Sitting of 2 March 1903

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.—
  Bridgwater Gas Bill.
  Broadstairs Gas Bill.
  Central London Railway Bill.
  Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill.
  City and South London Railway Bill.
  Commercial Gas Bill.
  Coventry Electric Tramways Bill.
  Crystal Palace District Gas Bill.
  Gas Light and Coke Company Bill.
  Gorleston and Southtown Gas Bill.
  Great Northern and City Railway Bill.
  Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (New Lines and Extensions) Bill.
  Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (Various Powers) Bill.
  Great Northern Railway Bill.
  Great Southern and Western Railway Bill.
  Great Western Railway (Pension Fund) Bill.
  Hampton Court Gas Bill.
  Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill.
  Ipswich Gas Bill.
  London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill.
  Maidstone Gas Bill.
  Metropolitan District Railway (Works) Bill.
  Midland and Belfast and Northern Counties Railways Bill.
  Midland Railway Bill.
  Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill.
  North Middlesex Gas Bill.
  North-West London Railway Bill.
  Scarborough Gas Bill.
  Sittingbourne District Gas Bill.
  Sutton District Water Bill.
  Winchester Water and Gas Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof. Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with. viz.:—
  East Ardsley Gas Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS].
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the list reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means, as intended to originate in the
  1090
  House of Lords, he has certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, viz.:—
  Dewsbury, Batley, and Birstal Tramways.
  Hamilton, Motherwell, and Wishaw Tramways (Part III.) Substituted Bill.
  Preston and Horwich Tramways.
  And that he has certified that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in the following cases, viz.:—
  Gosport, Fareham, and Cosham Tramways.
  Manchester Southern Tramways (Lancashire).
  Manchester Southern Tramways (Cheshire).
  Wakefield and District Tramways.

  PRIVATE BILLS PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER, laid upon the Table Report, from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—
  Gosport, Fareham, and Cosham Tramways [Lords].
  Manchester Southern Tramways (Lan cashire) [Lords].
  Manchester Southern Tramways (Cheshire) (Lords].
  Wakefield and District Tramways [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the ease of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz:—
  London County Council (Tramways and Improvements).
  Ordered. That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  COVENTRY ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LANARKSHIRE AND DUMBARTONSHIRE RAILWAY.
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  BECKENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  ERITH TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  HYDE CORPORATION BILL,
  Bead a second time, and committed.
  LLANDRINDOD WELLS IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Bead a second time, and committed.
  MERTHYR TYDVIL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Bead a second time, and committed.
  SOUTH SHIELDS CORPORATION BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Bead a second time, and committed.

  LONDON'S TRAFFIC—TUBE RAILWAY SCHEMES POSTPONED.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN or WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. JEFFREYS, Hants, N.)said he had had the advantage of a conference with the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords and the President of the Board of Trade, and they had come to the conclusion that certain of the Bills connected with London traffic ought to be postponed until the result of the Commission dealing with this matter had been reported. The deep-level railways which they thought ought to await the completion of this inquiry wore the Central London Railway (New Lines) Bill; Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton (New Lines and Extensions) Bill; North-West London (Marble Arch to Victoria) Railway Bill; Clapham Junction to Marble Arch Rail-way (Nos. 1 and 2) Bill; Metropolitan District Railway Works Bill.
  There were certain other Bills which they thought might go to Committees, namely: Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill; Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Bail way (Various Powers) Bill; Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Transfer Bill; City and North-East Suburban Electric Railway Bill.
  There were, besides, certain other railway measures which were doubtful, and these they thought ought to be held over until the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, the President of the Board of Trade, and himself had considered them. These Bills were the City and South London Railway (Angel and Islington) Bill, and the Metropolitan-District Railway (Various Powers) Bill.

PETITIONS.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Urquhart; and Duthie; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petitions for extension to women: From Stockport and other places; Yorkshire (two); and Clitheroe; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Sutton-on-Sea; Skegness; and Maltby; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TELEGRAPHS (FOREIGN-WRITTEN PRESS TELEGRAMS).
  Copy presented, of the Telegraph (Foreign-Written Anglo-Norwegian and Anglo-Swedish Press Telegram) Regulations, 1903. Dated 9th February, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TELEGRAPHS (FOREIGN-WRITTEN PRESS TELEGRAMS).
  Copy presented, of the Telegraph (Foreign-Written Anglo-Danish Press Telegram) Regulations, 1903. Dated 9th February, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PIERS AND HARBOURS (PROVISIONAL ORDERS).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade of their Proceedings under The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, and The General Pier and Harbour Act (1861) Amendment Act, Session 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 47.]
  ARMY (IMPERIAL YEOMANRY).
  Copy presented, of Training Return of Imperial Yeomanry for 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, ETC).
  Copy presented, of Statistics of Public Elementary Schools and Training Colleges, 1901-2 [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1903-4.
  Copy presented, of Estimates for Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending 31st March, 1901, together with a Copy of the Memorandum by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury relating thereto [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 48.]
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report, No. 382 (Trinidad and Tobago), Report for 1901-2 [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
  COMMITTALS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Returns from the Clerks of the Crown and Peace of the number of Persons committed for Trial in 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (GENERAL REPORT).
  Copy presented, of General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Northern Division of Scotland for the year 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1903-4.
  Estimates presented, for the year 1903-4, with Explanation of Differences [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 49.]
  NAVY (STATEMENT EXPLANATORY OF ESTIMATES).
  Copy presented, of Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty explanatory of the Navy Estimates, 1903-4 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2940 [by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
  Augmentation of Benefices.
  Copy of Return of Proceedings under the Augmentation of Benefices Act, 1863, up to and inclusive of the 28th February, 1903 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 50.]

  COUNTY COUNCILS (IRELAND) (SALARIES).
  Return ordered, "showing the salary and emoluments of the secretary of each County Council in Ireland and the remuneration paid to permanent and temporary clerks employed in the secretary's office in each county in Ireland, for the three years ending the 31st day of March, 1900, 1901, and 1902 respectively."—(Mr. M'Govern.)

  DRAMA AND OPERA (SUBSIDIES) (FOREIGN COUNTRIES, ETC.).
  Address for "Return from British Diplomatic or Consular Officers as to financial support, whether in the form

  1095
  of subsidies, guarantees or buildings or sites for buildings, given from State or municipal resources to dramatic, operatic, or musical performances in the countries to which such officers are accredited, specifying in each case the amount or value and the conditions (if any) attached thereto."—(Mr. Stuart Worthy.)

  BRITISH MUSEUM.
  Copy ordered, "of account of the income and expenditure of the British Museum (Special Trust Funds) for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1903; and Return of the number of persons admitted to visit the Museum and the British Museum (Natural History) in each year from 1897 to 1902, both years inclusive; together with a statement of the progress made in the arrangement and description of the collections, and an account of objects added to them in the year 1902."—(Mr. John Morley.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Police Superannuation—Offences against Discipline.
  MR. LODER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is competent for a watch committee to require additional service in the police force before granting a pension to a constable who has rendered twenty-five years service, but who has, during his service, been punished for disciplinary offence by reduction in class.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) It is difficult to answer a general question such as this. But it will be seen from Section 1 of the Police Act of 1890 that it is twenty five years approved service which entitles a constable to a pension: and by Section 4, under which deductions may be made from a constable's service in respect of sickness, misconduct, or neglect of duty, approved service means such service as may, after such deductions, if any, be certified to have been diligent and faithful. It might therefore happen that the actual service of a constable would have to amount to more than twenty-five years before he became entitled to a pension.

  Mails to Japan, Hong Kong, etc.
  MR. CALDWELL: To ask the Postmaster General if he can state how many letters were sent from this country to Japan, Shanghai, and Hong Kong, respectively, under the mail contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, with the steamer which left Vancouver in connection with the mail leaving London on 8th January last; the total weight of the mails which left this country by the same mail for Japan, Shanghai, and Hong Kong respectively; and when the mails which left this country on 8th January last are due at Yokohama, Shanghai, and Hong Kong.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am only able to give the required particulars in regard to the mail for Japan made up in London. That mail is estimated to have contained 8,110 letters, and the total weight of it was 4,715 lb. Only a small amount of correspondence for China and Hong Kong is forwarded, by the Vancouver route, and particulars of that despatched on the 8th of January last have not been recorded. The mails sent on that date were due at Yokohama on the 9th of February, at Shanghai on the 14th, and at Hong Kong on the 17th of February.

  Home Office Order—Definition of Suitable Sanitary Accommodation.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give instructions to have copies of the Order, dated 4th February, 1903, determining what is sufficient suitable accommodation in the way of sanitary conveniences, printed and distributed to Members, in order that they may forward them to the employers and others interested.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) The Order has already been printed as a Statutory Rule, and has been widely published, and I think duplicate printing and publication is hardly necessary. Any Member of the House applying to the Chief Inspector of Factories at the Home Office will be supplied with Copies of the Order and of the Circular explaining its provisions. Copies of the Order can also be obtained from the usual sources at the price of one penny.

  Alleged Grievances of Customs Boatmen—Reply to Memorial.
  MR. LUKE WHITE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to reply to the representations of the Customs boatmen.
  (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) Proposals affecting the whole Waterguard Department have been made by the Board of Customs and are now under the consideration of the Treasury.

  Local Education Authorities—Population Grants.
  DR. MACNAMARA: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the population grants will be continued; if so, will these grants be paid to the local education authorities, who will be responsible for the maintenance of the schools earning such grants.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson) The answer to both paragraphs of the Question is in the affirmative.

  Education Act, 1902—Aid Grant—Basis of Calculation.
  DR. MACNAMARA: TO ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the average attendance on which the New Aid Grant will be paid will be calculated on the same basis as that on which the Block Grant is now paid.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The average attendance on which the Block Grant is paid will be taken as the basis for calculation of the New Aid Grant.

  Education—Payment of Block Grant.
  DR. MACNAMARA: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, owing to the delay in the payment of the Block Grant by the Board of Education, difficulty will be caused by the shortage of municipal cash at the outset of operations under the Education Act; whether he is aware that this shortage will amount approximately in the residue of the County of Lancashire to £80,000, and in most of the urban districts in that county, which will be autonomous for elementary
  1098
  education, to sums which will vary from £1,000 to £6,000; and whether, in view of the burdens thus cast upon most of the new authorities, the Board of Education can see its way to pay the whole of the Block Grant by quarterly instalments, including grants that will become due after the end of the Government's financial year.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board of Education are aware of the difficulty to which reference is made in the first part of the Question, but they have no exact knowledge of the amounts of shortage in different areas. I do not desire either to dispute or to admit the figures put down by the hon. Member. The Board are unable "to pay the whole of the Block Grant by quarterly instalments, including grants that will become due after the end of the Government's financial year." because their disbursements are restricted to the sums voted by Parliament for the financial year. This provision only covers the payment in the year of Block Grants maturing for payment within the year, and upon these instalments will be paid as far as practicable; but there is no margin for payment of instalments on "Block Grants" maturing in the succeeding year. The Board have already stated what they are prepared to do to assist the new authorities as regards the time of payments of the Aid Grant and Block Grant. For any further assistance the local authorities may apply to the Local Government Board to enable them to spread over a period of years the charge which is necessary in order to provide them with a working balance.

  Causeway at Loughale, Orkney.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Lord Advocate if the attention of the Government has been called to the progress of the construction of a causeway over the Ayre, at Loughale, Orkney: and if the necessary steps will be taken to ensure the completion of the said work at an early date.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The Congested Districts Board are informed that the roadway at the east end, so far as laid off, has been formed.

  1099
  Steps have been taken to ensure that the District Committee will complete this work as soon as possible.

  Importation of Foreign Agricultural Produce
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board has taken any method of informing the agriculturists of the United Kingdom that the importations of dairy produce from abroad last year are valued in the Board of Trade Returns at more than £20,500,000 for butter, £6,400,000 for cheese, and £6,399,000 for eggs, while poultry also exceeded £1,000,000; and whether he sees his way to introduce such measures for promoting improved methods of dairy working and co-operation, and such economical transport of produce between the country and towns as will enable British farmers to retain a large portion of the £34,000,000 now sent abroad for foreign produce.
  (Answered by Mr. Hanbury.) It has been for many years past the practice to publish in the Journal of the Board of Agriculture a special article on the subject of the imports of agricultural produce during the year, and an article dealing with the imports for 1902 will appear in the forthcoming number. We have also from time to time given publicity to descriptions of improved processes of dairying employed in the Colonies and abroad, and of the systems adopted with regard to the production and distribution of dairy produce and eggs in Denmark, Ireland, and other countries. I have myself repeatedly called the attention of representative bodies of agriculturists to the importance of organisation and combination in the directions to which the hon. Member refers. I have been in communication with the Postmaster General on the subject of the collection and forwarding of parcels of agricultural produce; and I also hope that the extended use of motor vans and cars may further assist in the same direction.

  Local Government Areas in London—Assimilation of Boundaries.
  MR. WHITMORE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he intends to introduce
  1100
  this session a Bill to assimilate the boundaries of Parliamentary Divisions and Metropolitan Municipal Boroughs within the county of London.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Last year I introduced a Bill on this subject, having been assured that it would meet with no opposition. In point of fact, however, the Bill was opposed from both sides of the House, and I did not find it practicable to make progress with it. I am not prepared to deal with the matter in the present session, unless I am satisfied that the Bill would be treated as an unopposed measure.

  Local Authorities (Acquisition of Land) Return—Date of Publication.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state when the Return, Local Authorities (Acquisition of Land), granted on 8th July last year, is likely to be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) There is a good deal of difficulty in obtaining the information required for a Return of tins kind, and in the present case it has been necessary to communicate with more than 9,000 authorities. Some of them, have not yet furnished the requisite particulars, although repeated applications have been made to them. The Return is, however, in a forward state, and will be issued at the earliest date practicable.

  Ireland —Interference by the Local Government Board with Elected Representatives.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the cases of interference by the Local Government Board in Ireland with elected representatives; whether he will take this matter into consideration, and provide a remedy by amending the Local Government Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) This question has reference to the action of the Local Government Board in the case of Mrs. O'Neill, a midwife, in the service of the Guardians of the Rathdown

  1101
  Union. In view of the importance apparently attached to the case I will briefly set out the facts. Mrs. O'Neill was suspended by the Guardians on the ground that she had left the workhouse without the permission of the master and matron. It was also alleged that, in order to cover her default, Mrs. O'Neill untruthfully stated she had obtained permission from the matron. The Guardians requested the Board to confirm the suspension and authorise her dismissal. In the exercise of her statutory right Mrs. O'Neill appealed to the Board against the decision of the Guardians. The Board thereupon directed a sworn inquiry to be hell for the purpose of eliciting all the facts. It transpired at the inquiry that the midwife endeavoured to see the master to obtain leave of absence, but that having failed to see him she told the matron and understood that she had her permission to go away. Mrs. O'Neill doubtless committed an error of judgment in assuming that she had the permission of the, matron to leave the workhouse. but the Board did not consider that her action, under all the circumstances, justified the extreme penalty of dismissal, and more especially as she was an efficient officer of some standing and had never been admonished on any previous occasion. I have personally examined the facts of the case and am satisfied that the Board could not have arrived at any other conclusion I have reason to believe that the matron, who is a nun, is indisposed to regard what has happened as a cause for a continuance of any unpleasant relations with the midwife, and I should hope that the Guardians, on a reconsideration, will permit the latter to resume duty.

  Compulsory Acquirement of Lands at Loughmore and Woodburn—Report of Arbitrator.
  COLONEL McCALMONTTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Report of the arbitrator in connection with tin; compulsory acquirement of certain lands at Loughmore and Woodburn by the Belfast Water Commissioners will be made public.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The final award of the arbitrator has already been
  1102
  published in respect of three of the sections into which this work was divided. It will be published in the course of a few days in respect of the fourth section. With regard to the remaining section, which includes Woodburn, the draft award will be published as soon as the spring season permits a proper inspection of the lands.

  Ireland—Requisition of Private Property for Public Service.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the police at Maryborough requisitioned a horse and ear, the property of a resident of Ballincanty Killurin, King's County, for the conveyance to the lunatic asylum, Maryborough, of an escaped patient from that institution; and will he explain upon what grounds the constabulary authorities have refused to pay the claim of the car owner.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The police did not refuse to pay this claim. They forwarded it to the asylum authorities, by whom it was paid.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  War Commission.
  MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when he anticipates receiving the Report of the War Commission now sitting; and whether he will consent to suspend his final decisions regarding the new Army Scheme until the information afforded by that inquiry has reached him.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): As my hon. friend will see by referring to the reply given by my right hon. friend on Thursday last† to a Question put by the hon. Member for South Donegal, it is not possible at present to give any definite reply to the first part of the Question. As regards the second part of the Question it is not apparent what final decisions my hon. friend desires to suspend, but no steps are being taken which are not in

  1103
  accordance with the decision of Parliament two years ago.
  MR. MALCOLM: If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to take advantage of the information elicited by the War Commission can he say what return the nation will get for the money laid out on the Commission?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Cape Town Military Scandal.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Colonel H. Cooper, C. M. G., who held the position of Boer Commandant at Cape Town from 1st April, 1900, was present at the dinner given at Mount Nelson Hotel on Christmas Eve, 1901, and was at that time resident in the hotel; and that he did not stop the attack made upon Mr. Stanford in the grounds at the back of the hotel; can he state whether Colonel Cooper took any, and if so what, steps to investigate the matter; did he make any, and if so what, report to Lord Kitchener; why was the report of the legal proceedings, in which a sum of £1,500 damages and £2,000 costs were recovered by Mr. Stanford against ten officers in the High Court of Capo Colony, excluded from the Cape papers by the action of the Military Press Censor; why were not the apologies offered by the ten officers involved allowed to appear in the Cape Press, owing to the action of the Press Censor; and can he now give any explanation of this occurrence, and of the steps he intends to take in the matter.
  MR. BRODRICK: These matters are at this moment the subject of inquiry; therefore, until the inquiry is concluded, I am sure the hon. Member will understand that I cannot reply to individual questions on the subject.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I desire to give notice that on the Estimates I will go completely into the details of this transaction, and give the names of the officers.

  Bushmanland Borderers Regiment.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement made in the Cape Parliament on 31st October, 1902, by the Attorney General, Mr. Graham, that the Bushmanland Borderers Regiment was raised by the Imperial Government, and to the statement of Mr. Merriman on the same occasion, that the Bushmanland Borderers had committed outrages, and that two of them were in gaol at Malmesbury; and will he state what proportion of this corps were coloured men, and by whose orders they were enlisted and armed.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Bushmanland Borderers was raised for local service in Cape Colony at the recommendation of the Premier of Cape Colony, their employment being specially restricted to the defence of their own locality and property in case of need, and they were consequently not enrolled for general service. I am not aware of the proportion of coloured men in its ranks. I must point out that the expression "coloured men" is commonly used in South Africa to mean half-castes, not natives, and many of such half-castes are on the electorate roll of Cape Colony.

  Volunteer and Militia Artillery Armaments.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the amount of money allocated as the result of the recommendations of the Mowatt Committee to the purchase of new guns for Volunteer and Militia Batteries; how much of this money has now been expended; how many Volunteer and Militia Batteries have been re-armed; how many are still armed with obsolete weapons; how many new guns have been procured; and how many Regular Batteries have been created since January, 1899.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Mowatt Committee did not deal with new guns for the Auxiliary Forces Artillery, 200 of which had been already ordered at a cost of £750,000. All this money has been

  1105
  spent. Forty-four Volunteer Batteries have been or are in process of being re-armed with modern 4· 7 guns and three Militia Field Batteries with field guns. There are eighty-one Volunteer heavy batteries still in possession of old type equipment. Two hundred and twenty heavy guns in all have been procured. The number of Regular Horse and Field Batteries created since January, 1899, is sixty-six.

  Provisional Regiments of Cavalry.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many provisional regiments of cavalry are at present in existence; what is the cost and strength of these regiments; for what purpose are they now maintained; and what is intended with respect to them in the future.
  MR. BRODRICK: Six regiments are at present in existence. The average strength is 898, or deducting men on gratuity furlough, 714; and the average number of horses is 370. Those regiments were originally established during the war pressure to provide drafts for cavalry regiments abroad, and are now maintained as the most suitable organisation into which to form the large surplus of men of the cavalry branch now existing. Three of these regiments will before long be absorbed, but the other three will be maintained for the present. The cost can only be very roughly estimated at £50,000 a year per regiment.

  Naval Officers—Training Curriculum.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the curriculum for the first four years of training for naval officers under the new system has yet been settled; and, if so, whether it will be laid at once upon the Table of the House.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The new curriculum has not yet been settled. Before arriving at a definite conclusion with respect to it, the Admiralty desire to obtain advice from those qualified to form an opinion as to the subjects to be studied, the time to be devoted to each subject, etc. When the
  1106
  curriculum is settled I shall be glad to lay a copy of it on the Table of the House.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Is there any chance of the information being given before the Estimates are taken?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am afraid not.

  Indian Army—India's Proportion of Charge.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that the House was informed last Autumn that the question as to the distribution of the charge in respect of the increased pay of the British soldier in India had been referred to the arbitration of the Lord Chief Justice, will he state whether his Lordship has yet given his award
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The case has not yet been presented to the Lord Chief Justice. The charges to which the arbitration refers do not come into course of payment before April, 1904.

  St. Patrick's Day
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Postmaster General as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the 17th March has been declared a public holiday in British Colonies; and, if so, will he state in what Colonies and in what years.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,, for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): The information possessed by the Colonial Office is not sufficient to enable me to answer the Question of the hon. Member.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that numerous Irish Premiers in the Colonies have invariably declared the 17th March as a public holiday?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of that.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into this matter?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. I have only just received the answer from the Colonial Office. I will look into the matter and communicate with the hon. Member.

  Congo Free State—Berlin General Act.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have taken, or propose to take, step.? towards procuring the co-operation of the principal Signatories to the Berlin General Act in efforts to restrain the abuses which have grown up under the rule of the Congo Free State in violation of the provisions of that Act.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): No, Sir. His Majesty's Government are not at present contemplating any steps such as the right hon. Baronet indicates.

  British Guiana Sugar Plantations—Indian Coolie Labour.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are aware that the Crown Colony of British Guiana contributes one-third of the expense of immigration into that colony of Indian coolies for work on sugar plantations, and that His Majesty's Government guarantee to the Indian Government the payment of wages to, and of return passages to India for, such coolies. Does the Sugar Convention, by Art. VII., impose on the Permanent Commission at Brussels the duty of pronouncing whether such contributions or guarantees constitute a direct or indirect bounty on the production or exportation of sugar; does the Convention, in the event of an affirmative decision on the point, bind His Majesty's Government, by Art. I. and Protocol Al and A3, to suppress the payments and guarantee in question; and have His Majesty's Government received any communications on the subject from the authorities of the colony.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The first and fourth Questions of my hon. friend should be put to the representative of the Colonial Office. With regard to the other Questions, the interpretation of any words in an agreement is not usually made the subject of an official statement until the circumstances have arisen which require such a statement.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the Foreign Office quite sure that it understands this Question?
  No answer was returned.

  British Missions to Foreign Courts.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has a new regulation been made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the effect that the duration of the appointments of heads of missions at Foreign Courts shall, in future, not be" extended beyond five years; and, if so, on what date was that new regulation, made.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The regulation dealing with the duration of the appointments of heads of missions was made in 1872, and has not been altered since that date.

  Post Office Savings Bank.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, before introducing any Bill relating to Savings Banks, he will lay upon the Table of the House a detailed Return of the securities standing, on the 31st of December, 1902, in the names of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund, and the Trustees Savings Bank Fund, such Return to show the nominal amount, and the value on the date aforesaid, of such securities, and the dividend or interest payable thereon.
  The following Question also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will, before the introduction of the Savings Banks Bill,

  1109
  grant the Return relative to Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks Funds standing on to-day's Notice Paper.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): The information asked for by the hon. Members as regards the assets of the Trustee Savings Banks Fund and their value at the 20th November, 11) 02, was presented to the House on the 20th instant, and has been ordered to be printed. If either of the hon. Members will move for a similar Return of the assets of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund and their value at the 31st December last there is no objection to its being given in anticipation of the information annexed to the Annual Report of the Postmaster General.
  MR. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to proceed with his Bill until this information has been provided?
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not know whether it is possible to do that, but if the hon. Member will put down the Motion for the Return the information will be given as soon as possible.
  MR. CHANNING: I will put it down.

  Board of Trade—President's Salary.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can say when Parliament provided a specific salary for the holder of his office for services rendered in the Department; and whether he can lay any Papers showing why effect was never given to the Resolution passed by the House on the Motion of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1826, that His Majesty be enabled to grant a salary of £5,000 to the President of the Board of Trade.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The salary of the President of the Board of Trade is sanctioned by the Act "7 George IV., cap. 32." The post was previously held in conjunction with the office of Treasurer of the Navy, the salary
  1110
  of which was £3,000 a year. As regards the Motion passed by the House of Commons on the 6th April, 1826, I fear there are no Papers that I could usefully lay, but a reference to "Plansard" shows that the majority (eleven), by which the Motion of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was carried, was considered too small to justify His Majesty's Government in then proceeding with the proposal that the salary should be £5,000 a year, and £2,000 was accordingly agreed to.

  The Royal Welsh Fusiliers' Goat.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state under which section or sections of Vic. 57 and 58, c. 57, and 59 and CO Vic, c. 15, instructions were in the first instance given to slaughter the goat of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers on his landing at Southampton last month, and a refusal was made to the request of the officers of the regiment to be allowed to retain the head and horns for preservation; whether the conferences between the authorities of the War Office and the Board of Agriculture as to the proper course to be pursued under the circumstances were held on the initiative of the War Office or on that of the Board of Agriculture; whether any other Department was consulted before the decision to set aside the provisions of the Acts of Parliament was come to; whether, in consequence of the action of his Department, he contemplates any legislation; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of relaxing the provisions of the present law in the case of animals kept as pets by regiments.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): The answer to the first part' of the Question is Section 1 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1896. Exemption is already allowed in the case of regimental pets, but from the reply received from the officer in command of the battalion it appeared that the goat had been purchased in South Africa to replace one which had been presented to the regiment by Her late Majesty and that it would probably not be retained as the regimental pet. On a statement by the Deputy Adjutant General that it was in fact the recognised regimental goat

  1111
  authority for its landing was given. No order for the slaughter of the animal so long as it was not landed was given, and no instructions whatever were issued with regard to the head and horns as suggested in the Question.

  Aliens in Wormwood Scrubs Prison.
  MR CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign prisoners are now confined in Wormwood Scrubs Prison; what proportion they form of the total number of prisoners; how many of them were convicted of indictable offences; and what is their average sentence.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The information asked for by my hon. friend will be included in the general Return of aliens now in prison, which, as I stated the other day in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield, I am obtaining for the purpose of laying before the Royal Commission.† I think a complete Return is more satisfactory than scattered information as to particular prisons.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Cannot the Return be made to the House of Commons?
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Certainly. If it is wished, I will give the information in answer to a Question.

  Public Companies—Fraudulent Balance Sheets.
  MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire,): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether he will state when he proposes to introduce legislation for the purpose of amending the law relating to fraudulent balance sheets of public companies.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): I am anxious to introduce a Bill at the earliest possible date, and I am now in communication with the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. SWIFT MAGNEILL: Is fresh legislation necessary?
  No answer was returned.

  Mail Contracts.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain the cause of the delay in calling for tenders for the mail service between this country and India, the East, and Australia; and if he will say when the present contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Companies expires.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Notice has been given to the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company and the Orient Steam Navigation Company to terminate their contracts for the mail services between this country and India, the East, and Australia on the 31st of January, 1905. The question of the future requirements of the service is being carefully considered by the several Departments of the Government concerned; and a decision will be arrived at as soon as possible.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Why have the contracts been extended two years? Will Papers be laid before Parliament?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The contract has not been extended. We had to give two years notice, dating from January 31st last, that we wished to terminate the contract, and that is all we did. The notice will not take effect for two years.

  Unprofitable Telegraphic Business.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been directed to the Parliamentary Return just issued, from which it appears that there was a loss, including interest on telegraph loans, of nearly £1,000,000 on the telegraph business last year; and whether he will now consider the advisability of appointing a Committee of business men to inquire into the cause of this loss on the telegraph service of the country.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The loss to which my hon. friend refers is made up of £651,880, the balance of expenditure over receipts for the year, and

  1113
  £298,860, the interest of the telegraph capital expenditure of £10,867,644. The reasons for the loss are well known, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by the appointment of a Committee of Enquiry.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: What are the reasons for the loss?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The public, through its representatives in this House, has preferred to get a return for its money in the shape of greater facilities rather than in revenue. Consequently we are doing business at a loss.

  Sandhurst College and Old Dean Common.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will take steps to prevent any further portion of the Crown land known as Old Dean Common, between Bagshot and Camberley, being built over, in view of its value for the instruction in surveying of Sandhurst cadets and officers at the Staff College, and for other military purposes.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HAYES FISHER,): I explained the circumstances of this case at some length in an answer to a Parliamentary Question on 18th December last. I presume that the hon. and gallant Member refers only to the strip of land half a mile in depth which borders on the Bagshot Road. This land is of considerable value for building, and no representations have been made to me by the War Office against its use for this purpose. Should the Secretary of State require more land for military purposes, the Commissioners of Woods could let to the War Office a large area in addition to what they will still hold under the lease that has been granted. The hon. and gallant Member has therefore no ground for his apprehensions.

  Campden Hill—Open Spaces.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing
  1114
  the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to the proposed sale for building purposes of the open space of land at the west of Kensington Gardens, facing the Barracks, lying in front of Church Street, and adjacent to the densely populated neighbourhood of Campden Hill; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to prevent this sale.
  MR. HAYES FISHER: I am not quite clear what is the property referred to. Perhaps the hon. Member will communicate with me privately and put down the Question again later, if necessary.

  Ventilation in the House of Commons.
  *MR. REGINALD LUCAS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the present state of the weather, he will take steps to prevent draughts of cold air being forced into the Library of the House of Commons.
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: The First Commissioner has made inquiry on this matter, and is assured that the currents of cold air referred to by my hon. friend are not connected with the ventilating system. They are most probably forced into the rooms from the open air by the pressure of the recent heavy winds, and cannot, it is feared, in such circumstances be prevented.
  *MR. LUCAS: I can assure my hon. friend that the draughts come from the ventilator round the bottom of the room.

  Belfast Revision.
  *MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he has had an opportunity of considering the decision of one of the Revising Barristers for Belfast that sub-tenants of rooms in dwelling houses are entitled to the householders franchise; and whether he will introduce a Bill for the purpose of making it clear that such sub-tenants are merely entitled to the lodger franchise.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The Revising Barrister, in the instance mentioned, decided upon the facts of the particular case that the claimant occupied the upper portion of the house in which he lived as a separate dwelling; that his occupation and control were exclusive: and that the landlord who lived on the ground floor exercised no control. The Court of Appeal decided that there was evidence to sustain that finding, Lord Justice FitzGibbon intimating his opinion that the conclusion of the Revising Barrister was, on the evidence, right. The decision of the Revising Barrister was not of the general nature or effect indicated in the Question. It is in conformity with earlier decisions, and no amendment of the law seems to be called for.

  St. Louis Exposition—Irish Exhibits.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Government intend to take any steps, and, if so, what, to have Irish industries represented at the forthcoming St. Louis Exposition.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This matter is engaging the consideration of the Government. At present, I am not in a position to make any further statement.

  Irish Land Commission Rent Reductions.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the average amount of rent reduction sanctioned by the Irish Land Commission for the first-term and second-term rents respectively; whether the whole of the holdings revised the first time have been revised the second time; and what proportion such holdings form to the total rent acreage of Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Annual Reports of the Land Commissioners contain appendices showing the effect of second-term rent fixing on first-term rents year by year since second-term rent fixing commenced in 1896. The appendices distinguish first-term rent fixing from 1881 to the present. Roughly speaking, something less than one-third of the rents fixed for a first term have been revised
  1116
  for a second term. The total rent acreage of Ireland is not known.

  Land Purchase Acts Return.
  MR. LAMBERT: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can grant the Return relative to Land Purchase Acts (Ireland) standing on to-day's Paper.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The information under the first, third and fourth headings can be given. With respect, however, to the second, the official records do not distinguish the average number of years purchase on first and second term rents, respectively. Many holdings have been sold that are not subject to judicial rents, and the averages shown in the published Reports of the Land Commissioners are calculated without reference to the nature of the rent. I propose to lay on the Table some Papers on the subject of Land Purchase operations, and will include amongst these statistical information on the matters to which the hon. Member alludes.
  MR. LAMBERT: Will the Papers be laid before the introduction of the Land Bill?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I should prefer to lay them on the day of the introduction. I wish to have a virgin field for my own efforts.
  [Appended is the Return referred to in the Question.]
  MR. LAMBERT,—Land Purchase Acts: Return showing (1) the total acreage of Irish land sold to tenants under the Purchase Acts; (2) the average number of years purchase paid on the first term and second term rents; (3) the total amount advanced; and (4) the number of tenants to whom advances have been made.

  Chaffpool Police Huts.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is a canteen attached to the police protection hut at Chaffpool, county Sligo, where persons of all ages can obtain porter at all hours, day and

  1117
  night; and will he state what steps the authorities propose to take in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A canteen store is attached to the police station at Chaffpool for the purpose of supplying the police and other persons in the local by who have experienced difficulty in obtaining necessaries. The canteen is duly licensed, and there has been no infringement of the law as suggested.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he state the number of police huts erected in the townlands of Chaffpool, Achonry, and Letrim, in the rural district of Tubbercurry, county Sligo, with the number of police stationed therein; what portion, if any, of the cost incurred will be chargeable on the people of these localities; and whether there is any present intention on the part of the authorities to have these huts and extra police removed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There are four huts in this area, occupied by an officer and seventeen men. The cost to the district in respect of the force is at the rate of £516 per annum. I hope the condition of affairs in the district will soon justify the withdrawal of the extra police.

  Inch Strand, Kerry—Foreshore Eights.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the promised inquiry has been held regarding the high-water line at Inch Strand, county Kerry; and, if so, will he state the result.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In reply to a question by the hon. Member on 27th October, I stated that the Board of Trade had received complaints that the owner of the adjoining land had erected posts upon the beach which were said to interfere with the use of the foreshore at Inch Strand. From inquiries which have since been made at my request by the Navigating Officer of H. M. S. "Collingwood" it appears that the posts are above the high-water line of ordinary spring tides, and in these
  1118
  circumstances the Board of Trade have no jurisdiction in the matter.

  Post Office and the Irish Language.
  MR. CREAN: I beg to ask the Pos master General whether he is aware that an official in the Kinsale Post Office refused a parcel because the address on the parcel was in Irish; and whether, seeing that the official in question admitted that he knew Irish and could make out the destination of the parcel, such conduct of officials has the sanction of the Post Office authorities.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The official to whom the parcel to which the hon. Member refers was tendered, states that she could not decipher the address with any certainty, and in these circumstances she was justified in refusing to accept the parcel.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman in future take steps to appoint to the Post Office only those who can read Irish?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I must decline to do that. I do not think it right to exclude from the Post Office services officials who cannot read Irish.
  MR. CREAN: Did not this official admit that she understood the address?
  MR. O'DONNELL: Is it not the fact that in Wales—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The general question cannot be argued on a Question raising a specific case.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the strong feeling in Ireland that some facilities should be given in the Post Office—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Committee of Defence.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that

  1119
  no opportunity will be given, on a specific Vote or otherwise, to discuss the composition or functions of the new Committee of Defence, he will consider the advisability of proposing an alteration in the Rules of this House which would make the discussion of Imperial Defence as a whole, and the relative needs of the two services, in order on the Army or Navy Estimates, or will provide some definite opportunity other than on the Budget when such discussion would be permissible.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): My hon. friend is no doubt aware that I have answered the most important parts of this Question a few days ago. Of course I am open to having questions put to me in the House as to the constitution of the Defence Committee, and I shall be glad to answer them to the best of my ability. But at present I do not think it would be advisable to devote one or two days of the session to a discussion of all the delicate international questions which must arise if we are to discuss strategy at large. I should be sorry to commit myself further at present.

  Chilian and Argentine Battleships.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury are His Majesty's Government aware that, by the Convention ratified on 22nd September, 1902, Chili and the Argentine Republic undertake to reduce their fleets within one year from that date, and that consequently two first class battleships of the latest type, costing together about £2,200,000, and recently launched by Messrs. Vickers and Messrs. Armstrong, respectively, are now for sale; have His Majesty's Government considered the change in the present proportion of foreign navies to that of Great Britain which would result from the acquisition of these ships by a Foreign Power; if so, what steps do they propose to take to prevent the consequent diminution in the relative strength of the British Navy.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The important point to which the hon. Member calls attention has been considered—and
  1120
  carefully considered—by the Admiralty; and they have clearly come to the opinion that the ships which are for sale are not suitable for their purposes, and that it would not be advisable to buy them.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it not the fact th at they are much superior to any ships of our own Navy?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not the Admiralty view.

NEW WRIT.
For the borough of Woolwich, in the room of Vice-Admiral Charles William de la Poer Beresford, commonly called Lord Charles Beresford (Manor of North-stead).—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)
NEW WRIT.
  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Thomas Ryburn Buchanan, esquire, for the county of Perth (Eastern Division).

  SHOPS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1897) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order for Second Reading upon Friday 8th May read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

NEW BILLS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (TRANSFER OF POWERS) BILL.
  "To amend Section 10 of the Local Government Act, 1888," presented by Mr. Long; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]
  TRADE DISPUTES ARBITRATION BILL.
  "To provide for Arbitration in Trade Disputes," presented by Mr. Nannetti; supported by Mr. Joyce, Mr. Sheehan, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Keir Hardie, and Mr. E. Crean; to be read a second time upon Friday, 8th May, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

  THE GALWAY VACANCY.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): I rise to move the Motion that stands in my name, "That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out a new writ for the election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the city of Galway, in the room of Arthur Alfred Lynch, adjudged guilty of high treason." The effect of the judgment in this case is a matter of notoriety, and the House has now before it the record of the proceedings stating what was the form of the indictment, what was the judgment of the Court, and what has been done with regard to the commutation of the sentence There is no doubt whatever that this judgment operates to disqualify the person in question from sitting in this House. In past days there has sometimes been a debate on that subject, but all doubt is removed by the terms of the Forfeiture Act passed in 1870, which provides expressly that such a judgment shall operate as a disqualification from sitting in this House. In a matter of so much importance hon. Members will perhaps desire that I should read the words of the Act. The section runs—
  "If any person is convicted of treason or felony for which he is sentenced to death or penal servitude, or any term of imprisonment with hard labour exceeding twelve months, he becomes, and until he has suffered the punishment to which he is sentenced or such other punishment as he may be subjected to by the competent authorities, or receives a tree pardon from the Crown, be continues, incapable of being elected to, or silting, or voting, in either House of Parliament.
  That express enactment renders it quite unnecessary for the House to pass any resolution stating that that is the effect of the judgment. Before that Act the practice had been established of having a resolution declaring that the judgment had the effect of disqualifying the person in question, and that practice survived in several cases after the statute of 1870: but I think the House will agree with me that in face of this express enactment it is absolutely unnecessary to pass any resolution. That is a matter of clear law and the only question that remains is, what shall be done with reference to the vacancy in Galway,
  1122
  which has been so created? Notice of opposition to this Motion has been given by the hon. Member for North Islington. I am not surprised that there should be in some parts of the House a feeling such as finds expression in the Amendment. There is naturally a very strong feeling of resentment at what occurred in connection with this return to serve in the House, for at the time when Arthur Alfred Lynch was elected to serve in Parliament, it was notorious that he was in arms against the Crown. And that being so, I do not think anyone can be surprised at there being a strong desire to inflict some penalty on the constituency that chose to return such a Member of Parliament. I quite appreciate the reasons which have led the hon. Member to give his notice, but I hope that in this matter the House will be guided by precedent and principle. It might be a very dangerous thing indeed if a precedent were set of disfranchising a constituency because it returned to the House of Commons a person whose views or whose conduct were obnoxious—and most justly obnoxious—to the views of the majority of the House. Such a principle, if once introduced, might lead to very startling applications.
  The present case, no doubt, is a very extreme one. It has been said that hard cases make bad laws. However that may be, extreme cases may very easily lead to the establishment of very dangerous principles, which in their application in other cases may be very much to be regretted. There is a certain class of cases in which the House has been in the habit of suspending the issue of a writ. It will be found on examination that these are cases in which there has been in the constituency very general bribery and corruption, where inquiry was desirable and was about to be instituted, and where it was very probable that matters might end in the total disfranchisement of the constituency as a punishment for the practices which had been very generally prevalent there. There is the well-known case of the Mayo election, where intimidation had very largely existed, and in that case the House directed the prosecution of several persons and sus-

  1123
  pended the issue of the writ during the then present session. That was a very natural course to take, and it was a course which might have the effect of enabling the constituency to recover from those influences which, according to the result of the inquiry, appeared so extensively to have been brought to bear upon it. The present, however, is a very different case from those in which the writs have been suspended. There are precedents with regard to it, and the chain of precedents is unbroken in showing that in such circumstances as the present the issue of a writ ought not to be suspended by way of a punishment to the constituency. There have been five cases, beginning with the year 1849, and coming down to the year 1805, in which this question has arisen, under circumstances similar to the present. There was in 1849 the case of Mr. Smith O'Brien, who was Member for Limerick; in 1870 the case of O'Donovan Rossa, who was Member for Tipperary; in 1875 the case of Mr. John Mitchell, who was also Member for Tipperary; in 1882 the case of Mr. Davitt, Member for Meath; and in 1895 the case of Mr. Daly, Member for Limerick. In not one of those cases was the issue of the writ suspended in terms similar to those of the Motion of which my hon. friend has given notice, and it will be found on examination that in almost all the cases the proceedings necessary to fill up the vacancy were taken by the Government of the day.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: Not in the last case.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I said "in almost all the cases." In 1849 there occurred the case of Mr. Smith O'Brien, which in some respects is most nearly analogous to the present case, because he was a Member of the House before the conviction for high treason took place. His punishment was commuted to transportation, and under these circumstances the Leader of the House, Lord John Russell, moved a Resolution that he was disqualified, and moved the issue of the writ to fill up the vacancy. It may be said by my hon. friend that in that case there is nothing to show how far the constituency were in sym-
  1124
  pathy with the views of Mr. Smith O'Brien when they returned him to Parliament. I do not know how that stands, and, at this distance of time, I dare say it would not be quite easy to ascertain.
  My hon. friend may say that that is not a sufficient reason for proceeding as Lord John Russell did. There are four other cases which really present stronger grounds for suspending the issue of a writ than the case of Galway now befor.; the House, because in every one of these cases the Member was returned to Parliament when he was actually a convict; and yet not in one of these cases was the issue of the writ suspended, and in most of them the necessary proceedings were taken by the Government for filling up the places. In 1870 O'Donovan Rossa was returned to the House. The Motion that he was disqualified for sitting in the House, and the Motion that a new writ do issue, was made by the Leader of the House, Mr. Gladstone. In 1875, Mr. John Mitchell, being then a convict, was returned to the House by Tipperary. He had been convicted of treason felony in 1848, but had escaped before his sentence had expired, and in 1875 he was returned to Parliament. Mr. Disraeli, who was then Leader of the House, moved the Resolution, and it would appear, though I do not think it is expressly stated, that Mr. Disraeli also moved the issue of the writ. In 1882 Mr. Davitt was returned for Meath. He had been convicted of treason felony in 1870, and was under a sentence of penal servitude for fifteen years. When he was returned in 1882, being then a convict whose sentence had not expired, the Attorney General of the day, now Lord James of Hereford, put down upon the Paper of the House two Resolutions. The first Resolution was that Mr. Davitt was disqualified for sitting in the House and that was carried on a division upon the Motion of the Attorney General. The other Resolution which the Attorney General put down was that a writ should issue to fill the vacancy. He did not move it for the reason that a claim was made for the seat, and it was not desirable that anything should be done until that matter had been disposed of. That took place in February, and the

  1125
  writ was not moved then for the reason I have stated. It appears to have been moved in the Parliament following, and I am told that it was moved by a Member of the Irish Party, but it does not appear to have met with any opposition, and was issued.
  The last case is that which occurred in 1895, when Mr. Daly was returned for Limerick. He had been convicted of treason felony in 1881, and his sentence being unexpired, he was returned to Parliament in 1895. The Attorney General, now the Lord Chief Justice, moved the Resolution declaring that he was disqualified from sitting in the House. That is the Resolution which I now ask the House to dispense with as being unnecessary. When the Resolution had been carried, the First Lord was asked whether he proposed to move the writ, and replied "Not to-day." The matter stood over, and the Motion was afterwards made by an hon. Member for an Irish constituency, and appears to have passed unopposed, and the writ was issued in the ordinary course. Now, Sir, I submit to the House that the precedents are really unanimous for the writ going in such cases, and that these precedents are based upon sound principles. The precedents also show that the practice has been for the Government to move in this matter, and I. apprehend for this reason the members of the Government may be regarded as being charged in some degree with the care of any matter of privilege which may arise. Under these circumstances, I beg to move. Sir, that you, Mr. Speaker, do issue your warrant for the purposes of this writ, and I would ask the House, in deciding upon the matter, not to allow themselves to be carried away by any feeling of resentment, however natural, and I may even say proper, but to be guided in a matter which is of so much importance by precedent and by reason.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out a New Writ for the election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the City of Galway, in the room of Arthur Alfred Lynch, adjudged guilty of high treason."—(The Attorney General.)
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: I am sorry to have to move an Amendment to this Motion, and my Amendment will run in these words: Leave out all the words after "that," and insert "the writ for the City of Galway do not issue during the present session." I think that is a very moderate and mild conclusion, and I hope that what I shall have the honour of saying will convince many hon. Members that this is a reasonable step to take. I do not quite understand why the Government should act as they have done in pressing this matter forward. Although I am not a great believer in precedents, and do not think they should always be followed, it is clear from the precedents in this matter that it has not been the universal practice for the Government to move the writ. Under present circumstances, if it had been left to the Whips of the Irish Party, it would not have been a matter for the Government, and hon. Members on this side would have voted without the tie of Party allegiance, and without following the Party Whip. I regret that this course has been taken, because the reason is obvious, but nevertheless I think it my duty to bring the matter forward, and challenge a division upon the subject. I shall endeavour to show that this is an altogether unprecedented case, that we have never had a similar one, and the reasons I shall give ought to be reasons for suspending the writ.
  There have been many occasions on which a writ has been delayed in issuing, for as recently as 1901 an hon. Member moved that a writ should be withheld in the case of Maidstone. The reason for this was that it was considered that the borough was corrupt, twenty-five persons having been proved guilty of corruption, and eleven having been bribed. I spoke on that occasion and voted for the Resolution for delaying the writ, because I thought it should be delayed. I only refer to this question to show that it has been the practice in many other cases, and I also bring it forward to show the reason why the writ was there suspended. It was suspended because twenty or forty persons had been proved to be corrupt in that district, and although that was a proper case, I shall show that the offence was a compara-

  1127
  tively small one compared with the offence in Galway. The same thing happened in Nottingham and Norwich in 1848, when the writ for a similar offence—corruption—was suspended for five years; and therefore it is quite clear from the precedents that this House has the power, and has exercised it, of suspending a writ when it thinks proper, and suspending a writ even for a period of five years.
  It is clear from the Attorney General's speech that it is not unprecedented for hon. Members of this House to be guilty of treason. There have been several cases, and we are all very sorry for it. The last ease was Daly's, which the Attorney General has referred to, and in that case the Government did not take any action, but left it to the ordinary channels for the moving of the writ; but the case which is most in common is that of 1849, when William Smith O'Brien was expelled the House; and before that there was another case in 1715, when a Mr. Foster was expelled as a traitor. In both these cases, it is true—and certainly in Mr. Smith O Brien's case—the Leader of the House did move the writ, but the case I shall try and make out is that this instance of Galway differs, because the constituency knew the facts before the hon. Member was elected. In all these former cases this was not so. The Smith O'Brien case rests most on all fours, but he became a traitor after he had been elected.
  In Galway the so-called "Colonel" Lynch was elected by a constituency because they knew he was a traitor, and they voted for him because he was a traitor. This was advertised and known, as I shall show by quotations. It was known at the time that he was fighting against the King's soldiers, and it was for that reason that he was elected. I have shown, and I think it is obvious, that we have the right to suspend the writ; and I say distinctly that if we have the right to suspend it because a few persons in a district are guilty of bribery and corruption, most emphatically it is our duty to do so in a district and borough where there has been wholesale treason in returning a Member. Now, Sir, what are the facts? They are these: Arthur Lynch
  1128
  was returned for Galway; he was tried and found guilty of high treason for fighting for the enemies of this country, firing at, and doing all he could to kill our own soldiers our sons and brothers, he was condemned to death, but the Royal clemency has been given to him, and the sentence of death has been reduced to penal servitude for life. It may be that the constituency were unaware of these facts It may be that he might have become a traitor afterwards, but I shall read from quotations to show that this was not the case in Galway. As a matter of fact, a great number of the electors there knew what Colonel Lynch was doing, and they not only knew this but gloried in it, and made boast of it, and a constituency that does this certainly should be treated as severely as constituencies were treated where there was a certain amount of corruption and bribery.
  Now, the way to prove that will be to read extracts from the local newspapers and from the speeches delivered at the time. I do not wish to delay the House long, but I must just read a few of these quotations. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford, for instance, telegraphed that he hoped the electors of Gal way would haul down the bloodstained banner of England, and hoist that of a free nationality.
  MR. JOHN EEDMOND: I was in America at the time.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: It is all very well to laugh at these things, and it is ail very well for the hon. Member for Waterford to say he was in America—we have heard these things before.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I said I was in America, and I took no part in the election. I indeed sent a telegram from America, but it was in no "such words as those.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: I will read the words. The hon. Gentleman will not dispute that he telegraphed the words which were published—that he wished Colonel Lynch (the soldier of freedom) might be elected
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: No; I never telegraphed such words.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Where did you get them?
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: I have often noticed this course taken when these things are brought up. I will read the extracts from the Irish papers, and perhaps what they contain will conclusively show that my statement is correct.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Really, Mr. Speaker, I must intervene, I think, on the issue that has been raised. What I said is of very little importance; but as I have contradicted the statement, and as the hon. Gentleman has not accepted my contradiction, I ask you, Sir, as a matter of order, if the hon. Gentleman is not bound to accept my disclaimer of those words.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for North Islington was going beyond the Rules of Order in saying after the contradiction of the hon. Member, that such statements were often made. The hon. Member should withdraw that remark.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: I do not wish to say anything that is not courteous or respectful to the hon. Member, but I will read various quotations which I have, and, if the hon. Member disputes them, of course I will withdraw.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member withdraw the statement which seemed to imply that the hon. Member for Waterford had wilfully denied the use of words which he actually did use?
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: I beg pardon. I did not mean my words to have any such application.
  *MR. SPEAKER*MR. SPEAKER said if the hon. Member said he did not mean his words to have any such application, that was quite enough.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: It is of no consequence. Go on.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: I shall give the various quotations as I have them hero. The Galway Observer; in an article on 26th October, said—
  "Colonel Arthur Lynch … acted as war correspondent for Le Journal in the Transvaal, He abandoned the pen for the sword, and raised and commanded the so-called Second Irish Brigade on the Boer side."
  That was the reason why the paper strongly urged the electors to support him. I say that is conclusive evidence that the electors knew what they were doing. The Irish Daily Independent and Nation, on 13th November, said—
  "Colonel Lynch it will be remembered fought with the Boers in the South African War, and it is believed that if he landed in Ireland there is a probability of his being at once placed under arrest for high treason."
  That is a clear indication that that newspaper knew that he was an offender, and I say emphatically that it was known in the district that he was acting in that way. The Galway Observer, on 26th October, said in reference to Colonel Lynch—
  "He is quite eligible for a seat in Parliament, notwithstanding his being in arms against the forces of the King in South Africa."
  That shows again it was common knowledge in the district where the election was going on. The Freeman's Journal on 18th November published a telegram sent to the hon. Member for East Mayo by the hon. Member for Waterford and others. It contained these words—
  "We call upon the people of Galway to strike a blow for Irish freedom by electing triumphantly the Nationalist candidate, the soldier of freedom, Colonel Arthur Lynch."
  These are the words on which I based the statement I made just now.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The words I objected to were some reference to a blood-stained flag.
  SIR G. BARTLEY: I, of course, do not want to repeat that. [An IRISH MEMBER: "Because you can't."] The hon. Member for East Clare, speaking at a meeting at Galway on 18th November, is reported in the Freeman's Journal to have said that—
  "Colonel Lynch could not come to Galway because there was a price upon his head, but if he was made M. P. for Galway the British Government would not dare to lay hands on him."

  1131
  That shows that the action of Colonel Lynch was known distinctly and emphatically to the electorate. The Freeman's Journal reported a meeting addressed by Mr. Davitt on the previous day at the Court Theatre, Galway. Mr. Davitt said—?
  "What was the case of Colonel Lynch? They knew that he fought as gallantly and loyally for the Boers as Major MacBride. A convention was called in Galway and Colonel Lynch's name, with his consent, was placed before it and he was unanimously adopted as the Nationalist candidate."
  There were two men, Major MacBride and Colonel Lynch, and there appeared to be a competition as to who had been most active on behalf of the enemies of this country. There was a competition as to which had been the greatest traitor. I say that is conclusive proof that the electorate of Galway knew emphatically what was going on. The Freeman's Journal, in a leading article on November 22nd said—
  "Colonel Lynch, the soldier of Boer liberty, has been returned…. Those who have never heard of Mr. Plunkett will hear that Galway, an Irish constituency, has elected to the British House of Commons a Member whose chief claim upon it is that he defended Boer independence against unscrupulous British aggression."
  I have an extract from the Galway Express, which I believe is a Unionist paper. In an article on November 30th it said—
  "Mr. Lynch … cannot under existing conditions sit. He is, by the account of his own supporters, a rebel who joined himself unto the Boers, and bore arms against the British empire and its Sovereign."
  The Freeman's Journal of November 26th contained a telegram reporting a meeting held at Chicago at which the hon. Member for Waterford said—
  "When the Irish wanted to send a Member to represent them in Parliament they picked out a Colonel who had fought for the Boers."
  That shows conclusively that they did know it, and acted accordingly. After the election, the Galway Observer states—
  "A meeting of the Letter frack Branch of the United Irish League was held on 24th November, at which Mr. Valleby proposed the following resolution: 'That we, members of the Letter frack Branch of the United Irish League, hail with delight the result of the Galway election, and the return of Colonel Arthur Lynch, who fought against British tyranny and for the freedom of the South African Republics.'"
  1132
  That resolution was passed unanimously by the meeting. It seems to me an extraordinary thing that a writ should be issued for the return of another Member by this constituency which voted for a man because he was a traitor and fighting against the King's troops. Hon. Members opposite, I think, will not dispute the statement that he was elected because he was fighting against the King's troops. I do not think that there is any indication that they regret it. I do not think anyone will get up and say that it is a fact that they do regret it. Mr. Lynch was returned by a large majority, and therefore I appeal to the House—I appeal to those who objected to the war, for the origin of war has nothing to do with it—to disfranchise the constituency. If we disfranchise a constituency for five years because they are corrupt, surely it stands to reason that we should disfranchise a constituency when we find that they are steeped in treason, when we know that they are glorying in their treason, and when we know perfectly well that at the present moment they do not regret or repent what they did. I do feel, even if the precedents are against us, even if the precedents show that the Government should move, that this is an exceptional case, because the same circumstances never occurred before. I protest against the Government having taken the initiative in this case, and beg to move the omission of all the words after "That," in order to insert "the writ for the city of Galway be not issued during the present Session."
  *MR. MALCOLM: In rising to second the Amendment I act with a full sense of responsibility, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite in general, and Irish Members in particular, will believe me when I say that under similar circumstances I should be prepared, nay, I should have felt it my duty, in similar circumstances to take a similar course in resisting the issue of a writ to any constituency in the United Kingdom. Until the other day we had all been under the impression that the ordinary course of procedure would have been followed and that the Irish Parliamentary Whips would have moved for this writ, but since then the excavation of some Parliamentary

  1133
  precedent has apparently entailed on the Government the necessity of bringing this Motion forward in the House. I think from the Attorney General's speech that it is his duty rather than his desire to move this writ, and that he is impelled thereto by tradition only. I hope that the Attorney General, having done so, the House of Commons will be permitted, without the assistance of the crack of the Party Whip, to take its own line in this matter. I confess that this new procedure has rather astonished me, for I never should have thought that those who in 1901 at Blenheim Palace delivered speeches which, if they meant anything, fore shadowed an early curtailment of Irish representation on account of the hostile attitude of Irish Members during the war, would have brought forward such a Motion. The phrase "toy shop treason" is present to the minds of us all; yet the colleague of the right hon. Gentleman who used this phrase is the first to ask the House to enable Galway to repeat its deliberate choice in lieu of a man whose treason at any rate was not "toy shop," and, with the same degree of sincerity with which the Irish leaders—or, perhaps, I should now say leader-writers—recommended Mr. Lynch to the electors of Galway on account of his hostile attitude toward this Empire.
  I beg the House of Commons to deny to a constituency amenable to such influences the exercise of the highest privilege of citizenship. This is the first notice which the House of Commons has taken of this act of treason. Indeed we make more fuss about a breach of our ordinary Standing Orders than we have made of this man's treason. Mr. Lynch, since 1900, has never passed the portals of this House as Member for Galway. He has never taken the oath of allegiance at that box; since he came to these shores he has been treated as an ordinary citizen of the country, charged with a high misdeemeanour. There has been no Motion for his expulsion. The House of Commons has done nothing but register the condemnation passed on Mr. Lynch by a Court of Justice, and has had no opportunity until this moment of giving its opinion of Mr. Lynch or of the constituency which elected him. It might be at some future date, in some dark day in
  1134
  our country's history, that not one man, but several men, might be returned by disloyal constituencies, and the House of Commons would be defenceless then, if the present procedure were followed, from doing anything but register the decree of the Court and then proceed to the risk of taking to its own bosom other men who are guilty of an equally bald but perhaps less brave form of treason. It is unnecessary to inform the House that we harbour no vindictiveness against Mr. Lynch. We believe, indeed, that he is a good deal braver man than many of those who share his opinions. We are jealous of the dignity and the honour of the House of Commons: and we are jealous lest, by allowing this writ to go without protest, we should prove ourselves guilty, in the words of the Lord Chief Justice, of the crime of "belittling treason." For ages past it has been our proud boast that England is the freest of countries in the whole world; but even we have never laid it down as a sound constitutional maxim that we should allow people to do what they choose until we find out what they choose to do; and if, in the exercise of their duty, the people of Galway, or any other constituency, choose to elect men like Mr. Lynch, then I say, for the sake of the dignity of the House, and also for the security of the loyalists throughout this country and the Empire, that the Government ought to waive this antiquated tradition which they have recalled into existence, and to alter, if necessary, the existing law of the country. They ought to offer difficulties and not facilities in the way of issuing this writ for Galway, and in this way, and this way only, which the words of the Colonial Secretary will prove to be just and true, "that the nation is taking note of these proceedings and expects that the Mother of Parliaments will know how to defend herself."
  Amendment proposed, "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'no Writ for the City of Galway be issued in this present Session.' "—(Sir George Bartley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL NOLAN: The House has listened, not only with great-attention but with interest to the wise words of the representative of His Majesty's Government in moving the Resolution on the Paper. Mr. Gladstone expressed similar opinions in this House some years ago. There might be some truth in what had been said by the mover and seconder of the Amendment, but I rather prefer the views and to follow the lead of the Attorney General. Of course we know what is at the bottom of this Amendment; but it is only two or three nights ago that all those things were being said about the Secretary of State for War which are now being said of the constituency of Galway. Well, the right hon. Gentleman was not exactly accused of treason, but of wasting His Majesty's money, and I do not know which is worse. I would point out to the aspiring gentlemen who sit below the gangway that it is the opinion of the Attorney General that all sorts of constituencies should be represented in this House. The mover of the Amendment is a very good party man; and we all congratulate the hon. Member for Islington North on his late accession to dignity. We all welcome his promotion, but I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman is going a little too far in moving to disfranchise the constituency of Gal way, which, after all, may be Conservative. The hon. Gentleman is not following the rules of the game by attacking the referee who has given a decision against him. I happened to be in Galway during the election, not taking part in it, but because I was obliged to be in the town for a meeting of the County Council, and am therefore better informed on the facts than the hon. Gentleman whose quotations were misleading. We all know that the hon. Gentleman does not always get good information, but then we are all liable to make mistakes. I was surprised at some of the omissions made both by the mover and seconder of the Amendment. They talked as if Mr. Lynch was a man absolutely unknown to the burgh of Galway.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: No.
  COLONEL NOLAN: At any rate they did by omission, if not by commission, That is fact number one. Another is that the family of Lynch has been very well known in Galway for many generations. They are one of the tribes of Galway, though not of the true Irish tribes; they are Normans. During the election the burgh of Galway was particularly quiet. Taking my information exclusively from Conservative sources, I found that there were from eighty to a hundred Conservative electors—most of them Unionist—yet Lord Killanin polled at the previous election 850 votes, though perhaps he owed a good deal to his name. Now at the last election one of the best known men in Ireland came forward as a Conservative candidate; some said that it was the Conservative Whips who insisted upon it. At any rate, Mr. Horace Plunkett was very well known as having taken the greatest interest in the agriculture of Ireland, and as a man of the highest probity and fairness. On the other hand, Mr. Lynch, whose family was connected with Galway, came forward, everybody on both sides knew, rather as a Home Ruler than as a supporter of the strong principles quoted by the hon. Member for North Islington. But a very curious thing happened. It is believed, I will not say it is a fact, because we cannot see into the ballot-box, but somehow an idea leaked out, that less than sixty Conservatives voted for Mr. Plunkett out of 407 who supported him, so that the Conservatives are just as responsible for the election of Mr. Lynch as the others who voted for him. Mr. Plunkett had been guilty of the iniquity of appointing a Catholic to the Agricultural Department. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, that is an iniquity in the view of the Conservatives of Ireland. They did not like him. What was the unfortunate elector in Galway to do? Here was a gentleman who was said to have fought against his country; the elector did not know whether he was boasting, or whether he was only a newspaper correspondent. No one was at all certain on the subject.
  Again, a great many people did not know whether he had not the right to change his allegiance. Up to about 1854 or 1855, no man could change his allegi-

  1137
  ance; but since that date it has been encted that a man can change his allegiance. However, the Lord Chief Justice laid it down, I have no doubt quite properly, that a man cannot change his allegiance during a time of war. But that was absolutely unknown at the time of the Galway election. I can quite understand a Home Rule elector saying, "Hero is a doubtful case; yet this candidate is a Home Ruler, and I must vote for him." If the House of Commons disfranchises this constituency it will be departing from the precedents which have been established. The Attorney General pointed out the great danger of such a proceeding; and the simplest thing to do is to accept the guidance which has been given by the Attorney General. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite have done quite enough to advertise themselves. Owing to anti-Irish feeling in the constituencies they will get a great deal of credit and kudos. The mover of the Amendment said that it was not a Party question; but I am too old a Parliamentary bird to be caught in that trap. Of course, it is a Party question. Another point is that there are too few borough Members in Ireland. It is acknowledged on all sides that there ought to be a balance in the representation of borough and rural constituencies; yet it was now proposed to reduce the borough constituencies in Ireland by one. Further, the Conservatives may win the seat, and, on principles of fairness, and in order to allow the constitution of the country to proceed in its usual form, I hope the House of Commons will accept the dictum of the Attorney General, and allow the writ to be issued.
  MR. BRYCE: It appears to me that no reason has been shown why we should depart from the well established practice of issuing a writ in cases of this kind. That practice has been absolutely clear, and was admitted by the hon. Member who seconded the Motion; and the House of Commons would be setting a very dangerous precedent if they were to leave a constituency unrepresented on account of the conduct of its Member, and not because of anything connected with the conduct of the constituency itself.
  1138
  It is clear to me that in this case the Attorney General is right in moving that the writ be issued, and I will, therefore, support the Motion.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): There appears to be two questions raised by the speeches of my hon. friends who have moved and seconded the Amendment. One is a question of procedure, and the other is a question of merit. My hon. friends have asked, with feelings of virtuous indignation, why the writ has been moved from this Bench. That is a question of form, but not an unimportant question of form. I desire to state why I believe that this was the only course open to us. As my hon. friend who moved the Amendment pointed out in an interruption during the speech of the Attorney General, the writ was not moved from this Bench in the case which occurred in 1895. I was at that time First Lord of the Treasury, and my hon. friend appears to think that I then set a new precedent which I ought, in this case, to follow. Let me remind him of the circumstances of 1895. We met to wind up the necessary business of the session, immediately after a stormy General Election. The question was raised on, I think, the very first day of the meeting of the new Parliament; and, so far as I was concerned, I had not then made myself acquainted with the rather elaborate series of precedent to which attention has been called by the Attorney General; and I have no doubt, although my recollection is a little shadowy, that that was the reason why a course was not then taken in accordance with the precedent. The matter was put off for a fortnight, and the writ was then moved without any observation or any opposition. If the matter were to be passed sub silentio on this occasion, it appears to me it would be a small matter as to who moved the writ or not; but if the issue of the writ were to be contested, it appeared to us, after a most careful examination of the precedents, that we, as guardians of the Constitution, were bound to take a leading part in the debate, and that the most honest course for us was to move the writ our-

  1139
  selves, and do what our predecessors have so often done from this bench.
  So much for the question of form, which is relatively unimportant. What we have to ask ourselves to-day is what course we. should pursue, if we wish to preserve inviolate the ancient liberties and traditions of this House, and of the constituencies which this House represents. My hon. friend, in the course of his eloquent peroration, talked about excavating musty precedents, and he appeared to think that he was speaking as the defender of British liberties, and of the ancient forms and practices of this House. As a matter of fact, my hon. friend is a heretic on this occasion, and the heresy of my hon. friend is directed, not against musty precedents, but against precedents many of which have occurred within the memory of hon. Members now listening to me, and only one of which could have occurred before the first birthday of my hon. friend. What are the principles that underlie the action we are taking? First, let me say a word from the historical point of view. I have said that the precedents alluded to by my hon. and learned friend are of recent date. That is true, but the practice of the House is old. Going back to the precedent in which everyone now thinks that the House of Commons of that day took a very high-handed course indeed—I refer to the case of Mr. Wilkes—no one now defends what the House of Commons did in that case. But although the House of Commons declared Mr. Wilkes to be an outlaw and expelled him again and again from this House, and declared him to be incapable of sitting in this House, yet the electors of Middlesex went on electing him to the House of Commons; and, in spite of that, the House of Commons never went the length of endeavouring to disfranchise that constituency. The House of Commons of that day did many things, but even it shrank from disfranchising a constituency on the ground of the character of the man it returned.
  I admit, however, that it is on more recent precedents we have to rely; and the most recent precedent afforded a very much stronger case for disfranchisement than the case now before us. I will not go into the case of Smith
  1140
  O'Brien. I agree with the observation of my hon. friend who moved the Amendment that we have no evidence before us to show that the constituency when it elected Smith O'Brien either desired him to be guilty of treason, or anticipated that he would be guilty of treason. I think, therefore, we may put that case aside, so far as the argument which I am now making is concerned. Let the House consider the case of Mr. Mitchell. He was elected twice and was expelled once; and would, of course, have been expelled again had his election been regarded as valid. On both occasions on which he was elected, the constituency electing him knew that he was suffering imprisonment for treason felony. How can we compare a case like this with the case of Mr. Mitchell? His case was incomparably stronger on two grounds; first, because when he was elected he was actually suffering imprisonment; and secondly, because he was elected by the same constituency twice. That precedent occurred when Mr. Disraeli had just been returned to this House at the head of a very strong Conservative majority; and I cannot imagine a precedent which ought to have greater weight with my hon. friends than that. There is another case, in some respects as strong as the case of Mr. Mitchell, but which seems to me in many respects to be stronger. It is the case of Daly, who was a dynamitard. I do not know what scale of guilt my hon. friends observe in this case, but, shocking as is overt treason and crim-such as occurred in 1818, it is incomparably less atrocious and less shocking to all civilised and moral feelings than the crime of a dynamitard. Daly was imprisoned for dynamite, and, being elected for a constituency in 1895, it seems to me that the House has a perfectly clear precedent so far as modern cases are concerned, and I do not know what answer can be made to that argument.
  In considering the present case, if hon. Gentlemen ask me whether I think that the suspicion that Mr. Lynch had fought against us in South Africa helped or hindered his election in Galway, I have no hesitation in expressing my own personal belief that it assisted Lynch's election, but is it safe

  1141
  for the House to proceed on that kind of interpretation of the facts? My hon. friend has quoted, not Mr. Lynch's address, which, according to my hon. friend, was innocuous and even tedious, but articles from the Freeman's Journal and other newspapers, and two speeches delivered in Galway itself. I hope that I shall not be judged by the leading articles which are written about me; and the experience of my hon. friend and other hon. Members must be happier than mine if they wish to be judged by the speeches made on their own platform in their favour. I think it is dangerous ground, and never has that opinion been borne in upon me more strongly than when I heard a phrase from my hon. friend the seconder of the Amendment My hon. friend expressed a high and generous sentiment. He said that he had no personal feeling against Mr. Lynch, but that there were many others like him. My hon. friend did not say where exactly they were to be found, but he formed his own opinion on the point. My hon. friend said that these men were not only as guilty as Mr. Lynch in the national aspect of his crime, but in their moral turpitude in concealing and doing in a covert manner that which Mr. Lynch had the courage to do openly.
  *MR MALCOLM: I wish I could have used the expressions which my right hon. friend has just put into my mouth. All I said was that Mr. Lynch was a braver man than many who shared his opinions. There was no question of moral turpitude or anything else.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think do my hon. friend any injustice in putting the matter as I did when he discusses the question of the bravery of Mr. Lynch's acts. My hon. friend says there were twenty other persons like Mr. Lynch, who only differed from him by being not only traitors, but cowards as well; that if any such had been, or are likely to he, elected by any Irish constituencies, it is manifest that they commit a greater crime than the constituency which elected Mr. Lynch, because they elect traitors, who are, in addition, cowards. But are we to exercise our personal judgment, to study leading articles and speeches made on their
  1142
  behalf; are we to form our judgment, not by the action of the court of law, not on the report of two judges, not even on the investigations of a Committee of the House, but on the estimate of the general moral sources of opinion open to us, and then to say that this or that constituency has elected a person most unworthy to sit in the House, and that it should be disfranchised for six months? No, Sir; I say we should remember that we ought not to proceed against a constituency except on well-established facts and upon clear principles. If a man has committed treason, or treason felony, and is suffering for it, there we have a well-established fact—a court of law has decided it—and there can be no doubt, as far as human machinery can arrive at the truth, that the man was guilty. By all means let us say that no such person should be elected; but if we choose to lay down the principle that a constituency which elected such a man is unworthy to be represented, let the House do this elaborately, and in obedience to some principle carefully laid down and accepted by the House. But my hon. friend proposes to go much further. He asks the House to embark on a course in which their deviations from the path of justice are not based on clear principles. When the point is not quite clear, is my hon. friend going to ask the House to discuss leading articles and speeches without any full inquiry of any kind, and then proceed to expel the Member and disfranchise the constituency? I think it would he a risky transaction, and I recommend the House to accept the motion of the Attorney General.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: This debate has originated in a question of great Constitutional importance, and although in all its parts it has not been a very great debate, although my right hon. friend has made an exceptionally ingenious case for the course the Government are taking, he has not, experienced dialectician as he is, been able to do more than obscure the true issue which lies before the House. I quite agree it may be said that precedent points to the House taking a rather more indulgent course than has been suggested by my hon. friend. But no precedent exactly deals with a case like that of Galway. Never before has the insult offered to the House been of such a scale and of so

  1143
  notorious and flagrant a character; never before has it been made so much an occasion of boasting and approval by those who applauded, if they did not imitate, the conduct of Mr. Lynch. This fact differentiates it from all precedent. But supposing the case was on all fours with precedent, what is the true argument to be drawn from precedent? It is that the indulgence of the House in the past has been abused. The House has allowed most improper Members to be returned without expressing displeasure, and instead of it passing over as a transient phase it has become the habitual practice, and has increased with passing years. The argument of precedent really tells the other way. It is time to draw the line and to set our faces against criminals or traitors or any person of that class who is notoriously unfit for Membership of the House. I quite agree that the return of the dynamitard is scarcely less insulting; but supposing the House had taken the course recommended in 1895, supposing we had withheld the writ altogether for the rest of the Parliament, would it not have been much better? Would the House not have been spared the election for Galway of which it complains? Should we not have convinced the constituencies who made an improper choice, of the impropriety of returning such representatives, making them suffer for the wrong they tried to do to Parliament? Mr. Lynch might have come to the Table last session, and, according to Mr. Speaker Peel, it would have been impossible to prevent him from taking the oath of allegiance.
  Is it to be said that a constituency is competent to send up a rebel—because he is a rebel, in order to outrage the House by taking the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign against whom he has been in revolt? The principle that there is no wrong without a remedy expresses a great truth. There must be a remedy against an outrage so flagrant to the Sovereign of this realm and the dignity of Parliament. This constituency committed a wrong which nearly resulted in a great insult to Parliament, and one which we could not have prevented, and I say that we ought to punish the constituency in order to prevent the danger of a recurrence of such an outrage. What is really at the root of all this is the fact that for too long we have regarded
  1144
  treason as a matter for joke or contempt, and not for serious notice. What was it that induced the Government to press the prosecution against Mr. Lynch? It was not any vindictive feeling against that individual. No doubt much might be said in extenuation of his particular offence; but it was in order to emphasise the gravity of the crime of treason as such, to show that treason must no longer be regarded as a trivial matter which the Government of this country and this House could afford to treat with contempt and pass over. That has been the attitude in the past, but it ought not to be the attitude in the future. The South African War brought home the lesson, amongst others, that treason is a matter of national gravity, and ought to be so treated. What we ask the House of Commons to do to-day is to express in a formal manner its disapproval of the action of a constituency which, beyond a doubt, was an accomplice in an act constituting an approval of treason, and to set up on high the standard of public duty, to be maintained before all the world, that treason is a great national offence. It is not intended to enter into a contest with the constituency. No one proposes that Galway should be disfranchised for ever and ever. All that is proposed is that we should impose on Galway a mark of our disapproval of its action in the matter, and then, as in every other offence, when the punishment has been inflicted and suffered, the offence will have been purged. In defence of a principle in the maintenance of which we believe, we should not hesitate to take the sense of the House.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): What the House is asked to do is not to disfranchise the constituency for ever, but to mark its sense of the breach of trust which has been committed. It is not a punishment, but a mark of disapproval. The right hon. Gentleman says he is the guardian of the Constitution. Yes, but it must not be forgotten that the Government are, in some respects, under a suspicion in this case. The other day, when there was a possibility of the regular forces of the Army on this side proving insufficient, the reserve forces on the Irish Benches or what I may

  1145
  call the Irish Landwehr were brought up to save the Government either from disaster or from a moral defeat. What I rose to suggest was simply that on this occasion the Government influence should be withdrawn, and the Government Whips not used, and that the House should thus be allowed to express its unbiassed opinion.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: Personally, I am quite Unable to give a vote in support of the attitude of the Government on this occasion. The Member for Galway spoke of playing by the rules of the game. It is by the rules of the game I propose to vote to-day. As I under-

  AYES.

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

  Crean, Eugene

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Crombie, John William

  Hain. Edward

  Aird, Sir John

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx)

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cullinan, J.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardign)

  Helder, Augustus

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Delany, William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

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

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

  Dickson-Povnder, Sir John P.

  Hogg. Lindsay

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

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

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

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Horner, Frederick William

  Bignold, Arthur

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Bigwood, James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Blake, Edward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hoult, Joseph

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

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

  Boland, John

  Duffy, William J.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Bond, Edward

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Elliot. Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middx.)

  Ellis, John Edward

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Emmott, Alfred

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Joyce, Michael

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Lambert, George

  Burns, John

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Caldwell, James

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Cameron, Robert

  Ffrench, Peter

  Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lawson, John Grant

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc)

  Flower, Ernest

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Forster, Henry William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Chapman, Edward

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lockie, John

  Charrington, Spencer

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Garfit, William

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Gordon, Maj Evans- (Tr. Hmlts)

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Grant, Corrie

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  stand the game, the duty is placed upon constituencies to return to this House Members who can with loyalty and good faith take the oath which is administered at the table. As I am convinced that in this case the constituency deliberately returned a Member who could not have taken that oath without perjuring himself, I should, without hesitation, vote for the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 248; No s, 45. (Division List No. 9.)

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Partington, Oswald

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

  Lundon, W.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Percy, Earl

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Sullivan, Donal

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Purvis, Robert

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

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Tennant, Harold John

  M'Govern, T.

  Randles, John S.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  M'Kean, John

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Reddy, M.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Toulmin, George

  Mitchell, William

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Morgan, David J. (Walth'mstow

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Murnaghan, George

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Murthy, John

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Weir, James Galloway

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Runciman, Walter

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

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

  Russell, T. W.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Brien. Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk Mid

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Seely, Maj J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  O'Doherty, William

  Shaw Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Wodehonse, Rt. Hn E. R. (Bath

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  O'Dowd, John

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Spear, John Ward

  NOES.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Halsey, Rt, Hon. Thomas F.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw J.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Bowles, T. G. (Lynn Regis)

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Sharpe, William Edw. T.

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Brassey, Albert

  Kimber, Henry

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

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Knowles, Lees

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim S)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir George Bartley and Mr. Malcolm.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Ordered, that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out a New Writ for the election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the City of Galway, in the room of Arthur Alfred Lynch, adjudged guilty of high treason.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1902-3.
    CLASS I.

      £7.500 (SUPPLEMENTARY), ROYAL PALACES AND MARLBOROUGH HOUSE
      MR. WHITLEYsaid that this was the third or the fourth piece in which the estimate for work at Marlborough House had been given to them. He thought it was time that they had a full account of the whole of the expenditure, and he hoped they had now seen the end of it. He understood that some great fault was committed in regard to the original estimate, and he should like to know whose fault it was that this particular work was not done with the main part of the work, it was a most unfortunate thing that this matter should be presented to the House in three pieces. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not think him unreasonable in asking these questions, because the total amount made up a good round sum.
      MR. KEARLEYasked if he should be in order in referring to Hampton Court Palace.
      THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, that item comes under another Vote.
      MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: When His Majesty gave up residence last March it was determined by the Office of Works to thoroughly overhaul the whole drainage at Marlborough House. The drains in the house were put in something like twenty-five or twenty-six years ago. The Office of Works were unable to begin the work at once, for the reason that there were certain guests expected at the Coronation, and after that event the Shah had to take up his residence there, and therefore nothing could be done up to that time. In addition to that, the Sanitary Inspector of the Board of Works was taken ill and had to leave on the 1st of August, and he was therefore unable to go over and make a thorough report of the drainage until something like the 10th or the 11th of November. When he came back he issued his report, and it is on that report that the Board of Works have acted. I may say now
      1150
      that the whole of the work is almost completed, and the house be ready for occupation in the course of a very short time. I hope that there is an end to expenditure at Marlborough House now, but at the same time the hon. Member will agree with me that it is not easy to find out all that may be required, because there is nearly always something else that requires to be done. The Board of Works have had the thing thoroughly well done, and I hope it will be satisfactory to the occupants of Marlborough House.
      MR. CALDWELLagreed that this was the proper time to have the repairs at Marlborough House done. The only question he wished to ask was whether there had been a contract or not. He thought work of this description ought to be done by contract in order to have it done at a reasonable price.
      MR. AILWYN FELLOWES MR. AILWYN FELLOWES said this work had been carried out by the Board of Works under the supervision of their own foreman.
      Vote agreed to.

    CLASS III.

      £20,000 (SUPPLEMENTARY), PRISONS ENGLAND AND WALES.
      MR. WHITLEY MR. WHITLEY asked the Home Secretary to give the Committee some information as to the reasons for so substantial an increase on the original Estimate, which was £160,700. He was glad to see from a note at the bottom of the Estimate that the increase was not due to any increase in the number of prisoners, but to the increased cost of food. Although the Committee were aware that food had been at a high price during the current year, they could not see that that reason alone was sufficient to account for the substantial increase now asked.
      MR. EUGENE WASONasked how much of the increase in the price of food in connection with the prisons was due to the tax placed on corn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      SIR ALBERT ROLLITasked whether there was a large percentage of difference in the price of food, and whether any change had been made in the dietary under Head E. If there had been an alteration in the dietary, that would account for the supplementary estimate.
      MR. CLAUDE HAYasked whether arrangements were now completed whereby no soldier guilty of a military offence would be incarcerated,' in the common jails of the country; and also whether there had been any changes made in the method of conveying prisoners from one prison to another; whether, in other words, they were less before the public at a time when the members of the public were about the streets.
      *THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,)said the increase on the whole Estimate amounted to £20,300, and was made up of the following items:—Victualling £12,800; lighting, water, cleaning etc., £3,500; and escort and conveyance £4,000. The chief increase was for victualling, which had accrued under the new form of dietary. The Committee would remember that two or three years ago there was considerable excitement in that House in regard to the question of the dietary in prisons, and in consequence of the discussion which ensued a Committee was appointed, of which his hon. friend the Member for Ripon was Chairman. Having considered the question, the Committee arranged for a very much better dietary than that hitherto in use. The first complete year's estimate of the cost of this new dietary had undoubtedly been understated, and that was chiefly the cause of the item under the first head. Then greater attention had been paid to lighting for the comfort of the prisoners in their cells and workshops, and greater expense was now incurred for the conveyance of prisoners. There had been a general opinion in the country for some time that the conveyance of prisoners through the open streets under escort was not desirable, and in consequence they were now taken in cabs and other conveyances. His hon. friend the Member for Shore-ditch had asked about military prisoners.
      1152
      He was quite aware of the feeling that existed on that matter. In fact they all shared the feeling against allowing soldiers convicted of military offences to be herded with common criminals who wandered from one jail to another. At present, though soldiers had not been entirely removed from the civil prisons, the only men there who would return to the Army were those convicted of ordinary civil offences. The number of military prisoners in the civil prisons was 417. These were entirely prisoners dismissed from the Army or soldiers convicted of civil offences—and in regard to these his hon. friend had no cause of complaint. It was in consequence of the carrying out of the policy recommended in that House in regard to the escort of prisoners, the lighting of prisons, and the better dietary, that the extra charge appeared on the Estimates this year.
      MR. EUGENE WASON MR. EUGENE WASON asked whether the Home Secretary could answer the question he asked.
      *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS*MR. AKERS DOUGLAS said it was a technical question, and it was very difficult to answer. He himself thought that there was absolutely no extra cost in consequence of the corn duty. He did not think that he could work out in a few minutes in the House the amount they had paid more this year than last year for farinaceous food.
      SIR ALBERT ROLLIT SIR ALBERT ROLLIT said he should like to point out that the note to the Estimate was inaccurate and misleading. He mentioned that, because they had heard a great deal about efficiency and the necessity for conducting Government Departments on business lines. He thought the best way of checking expenditure and arriving at real economy was always to protest and ask the Minister to account for the differences between the original and the revised Estimates. Whenever he was in the House, his contribution in the way of practical efficiency would be in requiring a rigid account of material differences in the Estimates.
      *SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid this increase was so serious that the Committee should look at it

      1153
      in the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman opposite had spoken. The increase in the charge for victualling was one-eighth of the original amount. That was to say, for every £1 estimated there had been £1 2s. 6d. paid. That was pretty nearly the state of things that existed for every working man in the country. For what he formerly paid a sovereign he now paid £1 2s. 6d. That was largely due to the altered conditions of taxation, during the last two years. But that was not an excuse for the under-estimate that had been made in this case. The original estimate was made on a dietary scale carefully prepared and sanctioned by a special committee. That scale was before those responsible for the original estimate, and they ought to have had foresight enough to give an accurate estimate of the actual amount that would be required for victualling the prisons. No business man would conduct his business in this way. it would necessarily lead him into the bankruptcy court. This kind of thing was going on, not only in connection with the Home Office, but in many other Departments, and thus the national expenditure was increasing year by year. He thought they had a right to demand from the Government more foresight, in order that the money of the country might be expended more efficiently than it had been.
      MR. GALLOWAYsaid no one would argue that the Estimates should not be made up with the greatest care, and with the view of avoiding the waste of public money. But he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to this particular Estimate. It was well known that in consequence of the alteration which had been made in the dietary of prisons there was bound to be an increase in the cost for food. That was the first year in which the extra diet had been provided, and those who framed the Estimates had had no experience. Therefore it was not by any means strange that the Estimate should have been exceeded as it had been. He thought it must be very difficult for the Department to tell, except by average, how many prisoners there might be, although he was sorry to see that these were increasing in numbers. While he agreed with what the hon. Member for Ilkeston said in
      1154
      regard to the increase in the Estimates for the Public Department generally, yet he thought that in this particular Department it was unfair to attack his right hon. friend, who, of all criminals charged with this particular offence, was possibly the last who ought to be condemned. He did not think his right hon. friend's Department had been very largely responsible for the great increase in the national expenditure. Arising out of the reply made to the hon. Member for Islington, his right hon. friend said that the instructions of the Department now were that, when prisoners were being removed from one gaol to another, they should be removed in cabs, and as far as possible kept out of view of the general public. He had no doubt that these instructions had been given, but they were not carried out in many parts of the country. In his native town of Manchester prisoners could be seen being removed by train and not by cabs, and sometimes even on the top of tramway cars, when being transferred from country districts to the city. This practice was greatly to be deprecated, and he asked his right hon. friend to see that more careful instructions were given as to the removal of such prisoners. There was no excuse for their being removed by train in the middle of the day when it was possible to do so early in the morning, as was done in the Metropolis.
      MR. KEARLEY MR. KEARLEY said that when they examined the original Estimate they found that there was already an increase in this particular item of food of £6,500. Now they had a Supplementary Estimate, which they were told arose from the fact of the increase in the dietary. But it occurred to him that when the increase of £6,500 was made last year that increase of dietary was contemplated, and that the paltry provision made brought out the incompetency of the Department. Nobody said that the number of prisoners had increased in proportion to this large increase in the Estimates. Any business house would have allocated the amount of additional expenditure required to a penny piece. What was the reason this was not done? It was stated in the footnote that when the original.
      Estimates were framed, a reduction was anticipated in the prices of food stuffs generally after the war in South Africa terminated. He should like to know who imagined that the prices of victualling would be reduced at the close of the war. On what data did they work? The commercial conduct of all the Departments was wrong. No Government Department had the most elementary knowledge of what was called "good buying" There was no foresight, or the faintest conception of the principle of "good buying." He had seen it in the Navy Estimates, where money might have been saved if the Government had contracted in advance for the supply of, say, serge, without taking delivery. He wanted to know on what articles the increase of price had taken place. The Government seemed always to be caught by any rise in the market, but never had the advantage of a fall.
      MR. FLOWERsaid that, as his hon. friend the Member for Manchester had pointed out, the spirit of reform had not penetrated to the great provincial centres. So far as the transport of prisoners was concerned there was room for a great deal of reform. He would bring to the notice of his right hon. friend the question of the conveyance of prisoners from Bradford to a neighbouring prison, half a day's journey distant. They were conveyed in the day-time, and the male and female prisoners were placed in the same van. He was sure his right hon. friend deprecated that practice, and he appealed to him to use his influence with the local authorities responsible in the matter to carry out a suitable reform. He did not know whether he would be in order in suggesting to the Home Secretary that it would be well if there were an extension of technical education given to the prisoners.
      THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, that is not a question pertinent to the Vote.
      MR. FLOWER: I was afraid I was not in order.
      MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he had to complain of the
      1156
      explanatory Note under the heading of "Victualling." Certainly, the excuse for the underestimate offered by the Home Secretary was not properly expressed in the Note before the Committee. Indeed, he could not understand it. Even supposing this was the only justification put forward by the Department, he felt it very difficult, from an economic point of view, to comprehend how anyone in office should suppose that, at the end of a long war, the prices of food-stuffs would go down. He should have supposed that a study of history and of former Estimates would have shown that the prices of the necessaries of life went up after the close of a great war. It could not be that the mere fact of the cessation of war, and the demands of the victualling yards falling off, would have made so great a difference. It seemed to him that the Note was wholly misleading. He understood, from the point of view of the Home Secretary, that there must have been an underestimate, because the change in the dietary must have been taken into account in framing the original Estimate. Then he came to the note on the Vote for "Escort and Conveyance, £4,000."
      "The continued high number of prisoners, and consequent removals to prevent overcrowding, and heavier claims from local authorities for conveyance of prisoners to prison, account for this excess."
      As he understood him, the Home Secretary stated that at the time the original Estimates were framed none of these things were known to the Department. But there had been no change. The words did not even suggest that there had been a greater number of prisoners; the words were, "the continued high number of prisoners." Then the words, 'heavier claims from local authorities," were highly ambiguous. He hoped the Home Secretary would explain the note, which was neither intelligent, logical, nor clear.
      MR. LOUGHsaid it seemed to him that the explanation offered for the Supplementary Estimate given in the Paper would have to be thrown overboard by the Home Secretary. If the increased expenditure were due to an increased prison population, that was

      1157
      an interesting fact on which he hoped the Home Secretary would give the Committee some information. With reference to the increase in the cost for the conveyance and escort of prisoners, it had not been pointed out that a largely increased sum had already been taken under the head, and that now the Committee was asked to vote twice as much as had been estimated. Was any explanation obtained as to the increase in the prison population? He thought the Home Secretary should throw some light upon that matter. Two of the largest prisons in England were situated in his constituency; and his constituents were bringing to the notice of the Home Secretary certain matters which had excited very great public interest. There had been a great outburst of public feeling with regard to the manner in which executions were carried out in one of the prisons; and his constituents asked that executions should not be carried out locally if they were not carried out with sufficient respect for public feeling. It would be much better that executions should be carried out in some decent place and in such a manner that the melancholy ceremony would not shock public feeling. A notice was posted on the prison door or a black flag was hoisted immediately an execution took place. Such things should, in his opinion, be discontinued; and he hoped that the Home Secretary would give attention to the matter.
      *THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE HOME OFFICE (Mr. COCHRANE,)said that, in answer to his hon. friend, the question as to the travelling of prisoners had received the careful attention of his right hon. friend, and instructions had been issued to the responsible officials to see that every means were taken to secure privacy in order that the prisoners should not be unnecessarily exposed to the public gaze. Care was also taken that they should be removed from the railway termini either in a van or in cabs; and particular instructions were given that while at the railway termini they should, as far as possible, be placed in a separate part of the station, and not be kept standing about. Generally, as far as possible, separate compartments were engaged
      1158
      for them. With reference to the hour at which they should travel, an hon. Member suggested that they should travel in the morning; but it was found that, as a rule, station platforms were more crowded from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m., and instructions had been issued that prisoners should not be brought to a railway terminus between those particular hours, as the congestion of traffic was greater than at a later hour of the day. Every possible means was taken to secure that a prisoner should not be subjected to an unnecessary degree of degradation, and that the public should not suffer. As regarded the cost of travelling, from the 1st of" April, 1901, to the 13th of April, 1902, 7,210 prisoners were removed to prevent overcrowding; but during the corresponding period ended last month it was found' necessary to remove 8,654, or an increase of 1,444, That accounted for the increased expenditure, though not for the whole increase, as the cost of the greater provision which was made to secure the privacy of prisoners should also be taken into account. Then, as to the details, the increase in the estimate for prisoners' food had arisen from the increased cost in the price of commodities, which was estimated at £5,000. They hoped, however, that the Estimates would be more accurate in future. There was very great difficulty in framing them, owing to the increase in the dietary scale. It was not such an easy matter as hon. Members seemed to think, to estimate for various scales of dietary, as the number of prison threats might be in any particular scale had to be guessed at, and that made it extremely difficult for the first year or two on a new dietary to be exactly accurate. A much closer estimate for subsequent years would, he had no doubt, be framed.
      MR. LOUGH MR. LOUGH asked what about the increase in the number of prisoners?
      *MR. AKERS-DOULAS*MR. AKERS-DOULAS said that there was an increase in the number of prisoners, but they were quite unable to assign any specific cause for it. It was general, and was distributed all over the country. The Prison Commissioners, in their Report, stated that they had endeavoured to ascertain if any local causes existed that would account for it, but they found it was impossible to assign

      1159
      any specific cause for it except the growth of population in large industrial centres. There was not, however, any serious increase of crime; certainly not of serious crime. The Prison Commissioners stated that serious crime, as shown by the number of persons sentenced to imprisonment at Quarter Sessions and Assizes, had fallen from about 37 per 100,000 population for the five years beginning 1880 to about 23 per 100,000 for the year 1902, and the persons imprisoned on summary conviction had similarly fallen from 566 per 100,000 to 489 per 100,000. No doubt there was a considerable increase in the number of prisoners. That increase was distributed all over the country, and was chiefly due to small and petty offences in the large industrial centres, and especially in boroughs where the police supervision had been greatly extended. He did not think himself, and he had been in close communication with the Prison Commissioners on the subject, that there was any serious danger or fear on that score, and he did not think the increase would continue.
      SIR ALBERT ROLLIT SIR ALBERT ROLLIT said he understood that the Supplementary Estimate was because of the increased price of food. Now he understood it was because the ingredients were changed.
      *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS*MR. AKERS DOUGLAS said that undoubtedly there had been an underestimate. He did not conceal that fact, and greatly regretted it. It occurred because they had to estimate for a new dietary on which they could not take an average over a period of years. Moreover, the conditions of the dietary were very changeable, because they might have a certain number in one class one day, and a different number the next day. He had no doubt that, when the new dietary had extended over a longer period, it would be very much more closely estimated. At any rate, he would not be satisfied until they had succeeded in framing a much closer Estimate.
      *SIR WALTER FOSTER*SIR WALTER FOSTER said he thought the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman had very candidly met the arguments that had been advanced. He desired to dwell upon
      1160
      the loose way in which the original Estimates were arrived at. Those brought up last year were inadequate and insufficient. In each of the items in the Supplementary Estimates now before the House they had the same glaring inadequacy. The original Estimate for victualling was £86,200, it was now raised to £99,000, and the extra amount now required was an amount of £12,800. That was the amount required to make good the deficiency in the original estimate, which showed that there must be some serious error on the original calculation. The same thing occurred with regard to the estimate for "lighting, water, cleaning, etc.," in respect to which a further £3,500 was now required. Again in the Estimate for Escorts, etc., an additional £4,000 was asked for. Every one of these items was an illustration of a very loose method of estimating the expenditure, which must result in a loss to the nation.
      MR. KEARLEY MR. KEARLEY said, as he understood, this increase had arisen owing to an increase in the price of grain and meat. Would the hon. Gentleman under those circumstances divide the items and say how much was due to the increase in the price of grain and how much to the increase in the price of meat? They had had a very nice definition of the word grain when the corn duties were imposed last year, when grain was held to cover sixty-four articles, and although he did not suggest the whole increase was due to the duty, no doubt it contributed to it. He believed these increases, and the whole tendency towards the increase of the Estimates, were due to the fact that what were practically commercial departments of State were managed by uncommercial men. He believed that all these increases were due to the fact that those who had to purchase these various commodities for the State did not watch the markets.
      MR. COCHRANE MR. COCHRANE said he was unable to give the information asked for. He had given the amount of increase in regard to each item, and inasmuch as the total was only some £5,000 or £6,000 he thought it was hardly worth while to go into the matter.
      MR. KEARLEY MR. KEARLEY could not accept the suggestion. If the hon. Gentleman had proper details the Committee was entitled to have them. If he had not
      MR. COCHRANE: No, I have not.
      *MR. KEARLEY*MR. KEARLEY said he would accept the answer, hut he thought the hon. Gentleman should have admitted it before, because the Committee would remember that these increases of £5,000 here and £5,000 there went to make up the millions of increase that they were trying to reduce.
      MR. WHITLEY MR. WHITLEY suggested that in the Estimates there should appear an item showing the number of prisoners provided for each year, and the cost per individual for food and these other items. That might surely be done. The Home Office had their own statistics, and it was the first thing a business man would do if he desired to have a check on things of this kind. The increase this year on food alone was actually 25 per cent. upon the cost of twelve months ago, yet so far as he knew the prison population had not increased. That was a serious matter, and it was desirable to know how these unfortunate convicts had managed to eat in a single year 25 per cent. more, food than they consumed in previous years. He asked that when Estimates of subsequent years came before the House they should contain the cost per head for the current and the two or three previous years in order that a comparative estimate might be made.
      *MR. HERBERT SAMUELdrew attention to the fact that this Vote was headed "Prisons in England and the Colonies," and asked whether any prisons were still maintained in the Colonies, and, if so, would the hon. Gentleman state where? If that was only an historic title, a survival from the days of transportation, would the hon. Gentleman see if the Estimate could be altered?
      MR. AKERS DOUGLAS MR. AKERS DOUGLAS said that although the estimate was headed "Prisons, England and the Colonies" that was merely historic, and he would see what he could do to get it altered.
      MR. COCHRANE MR. COCHRANE said he could give the information asked for from the hon. Member opposite. The cost per head now was £5 5s., as compared with £4 last year.
      Vote agreed to

    CLASS VII.

      £70,000, INDIAN CORONATION GUESTS.
      Vote agreed to.
      [CLASS II.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the Salaries and Expenses of certain services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund, and other services connected with the Mercantile Marine."
      SIR ALBERT ROLLIT SIR ALBERT ROLLIT called attention to the fact that in this Vote the excess in the revised Estimate over the original amount was rather more than 200 per cent. although this was one of those ordinary matters with regard to which shipping firms were able to obtain very accurate and close estimates. He would like to know the reason of this remarkable difference between the original and the revised Estimates.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said that a supplementary estimate was one which from the very nature of the case required adjustment. The ordinary Estimate was the Estimate provided by the Government to include all the expenditure of the year, and the only possible ground for a supplementary Estimate was that there had been some expense which could not possibly be foreseen. As no Member of the Government competent to answer as to steam launches was present, he moved to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again." Mr. Gibson Bowles.
      THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. HAVES FISHER,)regretted that, owing to the

      1163
      rapidity with which this Estimate had been reached, the Minister who had to answer for it was not present. He, as representing the Treasury, had scarcely any opportunity of looking into the matter, and was unable to give any details that were asked for.
      MB. GIBSON BOWLES MB. GIBSON BOWLES said this was a most extraordinary Estimate. The original Estimate for maintenance of steam launches was £530, and they were asked to add to that a sum of £2,000. It seemed to him like midsummer madness. He must persist in his Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      MR. KEARLEY MR. KEARLEY pointed out that the original Estimate for the two items in question was only £1,200, and as the Committee were now asked to vote a further £2,000 they naturally wanted some details.
      As the President of the Board of Trade was now in his place,
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES asked leave to withdraw his Motion to report progress.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Main Question again proposed.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES said the supplementary Estimate in this case was nearly double the original Estimate. The question of maintenance was a very small thing in the case of a steam launch, and it was difficult to understand why this sum should be required. It was the duty of Ministers to estimate with moderate accuracy the sums they required for the service of the year, and not to bring forward supplementary estimates unless new circumstances, which could not have been foreseen, arose. No reason whatever had been given for this large additional Vote, and he hoped the Minister responsible would give some explanation.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central),in expressing regret at his absence when the Vote was called on, explained that he made arrangements to be summoned, but those arrangements did not seem to have been successful.
      1164
      The sum in question was required for special repairs. The practice of the Board of Trade in regard to these steam launches was to ask for an amount equivalent to the average of several years. They were not in a position to know whether any special repairs would be required, and it was only within the last two or three months that this expenditure had had to be incurred. In each case the repairs consisted of a new boiler and general overhaul. It would be possible for the Board of Trade to ascertain in each year what important repairs were likely to be required, but, as a matter of fact, experience had shown that if such an estimate were made, a demand would be immediately forthcoming for such repairs. la practice it had been found more economical to take the average, and then, when repairs were actually required, the amount was supplied out of savings previously made.
      MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked whether these were old boilers, or had some unforeseen accident occurred?
      MR. GALLOWAY MR. GALLOWAY asked what sort of boilers they were.
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR did not suppose they wore water-tube boilers, nor was he able to state their age. He believed, however, that they were old ones.
      *SIR WALTER POSTER*SIR WALTER POSTER said the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was almost as remarkable as the supplementary Estimate. Year after year the Committee had voted £550 for maintenance of steam launches, and now, when there had been two previous opportunities of considering the necessities of. this particular case, a demand was suddenly made for an additional amount nearly equal to two years allowance. No private business could be conducted on such lines. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it did not do to anticipate repairs or to estimate for them, because the repairs would then be demanded. That showed loose control and lack of supervision in the Department. A private firm, if it inspected its machinery to see what repairs were

      1165
      required, would take care that unnecessary repairs were not forced upon it. These so-called special repairs could, with a little ordinary foresight, have been provided for in the ordinary estimates of the year.
      MR. KEARLEY MR. KEARLEY said it would be very interesting to know what the steam launches were originally supplied for, because it seemed to him an extraordinary expenditure on two steam launches in one year. The Admiralty had, until quite recently, kept up the pernicious system of spending hundreds of thousands of pounds a year upon old ships which, when they had been fitted out, were found to be absolutely worthless for service. Tie suggested the case under discussion was an exact reproduction of the same pernicious system. Here were two rickety steam launches, which probably did not cost more than £800 when new. They had gone to the bad simply because, as the President of the Board of Trade had admitted, if they had asked the people how things were going, there would have been a wholesale demand for repairs. That, in his opinion, showed that these vessels were rotten, and required to be cleared out. The Committee were
      entitled to know the actual condition and age of the boats, what was the cost price, and why it was that this particular Department of the Government was afraid to ask how things were going. It proved incompetency and lack of power to control. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would reply. He prophesied that the expenditure on the launches for the year was equal to their original cost.
      MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEasked whether the money had been spent, or whether, if it was to be spent shortly, it could not appear in the ordinary estimates of the current year.
      MR GERALD BALFOUE MR GERALD BALFOUE said the money had already been spent. As regards the cost of the boats, he was not able to give the amount off-hand, hut he might be able to give full information later on.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 197; Noes, 117. (Division List No. 10.)

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

      More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

      Sharpe, William Edward T.

      Jameson. Major J. Eustace

      Morrison, James Archibald

      Simeon, Sir Barrington

      Johnstone, Heywood

      Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

      Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

      Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

      Mount, William Arthur

      Sloan, Thomas Henry

      Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

      Muntz, Sir Philip A.

      Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

      Kimber, Henry

      Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute)

      Spear, John Ward

      King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

      Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

      Knowles, Lees

      O'Doherty, William

      Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

      Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

      O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

      Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

      Laurie, Lieut.-General

      Parkes, Ebenezer

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

      Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

      Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

      Thorburn, Sir Walter

      Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

      Percy, Earl

      Thornton, Percy M.

      Lawson, John Grant

      Plummer, Walter R.

      Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

      Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

      Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

      Tritton, Charles Ernest

      Llewellyn, Evan Henry

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

      Lockie, John

      Purvis, Robert

      Valentia, Viscount

      Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

      Pym, C. Guy

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

      Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

      Randles, John S.

      Walker, Col. William Hall

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

      Rasch, Major Krederie Carne

      Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

      Lonsdale, John Brownlee

      Rattigan, Sir William Henry

      Welby, Lieut-Cl. A. C. E. (Taunt'n)

      Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale)

      Reid, James (Greenock)

      Wharton, Kt. Hon. John Lloyd

      Loyd, Archie Kirkman

      Remnant, James Farqnharson

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

      Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

      Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

      Wilson, John (Falkirk)

      Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

      Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

      Wilson, John (Glasgow)

      Macdona, John Cumming

      Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

      M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

      Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

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

      M'Calmont, Colonel James

      Ropuer Colonel Sir Robert

      Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

      Maple, Sir John Blundell

      Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

      Wylie, Alexander

      Martin, Richard Biddulph

      Round, Rt. Hon. James

      Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

      Melville, Beresford Valentine

      Royds, Clement Molyneux

      Wyndham Quin, Major W. H.

      Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

      Sackville, Col. S. C. Stopford

      Milvain, Thomas

      Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

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

      Mitchell, William

      Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

      Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

      Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)

      NOES.

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

      Ferguson. R. C. Munro (Leith)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

      Ffrench, Peter

      O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

      Atherley-Jones, L.

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

      Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

      Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

      O'Dowd, John

      Blake, Edward

      Gilhooly, James

      O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

      Boland, John

      Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

      Bryee, Right Hon. James

      Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Burke, E. Haviland

      Harmsworth, R. Leicester

      Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham)

      Buxton, Sydney Charles

      Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

      Partington, Oswald

      Caldwell, James

      Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H

      Paulton, James Mellor

      Cameron, Robert

      Horniman, Frederick John

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

      Joicey, Sir James

      Price, Robert John

      Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

      Jones, David B. (Swansea)

      Keddy, M.

      Causton, Richard Knight

      Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Channing. Francis Allston

      Joyce. Michael

      Redmond, William (Clare)

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Lambert, George

      Reid, Sir R, Thres. (Dumfries)

      Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

      Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W)

      Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

      Crean, Eugene

      Layland-Barratt, Francis

      Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

      Crombie, John William

      Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

      Rose, Charles Day

      Cullinan, J.

      Lloyd-George, David

      Runciman, Walter

      Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

      Lough, Thomas

      Russell, T. W.

      Davies, M. Vaughan. (Cardign)

      Lundon, W.

      Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

      Delany, William

      MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

      Schwann, Charles E.

      Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

      MacVeagh, Jercmiah

      Shackleton, David Jones

      Donelan, Captain A.

      M'Govern, T.

      Shipman, Dr. John G.

      Doogan, P. C.

      M'Kenna, Reginald

      Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

      Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

      Mansfield, Horace Kendall

      Smith, Samuel (Flint)

      Duffy. William J.

      Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Dunn, Sir William

      Murnaghan, George

      Soares, Ernest J.

      Emmott, Alfred

      Murphy, John

      Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Stevenson, Francis S.

      Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

      Norton, Capt. Cecil William

      Strachey, Sir Edward

      Farquharson, Dr. Robert

      O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

      Sullivan, Donal

      Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E)

      Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

      Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

      Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

      Wason, Engene (Clackmannan)

      Yoxall, lames Henry

      Thomson, F. W. (York; W. R.)

      Weir, James Galloway

      Toulmin, George

      White, Luke (York, E. R.)

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Whiteley, George (York. W. R.)

      TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Mr. Kearley and Mr. Charles Hobhonse.

      Wallace, Robert

      Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

      Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

      Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    CLASS V.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum. not exceeding £10,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions, and of Consular Establishments abroad, and other Expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote."
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON asked the noble Lord if he was not going to give some explanation on this Vote.
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBOURNE,): I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman wishes me to explain.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON said the first heading was £4,000 for special missions and services, and one of those items was for the China Tariff Commission. The second item was £6,000, which was entirely due to telegrams consequent on the state of affairs in the Far East.
    *LORD CRANBORNE*LORD CRANBORNE said the explanation as regarded the special missions was that the extra sum asked for was entirely due to the negotiations with China for the commercial treaty. That treaty was negotiated for at very great length. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] Hon. Members who had had any negotiations with China knew that they could not be concluded within a very brief period. There was an inconceivable amount of obstruction, and references had to be made, but be did not think the hon. Gentleman would expect him to account for Chinese delays, because be knew that any Government which negotiated with China had to be prepared for delays. As regarded the telegrams, according to recent rulings of the Chair it had been held that on
    1170
    Supplementary Estimates they were not entitled to discuss the policy which those telegrams covered, and the only question for them was the reason for the extra charge and the responsibility of the Government for not having given the right Estimate to start with. The Committee was quite aware that it was impossible beforehand to tell what the amount of the charge for telegrams would come to. It was always an uncertain quantity, but the system adopted was that a normal sum was fixed upon and put forward in the ordinary main Estimates for the year. If it so happened that the negotiations threw a very much larger charge upon the telegrams, then they had to put matters right in the Supplementary Intimates. Of course the Committee could discuss the whole policy when the main Estimates were submitted, but it would be quite impossible for the Foreign Office, or any other branch of the public service, to enter fully into questions of policy on a Supplementary Estimate.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEdid not think the Committee had received a very satisfactory explanation from the noble Lord. He had given the same explanation for this Supplementary Estimate that was given by the President of the Hoard of Trade for the Estimate just passed, namely, that it was the custom to take an average sum, and not in the least to calculate the expenditure which would be necessary; and then, if it was necessary to spend much more money, to come to Parliament and ask sanction for the additional expenditure. He did not think the way to keep down expenditure was to encourage the Departments to come to the House with Supplementary Estimates. Surely on the subject of China the Committee might have bad a little more explanation of the necessity for the increased expenditure than had been given by the noble Lord. The House

    1171
    should have been warned that this treaty was to cost so much—an amount which was perhaps more than it was worth. He hoped that the practice which had obtained during the past two years of presenting these Supplementary Estimates would come to an end, and as a protest against its continuance he begged to move to reduce the Vote £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,900. be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Chides Hobhouse.)
    MR. KEARLEY MR. KEARLEY said that the Vote for 1901-2 for special service missions was £16,000, and now the Estimate for 1902-3 was £33,000. That showed an increase of £17,000. He presumed that the increase was put on the Estimate in contemplation of this particular China Tariff Commission. If so, they had the criticism to offer that, notwithstanding that the facts were known, there was a large under-estimate. Again, there had been critical times in China formerly, but the cost of telegrams then had not been nearly so great as it was now. The whole tendency was to increase expenditure without getting value for the money. The explanation the Committee had received to-day was no explanation at all.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES said the noble Lord had stated that it was difficult to say what the telegrams would cost in the course of the year. He did not think it was so impossible as the noble Lord represented. With regard to the item for telegrams, here it was said to be "consequent on the state of affairs in the Far East." What was the state of affairs that had cost £6,000 additional? No explanation had yet been given to the Committee of that. There was an item which was not in the Supplementary Estimate. There was nothing as to the state of affairs in Venezuela. A large expenditure must have occurred there. Why had it not been provided for? Was the Far West to be put under the cloak of the Far East? The special missions which were constantly recurring were much to be deprecated. We had a staff of am-
    1172
    bassadors, secretaries, and charges d'affaires, and surely they were sufficient for the special missions of this country. His own mission to Gibraltar had not cost the country anything, and he did not know why these special missions cost so much as they did.
    The noble Lord had referred to the rulings which precluded the discussion of policy on Supplementary Estimates. Mr. Speaker Peel was of opinion that as a rule the Committee could not discuss policy on the Supplementary Estimates, but he pointed out that these Supplementary Estimates might be such as to raise new questions. Therefore there must be a caveat entered against the contention that the Committee could never discuss policy on a Supplementary Estimate. He thought it was very objectionable to have these Supplementary Estimates. A Supplementary Estimate was usual when the Chancellor of the Exchequer found that he had more money than he would require at the finish of the year. One thing that was an abomination to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to let money go in diminution of the National Debt, and word was passed round to the Departments to get up some extra expenditure. That was the practice. The noble Lord sat with bent brow and did not deny it. When there were no Supplementary Estimates presented, the Departments found it possible to put the charges into next year's Estimate.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERdid not think a sufficient explanation had been given of the charge "consequent on the state of affairs in the Far East." The Member for Lynn Regis had probably hit upon the right reason. Certainly the Committee ought to know what was the state of affairs which had caused this enormous charge for telegrams.
    *LORD CRANBORNE*LORD CRANBORNE dissented from the view expressed by the hon. Member for Lynn Regis as to the reason for Supplementary Estimates being presented. The hon. Member had said that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a good deal of money to spare, word was conveyed to the Departments to send in Supplementary Estimates. He thought it was very seldom that the Chancellor

    1173
    of the Exchequer had money to spare. So far from pressure being put on the Departments to produce Supplementary Estimates, he could assure the hon. Memberand the Committee that nothing Annoyed the Government more than supplementary estimates because they were aware of the opportunities they afforded for taking up time that might be otherwise employed. In answer to the hon. Member for the Lich field Division, he had to state that the negotiation of the China Treaty alone would convince him of the necessity for a large bill for telegraphing, He had the commercial treaty in his hand. It covered ten or eleven pages of close print, every word of which was telegraphed to this country Then there were telegraphic charges not only for the treaty itself, but also for the negotiations, so that the plenipotentiaries of this country might be fully instructed. The Treaty was before the Committee, and he thought the explanations he had given ought to satisfy the Committee. There were many other matters of interest besides the Treaty which were agitated in the Far East in the year brought to a close, and about which telegrams had to be sent. He would like to remind hon. Gentlemen that they very often put questions to him as to the proceedings in the Far East, and very properly so, and that these questions frequently necessitated telegrams being sent to the Far Fast.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES asked if the Vote included the cost of telegrams in reference to Venezuela.
    *LORD CRANBORNE*LORD CRANBORNE said no; his answer referred only to telegrams to the Far Hast.
    *MR. WYLIE (Dumbartonshire)said the Foreign Office had had an enormous amount of work during the past year in connection with negotiations in the Far East. It had had to consult merchants in this country as well as in the Far East, and on the, whole it had done its work very well. He was sorry to notice a tendency on the part of some hon. Members to belittle the work which had been thrown on the Chinese Commission, because its work, he con-
    1174
    ceived, had been beneficial to this country. From the very first he had advocated the necessity for the abolition of the Likin duties and its feasibility The pessimistic views expressed by some hon. Members opposite had weakened the hands of Sir James MacKie in negotiating the treaty, and their predictions as to the faithlessness of the Chinese Government in carrying it out were also most injudicious. This commercial treaty was an enormous advance on the Tien-Tsin Treaty.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON said he wished to ask whether anything could be discussed on tin; Supplementary Estimates which could not be discussed on the original Vote?
    *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN was understood to rule that it could not, unless it was entirely new matter.
    *MR. WYLIE*MR. WYLIE said that the principal objection seemed to be taken to the sum of £4,000 in connection with special missions in the Far East, and he contended that that money had been exceedingly well spent, as those who were intimately acquainted with the facts knew perfectly well that the results we had derived from that expenditure were worth it.
    SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that the Committee wanted to understand the answer the noble Lord had given. The hon. Member for Kings Lynn took exception to this £6,000 for telegrams, because he considered that a considerable part of it had been used for carrying on negotiations with Venezuela. Were the Committee to understand that these negotiations with Venezuela had in no. way increased the expense of telegrams beyond the sum now named in the Estimates? If they had entailed an increase as compared with the expenditure which was anticipated when the Estimates were framed, his hon. friend was entitled to an answer to his question.
    *LORD CRANBORNE*LORD CRANBORNE said that the money which he was now asking for was for the Far East, and the Far East

    1175
    alone. As to the sums which it had cost the country for telegrams with regard to Venezuela, when the proper time came it would be his duty to submit the matter to the consideration of the Committee.
    SIR JOHN GORST SIR JOHN GORST asked if they spent all this money on Chinese telegrams, while the Venezuela telegrams had been paid for out of the money voted last year? The House of Commons had the right to know what particular services had caused this increase of expenditure, and if the negotiations with Venezuela had contributed to make that increase necessary the House of Commons had a right to know how much of that increase was due to the particular contingency of the negotiations with Venezuela.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNER MR. COURTENAY WARNER said that the noble Lord had not made this matter clear at all. It was very easy for the noble Lord to say that he allocated this £6,000 for the payment of Chinese telegrams, but he understood that the telegrams to Venezuela had been taken out of the original Vote, and that therefore the noble Lord would have less money to spend on the Chinese telegrams: hence the necessity for the Supplementary Estimate.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES said that the noble Lord had declared that the whole of this money was for telegrams to the Far East, and that no part of it was a provision for Venezuela telegrams. When he asked the noble Lord when he would be ready to explain the Venezuela telegrams, the noble Lord suggested that the money required for these telegrams would be asked for at some future date. What did that mean? It meant that it would appear in next year's Estimates. Why then did not this Eastern expenditure go into next year's Estimates? Where was the justification for separating the telegrams with regard to Venezuela and China when the expenditure was incurred in the same year? The reason for putting China into the Estimates and omitting Venezuela was conceivably that the Government were anxious to court a discussion with regard to China, and as anxious, or more anxious, to avoid discussion with regard to Venezuela. Would the noble Lord state what the telegrams
    1176
    in connection with Venezuela had cost? He himself put it down at £10,000. He was certain that that sum was not too much.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN*THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN said he would remind the hon. Gentleman that the noble Lord had stated that no part of this Vote was for Venezuela telegrams.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES said he would not pursue the question of the amount of the Venezuela telegrams; but he had a right to complain of its omission.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN*THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN said that hon. Gentleman could only discuss the Estimates on the paper.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES said that the Estimate on the paper was dishonest and incomplete, and he would vote for the Amendment.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that the member of the Government from whom the Committee ought to have an explanation was not the noble Lord, but the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It was obvious from the noble Lord's answer that there had been some alteration in those Estimates which had put the Committee in a very difficult position to discuss them. What they wanted to know was had there been an attempt made to avoid discussion on Venezuelan questions, and had not this been brought about by the fact that the excess over the original Estimates for telegrams had been put down to China, and the part due to Venezuelan telegrams had been excluded. Surely the Committee was entitled to ask some Member of the Government why it was that if there had been an excess on the China telegrams and equally an excess on the Venezuelan telegrams, the one was here on the Paper, and the other absent. There must be some reason, either financial, or political, for that omission. If the noble Lord could not give a clear explanation it would be necessary to send for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. [At this point Mr. Hayes Fisher entered the House.] He was glad that the hon. Gentleman had returned to his place. What he wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman was—there must have been clearly

    1177
    an excess on the telegram Vote for Venezuela, and also an excess on the Vote for China—-whether the whole of the excess for general telegrams had been put down to China and whether the excess on the Venezuelan telegrams had been paid for out of the ordinary Votes; and, if so, why had the Vote for Venezuela been so placed as to put it out of the power of the Committee to discuss the question? Either both the Votes ought to have been on the Supplementary Estimates or neither of them.
    MR. HAYES FISHER MR. HAYES FISHER said he was sorry he had not been present when the hon. Gentleman first asked his question, but he had been called away by other business. The hon. Gentleman asked him why the Venezuelan telegrams were not included in the Supplementary Estimates. What happened, so far as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was concerned, was that he sent round to the different departments, and asked them whether they had any Supplementary Estimates, and, if so, whether they would let him know by a certain date. They had obtained the best information they could on the occasion, and were informed that the cause of the Supplementary Estimate was the very excessive number of telegrams with reference to Chinese affairs. He could not possibly give the dates on which all the Supplementary Estimates had been asked for. It would be impossible for him to carry that in his recollection. They were told on the authority of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that enough money had not been taken in the Estimates to meet the necessities of the cost of telegrams in connection with Chinese affairs, and so far as he was aware nothing was said about Venezuela. Most certainly, from the point of view of the Treasury, they had no intention of hiding anything in connection with Venezuela.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss anything in connection with Venezuela on this Vote, as it is not included in the Vote.
    MR. HAVES FISHER MR. HAVES FISHER said he had no intention of discussing Venezuela. He was merely replying to the hon. Member who stated that the Estimate was pre-
    1178
    sented in such a manner as to shut out the discussion of other topics. The Estimates were not framed with that object, and the Treasury thought that sufficient reason had been adduced to warrant the Committee in passing the Estimate.
    MR. KEARLEY MR. KEARLEY said it now appeared that a new system had been introduced, which, in his opinion, was a very unbusinesslike one. At the present time of plentiful surpluses, the last thing a Chancellor of the Exchequer desired was to pay over any part of his surplus to the diminution of the National Debt.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that he cannot discuss the general question on this Vote. It would not be in order for him to discuss transference of money from one Vote to another.
    MR. KEARLEY MR. KEARLEY said he thoroughly understood that. A question of principle was, however, involved. The system at the Treasury was that all the departments were requested to state their wants, whereupon their wants were satisfied.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That is a general question, and may be discussed on some other occasion. At present the hon. Member can only discuss the actual Supplementary Vote on the Paper.
    MR. C. R. SPENCERsaid, on a point of order, that the Secretary to the Treasury explained to the Committee just now the system—
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Istopped the Secretary of the Treasury, and perhaps I ought to have stopped him sooner.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT SIR ALBERT ROLLIT said he accepted the ruling of the Chair, and wished to know what the telegrams were concerned with. The allusion to China was merely a note. Would the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs give the Committee an assurance that no part of the £6,000 had been used for any other purpose.
    LORD CRANBORNE LORD CRANBORNE said he stated he was not taking it for any other purpose.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT SIR ALBERT ROLLIT said the correct view to take of the matter was not what the money was taken for-, but how it was to be spent.
    MR. KEARLEY MR. KEARLEY said it was quite evident that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs when he endeavoured to give the Committee an explanation was not fully acquainted with the Estimate. It now appeared that it had not been even decided how the money was to be spent; and the Committee; was entitled to know how it was to be spent. The noble Lord had no right to lay down a particular way in which money was to be spent. That was a matter for the Treasury. He submitted that he was entitled to ask the Under-Secretary why no money was taken for Somaliland telegrams and Venezuelan telegrams. That was what they wanted to get at, and they were simply being pulled away from the main track on the bare statement of the Under Secretary, who admittedly had not the knowledge of the Estimates possessed by the Secretary to the Treasury. The Committee was entitled to know whether another Supplementary Estimate would have to be submitted later for Somaliland and Venezuelan telegrams.
    MR. MOONsaid he thought it would be in the recollection of many hon. Members, especially hon. Members who followed Chinese affairs, that British merchants had great difficulty in North-East China with regard to a certain British railway from Pekiu to, practically, Niuchwang. It had passed into the hands of another Power, and finally, after a great deal of trouble and several months negotiation, the Government obtained the railway back. It appeared to him that that process alone must have involved a great number of telegrams.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON MR. SYDNEY BUXTON said that as the Secretary to the Treasury was not responsible for the way in which the Estimate had been placed before the Committee, the responsibility went back to the Foreign Office. His point was that the noble Lord was responsible for the form of the Estimate. Altogether £50,000 had been spent on telegrams during the year, and it was quite clear that some of that money was expended on telegrams con-
    1180
    nected with Venezuela and Somaliland, because those two matters occurred unexpectedly and must have involved additional expenditure. Yet the noble Lord's Department had put down on the Estimate that the whole of the excess was caused by Chinese telegrams. It would be quite clear, he thought, that the excess was not due entirely and absolutely to China, and he therefore wished to know what was the ground on which the House of Commons was not allowed to discuss Somaliland or Venezuela, but was confined to the discussion of Chinese questions. It was not right or fair for the Department, by means of a small note, not only to deceive the House of Commons but to prevent hon. Members from having that legitimate discussion to which they were entitled. The Committee ought to have a really clear explanation from the noble Lord as to why the House of Commons had been jockeyed out of a discussion on Somaliland and Venezuela.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE asked if the noble Lord would state how much had been spent on Chinese telegrams over and above the amount in the Supplementary Estimate.
    SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE, said he thought that the explanation on the Paper was quite as much as they could expect. They were told that the telegrams cost £ 6,000 in excess of the original Estimate. If a mistake were made with regard to the amount required for telegrams to China, and it was exceeded by £6,000, that was a sufficient explanation. He thought the Committee had been told quite sufficient.
    *MR. ALFRED DAVIES (Carmarthen Boroughs)thought that this was rather a storm in a teacup. When the noble Lord had given full explanation on this point every one would be satisfied. If they had the information as to how much of the £4: 4,000 had been allocated to telegrams to China and the information asked for by the hon. Member for Poplar they would be in the position of knowing how much had been spent.
    *LORD CRANBORNE*LORD CRANBORNE said the full amount spent for telegrams from Pekin was £16,846, including the sum now asked for; the telegrams from the Foreign Office were not distinguished and he could not therefore give that information. The hon. Member for Poplar had asked for some further explanation on this point. The hon. Member had quite mistaken what the original nature of the Estimate was. It was an Estimate for many years submitted to the Committee for a large sum of money for various items. It was impossible to tell how much telegrams were going to cost, and this sum was taken by the Foreign Office as an estimate of what was likely to be the cost of telegrams for the year. All sorts of contingencies bad to be taken into account and to say that the condition of things in South America was to be excluded from these Estimates was an unwarrantable assumption. There was no reason in the world why Venezuela should not be included in that sum. Among other places China had to be dealt with. The service to China was very expensive and a great expense had been thrown upon this country through what had taken place there. What had taken place in China? First of all, there was the commercial treaty which had been negotiated; then there was the transfer of the territory from the troops in occupation to the Chinese authorities, and there was also the question of the Russian evacuation of Manchuria, which at a later stage came within these telegrams; then there was the drawing up of the protocol. All these matters had to be done by telegram It would, of course, be out of order to discuss those questions now, and he had only mentioned

    AYES.

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

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Ambrose, Robert

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Dunn, Sir William

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

    Charming, Francis Allston

    Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Ffrenck, Peter

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Crean, Eugene

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Cullman, J.

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Blake, Edward

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Gilhooly, James

    Roland, John

    Davies, M. Vaughan, (Cardign)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Delany, William

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Bryce, Right Hon. James

    Dewar, John A. (Interness, sh.)

    Guidon, Sir W. Brampton

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Haldane. Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Harmsworth. R. Leicester

    Caldwell, James

    Doogan, P. C.

    Hemphill. Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

    Cameron, Robert

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    them to show how heavy was the charge thrown on the Foreign Office by telegrams to China. The House might be sure they were not going to be deprived of their right to criticise the Estimates, and that when the original Estimates came on there would be no such restriction as was placed by the Chairman on the Supplementary Estimates.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE said he certainly should not withdraw his Amendment, because the noble Lord had put the case for the Amendment even more strongly than it had been put before. The noble Lord had told the Committee that this Vote was taken for telegrams all over the world. It was all very well to say that when the Estimates came on there would be no restriction in discussing them, but they would be new Estimates dealing with new facts.
    MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE thought these telegrams were a curse to the country. A great deal of money had been spent, and the noble Lord told them a commercial treaty had been ratified, every word of which had had to be telegraphed to and fro many times. That was a system of centralisation with which he did not agree. We sent competent and capable men abroad who had our interest at heart and if they continually felt the check string from Downing Street they lost all individuality. He protested against trying to manage all these matters from home.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 189. (Division List No. 11.)

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    O Brien, Kend. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshirc)

    Joicey, Sir James

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Jones, Wm. (Garnarvonshire)

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Doherty, William

    Speneer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Northants)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

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

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Lambert, George

    O'Dowd, John

    Sullivan, Donal

    Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    O'Kelly, Connor (Mayo, N.)

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

    Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

    Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

    O'Mara, James

    Toulmin, George

    Lough, Thomas

    Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

    Wallace, Robert

    London, W.

    Partington, Oswald

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Paulton, James Mellor

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Price, Robert John

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    M'Govern, T.

    Reddy, M.

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Murnaghan, George

    Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries)

    Murphy, John

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Charles Hobhouse and Mr. Warner.

    Newnes, Sir George

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Shackleton, David James

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Hoult, Joseph

    Aird, Sir John

    Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Howard. J. (Midd., Tott'ham

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Johnstone, Heywood

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Denny, Colonel

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Dewar, Sir T. R. (T'r. Haml'ts)

    Kimber, Henry

    Atkinson, Right Hon. John

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Knowles, Lees

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Douglas, Rt. Horn A. Akers

    Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Balcarres, Lord

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

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

    Elliot, Eon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Lawson. John Grant

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

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lockie, John

    Bignold, Arthur

    Finch. Rt. Hon. George H.

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Bigwood, James

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskhie

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Bond, Edward

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith)

    Flower, Ernest

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Forster, Henry William

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

    Brassey, Albert

    Garfit, William

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

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

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Bull, William James

    Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Butcher, John George

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

    Malcolm, Ian

    Campbell, Bt Hn J A (Glasg.)

    Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby- (Salop)

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Carson. Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Gorst. Rt. Hon. Sir J Eldon

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

    Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Cavendish. V C W (Derbysh.)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Gretton, John

    Milvain, Thomas

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Mitchell, William

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Groves, James Grimble

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc)

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Chapman, Edward

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx)

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Olive, Captain Percy A.

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

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

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd)

    Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Peel, Hn Wm Robert Wellesley

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Percy, Earl

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

    Hobhouse. Rt Hn H (Somrst E)

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Hogg. Lindsay

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Purvis, Robert

    Pym, C. Guy

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Randies, John S.

    Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Walrond. Rt. Hn. Sir William H

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

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

    Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

    Spear, John Ward

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Wilson, John ((Glasgow)

    Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Wylie, Alexander

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Talbot, Lord E, (Chichester)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

    Russell, T. W.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Valentia, Viscount

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Vincent. Sir Edgar (Excter)

    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £69,600, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903, for the Grant in aid of the British Protectorate in East Africa."
    MR. M'KENNAin moving the reduction of the Vote by £100, complained that no Papers dealing with the subject had been issued to Members who were entitled to know whether this Supplementary Estimate was due to a "muddle" or a "moss." The original Vote of £244,000 was nearly three times larger than the original Vote of the preceding year. Now they were asked for this additional £69,600, and not a word of explanation had been given. They were not told what had happened in British Hast Africa, or why this additional charge was proposed. Since the Government took over the protectorate from the British East Africa Company nine years ago we had spent in grants in aid of British East Africa £1,200,000. That was an average of £133,000 a year. But the expenditure had been increasing, and in the last three years the average was £212,300 a year. In the six years ended March 31st, 1900, we had spent in grants in aid £566,675, and during the same period the total British trade with British East Africa amounted only to £540,000. That meant that even if all the goods landed in British East
    1186
    Africa cost us nothing to manufacture or deliver, and all the goods we received were delivered here without cost, we should still be the losers.
    And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1903-3.

    CLASS V.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum. not exceeding £69,600. be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903, for the Grant in Aid of the British Protectorate in East Africa."
    MR. M'KENNA MR. M'KENNA said when the business of the Committee was interrupted he was pointing out to the Committee that the total value of British trade, imports and exports, with British East Africa during the first six years of our occupation was £540,000, and that our grants in aid during the same period had far exceeded in extent our total trade. The grants in aid during the year ended March 1900-1901 had amounted

    1187
    to £227,000, or one and a half times as much as the whole value of our exports and imports during the same period with the protectorate. One of the advantages we derived from having such protectorates was the expansion of our trade, but what was the price we were paying for it? From the point of view of pounds shillings and pence, he asked the noble Lord to consider whether the character of the expenditure which we undertook in these protectorates was warranted by the commercial advantages we obtained from them. The total amount of this Vote now asked for, £313,000, was about three times as much as was asked for three years ago, and about four times the amount of the grant asked for last year, and although he had not the figures for the trade of the present year he was inclined to think it would amount to twice the value of the imports and exports between this country and British East Africa. That was the amount the Committee was asked to vote without a word of explanation or without a Paper being laid on the Table of the House.
    The noble Lord would no doubt reply that we were doing a great work in East Africa, and that the money the House was now asked to provide was for good administrative work in that country. He would not dispute that: he was prepared to believe that every penny of the money would be well spent for the object for which it was asked. But that was not the only point of view from which this matter ought to be regarded. The noble Lord in a previous debate had spoken of the revenue of East Africa as a trifling sum in relation to the whole cost of the Empire, and that was true, hut this was not the only place for which £313,000 was being asked. We were spending money in Uganda and Somaliland and other parts of Africa, and although such a sum was a mere trifle as compared with the whole cost, all these items totalled up to an enormous sum. The cost of British East Africa amounted in all to over a million and a quarter. Under those circumstances he submitted that the Committee were entitled] to ask
    1188
    whether it was a wise policy to carry on a form of government in these protectorates which the protectorates themselves could not pay for, and which, naturally, placed so heavy-a burden on the people of this country. If these expenses were so trifling, we should not have to pay for them by an income tax reckoned by shillings, but by pence, and a bread tax that fell most heavily on the poorest of the poor. Although the work being done might be admirable work in itself, he would ask the noble Lord to consider whether it was work he should allow the British people to pay for, and whether it was work which was contemplated when British East Africa was taken over as a British Colony. The policy the noble Lord advocated then was that it should be administered at a cost of £30,000, it was now £300,000. He asked the Committee to say that the time had come to review this policy as a whole, and to keep their' eye on the question of strict economy. On these grounds he begged leave to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £69,500, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. M'Kenna.)
    MR. BAYLEY (Derbyshire, Chesterfield),in supporting the Amendment, asked the noble Lord the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he could assure the Committee that no magistrate whose salary was covered by this Vote was administering a law which acknowledged the legal status of slavery. He also desired to know whether any part of the Vote was going, either directly or indirectly, in payment of amounts which had been already passed for the making of the Uganda Railway. He would also like to know whether there were any arrears of pay due to our Indian soldiers in East Africa as would appear by the Vote, as he thought this was a thing which in a rich Empire like this should, never be allowed to occur. In his opinion, the Committee ought to be furnished with a Report from the Foreign Office showing what had been done in this immense territory in the twelve months so that they might discuss the Vote with knowledge.
    SIR ROBERTREID (Dumfries Burghs)said that, if they desired to effect any economy at all, it was necessary that they should examine, not only the large, but the small items of expenditure. He should regard this Vote rather as an illustrative case. The first thing he had got to say about it was that within the last three years they had about doubled the amount of expenditure upon the administration of this particular protectorate, and that the greater part of it was absolutely unproductive. The second thing was, what had they got in return for that expenditure? He put aside for the moment the moral dignity and the civilising influences which accrued to this country because of money spent in the administration of a savage territory like this.
    What was the return in pounds, shillings, and pence for the money spent in respect of that country? He found that for a period of six years the surplus outlay of the taxation of this country upon this particular protectorate exceeded the total value of the imports and exports which passed between Great Britain and British Hast Africa. And let the Committee get rid of the cant phrase of "making markets." This was a rather serious matter. It meant, that we were working at an absolute dead loss in respect of this one particular protectorate. The Committee had no means whatever of checking the expenditure from the particulars which were furnished in the Vote. They were told that £09,000 was required in aid of the expenses of administration, and that was all. Considering the enormous sums of money involved, if any private business were conducted with the kind of audit by means of which they were expected to carry on the affairs of this country, it would go to pieces, and be in bank ruptcy in the course of a few months. It was impossible to dwell too often on the fact that while they were constantly complaining of this state of things, it was even now impossible to put a tinker on any particular item. Although they often heard complaints in their constituencies of increased expenditure and increased taxation, hon. Members were powerless to protect themselves against it. Even the statement of the noble Lord would not enable them to come to
    1190
    any satisfactory conclusion. The system was one under which Parliamentary control had become practically ineffective.
    *LORD CRANBORNE*LORD CRANBORNE said the hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction really brought an indictment against our position in East Africa. That, of course, called in question a policy for which this Government was not in the least especially responsible, a policy deliberately adopted by the country at large and endorsed by vote after vote of the House of Commons. He thought it was a little too much to ask the Minister in charge to defend an indictment of that kind at that time of the day. Governments drawn from both sides of the House had felt that it was our duty to own these protectorates, and if they owned them he could not believe that any House of Commons would doubt that it was their duty to develop them, and as the policy was adopted not on purely commercial grounds it was not fair to charge the Government with ill success because it was not already commercially successful. It was adopted partly on humanitarian grounds, and partly on political grounds of the highest order. Surely the hon. Member would not wish them to have stood aside when the great modern development of Africa took place. We were bound to develop the property we had acquired; that we should stay like a dog in the manger in East Africa, and allow the protectorate and population to look after themselves was a policy unworthy of any British Government, and it was one which the present Government were certainly not prepared to adopt. In estimating the progress of the protectorates it was almost impossible to separate East Africa from Uganda, because they had a common Customs union.
    MR. M'KENNA MR. M'KENNA said if he had used the figures for Uganda his case would have been much stronger.
    *LORD CRANBORNE*LORD CRANBORNE said the combined volume of trade in 1899, 1900 was £452,000, while in 1902-3 they estimated it at about £1,000,000. But the latter figure was not one on which they could argue as to the natural progress of

    1191
    trade, as great deductions must be made from it in respect of the Uganda Railway, of Government stores, and of specie. But, after the deductions had been made, the total volume of trade during the time the protectorates had belonged to this country had been far in excess of the hon. Gentleman's figures. The interests of this Protectorate were not limited to trade with the United Kingdom, and there was a very considerable trade with India. Therefore, it was only fair, in calculating the trade value to include India. The trade with Great Britain and India amounted to 63 per cent. of the whole trade in Uganda and East Africa. That was a very large figure and he did not think that, at any rate as far as proportion went, anyone would say that the trade with the protectorates showed up badly. Did the British House of Commons only represent the taxpayers? Were they to shut out all the rest of the Empire? As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton once said, every Member of Parliament was Member for India. That statement had a great effect on the House at the time and he quoted it in aid now. He had a right to calculate the Indian as well as the English trade. Making all deductions for the Uganda Railway, for Government stores, and for specie, he could still show that 29 percent. belonged to the United Kingdom and 34 per cent. to India. This showed that great progress had been made in the trade with the British Empire.
    The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries spoke of the great increase in the grant in aid. It was true that it was increasing; but there were very considerable deductions to be made from the figure that had been given. There were the working expenses for six months of the Uganda Railway, which were estimated at £50,000; the cost of the two steamers amounted to £57,000, and at a later period of the year he was afraid he should have to ask for a little more money in respect of them; and the surveys of the lake cost £6,000, these items amounting altogether to £113,600, or about £114,000, which was the figure he had given. He was now dealing with East Africa and Uganda combined, but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries dealt with East
    1192
    Africa alone. He would point out that when the hon. and learned Gentleman compared the grant in aid for East Africa last year with that for the present year, it should be remembered that a large portion of Uganda had been transferred to East Africa. The expenditure on East Africa in the two years he was considering rose from £180,000 to £330,000, but the grant for Uganda fell from £205,000 to £170,000, because of the transfer which had taken place. East Africa of three years ago was not the East Africa they were dealing with in the present Estimates. As to the details of the present demand, there was a demand by the Indian Government in respect of Indian troops which had been lent on several occasions. It seemed that it was a, very complicated matter to ascertain this indebtedness, and year after year it was found that a little more was due. There were one or two other items which he wished to give to the Committee. There was a sum for compensation for moving the bazaar in Nairobi, in consequence of the plague. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment called the Government to account for that, but they were not responsible for the plague. The plague was not conveyed by His Majesty's Government, but probably by rats, and the Government could not be held responsible for that. They had to suppress the plague at considerable cost, amounting to £l3,000. Then there was a sum of £4,000 for the rehousing of troops. It was found that the huts for the troops at Nairobi had been erected in unsuitable places, and fresh accommodation had to be found. Hon. Members did not always select the most suitable places for houses.
    The East African Protectorate went as far as the Juba river, where there were some very turbulent tribes who had given a great deal of trouble. After two expeditions against these tribes, the Government made up their minds that they must take precautions to prevent difficulties of the same kind in the future. For that purpose mobile troops were required, and a camel corps was formed, the cost of which was £7,700. Of that amount £3,800 was now asked for. Then there was a sum of £2,900 due to the Uganda Railway for the carriage of mails, and a sum of £1,400 for law

    1193
    courts at Mombasa and Jubaland; and lastly there was the sum of £11,000 due to a falling off in the revenue. They estimated for a very slight surplus, and they were disappointed. All these accounts had to go before the Controller and Auditor-General; and although the Committee might differ from the policy that produced this expenditure, he did not think they would accuse the Government of spending money that was not fully and properly due in the estimation of the Controller and Auditor-General. He was quite certain that the Government would not he borne out by the House of Commons or the country if they forsook the Protectorate. Now they were in the country the Government were bound to develop it, and he did not want the Committee to carry away the notion that they were at the end of this expenditure. To make their possession fruitful and profitable they must spend money in its development, and he very respectfully warned the Committee of that, so that they might not accuse the Government of deceiving them on the subject.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON MR. SYDNEY BUXTON said he did not intend to touch upon the important point raised by his hon. friend, namely, the slavery on the strip of mainland. The noble Lord was entitled to say that under present conditions the Committee could not discuss that. He had no doubt they would have another opportunity of discussing the subject in the course of their debates. He complained that in these African matters no explanation was given to the Committee before the debates took place. For the last five or six years Supplementary Estimates had been presented which made it impossible for the Committee to check the expenditure. The bulk of the items the noble Lord had mentioned certainly ought to have been foreseen, if not by the Foreign Office, at all events, by those administering the country. He instanced the camel corps as a matter on which there could not have been such great urgency as to necessitate a Supplementary Estimate. The additional grant now asked in aid of the British East Africa Protectorates amounted to nearly £70,000. That, he held, was excessive, and he did not think there was any excuse for the bulk of the items of which it was made up.
    With regard to general policy and principle, he thought there was really no difference of opinion in any quarter, of the House. What many hon. Members were beginning to feel was, that the way in which these Colonies were being developed was not the right one. They did not grudge the money necessary for the proper development of the countries, but what they felt was that the Foreign Office in attempting to administer these enormous tracts were going too far, and were not taking proper precautions to avoid conflicts and wars. As his hon. friend had pointed out, the cost of administration this year was £800,000 as against £500,000 last year. Surely that enormous expenditure required more justification than had yet been given on behalf of the Government. He did not believe the Committee were really aware of the enormous increase that had taken place. Surely that was an expenditure which could hardly be said to be a question of general policy. Not a single sixpence had been spent for the benefit of the Colony in the matter of our trade, and so far as that was concerned all this money had practically been sunk in the African desert. He was surprised at the figures which had been given, in regard to the financial position of this enormous tract of country. The Under Secretary boasted that the total volume of trade in these East African colonies had now risen to £415,000, but the noble Lord should look at the other side of the account. He should also take the liabilities and the expenditure of those Colonies. Including the cost of the Uganda Railway, the whole annual cost of these Colonics was £710,000, while our total volume of trade—not the profit—was only £415,000.
    *LORD CRANBORNE: That was the total volume of trade with the British Empire.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON MR. SYDNEY BUXTON said that made it worse and worse, for he thought that there was the Indian trade besides. It was time to call a halt to the unlimited and unchecked expenditure of the Foreign Office. If the administration of Uganda were taken out of the hands of that Department, and put under the Colonial Office, many economies might be effected.
    *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL asked whether, in relation to the loan for the building of the Uganda Railway, any allowance was made for a sinking fund.
    *LORD CRANBORNE: Not in the Supplementary Estimate.
    *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL called attention to the outbreak of plague at Nairobi, and stated it was felt that this was partly due to the insanitary position and condition of the bazaar. That bazaar had been burned, and compensation had to be paid to the owners of shops there. There was in the Estimates an item for the moving of the troops from the situation in which they had been placed at Nairobi. He wished to know whether it was proposed to remove the whole of the railway population to more healthy houses on a higher site. The town had now a population of about 8,000; and if there was nothing in the accounts to pay for their removal, he believed the House of Commons would be called upon later to vote money for that purpose. This expenditure was entirely due to an error on the part of the railway engineers, for whom the Government were indirectly responsible. He asked whether there had been any receipts from the sale of Government lands, and whether the colonisation of the higher lands had progressed. He asked further, whether the Government had yet made any provision for a paper currency in East Africa. That was a matter on which the success of trade in East Africa in some measure depended, and with trade, necessarily the increase of the revenue. His hon. friend had referred to the necessity for transferring the administration of these protectorates from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office. There was undoubtedly a strong public opinion in East Africa and Uganda in favour of the transfer. He knew there was a difficulty in the way in connection with treaty obligations with regard to Zanzibar; but he asked the noble Lord whether he could not hold out any prospect in the future of this being overcome and this transference being made to the Colonial Office. He also wished to know when the annual report of the condition, prospects and revenue of this Protectorate would be laid before Parliament. He had been
    1196
    unable to obtain a Report in the library later than 1901.
    *LORD CRANBORNE*LORD CRANBORNE said that it had been done already.
    *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL said he knew there was a paper giving figures which covered the imports and exports, but there was no Report from the Chief Commissioner himself as to any measures that were being taken for developing the territory as a whole. In Sir Charles Eliot the Foreign Office had an exceedingly able servant, whose administration had given extreme satisfaction to all classes of the community.
    *LORD CRANBORNE: Sir Charles Eliot belongs to the Foreign Office.
    *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL*MR. HERBERT SAMUEL said no doubt, but there was equally no doubt that if Sir Charles Eliot were transferred to the Colonial Office his efficiency would be increased. That was the prevalent opinion in East Africa itself.
    MR. LOUGH MR. LOUGH said he could not second the appeal for the transfer of these protectorates from the Foreign Office to the Colonial Office, for he thought it was just six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. The last instance was that of Nigeria.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN said the hon. Member could not discuss on this Vote the transfer of Uganda to the Colonial Office.
    MR. LOUGH MR. LOUGH said he had only referred to it as two hon. Members had been allowed to develop the argument, and he wished to enter his protest against it. This was the third time within the year that large Estimates had been produced for these protectorates and the Uganda Railway, and he desired to protest in the strongest way against the additional Supplementary Estimate of £70,000. There was not one of the items on the Paper which might not have been left over until the new Estimates were prepared and laid before the House for full discussion. The meaning of the Supplementary Estimates was to get from the Com-

    1197
    mittee more money than was necessary, by taking large amounts in separate bits instead of in one sum. The noble Lord had given quite inadequate explanations as to the reasons for this enormously increased expenditure. Jle, for one. did not want explanations; he wanted economy. The noble Lord had practically said that he was not the man for economy; that if we had these Colonies we must develop them; and he went the length of declaring that the Committee must expect still greater expenditure in the future. But what he contended for was that these countries should be developed with some regard to the trade we got out of then. The noble Lord had said that the trade of these territories with Great Britain and India amounted to 63 or 64 per cent. of the whole trade. But the greater part of the trade was with India, and the point was, who should pay the expense? India certainly did not pay the expense. The pettifogging share of the trade to Great Britain was only 29 per cent., but that was on the gross volume of the trade. If the profits on the trade were estimated at 20 per cent. there would be only a return to Great Britain of £28,000 a year for all this enormous expenditure. No country could be' expected to stand that. The noble Lord seemed to be of the belief that this bad affair might be bettered by extravagant expenditure.
    The Colonies, of which we were all so proud, had not been developed by the expenditure of this country, but by cautious and wise expenditure by the Colonies themselves. This new feature in the development of the Colonies of the British Empire had only been introduced into the African Colonies and protectorates. The lavish and wasteful policy of the Foreign Office was constantly revealing new extravagances. The noble Lord had told the Committee that the mean city of Nairobi, which they had founded, would have to be re. moved altogether because it had been put in an insanitary situation. He protested in the most indignant way against all this extravagance, and he was glad that hon. Members opposite were beginning to ask for some economy in expenditure.
    MR. M'KENNA MR. M'KENNA said that the noble Lord had stated that this Government was not responsible for taking over East Africa, or for the present expenditure. He would remind the noble Lord that British East Africa had been very well administered until three years ago: that was to say that for the first six years it had only cost on an average £90,000 a year. What he complained of was not that the British Government was there, but that the expenditure had been increased from £90,000 to over £200,000 a year.
    SIR JOHN GORST SIR JOHN GORST said that the noble Lord had very properly warned the House that, having undertaken the management of these territories, we had to develop them, and spend a certain amount of money upon them. He agreed that we could not go back from our obligations, and that it was absolutely necessary on our part to do everything to develop these countries. But what he wanted to press on the noble Lord was, that this development ought to take place on a definite plan, and that the Foreign Office should not drift into one expenditure, and then another, without a definite plan of development. The Government ought to take the House of Commons into its confidence and give them information as to the condition of the country. Egypt had got the Sudan on its hands very much in the same way as we had got Uganda and the East African Protectorate, but the Government of Egypt, under the advice of Lord Cromer, proceeded in the development of the Sudan on a clear and definite plan. The whole circumstances of the country had been taken into consideration, its resources, and its possibilities for producing revenue. Why should not Uganda and the East African Protectorate be dealt with in a similar manner, and why should not the Government plainly state to Parliament what they intended to do with these countries, what their plans were and their expectations as to the future revenues and prosperity of these territories? Though, no doubt, they might criticise the Government plans, he was sure that the House of Commons as a whole would cheerfully vote without wrangling the money necessary to carry out a clear and definite plan.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)said that there was a good deal in what the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had stated. This was not a question of giving up these territories, but of spending this money on business principles. In large private concerns people often spent money in extending trade, quite content to bear a loss for some years to come. But when doing that it was done on sound business principles; some development of profit was looked forward to in the course of a few years. If the Committee was satisfied that the Government were spending this money economically and efficiently on development, he was certain that the House of Commons would not complain; but any one who had examined the Estimates from year to year could not be satisfied that that was being done. There were two arguments which indicated that there was something wrong. 'He did not say that because the present expenditure exceeded the trade that that was conclusive; but at all events it formed a prima facie case that the Government were not running these territories on purely business lines. We had a falling revenue and an increasing expenditure, which showed that our attempts to develop these countries had not been successful.
    His second point was that a man running a business of this sort would carefully examine his estimates before expenditure; but these Estimates had been exceeded in expenditure by from 20 to 30, and sometimes 100, per cent. in the course of a single year. That showed that whoever was responsible for the expenditure had not carefully calculated beforehand what was wanted, although he did not say that the expenditure could be estimated to a penny. The rats had been blamed, and his hon. friend thought that the way to cure that was to hand over the administration of these territories to the Colonial Office. He should have thought that that was the last extremity in the world, except on the principle of setting a thief to catch a thief. Then, it was said that there were not merely rats, but some bad Mohammedan gentlemen, a sort of Church party, in these territories; but the right hon. Gentleman must have known perfectly well that in
    1200
    countries of that sort they might anticipate the opposition of these Mohammedan gentlemen. The noble Lord had said that it was not necessary to set down the interest on loans and the sinking fund when reckoning up this business, but that only showed the notions of the Foreign Office about business principles. He wanted to know what were the prospects of these territories, and what they were spending this money for. He had listened with great interest to the noble Lord in reference to development, but the Committee had no idea vet as to what was the policy of the Government with regard to development; and if the House of Commons was asked to sanction this huge expenditure they were entitled to know what the plans of the Government were.
    *LORD CRANBORNE*LORD CRANBORNE said that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and his right hon. friend below the Gangway had both told the Committee and the country that if the Foreign Office could point to a policy to show for this expenditure, the House of Commons would vote the money. Of course, the Foreign Office had a plan, but he did not think that a Supplementary Estimate was' the proper occasion on which to speak of their plans for development. There were large agricultural prospects, in addition to large mining ones, and in respect of these they had issued a considerable number of concessions. He would not like the debate to close without assuring the right hon. Gentleman that the policy of the Foreign Office was being pursued with great vigour. Of course that cost money, but he hoped that later on he would be able to show good results for the expenditure. With regard to the sale of lands, they had only just been sanctioned, and consequently there was no return under that head. In reference to Zanzibar, the hon. Member for the Cleveland Division had asked what steps had been taken to transfer the territories to the Colonial Office, but he could only point out that, undoubtedly, there would be great convenience in keeping them in the hands of the Foreign Office so long as that Department had control of the foreign relations in connection with that territory. With regard to reports, there were the Diplomatic and Consular Reports

    1201
    for the year ending March, 1902, containing statistics with regard to trade in the Protectorate; and there was Sir Charles Eliot's general Report on the Protectorate, to which reference had been made.

    AYES.

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

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Joyce, Michael

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Reddy, M.

    Boland, John

    Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

    Rigg, Richard

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Levy, Maurice

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Caldwell, James

    Lloyd-George. David

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Campbell. John (Armagh, S.)

    Lough, Thomas

    Shackleton, David James

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lundon, W.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Channing, Francis Allston

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants)

    Crean, Eugene

    M'Govern, T.

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Cullman, J.

    M'Kean, John

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Delany, William

    Murnaghan, George

    Tennant. Harold John

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Murphy, John

    Thomas, Uavid Alfred (Merthyr)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Tomkinson, James

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Norman, Henry

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Doogan, P. C.

    O'Brien Kendall (Tipperary Mid)

    While, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Whitley, I. H. (Halifax)

    Ffrench, Peter

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    O'Dowd, John

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. M'Kenna and Mr. Thomas Bayley.

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas, Seale

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

    O'Mara, James

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert J.

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

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

    Atkinson, Right Hon. John

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Johnstone, Heywood

    Austin, Sir John

    Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

    Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Knowles, Lees

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

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

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lawson, John Grant

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

    Finch. Rt. Hon. George H.

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Bignold, Arthur

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

    Bond, Edward

    Flower, Ernest

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

    Forster, Henry William

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Brassey, Albert

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Gardner, Ernest

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Bull, William James

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    M'Arthnr, Charles (Liverpool)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

    Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop)

    Mitchell, William

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

    Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc)

    Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Chapman, Edward

    Gretton, John

    Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Groves, James Grimble

    Morrell, George Herbert

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

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx)

    Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

    Peel, Hn. W. Robert Wellesley

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd)

    Percy, Earl

    Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

    Harris. Frederick Leverton

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 79; Noes, 141. (Division List No. 12).

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Tomlinson, Sir Win. Ed. M.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Seely, Mj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

    Purvis, Robert

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Smith, H. C. (Northmb, Tyneside.)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

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

    Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

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

    Wylie, Alexander

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Spear, John Ward

    Wyndham, Rt Hn. George

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

    Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Original Question put and agreed to.

  CLASS II.

    2. £620 (SUPPLEMENTARY), VALUATION AND BOUNDARY SURVEY (IRELAND).
    MR. KEARLEY MR. KEARLEY asked whether the Committee on the Revaluation of Ireland was to be reappointed, and why there was to be a sum of £500 due from the city of Belfast.
    MR. HAYES FISHER MR. HAYES FISHER said it was intended to reappoint the Committee. There was a dispute between the city of Belfast and the Treasury, but it was thought right not to press the claim now. It would stand over for a little while.
    MR. KEARLEY MR. KEARLEY asked what was the nature of the dispute between the Belfast Corporation and the Treasury.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,)said that in Ireland there had been no valuation for forty years. From year to year, however, they had had revision in place of valuation, but it had only taken count of structural alterations, and not of the new changes introduced into the principle of valuation. During that forty years the Licensing Act had been passed, and in England the value of licences had been added to the value of the premises for the purposes of valuation. That, however, had not been done in Ireland. When any of the six cities of Ireland asked for a revaluation under the Optional Valuation Act for Ireland it
    1204
    became the duty of the Commissioner of Valuation to revalue the premises, for the first time in Ireland, according to law, and the law laid it down that the value of a licence under the Licensing Act should be taken into account. The City of Belfast exercised its option and asked for a valuation, which was carried out. On a technical point the award of the Commissioner was brought into court, and a decision was given which brought about a deadlock in Belfast. One night in August last, or rather at three o'clock in the morning, the House was called upon to find a way out of the difficulty, and after consultation behind the Chair the issue was found in the familiar device of promising a committee to inquire into the whole question of valuation in Ireland, it being agreed that until the committee had reported the added valuation for licences should not be imposed in Belfast,
    MR. KEARLEY: Am correct in understanding that the valuation was of a voluntary character, and that the results were so drastic that the people of the city objected and are resisting their indebtedness on the basis of the new valuation?
    MR. WYNDHAM MR. WYNDHAM said the city exercised its option in asking for a revaluation and it was to the interest of all the ratepayers that the valuation should he made, but opposition—on technical grounds—was raised by the owners of licensed premises and that brought about the deadlock, to find a way out of which the House appointed a committee. Until that committee had reported the Government did not think it should take further action.
    MR. MACVEAGH: When is the committee likely to report?
    MR. WYNDHAM: It is to be reappointed at once, and, as it made considerable progress last session. I do not think its Report will be long delayed.
    Question put and agreed to.

  CLASS IV.

    £292,807 (Supplementary), Board of Education.
    MR. YOXALLasked for an explanation of the increased charge. Was it due to an improvement in the average attendance at the school, or to an increase in the percentage of regular attendance, or to the fact that children remained at school for a longer period than formerly? Either way it indicated an improvement in educational matters, and he did not think the Committee would be indisposed to grant the additional money asked for seeing that it represented the ha'porth of tar that made the ship good. Personally he was very glad the Board of Education was making an additional demand that night.
    *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,)said the Supplementary Estimate was large, but the Committee would not be displeased at the cause, because it arose from increased and more regular attendances. That increase had been beyond all anticipation. In 1898 the increase over the previous year was 65,000 odd: in 1899 it was 82,700; in 1900, the year of the war, it dropped to 29,000, but the following year it rose again to 69,453. For the year ending August, 1902, the calculation had been made for an increase of between 70,000 and 80,000 children over the previous year, whereas the attendances had increased by over 160,000. He put the increase down to two causes: firstly, the effect of Robson's Act, which raised the age at which children were permitted to go to work for half-time, and secondly—a more important cause—to the effect of the Act of 1900, under which School Boards and School Attendance Committees were empowered to substitute the age of fourteen for thirteen, as the age for compulsory attendance under
    1206
    bye-laws. The Act of 1870 gave to School Boards the power to make bye-laws requiring children to attend to an age not exceeding thirteen. The Act of 1876 extended that power to School Attendance Committees; but although it stated that the age of children lasted until fourteen, it did not extend that power beyond thirteen. The Act of 1900, however-, gave power to extend the age up to fourteen. To that he thought they might largely attribute the increased attendance. There was another cause to which he attributed not merely increased attendance, but increased regularity of attendance, which he thought was as satisfactory, if not more satisfactory than the other, and that was the Clause in the Act of 1900 which enabled the fine for non-attendance to be raised from 5s. to £1. In some districts that had almost doubled the regularity of attendance. He would only mention the further very satisfactory result that the increased attendance and the increased regularity of attendance were fairly uniform all over the country. The average increase during the year ended the 1st of August, 1902, might be put at 3 per cent. The increase in the Welsh ounties was 3· 8 per cent. and in the Welsh boroughs 3· 1 per cent. He hoped he had explained in a satisfactory way the reason why the Board of Education had to ask for such a large Supplementary Estimate, and that the house would grant it.
    MR. WHITLEY MR. WHITLEY said he wished to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether if it were not for a certain alteration made by his Department there would have been any necessity to ask for a Supplementary Vote now. He was not opposing the increase asked for or the change made by the Department last year in connection with a grant for evening schools, which wore regulated by the Minute of July 3rd, 1901. But during the year, the Board of Education in addition to the grant under the Minute made a Supplementary Grant; and if that Supplementary Grant had not been paid the increase now asked for would not be required. He desired to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if be could tell the Committee on what principle that Supplementary Grant was made to evening schools. At any rate, it ought to be shown in some form on the Estimates.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £28,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903, for the Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland."
    *MR. BOLANDsaid he desired to call attention to what had recently happened in the West of Ireland. Continuation schools were started in Mayo; and, with the authority of the Board of Education, it was decided that the two subjects to be taught in them should be the Irish language and Irish history. The schools were continued for some months, but for some reason, which he hoped the Chief Secretary would explain, the National Education Board refused to pay the teachers engaged in those schools on the ground that the subjects chosen did not fall within the scope of continuation schools. He believed he was right in saying that the two subjects he mentioned were not only on the curriculum of the Board, but were sufficient in themselves. They in Ireland felt strongly with regard to the matter, because they believed that for the education of their country and for its future industrial development, it was extremely important that a national foundation should be given to education; and they held that no better means could be taken to develop the educational interests of their people and educate them on national lines than to give them an opportunity throughout Ireland of studying their own language and their own history. The experience
    1208
    of foreign countries proved that the studies of those two subjects did more to lay a proper foundation, not only for sound education, but also for sound industrial development, than any other subjects. It could not be alleged that the schools in Mayo to which he referred were meant to be carried on with those two subjects alone for any prolonged period. It was quite within the right of the manager to select any further subjects; and they hoped that where it was within the right of a manager that a start should be made with subjects approved by the National Education Board, managers should have a right to continue any subjects they thought fit. or substitute any others. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £27,900, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Boland.)
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid he desired to support the Motion. The question of evening schools was one of very considerable importance in Ireland. Evening schools in their country were yet in their infancy, and needed support from local managers and others interested in education in order to make them successful. He held in his hand a letter from a gentleman in Co. Mayo who had taken a great interest in the subject. As soon as he saw the advantage that evening schools would confer on his district he at once set about establishing them. He wrote to the Board of Education to ascertain the rules, and having ascertained the rules he immediately established an

    1209
    evening school, choosing as its subjects, the Irish language and Irish history as being the best suited to the district, and being, in his opinion, the subjects which, at the beginning, would tend to make the school successful. In a few months he had some 500 pupils. He wrote to the Board and asked whether they would sanction the school and the subjects, and he was informed by an official that they were perfectly within the rules. Dr. Starkie, the Resident Commissioner, also assured him that his programme was in order' but in a very short time the Board reconsidered the matter, and after the school had been in operation for over two months, they revised their rules and made it. essential that two other subjects should also be included. He thought it was a very strange state of affairs if the National Board make rules at the beginning of a session for the guidance and control of schools, and such rules should not remain in operation during that session. The gentleman he referred to engaged teachers from Dublin and Cork, who, of course, expected to be paid, but he now found that the teachers would not be paid, because the school was not sanctioned. The gentleman writing said that it was not easy to induce a mass of the people to study, and that the labouring classes would only be drawn to education by subjects in which they were interested; yet, when he tried to stimulate education in his parish the National Board declined to support him. Much had been said about the unsympathetic and apathetic way in which the managers of national schools treated the educational interests entrusted to their charge, yet Dr. Starkie himself did not hesitate to prevent a local gentleman from giving
    1210
    education to 500 or 600 boys, while at the same time he accused managers of schools of not taking any interest in their schools. It was evident from the letter to which he had referred, that if managers displayed an interest in their schools they found their efforts blocked at every turn by the Board. He hoped the Chief Secretary would give some explanation and some assurance that such action would not be repeated in the future.
    With reference to the salaries of principal and assistant teachers, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary whether it was not a fact that as a result of the recent changes in the system of payment, a considerable number of teachers, although they were promised that there would be no diminution in their salaries, had suffered pecuniarily. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had received a petition from ninety-five teachers saying that owing to the changes in the system of payment they had been injured financially, and asking for an inquiry. He thought the least that might be done in response to the petition was to grant an inquiry, and find out whether the complaint in the petition was just. There was also another point, namely, the average attendance necessary for the appointment of a second teacher in a small school. They were all aware that one of the great essentials for the development of any country, especially a poor country like Ireland, was that young boys and girls should be thoroughly and properly educated during the few years they could spend at school. At present the average attendance for the appointment of one assistant in Ireland was sixty, whereas in a rich country

    1211
    like England it was only fifty. Every educationist in Ireland, even the National Board, was of opinion that it would be very much to the advantage of education if the average were reduced' and he hoped the Chief Secretary would be able to inform the Committee that it was about to be reduced, and that the right hon. Gentleman would impress on the Treasury the great advantage of such a reduction.
    MR. WYNDHAM MR. WYNDHAM said that at first blush the Supplementary Estimate was a matter for congratulation rather than regret, inasmuch as the bulk of it was due to the fulfilment of promises, while £6,700 of the increase had been caused by the rapid expansion of the evening continuation schools. But how was it that the increase had come upon the Committee so suddenly? Because the education of Ireland was managed by a Board which was, more or less, and perhaps necessarily so, independent of the Government of Ireland. That Board, appointed in the year 1837, marked a distinct advance on the educational system then in existence, and it had continued on the principle that when one member died another was appointed in his place. While he believed the Board worked hard and earnestly for the good of education in Ireland, he did not disguise his opinion, speculative though it was, that it might be possible, not in this year, but in some future year, to suggest improvements on a plan framed in 1837. He, however, was not directly responsible for the Board of Education, and could not undertake to remedy this or that defect or error of judgment as it was brought before the Committee. The proper plan, when
    1212
    they were admittedly engaged upon another matter likely to hypothecate all their time and energies, was to reconnoitre other questions that might arise. To this end he had suggested, and he thought the suggestion would be accepted, that they should have in Ireland, to help the Treasury and himself in looking at the financial position of the matter, an expert in British education. Finance was at the bottom of the matter, and he was bound to say that he had not the time and leisure at present to go into all these considerations. As to the subjects taught at the evening continuation schools, it was not for him to defend, interpret, or even understand, the conclusions arrived at by the National Board. No doubt they had their reasons, but to ascertain those reasons he would require to be represented at the debates of the Board, and he declined to pass judgment on a decision for which he had no responsibility whatever.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDsympathised with the right hon. Gentleman in being expected to defend the action, taken by a body so irresponsible, and over which he had no control whatever. These discussions were valuable, however, because they revealed to the Committee the ridiculous position in which education was placed in Ireland. It was very little consolation to be told fifty years after the creation of the Board, as their fathers were told when they made the same complaint, that there was no time to deal with its defects. The right hon. Gentleman had not touched the subjects brought forward by his hon. friends, but the debate had been useful inasmuch us in addition to showing that the National Board was an anachronism and ought to

    1213
    be abolished, it proved the practical grievance under which Ireland suffered in being governed by a House which for fifty years had had no time to deal with a grievance of this magnitude.

    AYES.

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, John E. (Watcrford)

    Bayley. Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Rigg, Richard

    Boland, John

    Levy, Maurice

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Lundon, W.

    Runciman, Walter

    Burke, E. Haviland

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Samuel, Herbert, L. (Cleveland)

    Caldwell, James

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Causton, Richard Knight

    M'Govern, T.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    M'Kean, John

    Sullivan, Donal

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Murnaghan, George

    Tennant, Harold John

    Clean, Eugene

    Murphy, John

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Cullinan, J

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth South)

    Tomkinson, James

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Norman. Henry

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Delany, William

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Doogan, P. C.

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

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    O'Dowd. John

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Duffy, William J.

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    O'Mara, James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Hayne, Rt, Hon. Chas Seale

    Reddy, M.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Doughty, George

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Douglas. Rt. Hon. A Akers

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Duruing-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Macdona, John Gumming

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Atkinson, Right Hon. John

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Forster, Henry William

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow)

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

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Bignold, Arthur

    Gore, Hn G. R. O. Ormsby (Salop)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Bond, Edward

    Gosehen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

    Murray, Rt H n A Graham (Bute)

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

    Gretton, John

    Peel, Hn. W. Robert Wellesley

    Brassey, Albert

    Groves, James Grimble

    Percy, Earl

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw, H

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx)

    Plummet, Walter R.

    Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

    Hamilton. Marq. of (Londondy)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hanbury, Rt, Hn. Robt. Wm.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc)

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Purvis, Robert

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

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

    Reid, James (Greenock)

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

    Kemp, Lieut-Colonel George

    Ridley. Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Knowles, Lees

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Roberts. Samuel (Sheffield)

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasq.

    Lawson. John Grant

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Corbett, T L. (Down, North)

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S)

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

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

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale)

    Seely, Mj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 63 Noes, 128. (Division List No. 13).

    Sharpe, William Edward, T.

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Smith, H. C. (Northmb. Tyneside

    Thornton, Percy M.

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

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Wylie, Alexander

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

    Valentia, Viscount

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Walrond, Rt Hn Sir William H.

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

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

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

    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

  OUTDOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) BILL.
  [MR. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the chair.]
  On Clause 1:—
  COLONEL BLUNDELLmoved to extend the scope of the measure "to any pensioner in the Army and Navy."
  THE CHAIRMAN THE CHAIRMAN ruled that the Amendment was outside the scope of the Bill. He had referred to the original Bill and found that it related only to friendly societies. The suggested Amendment would therefore be out of order.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time." Debate arising.
  And, it being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Wednesday.

  LIGHT LOCOMOTIVES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
NEW BILLS.
  TRUSTEE ACT (1893) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Trustee Act, 1893, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Galloway, Lord Hugh Cecil, Sir Charles Renshaw, and Mr. John Hutton.
  TRUSTEE ACT (1893) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Trustee Act, 1893," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
  LIBEL.
  Bill to amend the law for Libel in connection with the newspaper press, ordered to be brought in by Major Rasch, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Ernest Gray, and Mr. Strutt.

  LIBEL BILL.
  "To amend the law for Libel in connection with the newspaper press," presented and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]
  Adjourned at Five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

EARL POULETT.
Petition of William Tournour Thomas Poulett for leave to lodge his printed case, notwithstanding that the time limited by Standing Order Xo. LXXXVI. has expired; read, and ordered as prayed.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Heading read.
  LORD AVEBUEY: I should be glad if my noble friend could postpone the Second Reading of this Bill. I have been asked to oppose it, but have only just received the Papers.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): If it would meet the convenience of the noble Lord I could put the Bill off till to-morrow; but I would point out to him the extreme desirability of getting on with these Bills as soon as possible.
  Second Reading postponed accordingly.

  RICKMANSWORTH GAS BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD AVEBUEY: Will the noble Earl also postpone this Bill?
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: Yes, till to-morrow.
  Second Reading postponed accordingly.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
  Dewsbury, Batley, and Birstall Tramways.
  Romford and District Tramways.
  Hamilton, Motherwell, and Wishaw Tramways.
  And the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with:—
  London County Council (Tramways and Improvements).
  Wakefield and District Tramways.
  Gosport, Fareham, and Cosham Tramways.
  And that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—
  Wellington (Salop) Gas [H.L.]
  Exeter Railway [H.L.]
  South Wales Mineral Railway [H.L.]
  South Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway [H.L.]
  Nantwich Gas [H.L.]
  Cardiff Railway [H.L.]
  Faversham Gas [H.L.]
  Bournemouth Gas and Water [H.L.]
  British Gas Light Company (Norwich) [H.L.]
  Chatham and District Light Railways [H.L.]
  Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power [H.L.]
  Didcot, Newbury, and Southampton Railway [H.L.]
  Dudley, Stourbridge and District Tramways [H.L.]
  Knott End Railway (Extension of Time) [H.L.]
  Western Trust [H.L.]
  Barry Railway [H.L.]
  Hexham Gas [H.L.]
  London, Brighton and South Coast Railway [H.L.]
  Wirral Railway [H.L.]
  South Lancashire Tramways [H.L.]
  Hastings Tramways (Extensions) [H.L.]
  Pelican and British Empire Life Office [H.L.]
  Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas [H.L.]
  Poole and District Electric Traction [H.L.]
  Port Talbot Railway and Docks [H.L.]
  Queensland Investment and Land Mortgage [H.L.]
  South-Eastern and London, Chatham and Dover Railways [H.L.]
  Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal [H.L.]
  And that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—
  Derby Gas [H.L.]
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
  Antrim, Down, Armagh, and Belfast Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Aston Manor Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Belfast Water Bill [H.L.]; Bournemouth Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Bristol Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Carmarthenshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Chard Corporation Gas and Electricity Bill [H.L.], Frinton-on-Sea Sea Defences Bill [H.L.]; Harrogate Water Bill [H.L.]; Hastings Harbour Bill [H.L.]; Mersey Docks and

  1035
  Harbour Board Bill [H.L.]; Nantwich Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; North-Western Electricity and Power Gas Bill [H.L.]; Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Oldham Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Rochester Corporation Tramways and Improvements Bill [H.L.]; Salford Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Sounthorpe Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Shropshire, Worcestershire, and East Denbighshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Southampton Harbour Bill [H.L.]; Sutton Coldfield Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Torquay Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]; Willesden Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Worthing Corporation (Tramways) Bill [H.L.], read 2a.
  Scottish American Mortgage Company Bill [H.L.]. Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NAVY (ESTIMATES) (1903-1904).
  Explanatory statement by First Lord of the Admiralty.
  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 2940. Argentine Republic (Finances 1901 and 1902).
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Northern Division of Scotland, for the year 1902.
  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 382. Trinidad and Tobago: Report for 1901-1902.

  ARMY (IMPERIAL YEOMANRY).
  Training Return of Imperial Yeomanry for 1902.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NATAL.
  The Northern Districts Annexation Act, 1902.

  POST OEEICE.
  Statutory Rules and Orders, 1903—
  No. 111. The Telegraph (Foreign-Written Anglo-Danish Press Telegram) Regulations, 1903, dated 9th February, 1903.
  No. 112. The Telegraph (Foreign-Written Anglo-Norwegian Anglo-Swedish Press Telegram) Regulations, 1903, dated 9th February, 1903.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) (SESSION 1903).
  Report by the Board of Trade, of their proceedings under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, and the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, Amendment Act, 1862.

  COMMITTALS (IRELAND).
  Returns, from the Clerks of the Crown and Peace, of the number of persons committed for trial in 1902.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES ACT, 1863.
  Return of proceedings, under the Lord Chancellor's Augmentation Act, from 28th January, 1902 to 28th February 1903.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No 7.)

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND PUELIC TENDER.
  *EARL GREY: My Fords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is not the practice of the India Office to place all freights by public tender, and if the same practice is followed by the other Departments of His Majesty's Government.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of HARDWICKE): My Lords, as far as the India Office is concerned, I may state generally that all. freights of importance are advertised. The Admiralty is the only other Government Department concerned. All engagements for freights of Arms or Navy stores are made through the Admiralty shipping agents, Messrs. Hogg and Robinson, who are given a free hand as to the method of engagement, and who advertise their requirements at their office, 101 Feadenhall-street, and at the Shipping Exchange. This plan was adopted more than thirty years ago because it was found that formal tenders at headquarters led to difficulty and delay, as most of the shipments of Army and Navy stores which are destined for many ports are necessarily made in comparatively small consignments at frequent intervals in regularly-running ships. The practice has proved in every way satisfactory. The Crown Agents for the Colonies, whose shipments are very large, adopt a precisely similar plan.
  *EARL GREY: My Lords, in moving for the Return which stands in my name on the Paper, I must ask the indulgence of the House while I make a few observations. From the statement which has just been made by the noble Lord it appears that while it is the general practice of the India Office to place all freight contracts by public tender the same practice does not obtain in respect of other Government freight contracts, which are only advertised in exceptional cases. Having looked very carefully into this question I have come to the conclusion that the practice of privately placing freight contracts for Government cargoes instead of placing them by public tender is most injurious to the public interest. I maintain, looking to South African experience, that the result of this practice has been, first of all, to impose an unnecessary burden upon the South African taxpayer; secondly, to increase the cost of living to the South African consumer; and, thirdly, which is the most important of all, to divert trade to Germany and America which would otherwise have remained in England. I should like to amend my Motion, so as to include Rhodesia, and if the Return is granted in that form, it will enable the House to compare the freight contracts of Rhodesia with those of other administrations in South Africa. In the case of Rhodesia the greatest trouble has been taken to secure fair contracts; and, owing to the strenuous efforts and business capacity of Mr. Jones, joint manager of the Chartered Company, the taxpayers of Rhodesia have paid a lower rate by at least 15s. per ton on Government goods and rails imported, as compared with taxpayers of the other British colonies in South Africa. Rut there are other and more important benefits that have been secured by the action of the Chartered Company. Not only have the Rhodesian taxpayers been relieved of an unnecessary tax, but the people themselves have shared the advantage of the low rates on all their imports. The power of placing Government cargoes, even to small amounts, is a powerful lever which can be used with great effect for the purpose of obtaining cheaper rates for ordinary merchants. If Rhodesia, with its comparatively small population of 15,000 whites, can, by the exercise of vigorous business methods, reduce the rates payable by the ordinary
  1038
  merchant on imported tonnage by a sum varying from 15s. to 45s. a ton, what are we to think of administrative methods which not only fail to secure fair freights for themselves, but support a system which imposes a charge of 10s. to £1 more than is necessary on all important tonnage.
  It is well known that the German Government, in return for their steamship subsidies, secure the right to control freights, and they exercise that right in such a way as to secure favourable terms for the ordinary shipper in their subsidised steamers, which acts to the great disadvantage of British shipping. The patronage of Government cargoes operates in much the same way as the German subsidy that is to say, shipowners, in order to obtain these Government freights, are ready to make concessions in the matter of the freights charged to ordinary merchants. Your Lordships will therefore readily realise that the larger the volume of freights handled by the Government Departments, the greater is the leverage they can use to induce shipowners to reduce their rates to the public generally. When I state that the tonnage imported into South Africa amounts to something over 4,000,000 a year it will at once be seen that we are dealing with a large matter, and one of vital importance to our South African fellow subjects; and I contend that if the Government Departments of this country and the various Governments in South Africa, had adopted the methods so successfully employed by the Chartered Company, a. saving would have been effected of 10s., or at the least 5s., per ton, which, on 4,000,000 of tonnage, amounts to a sum considerably larger than the Transvaal has to pay as interest on its war contribution of £30,000,000. There is another consideration of even greater national importance. It is an elementary truism that the country which controls the trade routes of the world is at once the centre of monetary exchange and the seat of empire. Any action, therefore, which tends to divert a trade route from England to Germany and America is an act of the blackest disloyalty to the best interests of our country, and, having looked carefully into the whole subject, I not only deplore but condemn what I cannot describe by any less forcible term than

  1039
  the culpable inertia of our Government officials, which has been responsible for driving into Germany and America trade which ought to have remained in this country. Let me explain how the Conference lines have fought and often killed opposition by forfeiting the 10 per cent. rebates due to shippers who ship a single ton of cargo by non-Conference lines, and by charging them double rates on all future cargoes. By this device they have been able to keep for themselves the trade, and at their own rates, because British shippers naturally hesitate before they take any step, the effects of which would be to penalise them severely should they desire to ship their goods in the future by one of the Conference steamers. The English shippers who send their goods by the German lines on the East Coast are not thus terrorised, and thus a direct inducement is afforded to British shipper's to use German ships for the South African trade. On freights from New York a, different system is employed. To all shippers other than those who are already tied hand and foot to the Conference lines by the rebate system, they offer the advantage of a rate less than half the rates charged for the same class of goods from England, with the result that American manufacturers are supported and encouraged at the expense of our own employers and artizans. The Return I am asking for will show what support the Government have given to the competing lines. The interest of the South African taxpayer, the consumer', and British commerce, all demand that their opposition should be successful, and now that they have succeeded, through the support of the Chartered Company, and the people of Rhodesia, in compelling the Conference lines to reduce their rates to all South African ports, I trust His Majesty's Government will recognise their claim, other things being equal, to a fair share of the cargoes they control. I have to-day received a private communication from a firm of shipowners who for reasons which the House will appreciate do not wish their name to be made public, although I shall be glad to hand their communication to His Majesty's Government, in which they express the hope that the scope of the Return which I hope the House will grant, shall include cargoes sent to India and to all Crown Colonies. It appeal's that this firm, which,
  1040
  owing to the practice of the India Office in advertising for tenders has been able to secure continuous freight contracts of Government cargoes sent to India, has been unable to obtain a single freight contract of recent years to any of the Crown Colonies. This fact alone is sufficient to convince your Lordships of the importance of the enquiry I submit ought to be made, and I now have the honour to move for the Return.
  Moved, "For a Return showing during the year 1902: (a) the total tonnage despatched by His Majesty's Government and the Governments of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony to South Africa; (b) the ports to which this tonnage was despatched, and the tonnages carried to each port; (c) the average freight paid for the various classes of goods despatched to each port; (d) the names of the shipping companies employed and the tonnage dealt with by each company; and for similar Returns, if possible, in regard to the tonnages shipped by the Governments of Cape Colony, Natal, and Rhodesia."—(Earl Grey.)
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, this Return has often been asked for before, and it has been the subject of a Report from a Joint Committee of the directors of Army and Navy contracts, who held that it would be most undesirable that any departure should be made from the present practice of treating tenders for the Government freights as confidential. In view of the invariable refusal of this Return by different Governments, and the fact that its preparation would involve work scarcely commensurate with the object the noble Earl desires to attain, I cannot accede to the motion. These contracts are not entered into without very careful inquiry as to what competition there is in the market for freights. It is the practice of the broker of the Government to go into the freight market and announce what freight he has to send and to what port, and then to invite competition on the part of those who ship to the port. The noble Earl has claimed for the Rhodesian Company, of which he is a distinguished ornament, that it has succeeded not only in getting very low rates for the conveyance of

  1041
  the company's freight, but also low rates for the public. I desire to congratulate the noble Earl on the success which has attended the efforts of the agents of the British South Africa Company, and to assure him that, so far as the Governments of the Transvaal and of the Orange River Colony are concerned—and I include the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who is responsible to Parliament for these Governments—the intention is that the freight contracts shall not be arranged solely on the basis of what is cheapest for the Colonial Governments themselves, but also in the interests of the public who are shippers to South Africa. The Government are in negotiation both with the opposition and with the Conference lines. Every opportunity has been given to them respectively to offer to the Government and the people of South Africa the most favourable terms. The whole question is under the careful consideration of the Colonial Office, and I hope will be settled in a very short time. I do not think it would be possible to interfere with the discretion of the shipping companies as to rebates. The opposition line for which the noble Earl claims consideration on behalf of the Government also runs from America to South Africa. A circular letter addressed by one of its agents to merchants in New York says—
  "In entering on African trade this line begs to assure yon that it will at all times make rates that will enable the American manufacturers to compete with those of Europe."
  In the face of a circular of that kind any claim for that company on the ground of special patriotism may be allowed to stand aside. But the Government will be guided by considerations of what is best and cheapest both for the Government and for the public—the merchants as well as the people of South Africa—in placing the large amount of freights that will shortly be at their disposal. During the present year they may not amount to more than 60,000'or 70,000 tons for the Transvaal and Orange River Colony; but as soon as the Transvaal loan has been successfully floated, the proceeds will be applied to the purchase of large quantities of material for railway lines and rolling stock for South Africa, and the Government will take care to give
  1042
  their patronage only to those lines which will carry their freight at reasonable rates and give reasonable rates to the public as well.
  *EARL GREY: Do I understand the noble Earl to say that the freight offers will in future be posted so as to be open to the inspection of shipowners?
  *THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I did not say anything about their being posted. What I said was that they were entrusted to the Government broker, and that he went round to the representatives of the shipowners and invited tenders from them in competition. That is the practice which has been observed in the past and which will be followed in the future.
  *EARL GREY: The practice of the Government brokergoing round to selected shipowners docs not lead to free and open competition. The India Office freight offers are posted.
  *THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am afraid I cannot undertake that the Colonial Office will follow the practice of any other office.
  *EARL GREY: I regard the answer of the noble Earl as so unsatisfactory that I must put the House to the trouble of dividing.
  EARL SPENCER: I doubt whether it is desirable that your Lordships should divide on the subject this evening. I do not want to take part one way or the other, but I think a prima fade case has been made out for the Return. Possibly time will be taken by the Government for reconsideration.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): The objection to the granting of the Return is not on the score of the labour it would involve. In the opinion of the Government it would be against the interest of the public if these Returns were made. The Transport Department of the Admiralty, as to the efficiency of which all are agreed, have stated most distinctly that in their opinion it would be against the public interest to make these Returns, and that the consequence of making them would be that the public would get worse terms in the future than they have got in the past.
  On Question, Motion negatived.

  VENEZUELA.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the contents of the Blue-book lately published on Venezuela [Venezuela, No. 1, 1903] and to move for further Papers. I, make no apology for bringing this subject before your Lordships to-night, for I am but taking up the challenge thrown out by the noble Duke on the first day of the session, and doing so under the very conditions which he laid down. The House will remember that on the first day of the session the noble Duke deprecated very strongly any discussion taking place on the Address on the subject of Venezuela. He said, with the most perfect truth, that it was impossible that your Lordships could have mastered the contents of the Blue-book, which was only placed on the Table of the House on that day, and he added that it was desirable that you should have done so before you attempted to discuss the question. He also said he thought it would be best that the discussion should be postponed till the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was in a position to make a complete statement with regard to the subject. Well, my Lords, I think that now, after nearly a fortnight has elapsed, those conditions have been fulfilled, and that both the House and the Foreign Office should be in a position to deal with this subject with full and ample knowledge. I must confess that I was filled somewhat with dismay at the chilly way in which the noble Duke received the congratulations of my noble friend beside me on the prospects of a settlement of the Venezuelan question. My noble friend Lord Spencer congratulated the House the other night that, if I may use words that have now become a classic phrase, "we had muddled through," or in some other way got through the Venezuelan mess, and had come out on top. The noble Duke protested against any such idea. He said that no settlement had yet been arrived at. that we had only made one short step on the road to settlement, and that the whole subject was still full of difficulties, doubts, and possible dangers. "So," said the noble Duke, "I cannot accept your congratulations."
  1044
  I am inclined to agree with the noble Duke that there is absolutely no cause for congratulation with regard to this matter. It seems to me to have been a sorry enterprise with very inadequate results. Here you have two of the greatest Powers in Europe setting out to collect debts by force from a miserable bankrupt South American Republic, torn with civil dissensions. You seize the fleet of that Republic, you sink two of its ships, you bombard its forts, for two months you blockade its coast line, and at the end of that you get a miserable fraction of the claims you have made, and Great Britain gets but a miserable fraction of that fraction—I think about one-fourteenth of what is given over—and the rest of your claims are referred to two different courts of arbitration, which at the present moment are by no means clear or explicit. Then you have the Leader of the House coming down and telling us that the horizon is full of clouds of doubt and difficulty, and that a settlement is still far off. That certainly is not a subject for congratulation, and I think that throughout the whole of the affair the only subject for congratulation is that apparently we have the good fortune in America to have a representative who, for tact and judgment, seems likely to follow in the footsteps of that great public servant and diplomatist, the late Lord Paunce-fote. At any rate, we can all join in congratulating Sir Michael Herbert on the recognition that his Sovereign has made of his ability. This question, I think, may be looked at from three different points of view. There is the point of view of Great Britain, of British claims and of British interests; there is the point of view of joint action between Great Britain and Germany; and there is the point of view of the United States of America and of our relations with that great Republic. I maintain that, from which ever point of view you look upon it, the policy of the Government has been unusual, ill-considered, rash, and likely to lead to misunderstanding and difficulty, if not danger. Let me take up those three different points of view seriatim. My first complaint is the utterly inadequate statement of British claims that has been given to the country. We have not

  1045
  the slightest idea what the amount of those claims are, and to whom they are to be paid. The only statement of the British claims that we have is best stated in the despatch of Lord Lansdowne to Mr. Buchanan on page 149 of the Blue-book. The noble Marquess writes—
  "The British claims, as Count Metternich presumed, were capable of classification. Those on account of the recent cases of unjustifiable interference with the liberty and property of British subjects, including the shipping claims, would rank first. Claims for injury to British property during the late revolution, and that which placed President Castro in power, would come next; and in the third place the claims of the bondholders."
  The despatch goes on—
  "His Majesty's Government did not, however, desire, in their demands upon Venezuela, to draw a distinction between the various categories. Their object was to obtain a general settlement, and they were of opinion that to advance one class of claims, or at this stage to specify any particular amount, would diminish the chance of securing, in all cases, the reparation which they considered to be justly due."
  Surely in that vanishes the theory that the bondholders are not benefited by the action of the Government. We have heard it stated again and again that the bondholders were not included in the view of His Majesty's Government.
  Now, what are these bondholders? In the next despatch the noble Marquess the Foreign Secretary goes into the question of the representations of the Disconto Gesellschaft, and categorically says that a settlement of these claims was part of the arrangement which His Majesty's Government were prepared to support. Let us see the sort of business which this Disconto Gesellschaft transacted with Venezuela. The last loan advanced by the Disconto Gesellschaft, which is essentially a German company, was in 1896. It then underbid all the other French and English houses and offered to advance to Venezuela fifty million francs at five per cent. interest, and paid to the Venezuelan Government eighty francs for every hundred francs of nominal value. On that otter they obtained the loan. I am also informed that at that time the English and French houses would only do business at twenty or thirty per cent. interest, allowing sixty francs for every hundred of nominal value. The business of the bondholders is very much like that of ordinary money-
  1046
  lenders, and it seems to me that people who embark in commercial enterprises with, or lend money to, a country like Venezuela should do so on their own responsibility. It is a pure gamble, and the people who go into it take that into consideration when they make offers for such loans. I maintain that what are included in the second and third rank claims of the British Government are claims which, certainly do not warrant any resort to force whatever, and really do not warrant anything very strong even in the way of representation. Then I come to the first-class claims, which I frankly admit are of a totally different nature. They may be grouped under three heads (1) maltreatment and arrest of British subjects: (2) detention, and, I think, in one ease, destruction of a British vessel: and (3) violation of British territory. These, of course, are serious offences, and the first hundred pages or so of the Blue-book set out clearly the details, but I think that anybody who carefully reads through those pages will admit that at any rate there is, in some cases, a presumption that there is something to be said on the Venezuelan side, and that there may be some ground in some of these cases for the charge that the injured persons were or had been carrying on smuggling operations or had been engaged in the illicit introduction of arms into the territory of Venezuela. Indeed, in the summary of the statement of eases contained in this Blue book I find suggestions of this very fact, and the temptations to smuggling in Venezuela are no doubt very great. In that country there is a very high tariff, and, as we have been told, there have been a succession of revolutions.
  I would remind the House that one of the Articles of the Constitution of the Venezuelan Republic lays down that a Venezuelan subject is not liable to any penalty for bearing arms against the Venezuelan State, supposing it can be shown that that act is due to political motive. That seems to me to be a very strong encouragement to the use of arms within the Republic, and to the introduction of arms from without. I myself was in Trinidad not very long ago, and remember being told that this smuggling and illicit introduction of arms was very frequent from Trinidad,

  1047
  and, still more, from the Dutch Island of Curaçoa. Another point with regard to these claims. I want to know whether you can apply to them the sort of test that the Germans apply to their first-class claims. In Despatch No. 153 on page 155 of the Blue-book it is stated—
  "The Imperial Government, however, attach importance to the following point, viz., that the German War claims, under paragraph (a), which has already been thoroughly investigated, and has been presented to the Venezuelan Government for the amounts declared, shall not be subjected to fresh examination at the hands of this Commission."
  Now, my Lords, the Germans say that the reason they desire their first-class claims to be excluded from any question of arbitration is that they have already been thoroughly investigated. Can it fairly be said that anything like the same amount of investigation has been applied to the British first-class claims? I venture to think not, and indeed there is absolute proof of that fact within the pages of the Blue-book. These offences were of recent origin. They began in the year 1901 and lasted to the end of June, 1902, and a curious fact is that the noble Marquess himself on November 26th of that year put the sum of £10,000, as the probable valued amount of these claims, and yet two months later is willing to take £5,500 in full discharge of them. That certainly seems to me to give a strong prima facie ease for the opinion that these claims had not been fully investigated, and that no proper value had been fixed on them. Then there is the question of the violation of British territory. That arose in connection with the small island of Patos. We claim that island. It is an island without houses on it, and where, apparently, you can get neither water, food, nor shelter. The Venezuelans also claim it, and one case of violation of British territory which is set down against Venezuela is that a Venezuelan gunboat seized a Venezuelan boat for smuggling within the waters of this island. We ought to have been given more information as to our claim in this connection.
  Leaving the British claims, which have certainly not been sufficiently examined, though in their nature they were of sufficient importance to justify the use of force, although I do not admit that they
  1048
  were of a nature to justify co-operation with another European Power in obtaining redress by force, I come to the question of our co-operation with Germany. Here we were combining with a Power—a friendly Power, a great European Power, a kindred Power—whose claims were totally different from our claims, whose methods were different from our methods, whose idea of policy was different from our idea of policy, and whose ulterior objects with regard to that part of the world were different from ours. Take the German claims. In Despatch No. 136 on page 146, it is stated that—
  "The German Government recognised that there was a sharp distinction between the character of the British and German first-line. claims."
  And so, indeed, there was. Ours were for offences against the person, against British ships and against British territory. Their first-class claims arose out of the Venezuelan civil war in 1898-1900, amounting approximately to 1,700,000 bolivares, and they are similar to the English second-class claims. Again, [would point out that Germany, differing from us in that respect, is most careful to state in each class of claims the total amount of their value. I think I may fairly contend that the difference between the British and German claims is marked indeed, and I may claim the assent of the noble Marquess himself to that by taking the words of his own despatch. But then, my Lords, there is the question of method, which I need not go into very deeply. I would only quote the destruction of the two Venezuelan gunboats and the bombardment of St. Carlos as showing the extreme difference of method between the action of the two countries.
  Now I come to the question of the policy of the two countries. The noble Duke opposite and the Prime Minister alike have explicitly accepted the Monroe Doctrine. Germany has never accepted such a doctrine. [make no complaint of that. It is perfectly open for Germany to think that America has no right to keep a sort of hold on the South American Continent and to allow no European nation to acquire territory within it. But the basis of the policy is totally different, and we know perfectly well that recently Germany has had her ships of war cruising round the northern,

  1049
  coasts of South America, and that they have been making surveys of that part of the sea and coast on behalf of their Government. I do not know what the truth of the matter is—perhaps the noble Marquess can tell us—but, at any rate, the report is very current in the United States of America that with regard to these very claims the German Government within the last few months offered to pay all the claims of German subjects against Venezuela and cancel all the obligations of that Government to Germany and German subjects, provided the President of Venezuela would grant them permission to occupy the Island of Margarita as a naval station. That is a sufficient proof of the difference between the object of this country and that of Germany, and yet, there being all that difference of method and of policy, we have our Government entering into a compact with Germany on these lines (I am quoting from Despatch No. 136), viz:—
  "As to the joint execution of measures of coercion, the German Government recognised that there was a sharp distinction between the character of the British and German "first-line" claims; nevertheless, the two claims ought to stand or fall together, and we ought to exclude the possibility of a settlement between Venezuela, and one of the two Powers without an equally satisfactory settlement in the ease of the other. Each Government ought, therefore, to come to an understanding before it embarked upon a project of coercion that neither Government should be at liberty to recede except by mutual agreement; and before common action was initiated, we ought to come to a distinct agreement to this effect. I told Count Metternich that it seemed to me only reasonable that if we agreed to act together in applying coercion, we should also agree that each should support the. other's demands, and should not desist from doing so except by agreement."
  Later on in these despatches you will find that the blockading Powers are to continue their co-operation before the Hague Tribunal. It does seem to me that it was a rash and ill-advised action to bind ourselves with a Power differing so much from us in aim and object, not only to the danger of our relations with the United States of America, but even of our understanding with the German Empire itself on account of the likelihood of differences of opinion arising in the execution of this contract.
  Let me come to the position of this country with regard to America. It is
  1050
  the policy of all parties in this country to be on the best possible terms with the great English-speaking race on the other side of the Atlantic, and surely it was liable to cause misconception on the part of the United States of America when they find England co-operating in this way with Germany in that part of the world. Suspicion must have been heightened by the fact that you never took the trouble to tell the United States of America that you were going to enter into this course of action. The fact comes out as clear as daylight from these Papers. We were told by Lord Cranborne the other day in the House of Commons that the Government were aware, as far back as the beginning of 1902, that they were contemplating the necessity of adopting measures of coercion against Venezuela. On July 23rd, 1902, (Despatch No. 109), the noble Marquess, the Foreign Secretary, states-
  "The German Ambassador spoke to me to-day about the state of affairs in Venezuela. I told His Excellency that we had various causes of complaint against the Venezuelan Government, and that we intended to obtain satisfaction for the claims of British subjects. We should be quite ready to confer with the German Government with a view to joint action."
  Then, on August 8th, we find the Foreign Office asking the advice of the Admiralty with regard to operations to be taken in these waters, and on August 11th, we have the answer of the Admiralty, in which it was pointed out that the time of year was not suitable to operations in South American waters, and that the month of November was the earliest time that a blockade should begin. Then the despatch from the Admiralty to the Foreign Office winds up—
  "Should His Majesty's Government as a matter of policy consider it desirable to adopt the suggestion of the German Ambassador, that the two Powers concerned should take part in a joint naval demonstration, their Lordships consider that a blockade in Venezuelan waters would be the best method of giving effect to it."
  There you have, in the months of July and August, conferences going on as to whether there should be a blockade or not, the method of the blockade, and the agreement with Germany to co-operate in it, yet not one word appears in this Blue-book to show that the United States Government knew anything about it till November 11th, when the noble Marquess wrote to Sir Michael Herbert announcing.

  1051
  the fact and requesting him to tell Mr. Hay. On November 13th, you have the answer of Mr. Hay acknowledging the communication, and saying that the United States Government, although they regretted that European Powers should use force against Central American countries, could not object to their taking steps to obtain redress for injuries suffered by their subjects, and so forth. That does seem to me to show a strange want of consideration of the susceptibilities of the American people. I should like to have a little more information on the subject. The case I have been putting is the case as it appears from the Blue-book, but when I take the statements of various Ministers I am at a loss to make these utterances correspond. On February 7th, Lord George Hamilton stated that in July last we took steps to ascertain that the measures proposed by us would in no way alienate the good feeling of the American Government and the American people. On February 13th, at Liverpool, the Prime Minister stated that the Government of the United States had been from the beginning taken into our confidence with regard to every stage of the proceedings; and on February 19, in the House of Commons, Lord Cranborne said that no formal intimation was made to the American Government in regard to the co-operation of the two Powers,† but that each of them had at different times informed the American Government that they might be compelled to resort to coercive measures against Venezuela. If Lord George Hamilton and Mr. A. J. Balfour are correct in what they stated, I want to know why we have not got the text of the communications that passed between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States before November 11th. On the other hand, if I am to accept the statement of the Under Secretary as correct, that again is contrary both to the Blue-book and to the statements of the two Ministers I have mentioned, because he represents that the British Government and the German Government each said that they were going to do something or other in Venezuela, but did not say they were going to co-operate together. It shows
  1052
  very little confidence in the Government of a great friendly Power not to tell them what you proposed to do in the matter. I should like some clear and full statement from the noble Marquess as to what exactly did take place in regard to communications between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States, and which of the three different stories is correct.
  The noble Marquess may say that "after all it is very easy to criticise what we have done, but what better thing could have been done? "I am not. afraid to suggest what I conceive would have been a better policy. It seems to me that when on July 23 the German Ambassador came to the noble Marquess and suggested this idea of co-operation, the noble Marquess might very well have said that it was not the intention or the habit of the British Government to cooperate with any European Power in American waters. That would have been a very natural and reasonable course to have taken. Or the noble Marquess might have taken a leaf out of the book of the noble Earl who sits below the Gangway. In 1895 Lord Rosebery had to deal with a state of affairs very similar to that which occurred in regard to Venezuela. I do not say that they were identical, but they were very similar. I refer to what was known as the Hatch incident in Nicaragua. I think that Mr. Hatch was in the British Consular Service, and that he and some British subjects were ill-treated and turned out of Nicaraguan territory. What did Lord Rosebery do on that occasion? He made communications to the American Government stating that he was going to bring force to bear on Nicaragua, and that he had no ulterior object whatever except to obtain redress for these particular injuries. Then their principal port Corinto was seized and held by us until redress was given for the outrages committed by the Nicaraguan Government, until, I think, the sum of 15,000 dollars was paid in compensation. That was a perfectly successful operation. Why was it successful? It was successful because the noble Earl acted alone, and, in the second place, because he made a complete communication of his intentions, to the American Government. At that

  1053
  time I think there was a President in office who was disposed to press the Monroe Doctrine even more strongly than the present President is, and yet, so far as I am aware, throughout the whole of those proceedings in Nicaragua we never heard the words Monroe Doctrine at all.
  The particular points on which I desire to press for further Papers are as follow. First, I ask that I should be given a full statement of all the British claims and their value, with the names of the persons on whose behalf they are made and to whom compensation is to be paid. Then I should like to have information as to the exact state of affairs with regard to the island of Patos, and a Paper giving the full return of the cost to this country of the blockade of the Venezuelan coast; and, lastly, I ask for Papers containing the communications, if any, which passed between us and the Government of the United States of America and which are not contained in this Blue-book. There is just one other small point with regard to these Papers to which I should like to refer. In this Blue-book are contained the whole of the Papers which were to be found in the White Paper of last session, presented just as the House was about to adjourn, and on which I think there was a statement from the noble Marquess in this House, and a short debate in the other House. It is rather curious that from that White Paper there were two despatches omitted which, I think, were very necessary to the proper understanding of the Venezuelan case at that time. The one is the despatch from the noble Marquess to Mr. Buchanan on November 26, 1902, from which two extracts are given in the Blue Book (Nos. 153 and 154) and the other the despatch or the memorandum communicated by M. Cambon on November 28, 1902, which was the caveat entered by the French with regard to the priority of claims. These were very important papers, and I cannot understand why they should have been omitted when papers were included up to December 2. It seems to me that the action of His Majesty's Government in regard to this question has been ill-considered and rash. I hope the noble Marquess can put a different complexion on their action,
  1054
  and I am sure nobody will be gladder if he can do so than we on this side of the House.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for further Papers relating to Venezuela."'—(The Lord Tweedmouth).
  *LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I confess I am surprised at the attacks which have been madeon His Majesty's Government with reference to the Venezuelan business. It is obvious from the Papers that have been published that the Government has exercised great patience and forbearance. If action had not been taken it is certain that neither the lives nor the property of British subjects would have been safe. I am, however, somewhat puzzled as to the distinction made between the various claims for the settlement of which the Government of Venezuela is equally responsible. The question whether foreign governments who have borrowed money in this country are to be permitted to break their obligations towards their creditors with impunity is one of great importance in view of the enormous sums of money which have been lent to them by British investors. Personally, I am not interested in the Venezuelan Debt, butam speaking as President of the Corporation of Foreign Bondholders, an institution which was founded in London some thirty years ago with the special object of protecting the interests of the holders of foreign bonds in this country. In illustration of the magnitude of the interests involved it may be mentioned that the Corporation has been instrumental in effecting settlements of debtsag-gregating in round numbers the gigantic sum of £1,000,000,000. Of course the bonds which represented this vast sum of money were not all held by British investors; far from it, but still the amount is enormous, and the subject of great importance.
  Now, what are the reasons adduced against the Government for supporting the just rights of English investors? In the first place, it is sometimes said that the whole nation ought not to be put To expense for the benefit of a part. A fortiori, then, no individual Englishman

  1055
  is entitled to support or redress. Moreover, it must be remembered that the Government get3 a substantial part of its revenue from income tax and stamps on foreign bonds. A foreign Government defaults and insists on a large reduction of its obligations. New bonds are then issued, and the interest in arrear is funded into the new securities, the value of which is probably greatly depreciated. The British Government, however, demands the payment of stamp duty on the par value of the new securities, and I am sorry to say that in many cases the funds to defray this charge come out of the pockets of the unfortunate bondholders instead of being provided by the defaulting Government. Surely those who contribute so largely to the revenue of this country are fairly entitled to receive support from their own Government. Another erroneous impression is that the rate of interest on most foreign loans is exorbitant, and that this is especially so in the case of the external debts of the Central and South American Republics. That was so formerly in some cases, but as matters now stand it will be found, on the contrary, that the rates of interest for which these States are now liable is quite for reasonable. In the case of Venezuela, for instance, the interest on the 1881 Loan has only been paid (that is, during the time that Venezuela has not suspended payments altogether) at the rate of 3 per cent., while on the 1896 Loan the rate is 5 per cent., the average being less than 4 per cent. Costa Rica, some years ago, sealed down the rate to 2½ per cent. on three-fourths of her external debt and to 3 per cent. on the remainder, while Guatemala reduced her rate to 4 per cent. Not one of these three States, is, however, at the present time paying their external creditors anything at all. Colombia, who after a suspension of payments lasting for three and a half years has just announced the resumption of remittances, is only called upon to pay at the rate of 1½ per cent., rising to a maximum of 3 per cent. Nicaragua, Paraguay and Uruguay are, I am glad to say, honourably fulfilling their obligations, the rates of interest paid being in the case of Nicaragua 4 per cent., and of Paraguay 1½ per cent., rising to 3 per cent. respectively, whilst Uruguay pays 3½ per cent. on by far the greater part of its external debt, a small portion bearing
  1056
  5 per cent. interest. I may confidently say that the bondholders are always ready to act reasonably and not demand more than any State can properly afford to pay without retarding its development, or crippling the hands of its Government. It is notorious also that a great many of the defaulting countries are in the habit of paying a high rate of interest on their internal debts, while the claims of their external creditors are treated with cynical indifference and their prior rights entirely disregarded.
  Now is there any reason to suppose that the charge for interest imposes an unduly heavy burden; Let us compare the position of Venezuela with some other countries. In round figures the debt of France per head of the population is £29, and the proportion of revenue devoted to its service is approximately 34 per cent. In Italy the debt per head is £16, and the proportion of the revenue applied to its service is 33 per cent. Or let us take some South American countries. The debt per head of Uruguay amounts to more than £27, and 50 per cent. of the revenue is devoted to its service. In Argentina it may be rockoned that the Federal Debt per head is about £13, and that the proportion of revenue applied to debt service is not far short of 40 per cent. There are, of course, also many debts for which the Argentine Provinces are responsible which, if included, would increase these figures considerably. When we turn to Venezuela we find that the debt per head is only about £3 10s. The revenue of Venezuela in normal times amounts to about £2,000,000, while the sum required for interest and sinking fund on the external loans is a little over £200,000. It is clear, therefore, that there is no reason why Venezuela should not meet her engagements. It is not the wealth, but the will, that is wanting. If, however, it could be shown that some temporary reduction was imperative I am sure the creditors would give the position their careful consideration.
  Has there, then, been in the case of Venezuela any action on the part of the creditors which could fairly detract from their rights or deprive them of sympathy? Quite the reverse. So far as the 1896 loan is concerned, the bonds were chiefly issued to railway and other companies for the settlement of guarantees which had been allowed by the

  1057
  Government of Venezuela to get hopelessly in arrear, and for the redemption of these same guarantees in the future. The companies submitted to very heavy reductions of their claims; but before the bonds had been in their possession for two years, or thereabouts, Venezuela defaulted in the payment of the interest. As regards the English loan of 1881 I should have thought the Government of Venezuela would have regarded its payment as a sacred duty, inasmuch as this debt originated in money borrowed by Venezuela to win her independence. Venezuela has never, indeed, denied its responsibility, but, from experience in the past, I am afraid that this will not afford much consolation to those who have trusted her. During the sixty-nine years that have elapsed since Venezuela became an independent State it is reckoned that the external loans contracted in this country have been in default for nearly forty years, and that, during the same period, the Republic has compelled the bondholders to accept five separate arrangements, undereach of which they have had to submit to large sacrifices of their rightful claims.
  In the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards these defaulting States there seems to me to have hitherto been an extraordinary anomaly and that is the distinction which is apparently drawn between an individual and a group of individuals. The idea seems to be that if the property of an individual is interfered with the whole power of England is to be employed to obtain redress, but if a number of persons are interfered with their rights and property may be arbitrarily taken away, and it is considered wrong to insist on reparation. I confess I see no logic or justice in this. Why, moreover, in the case of the Venezuelan negotiations has a discrimination been made between what are called the second and third-rank claims? In the prior rank there appear to be included the claims of certain industrial companies against the Venezuelan Government, whilst in the last rank is placed the external loan of 1896, which, as I have already said, was issued principally to pay off debts due from the Venezuelan Government on account of guarantees owing to railway companies and other industrial enterprises, amongst which were three English concerns. These companies, as I am informed;
  1058
  still hold the bonds they took in settlement of their claims, and it is very difficult to understand why the fact of their having accepted them should cause them to be relegated to an inferior category. Because these companies are now, as it were, merged in the general group of individuals known as the "bondholders"—instead of being confronted with the Venezuelan Government in an isolated and individual capacity, is surely no justification for drawing a distinction to the disadvantage of the former claimants.
  It will be remembered that in certain countries where defaults have occurred International Debt Councils have been established, for instance, in Turkey, Greece, and Egypt. Why should not the same principle be extended to other defaulting States? There may be—in some cases, no doubt, there have been—circumstances which have rendered the payment of the full interest impossible. In the case of Turkey an assignment of certain revenues has been given, and these revenues are directly administered and collected by the representatives of the bondholders. This arrangement is honourable to all concerned, and it is the refusal on the part of Venezuela and other similar defaulting States to give any adequate guarantees that really is dishonourable.
  I am not quite clear what are the precise intentions of His Majesty's Government in the Venezuela matter, but I sincerely hope that the question of the settlement of the external loans will be referred with other claims to the Hague Tribunal. Indeed, unless this is done it appears to me that the result of their action will have been to have put a large number of foreign creditors before our main English claims, and the English investors will be even worse oft' than they were before. It is to be hoped, also, that the United States Government will recognise that the Monroe claim involves a certain responsibility. The Central American States cannot expect to be protected from annexation unless they are prepared to fulfil their engagements. The flagrant repudiation of their responsibilities has long been a disgrace to several of the American Republics; it has seriously interfered with their own prosperity and

  1059
  has compromised and lowered the credit of neighbouring countries which, like Brazil and Chile, have faithfully fulfilled their obligations. We have now a great opportunity of terminating a state of things which has cost many millions to English investors, and has involved great loss to the defaulting countries themselves. If the settlement of the external debts of Venezuela is referred to the Hague Tribunal, I doubt not that the creditors would cheerfully accept any honourable and reasonable settlement of their just rights. If His Majesty's Government decide to adopt this course they would greatly benefit thousands of English investors who are now unjustly defrauded; they would at the same time benefit Venezuela herself; they would rescue her from her present degradation, and restore her to an honourable position among civilised nations.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I was glad to notice that, in spite of the critical tone of the speech of the noble Lord opposite, he did not follow an example which has been set him in some quarters, by taking us to task for having cooperated with Germany, merely on the ground that under no circumstances should we be excusable if we took joint action with that Power. I have always felt that the idea of allowing our sensitiveness over incidents which took place during the South African war to influence our attitude to such an extent was greatly to be deprecated. I should have regretted any action on the part of His Majesty's Government which might have had the effect of increasing the estrangement produced between the two nations by the events to which I have just referred. The noble Lord told us, however, that we should have done better had we taken action alone, and he referred to the precedent of Nicaragua. There is this difference between the two cases—that, to the best of my belief, in the Nicaragua case no European Lower invited us to co-operate with them. In this case we were approached by Germany; and I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord has not sufficiently taken into account the great practical
  1060
  inconvenience which would have resulted if Germany and Great Britain, having each of them made up their mind to resort to measures of coercion, had proceeded to those measures separately and without a previous understanding. A blockade is not a very simple or agreeable enterprise; but the troubles incident to a blockade would surely have been immensely increased if Great Britain and Germany had each of them undertaken separately and without previous understanding coercive operations against Venezuela. It is not difficult to imagine some of the results of such isolated action. I have the greatest respect and admiration for sailors; but it is pretty well known that they are not always very easy to hold in hand, and that the spirit of emulation prevails very strongly in their breasts. I ask your Lordships to consider what might have been the result if, when we were blockading Venezuelan ports or seizing Venezuelan gunboats, German ships of war had been simultaneously blockading the same ports and starting in pursuit of the same gunboats. I cannot help thinking that the results might not have been altogether edifying, except perhaps to the Venezuelans. The blockade took place under a prearranged scheme; each Power took its own sphere of operations; and the result was that, within a fortnight, the Venezuelan Government, who had turned a deaf ear to our remonstrances, proposed to us that our disputes should be settled by arbitration.
  The main count of the noble Lord's indictment is, however, not so much that we associated ourselves with Germany in this enterprise, as that what I may call the Articles of Association between the British and the German Governments were carelessly and rashly drawn up. We are told, in particular, that we were guilty of grave imprudence when we agreed with the German Government that, once we had embarked upon measures of coercion neither Government was to be at liberty to recede without previous agreement with the other. That objection seems to me a strange one. I cannot conceive, either in private or in public life, that when two parties embark together upon a difficult and troublesome enterprise it should not be upon an honourable

  1061
  understanding that they are not to desert one another in the middle of it. I do not know what would be thought of the reputation of a private individual who. in such circumstances deserted his associate. I am sure the reputation of a great Power which made terms for itself in the middle of an enterprise of this kind would not gain by such conduct. But the very fact that we were honourably bound to go through with this business rendered it, no doubt—and I freely admit it—necessary for us to consider carefully upon what terms the joint enterprise should be undertaken. The noble Lord has reviewed these terms and made various criticisms upon them. In the first place, he took the British claims and examined them clause by clause. He admitted that in principle the claims for outrages upon British shipping were claims which it was our duty to enforce; but he suggested that some of them were of a suspect character. All I can say, is that even supposing it could be shown that one of those unfortunate schooners had contraband goods on board, that was no justification for the abominable and outrageous treatment which the owners and crew of those vessels received at the hands of the Venezuelan authorities.
  Then the noble Lord called attention to the fact that in the early stages of the correspondence we mentioned £10,000 as the value of the first rank claims, and that at a later stage we reduced that sum in £5,500, which in his view is a proof of the untrustworthiness and unsoundness of the whole of this class of claims. It was not very easy at first to check these claims and revise them. They were checked and revised by our Minister at Caracas: and the result was that, wishing not to ask for a shilling more than was strictly due to us, we asked for the smaller sum. The larger sum mentioned was asked for at a time when we were not yet in the full possession of the facts, and when it was necessary to mention an outside limit. Then the noble Lord suggested that all the other claims were virtually the claims of the bondholders: during the discussion on the Address the noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer), saying something to the same effect, told us he could understand pressing for the payment of shipping claims, but that the other claims were of the nature of bondholders'
  1062
  claims. That is a complete misapprehension. What were the other claims which we speak of as second-class claims? They were claims for injury to and wrongful seizure of property, for the plunder of business premises, and offences of that kind. They were also claims for services rendered and unpaid for, for contracts entered into for the performance of works with the Venezuelan Government which never have been met by the Venezuelan authorities.
  Let me give your Lordships illustrations of the first class of these claims. There is a case of a British subject resident in one of the Venezuelan outports who, owing to the bombardment by the Government squadrons, was compelled to leave his home and seek safety in Might. On his return he found that his house had been plundered by the Venezuelan troops, and that his clothes and personal effects and live stock to the value of some £240 had been carried off. There is another case of a British, subject settled for some years at Rio Grande, and owning an estate on which he cultivated tea and coffee. He was arrested, his house was pillaged, and a large amount of his property stolen. Now I ask your Lordships whether we were to take the line of saying that we have the right to demand compensation when British subjects are beaten, or stripped, or landed on a desert island, as some of the crews of these vessels were—that we were to come to then rescue—but that when it comes to injury to property, and the plundering of premises and so forth, then we were to sit with our hands folded and tell the sufferers they must shift for themselves. We are often told that British enterprise is being ousted from the markets of foreign countries, and I am afraid that it would be ousted with a vengeance if His Majesty's Government were to proclaim to the world their complete indifference to the maltreatment of their subjects in cases of this sort. That is not the line which is taken by the Governments of other countries; and I should be sorry if we were to fall behind them in that respect.
  Now I will say one word on the claims of the bondholders. I observe a disposition to speak, to say the least of it, in disparagement of the bondholders

  1063
  and their claims. I am bound to say that I feel great compassion for the bondholders; and I think that in this case, and in many other cases, they have been abominably treated by the Powers to which they have made advances. But we have throughout placed these bondholders' claims on a wholly different category from the shipping claims and the second-class claims. It seemed to us desirable that, if there was to be a settlement with the Venezuelan Government, that settlement should be of a general and comprehensive character; and we thought that it ought, if possible, to include some kind of arrangement with the bondholders. But our proposals with regard to the bondholders never went further than this—we proposed that if there was an arbitration the bondholders' claims should go to arbitration; and that if, on the contrary, there was a direct settlement by negotiation at Washington, then the Venezuelan Government should give us an undertaking that they would make a fresh arrangement with the bondholders. That was not an engagement of a dangerous or far-reaching character. We were better able to make that proposal because we knew that a scheme for such a fresh settlement with the bondholders had been drawn up by a Committee representing the interests of the British and German bondholders, and that that claim had actually been laid before, and received the approval of, the Venezuelan Congress. There was, therefore, every reason to look forward to a satisfactory settlement with the bondholders; and, in point of fact, President Castro never raised any objection to this particular proposal. If your Lordships will look at Article VI. of the Protocol (page 226 of the Blue-book), you will find that the Venezuelan Government have undertaken to enter into a fresh arrangement respecting the external debt of Venezuela, with a view to the satisfaction of the claims of the bondholders. I do not think we went an inch too far in supporting the bondholders' claims; and on the other hand I protest against the allegation that there was nothing between these claims and the shipping claims which we placed in the first rank.
  Then the noble Lord referred to the difference between the British and the
  1064
  German claims, and complained of us because we associated ourselves with the German Government in demanding that the claims of both Powers should be simultaneously dealt with by "Venezuela. It is true that in some points the British and the German claims differed in their nature. We had, in the first place, claims for outrages on ships, which we placed in the first rank; and, in the second place, we had a great mass of claims for damage to property and the seizure of goods and for services unpaid, claims which we had not yet revised, and which we consequently placed in the second class. The Germans had no shipping claims, and therefore it was obviously impossible that they should have first-rank claims exactly corresponding with ours; but, on the other hand, they had claims which, in their eyes, were every whit as important and as strong as our shipping claims. Let me tell you what these claims were. They were claims for the exaction of forced loans, for the seizure of cattle, the plunder of houses, and the devastation of lands. And the German Government, in making these claims, desired it to be understood by the Venezuelan Government that these claims were not only pecuniary, but were also based on the ill-treatment of Germans by the Venezuelan authorities. I call your Lordships' attention to the fact that a certain portion of these claims had this peculiarity, that they had been revised by the German Government, and that they had been revised more than once; they had undergone examination at Caracas, and they had been subsequently taxed and considerably reduced at Berlin by the Legal Department of the German Foreign Office. It seems a perfectly natural thing that in respect to this set of claims the German Government should have laid it down that they declined to submit them to arbitration, but that, as regards the rest of their claims, they were ready to submit them to arbitration. It was indeed in support of these first rank claims that the German Government undertook to resort to coercion against Venezuela.
  Your Lordships will find in the correspondence of 23rd December, that these German first rank claims were put

  1065
  fairly and fully before the Venezuelan Government; that on 1st January, President Castro accepted responsibility for these claims in principle; and that on 5th January, the two Governments required President Castro to declare not only that he accepted our demands in principle, but that if there were to be negotiations at Washington, those negotiations were to proceed on the assumption that the Venezuelan Government unreservedly accepted and agreed to be hound by the conditions which we had laid down. There was no mystery about these German first rank claims. They were put forward from the first; and, although the amount was larger than ours, they might have been settled by the Venezuelan Government in the course of a few hours. The noble Lord told us that we had bound ourselves to Germany, not taking sufficiently into account the sinister designs which he apparently attributes to that Power on the South American Continent. He spoke of a document—I never heard of it before, and [do not know from what quarter it reached him—which suggested that at the back of the action of the German Government was a desire to obtain a coaling station in Venezuela. I never heard of that. How far was it that we bound ourselves to go with the German Government? Thus far only, that both of us insisted upon the immediate settlement of the first rank claims, amounting altogether to £72,000 or,£73,000. For the rest, both Governments were prepared to accept either the decision of a mixed commission, on which the Venezuelan Government would be represented, or the decision of the arbitral tribunal of The Hague. I ask your Lordships whether that was a rash and imprudent bargain, tying us in "adamantine bonds" to Germany, and obliging us to persevere in our so-called alliance up to a point that might have involved us in the most disastrous consequences.
  One word in reply to what the noble Lord said as to the manner in which in this controversy we have dealt with the United States Government. I hope I may be allowed to say that I do not yield to the noble Lord, or to any one in this House, in my desire that nothing should be done to give offence to the susceptibilities of the United States, or to
  1066
  indicate to them that we have any desire to impugn the Monroe Doctrine. With regard to the United States, we certainly in this matter cannot be accused of having run the, risk of alienating their sympathies by our conduct. It is true that we did not make our official reference to the United States Government until 11th November. That was, of course, some time before the actual issue of the ultimatum, and a considerable time before we actually resorted to coercive measures; but we had excellent reasons for knowing how the United States were likely to regard the question of our action in Venezuelan waters. The point had been raised, and raised in the most distinct manner, a few months before. When the German Government first considered the question of resorting to coercive measures they intimated to the American Government that, if the Venezuelan Government continued to decline settlement, it would have to be considered what measures of coercion should be used against it; and, my Lords, the German Government dotted the is, because they explained that, according to their ideas, those coercive measures should be of the following kind: "After the posing of an ultimatum, first of all the blockade of the more important Venezuelan harbours, principally the harbours of La Guayra and Puerta Cabello, would have to be considered as an appropriate measure of coercion." "If this measure," continued the German Note, "does not seem efficient we, would have to consider the temporary occupation on our part of different Venezuelan harbours, and the levying of duties in those places." There, my Lords, was a distinct intimation not only that coercion was intended, but that that coercion should take a particular shape.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: When was this?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: 11th December, 1901. What was the reply of the United States Government? The reply was embodied in a memorandum handed to the German Ambassador by Air. Secretary Hay. That memorandum begins by reciting an often quoted passage in a recently delivered message

  1067
  of President Roosevelt, which runs as follows. Speaking of the Monroe Doctrine the President further said—
  "This doctrine has nothing to do with the commercial relations of any American Power save that it in truth allows each of them to form such as it desires. We do not guarantee any State against punishment if it misconducts itself, provided that punishment does not take the form of the acquisition of territory by any non-American Power."
  And then the writer of the memorandum continues—
  "His Excellency the German Ambassador on his return from Berlin conveyed personally to the President the assurance of the German Emperor that His Majesty's Government had no purpose or intention to make even the smallest acquisition of territory on the South American continent or the adjacent islands. This voluntary and friendly declaration was afterwards repeated to the Secretary of State, and was received by the President and the people of the United States in that frank and cordial spirit in which it was offered."
  That remarkable memorandum was published in an American official paper, and was there for any of us to read who chose to pay attention to this matter. With so plain an indication as that of the policy of the United States Government there was no reason why we should have had any misgiving on the ground that objection might be anticipated in that quarter to measures of coercion resorted to by His Majesty's Government. We wished, however, to make assurance doubly sure; and on 11th November we instructed Sir Michael Herbert to inform the Secretary of State of our intentions, and we received, as we knew perfectly well we should receive, the answer that no objection was likely to be raised. Then the noble Lord was anxious for more information as to the character of the communications which, he had gathered, passed at different times between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government. The date on which the first official communication was made was, as I said a moment ago, on 11th November. It is quite true that that was not the only communication that passed between the State Department and the Embassy at Washington, or between the United States Embassy and the Foreign Office here. There have been constant communications—no doubt often of a very informal character, but still entirely sufficient when those who were engaged
  1068
  in them knew as well as we did that there was no room for misunderstanding on this subject; and I certainly am able to say that during the whole course of these negotiations not one single word was said or written by the United States Government which was not thoughtful and friendly and considerate towards this country. That is true of our relations with the United States Government. I think it quite possible that there may have been a section of public opinion in the United States, not, perhaps, sufficiently informed as to the facts of the case, which at one time took a different and somewhat excited view of the question; but now that matters have advanced as far as they have towards a settlement I shall remain sanguine that no one whose opinion is worth having in the United States will hold any other view with regard to the action and conduct of His Majesty's Government except that throughout the whole of these negotiations that conduct has been perfectly sincere and entirely above suspicion.
  Towards the end of his speech the noble Lord referred to other matters about which he wished for information. He has put upon the Paper a notice of Motion for Papers. I gather that some of the points on which he desires to be informed are the full particulars of British claims, the question of the ownership of the island of Patos, the cost of the blockade, and also our correspondence: with the United States Government. As to the full statement of the British claims, I do not hold out any hope, at any rate in the near future, of being able to lay that return on the table. They have not been revised. Those which are coming in, and which we shall have to consider as they come in, will eventually be dealt with by a mixed commission, which, for all I know, may reject a great number of them. The question of the island of Patos is one which has at various times engaged the attention of the various Governments interested, and I am under the impression that our legal advisers are of opinion that our title to the island, founded as it is upon long prescription, is an excellent one. As to the cost of the blockade I do not know whether my noble friend behind me will be prepared to give information on that subject; but

  1069
  I am unable to agree, at present at any rate, to any general motion of this kind. I think I have a right to ask the noble Lord, if he does desire that other Papers should be supplied to your Lordships, that he should give us a full and accurate description of them; when he does so I shall be glad to consider his request.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords I was very anxious to avoid saying anything on this subject until I had had an opportunity of hearing from the Secretary of State his explanation, such as it is. For, after all, this massive but meagre and reticent Blue-book tells us very much that we do not particularly care to know and is singularly silent as to what we do particularly wish to know. I confess that the speech of the noble Marquess does not seem to me to vary very materially in character from this Blue-book. If, indeed, the word "Venezuela" could fee expunged out of the records of the present Government, it would be a very fortunate thing for them. We have not yet forgotten the humiliation of some years ago, to which I will not further refer, and I confess that in this matter—these proceedings against Venezuela—we do not show to any more advantage than we did on that occasion; and I think we are fortunate indeed to have extricated ourselves with no more detriment to our character and our reputation than we have done. Now, with regard to the general remarks that are made about claims in South America, I feel a very lively sympathy. I will not, indeed, go as far as my noble friend behind me, who has not been at the Foreign Office, and therefore doe-; not partake of that mysterious freemasonry which ties the tongues of those who have. But I strongly suspect that in the minds, though not in the tongues, of the majority of those who have occupied a position there, there is a very strong feeling that if a line of demarcation could be drawn round certain States which it would be invidious to name, and that some notice could be affixed to these limits to this effect, that those who went there or lent money there did so at their own peril, it would be a very great convenience to the Foreign
  1070
  Offices of Europe. I do not deny at all the gruesome character of some of the details contained in this Blue-book; but I should be very much surprised if, with a little pressure, the archives of the Foreign Office would not yield an almost similar record with regard to a number of other South American States. Therefore I think that when these States are governed, as we know they are, by a somewhat wild and natural Government, which is understood by those who partake of its blessings, but in no way resembles an European Constitution, it is not fair to urge the claims of those who have claims on these States as being in the same category as if they were urged against civilised European States. My noble friend Lord Avebury, with all the passion and all the pathos of a bondholder, took something of a different line.
  *LORD AVEBURY: I have no interest whatever in the Venezuelan debt. I merely spoke as Chairman of the Corporation of Foreign Bondholders.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I never said my noble friend had a farthing in the Venezuelan debt; but I heard his constant denial of the fact, and that made me think he might have some other South American securities.
  LORD AVEBURY: Oh!
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My noble friend spoke, at all events, with the well simulated passion and pathos of the bondholder, such as well befits the President of the illustrious corporation over which he presides. But I confess that his speech, far from convincing me, added to the apprehension I already felt as to the policy of the Government. What did he say—
  "Venezuela," he said "is a comparatively prosperous community. It ought to pay its debts. Its debt is only so much per head."
  Ah! that reasoning per head depends so very much on the quality of the head. My noble friend recited the finances of Venezuela in a manner which must have given gratification to any native of that State, if one had been within hearing, but which, I fear, is hardly borne out by

  1071
  actual statistics and facts. He alluded airily to the revenue of Venezuela as some £2,000,000 sterling, whereas it is certainly not more than 39,000,000 bolivars—and the bolivar is only equivalent to a franc—so that my noble friend will see that he cannot, by any process of arithmetic, make the revenue £2,000,000 sterling.
  *LORD AVEBURY: That was an exceptional year. Surely the average should be taken.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: It was an exceptional year; the first year that showed a surplus for the last ten years. In all the other years there had been a deficit of 10,000,000 bolivars, or £400,000 a year, which is hardly likely to encourage the Venezuelan bondholders. But let us pursue my noble friend's argument further. He said that Venezuela was well able to pay its debts; and I waive that question for a moment to look at other States which are borrowing money at comparatively low rates of interest. Look at Uruguay and Costa Rica. I mention these with fear and trembling in this House. He says they pay nothing at all.
  *LORD AVEBURY: Uruguay is paying regularly.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Very well; it was Guatemala and Costa Rica. They pay nothing at all. What is the irresistible effect of this argument? If we are to pursue his course of policy, we ought now to engage in bombarding Guatemala and Costa Rica. If my noble friend had ever been at the Foreign Office and had read the despatches that come from South America, he would not have been there a month without very materially modifying his views on the policy to be pursued towards South American States. That is what I have to say as to the general question of South American claims as put forward by my noble friend. But the case as portrayed by the Blue-book is one which is, I think, exceedingly damaging to the Government, apart from general considerations such as those I have indicated. We know now that it was in the middle of December, 1901, that the German Government first proclaimed the policy
  1072
  of exacting penalties from Venezuela. It was on July 23, that the historic interview took place between the noble Marquess the Secretary of State and Count Metternich. On July 29, an ultimatum was sent to Venezuela. Several months afterwards there was a communication to the United States: and two days after that, I think, or about the same time, another ultimatum was sent to Venezuela. Well, then we come to November 13, which is a very striking date, because it was then for the first time that the nature of the German claims was communicated to his Majesty's Government, which has promised joint action until those claimd were satisfied—that is to say, the interval between July 23, when joint action was agreed upon, and November 13 was spent by His Majesty's Government under the bond of an agreement to exact the German claims without knowing what those claims were. I do not think that His Majesty's Government have any particular reason to complain in that matter, because, as far as I understand the Blue book—and the Bluebook is singularly defective in some of its statements—the British claims were never really detailed until January 13. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State airily mentioned the sum of £600,000 as the British claim which, according to agreement, was one which the Germans were bound to sustain. Fortunately, all these agreements went into thin air under the pressure of events. On November 7 we have a final ultimatum delivered to the Venezuelan Government; and the noble Marquess says that, after a fortnight's blockade, the Venezuelan Government came to our views. But I think the blockade was somewhat more effective than he makes out, because on. 10th December we seized their ships, and on 13th December the United States intervened with their proposition. From the moment the United States intervened, the question entered into the region of diplomacy, and whether a few more fishing vessels were seized or not matters, very little to the course of events.
  But what is extraordinary in this regard is this—that His Majesty's Government seem to have been constantly laying down large principles, from which if I read the Blue-book rightly, they were

  1073
  afterwards compelled to recede. The noble Lord has just told us that he put the bonds into a separate category of claims; but, if I read the despatch of 17th November correctly, I see that His Majesty's Government did not, however, desire, in their demands upon Venezuela, to draw a distinction between the various categories. Their object was to obtain a general settlement. The noble Lord says, however, that that was not the object of the Government, as they had put the bondholders into a separate category of their own, and the understanding between Germany and Great Britain was that they should not lay down their arms until the claims of the first rank were satisfied. There is nothing of this in the despatch of 17th November. On the contrary, they say—
  "His Majesty's Government quite concur in the view that, if joint action against Venezuela is undertaken, it should be maintained until the demands of both Governments, as finally agreed upon, are satisfied."
  I see nothing about the first grade or the second grade, or about the bondholders being relegated to the background. It is a perfectly clear statement of the case that until the claims of both Governments are satisfied they shall continue their joint action, and that in the consideration of those claims no distinction of category shall be observed. Well, of course we know that they receded from that point.
  Then we come to another principle which was laid down no less than three times in the Blue-book, and to which I confess I lend a general adhesion, only that it so very soon vanishes from our view under the influences that affected the policy of His Majesty's Government. Over and over again the noble Marquess says that Great Britain was claiming as much as Germany, that there was a claim for £600, 000 which was produced in the month of January. One would have thought that that was not an excessive claim, but nothing comes of it; and I find in all the transactions in which His Majesty's Government have been engaged with the German Government, the ultimate result is that one receives £68,000 and the other £5,500. That represents very much the proportion of benefit received under the understanding by His Majesty's Government and the German Government. Mark you,
  1074
  I do not blame Germany for that; I blame His Majesty's Government; and I think that if there had been a little more equality of result to some of the agreements entered into with the German Government, the relations of the two countries would have been more full of mutual respect than perhaps they are at present. Well, that is another principle from which we receded. Then, on December 16, the German Ambassador and the noble Marquess held a conclave together at which they agreed that the first proposal of arbitration should be refused;
  "I informed his Excellency that the Venezuelan proposal, as it stood, was unacceptable."
  and so on. Now comes a remarkable and very interestering fact. The Cabinet met that very day, and later in the afternoon the noble Marquess was able to inform the German Ambassador that the Cabinet had overruled him and were determined to have arbitration. I think it was one of the most curious episodes I have ever seen. In the Blue-book, page 177, under date December 18, 1902, we read.
  "I informed the United States Charge d'Affaires this afternoon that the Cabinet had decided at its last meeting on the 16th to accept in principle the idea of settling the Venezuelan dispute by arbitration, and we had since ascertained that the view of the German Government was in accord with our own."
  That again was one of the instances in which the first principles of the Secretary of State were overruled by the course of events, in this case by the Cabinet. The last occasion on which we can say that the same thing occurred was when the Government declined that Mr. Bowen should be accepted as Ambassador from Venezuela, which shortly afterwards they reconsidered and accepted. Then the Blue-book ends with an absolute agony of telegrams as the pressure of public opinion increases and the meeting of Parliament approaches. I remember very well that on Saturday, February 14th, there was to be a Cabinet, to settle the King's Speech, which was adjourned till Monday, February 16th; and it does not need a magician to see that it was the absolute determination of the Cabinet that they should have the good news of the settlement of the dispute by some means or another to announce in the

  1075
  King's Speech to Parliament that caused the postponement of the Cabinet for those two days. But, at any rate, no one can read the almost pathetic succession of telegrams that passed between the Foreign Office and Washington during the first fortnight in February without seeing that the Cabinet had then taken affairs into its own hands, and had insisted upon a settlement.
  There was one point of my noble friend's speech that the noble Marquess left entirely unnoticed—that was as to the utterances of his colleagues and subordinates with reference to this question. There is, for example, Lord George Hamilton. Lord George Hamilton is a very important Minister, or, perhaps, to speak more accurately, a Minister who has held many important posts. He usually speaks in the sympathetic seclusion of Ealing, which is, I believe, the principal town in his constituency; and it was with a feeling of alarmed apprehension that we learnt that he was about to speak at Bradford, When he got to Bradford the country was in a state of great tension with regard to this business, and therefore we watched the utterances of Lord George Hamilton with an attention which was somewhat unusual. He said—
  "In July last we took steps to ascertain that the measures proposed by us would in no way alienate the good feeling of the American Government and the American people."
  Well, July was not December, 1901, when the German Government approached Washington; and it was not November, when the British Government approached Washington.
  "Two months later"—that would be, I suppose, in September—"the German Government informed us that they were exactly in the same position as we were."
  It was July when the German Government gave that declaration. I really think that the Foreign Secretary ought to coach his colleagues better when the yare going to speak on these subjects. Then he ended by a detail of the advantages of this policy, which appeared to consist in this—that the German and the British Press had exchanged some rough home truths, which would show that in future Great Britain was not to be insulted with impunity, and that a sort of rough-and-tumble had occurred, which would be
  1076
  eminently beneficial to the allies against Venezuela. My Lords, that is all very well between schoolboys, but it is not the way in which great nations come to harmonious relations. If I might venture to offer advice to the Government it is this—that for the future it should confine Lord George Hamilton to Ealing.
  Now we have at last the long-promised, explanation of the Government on these two important points, their special relations with the United States, and their alliance with Germany. What is the explanation of their relations with the United States? There was no formal, announcement till November 11; but in the meantime there was an understanding—to speak colloquially, a sort of exchange of winks with the American. Ambassador—which was eminently satisfactory to both parties. An exchange of winks is not the way in which two great nations treat one another on occasions of this kind, more especially on an occasion like this, when you are dealing; with the very tenderest point of American susceptibilities, and one which we, having declared our adhesion to and acceptance of, are bound to respect with all the formality and all the courtesy in our power. The noble Marquess told us that they knew perfectly well what the view of the American Government was, because the German Government had approached the Government of Washington in 1901, and had ascertained their view categorically and in detail.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The United States Government had published it.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I do not see how that affects my argument. My point is that it is not for the Government of Great Britain to approach Washington through the medium of Germany, which is the only way they did approach them.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:. We approached them ourselves before, any coercive measures were adopted.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: But not before any measures of coercion had been concerted; you had framed every

  1077
  measure of coercion long before you approached the United States Government. And what I say is this, whether it be well to read in the newspapers what the United States Government has said to the German Government or not, it is not in accordance with the comity of nations, it is not in accordance with the relations which ought to sway the Governments of London and of Washington, that the British Government should feel the pulse of Washington through the moans of the German Government, and should abstain from formal communication with the United States Government until long after they had framed every measure of coercion categorically. I frankly say that, for my part, I wish to dismiss this ignominious and pitiable transaction as quickly as possible from my memory just as I wish to, and have dismissed the former episode of Venezuela from my memory also. The only reason for which it interests me, or, I suppose, any one now, is in regard to the effect which it may have on our relations with Germany and with the United States. I cannot believe, whatever may be thought by the noble Marquess as to the effect of his policy on the United States, that it can be a happy one. I cannot believe that the United States will be satisfied by an approach of this character, so long delayed, when it might so easily have been made beforehand. I hope with all my heart that, as the noble Duke the President of the Council said the other night, the relations of the United States with this country were never better than they are at present. I have often heard those sentiments uttered after dinner, and I always rejoice to hear them. But, if the relations of the United States and of His Majesty's Government are as good as they have ever been, it is no thanks to His Majesty's present Administration.
  Now we come to the question of Germany; and that is a very delicate matter. The noble Marquess says it would have been quite impossible to do anything but what we did. "How could you have had," he said, with a touch of playful humour, "two ships chasing the same fishing-boat, one ship bearing German colours and the other the flag of the British?" He said there would have been terrible complications. But it seems to me the whole argument of the noble
  1078
  Marquess rests on this—that the operations against Venezuela must necessarily have been simultaneous in their nature. If Venezuela is so wealthy as my noble friend behind me seems to think, there would have been ample opportunity after the Germans had conducted their operations to put some pressure for our own part on the sponge which had not yet been squeezed dry; at any rate, it would have been open to us to take the line of France, of Belgium, and, I think, of other Powers, and to have given notice that in any warfare that might take place between Venezuela and Germany our interests in the matter should be in no way affected. lean imagine the Foreign Minister, when approached by the German Ambassador on 23rd July, saying—
  "There is nothing that I wish so much as good relations between our two countries; there is nothing I should desire so much as harmonious co-operation between Germany and Great Britain. There is no reason why that co-operation should not take place on some future occasion; but your Excellency must be. aware, belonging to a nation so proud and delicate on the point of national honour, that there are circumstances, there are words said and written in heat, which cannot be wiped out in a moment, and I honestly think it would be in the interests of the good relations of both Powers that we did not act together on the present occasion."
  I do not say that that would have been the policy which the noble Marquess need have followed. He may have been unaware of the feeling caused in Great Britain, not merely by articles and caricatures in the German Press, but by speeches of responsible German statesmen, He may not have been aware of the feeling, but it was his business to be aware of it. All I can say is this, that if we are to look in the future of our foreign relations to enterprises and alliances conducted as this has been and as others have been in other parts of the world by predecessors of the noble Marquess, I confess I feel more gloomy about those relations than I otherwise would be justified in feeling. It is no secret to anyone except the Prime Minister, who said he was not aware whether or not other nations regarded us with a feeling of antipathy and jealousy, that there is on the continent of Europe a cherished hostility to this country, partly; unreasonable, partly, as I think, due to the action of His

  1079
  Majesty's Ministers themselves. I think that, had they placed their case in the Boer War before Europe in an authoritative manner, it would have been well for this country and well for Europe. I ventured to put forward that view in December, 1901; and I remember a Minister, if I am not mistaken, my noble friend the Scottish Secretary, who, alluding to this idea of the Ministry issuing a diplomatic circular, giving a history of the events which led up to the war as we British saw them, said it was the greatest nonsense he had ever heard in his life.
  I have a great respect for my noble friend the Scottish Secretary, and in matters appertaining to his own Department I bow my head before him. But I cannot help remembering that it was the almost invariable, at any rate the constant, practice of Prince Bismarck when he was engaged in any enterprise, in which he wished to conciliate the opinion of Europe, to use the method of the diplomatic circular; and, paying every homage to my noble friend the Scottish Secretary, I cannot help thinking that the authority of Prince Bismarck in foreign affairs is even greater than his. I do not say that by such a method you could have convinced the stipendiary authorities who infected the Press of some countries in Europe; but I do say that you could have convinced many thoughtful minds, minds which weigh judicially things laid before them, minds of great influence which were led away by the ex parte statements of the Press of Europe, and which gave their important and valuable suffrage against us. I put aside, too, the utterances of some of our Ministers which were ill-calculated to conciliate or secure the affections of the countries of Europe. But I am not disposed to blame altogether our conduct and our Ministers. I am only saying that our conduct and the conduct of our Ministers was not free from responsibility in this matter. But I do hold that, to whatever cause the feeling may be due—I have constantly said it in this House—the antipathy, the rancour, the jealousy of Europe, which I think by a different course of conduct might have been conciliated, constitute a very serious danger to our Government and to our country. I do hope this, that, having escaped in
  1080
  this mostill-advised enterprise from the consequences which might naturally have been reaped from the relations of Great Britain to Germany and the United States, we shall pause, and pause long, before we embark in any similar engagement.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I scarcely think this is the opportunity on which we can profitably enter into a discussion of what ought to have been the course which should have been followed by our Government and Statesmen in explaining to the Governments and nations of Europe our exact position in regard to the Boer War. I scarcely think that your Lordships came down to the House to-night prepared to enter into a discussion of that character in connection with the Venezuelan negotiations. I should be quite unable to follow the noble Earl in a good deal of the somewhat minute, and I venture to think somewhat captious, criticism which he made after, apparently, a very minute study of the Papers which are contained in this Blue-book. I shall certainly not attempt to follow him in the controversy into which he entered with my noble friend, Lord Avebury, as to what ought to be the attitude of our Government in regard to foreign bondholders. But I cannot help observing that the noble Earl appeared, if I followed him correctly, to lay down a somewhat singular line of policy which, in his opinion, ought to be observed in our dealings in the future with a number of States in South America which he described, in language that I should have thought hardly befitted a late Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, as uncivilised and barbarous. So far as I could gather from the somewhat obscure remarks of the noble Earl on that subject, it is his opinion that a mark ought to be placed against the names of certain of these uncivilised and barbarous states, and that everybody ought to have fair warning that any negotiations and transactions into which they might enter with them would be transactions that would be entered into at their own peril. I do not think that that is a policy which has ever been held by any responsible Minister in this country, and I do not think it was the policy to which he

  1081
  himself adhered when he was responsible for the affairs of this country.
  I am quite unable to follow the noble Earl into all the detailed criticism which he made on these despatches He said, however, that we entered into this matter knowing nothing whatever about the extent or the character of the German claims. As my noble friend the Foreign Secretary has said this evening, we were perfectly aware more than a year ago of the extent of the German claims of the first rank. We knew their amount; and as to the claims other than those of the first rank, cither German or English, all that we have ever asked is that they should be submitted to examination. It was only in respect of the first rank claims that either the German or our own Government demanded immediate satisfaction. Then the noble Karl complained that the. Germans had obtained a very much larger sum than we have done. All, I think, we are concerned to know is that we have obtained satisfaction for those claims which were included in the first rank, and that we have received the whole of the amount which we have ever asked should be paid irrespective of arbitration. It seems to me to be a matter of perfect indifference to us whether the German claims of the same character, but in their opinion and in ours ranking equally in the first rank, were of a larger amount than ours or were not.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Then why did the Foreign Secretary stipulate that the British and German Governments should receive an equal sum?
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: That may have been a proposal which was once put forward in order to establish perfect equality of action between the two Governments; but after consideration it was thought better, and I think wisely thought better, that we should confine our demand for immediate payment to those claims which were held to be in the first rank. Then the noble Earl raised some question, which I am afraid I did not entirely follow, as to the Despatch No. 198 in the Blue-book, in which my noble friend the Foreign Secretary stated that the Cabinet had decided at its last meeting, on the 16th, to accept in principle the idea of settling the whole dispute by arbitration, and
  1082
  that we had since ascertained that the view of the German Government was in accord with our own. The noble Earl seems to think that there is something entirely inconsistent in that declaration with something which had preceded it in the Blue-book. He went so far as to assert, on what authority I do not know, that my noble friend had been overruled by the Cabinet. When the first proposal for arbitration was made to us by the United States Government on behalf of Venezuela, that proposal was one for referring the whole of the dispute between us to arbitration. We thought at the time, and continued to think, that that was a proposal we could not accept, inasmuch as there was a certain proportion of our claims which we did not think it would be possible to refer to arbitration. At no time have the Government ever demurred in principle to the reference of the second portion of those claims to arbitration. I fail entirely to understand how the noble Earl finds any fault with this part of the transaction. The noble Earl referred to some speeches made by our colleagues, and he made a great point of an inaccuracy which he considers he has detected in the speech of Lord George Hamilton, as to the date when the communications were entered into with the United States Government. Whether that communication took place in June or November, what is the point to which the noble Earl's criticism is directed?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I will tell you at once. It was that I think that, in a matter affecting the Monroe Doctrine, our very first communication should have been to the United States Government.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: We have the assurance, which I think the House will take from my noble friend, that he has been constantly in communication with the American Ambassador and the American Embassy upon this subject; and why the noble Karl should describe all communications which are not contained in a formal despatch as winks I do not know. My noble friend has informed the House this evening that we were from other sources in possession of knowledge that the United States Government

  1083
  would not consider any such measures as those we had in contemplation with the German Government as any infraction of the Monroe Doctrine, unless they were followed by annexations of territory. Under those circumstances, and when it was also in our power to keep the United States Government constantly informed of what the position of the matter was, I see very little object that there would have been in addressing a formal despatch to the United States Government until the time came which immediately preceded action. The noble Earl threw some little doubt upon a phrase I used the other day to the effect that our relations with the United States Government had never been better than they are now. He said if that were so it was no thanks to His Majesty's Government. I venture to think that if they are so, and if they remain so, it will be no thanks to the noble Earl himself. The noble Earl says that we have been trifling with the tenderest point in American politics. I want to know where the noble Earl finds any foundation for that statement except in his own imagination. Where throughout those despatches does he find the slightest trace of irritation, or susceptibility, or injury to the relations between the United States Government and ourselves? If in future our relations with the United States Government are to suffer from anything that has taken place in regard to this matter, I cannot conceive anything more likely to produce this result than the ingenious attempts of the noble Earl to prove that the Government of his country have disregarded the tenderest sentiments of the American people. I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl, even if he holds the opinion on this subject which it appears he has formed, would have done better to have allowed a longer interval to pass before he suggested that in the action His Majesty's Government have taken in this question they have in the slightest degree attempted to disparage or dispute the validity of the Monroe doctrine.
  EARL SPENCER: I did not intend to add any words to the very able speech of Lord Rosebery, but the concluding remarks of the noble Duke render it
  1084
  desirable that I should do so. I have not understood that my noble friend (Lord Rosebery) attacked the Government for trifling with the United States except in this respect—that they neglected to do what the German Government did in an early communication with the American Government on this subject. I confess that it does seem to me a very remarkable thing that there is no comment made in despatches of an earlier date than in the official document of November 11, which the noble Marquess referred to. We now hear that private communications were made.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I did not intend to say, and I do not know that I did say, that the United States had been unofficially approached before November 11. The noble Lord suggested that the despatch of November 11 was the only one in which reference was made to communications between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States, and he contrasted that with the Prime Minister's statement that there had been frequent communications between the two Governments. I said that there had been frequent and constant communications both in London and at Washington, but I did not suggest that these frequent communications had taken place before November 11.
  EARL SPENCER: Then I do not understand the statement of the Prime Minister. If these unofficial communications were not made until after November 11, I think my noble friend (Lord Rosebery) was perfectly right in contrasting the action of the Government with that of the German Government. I think that there has been a serious want of method in this matter, that it was contrary to the ordinary comity of nations, and that it should not have been done. It seems to me it is a very difficult thing for one Government to act with another unless they know they can support every claim made by that other Government, but I hardly think we have been told to-night that His Majesty's Government were conversant with all the claims of Germany. There is one consequence of saying we should follow in the wake of

  1085
  Germany, and following her claims, which I cannot help thinking is a very serious one. I should say it is a very dangerous and an entirely new doctrine that this country should use force for settling private debts in a foreign country. It is an entirely new proceeding that this should have taken place. The action of the Government is not consistently stated. Here is what the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs said—
  "I can frankly tell the House that it is not the claims of the bondholders that bulk largest in the estimation of the Government. I do not believe the Government would ever have taken the strong measures to which they have been driven if it had not been for the attacks by Venezuela upon the lives, the liberty, and the property of British subjects…. In my view the bondholders have conferred very great benefits on these South American Republics, and are entitled to protection from their own country; and if that be true of the bond holders it is still more true of those who have invested their money in great industrial enterprises, in that part of the world."
  That points to approval of Government policy for reparation to individuals who had lost money in a foreign State, hut the words of the Prime Minister are different.
  He said—
  "I do not deny, in fact I freely admit, that bondholders may occupy an international position which may require international action; but I look upon such international action with the gravest doubt and suspicion, and I doubt whether we have in the past ever gone to war for the bondholders, for those of our countrymen who have lent money to a foreign Government."
  It seems to me that the Government are incurring very grave responsibilities in the future, and may involve us in very great difficulties and dangers, if they are going to take up the question of the private debts of our people in foreign countries. I hold that my noble friend was fully justified in asking for further Papers. Surely the important Papers which were quoted or referred to by the Foreign Secretary must be included in some despatches from our Ambassadors at Berlin or Washington. It would have been of great importance to have had those Papers beforehand, and it is not sufficient to say that the United States Government have published them.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): Will the noble Lords try to get into their heads
  1086
  the idea that the claims which in one form or another His Majesty's Government have taken an interest in have been of three kinds. His Majesty's Government never contemplated any coercive measures against Venezuela in relation to the bondholders only. But they thought that, when a general settlement was going to take place before a tribunal with respect to the spoliation of the private property of British subjects, it was an excellent opportunity which ought not to be missed to arrange with the Venezuelan Government to deal at the same time with the vexed question of the bondholders. The noble Lords opposite have tried to make out that His Majesty's Government first of all made a hard and fast agreement for co-operation with Germany, and only tardily informed the United States. The fact is, the information was given to the United States before His Majesty's Government had finally settled upon the method of co-operation with Germany. In July His Majesty's Government agreed to discuss with Germany whether there should be co-operation. In November they informed the United States, and later in November the final terms of the co-operation with Germany were fixed. That is a totally different presentation of dates to that given by the noble Earl opposite.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: You sent an ultimatum to Venezuela on July 29.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not admit that description. That was a general warning. It was not a joint ultimatum. It was a purely separate transaction.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I did not say it was a joint ultimatum. I said you sent an ultimatum.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The noble Earl has now admitted that His Majesty's Government threw in the bondholders as a sort of extra make-weight for convenience sake.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I did not say "extra make-weight" at all.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Then the bondholders were brought in as an addendum. I think that is a very dangerous precedent to have set. The noble Marquess the Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated in his despatch that none of the claims were to be treated differently. Therefore it may be argued that, for the protection of the bondholders, coercive measures have been applied.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: In the despatch we argued for a general settlement, and we objected to the idea that we were to put forward only the one class of claims.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The noble Marquess distinctly stated in the despatch that His Majesty's Government did not desire to draw any distinction between the various claims. Then the noble Earl has objected to the despatch of July 29 being called an ultimatum. The Prime Minister has called it "the first ultimatum to Venezuela," though it seems to me that "the first ultimatum" is a rather tortuous epithet.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Read the last sentence of Despatch No. 110.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTH: In his despatch of July 29th, 1902, the noble Marquess says—
  "You should intimate to the President and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in unmistakable terms, that unless His Majesty's Government receive explicit assurances that incidents of this nature shall not recur, and unless the Venezuelan Government promptly pay to the injured parties full compensation wherever satisfactory evidence has been furnished to His Majesty's Government that such is justly due, His Majesty's Government will take such steps as may be necessary to obtain the reparation which they are entitled to demand from the Venezuelan Government in these cases, as well as for any loss to British subjects caused by the unjustifiable conduct of the Acting Venezuelan Consul at Trinidad, and on account of the railway claims."
  I think that may very fairly be described as an ultimatum.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Hear, hear.
  *LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The real object of the Motion was to secure a broad statement of the case against Venezuela and the case for the Government. As I do not think the situation would be improved in any way by taking a division, I will not put your Lordships to the trouble of dividing.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I want to say one word of personal explanation. I never called the South American Republics barbarous, and I expressly disclaim the policy of drawing a line around such as were defaulting and warning people they could only go in at their peril. I said it was an idea that had occurred to the brain of the Foreign Office, but that it had never reached their tongue.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.