors. Rightly or not, wisely or unwisely, probably wisely and rightly, the Government of the United States has
26
never accepted any responsibility for the acts of the Republics established in South America; and if, in deference to supposed, and I believe erroneously supposed, susceptibilities on the part of the Government of the United States, we, or other Powers of Europe, were to abstain from enforcing claims which we believe to be just and essential to the maintenance of our own honour, and the protection of our own subjects, such a course would make the Monroe doctrine an object of dislike and opposition to every civilised Power in the world. I believe this view is taken, or at all events will be taken, by the great majority of the people of the United States themselves. The people of the United States are very far from being children; they are men of a most practical character, fully aware of, and alive to, the consequences of their own acts; and I do not believe that there can be a better way of acquiring their confidence than that we should meet them in that spirit, and treat them as a people who are fully aware of the consequences of their own actions, who are prepared to assert their own rights, and not to be deterred from that assertion by any supposed fancies or susceptibilities which may be without the slightest particle of foundation.
Then, although it might be right for us to assert our own claims, we are told it was a mistake to assert them in conjunction with other Powers. especially with Germany, in the way we have done. I was very glad to hear the noble Earl dissociate himself entirely from the absurd and exaggerated language which has been used on the subject of the so-called alliance with Germany. It has been explained over and over again by various Members of His Majesty's Government that there has been in this matter nothing of the nature of an alliance. There has been co-operation for definite and mutual objects between ourselves and the German and Italian Governments, but nothing in the nature of an alliance. I should be very glad, if we have a further opportunity of discussing this matter, to have some further explanation of the views of those who think we ought to have acted independently. I should like very much to know what is their idea of the situation that would have been

27
created if we and Germany and Italy, and perhaps other powers, had all separately made our claims, separately taken measures to enforce them, entered upon separate naval demonstrations, and perhaps land demonstrations, entered into separate negotiations with the Venezuelan Government, and indicated separate sources of satisfaction for our claims. I cannot conceive a state of things more likely to conduce to friction and ill-will amongst all the Powers if they, acting for a common object, for some unexplained reason of policy, were bound to act for that common object in entire isolation from each other.
The noble Earl made a few observations, to which I think I have no exception to take, on the next paragraph of the King's Speech, relating to the position of the European provinces of Turkey. I think he suggested that other Governments had afforded more information upon this subject than had been given by us to Parliament. Papers on this subject will shortly be laid before Parliament, and it was thought better to delay them until they could be presented in a somewhat complete form. The proposals to be made to the Powers who were parties to the Treaty of Berlin by Austria-Hungary and Russia have as yet only been confidentially communicated to those Powers, and have not yet been communicated to the Government of Turkey. Of course, until we receive authority from the Powers concerned to do so, it will be impossible to include them in the Papers to be presented to the House. The noble Early said that for the past two or three years the condition of these provinces has been one that has caused much anxiety. I think I can go further than the noble Earl and say that I do not think I remember a time in which the condition of some part of the dominions of Turkey has not caused anxiety. This state of things is no doubt the concern of all the parties to the Berlin Treaty, ourselves not least among them. But the special conditions which at present prevail in the vilayets, of which there are five, in the province of Macedonia, are an immediate danger and concern, more especially to the States named in the paragraph in the King's Speech—
28
Austria-Hungary and Russia—and it has naturally fallen to them, who are more immediately and directly concerned than others, and who are also in a position to put a certain amount of pressure on the Government of Bulgaria, to submit to the Powers of Europe proposals which they think adequate to restore order and to establish confidence in that region. I can only join with the noble Earl opposite in trusting that the proposals may be found quite adequate for the purpose in view.
The noble Earl referred to the operations which are taking place in Somaliland. Your Lordships will observe that that, as well as the preceding paragraph of His Majesty's Speech, has reference to proceedings which affect the security of our fortresses, naval stations, and coaling places on the route to India. I think the difficulties that have arisen with the Turkish Government, or rather with certain tribes very imperfectly controlled by the Turkish Government, and also the difficulties referred to in Somaliland, are subjects about which very little is generally known in this country at present. We shall take early steps to place Parliament in full possession of all the information we have on these subjects; but I am afraid it will be quite impossible, without more copious reference to documents than would be permissible on this occasion, to give the noble Earl anything like a full account of the scope and character of the operations that are going on in somaliland. I can only assure him that there is nothing in contemplation of the nature of the occupation of any vast tract of desert, or, in fact, of an occupation by us of any place not now occupied by us. Tribes under our protectorate and that of Italy have been attacked by the Mullah Abdullah in a manner and with results which it is impossible for us to tolerate; after much consideration, it has been decided between ourselves and Italy that the operations that are now being conducted afford the best prospect of breaking the power, influence, and authority of that Mahomedan potentate, and the best prospect for the necessary protection and security of those under our protection. Although these operations are very little known and under

29
stood at present the public generally, they are matters with respect to our Imperial interests of the very highest importance. The security of our naval bases on the route not only to our Indian possessions, but also to Australia, and to the China seas, is of the very highest importance to the Empire; and holding that opinion, as we do, it is impossible for us to permit the sources of supply to these garrisons, or to the very large populations which have grown up around them, to be threatened with danger in Asia or in Africa.
The noble Earl alluded, in terms to which, I am sure, we can take no exception, to the great work being done by Mr. Chamberlain in South Africa. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that the cases in which it may be necessary or desirable for a Minister of the Crown to undertake such a labour must be of an exceptional kind. But I think that your Lordships will admit that the present circumstances in South Africa are of an exceptional nature. We have just terminated a great, difficult, and arduous conflict. Great questions, some of them of a very difficult character, remain to be settled; and it has been thought—and Mr.Chamberlain himself was of the opinion—that the decisions to be taken by His Majesty's advisers on these great questions would be facilitated if he were able by personal inquiry and communication with the High Commissioner, Lord Milner, and with the representatives of many of the interests concerned, to offer advice on all those topics. I need not say that the idea of superseding, or of in the slightest degree diminishing, the authority of our trusted Commissioner, Lord Milner, never entered into the mind of His Majesty's Government. I believe there is no man who has more cordially welcomed the idea of Mr. Chamberlain's journey and personal investigation of these questions than Lord Milner himself.
There is an observation I think I must make which applies to the many questions asked by the noble Earl. He asked for further information on the subject of the expedition to Kano. I suppose I could give the House some information on that subject, but it would be necessarily of an extremely perfunctory character. Papers on the subject will be laid on the Table of the House almost
30
immediately, and I think it would be far more convenient that this and other matters as to which the general knowledge is very imperfect should be discussed when the House is in a position to do so with fuller information. We are in this House in a rather different position from the other House. The time of the House of Commons is so completely occupied by the business that is laid before it that unless a matter of public importance finds an opportunity of being discussed in the Debate on the Address, it is quite possible that no other opportunity may occur for its discussion. That disability cannot be said to apply to this House, and it will be perfectly competent for noble Lords to discuss any of these matters when full and complete information has been laid before Parliament upon them.
The noble Earl has made some reference to the paragraph in the Speech which deals with the Bill relating to the tenure of agricultural land in Ireland. The noble Earl said we have often had measures purporting to be a final settlement of this question. I trust that this measure may, at all events, approach a final settlement, although those words are not to be found in the Speech from the Throne. I think it would be a sanguine view, however, to say that even this measure will prove to be a final settlement. a Bill was introduced last year in the other House of Parliament with this object, but time did not permit of its discussion. But it has been the subject of a great deal of attention and discussion in Ireland; and, with the fuller information which that discussion has placed in our hands, we hope we are in a better position in the present session than we were in the last to make substantial progress with a measure aiming at the complete settlement of this question.
The conference which has recently taken place in Ireland between representatives of the landlords and the tenants was referred to by the noble Earl. Like him. I shall entirely refrain from expressing any opinion whatever as to whether the resolutions arrived at by that conference do or do not afford a practical basis for a settlement of this question. It would be entirely premature for me to say anything on an

31
extremely difficult and complicated question, on which the responsible members of the Government in the other House will take the earliest opportunity of making a full statement and placing full information before the House. It would not be premature, however, I think, on my part to say that the spirit, at all events, which has animated the discussions at that conference seems to have been of a most satisfactory character. I entirely dissent from the view of those who suggest that the only agreement between the representatives of the landlords and of the tenants was that as large as possible a sum should be extracted from the English Treasury. On the contrary, I think that conference was animated by a sincere and honest endeavour to find fair and equitable terms, on which all classes interested in land in Ireland might find the means of continuing to live and work in Ireland, and to do their best for the prosperity of the country. In these circumstances, it is not too sanguine a hope that we may be approaching the further consideration of this great question under conditions more favourable, more hopeful, than those which have existed on any previous occasion.
There was one other subject to which the noble Earl referred. That was the measure for extending the Education Act of last year, with the necessary modifications, to the metropolitan area. The noble Earl made, I think, a kind of protest against the hope expressed by the noble Duke who moved the Address that we might be spared, in the discussion of this measure, some of the controversies which occupied so much of our time last session. The noble Earl, as far as I understood him, expressed his intention of taking this opportunity of fighting all our old battles over again. I do not think that is either a necessary or an entirely reasonable attitude to assume. I fully admit that the noble Earl and his friends are perfectly free to do everything in their power either to attack, modify, or reverse the principles of the Act which was passed last session; but I do not think it would be unreasonable to ask them to postpone that attempt until the period comes when they will be in a position to give effect to the principles they so strongly hold. I can scarcely imagine that anybody is of opinion
32
that, as regards the most controversial parts of the measure of last year, those which excited the greatest degree of controversy both in this House and the other House, London should be treated on different principles from those which have been applied to the rest of the country. Although its different conditions of local government make the separate treatment of London to a considerable degree necessary, it would not be reasonable to propose to treat London on a different basis and on different principles from those which we have applied to the rest of the country. Therefore, I cannot help expressing my own strong opinion that to fight the battle on these religious questions, of which we heard so much last year, over again on the question of the London Bill will be unnecessary waste of the time of Parliament. The noble Earl complained of the omission of one subject from His Majesty's Speech, which, he says, is exciting a great deal of attention in the country.
*EARL SPENCER: The Brussels Convention.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am afraid I have very little or no information to give your Lordships on the subject of the Brussels Convention, except to point out to the noble Earl that a measure is promised which will give him the opportunity for which he has long been pining of a discussion upon the convention for the abolition of the sugar bounties. The noble Earl made some complaint last session that a Resolution was not moved in this House similar to that moved in the other House on the subject; but the Bill which will be founded on that Resolution will have to come before this House, and I cannot conceive that the noble Earl can require any better opportunity than will be afforded him by that measure of entering into a discussion upon it.
I need hardly say that the omission of the subject of Army reorganisation from the Speech indicates that it is not the intention of his Majesty's Government to propose anything in the nature of legislation on the subject of military reform in the present year. The views of the Government upon Army administration and Army reorganisation must be expressed, and will be expressed, at a very early period on the introduc-

33
tion of the Army Estimates in the other House of Parliament, and I entirely fail to see how the subject could have been introduced into His Majesty's Speech when there was no intention of legislating on the subject. I am afraid I have detained your Lordships at considerable length. I do not think it necessary to detain you longer.
In conclusion I would only say that, although the topics referred to in the Speech are not generally of an extremely exciting, or perhaps even of an interesting character, I think, taken as a whole, the subjects referred to in that Speech are subjects not unworthy of the attention of an Imperial Parliament, and of the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland. The Speech contains references to many subjects of great importance to our Imperial interests in every quarter of the world—in Europe, in America, in Asia, and in Africa—and these references are well calculated to give to Parliament some idea of the extent, the magnitude, and the importance of the Imperial interests which have been created in every part of the world. And though the references to domestic legislation are not of an ambitious character, the two principal subjects with which it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to deal are subjects than which I do not think there are any that can be held to be of greater importance by the Parliament of Great Britain and of Ireland. The one is an attempt—I trust a successful attempt—to restore social contentment in Ireland, and the other is to complete a scheme of educational reform for the great metropolis of this country, than which I can conceive no subject with which the future interests and welfare of this Empire are more closely concerned.
On Question, agreed to, nemine dissentiente; Address ordered to be presented to His Majesty's by the Lords with White Staves.

THE LIGHT LOAD-LINE COMMITTEE.
EARL SPENCER: I should like to ask the noble Duke whether the Light Load-Line Committee, of which I had the honour of being a member, will be reconstituted.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My noble friend Lord Wolverton, who has succeeded Lord Dudley as the representative of the Board of Trade in your Lordships' House, will be proposed as a member of the Committee. There is, I believe, another vacancy, and as to that I will take an early opportunity of conferring with the noble Earl and the president of the Board of Trade.
The Earl of Morley appointed, nemine dissentiente, to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this session.
Committee for Privileges—Appointed.
Committee for the Journals—Appointed.
Stoppages in the Streets—Order to prevent, renewed.
Appeal Committee—Appointed.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (RECESS).
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the following Papers, having been commanded to be presented to this House by His Majesty had been so presented on the following dates by delivery to the Clerk of the Parliaments, pursuant to Standing Order No. CXI., viz.:—
INDIA (HYDERABAD).
Agreement respecting the Hyderabad Assigned Districts. (December 19.)
FORESTRY.
Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture to inquire into and report on British Forestry; with minute appointing the Committee. (December 19.)
ANKY LOSTOMIASIS (OUTBREAK OF IN A CORNISH MINE.)
Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by J. S. Haldane, Esq., M.D., F.R.S., on an outbreak of Ankylostomiasis in a Cornish mine. (December 19.)

CENSUS (ENGLAND AND WALES) 1901.
Area, houses, and population, also population classified by ages, condition as

35
to marriage, occupations, birthplaces, and infirmities for the counties of—Oxford; Cambridge; Dorset (December 19); Buckingham; Bedford (January 14); Carmarthen; Denbigh; Carnarvon (January 17); Cardigan; Hereford (January 23); Salop; Westmoreland; Pembroke (January 29); Montgomery; Merioneth; Brecknock; Huntingdon; Flint (February 4); Anglesea; Rutland; Radnor. (February 10.)

COLONIES (ANNUAL).
No. 376. Grenada (Report for 1901), (December 20); No. 377. Northern Nigeria (Report for 1901) (January 5); No. 378. British Guiana (Report for 1901–1902) (January 7); No. 379. Mauritius (Report for 1901) (January 17); No. 380. Basutoland (Report for 1901–1902). (January 28.)

AFRICA.
I. No. 6 (1902). Correspondence respecting slavery and the slave trade in East Africa and the Islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. (December 20.)
II. No. 1 (1903). Correspondence respecting the rising of the Mullah Muhammed Abdullah in Somaliland, and consequent military operations. (January 27.)

TRADE REPORTS.
I. Annual Series:
No. 2923. Germany (Trade of Wurtemberg for 1901 and part of 1902). (December 29.)
No. 2924. Spain (Trade of Bilbao for 1901). (January 2.)
No. 2925. Trade of Mexico for 1901. (January 10.)
No. 2926. Turkey (Trade of Jeddah and Hodeida). (January 16.)
No. 2927. Hayti.
No. 2928. Brazil (Rio de Janeiro). (January 17.)
No. 2929. Siam (Trade of the Chiengmai District.) (January 23.)
No. 2930. Finances of Italy for the year 1902.
No. 2931. Egypt (Trade of Alexandria for 1901, and 1st January to 31st May, 1902.)
No. 2932. (Trade of Crete for the year 1901.) (January 31.)
No. 2933. Foreign Trade of Italy for the year 1901. (February 6.)
No. 2934. Shipping and Trade of Denmark for 1901 (Supplementary). (February 10.)
No. 2935. Italy (Trade of Venice). (February 11.)
II. Miscellaneous Series:
No. 587. Coal Industry of the United States. (January 16.)
No. 588. Africa (exotic plants of economic interest in the Botanic Gardens at Entebbe, Uganda). (January 23.)

TREATY SERIES.
I. 1902—No. 17. Final Protocol between the Foreign Powers and China for the resumption of friendly relations; signed at Peking, 7th September 1901 (with 19 annexes). (December 29.)
II. 1903—No. 1. Convention between the United Kingdom and Belgium regulating telephonic communication between the United Kingdom and Belgium; signed at Brussels, 21st November, 1902. (January 22.)
No. 2. Convention between the United Kingdom and France for the exchange of insured and uninsured parcels between France and the British Colony of Gibraltar; signed at Paris, 22nd October 1902. (Ratifications exchanged at Paris 10th December, 1902). (January 22.)

CROFTER COLONISATION.
Thirteenth Report of the Commissioners appointed to carry out a scheme of colonisation in the Dominion of Canada of crofters and cottars from the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland; with appendices. (December 31.)
GLANDERS.
Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture for the purpose of conducting experimental investigations with regard to the communicability of the infection of glanders under certain conditions, and as to the arresting and curative powers, if any, of mallein repeatedly administered. (January 2.)
AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Tables showing the extent in statute acres and the produce of the crops for the year 1902. (January 5.)
MINES AND QUARRIES (EXPLOSIONS AT THE MACLAREN COLLIERY, ABERTYSSWG).
Reports to His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department by S. J. Evans, Esq., K.C., and J. S. Martin, Esq., one of the His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, on the circumstances attending an explosion which occurred at MacLaren Colliery (No. 1 Pit), Abertysswg, on the 3rd September, 1902. (January 8.)
COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS AND SITTINGS).
Return for the year 1901. (January 14.)

IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
I. Return for the month of November, 1902. (January 15.)
II. Return for the month of December, 1902. (February 12.)

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR REPORTS (COAL).
Extracts from the Reports of His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Officers Abroad relating to particular trades and industries received during the year 1902: Coal. (January 16.)
MISCELLANEOUS NO. 1 (1903) (NATIONALITY AND NATURALISATION).
Despatch from His Majesty's Minister in Brazil, enclosing a translation of a decree regulating naturalisation of aliens. (January 17.)
LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 31st December, 1902. (January 22.)
AGRARIAN OUTRAGES (IRELAND).
Return for the quarter ended 31st December, 1902. (January 26.)
EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
Return of evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 31st December, 1902. (January 27.)
CERTIFICATES OF ORIGIN.
Memorandum showing the regulations existing in the principal European countries, and in Canada, the United States, and Japan, in regard to certificates of origin. (February 5.)
WORKHOUSE ACCOUNTS.
Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the President of the Local Government Board to inquire into workhouse accounts; with appendices. (February 5.)
JUDICIAL STATISTICS (ENGLAND AND WALES, 1901) (PART I. CRIMINAL STATISTICS).
Statistics relating to criminal proceedings, police, coroners, prisons, reformatory and industrial schools, and criminal lunatics, for the year 1901. (February 6.)

POISONS.
I. Report—Supplementary Report and Minority Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Lord President of the Council to consider Schedule A. to the Pharmacy Act, 1868, to report the alterations therein which they deem expedient, and whether a third part should be added thereto; with the minutes appointing the Committee and list of witnesses examined. (February 6.)
II. Minutes of evidence taken before the Departmental Committee appointed by the Lord President of the Council to consider Schedule A. to the Pharmacy Act, 1868, to report the alterations therein which they deem expedient, and whether a third part should be added thereto; with appendices and index to evidence. (February 6.)

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Appendix, Section II., to the Annual Report of the Commissioners, for the year 1901. (February 7.)
INDIA (TRADE).
Tables relating to the trade of British India, 1897–98 to 1901–1902. (February 7.)
VENEZUELA, NO.1 (1903).
Correspondence respecting the affairs of Venezuela. (February 13.)
NORTHERN NIGERIA.
Correspondence relating to Kano, (February 14.)

UNITED STATES, No. 1 (1903).
Convention, signed at Washington, 24th January, 1903, for the adjustment of the boundary between the Dominion of Canada and the Territory of Alaska. (February 16.)
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITIONS.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petition against; of the inhabitants of Basingstoke; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Southern Division of Scotland, for the year 1902.
  GIBRALTAR.
  Report on proposed eastern harbour and dock (with drawings).
  COMMERCIAL, NO. 1 (1903).
  Correspondence with the Russian Government respecting the interpretation of the most-favoured-nation clause in connection with countervailing duties on bounty-fed sugar.
  CREMATION.
  Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to prepare a draft of the regulation to be made under the Cremation Act, 1902.

  METEOROLOGICAL COUNCIL.
  Report of the Meteorological Council for the year ended 31st March, 1902.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY.
  1. Return to the Lord Chancellor of visits made and patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ending 31st December, 1902.
  2. Return of all sums received by the visitors of lunatics for travelling expenses or upon any other account, from 1st January to 31st December, 1902.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
  Rule under the Act, dated 15th January, 1903.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1899.
  Minutes sanctioning the subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of the Act for the counties of—
  Cardigan (2nd minute).
  Devon (8th Minute).
  Rutland (5th Minute).

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION (CAPITAL AND INCOME ACCOUNTS 1901–1902).
  Accounts of the receipt and expenditure of the capital and of the income derived from the lands and other property held for the benefit of Greenwich Hospital, and the foundation of Samuel Travers, Esquire, for the year ended 31st March, 1902; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE ACT, 1889.
  Order in Council transferring to the Board of Agriculture all the powers and duties which were conferred on the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings in respect of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, by or in pursuance of Section 22 of the Crown Lands Act, 1851, or the Parks Regulation Act, 1872.
  INEBRIATES ACTS 1879 to 1899 (IRELAND).
  Rules for retreats licensed under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1899, dated 3rd February, 1903, approved by the Lord Lieutenant.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND) 1877.
  Two Orders in Council, dated 17th November, 1902, giving effect to Rules of Court.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  I. Additional rule made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland

  41
  varying the Rules and Programme of Examinations for 1903.
  II. Time Table of Examinations for the year 1903.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT 1887.
  Proclamation, dated 2nd February, 1903, revoking the several proclamations mentioned in the schedule thereto.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP.
  I. (Sanitary Accommodation.) Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, dated 4th February 1903, in pursuance of Section 9 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, determining what is sufficient and suitable accommodation in the way of sanitary conveniences, within the meaning of that section.
  II. (Particulars of Piece Work Wages, Wholesale Tailoring.) Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, dated 5th January, 1903, applying, with modifications, the provisions of Section 116 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, to factories and workshops in which wholesale tailoring is carried on, and to outworkers employed in wholesale tailoring, and the occupiers and contractors by whom they are employed.

  CHELSEA HOSPITAL (ARMY PRIZE MONEY AND LEGACY FUNDS, 1901–1902).
  Account of the receipts and expenditure of the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital (for services other than those voted by Parliament) in the year ended 31st March, 1902; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.
  IMPERIAL OTTOMAN GUARANTEED LOAN.
  Account for the year 1902.
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES AND SHOP CLUBS.
  Regulation, dated 1st January, 1903, made by the Treasury under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, with reference to friendly societies desirous of being certified under the Shop Clubs Act, 1902.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
  Account of the receipts and disbursements of the Duchy of Lancaster in the
  42
  year ended 20th December, 1902, also a separate account of the capital of the said Duchy to same date.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  I. Treasury Minute, dated 15th January, 1903, declaring that John Glodhill, Post Office, sub-office postman, was appointed without a civil service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department.
  II. Treasury Minutes, dated 17th December, 1902, granting a retired allowance to Henry Bonn, assistant superintendent, 2nd class, Newcastle-on. Tyne Post Office; dated 22nd January, 1903, granting a retired allowance to Thomas Riley, Principal foreman in charge of the metal foundries, rolling mills and quickfiring case factory, Royal Laboratory, Woolwich.

  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS ACTS, 1883–1902.
  Patents Rules, 1903.
  Order in Council relative to military manœuvres, 1903.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  I. The annual report on the state of the finances of the University of Edinburgh, under the provisions of Section 30 of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889.
  II. Annual statistical report to the Secretary for Scotland, under the provisions of Section 30 of the Universities (Scotland) Act for the year 1901–1902, by the University Courts of the University of Glasgow; the University of Edinburgh; the University of Aberdeen.

  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1881.
  Annual Local Taxation (Scotland) Returns for the year 1900–1901.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.