Sitting of 3 March 1903

KING'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS.)
The Comptroller of the Household reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth—
" I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament."

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

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that in the ease of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.—
  Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Bill.
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Electric Supply Bill.
  Walker and Walsend Union Gas Bill.
  Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid 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. 63 has been complied with, viz.—
  London United Tramways Bill.
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Electric Supply Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 66 NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid 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. 66 has not been complied with, viz.—
  Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  STROUD DISTRICT AND CHELTENHAM TRAMWAYS BILL
  Read a second time, and committed.
  MILDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION BILL (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.
  ROMFORD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Louis Sinclair and Mr. Price.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS).
  Petition for Bill, referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
PETITIONS.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Monikie; Bonhill; Dunnet; and, New Monkland; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY RILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Leyton-stone; Whitechapel; and, Chelsea; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  WAGES AND EFFECTS OF DECEASED SEAMEN.
  Account (presented 23rd February) to be printed. [No. 51.]
  BANKRUPTCY COURTS (IRELAND)
  Annual Returns presented, of the Official Assignees of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland and the Local Courts, Belfast and Cork, for the year 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table
  GERMAN TARIFF.
  Copy presented, of Translation of the new General Customs Tariff of Germany, with comparison, as far as possible, of the rates of Customs Duty contained in the Tariff, with the rates at present in force on imports into Germany from the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS (CERTIFICATES) (AXMINSTER AND LYME REGIS LIGHT RAILWAY COMPANY).
  Copy presented, of Draft Certificate of the Board of Trade authorising the Axminster and Lyme Regis Light Railway Company to raise additional Capital [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Accounts of the University of Aberdeen for the year ending 15th September, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 52.]
  ALTERATIONS IN THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.
  Return presented, relative thereto (Address 27th November, 1902; Mr. Charles M'Arthur); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 53.]
  FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  Return ordered, "of Accounts relating to the Trade and Commerce of certain Foreign Countries and British Possessions."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Shetland Mails—Improved Service.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Postmaster General if, in view of the disabilities imposed upon the town of Lerwick and trade of Shetland by the present mail service, he will cause inquiry to be made in order to bring it more into harmony with the necessities and requirements of the people.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The cost of the existing mail service to the Shetland Islands is so largely in excess of the revenue from the correspondence for the Islands that the additional expenditure which would have to be incurred to provide a more frequent service would not be justifiable on postal grounds.

  Health of Hong Kong—New Legislation.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the fact that some time since Mr. Osbert Chadwick, C. M. G., and Professor Simpson, M. D., were deputed to visit Hong Kong for the purpose of inquiring into the sanitary condition of the colony, will he state whether it is proposed to introduce legislative measures to consolidate and
  1224
  amend the Health and Building Ordinances at present in force in the colony.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) A Bill to consolidate and amend the laws relating to public health and buildings has been recently under consideration in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, and will no doubt be submitted very soon for sanction.

  South Africa—Criminal Procedure Code.
  MR. TOULMIN: To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of Stale for the Colonies, in view of the fact that the Criminal Procedure Code, 1903, came into force in South Africa on 1st February, if he has now received any official information showing whether a person who is to be arrested for committing a grave crime, and who resists the arrest or attempts to escape, may be killed, if there is no other way of arresting him, and whether any police officer above the rank of sergeant may search a house without a warrant; and whether he can give the other provisions of this Ordinance.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) I have nothing at present to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on the 20th February,† as Lord Milner's despatch forwarding the Ordinance in question has. not yet been received.

  Naval Armaments—Muzzle-Loading Guns.
  MR. HARMSWORTH (Caithnessshire): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what ships on the effective list of the British Navy are at present armed with muzzle-loading guns; and whether the Admiralty can see their way to have these ships removed from the effective list.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) There are no ships armed with muzzle-loading guns on the effective or fighting list of the Navy with the single exception of the "Hotspur," which is employed on special service at Bermuda, and which will be removed from the list when replaced. There are at present six older
  † See page 397.

  1225
  battleships whose armament is wholly or in part composed of muzzle-loading guns. These vessels are not regarded as being in the fighting list of the Fleet. Four of them are appropriated for harbour and training services, the remaining two are retained for use in a similar capacity as occasion arises. The names of the ships in question are "Alexandra," "Superb," "Hercules," "Sultan," "Monarch," and "Dreadnought." The first four carry a considerable number of breech-loading guns.

  Insubordination on H. M. S. "Pembroke."
  All; HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state whether acts of in ubordination have recently occurred on HALS. "Pembroke," Chatham Depôt.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) There are 4,800 men on the books of the "Pembroke" and "Northumberland," and during the last three months there have been eighteen cases of insubordination. The number is exceptionally small.

  Private Asylums for Incipient Mental Derangement.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: To ask Mr. Attorney General whether the Government will consider proposals to legalise in England a system similar to that which is in operation in Scotland for the private care of persons showing symptoms of incipient mental derangement who cannot he certified as insane.
  (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) The Government have already assented to the principle of such legislation, and a clause dealing with the subject was contained in the Lunacy Bill of 1900. That Bill was introduced by the Lord Chancellor into the House of Lords at the beginning of the session, and was passed; it came down to the House of Commons on the 8th of March in 1900, but had to be withdrawn on the 16th of July.

  Pasteur Institute for Southern India.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that it has been proposed that half of Mr.
  1226
  Henry Phipps' gift, intended for the Indian people generally, shall be applied to the establishment of a Pasteur Institute in Southern India; can he state whether any official sanction has been given to this scheme; and whether, before any definite decision is arrived at for the allocation of Mr. Phipps' contribution, the correspondence relating thereto will be placed before Parliament.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have not received any official communication on the subject from the Government of India, but I believe that, in view of the great benefits conferred on the European and the native community in India by the Pasteur Institute in the Punjab, the Viceroy proposes to apply half Mr. Henry Phipps' munificent gift to the establishment of a similar Institute in Southern India. I cannot give my hon. friend the undertaking which he asks for in the latter portion of his Question.

  Irish Census—Cost of Printing.
  MR. McKEAN: to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state whether any contract was made for the printing of the Irish Census; and, if so, has the cost so far incurred been in accordance with it.
  (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) The printing of the Irish Census was carried out partly under a general contract for book-work printing and partly under two special contracts. The cost so far incurred has been in accordance with these contracts, with two exceptions. The firm which held the general con tract performed certain extra work, for which an extra payment of £1,000 was made to them. In addition, a further payment of £1,000 was made to them as an act of grace in consideration of the heavy losses which they had incurred.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Army Corps Returns.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will

  1227
  grant the Return standing on today's Notice Paper respecting the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Army Corps.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): My hon. friend asks for a Return on a date which happens to be during the Indian trooping season when regiments and drafts are on passage to and from India, and which would not therefore give an accurate return of the strength of the Army. In addition the moves consequent on the close of the South African war will not be completed till about the middle of April, which would be the earliest date on which a Return could be made which would be of any value. I will order a Return to be prepared accordingly.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: On the 15th April?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say precisely, but some time between the 15th April and the 1st May.

  Army Intelligence Department.
  MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the total number of intelligence officers serving with the British Army and with the Indian Army; and if he will state the number of such officers serving in each of the four continents.
  MR. BRODRICK: The number of mobilisation and intelligence officers serving with the British Army on the headquarters staff is thirty-four. Beside these, there are a number of officers on the district staff whose staff work comprises intelligence duties. These, at home and abroad, amount to thirty-five. The number of mobilisation and intelligence officers serving with the Indian Army headquarters staff is eleven. The distribution of the above officers by continents is as follows:—Europe, fifty-five; Africa, seven; America, four; Asia, fifteen.

  Army Recruiting—Enlistment of Specials Suspended.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary of
  1228
  State for War whether he can state the date on which the order directing the suspension of the enlistment of specials was in the hands of recruiting officers.
  MR. BRODRICK: Owing to the constant movement of troops during the last few months it has been very difficult to arrive at exact figures as to the numbers of the Army, but on receipt of the figures for 1st February, which reached me about the middle of the month, I decided on 17th February, after consultation with the military authorities, that certain standards should be raised, and that the taking of "specials" should be stopped for the infantry. An Army Order was accordingly drafted and instructions were sent out on the 27th February.

  Recruits' Characters.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the date and terms of the. circular or order instructing officers in charge of recruiting districts to inquire into the characters of men before enlisting them.
  MR. BRODRICK: If my hon. and gallant friend will refer to the recruiting regulations he will find that in the case of the Household Cavalry, Royal Engineers, Army Service Corps, Royal Army Medical Corps, and Army Ordnance Corps recruits must produce certificates of character. In the case of other corps the regulations lay down that "if a recruit presents the appearance of having served before and denies having done so, or if his antecedents are unknown or there is any doubt as to his antecedents, he should be required to give a reference to his former employer or other responsible person" and that "full inquiries as to the recruits' antecedents are to be made in every case where there is the slightest ground for suspicion."
  MR. BECKETT: Is it not the fact that in a recent case when a recruiting officer made inquiries into the character of a recruit he was prohibited by some one at the War Office?
  MR. BRODRICK: I never heard of it.

  Inspector General of Recruiting—Annual Report.
  MR. BECKETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting for 1902 is now complete, and on what date it will be issued to the House.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Report is now with the printers, and all possible despatch is being used to secure its publication at an early date. I hope to circulate it before the end of this week.

  Royal Military College Regulations.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the recent new regulations at the Royal Military College in respect of leave and permission to cadets to dine out.
  MR. BRODRICK: The new leave regulations for cadets at the Royal Military College are set forth in a printed pamphlet, the contents of which are too long to be included in an answer to a Question. Permission to dine out in the neighbourhood can be obtained from officers commanding companies. I shall be happy to forward the hon. Member copy of the regulations.

  Coaling Stations Garrison.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state what has been the decision arrived at in respect of the garrisoning of certain coaling stations by the Navy, proposed in the Army statement of the Secretary of State for War in 1901; whether he will lay correspondence relating to this question upon the Table.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The matter was considered and it was decided to make no transfer of responsibility from the War Office to the Admiralty in respect of the garrisons of the coaling stations. There is no correspondence to lay upon the Table.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Then are we to understand that the Army will still provide these garrisons?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is so.

  Indian Military Charges.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state what the decision of the Government of India has been as to the increased charge which falls upon India consequent on the new regulations for the pay of British soldiers; and, if so, when he will be prepared to lay Papers before the House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The Secretary of State in Council, after conferring with the Government of India, has agreed to pay the extra twopence a day per head under the new regulations, but objects to paying the whole of the additional sixpence a day for men whose service is more than three years. This part of the question will be referred to arbitration, and as soon as all the details of procedure connected with the arbitration are settled I will publish the correspondence.
  MR WINSTON CHURCHILL: Is the noble Lord aware that the question was raised more than a year ago?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Yes; but the new regulations only came into operation last April.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: How much money is in dispute?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: £209,000 a year.

  Cost of Soldiers in India.
  MAJOR EVANS-GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the differences in cost per man per annum, between the English and the native private soldier in India.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: An exact calculation of the annual cost of a British soldier and a native soldier in India cannot be made from the materials that are at my disposal in this country. It was, however, estimated in a Return presented to Parliament in 1894 (No. 20) that the average annual cost of

  1231
  a British soldier, exclusive of deferred pay and pension, was Rs.891, and that the cost of a native soldier was Rs.343. Since the date of that estimate the pay and allowances of the British soldier have been increased by about Rs.123 a year, and on the 1st April. 1904, a further increase of Rs.146 a year (sixpence a day) will come into effect. There has been an increase of about Rs.37 a year in the pay and allowances of the native soldier.

  Administration of Justice in India—Cachar Tea Gardens Case.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Malsa, who with his wife and niece absconded from a tea garden in Cachar, and were caught by the estate guards and brought back; that Malsa was tied up, beaten with a stirrup leather until he became insensible, and shortly afterwards died; and to the report by the Deputy Commissioner, who presided, that the two women were then beaten by one of the chokidars (guards) with the strap; and to his remarks as to attempts to conceal the facts of the case; and will the Government, of India take steps to prevent such concealment of evidence, and take steps to bring the guilty parties to justice.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have observed a report in the newspapers of the case referred to in the hon. Member's Question. The assistant manager of the tea gardens, who is charged with causing the death of a coolie, appears to have been committed for trial by the Sessions Court.

  Delhi Durbar Imperial Responsibilities of the Indian Princes and Chiefs.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSI beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state if any steps were taken at Delhi, on the occasion of the intercourse between the Governor General and the Princes and Chiefs of India, to invite their co-operation with his Excellency in those special responsibilities of Imperial rule within the Empire of India which are regarded as under the personal charge of the Viceroy; whether arrangements were then or have since been made to
  1232
  renew and give practical effect to the plan described on the occasion of the Queen Empress's Proclamation of 1877 expressing Her Majesty's desire to seek from time to time in matters of importance the counsel and advice of the Princes and Chiefs of India, pursuant to which the Order of Counsellors of the Empire was established; and whether any communications which may have taken place between the Viceroy and the Secretary of State for India on this subject can be laid before Parliament at an early date.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have received no communication from the Viceroy as to any action having been taken of the nature indicated in the first and second paragraphs of the hon. Member's Question. There are therefore no Papers that could be presented.

  Seistan Boundary Commission.
  *MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Resolutions or other Orders of the Indian Government, defining the objects and organisation of the Seistan Arbitration Commission, now travelling through the waterless Registan desert, and also the Seistan Boundary Commission under command of Major MacMahon, can be laid before Parliament, together with estimates of the cost of the large military escort accompanying these Commissions; does the proposed boundary demarcation extend to the Persian frontiers: and, seeing that these operations are outside British India, will the expenditure incurred be borne by or delated to the imperial Treasury; has work on the projected Quetta-Nushki-Seistan Railway already commenced; and from what funds, or under what guarantees, will that line be constructed.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: In accordance with the sixth Article of the Treatyof 1857, Major MacMahon has been deputed to proceed to the Perso-Afghan frontier to settle certain disputes which have arisen between the Persians and Afghans in Seistan regarding irrigation rights. He has also been instructed to take the opportunity of demarcating, in conjunction with a Persian Commissioner, a portion of the Perso-Baluch frontier, which was settled but not actually demarcated by a joint Anglo-Persian Commission in 1896, but regarding which

  1233
  some misunderstanding has recently arisen. Major MacMahon's escort consists of a troop of cavalry and two companies of infantry. I have received no estimate of the cost, but the expense will fall upon Indian revenues. I understand that the work has commenced on the line to Nushki, which will be constructed from Indian funds. I do not propose at present to lay any Papers on the Table.

  Russia and Afghanistan.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to state in what form Russia communicated to His Majesty's Government her desire to enter into direct communication with the Amir of Afghanistan; whether the correspondence is now complete and can be presented to Parliament; and whether Russian officers have as a fact made, direct communications to the Amir.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): The communication was made by the Russian Embassy in London. The answer to the second Question is in the negative. His Majesty's Government are net aware that any direct communications have been made by Russian officers to the Amir.

  Death Duties—Assessment of Publicans' Licences.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state on what principle publicans' licences are valued for the purposes of the death duties, whether the estimated selling value for the time being is taken, or what other rule is adopted; and whether he will state the highest value assigned to any licence during the last five years.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): The value, for the purposes of the death duties, of a publican's interest in licensed premises is the amount for which such interest would sell at the time of the death. No separate record has been kept of the values assigned to
  1234
  such interests, and it would therefore not be possible to say what is the highest value that has been taken in any single case.

  Alien Criminals in the Metropolis.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the fact that nearly 5,000 aliens were arrested by the London Metropolitan Police in the twelve months ending 31st October, 1902, he is now in a position to give the figures for the period 1st January to 31st December, 1902; and, further, if he can state how many aliens have appeared in the calendar at the Central Criminal Court, the London Sessions, the Surrey Sessions, and on the charge, sheets at Metropolitan Police Courts, during the three months ending 31st January, 1903.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): No, Sir, I cannot give these figures. I beg leave to refer my hou. and gallant friend to the answers which I have already given to him on cognate points, and would ask him to believe that all trustworthy information on this matter in my possession will be given to the Royal Commission in the best form that I can devise. The hon. Member shall have a copy.

  Sunderland and Durham County Blind Asylum Labour Dispute.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the blind ship-fender makers of the Sunderland and Durham County Blind Asylum have been locked out since October last in connection with a wages dispute; and whether, seeing that the Mayor of Sunderland has offered to act as arbitrator and bis offer been accepted by the men but refused by the governors of the asylum, he will use the powers conferred upon him by the Conciliation Act to have inquiries made and a Report presented on the facts of the case.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Primâ facie this does not seem

  1235
  to be a case for the application of the Conciliation Act, but I am making inquiries.

  Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway—Orlando Bridge Shunting Fatality.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the inquest at Bolton on Mr. Peter Fulton, goods inspector in the employ of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, who was killed whilst superintending shunting operations near Orlando Bridge Station; is he aware that it was alleged at the inquest that the accident was due to taking off a flagman who was on duty to give warning of danger, and that the Company were running passenger trains over the goods line; and will the Board of Trade inquire into the accident.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Notice of this regrettable accident has been duly given by the Railway Company, and the Board of Trade have received the Coroner's Return. I am not aware of the allegations stated to have been made at the inquest. I have, however, directed an Assistant Inspecting Officer of Railways to hold an inquiry into the circumstances attending the accident.

  Meat Trade—False Descriptions.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES (Carmarthen Boroughs): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state whether action is being taken by the Board or the local authorities to prevent butchers selling foreign meat as home grown; if so, will he state the number of convictions and name the punishments in his last official reports; and whether he will consider the advisability of amending the law with a view to more efficient prevention of the substitution of foreign for home grown meat.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): Local authorities have no power to institute proceedings in cases where foreign meat is sold as home grown. The Merchandise Marks Act 1894 gave to the Board of Agriculture certain powers of prosecution in offences
  1236
  connected with agricultural or horticultural produce. Full publicity has been given to these powers, and those interested have been invited to bring specific cases under our notice. We have no staff of inspectors to detect such illegal sales, and before a prosecution can take place the consent of the Treasury has to be obtained. In the case of hams and bacon the trade association most concerned has been able to provide the expert evidence necessary to secure convictions, and proceedings have been taken in forty-one cases. Particulars of twenty of these cases appear in our Report for the year 1900, whilst the forth coming Report for 1902 will contain those of the remaining twenty-one. In the case of fresh meat no specific complaints have reached us upon which a prosecution could possibly be based. I gather, however, from admissions made to me by members of some recent deputations that the meat of foreign animals, slaughtered at Deptford and other wharves within ten days or less of their arrival in this country, is often sold under the ambiguous description of home killed or even home grown meat—and I am now having inquiries made as to the extent of this practice. If it is at all general I think some more accurate definition of such terms may have to be provided by Statute.
  *MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will endeavour to alter the law in order to bring—
  THE SPEAKER: That question has already been answered.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to remove the obstruction to a prosecution.
  MR. HANBURY: I do not think that there has been any obstruction from the Treasury on that point.
  *MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I should like to know whether, if I bring in a Bill of which the right hon. Gentleman approves, he will give me facilities for passing it?
  MR. HANBURY: I should like to see the Bill first.

  M'Farlane's Estate, County Mayo.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the M'Farlane Estate, in the County Tyrone, has been in the Land Judge's Court since 1882; and seeing that the tenants made an offer to buy their holdings in 1899, and their offer was accepted by the solicitor to the Receiver, will he explain why the sale has not yet been carried out.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The proceedings for the sale of this estate have been administered by Judge Meredith, Mr. Justice Loss having a personal interest in the matter. No offer to purchase on the ' part of the tenants was ever accepted. The negotiations for sale fell through for the reason stated in my reply to the hon. Member's previous Question of the 28th July last.†

  Hon. J. Browne's Estate.
  CAPTAIN DON ELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Mayo I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how long the estate of the Hon. J. Browne has been in the Land Judge's Court; and whether, seeing that the tenants on this estate signed agreements to purchase their holdings in 1899, he will explain why the solicitor to the Receiver is still pressing the tenants for their old rents; and why the sale of the estate has not been completed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The estate cannot be identified in the Land Judge's Court upon the information given in the Question. I have written a letter to the hon. Member asking him to defer the Question, and to supply some more specific information as to the locality of the estate, when further inquiry will be made.
  † See (4) Debates, cxi., 1364.

  Knocalassa Grazing Farm, Riverstown, County Sligo.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a land bailiff, named McDermott, has come into possession of the Knocalassa grazing farm, situate near Riverstown, County Sligo, which until recently was held by a Mr. Dodd, of Dublin; and whether the Land Commission will advance the purchase money of this farm to McDermott, or will consider the advisability of having it used for the enlargement of the small farms surrounding it.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The estate which includes this farm is administered in the Land Judge's Court. The sale of the estate has not yet been brought before the Land Commissioners. But in any case the matter is at present solely within the discretion of the Land Judge, and the Commissioners have no duty imposed upon them such as suggested in the Question.

  St. Louis Exposition—Representation of the United Kingdom.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state what steps the Government are taking to insure that the United Kingdom shall be adequately represented at the Universal Exposition to be held at St. Louis in 1904.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Government have accepted the invitation of the United States Government to take part in the St. Louis Exhibition of 1904. The extent to which the country will participate, and the modus operandi, are under consideration.
  MR. NORMAN: Will not the right hon. Gentleman at least give the House as much information on this subject as has been published, obviously on some sort of authority, in the daily papers?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The authority was not mine. I do not know who has given the information, and I cannot add to the answer I have given to the House. There has been no authoritative statement made to the Press.

  Select Committee on Private Business.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he proposes to take the steps needful to carry into effect the recommendations of the Select Committee on Private Business (which sat last session), which are embodied in paragraphs 37, 38, and 39 of their Report.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will defer this Question till next week, as there are some points on which I should like to have an opportunity of consulting the Chairman of Committees.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Yes. I will put it down one day next week.

  Business of the House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs): Will the right hon. Gentleman say what business is to be taken in the near future?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To-morrow the business will be the Army Supplementary Estimate", if they are not finished to-day, and the Report of the Supply taken yesterday. Then we propose to introduce Bills and appoint committees, and that business should carry us over to the end of the sitting on Thursday.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what Bills and what committees he refers to?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Bills introduced will be the Scotch Licensing Bill, the Employment of Children Bill, and the Naval Reserve Bill—not the Education Bill, or the Irish Land Bill, or the Sugar Convention Bill.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Scotch Bill will not be introduced under what is called the ten-minutes rule?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will consult the Lord Advocate as to that. If the right hon. Gentleman desires to have a more lengthened discussion, it can be managed. The committees that are to be moved for are the National Expenditure Committee and the Municipal Trading Committee.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: When are the Army and Navy Estimates likely to come on?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: These Estimates will be brought on early next week. The Army Estimates will be taken first.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Having regard to the fact that the Motion with regard to Volunteers only secured second place in the ballot, can the right hon. Gentleman afford some facilities for the discussion of this very important subject?
  MR. BRODRICK: We propose to pursue the ordinary practice in discussing the Army Estimates.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES) (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection: That they had selected the following six Members to be the Chairmen's Panel and to serve as Chairmen of the two Standing Committees to be appointed under Standing Order No. 47:—Mr. John Ellis, Sir Thomas Esmunde, Sir James Fergusson, Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice, Mr. Laurence Hardy, and Mr. Stuart Wortley.
Report to he upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Bills relating to Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, which may, by Order of the House, he committed to such Standing Committee:—Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Baird, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Beckett, Mr. Boland, Mr. Griffith Boscawen, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Burt, Sir Charles Cayzer, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Channing, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Jesse Collings, Sir John Colomb, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Crombie, Mr.

1241
Dillon, Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland, Mr. Doughty, Mr. Farrell, Sir Fortescue Flannery, Sir Henry Fowler, Mr. Galloway. Mr. Garfit, Sir Alfred Hickman, Sir William Houldsworth, Sir James Joicey, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Bonar Law, Sir Elliott Lees, Mr. Lloyd-George, Colonel Long, Mr. Walter Long, Mr. Charles M'Arthur, Dr. MacDonnell, Mr. William M'Killop, Sir William Mather, Mr. W. J. Maxwell, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Pike Pease, Colonel Pilkington, Sir James Rankin, Sir Charles Renshaw, Mr. Herbert Roberts, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Round, Mr. Runciman, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Stuart Samuel, Sir Henry Seton-Karr, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Sir Barrington Simeon, Sir Edward Strachey, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Theodore Taylor, Mr. Tennant, Mr. Whitley Thomson, Sir William Tomlinson, Mr. Tully, Mr. George Whitley, Colonel Williams, Sir Frederick Wills, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Mr. Wolff, and Mr. Samuel Young.
Mr. HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure which may, by Order of the House, be committed to such Standing Committee:—The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas, Mr. Asquith, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Harlow, Sir George Bartley, Mr. Butcher, Mr. Carew, Lord Hugh Cecil, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Coghill, Mr. Colston, Mr. Cripps, Mr. Bromley-Davenport, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Tatton Egerton, Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. Samuel Evans, Sir George Fardell, Mr. Flynn, Mr. Vicary Gibbs, Sir Frederick Godson, Mr. Goulding, Mr. H. D. Greene, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Harwood, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. James Heath, Mr. Holder, Mr. Hemphill, Mr. Henry Hobhouse, Mr. John Hutton, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Lees Knowles, Mr. W. F. Lawrence, Sir Joseph Leese, Mr. Lloyd Morgan, Mr. Loder, Mr. A. K. Loyd, Mr. Lyttleton, Mr. MacNeill, Mr. Middlemore, Mr. William Moore, Mr. Arthur Morton, Mr. Newdigate, Captain Norton, Sir Francis Sharpe Powell, Lieutenant-Colonel Pryce-Jones, Sir Robert Reid, Mr. Remnant, Mr. Matthew White Ridley, Mr. Bryn
1242
Roberts, Mr. Parker Smith, Mr. Soames, Mr. Solicitor General, Sir Ernest Spencer, Mr. Stevenson, Sir Benjamin Stone, Mr. Thornton, Mr. Ure, Sir Howard Vincent. Mr. Robert Wallace, Mr. Whitley, and Sir James Woodhouse.
Mr. HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee; That, in pursuance of the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had selected the following fifteen Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners:—Mr. Emmott, Mr. John Edward Gordon (Elgin), Mr. Charles Hobhouse, Mr. Alfred Hutton, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. A. K. Loyd, Mr. MacCrae, Mr. Pym, Sir Charles Renshaw, Mr. Abel Smith, Mr. Parker Smith, Sir Walter Thorburn, Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. John Wilson (Falkirk), and Mr. Wylie.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  "To enable local authorities to adopt the provisions of the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896," presented by Captain Jessel; supported by Mr. Hay, Mr. Galloway, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Sir Seymour King, Sir Blundell Maple, Mr. Sinclair, Major Rasch, Mr. Freeman-Thomas, and Mr. Wanklyn; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]
  CRIMINAL ALIENS BILL.
  "To exclude and deport Criminal Aliens," presented by Sir Howard Vincent; supported by Mr. Forde Ridley, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Claude Hay, Mr. Plummet, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. Harry Samuel, Sir Blundell Maple, Mr. Vicary Gibbs, and Major Rasch; to be read a second time upon Friday 20th March, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]

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

CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1902–3.

  CLASS II.
  £3,700 (Supplementary), Colonial Office.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he desired to call attention for a few minutes to one item contained in the Estimate—the item covering the further expenses incurred in connection with the Colonial Premiers' Conference. He did not oppose the Vote; on the contrary he entirely approved it. But he wished to remind the Committee of the very great importance of this Conference. It was a Conference of the Premiers of the self-governing colonies and it was called by the Colonial Secretary to consider some difficult and delicate questions of Imperial government. As the debates of the House showed, the Government had many difficult questions to settle in connection with the Empire, but he believed there were none more difficult and delicate or important than those concerning our relations with the self-governing colonies. So far as the Crown colonies were concerned—so far as India and our other dependencies were affected—that House was the absolute master; it had only to settle the policy, and there was no authority to interfere with its decision. But with reference to the self - governing colonies the position was entirely different. They had been told by a spokesman of the Government in that House that the self-governing colonies were in point of fact independent—that they were sister nations bound to us by a tie which was purely sentimental and extremely slight, and that, slight though it was, we would not bind them by it for a single moment longer than they desired. That was a view expressed perhaps in terms a little too unguarded on the part of the Government. But the chief question between ourselves and our colonies was that of Imperial defence. The self-governing colonies were daily and yearly increasing in population and in wealth; they stood in the proportion, he believed, of one to four, and if they continued to increase at their present rate—if to their number were added the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony—the numerical proportion would be largely
  1244
  altered. The first fact that stared them in the face was that the United Kingdom has expressly undertaken to defend—with its Army and Navy—all those self-governing colonies, and while they did that, the annual charge on their Votes was increasing by leaps and bounds. The self-governing Colonies practically contributed nothing to the cost of services the benefits of which they shared equally with ourselves. That very fact was the raison d'é tre of the Conference. Since the; original Estimate for the cost of that Conference was passed, the Conference itself had been held and had become an accomplished fact. They had the results before them in a Blue-book, which he might be permitted to say—although it was not very artistically or systematically arranged—was of enormous interest, value and importance. He wished to ask the Committee to consider the action of the Government in the management of the Conference, and their possible action in connection with its results. In the Blue-book they had, in the first place, the deliberate and formal statements carefully made by various members of His Majesty's Government in respect of matters of policy, while in the second place they had the results of the Conference in the Resolutions passed by the Premiers. But unfortunately they had not one single word of the speeches made or the reasons given by the Colonial Premiers in answer to the statements on the other side, and in that respect the Blue-book was deprived of much of its value. It was always possible for them to elicit the views of the Government on questions of policy, but they had no power of getting at the opinions of the great self-governing colonies, and the ground on which they based their views on the various questions discussed at the Conference.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order! In this matter I am guided by a great number of precedents, in which it has been laid down that questions of policy should not be discussed on a Supplementary Vote.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he had no desire to discuss questions of policy. He wished simply to direct the attention of the Committee to the results of the Conference and to the adminis-

  1245
  tration by the Government of the expenditure in connection with it. He was commenting on the imperfect and defective nature of the Blue-book, in so far as it failed to give the speeches and opinions of the Colonial Premiers. He took it, however, that the resolutions passed at the Conference were the resolutions of the Colonial Premiers, and that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who presided, was in no way committed by them. But they had a right to know what action the Government proposed to take in consequence of the resolutions. There was a preliminary question of great importance on which he desired information. A very important resolution touching the political relations between the self-governing colonies and the mother country was unanimously adopted on the Motion of the representative of New Zealand. It was to the effect that it would be to the advantage of the Empire if conferences were held, as far as practicable, at intervals not exceeding four years, at which questions of common interest affecting the relations of the mother country with her dominions over the seas could be discussed and considered by the Colonial Secretary and the Premiers of the self-governing colonies, the Secretary of State being requested accordingly to arrange for such conferences after communication with the Prime Ministers of the respective colonies. He was not proposing to discuss that question, but he did want to know if the Government had considered the point, and at what conclusion they had arrived in regard to it. It was a proposal that these conferences should become a permanent element in the constitution of the Empire, and once this country authoritatively declared that it wished it should be so it made a very important step towards the consolidation of the Empire.
  The only other point on which he wished to say a few words was as to what was the net result of that important Imperial experiment as revealed to them by the Blue-book. What were the great points considered by the Conference? The first was the question of naval defence and the contribution of the self-governing colonies towards the cost of it. Next came the question of the
  1246
  military defence of the Empire, and the proposed colonial contribution, and thirdly there was the question of the commercial relations between the mother country and the self-governing colonies. In regard to the Navy most clear and specific declarations of policy were laid before the Conference on behalf of the Admiralty. It was pointed out what was the real function of the Navy in Imperial defence, and how it served the whole Empire—the self-governing colonies as well as Ireland, Scotland, and England. A suggestion was made without any hesitation on the part of the Admiralty—in the clearest possible terms—that the self-governing colonies should make some proportionate contribution to the expenses of this enormous and mighty Imperial armament. The Admiralty took up exactly the same attitude as many hon. Members had taken in years past, and had been severely censured for it, but he had nothing but praise for the Admiralty statement. He might, indeed, be allowed to go further and say that it had been a source of the greatest gratification to him to read what had occurred at the Conference on that point. The net result of the Conference, he gathered, had been a suggestion that the self-governing colonies should contribute something like a proportionate part of the cost of naval defence. The Capo Premier proposed to increase the Cape contribution to.£50,000 a year, without condition, while the Natal Premier in the same spirit proposed to increase his colony's contribution to £30,000.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (): £35,000.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he gladly accepted the correction; but he gathered from what he had seen in the newspapers that communications which had passed since the Conference had indicated a desire on the part of those in authority in Capo Colony and Natal to increase the figures mentioned at the Conference, and he would like to know if the right hon. Gentleman had any information to give the House on that subject. The second point he desired to raise was as to the Australasian squadron. He understood that it was to be increased, and that the payments both of

  1247
  this country and of the Australasian Colonies were to be increased, while the conditions as to localisation were to be mitigated to some extent. Still it was to remain a local squadron; it was to be what in the opinion of naval philosophers was a naval heresy; it was to be more or less detached from the British Navy to which it properly belonged. Had the Government been parties to the draft agreement which appeared in the Blue-book, and were they committed to it? He trusted that they were. Nest, he had to ask if the Government had any information as to the course of the proceedings in the Australian colonies with reference to that draft agreement. The proposals shadowed forth in the resolutions of the Colonial Premiers had been under discussion for some months: had the Government any information as to the likely course of legislation on the subject?
  On that point he thought the House and the country might be interested to have further and better information. The appeal to Canada had met with no response. On the first and most important head of the subjects submitted to this great Imperial assembly there was a small increase on the part of the South African colonies, a small conditional increase on the part of Australia, but nowhere near a pro rata proportionate contribution, and there was nothing whatever on the part of Canada. In point of fact, from the figures submitted in this paper itself it was calculated that the contribution of the self-governing colonies to the Imperial Navy, which cost this country something like 16s. per head, was 4d. per head, and that, he thought, was a fabulous 4d. because it took into account the Australian contribution, which was not a real contribution.
  He would now say a word on the question of military defence. So far as he was concerned he could not venture to express in the same terms as he did in the case of the Admiralty his assent to the statements made on behalf of the Army. He could not reconcile the statement made on behalf of His Majesty's Government by Lord Selborne with the statement, equally made on behalf of the Government, by the Secretary of State for War. They appeared
  1248
  to him to be founded on wholly different theories and ideas. The question he wished to put on that head was this: when this Conference was called upon to discuss Imperial defence, was it in any way inspired, or regulated, or governed, or guarded by the Committee of Defence, which they had been told so often had special care of Imperial defence? What part did the Committee of Defence take in the proceedings of this Conference, and if it took any part how did it explain the discrepancy—the logical discrepancy at all events—between the theories of defence on behalf of the Army and those on behalf of the Navy submitted to the Colonial Premiers? This much was clear from the statement made by the Secretary of State for War, that whether under the old system or under the new system—whether under the Army Corps system or under the previous one—a very large proportion of the Regular Army of this country was held not for the purpose of the local defence of those islands at all, but for the purpose of Imperial defence in the possible benefits of which all the self-governing colonies were entitled to have a share. That was true no doubt, and it was certainly clearly to be inferred from the statement made. If so, obviously the same question of the colonial contribution arose in regard to the Army that had for so many years arisen in regard to the Navy. If we had, or were going to have an Imperial Army on Navy lines for the defence of the Empire, then the question immediately arose, ought not the self-governing colonies to pay any proportionate share of the very enormous expense of that Imperial Army? Proposals were made by the Secretary of State for War—he was referring to the contents of the Report simply—not in the same form as the naval demand, but they were really the same in substance. He asked them if they would guarantee a certain portion of their own local Militia—if they would undertake to set that aside.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I think the hon. Member is directing his remarks to matters outside the Conference.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was dealing with the proceedings of the Conference, which they were paying for now.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I understood that the hon. Gentleman was referring to certain remarks made by the Secretary of State for War.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was referring to the Report. "Remarks" would he a very derogatory word to apply to the great State paper which was now laid before them, He did not wish to dwell upon it, but he thought that for the information of the House he might be allowed to say that what the Secretary of State proposed was that instead of making any contribution in money, which was the Admiralty demand, the colonies should undertake to set aside part of their local force under the name of an Imperial Reserve, with a fee of so much per head, which this country was to contribute. Whether it was due to the unfortunate terms in which the case of the War Office was presented, or whether the colonial representatives were confused and dazzled by the contradictory representations made to them he did not know, because the Report did not tell them, but the proposals were rejected. That was why he emphasised at the beginning the fact that they had before them statements made on behalf of his Majesty's Government in full detail, but they had no corresponding statements on behalf of the colonial representatives. It was a great misfortune that the Committee had to content themselves with the bald statement of the results of the Conference as expressed in the resolutions of the Premiers. These were to be found on page 32 in regard to the Army. They would find from these resolutions that the proposals of the Government on this point were substantially rejected by the Premiers; but the Committee did not know the reasons. There was one reason mentioned, but they did not know the detailed reasons. They had not a report of the speeches in which the colonial Premiers put forward their views.
  The Secretary of State for War failed more completely than the first Lord of the Admiralty did. He seemed to have failed entirely to carry the Conference with him, and the result was nothing
  1250
  less than what he regarded as the positive rejection of all his proposals to induce the self-governing colonies to come into the scheme of Imperial defence so far as the Army was concerned But there was just room for a little doubt which the right hon. Gentleman might possibly be able to remove. The Members of the Colonial Conference refused to pass any resolution in favour of the scheme proposed, but they referred each colony to the Secretary of State for War to see if any agreement special to it could be come to. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether anything had followed from this—whether any proposal had been made on behalf of any colony apart from the Conference altogether. Had any single colony come forward and said "Although the whole body will not come into the scheme we, as an individual colony, are willing to come into it, and are willing to make our local militia part of the Imperial defensive force?" He thought the Committee ought to have some information from the Government on that point. One of the most interesting papers contained in the proceedings of the Conference was to be found on page 43. That paper was laid before the Colonial Premiers by the Government. It was called the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand contributions to the war. The complaint he had to make about it was that in this House during the summer of last year some Members of the House, he himself certainly for one, endeavoured to obtain this information from the Secretary of State for War, and it was repeatedly refused on behalf of the Government. But although it was refused to the House it was given voluntarily to the Colonial Premiers. Apparently it was pressed upon their consideration in the form in which it appeared in the Blue-book. At the time this paper was prepared the total expense of the war to this country was £222,000,000. That had been vastly increased since the time when the Conference met. He was quite sure that the people of this country did not realise that, in spite of the almost official manner in which many of these great colonies took up the policy of this country, and denounced all those in this country who disapproved of that policy,

  1251
  their contribution to this great Imperial War for which we had paid £250,000,000 was less than £2,000,000 altogether.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I am obliged to remind the hon. Gentleman that the cost of the war cannot possibly be discussed on this Vote.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No, no, what I was discussing was the paper.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I understood the hon. Gentleman to be discussing; the cost of the War.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was discussing the results of the Conference, and this was one of the papers which had been laid before the Conference. He would not pursue the matter, but he wished to know why that was given to the Conference which was refused to the House. He hoped he might be in order in asking that. He thought he was entitled to ask further—was any proposal put before the Conference that they should pay an increased contribution to the War? If that was not part of the proceedings he failed to see why this paper was produced. Surely he was entitled to ask why this formidable document was laid before the Conference on the part of the Government. Was it to support an appeal that they should pay for this Imperial war in South Africa in proportion to their strength, numerically or otherwise? There was one other point on which he wished to touch, and he trusted that he would not go beyond the limit assigned by the Deputy Chairman in discussing those Estimates. He asked the Committee to consider for a moment what the resolution of the Conference was on the subject of their commercial relations with this country. It was not known what they decided about the Navy or the Army, or what they said about the war; but on this question of commercial relations there was not the slightest dubiety. And the matter was so grave and so important that the Committee was bound to have some explanation from the Government as to their attitude with regard to these proposals. The net result might be stated thus: the Colonial Premiers, whom he was distinguishing all through
  1252
  from the Colonial Secretary, on matters of trade laid down the rule, first of all, that there should be no Free Trade within the Empire. Their second proposition—and this they made promise to recommend to their people—was that the various self-governing colonies should give preferential treatment to the goods manufactured by the mother country. And, in the third place, they prayed the Government of this country to give a corresponding preferential treatment to the goods from their respective colonies. There was to be no Free Trade, but mutual preferential duties between the mother country and the self-governing colonies. And that was the line taken in The Times by a gentleman who was not a political representative, but a certain representative of public opinion in Canada. Of course he was not entitled to discuss that as a matter of policy, but it would be a tremendous reversal of our historical policy on matters essential to the well-being of the United Kingdom; and he thought there ought not to be any doubt at all as to the attitude of the Government on that point. This was a Conference appointed by the Government themselves, and here was the result, and the House of Commons was left in doubt as to whether the Board of Trade was a party to this resolution or not—on. which the Colonial Premiers were most serious and most emphatic. He thought that they ought to have, as far as possible, some declaration on behalf of the Government as to whether they had in any way assented to these propositions. He hoped he had kept within the ruling of the Deputy Chairman, but he was certain he had not alluded to anything but what was of the greatest and most material importance in the report.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said that the strict question under discussion was the desirability, or otherwise, of the prolongation of this Colonial Conference, but it really seemed to him that it opened up a very serious matter. These Conferences were rather dangerous experiments. Let the Committee consider what they were. They had no official power, no official form; their decisions amounted to no more than pious opinions, and whatever resolutions

  1253
  they might come to had no binding effect whatever on the various colonies. Under these circumstances he failed to see the use of them. The discussions might have been instructive if only the Committee had had full reports of what had been said, but if they had only a report of the formal utterances of the Colonial Secretary, the Secretary of State for War, and the First Lord of the Admiralty, and not a word of what, after all, was the only interesting point of the proceedings, the speeches made by the Colonial Premiers, then the instructive value of the whole thing entirely disappeared. The Conference, as such, had no power, no authority to bind any one of the colonies. Each Premier had no power to bind his own colony, much less had all of them power to bind all the colonies. It was impossible, therefore, for the Conference to come to any coherent plan, or any plan at all. He thought that, although these Conferences entirely lacked the serious element of a formal body, there was considerable danger that the Colonial Premiers should come to them, and that the colonial people who read of them might take them seriously, and might imagine them to be a kind of Imperial Council or Imperial Parliament capable of coming to conclusions, and of having those conclusions carried out. That was a great danger. They could not put up an imitation body like this Conference and pretend that it was something real.
  He would not traverse ground already covered, which referred to very serious and very important matters; but in regard to the subjects of defence and trade, he would point out that no conclusions of the slightest importance were reached by the Conference. Suggestions were certainly made, and opinions, diverse opinions, were expressed; but on account of the character of the Conference, no conclusions could be reached. It was said that by these Conferences they might always come to an entirely separate treatment between each separate colony and this country; but it required no Conference for this country to adopt one treatment of one colony, another treatment of another colony, and a third of a third colony. On the contrary, a Conference interfered with that mode of treatment. What had they got? In the case of defence the
  1254
  colonics did not contribute a fortieth part of the cost of the Navy. There was a contribution for the Navy from the Cape and Natal, but what was £75,000 out of £30,000,000? It was true that if the colonial contribution were capitalised, it would amount to the cost of an iron clad; but then our contributions were not capitalised. As a matter of fact the contribution of South Africa was infinitesimal; and the contribution on the part of Australia was no contribution at all. He had a number of papers from Australia which showed that they were very much occupied with the question of the Fleet and said—
  "We do not like the conditions under which we make a small contribution to the British Navy. What we mean is to have a Navy of our own, and to have nothing to do with yours."
  This sentiment was put in a very crude form by one of the Australian papers—
  "Australia means to order now a cock-hat of her own."
  The contributions from the colonies did not amount to much; he would go further and say that it could not amount to much. We must take upon our own shoulders the whole cost of the Navy, for we would never get any material contribution in cash or in meal or in malt to our expenses for defence from the self-governing colonies. Their conditions were different from ours. They were forced to put very heavy duties on imports, and we could not expect to have contributions from them for the Navy, the Army, or in any other form. [An HON. MEMBER: You derive from Canada a contribution in the shape of preferential tariffs.] Yes, but he should like to know what that amounted to?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid he hoped the hon. Gentleman would respect the ruling he had given. He could not go into questions of policy on this Vote; that could be done when the main Estimates came on a short time hence.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsubmitted that he was strictly dealing with the policy of prolonging the Conference—the business of which was to discuss whether we could or could not get contributions from the colonies. His argument was that the Conference was

  1255
  useless, and its prolongation was worse than useless. His point was that these Conferences were not harmless, as they were represented to be, but that there was an element of danger in them. If ever they were to have another Conference, they should have a full report of what took place, and not a one-sided report of what the Colonial Secretary or the Secretary for War or the First Lord of the Admiralty said.
  SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)said that in regard to the ruling which the Deputy Chairman had given, that the Committee could not discuss questions of policy on the Supplementary Estimates, was not it a rule that the Committee could not discuss questions of policy which might have arisen on the original Estimates? but, if between the original Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates a new question arose such as the result of the prolongation of the Conference, could not the policy arising out of that prolongation, as shown in this particular document, be discussed?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that the sum for the Colonial Conference in the original Estimates was £3,000, and an additional sum of £1,500 was asked for to make up the cost of the Conference, on which a new discussion on policy did not arise.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that all he would point out was that this was the first time that they had had the Blue-book before them, and therefore its contents could not have been precedently discussed.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that the Blue-book had been printed after the original Estimates had been issued, but according to all the precedents the policy of which the Blue-book was the subject must be discussed when the main Vote came before the Committee.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he wished to ask whether on the Vote they were asked to pass that day it was or was not competent to discuss the contents of the Blue-book.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he should like to ask the Deputy Chairman specifically whether the debate would be in order if continued at the point raised by the hon. Member who opened it—viz., on the declarations made by the Government at the Conference. He submitted that the Committee would not have an opportunity of discussing these except on the present occasion. He submitted, on a point of order, that there would be no further opportunity of discussing the declarations of the Government themselves.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The proper time for the discussion of the question of policy is on the Vote for the Colonial Secretary's salary. Then the whole question of policy can be discussed. I am very reluctant to lay down a ruling of my own, but, by the rulings of my predecessors, I am quite clear that the question of policy cannot be now discussed.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the policy of the Colonial Secretary could no doubt be discussed on his salary, but the declarations made by the Secretary of State for War and by the Admiralty could not be discussed except they were discussed separately on different items, which would be extremely inconvenient.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he would remind the Chairman of the ruling of Mr. Speaker Peel, which was that although on Supplementary Estimates the policy underlying the original Estimates could not be discussed, nevertheless a Supplementary Estimate might be such as, from its amount, or from any other circumstance, to raise in itself a question of policy.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That is not quite a similar case. All Ministers have salaries, and, therefore, any question affecting them can be discussed on the Votes for their salaries.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he put his suggestion as a matter of convenience.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he would strictly observe the ruling of the Chair. He thought the Committee

  1257
  would see that there were obvious difficulties in discussing in the Conference held last year the policy of the Government in relation to both the Naval and Military services, the whole trade relations of the Empire, and the administration of the Colonial Office at large. Many matters of great importance were raised at the Conference; but he thought the questions which were really germane to the Vote were not so much the views expressed by the Colonial Premiers who attended, or of Members of His Majesty's Government who were present, as the questions raised by his hon. friend the Member for Kings Lynn as to whether such conferences should be held, and that raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee as to whether they should be repeated. He would begin by clearing away one misapprehension which he thought existed in the minds of some hon. Members who had spoken, and which could only have arisen from an imperfect reading of the Blue-book. The hon. and learned Member for Dundee and his hon. friend made it a matter of serious complaint that the views of Ministers were printed at length, although they had little or no interest for his hon. friend [Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Not at all.] while the matter which would have interested him, namely, the arguments put forward and the language used by the Colonial Premiers was not reported in the Blue-book. It would have been the wish of the Secretary of State and of His Majesty's Government to have published the whole proceedings of the Conference if they could; and, for himself, he thought it would have been useful, not only for the information of the people of this country but also for the information of people in the colonies, if the views expressed by the Colonial Premiers had been fully published in the official report of the proceedings. At the commencement of the Conference, in accordance with precedent, it was agreed that the proceedings should, for the time being, be treated as confidential, in order that everyone might be at liberty to express with perfect freedom his opinions, and discuss with absolute fulness and care the various questions which might arise, and that no publication should take place without the assent of those who had taken part in the proceedings. This was stated in the very first page of the summary of the proceedings. When the
  1258
  Conference came to an end the question of the publication of the proceedings was discussed, and it was feared that some of the members of the Conference were adverse to that course being taken. If there was lurking in any hon. Member's mind a suspicion that the Government had suppressed for purposes of their own—
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that nothing was further from his intention than to suggest anything of the kind.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was extremely glad to hear it; but he had in his mind a complaint which was made by a journal, for which of course the hon. and learned Member was not responsible, that the Government had kept back that part of the proceedings. He thought that the great stress which was laid by the hon. and learned Member on the absence of the speeches of the Colonial Premiers was calculated, though not intended, to renew or perpetuate a misunderstanding which would have been mischievous in this country, and infinitely more mischievous in the colonies, if it were thought the views of the representatives of the colonies had been suppressed.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he never saw the suggestion.
  MR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid of course he would accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that there was no misapprehension in his mind, and that it was very far from his intention to convey such an opinion to anyone else. But he thought the hon. and learned Member would not blame him, as there had been such a misapprehension, for stating in the clearest and most emphatic terms that the Secretary of State and His Majesty's Government would have been very glad to have published full reports of the whole proceedings, and that the somewhat truncated form in which the report was published was due, not to the wishes of His Majesty's Ministers, but of other members of the Conference.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman asked him what were the intentions of the Government as to calling such

  1259
  a Conference on a future occasion If he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman aright he thought that the periodical recurrence of such Imperial Conferences would have the best effect, and would form a new link in our Imperial chain. His hon. and learned friend the Member for Kings Lynn thought that the Conferences were dangerous, and fruitless of good result, and that the summoning of any future Conference had better be avoided. In that matter, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and not with his hon. friend. He believed that view to be generally shared by all who had most closely followed the recent history of our Imperial relations; and he believed that those Conferences contained a germ which might blossom into the most fruitful possibilities in the future. They offered an opportunity for bringing together those responsible for the administration of the King's great self-governing colonies and responsible Ministers or the day in this country for a personal interchange of views on all the great questions which arose between the colonies and this country, and questions which affected the harmonious relations of one part of the Empire with another, upon the satisfactory and amicable settlement of which depended the future of the Empire itself. That was the opinion of the Government, and, without committing themselves to the specific period of four years, His Majesty's Government were certainly of opinion that periodical Conferences of this kind should be summoned regularly to discuss matters of common interest to the whole Empire. They could only be productive of great good, and they bore with them great hopes for a closer and more intimate connection between the Empire at large, a greater assimilation of our Imperial interests, and a better understanding between all parts of His Majesty's dominions. He said that, in spite of the fact that, as his hon. friend pointed out, the resolutions of the Conference were binding on no one. They were the opinions of those present on certain subjects which had been discussed, and were undertakings by certain of the Colonial Premiers present that they would make definite pro-
  1260
  posals to their own Parliaments. Of course they had no more authority to bind their own Parliaments than His Majesty's Ministers had to bind this Parliament; but they involved an indication of what the Premiers thought might fairly and properly be submitted to their respective Parliaments, and of what they might hope their Parliaments would agree to.
  He was referred to certain newspaper paragraphs which, if he had seen them, he had not in his mind at the present moment. He was asked whether he could add anything to the statement of the results as regarded naval and military contributions contained in the Blue-book. Communications had been passing between the Ministers concerned hero and some of the Colonial Governments on this subject, but he had nothing to add to the statements which were summarised in the Blue Book; and he had at present no reason to suppose that further contributions were likely to be offered, though, of course, they would be the first to welcome them if such action were taken spontaneously by the Governments concerned. The two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken had each of them, in respect to the domain of naval and military expenditure, rather belittled the results of the Conference, and had emphasised how small a proportion of Imperial Naval and Military expenditure was represented even by the increased Colonial contributions which the Premiers undertook at the Conference to recommend to their respective Governments. He deprecated the spirit in which both hon. Gentlemen looked at the matter. The great Colonies with their own representative institutions were in truth sister nations practically independent of the country and bound to it by a tic of which it might perhaps be true to say, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that if viewed by a lawyer through a lawyer's spectacles it was extremely slight; yet it was a tie of sentiment and affection which had proved of great value to them in recent years, and which he believed, if met by a similar spirit in this country, would stand any strain that future events were likely to put upon it. He thought first of the assistance of all these great self-governing Colonies in the great Imperial War that they had just waged. After they had found troops from all the

  1261
  King's dominions fighting side by side with the troops sent out from this country it was a bad moment to choose to seek to minimise the service they had performed. He did not wish to be understood as expressing an opinion on behalf of the Government that the proportion of expenditure which this country bore to that which the Colonies bore could always, or ought, always to be maintained, but if there was a change it would have to come as a free and spontaneous offer from the colonies and not from any attempt upon our part to impose a greater contribution upon them. The Colonial Secretary had never hesitated to put this subject clearly and frankly before the Colonial Governments and the colonial people themselves, both in and out of the Conference. But applications upon this subject were, he ventured to think, better made direct to the colonies than in the form of a complaint to that House of how little the Colonies were doing, or in the form of a grudging criticism of what they had accomplished.
  What had resulted from the experience of recent years, due in no small degree to these Colonial Conferences, had been a better appreciation on the part of the colonies of the great burden which rested on the shoulders of the people of Great Britain; a greater appreciation of how Imperial, in the truest sense of the word, was the task we were discharging and how intimately in that respect were the best interests of the colonies bound up with ours. If a proper appreciation of those things was spreading that was no small achievement in itself and gave good ground for hope that if the results attained were not great in quantity or equally spread over all the great self-governing colonies, yet what had been hitherto achieved had been in the right direction, and they might look forward with hope to a still greater extension in the future. He would not say more—in fact, within the ruling of Mr. Deputy-Chairman he could not say more upon the subject of naval and military defence. So far as those subjects required any further discussion they would have to be discussed on the Naval and Military Estimates, and the policy expounded by the Ministers at the Colonial Conference must be defended by those Ministers in
  1262
  that House. There was one specific matter to which, perhaps, he ought to refer. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had referred to the trade relations of the Empire, and had asked whether His Majesty's Government was bound by that resolution. He had already told the Committee what the effect of that resolution was generally with regard to all the Governments concerned. Any Government, from whichever side of the House it was chosen, would have to deal necessarily, most conscientiously and with the utmost consideration with any resolution coming from a body of the character of the late Colonial Conference, but this resolution was not binding on the Government, and the particular clause to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred was expressly put forward in the names of the Prime Ministers of the colonies and not in the name of the Conference as a whole. He had now dealt with all the points which had been raised, so far as they could be dealt with within the limits of that debate and he was certain the Committee at large would be of opinion that these Conferences were not without valuable results with regard to our future relations with our colonies.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERthought the Committee would endorse the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman as to the attitude which that Committee ought to adopt with regard to the proposals contained in the Blue-books. It had to be remembered that great delicacy and caution was necessary in dealing with matters of that kind. There was one striking illustration of the arguments brought to bear by one of our colonies years ago when it was sought to make them pay a larger contribution to the Imperial expenditure than they were willing to bear. It would be as well, perhaps, to bear that in mind. In the last few months there had been most authoritative expressions of opinion by the Premiers of our self-governing colonies. It was perfectly true that the Colonial Secretary was not a party to the adoption of the resolution. The right hon. Gentleman's real position was that of President of the Conference to enable

  1263
  others to inculcate their views, and he very properly took no part in the vote for this resolution. But the resolution was unanimously adopted, and as an authoritative expression of opinion from the highest authorities concerned deserved a little more consideration with regard to the question of preferential trading. The question of how much we should endeavour to obtain in the way of a cash contribution towards the naval and military establishment was a very delicate matter to touch on. The Colonial Premiers resolved that a system of preferential trading should be carried out by which colonial produce should receive favoured terms, and that they should give in return these services. Canada gave 25 per cent. preference to British goods, and after a brief experience extended that preference to 33⅓ per cent. That was a bonâ fide Government act which showed that Canada was earnest in her convictions, and he was sorry to see that a tendency had been developed to mimimise and detract from the important success of that attempt. The result was that we had been receiving one-third of the duties and giving nothing in return. He had told Sir Wilfrid Laurier that this was like a man who constantly dined out six or seven nights a week, but never gave even a mutton chop in return.
  All the other colonies had unanimously concurred in the general principle. The criticism that Canadian trade with countries other than the British Empire had relatively increased to a larger extent was by no means as conclusive as some assumed it to be. The tariff, of course, applied in the case of the United Kingdom and the—
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is transgressing the ruling I gave just now. He cannot go into the policy of the trade relations with different colonics.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he would confine himself to the contents of the Blue-book.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: It would not be in order to discuss the Blue-book at this stage. That must come on when the Vote for the Colonial Office is under discussion.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he would not pursue the subject further, as the present afforded an opportunity for only a truncated discussion on the document which had been placed in their hands.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS V.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1.016,000, 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 sundry Colonial Services, including a Grant-in-Aid: "
  MR. WHITLEYcalled attention to the item of £1,000,000 as a grant-in-aid of the local revenues of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony. The note attached to the Estimate stated that the sum was required
  "To meet the cost of maintenance of South African Constabulary in excess of 0.000, until the strength of the force can be reduced to that number."
  The original Vote was for 6,000 constabulary, at a cost of £1,800,000, or at the rate of £300 per man per annum, so that the Committee were now apparently asked to vote the money for an additional 3,300 men for the whole year, or for a proportionately larger number for a shorter period. He did not object to the number of the men. It would no doubt be satisfactorily explained that the increase in number was counterbalanced by the withdrawal of so many military, and the more the force in South Africa was assimilated to a civil police force the better it would be. What he wished the Committee to notice was the great disparity between the pay of these men and the cost to the country. The pay at 5s. a day amounted to £91 per annum, so that, allowing a substantial addition over the whole force for the higher pay of the superior officers, the amount required in pay could not be more than £110 or £120 at the outside. But the amount this country had to pay was £300 per man per annum. The reason for this difference was doubtless the immense cost of living in South Africa. According to a Memorandum placed before the

  1265
  Colonial Secretary a few weeks ago by the mine owners in Johannesburg, the average wages paid to a skilled white labourer in the mines was £34 10s. 9d. per month, while the cost of living, if the man was married, amounted to £24 10s. He had no doubt that the cause of the great discrepancy between the pay of the men and the cost to the country was the fact that with the settlement of South Africa had come the time of rings and combines. Probably not more than one - third of this £1,000,000 would go in wages, the balance being required for clothing, the food of horses and men, and the necessary articles for the maintenance of the force. It was well known that great financial corporations had taken advantage of the settlement of the war to form rings in the supply of necessaries. The Committee heard some time ago of a certain cold storage company. That company, after paying a dividend of 1,000 per cent., had dissolved, but its place had been taken by an even more powerful monopoly.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid it would be out of order to discuss the causes of the high prices of food. All the Committee had to discuss was the extra money required for the maintenance of the South African Constabulary.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the additional cost was due to the maintenance of 4,000 men beyond the 6,000 required for police purposes, until they were disbanded.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that this £1,000.000 was for the pay and expenses of these men, and he submitted that he was entitled to argue the question. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the Vote was not for pay alone, and he submitted that he was entitled to argue why the pay was such a small item and the expenses on the other hand were such a large proportion of the Vote.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: There is a note that the extra money is required for the extra 4,000 men of the constabulary. The hon. Member would be in order in discussing that.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid his whole point was, what was the reason why these men cost the heavy sum which was indicated on the Estimate, and was it not a question as to whether so many men were required or not 2
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would be perfectly in order in discussing that on the ordinary Estimates, but on this Supplementary Vote it is not in order.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid this was something which had arisen since the original Vote was passed, and it was actually part of the £1.000,000 which they were now asked to approve.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The extra money is asked for on account of the extra men, and on that point the hon. Gentleman would be quite in order.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire,)pointed out that the £1,000,000 was for the extra men.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthought there was some misapprehension upon this point. An Estimate was originally taken for 4,000 men and they were raised, and the estimated cost of that force was on an average, with horses, outfit and keep, £250 per man. Nothing had occurred since the war or in recent experience to increase the cost per man, as the hon. Member opposite seemed to suppose, since the money for the original 6,000 men was voted, but His Majesty's Government had felt that this additional 4,000 men were no longer required for police purposes, and they ought not to be charged upon the colonies but should be paid for out of the Imperial funds because they had been raised for Imperial purposes. The cost was exactly the same per man, and nothing had since happened to increase that cost.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that hardly seemed to him to cover the point.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the discussion to go on after my ruling and after what the Minister in charge has said. Therefore, it will be out of order to discuss this point further.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that all he desired to do now was to express his surprise that on a vote for £1,000,000 the rules of the House did not allow them to discuss the matter.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: It would be out of order to discuss now the procedure of this Committee.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he did not quite understand to what the additional cost was due. The original Estimate was for 10,000 men at £750,000, and he wanted to know if there was no additional cost of maintenance; if the number was the same as the War Office originally estimated, how was it that they were now asked to vote this additional sum. The sum put down now was £1,000,000, but £750,000 was printed in the Budget as asked for some months ago. He understood that the numbers had not been altered, and the cost of maintenance remained the same.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that when the organisation of the permanent police force was undertaken Lord Roberts was of opinion that 10,000 men would be required. Even at that time Lord Milner thought a smaller number would suffice, but it was decided at that time that it would be desirable to raise 10,000 men, or an additional 4,000 beyond what Lord Milner thought would be required. After the conclusion of the war the Secretary of State for War felt some hesitation about putting on his Vote any part of the payment for the South African Constabulary, which were, after all, a civil force. His Majesty's Government entered into communication with Lord Milner as to what force would be sufficient as a permanent constabulary for the new colonies After bearing Lord Milner's views, and in accordance with his advice, the force was fixed at 6,000 men. That in the opinion of the local authorities was a sufficient force to secure the proper discharge of all the duties which fell upon the constabulary force in those parts. The 10,000 constabulary had then been raised, and they could not at once disband in South Africa 4,000 out of the 10,000 men raised before the conclusion of the war.
  1268
  Accordingly it was arranged with Lord Milner that he should stop all recruiting for the constabulary force and fill up no vacancies; and that, as opportunity offered and as he was able to do so without inflicting injustice upon individual troopers or upsetting the labour market and thus causing distress in South Africa, he should diminish the number of the constabulary until they reached 6,000. That was to be a gradual process and the reduction had to be spread over the whole year. His Majesty's Government now asked the Committee to vote the cost of those additional 4,000 men from Imperial funds on the ground that they were no longer required for the purposes of the constabulary force in South Africa. The reduction of the extra force was now going on and it was felt that this was an operation which could not be properly charged to the two colonies. The hon. Member opposite had asked him why the expense was so large. The reason was that this process of getting rid of the extra 4,000 men could only be done gradually and would not be complete probably until the end of the next financial year, namely, the 31st of March, 1904, so that the expenditure included in this Vote really covered something like one and a half years.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONpointed out that last June in the amended Budget the Estimate was for £750,000 and £1,000,000 was now asked for. He wished to know what was the explanation of the extra £250,000.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that £750,000 was the estimated cost from July, 1902, to March, 1903. Meanwhile the 4,000 men had been from week to week further reduced, but they would not be wholly got rid of before the 31st of March, 1904. The extra sum was for the cost of maintaining the men while they were being reduced to the number of 6,000, and it was the cost of maintaining the smaller number for the longer period.
  MR. BRYCEasked with respect to the 3,000 or 4,000 men who were not wanted, whether they were employed and what they were doing.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that so many as were retained in the service were still there. They were used during the war mainly as a military force. Now that the war was happily over the constabulary was being organised. It was not possible to dismiss those 4,000 men without causing terrible hardship, and without throwing on the labour market a large number of men who had no resources. The forces would be diminished as rapidly as opportunity offered.
  MR. BRYCEsaid nobody complained of the men being properly treated, but he wanted to know what they were doing. Were the men at present drilled and organised as constabulary in these two colonies?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.
  MR. BRYCE: But they are not wanted.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was exceedingly unfortunate in endeavouring to make himself understood on this subject. He would try to use plain language. The permanent force was not required above 6,000. It would be reduced to 6,000 as opportunity offered, but in the meantime so many as were retained were serving as constabulary. He was by no means prepared to say that the whole of that force could be disbanded at once. He hoped they would be disbanded before the end of the next financial year.
  MR. MARKHAM: What is the cost per man of those who joined the constabulary?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: £250 per annum.
  *MR. MARKHAMsaid he knew that was according to the Estimate, but he had reason to believe that the Estimate was not being fulfilled, and that the cost greatly exceeded that amount. His hon. friend on that side of the House had referred to the cost of living as an argument why the constabulary had cost so much. He had said it cost £24 per
  1270
  month for a man living in South Africa. The hon. Member begged to point out that the cost before the war for an unmarried man was £6 to £7 per month. That was the charge made by all the mines where men were clubbed together. There was considerable discontent among the constabulary in regard to the question of pay. The cost of the constabulary per man was £250 per annum, and he thought the Committee ought to have some explanation, on behalf of the Government, how that amount was made up. The men there were quite unable to live on their pay. In the speech the Colonial Secretary made in July last he stated that Lord Milner had informed him that he trusted the revenue of the Transvaal would be able to meet all the expenses of the administration of the country. He would therefore ask whether that estimate was wrong and why, in view of the fact that the Transvaal returns showed a very much increased revenue as compared with what it was before the war, the whole of this expenditure was being thrown on the Imperial exchequer?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid everyone must sympathise with the statement that proper consideration should be given to these men. What had happened? The Government took money for 10,000 men.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Well, they raised 10,000 men, and if they did not take money for them he thought they ought to have done so. When they reduced the number from 10,000 to 6,000 he thought they would have asked for £1,000,000 less. The second remark he had to make was that this money provided for £260 per man and horse. Were they going to keep the horses also? Otherwise the sum they asked was too large. He had no desire to do any injustice to the men or the horses, but was it necessary to keep the horses for a year? He had another remark to make on this item which he hoped the Committee would attend to, for it was a very important one and affected a great many millions of

  1271
  money. There was the following note near the bottom of the page:—
  "The expenditure out of this grant-in-aid will be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General, but no surrender will be made of any balance unexpended at the close of the financial year."
  If there was to be no surrender what was the use of the audit?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he would explain that. If there was to be a surrender at the end of the present financial year it was quite clear that there would be no money available to pay the men during the next financial year. There would be an audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and any sum not required for the purpose for which the money was voted would be ultimately returned. The Auditor General would control the expenditure of the money and see that it was spent on the purpose for which the House voted it, but that portion which was not spent on the 31st March this year would not have to be surrendered at the end of the month. The money would run over into next year for the purpose to which it was proposed to devote it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the right hon. Gentleman had avowed a financial misdeal of the most alarming description. The Committee were asked to vote money for the year ending 31st March which the right hon. Gentleman was not going to use in that year. That was a destruction of the whole financial system of this country. It was a circumstance which he would commend to the attention of the hon. Member for Oldham who was sitting behind him. He hoped that when the Postmaster General was examined before the Committee on accounts he might attempt to justify this system of finance. He doubted whether the Committee had the power to vote the money in face of the avowal they had just heard. This grant-in-aid of local revenues, amounting to £2,842,500, was, they were told, to be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General, but no unexpended balance was to be returned. The whole purpose of an audit was to see that the money was properly expended within the
  1272
  year, and that the portion of it not expended should be surrendered. If that condition did not obtain there was no purpose in the world for having any audit at all. He said that was calculated to deceive the House of Commons. If they were going to make this grant-in-aid a gift out and out they shonld not pretend that there was to be an audit at all. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that the sum would probably be expended partially in the next year. He very much doubted whether the Comptroller and Auditor General would have any authority over that. It was not a proper proceeding to suggest that there was to be an effective audit when they were at the same time told that there was to be no surrender of the unexpended balance.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid the point raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn was one of considerable importance. When the money was asked in the form of a Supplementary Estimate it was understood that it was a supplement to what had already been voted for that year. What was now proposed was practically a very novel departure.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No.
  SIR ROBERT REID: Said he was sorry to hear that there were precedents. That demand of the Government for this money was based on the supposition that no part of that sum of £2,800,000 was contributed by the Transvaal or Orange River Colony. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could lay before the Committee a statement of the actual receipts and outlay of the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal. When they asked to know what was the state of the accounts of those colonies and if there was an annual deficit, it might be found that instead of that being a land flowing with milk and honey it might involve a serious and heavy outlay on the part of this country. Under whose supervision was this money to be applied? Was the Colonial Office itself to keep the supervision, and would it satisfy itself, in order that it might satisfy this House, that the money would be applied to that particular purpose for which it was voted?

  1273
  He hoped it would not be applied to any kindred purpose.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the hon. and learned Member seemed to think that he had been guilty of some novel financial heresy which would lead the Committee into most dangerous paths where they would be able no longer to safe-guard the financial interests of the country. He was treading the beaten path, often trod before, and pursuing the ordinary and usual practice in regard to grants-in-aid for Colonial Services or Protectorate Services, or for Civil Services at home. The hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, and the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken, had asked him for further explanation as to whether the estimates formed of the financial condition of the Transvaal had been realised. He had no idea that such a question would be asked and accordingly had not provided himself with the figures; but he believed that these expectations had been fully and completely realised. He had no doubt that the resources of the Transvaal would be sufficient in the present financial year to meet the whole of the current expenses of the Transvaal administration, and the Government were not asking the Committee to vote this money because the resources of the Transvaal had fallen below working expenses, but because this money would not be a fair charge on the Transvaal at all. These men were raised for Imperial purposes and were used to relieve the troops and to make up the diminution in the number of soldiers that would otherwise have been required. Now that the war was over they had to consider what the permanent position was to be. Clearly what constabulary was necessary for colonial purposes the Transvaal ought to pay for; but it was not right that we should impose this burden on the Transvaal. It was the opinion of the Government that these 4,000 men were not required for colonial constabulary purposes and therefore they proposed to pay for them until they were got rid of. That operation would be spread over some time. Of course the men joined under a contract, and the contract was binding on the Government; and it was only as the men were willing to remain in the Transvaal in
  1274
  order to take advantage of opportunities of other service under the Government or elsewhere that they could be got rid of.
  SIR ROBERT REIDasked if the remaining 6,000 would be paid for by the Transvaal.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that they would, and that the sum he was asking the Committee to vote was an adjustment which he believed, on the whole, to be fair between the conflicting claims of the local administration as representing the taxpayers of the Transvaal, and the Government as representing the taxpayers of this country. The final adjustment between the two would include all sums that the Committee would be asked to vote in connection with the administration of the Transvaal.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that the right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that this. Vote was asked for in the process of making the reduction of the South African Constabulary from 10,000 to 6,000, and that the reduction was to be spread over a period which began before this debate took place, and which would not terminate until the end of the financial year 1904. During that period they would be paying at the rate of £250 "a year per man—the total number, estimated in thousands, being admittedly not wanted for the greater part of that period. The right hon. Gentleman said that these men joined under contract and that that contract could not be broken. No one suggested that any contract should be broken; but the contract only referred to pay and allowances, and it seemed absurd to keep men under arms and under semi-military conditions for that considerable period when, probably by some arrangement for the payment of a lump sum, the amount could be considerably reduced. He would point out that the extra expenditure would amount to £150 per man during the greater part of the year and a half for between 2,500 and 3,000 men. He thought it would be admitted that the Government were dealing very generously, if not lavishly,

  1275
  with this question. In England, when men in the Government dockyards were dispensed with they were not treated in that fashion. It had always been held that the Government ought not to adopt any charitable view in that regard, even in dealing with public money; that they ought to deal with such money only in the public interest.
  MR. BRYNROBERTSwished the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee if any attempt had been made to ascertain whether these 4,000 extra men would not accept a small sum to be discharged at once. If some of them were to remain for a year that would mean £250, and he ventured to say that there was not one who would not accept half the amount to go at once. Why was not that done? It would save the country £500,000 at least.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid it was perfectly clear from the extremely lucid statement which the right hon. Gentleman had given the Committee that this was not a grant-in-aid. It was really an Imperial service payment for Imperial services for Imperial purposes. It was only as a matter of convenience that it had been put in the form of a grant-in-aid, part of which was being expended for this financial year and part to be expended in the next financial year. But no one ever asked the House of Commons for a distinctly Imperial service in a Supplementary Estimate not for this year but for the next year. He knew that the Comptroller and Auditor General in former days would have demanded, if this had been a grant-in-aid made for the purposes of the present year, the surrender of the surplus which was not expended. He did not think that any grant-in-aid had ever been given for a service which was specifically not a service for the year in which it was granted, but for the succeeding year. If the Committee passed the Vote, Parliament would lose control over the money. As had been suggested, Parliament next year might desire to make some arrangement with those men: but that would not be in their power if they now voted all the money required for this particular purpose up to the
  1276
  31st of March 1904, as they would have parted with the power over the money which they now possessed and which they ought to retain. They ought to be in a position in the ensuing year to attach such conditions to the expenditure as might be required; and he was quite sure that if the financial principles which his right hon. friend the Postmaster General had advanced were adopted, they would have filched from them a power which they ought to retain.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid he was rather astonished to hear the Postmaster General state that it was impossible to surrender whatever balance might be left, because that balance, after the 31st of March, would be used to pay the constabulary for the next year. He understood, however, it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Vote on Account before the 31st of March, and any money required for the purpose could be included in that.
  *LIEUT.-COLONEL GEORGE KEMPsaid his hon. friend the Member for Oldham suggested, he thought very properly, that it might have been well to have offered these men a lump sum to terminate their service instead of keeping them on for a longer period.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that he had carefully guarded himself against the suggestion that the whole of this force was unnecessary at the present time. He believed it was not possible to allow all the men to go at once, if they were willing; but even if that were possible, there were contracts that should be observed. He had already assured the Committee that the local authorities would take every opportunity to reduce the strength of the force, according to the measure of the possibilities of the case. They were, however, in a transition period.
  *LIEUT. - COLONEL GEORGE KEMPasked if he were right in understanding that none of these men could be dispensed with at present. The question he wished to ask was whether any efforts had been made to ascertain on what

  1277
  terms the men would terminate their service at once. He had a similar case in mind. List year a considerable number of yeomanry were employed, and he knew from his own personal experience that the large bulk of them, on being brought down to Capetown in September or the end of August, 1902, would have gone home and terminated their service, had they been offered a fortnight's furlough and their war gratuity. This, however, the Government refused, and was thereby put to the expense of housing and feeding them till January, 1903. An enormous and unnecessary expense was thereby cast upon the country. This was a parallel case, and he wished to know whether steps would be taken to avoid a similar waste of public money.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that as far as he understood, and his information was not very full in regard to this matter, such means as his hon. friend suggested would certainly be taken to assist the disbandment of this force. He quite appreciated the point raised by his hon. friend, and he would see that inquiries were instituted as to whether all that was possible was being done, in the manner suggested, or whether anything further could be done.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the Vote was in aid of the local revenues of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonics, and after what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman, he hoped it would be the last grant for that purpose. He should be glad to have a statement as to the total amount granted during this year under that head; and he thought that they ought to have a more formal balance-sheet than they had. The right hon. Gentleman almost admitted that the Vote was in an unsatisfactory form, but not a word had been said by the right hon. Gentleman as to mixing up the expenditure of this year with the expenditure of next year. Two hon. Gentlemen had spoken, each of whom had held the office of Secretary to the Treasury, and they both disapproved in the most emphatic way of the Government asking for money, not only for the
  1278
  year ending 31st of March, but also for the following year. The Constitutional practice was that the expenditure for each year should be kept within the year, and that money should not be taken for expenditure after the 31st of March in any particular year. On that ground alone the Estimate ought to be withdrawn. It had further been made clear by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there was extravagance connected with this matter, and the hon. Member for Oldham suggested that with care £200,000 or £300,000 might have been saved, but that the Government lost the opportunity of effecting that economy. The suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was that if a conciliatory spirit were shown, and if a gratuity were offered to these men, they might be disbanded in a much shorter time than was contemplated by the Government. The Committee should remember that those 6,000 or 10,000 men—they never had the exact number—were not the only forces main tained in the South African colonies. They had there from 30,000 to 40,000 soldiers; and, therefore, the matter might be dealt with in a quicker and more satisfactory way. He thought he would be expressing the views of many hon. Gentlemen if he moved the reduction of the Vote by £100 on the two grounds he had mentioned; first because it was very unsatisfactory to take money for an ensuing year, and secondly because there had been extravagance. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £1,015,900 be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Lough.)
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he thought that the Postmaster General had put himself into a more serious situation than he had any notion of. He had stated the most amazing financial heresy of which any Minister could be capable. He who had been Secretary to the Treasury suggested that an unexpended balance should not be returned. The Comptroller and Auditor General, however, distinctly laid it down that such balances should be returned. Further, they did not know whether the money would be expended for the purpose for which it

  1279
  was intended or whether it would be spent for some other purpose; and at the same time they had the amazing, incredible and unprecedented avowal of the right hon. Gentleman that the money was to be expended, not in the course of the current year, but in the course of next year. The Votes of this House were always framed with a view to expenditure for the current year. That was the whole foundation of the financial system, and at the end of their financial year unexpended balances were surrendered and went into the Treasury in alleviation of the National Debt. He should not have expected from the right hon. Gentleman such an avowal.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that under this Vote, if passed in this shape, there was no possibility of the Government getting back the unexpended balance which was obtained. What were they going to do with it? Was the House of Commons going to give a blank cheque to the Government to spend money in any way they desired? He could not understand the Government proposing this enormous vote without giving the Committee an opportunity to discuss it on the revised Estimates. Only a few months ago this Vote was asked for in the shape of £700,000; now it came before the Committee in the shape of £1,000,000. That in itself showed that these Estimates were a of the vaguest description, and an opportunity ought to be given to discuss them at least once a year. Yesterday, when a small Vote was being discussed, the Secretary to the Treasury by his remarks had almost compelled the view to be taken that when there was likely to be a surplus the Treasury rather suggested to the Departments that the Supplementary Estimates should be as large as possible in order that the charge should not be paid in this year. This Department had evidently said, "Very well, take our £300,000 and make it.£1,000,000." The right hon. Gentleman representing the Colonial Office had stated that grants-in-aid were of common occurrence, but he had subsequently stated more than once in the debate that this grant was not drawn to any particular colony at all; it was rather a grant to ourselves, and in our own service, and if that were so the
  1280
  same system of surrender ought to be adopted with regard to this Vote as to others.
  SIR ROBERT MOWBRAYsaid that, although it had been stated that no balance would be surrendered at the end of the year, he took it for granted that when the accounts were audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and it was found there was an unexpended balance it would be surrendered to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could not contemplate for a moment such a thing as the Secretary to the Treasury or the Postmaster General refusing to surrender it. He had sat for many years on the Public Accounts Committee, and they did not like these grants at all. Now the Government were going a step further. He could not understand why the Postmaster Genera], as representing the Colonial Secretary, had not presented an estimate up to the end of the year.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEdesired to have the matter made quite clear. What date did the Colonial authorities take for the expenditure of this money? These were grants-in-aid of local revenues, but was it not the fact that Cape Colony took over all liabilities such as this? With regard to horses and all accoutrements there was such an agreement, and to make a precedent in this case would be disastrous. It was a great pity the Government would not take the Vote back and properly estimate it. This was a part of the dreadful extravagance from which they had suffered during the war. To put a cool million down as a Supplementary Estimate in this way was a very serious matter, and he thought that they would be well advised if they withdrew this Vote and. brought it into the ordinary Estimates when it could be fully discussed.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that, although as was stated in the footnote to the Estimate, any unexpended balance of this grant-in-aid would not be surrendered at the end of the financial year, the expenditure would be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General

  1281
  and any balance found by him to be unexpended when the transaction was closed would be surrendered.
  SIR R. REID: When?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Possibly in the course of next year.
  SIR R. REIDsaid he was glad to hear that when the, transaction was closed any unexpended balance would be surrendered, because, so far as he knew, there was no Act of Parliament by which that was required to be done, except at the end of the financial year. But even though, formally or informally, any such unexpended balance was to trickle back to the Treasury, the other matter to which reference had been made, remained. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was common precedent in the case of grants-in-aid for the money to be granted for a coming year. Was there really any precedent for a transaction such as that now proposed? This was supposed to be a Supplementary Estimate "of the amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1903," but it extended not only past that date, but for an indefinite period beyond. He was not acquainted with the ways of the Treasury further than to know that they required to be constantly watched and controlled by the House of Commons, but if it was their practice to ask the House in a Supplementary Estimate of the amount required before the conclusion of the financial year, for money required not for the financial year at all, but for a subsequent year, and possibly two subsequent years, it was a very bad practice, contrary to the ancient usages of the House, and one of those dangerous innovations which ought to be checked at once. For his own part, he would have no hesitation in voting, not only for the Amendment, but against the whole Estimate, on the ground that it was an unconstitutional demand, and a violation of the fundamental principle on which Parliament voted money.
  SIR JOHN GORSTwished the Committee to realise the point at issue.
  The Government was under an obligation in respect of 4,000 of these constabulary. The men were raised when they were not wanted for civil purposes, and now that the war was over the Government was under an obligation to pay them until they could be discharged. The natural way of doing that would be to put down an estimate of the cost of paying or compounding with these men up to 31st March of the present year, and then in the Estimates of next year to put down a sum for the year ending 31st March, 1904. That would have been the proper constitutional mode of procedure, but what were the Government asking? Not for a sum of money with which they would discharge Imperial obligations, but for £1,000.000 to hand over to the Government of the Transvaal, over which, once the money was handed out, neither the House nor the Government would have any control whatever. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman had said that at the close of the transaction, if any of the money remained unexpended—a most improbable contingency—by the free choice of the Transvaal Govemment the balance would be returned to the exchequer. Put Imperial obligations ought to be discharged through our own Government, who were responsible to, and controlled by, that House. He should certainly vote against the proposal to hand £1,000,000 to people over whom we had no control whatever, unless the Government agreed to withdraw the present Supplementary Estimate, and bring up one asking to be voted to them, and not to the Transvaal Government, the sum required for the current year, putting on next year's Estimates the amount required to discharge their obligations in that year.
  MR. LOUGHin order that the Committee might vote on the whole Question, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 215; Noes, 148. (Division List No 11.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Aird Sir John

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Garfit, William

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

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

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Austin Sir John

  Gordon, Maj Evans (Tr. Hmlts)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

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

  Percy, Earl

  Bailey. James (Walworth)

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Lanc

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Baldwin Alfred

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Purvis, Robert

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Mannr

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hall. Edward Marshall

  Randles, John S.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bigwood James

  Hamilton. Marq. of (Londondy

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hanbury, Bt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Bond, Edward

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson

  Boscawen Arthur Griffith-

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Roberts, Samuel Sheffield)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Brassey, Albert

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. Mr. John

  Helder, Augustus

  Rothschild, Hon. L. Walter

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bull, William James

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg.)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles-

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col. Edw. J.

  Cayzer. Sir Charles William

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Seely, C. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isleo Wight

  Chambarlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Wore

  Kimber, Henry

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Chapman, Edward

  Knowles, Lees

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Charrington, Spencer

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tynside

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lawson, John Grant

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Collings Right Hon. Jesse

  Lee, A. H. (Hants. Fareham)

  Spear, John Ward

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Cox. Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Lockie, John

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Craig, CharlesCurtis (Antrim, S

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxj'd Unie)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Long, Bt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Crossley. Sir Savile

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Thornton. Percy M.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lucas. Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dairymple, Sir Charles

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Lytlelton. Hon. Alfred

  Vincent. Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield

  Denny Colonel

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tr. Haml'ts

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  M'Arthur, C. (Liverpool)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Dixon-Hartland. Sir F. Dixon

  M'Killop, J. (Stirlingshire)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dorington. Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Majendie, James A. H.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Wilson. John (Glasgow)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Meysey Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

  Dyke. Bt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

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

  Elliot. Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwvn Ed.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  More, B. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Flower, Ernest

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  NOES.

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

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Partington, Oswald

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gilhooly, James

  Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Atherley-Jones, L,

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Price. Robert John

  Barry, E, (Cock, S.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Reddy, M.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Bell, Richard

  Hammond, John

  Rigg, Richard

  Blake, Edward

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Roberts, John Byyn (Eifion)

  Boland, John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Hemphill. Kt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

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

  Runciman, Walter

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Russell, T. W.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Burt, Thomas

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Shackleton, David James

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Caldwell, James

  Joyce, Michael

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Camelon. Robert

  Kemp, Lieut.-Col. George

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lambert, George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Curvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

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

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Levy. Maurice

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen E)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Lewis. John Herbert

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E)

  Clean, Eugene

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Crombie, John William

  Lundon, W.

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

  Cullinan, J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A

  Tomkinson, James

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Toulmin, George

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardign

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  M'Govern, T.

  Vincent. Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wallace, Robert

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murnaghan, George

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Murphy, John

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Duffy. William J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Dunn, Sir William

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

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Edwards Frank

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Emmott, Alfred

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow W)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk Mid)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  O'Dowd, John

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lough and Mr. Churchill.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Mara, James

  Flavin. Michael Joseph

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Resolutions agreed to.

  ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATE, 1902–3.
  £100 (Supplementary) Pay, etc., of the Array.)
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEsaid this was another most extraordinary Vote which they were asked to give. He wished to protest against Votes being taken in this way, for in regard to this Vote they had had no time, no particulars, and they were unaware altogether that the Vote was coming on. There were items in this Vote which required a good deal of consideration and upon which he thought it would be right and proper that the
  1286
  Committee should have some information. Seeing this morning that the Vote was put down, he wrote a letter to the Minister in charge, which he thought would explain a great deal of what was felt upon this question. In that letter he asked certain questions respecting the enormous quantity of horses which were bought for South Africa, and which had been returned at great expense to England, hundreds of them going to different centres, like Colchester, before being sold. In that letter he asked the Minister in charge of this Vote to inform himself as to the details of the sale of hundreds of these horses which were

  1287
  returned, the cost of bringing them home and keeping them for many weeks before being disposed of, the cost of conveyance to the different centres where they were sold, the auctioneer's expenses, and whether the sum set down included also the sale of horses-saddlery etc., during the last financial year. The Committee would l) e surprised to hear that a large number of the horses bought by the Remount Department wore not delivered in South Africa, where horses were very badly wanted, but many of them were at once sent to England at a very large extra cost. They wore then taken to Colchester and other large centres in hundreds and kept there for a long time. He had seen photographs of some of those horses, and all he could say about them was that he never saw such shocking rubbish in his life. After being there some weeks those horses were sent to different parts of the country, so many per week, and sold, and most of them fetched less than £10 apiece. Therefore, horses which cost on an average £25 and £30 each to land in South Africa, and for which this country had to pay for bringing back again to England, were taken to Colchester and sold for a partly sum of £10 apiece or less. That was a question which he thought should be thoroughly gone into. It was one of those matters which belonged to the Remount Department. He believed they were promised that that Department should be reorganised and gone into. But nevertheless, things were pretty much now as they were before. They had had certain Committees dealing with these matters, but from what he had gathered, there had been no change whatsoever. He referred particularly to this question, because if they passed this Vote for £100 they could not discuss the matter again. It seemed to him to be an extraordinary thing for the Government to ask for just £100. In the Estimate there wore items amounting to £5,500,000 and yet they only put down a Vote for £100, and when this Vote was agreed to, the whole question would have been voted upon. At the foot of the Estimate there was a note as follows—
  "This further amount is required mainly to provide for the terminal charges in connection with the late war in South Africa. The additional receipts are due to sales of surplus animals, supplies, vehicles, stores, etc., in South Africa on the conclusion of the war."
  1288
  There were sales in South Africa, but what about the horses that were brought over? Did they belong to the different regiments to which they had been sent? He contended that these horses ought never to have been brought back to England. They ought to have been sold in South Africa, where the people were badly in want of horses. They would have brought a better market there. They might be rubbish, but still they would be a great deal more valuable in South Africa than here. By bringing them over here the Government were putting the country to further expense. He did not think the Committee should pass this Supplementary Estimate without further information as to the course which had been pursued in this matter. In reply to a letter he wrote to the Financial Secretary to the War Office he received the following telegram to-day—
  "Your letter received. Only just learned myself that that Vote would be taken to-day. Will endeavour give particular answer your questions."
  That telegram was sent at a quarter to twelve o'clock, so that the noble Lord was unaware till then that this Vote was to be taken to-day. He supposed that the whole matter for the present year would be disposed of now, and that the Committee would not be able to deal with it again. He hoped they would hear something from the Secretary of State for War which would enable them to better understand the subject to which he had called attention.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,)said he did not know why the private telegram he sent to the hon. Baronet should have been brought into the debate. He was glad to say that on this question of horses he could himself take the sole and the fullest responsibility for what had been done. When the war closed the purchase of horses was proceeding. A large number were on board ships, and there were contracts that could not be broken. The question arose whether the horses should be sent to South Africa or to England for sale. The general officer commanding in South Africa was consulted, and his advice was not to sell in South Africa, and

  1289
  1,246 were brought home from South Africa and 2,451 from Canada. Some of the horses brought home were of the kind required for the artillery units, and what to do with the remainder was the subject of consideration. They consulted the general officer commanding in South Africa as to whether there would be a sale for the horses out there, and his answer was that there would not be a market. The hon. Baronet had talked of giving the horses away, and stated that the horses were wanted there. But there was the question to be considered whether it was wise to give away too many horses in South Africa. For that reason they thought it right only to sell horses in South Africa with the consent of Lord Milner. That, he thought, was perfectly right. Therefore came the question: What were they to do with these horses when they were brought home to this country? Some of of these horses were of a kind which the War Office know would have to be bought for the artillery units. It was therefore cheaper to bring back in the transports which were coming home the horses which would be required for the artillery units As to the remainder of the horses, they consulted as to what ought to be done. The animals came in the autumn, and all stables being full they were put out to grass by arrangements made through the general officers commanding in various districts. Then as winter approached further arrangements had to be made. The horses could not be kept out at grass, and the question arose whether they should be sold, and putting them all on the market at once meant that a good price could not be secured, or whether sheds should be put up and the sales spread over a longer period. The alternative was adopted of cutting losses. The best of the horses were exchanged for those that were inferior among the mounted troops, and others were sold to the Yeomanry. They were, therefore, the worst of the horses that were sold at an average of rather over £14 each. If the horses had been kept during the winter a better bargain would not have been made, and according to a telegram received from South Africa, large sales had been effected there at £12 each, and the horse market being apparently satisfied, the average price was not likely to increase at all
  1290
  proportionately to the quality of the horses they had to offer. It would therefore be seen that by selling in England they got £2 per horse more than if they had been sold in South Africa.
  *SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid he agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Dulwich as to the extraordinary character of this Supplementary Estimate. The Committee would, at any rate, be of opinion that the Estimate presented was one of the most striking illustrations of the difficulty of proceeding by Estimate when they had to deal with war. He drew attention to an item of £2,600,000 for gratuities to troops for active service. There had been already paid on this accountin 1901– 2 £2,340,000, and last year the Committee was only asked for £350,000. He wished to know what was the meaning of this great discrepancy. He could not understand how the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for War should have taken such a ridiculously small sum last year as £350,000, and then come down at the end of the financial year to ask for £2,600,000. Then he desired to ask a question as to the China Expeditionary Force, a sum for which was taken at £200,000. He did not suppose that the Committee remembered that in 1900 a sum of £3,500,000 was taken for the cost of that expedition, and in 1901 £630,000; but for the present year only £50,000 was asked for. Why was there £200,000 additional required now in a Supplementary Estimate? He could understand that when these wars were financed from India, where there was a different audit from here, there should be a delay in presenting the accounts, but he could not see why £200,000 was demanded for the cost of the Chinese War so long after it was over. There was a note on the Estimate in regard to a large sale of vehicles in South Africa. This question had come before the Public Accounts Committee, which was informed by officers of the Department that every waggon had been numbered and would be accounted for, and that at the close of the war the Government would not be damaged by the sale of them. He would like to know whether that sale had been satisfactory, and that the statements of the officers had been borne out in fact.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the form of this Vote was extremely inconvenient and somewhat misleading. The Committee was asked to vote only £100, but in reality it was a vote for £5,500,100. He presumed that this would be called an Excess Vote, but while the Committee was voting that £5,500,000, no Ways and Means would be required for raising the money as usual, because it was provided for in consequence of a mistake on the other side. The Government had under-estimated expenditure by that amount, but they had also under-estimated the appropriation-in aid to an equal amount. As a matter of fact this Vote was to authorise the application of £5,500,000 as the proceeds of a rummage sale of old horses in South Africa, and the addition of that sum to their original estimates. Again he must complain of the form of this Vote, and the way in which information was withheld. It was invariably the case when a Supplementary Estimate was made to show the amount of the original Estimate, and he could only suppose that that had not been done in this case because of the amazing results which would have flashed immediately on the attention of the Committee. He had had therefore to take his way to the Vote Office to get the original War Office Estimates, so that he might supply to the Committee what his right hon. friend ought to have submitted himself.
  Take item 8; they were asked to vote £2,600,000 for gratuities; that was to say, this was a Supplementary Estimate to the sum originally voted for that item. It might naturally be supposed that the Supplementary Estimate would be very much less than the original. It was nothing of the sort; it was enormously greater; it was about eight times greater. The original sum asked for in 1902-3, with all the wisdom of the War Office, for gratuities to troops on active service, was put down at £350,000, and the Committee were now asked to add to that £2,600,000. He maintained that that was a most amazing instance of Supplementary Estimates. There was an almost equally remarkable instance under the item A. A. The whole of the original sum asked for for the China Expeditionary Force was £50,000, while the
  1292
  Supplementary Estimate was £200,000, so that the supplement was four times as large as the original. That betokened a habit on the part of the Departments of making the Estimates what they pleased before the House of Commons, and then coming again to the House to ask for three, four, five, and even eight times as much as the original Estimate, as a Supplementary Estimate. That, he contended, was an abuse of the term "Supplementary Estimate." The Supplementary Estimate was only justifiable at all when some contingency had arisen which could not have been foreseen when the original Estimate was framed. That was not true of any item on the paper laid before the Committee. It was disgraceful to any Government to be so much out in an Estimate of £60,000,000 as by £5,500,000. He ventured to suggest that if it had not been for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had got £5,500,000 for the horses—a very good price, considering that they were the worst horses in the habitable world—forage, and stores, the Estimate would have been out by £5.500,000. This sum of £5,500,000 should have been allowed to go to its proper destination, viz., the extinction of debt. As the Committee knew, the Army and Navy Departments were allowed to divert sums from one Vote to another, but that was not the case in other Departments without Treasury sanction. He supposed that the right hon. Gentleman did not require to go to the Treasury for authority to make this diversion, and therefore he held that this Excess Vote was very deceiving. The original sum was not on the Paper, so that the House might see what was the proportion between the original Estimate and the Supplementary Estimate, and that they were really voting their own horses to remedy a tremendous mistake.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that he also had a complaint to make. A part of the sum asked for was for the China expedition, which was over a long time ago, and another part was for an expedition not yet completed, and about the military details of which they had no information. Under the ruling of the Deputy Chairman, the Committee could not discuss what led to

  1293
  the latter expedition, he meant the Somaliland expedition. The Estimate put down for that expedition was no less than £50,000, the details of which had never been explained or put before the House.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he would call attention to the fact that this Somaliland Vote was an entirely new item. It was not on the original Estimate, and, therefore, was one of the Estimates which involved a question of policy. He submitted that the hon. Gentleman would be directly in order in discussing the policy which led up to the expedition.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he would ask the Deputy-Chairman whether he would be in order in discussing the policy of the Somaliland expedition.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that it depended upon the Minister in charge of the Estimate stating whether the Somaliland Expedition was a new item or not.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he would therefore go on. Unless contradicted by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the War Office, he maintained that this was a new Vote, and that the Committee were entirely in order in discussing the Somaliland expedition. It raised a very considerable point, to which he hoped the Committee would give attention. This was not the first Somaliland expedition. They had had one under Colonel Turnum which came to grief. That officer's Somaliland levies were scattered like chaff, and he had to withdraw. The consequence of that retreat was that we were now engaged in an expensive expedition which might assume larger proportions than the public anticipated. Troops had been hastily gathered together from India, from Natal, from Uganda, and from the King's African Regiment. They ought to have some explanation from the Minister as to what was the intention of the War Office. They ought to know whether the Government were going to repeat the policy of making an advance into the interior, or whether they
  1294
  intended to occupy a line of entrenched posts touching on the one hand the Italian frontier, and on the other hand a sterile and waterless tract of country. He thought the Committee ought to get some outline of what the right hon. Gentleman's advisers intended to do.
  MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member who has just sat down has asked what is the intention of the Government with regard to Somaliland. I think that before we separated in December last my noble friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated the position. As was stated by the First Lord of the Treasury, there is no intention whatever of undertaking operations on a large scale in Somaliland. On the contrary, it is necessary to make this advance in order to punish the Mullah and to reassert our power, because it is absolutely necessary for us to protect the tribes who are under our protection. Beyond that point, and also checking any advance of the Mullah into our own territory, there has never been the slightest intention of going. Under the circumstances, it was quite impossible for us to leave the matter alone without a very considerable loss in the position which we have taken up with regard to the tribes After most careful consideration the expedition was framed on the smallest scale which was in any way commensurate with the circumstances of the case, and we have provided all that was required. The Government have every reason to believe that the advance will be covered by this Vote, and will be sufficiently provided for by the troops which are now either at or en route to Obbia. We do not anticipate an enormous expenditure on this expedition, nor do we intend to establish a very long line of posts over a desert country. It will not be expected that I should say what course the officer on the spot intends to pursue, but I may say that I do not think there are any hon. Members in the House more anxious than those who sit on the Ministerial Bench to keep this expedition within the narrowest possible limits.
  This sum of money has appeared for the first time in the War Office Vote, but it was discussed on the Foreign Office Vote. My hon. friend has made one of his usual vehement attacks on officialdom for the

  1295
  manner in which this Vote has been presented to the House. When an Excess Vote is taken it is always necessary to know the circumstances connected with the original Estimate. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer explained to the House last March that he was not taking sums for the conclusion of the war, because we did not know under what circumstances the war might conclude, or what sums would be required or what troops could be withdrawn. What has taken place has been the obvious and proper course The gratuities and the withdrawal of troops have caused a large expenditure. On the other hand we have got rid of the whole of the supplies in South Africa to the best advantage. A bargain was struck with the civil government, and the War Office did not come badly out of that transaction. As regards the remaining horses and other transport we sold to the civil government all that they could possibly take for distribution among those who were re-settling in the country. As my noble friend explained, we took a lower price for the residue of the animals which, of course, were not the best A certain number of them were brought to this country and after the best had been taken out the remainder were sold. That is really the explanation of this Vote. War conducted on such a large scale must cause a large excess, and i do not think the sum of £5.000,000 is exceptional in an Estimate which has already grown, I think, to £80,000,000 or £90,000,000 during the course of last year. I do not think any of the remarks which apply to the Army Estimates are applicable to this Vote.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that something had appeared with regard to the Somaliland expedition in the Foreign Office Vote, but now the whole of that expenditure had been handed over to the War Office and it was now included in this extra Vote. Therefore, as far as the War Office was concerned this was an absolutely new Vote. He did not think the criticism passed by foreign nations on the Somaliland expedition had been at all flattering to this country. It was an absurd system to have the Army kept at one time by
  1296
  the Foreign Office, and at another time by the War Office. The War Office had now taken over this Somaliland expedition from the Foreign Office, and they hardly knew which office would pay for the troops or which they belonged to. The system was an absurd and ridiculous one, and it made the accounts so complicated that any juggling with them which was necessary could easily be done in their transference.
  LORD CRANBORNEdissented.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he did not accuse the noble Lord of juggling. [An HON. MEMBER: You said so.] No, what he stated was that the system enabled juggling to be done. He should very much like to know what proportion of this extra expenditure was supposed to go to Somaliland. The greater part of this extra Vote was no doubt due to the winding up of the war in South Africa. He would like to know what part of this Vote belonged to a totally different question. [An HON. MEMBER: The details are all there.] If they were there he could not find out from them what part of this extra expenditure was going to this new expedition. He hoped this would be an object lesson for the Foreign Office not to take up again the administration of arms and troops in foreign countries.
  MR. SEELYsaid he hoped the colonial contingents had received their pay and gratuities. The colonial troops had been of great value, and it was important that they should have a good opinion of us. Our own officials had not the best reputation for settling up their accounts promptly. Bis dat qui cito dat was an admirable maxim, and it was of the greatest value to the Empire that none of their colonial fellow-subjects should have a grievance in regard to their pay.
  *SIR JOSEPH LEESE: The noble Lord had told the Committee that 40,000 horses had been sold at.£12 a-piecc in South Africa and 3,000 at £14 a-piece in England. Rut the total amount realised is put down as £3,000,000. Taking the whole 43,000 horses at the highest price, viz., £14, I make it that there were over 240,000 horses sold. Rut the noble Lord has

  1297
  only accounted for 43,000. Where are the other 200,000?
  *LORD STANLEY: There are other animals besides horses. There are oxen and mules.
  MR. SOARES (Devonshire,): There was one other question. He understood that when peace was concluded there were 2,400 horses in Canada waiting to be sent to the front, and that they were brought over to this country: that the best were then taken for the Artillery, and the rest were sold for what they would fetch. What he desired to know was why these screws were brought over to this country at all.
  LORD STANLEYsaid they were not screws at all. They were the surplus over and above what the War Office could possibly use. With regard to the claims for gratuities, it was no doubt convenient to settle those as soon as possible. Of course, one method would be to pay any claim that was made, but that would be rather expensive. The War Office now bad a sufficiently large staff to deal with the claims for gratuities in the most expeditious way possible, and of the colonial claims the great majority had been paid.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked how much of Item C also went into Item B B as part of the Somaliland expedition. It was evident that the whole of Item C was not spent in England.
  LORD STANLEYexplained that that money was for furlough gratuities given to the men when they landed. Men who went into the Reserve were allowed a certain amount of leave on full pay.
  SIR. J. BLUNDELL MAPLEcould not understand why these Canadian horses were brought over to this country. He should have thought they might have been sold on the spot at a sacrifice of £2 or £ 3 a head, instead of being brought over here at an aggregate cost of probably £20,000 at least. He thought the money spent in bringing them here had been thrown away.
  LORD STANLEYsaid the hon. Baronet left out of account the most important fact that the ships were already hired and had to be paid for, and as there was no market for these horses in Canada and they had the ships, the horses were brought over here.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEsaid of course if the ships could not be utilised in any other way that was to a certain extent a justification, but he should have thought these ships might have been utilised for the China expedition.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERasked whether this was the final amount that would be taken for China.
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. I could not say that, because there are troops in excess, and we shall have to take money for them on the General Vote.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked for some information with regard to Somaliland. As he understood, the amount asked for in this Vote on that account was £75,000. It was impossible to bring two regiments from Uganda and three from Bombay: to purchase the camels necessary to carry water for the troops in this waterless district; and to organise native levies and the special service that had been organised on an expenditure of £75,000. He submitted that the Estimates brought before the Committee were Estimates calculated to deceive the Committee. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman's military policy would not be a repetition of the blunder committed under the auspices of the Foreign Office two years ago. The noble Lord at that time was advised that if he retreated after he had checked the Mullah, there would be a recurrence of the state of unrest and insurrection, and that had been proved to be true. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman now would not pursue a line of conduct which had proved so fatal when followed by the Foreign Office, because if he did the only result would be to pile up the Estimates of future years with such items as the Committee were now asked to vote.
  MR. BRODRICKthought he might be excused from discussing any question

  1299
  of policy. The hon. Member was quite right in assuming that the sum put down in the Vote for the Somaliland expedition did not represent the sum which had been or would be spent. The total sum would probably amount to £250,000 by 31st March next.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

SUPPLY [2ND MARCH, AFTERNOON SITTING].
Resolutions reported—
SUPPLY [2ND MARCH, AFTERNOON SITTING].
  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1902–3
    CLASS I.
    1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,500, 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 Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces and Marlborough House."
    CLASS III.
    2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,300, 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 Prisons in England and Wales."'
    CLASS VII.
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £70,000, 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, to repay to the India Office the Expenses of the Entertainment in this Country of Indian Representative Visitors at the Coronation of His Majesty."

    CLASS II.
    4. "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
    1300
    from the Mercantile Marine Fund, and other services connected with the Mercantile Marine."

    CLASS V.
    5. "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."
SUPPLY [2ND MARCH, EVENING SITTING].
Resolutions reported.
SUPPLY [2ND MARCH, EVENING SITTING].
  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1902–3.
    CLASS V.
    1. "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."
    CLASS II.
    2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £620, 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 the General Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland."

    CLASS IV.
    3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £292,807, 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 the Board of Education."
    4. "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

    1301
    the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1903, for the Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland."

WAYS AND MEANS.
Committee deferred till To-morrow.
And, there being no further Business set down for the Afternoon Sitting, Mr. SPEAKER left the Chair until this Evenings Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  MINISTRY OF COMMERCE.
  *MR HOULTsaid the Resolution he proposed to move would, no doubt, in some quarters be considered antagonistic to the Board of Trade. So far as he was concerned he said unhesitatingly that the President of the Board of Trade had always shown a great regard for trade interests, and this motion was not intended in any way to be antagonistic; but anyone who knew the constitution of the Board of Trade knew that its constitution was hopelessly obsolete. As a great administrative Department of the State, it administered the Acts passed from time to time regulating shipping, railways, mines, factories, and a multitude of other things, and it carried out those duties with as little friction, and with as great regard to the interests involved, as it was possible for the officials to do. Speaking as a shipowner of thirty-rive years experience he had pleasure in stating that never in the whole of that period had the relations existing between the Board of Trade and that great industry been so cordial as they were now. But the Board of Trade was an administrative Board, and it was impossible for it as at present constituted to carry out the duties it was now expected to undertake with regard to trade and commerce. There was a very widespread feeling in the country that the interests of trade and commerce should be safeguarded and promoted in a manner which, so far, had not received the attention of the Government, and
  1302
  that the time had arrived when some new Department should be created, with a Minister at its head of high Cabinet rank.
  As regarded the internal trade of the country, there were frequent complaints of high railway rates; that the canals were not made use of in the interests of trade in the way they ought to be; and that the Light Railways Acts had not been productive of the advantage to agriculture which was expected. All these matters were of the highest importance, and it seemed to him that something ought to be done to bring about a condition of things more favourable to the trade and commercial interests of the country. Whether the appointment of a Minister of Commerce would have that effect he did not know, but it was generally admitted that a great deal might he done in that direction. With regard to foreign trade, that was in the hands of three Departments. One was the Foreign Office—and the House would remember they had already had a debate upon a Treaty made between Russia and Persia. It was held by those who ought to know that that Treaty was likely to be extremely detrimental to British trade. But with a proper organisation that Treaty might have been heard of in its initial stages, and with a Minister of Commerce it was possible that such a Treaty, detrimental to our interests as this was, might have been guarded against. Another part of our foreign trade was controlled by the India Office, which might be expected to derive great assistance from a Minister of Commerce. Then there was the trade controlled by the Colonial Office. Foreign governments had their trade agents throughout the British Colonies, and those agents advised their Governments in all matters pertaining to the particular industries carried on in those countries. We had no such organisation, and our traders had to get information as to the wants of our colonies as best they could. Every other trading nation had Ministers of Commerce. The United States of America, it was true, until recently had no such Minister, but when the President in his message to Congress on December 3rd suggested that such a Minister should be appointed, so important was the matter considered that on the 13th of February following it was announced that a Minister

  1303
  of Commerce had been appointed. The annual meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, which represented the commercial interests of this country, was now being held in London, and he saw from the agenda that resolutions had been pissed by the Chambers of Commerce of London, Liverpool, Halifax, Nottingham, Cardiff, Derby, Newcastle, Gateshead, and other places, to the effect that the overwhelming importance of the trade, commerce and shipping of the Empire demanded that the Minister in charge of the Department of the Government especially identified with these matters should be placed on the footing of a Secretary of State, in order to attract statesmen of the highest qualifications and of great experience in such matters. The Chambers of Commerce throughout the country were unanimously in favour of the appointment of such a Minister.
  He called the attention of the House to recent paragraph in The Times dealing with the Uganda Railway. It was there pointed out that German and Italian traders were at work, but no mention was made of British traders, though England was opening up the country at great expense. What was the explanation of this? It was, he suggested, because trade agencies had informed their Governments in Europe that trade was to be done in that region, but we had no trade agents and it was possible for that reason that the British were not mentioned in the paragraph. He hoped the Government would see their way to grant what was a universal demand from the whole of the trading community of the country, and order the inquiry asked for in the Resolution with the object of making arrangements for the appointment of a Minister of Commerce. British traders did not want any exceptional privileges; they did not want bolstering up. They were made of the same material as that which enabled their forefathers to carry trade all over the world. If it had fair and equal treatment, he was perfectly satisfied that the commerce of the country would in the future occupy, if not the premier position, certainly a position of which none of them need be ashamed. It had been said that the people of this country were apathetic; but there was no apathy on the part of the traders of this country, and no apathy on the part of
  1304
  the great middle class, which was the backbone of the country. If there was apathy, it was apathy on the part of the Government. He would not apply that word to the present Government, but to past Governments. The present Government had a very great regard for the trading and commercial interests of the country; and he was satisfied that they would be reach' to do what was wise and just in the interests of trade and commerce.
  *MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil)said he was sure the President of the Board of Trade would need no assurance from him that, in seconding the Motion, he was not acting in a Party spirit, or with any hostility whatever to the Department over which, in his humble judgment, the right hon. Gentleman presided with singular ability. After an experience of fifteen years as a supplicant at the doors of various Departments, he had no hesitation in saying that, with the possible exception of the Local Government Board, ore received more intelligent consideration from the Board of Trade than from any other Department. As for the right hon. Gentleman himself, if he might say so without presumption, he thought the duties of the Board of Trade were congenial to him; and he brought to them very great industry and high intellectual qualifications. He said that in order to show his sincerity, and to show that in seconding the Motion he was not acting in hostility to the Board of Trade or to its President. The mover of the Motion rather emphasised that part of the Resolution which asked for the appointment of a Minister of Commerce. He would rather emphasise the latter part of the Resolution, which asked for an inquiry into the various Government Departments, because he fully recognised that before there could be any change there should be a full inquiry into all the Departments. They could not treat the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board in isolation and apart from other Departments. He wished to point out that they made no demand for a new Department. What they suggested was that a Ministry of Industry and Commerce should be substituted for the present Board of Trade. They did not ask for any additional member of the Cabinet, and they did not suggest or attempt to dictate to the

  1305
  Prime Minister what offices should he directly represented in the Cabinet. As a matter of fact, he thought that for thirty years the President of the Board of Trade had been invariably a member of the Cabinet, which in itself was a recognition—although an imperfect recognition—of the principle for which they were contending.
  As a commercial man, and as the representative of one of the largest industrial divisions in the country, and as a Member who had been returned almost entirely by the labour vote, he desired that the Department which had charge of the industry and commerce of the country should be represented by a Minister with the status of a principal (Secretary of State; and he contended that on grounds of sentiment, which, he admitted, largely entered into the matter, as well as of efficiency, and economy in the truest sense of the word, the President of the Board of Trade should be raised to the position of a principal Secretary of State. It was a very remarkable fact that nearly every foreign Government had a Minister of Commerce, and that this country, which really owed everything to its commercial pre-eminence, should not have a Minister of Commerce. He should like to sketch briefly the history of the Board of Trade. The first reference to a Committee of Commerce was in 1655, when Cromwell appointed his son Richard, with many lords of his Council, judges and gentlemen, and about twenty merchants of London, York, Newcastle, Yarmouth, Doverand other places, to meet and consider by what means the traffic and navigation of the Republic might be best promoted and regulated, and to report on the subject. That was in the nature of the inquiry which they were asking for to-day. In 1660 Charles II. appointed by patent a Council of Trade, and about a month afterwards he appointed a Council of Foreign Plantations. In 1672 the previous patents were re. voked and the two Councils were amalgamated as the Council for Trade and Foreign Plantations. This Council continued until 1782 when it was finally suppressed or abolished, but things did not appear to have gone on very well during the period of suppression, because a few years afterwards, in 1786, by Order
  1306
  in Council the Board of Trade was formed as at present constituted. It was appointed with the; full designation of "Lords of the Committee of Privy Council appointed by His Majesty for the consideration of matters relating to Trade and Foreign Plantations." Before that it had been merely a Council of Trade for consultative purposes, and it consisted of a number of members of the Government who were, he believed, paid for this specific purpose. He found from a work dealing with this subject that a writer in 1746 said—
  "No distinct functions appear to have been assigned either by statute or Order in Council to the President or Vice-President: but in point of fact they are the only working members of the Hoard of Trade, and its business is performed by them without the interference of any of the numerous official personages who are upon the Committee of Privy Council, except only in respect of Colonial Acts referred to the Committee of Privy Council, as to which the Secretary of State for the Colonies gives his opinion in writing, as a member of the Committee, upon them, and that opinion is at once adopted as the opinion of the Committee, in all Acts which, although relating to the Colonies, do not relate to trade."
  That showed that even at that time it was a one-man board as it was to-day. He had no rooted objection to one-man boards. He had himself had some experience on the boards of public companies, and he always found the most efficient boards were those on which there was one active man and where the other directors merely registered his decisions. But still, that showed that the constitution of the Board of Trade had become obsolete, and in itself, without going further, quite proved the first part of the Resolution.
  In order to show the House the degree and importance of the work that the Board of Trade did, he would read a list of the establishment which was formed in 1786 to carry out the work at that time. It consisted of: Two clerks of this Council attending by rotation: a clerk specially appointed for this particular service of this Committee; a law clerk; a chief and six other clerks and an extra clerk; three managers; an office-keeper; a necessary woman; and a door-keeper. But the consequence of the work which the board had to do had so much increased by 1826 that the Chancellor of the

  1307
  Exchequer of the day (Fredrick Robinson) moved—
  "That His Majesty be enabled to grant a salary of £5,000 a year to the President of the Board of Trade."
  The right hon. Gentleman told him yesterday that that Resolution had not been given effect to in the Act passed a few weeks later, because the majority was so small. It was only a majority of 11. He did not think that Hansard quite bore out the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. The President of the Board of Trade received a salary of £2,000, and he then held the sinecure office of treasurer to the Navy, to which was attached a salary of.£3,000. The real objection on the part of those who were opposed to the raising of the salary of the President of the Board of Trade was because it was still intended to retain this sinecure office of Treasurer to the Navy, an office once held by the Speaker of the House of Commons. The work of the Board at that time had so increased that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in moving the Resolution, said—
  "He thought that a fit remuneration for the President would be £5,000 a year. The House would recollect that it was an office which in these times especially called for more labour, both of body and mind than any other now in existence."
  In 1832 the Statistical Department was added to the Board of Trade, and it had been found most useful to those business men who had the intelligence to make use of it. In 1840, the Railway Department was added In 1854, Messrs. Trevelyan and Stafford Northcote inquired into the conditions of the permanent and civil service with regard to the Board of Trade and made a Report, in which they said—
  "There is probably no Department of the Government to whose functions so many and such important additions have recently been made as the Board of Trade. While, however, these additions have been of such a nature as almost entirely to change the character of the Department, its constitution has not as yet been revised with a view to the efficient discharge of its new duties. Originally designed for consultative purposes, it was organised in a very different manner from the executive offices, and the arrangements made for the transaction of its business have not been run or are suitable to the management of administrative details…. The public in the meantime has to bear a heavy charge for the establishment and
  1308
  maintenance of separate Departments which might be united in such a manner as to produce both greater economy and greater efficiency."
  The hon. Member, in moving the Resolution now before the House, had told them what the opinion of the Chambers of Commerce was to-day. He did not know whether the hon. Member was present that day during the discussion in what the Chancellor of the Exchequer once described as the Parliament of Commerce. It passed a Resolution, without a dissentient voice, praying the House of Commons to pass this Resolution in the form in which it stood on the Paper. The Chambers of Commerce had been agitating for years, and as far back as 1871 a deputation consisting of Members of this House, and representing the principal Chambers of Commerce of the country, waited upon Mr. Gladstone when he was Prime Minister. On 8th July 1879, no doubt largely at the instance of Chambers of Commerce, Mr. Sampson Lloyd moved—
  "That it is desirable that those functions of the Executive Government which especially relate to commerce and agriculture should be administered by a distinct Department under the direction of a Principal Secretary of State, who shall be a Member of the Cabinet."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day opposed, but the motion was, nevertheless carried by 76 to 56, a majority of 20. On May 13th, 1881, with the assent of Mr. Gladstone, who was then Prime Minister, on going into Committee of Supply, Sir Massey Lopes carried without a division the following Motion—
  "That it is desirable that the function of the Executive Government, which especially relates to agriculture and commerce should, as far as possible, be administered by a distinct Department, to be presided over by a responsible Minister of the Crown."
  But no effect whatever had been given to these Resolutions beyond the appointment of a Minister of Agriculture. The status of the Board of Trade had been in no way improved or increased.
  The last time the matter came before the House was when Sir Stafford Northcote moved a Resolution similar in effect to the one proposed to-night. As he thought it had a bearing on the subject, he would read the opinion expressed then by the present

  1309
  Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman agreed to a certain extent—
  "That possibly a survey of the whole multifarious work of the administrative Departments and a re-distribution of that work would he advisable…. I think my friend is not wrong in urging that if we had a blank sheet to deal with, and if we were not troubled by the history of the various Government Departments, and if we had to arrange the salaries of Ministers in proportion to their labours, there would not be the difference there is at present between, for instance, the Local Government Board and the Hoard of Trade and the older offices in the State, and I think it quite possible that the time may not be very far distant when the whole question will be reconsidered. It is evident that the position of the President of the Board of Trade cannot he dealt with in an isolated way, and that there must he a general survey of the whole work of the Government Departments and a general and uniform plan adopted in their treatment…. Members of the Cabinet are on an equality, and the weight of individual opinion depends on the individual and not on any extraneous or fortuitous circumstances…. On the general question I quite recognise that the growth of the great offices which have been referred to has produced a certain anomaly in our present system, and at no distant period that anomaly may be considered and, if possible, corrected."
  He saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, and he believed it was his intention to take part in the discussion. He hoped they were knocking at an open door in regard to this matter. He presumed that it was the question of cost which concerned the Chancellor of the Exchequer more than anything else, but he would point out that the cost of the inquiry could not be very large, and that was all they were asking for to-night. On the general question he thought it must be perfectly clear that, over a series of years, the more capable men in a Government would gravitate to the positions of higher status and salary, and that in the long run commerce and industry would be left to the less capable men. And what was of even more serious consideration was that the same argument applied to the permanent officials, whose salaries, though not proportionate to that of the chief, to some extent followed it. Those who gained high places in the civil service examinations would naturally select the vacancies in the better paid and more important departments, leaving industry and commerce to be content with the services of those possessing less brilliant qualifications. Such a possi-
  1310
  bility could not be in the interests of the country, and they should do all they could to avoid it. He hoped that the Government would see their way to accept the Motion with a sincere desire to give it full and immediate effect.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the constitution of the Board of Trade has become obsolete, and this House is of opinion that a Department presided over by a Minister of Commerce and Industry, having the status of a principal Secretary of State, should be substituted for the present office, to which should be entrusted all matters more particularly appertaining to commerce and industry, and to that end that an inquiry should be forthwith instituted with the view of re-arranging the duties and functions of existing Departments."—(Mr. Hoult.)
  *SIR CHARLES DILKErose to move as an Amendment to the Motion to leave out all after "that," and insert "with a view to administrative efficiency, this House calls on His Majesty's Government to. undertake a redistribution of duties between the various Government Departments concerned, with due regard to the interests of labour." The mover of the proposal before the House was, he thought, a little unkind to His Majesty's Government. It was not for him to defend the Government against the attacks of one of their own supporters, but the Motion was prefaced by these words—
  "To call attention to the many disabilities to which our commerce and trade are subjected under the present Administration."
  How could the hon. Member get out of that statement, but he would leave the Government to deal with their own supporter.
  *MR. HOULT: It is not the Government I complain of, it is. the administration of the office.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he was sorry to hear the seconder suggest in his admirable speech, with the greater part of which he entirely agreed, that the

  1311
  lower salaries of certain Departments prevent them from having the service of the best men. No one who knew the Government Departments all round could contend that men like the late Lord Farrer, Sir Francis Hopwood, or Sir Hugh Owen, were inferior in any respect to the men in the other Departments of the State. The mover of the Motion had made no attempt to prove his case, or to show how the present Administration had broken down. He was not concerned to deny that the constitution of the Board of Trade, and indeed many of their offices, was in some degree obsolete and deserving of inquiry, yet he thought that any Member who brought a matter of this sort before the House ought to make some more serious attempt to show where the Department had broken down. The only examples the hon. Member had given to the House at all were that the railway charges were too high, and that we needed more agents in all parts of the world. "More, agents" was a question of how much the country was going to pay; and as to railway charges, that was not so much the weakness of the Government Department as the weakness of the House of Commons, which, in the face of railway interests allowed the rates to be so high.
  So far as he could gather from the horn Member who moved the Motion, what he desired was rather a change of name than anything else. But he did make one incautious admission that seemed inconsistent with the remainder of his speech. He said in one sentence that he desired to see the creation of an additional Department. Both the mover and the seconder said that the head of the Commercial Department of this country ought to be a man of high official rank, equal to a Secretary of State. In comparing this country with other countries, the right hon. Baronet maintained that we had about four times as many Ministers as any other country in the world; and when the House was asked to place more Ministers in Cabinet rank the hon. Member must remember that the size which Cabinets had reached was responsible for many of the weaknesses which Governments here had shown. The desired change in the Board of Trade could not stand alone,
  1312
  and there was some reason to fear that these general changes might lead to an increase in the total number of Ministers; therefore, this matter became material. There was a heresy which ran through a great deal of the argument in. favour of the original Motion, namely, that the influence of a Minister in the Cabinet depended upon the size of his salary. Mr. Gladstone was once Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and exercised enormous influence when he held that minor office. Hon. Members would remember the influence exercised by the present Colonial Secretary in connection with Irish affairs when President of the Board of Trade and not directly connected with Irish administration. Who could contend for a moment that in Mr. Gladstone's fourth administration the influence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs was limited by the fact that he was not a principal Secretary of State? That argument would not bear investigation. Not only was this matter, as the seconder of the Motion had admitted, bound up with the constitution of several other Departments of the State, but the argument which the hon. Gentleman had used, and in which he concurred in regard to the position of the clerks and the equality of the civil servants, extended to the majority of the other Departments of the State.
  It was impossible, if once this question was raised, to abstain from placing the head of the Navy of this country in the rank of a Secretary of State, or the head of the Education Department. Scottish feeling would also compel them to raise the position of the head of the Scotch Department. He agreed with the argument of the seconder of the Motion that when once they touched this question at all they would have to make all the clerks in the offices of State equal. The present distinction was one which could not be defended. They should have to establish the principle of the absolute equality in salary and status of all the clerks in all the offices of State, with the doubtful exception, perhaps, of those superior persons the Foreign Office clerks, who, in the course of their business, were expected to dine out more, and to dance at more balls than any other officers of State. Not only had we larger Cabinets than

  1313
  those which guided the destinies of any other Parliament, but we had infinitely more paid Ministers than any other country. We had in this House forty paid Members, and while hon. Gentlemen opposite refused payment to ordinary Members, and condemned the payment of the Members of the Irish Party, or of poor men of ability who desired the chance of obtaining the free suffrages of the people, they seemed to have for their ideal that every Member of their party should be a Secretary of State. He asserted that the Cabinet in this country was nearly three times as numerous as any other Cabinet in the world, and that the paid Ministers in the two Houses of Parliament were five times more numerous than in the Parliament of any other people. Of course many changes had been made in the Government offices.
  The seconder of the Motion had alluded to two Ministries which had been created by Resolution of this House, including the Department of Agriculture. Now it had always been known that that Minister had not a great amount of work to do, and in consequence of the deficiency of work they were told that on the 1st of April the Department of Ichthyology was to be transferred from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Agriculture. To show how little considered hitherto many of those small changes had been, he might say that the superintendence of fisheries had been transferred not very long ago from the Home Office to the Board of Trade, because the foreshores of the coast had been transferred to that Department. The only connection which he could imagine there was between ichthyology and agriculture was that in some of the counties on the east coast sprats were used as a manure for the land. The ichthyologists would be like the settlers in some new country whose chickens held up their legs whenever they heard a waggon coming along. Then there was an Agricultural Department in Ireland of which his friend Mr. Plunkett, unfortunately not a Member of this House, was the head, and there was the Scottish Department which had been created in recent times. A large number of new Ministers had been proposed from time to time, but fortunately had not yet been adopted. In his own time he remembered that a Resolution of the
  1314
  House of Commons had been carried in favour of the creation of a Ministry of Justice, but nothing had been done. There had also been proposals for the creation of a Ministry of Health apart from the Local Government Board, and of a Ministry of Merchant Shipping and Seamen, and of a Ministry of Labour.
  As to this particular proposal dealing with the Board of Trade, he should like to ask the House to consider a little more closely the argument of the mover of the Resolution. That hon. Gentleman alluded to the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office, and apparently he desired to shift that Department from the Foreign Office and place it in the new Ministry of Commerce. The value of that Department of the Foreign Office had long been disputed, but there was so much to be said on both sides of the question that he would pass the topic by. There had no doubt been a certain amount of discontent with the Board of Trade, probably unjust, among the commercial classes. He thought that that discontent had been caused by what he would call purely mechanical causes. The Board of Trade was divided into many Departments, most of them housed in different buildings, in different parts of the town. When some of them were Members of the Committee, presided over by the Home Secretary, on the re-housing of the Departments of State, one of the Departments which claimed to be placed under a single roof was the Board of Trade, but for some mysterious reason the Board of Trade alone was the Department knocked out of that scheme. The mechanical difficulty to which he had referred undoubtedly caused some friction, and led to some temporary unpopularity of the Board of Trade. There were a number of gentlemen who wished to see the creation of a Ministry of Commerce with a Secretary of State at its head in whom they could have confidence. He had a little suspicion of that desire, and there was something to be said on the other side. He gathered from the Resolution on the Paper, and from the speech of the mover, but not from the speech of the seconder, that those who framed the Resolution wished to bring all matters connected with commerce and industry into the new Ministry; but that would include all matters re-

  1315
  lating to the administration of the Factory Laws and of the Coal Mines and Metalliferous Mines Acts. Undoubtedly these were covered by the words of the Resolution, although he was glad to hear that that view was repudiated by the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway. He submitted that the House ought not to carry a Resolution containing those words without probing the matter to the bottom. He did not think they could deal efficiently with this question without considering in one sense or another the position in which the Labour Laws were to stand to the new Ministry of Commerce.
  Allusion had been made to the examples set up by foreign countries where there was a Ministry of Commerce and Industry; and special reference had been made to France and Germany, which had highly developed factory legislation. It must be remembered by those who desired to see a great commercial magnate at the head of the Ministry of Commerce that labour had a claim equal to that of capital to direct the Department. In France, which was the most highly developed country in this respect, the Minister of Commerce was equally the Minister of Industry. What was the consequence? The most distinguished Minister of Commerce and Industry which that country had had was not a great commercial magnate, not what was called "a safe man" but a Socialist, M. Millerand, and there was the remarkable fact that the Chancellor of the German Empire, speaking in the name of the German Emperor himself said His Imperial Majesty approved of M. Millerand's policy, and hoped to be able to find a man like him for Germany. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, representing as he had done until very recently, with distinction the Department concerned with the laws relating to factories and workshops and mines, he would be satisfied that the administration of these laws should pass, without very careful inquiry, into the hands of a mere Ministry of Commerce.
  At the present time a great deal of work was thrown on the Board of Trade in connection with the administration of Labour Laws. But there was also conciliation work which might develop by and by into compulsory
  1316
  arbitration. Undoubtedly the man the commercial classes and the Chambers of Commerce desired to have at the head of the new Ministry would not be exactly the type of man whom the labouring classes would choose in such a case as the Penrhyn dispute. Then the President of the Board of Trade was the sweet little cherub who sat up aloft to take care of merchant seamen. He had also the protection of railway servants. In addition to that there was the Labour Department of the Board of Trade itself which was mainly statistical. And there was the function of the Board of Trade, which was repeatedly referred to in the Fair Wage Committee, of advising all other Departments, especially those of the Army and Navy, upon questions of wages. They could not, therefore, on behalf of labour consent for a moment to pass this Resolution without thinking out all these questions, and without seeing exactly where they were going. He could not but think that the result of trying to make the Board of Trade a more purely commercial Department must be to force these questions out of the Board of Trade, or the Labour Department of the Board of Trade, into the Home Office, and if that were done, the Home Office would become virtually a Ministry of Labour and Police. The Local Government Board, which year by year had become more and more the legatee of the Home Office, would also be affected, and would have to deal with such questions as the housing of the working classes in London, now at the Home Office.
  In common with the seconder of the Resolution, he thought that the Government would have to oppose the Motion. He agreed with the seconder of the Resolution on two large points, although these were not struck at in the terms of the Resolution. They ought to equalise the salaries and the positions of the clerks in the Government Departments. He did not attach so much importance to the salaries of the heads of the Government Departments. Mr. Gladstone used to argue that there were numerous advantages in the variety of the salaries of the heads of the Departments. He also agreed with the mover of the Resolution in a point which, though not perhaps material, was of importance

  1317
  from a sentimental view, viz., that there was an advantage in getting rid of the cumbrous form of Boards which were not real Boards. In making a change of name they might seem to substitute real personal responsibility for an imaginary collective responsibility. Of course those Boards never met; they never had met, and they were carried on deliberately as a sham. If they considered the great difficulties of treating this question from the point of view of capital on one hand, and labour on the other, it was clear that the Resolution, as it stood on the Paper, could not be adopted, and that it was for the Government, which alone could deal with the subject with due responsibility and full knowledge of facts, to deal with the whole question and themselves make a proposal to the House of Commons.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, and add the words ' with a view to administrative efficiency, this House calls on His Majesty's Government to undertake a redistribution of duties between the various Government Departments concerned, with due regard to the interests of labour.' (Sir Charles Dilke.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I do not want to refer so much to what has been desired by Chambers of Commerce so frequently, and I would rather say that I think there is a prevalent general feeling that the commerce and industry of this country are not only matters of paramount importance, but that they deserve a great deal more consideration and attention than they have hitherto received. That, I think, is the general feeling, and it is believed, I think with some force, that if a Minister of Commerce possessing the higher official status which must ensure his presence in the Cabinet at all times—if a Minister of that class is appointed, those interests will necessarily command more constant observation and attention than has been the case in the past. I would also say that the same observations apply to the Department. If there be a Department, as in agriculture and education, specially devoted to the commerce and industry of the country, I
  1318
  think a lever will be brought to bear upon commercial questions, which has, to some extent, hitherto been wanting, I would add that all this would carry with it proper responsibility on the part of the Minister and the Department, occupying a very prominent position, would be amenable from that position to this House. In that way I think we shall get what is desired, namely, a real Intelligence Department for commerce and industry in this country—constantly observant, not aggressive, but, at the same time, desirous of rendering all possible help to traders in all parts of the world, and capable of giving attention to those commercial and industrial problems which are most complex and pressing, and which lie at the root of the prosperity of the nations of the world.
  As to the history of the Board of Trade, it has been spoken of as obsolete, but I venture to call it an anachronism and a fiction, because there is no Board, and if we analyse the composition of the Board it appears ridiculous. The present Board includes the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Speaker of the House of Commons, and what is still more singular, the Speaker of the Irish House of Commons. While we speak of the Board as possessing this character, it is a singular historical circumstance that archbishops have not only intervened in matters of education but within 100 years an Archbishop of Canterbury has attended the Board of Trade to emphasise the importance of protecting the trade of Manchester, which points to the obsolete character of the Board and of such an intervention. The fact remains that, while agriculture and education and other Departments have all been formed, the greatest commercial nation of the world has not a Department of Commerce in the broadest and most practical sense, and that is a defect, as we think, in the constitution of our commercial system which we are anxious to amend. Of course, upon a matter of this sort, my right hon. friend opposite speaks with the highest authority. I am not going to say that the Resolution proposes anything exactly as one would wish it, and I should myself take exception to some portion of it.

  1319
  Anything of this sort, of course, must be preceded by the fullest inquiry, and all the Resolution proposes, and all we ask, is that the time has come when this inquiry should be held.
  We quite admit the relevancy of all these industrial and other problems which my right hon. friend has referred to. While the opinion of Chambers of Commerce and of the commercial world is practically unanimous, they are sufficiently practical people to see that a great change of this sort cannot be made without taking into account the many questions involved, and they ask for a tribunal which shall look at all sides of the question. With regard to what my right hon. friend has said, I may say that what I think we do require is a better allocation of the duties of Ministers. What we have done for education we want to do for commerce—we want more reorganisation, more co-ordination, and less overlapping of duties, and a greater concentration of the commercial work of the Department.
  Let me for the moment ask, what is the wonderful medley with which the Board of Trade deals? It deals with shipping and with fisheries, and why the fisheries should be transplanted into the Board of Agriculture is one of the questions which, I think, will have to be inquired into. The Board of Trade also has to look after the harbours, labour and industrial arbitrations, railways, electric lighting, and many other matters, and yet the status of the President of the Board of Trade is distinctly inferior to that of a Secretary of State. We think that if these duties are so various, so exacting, and so responsible in these days amid the rivalries of commerce, that status becomes an important question, and a Minister of Commerce for this country should have the highest status that can be given to him in comparison with other Ministers. Let me direct attention for a moment to the extraordinary complexity of the duties, the commercial duties even, which are pressed upon the Board of Trade at the present time. Practically the Board of Trade is restricted to internal commerce, and yet our foreign over-sea commerce, of the value of something like
  1320
  £1,000,000,000 a year, is practically in the hands of some other Department. Surely we must view our trade as a whole, for the complement of our home and foreign trade are the complement of each other, and no true view of the commercial position of the country can be taken unless both are viewed from a similar standpoint. Therefore, I say there should be some allocation of the duties of foreign commerce through our Consuls.
  As my right hon. friend has said, we have often had this matter before us, but nevertheless, it is a great anomaly that you should have the Board of Trade or Commerce as at present constituted, and that all the over sea work should be done by another Department. I have the honour to be a member of the Commercial Intelligence Department of the Board of Trade, and there I see the complexity of the distribution of our commercial intelligence. We have there represented the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office, which plays an important part owing to its consular and other duties. The India Office and the Colonial Office are also represented, and I venture to say that if our Consular work was under the direction of a distinctly Commercial and Trade Department we should very quickly have a great alteration in many of the Consular reports, some of which are excellent, but the tone of nearly all of them would be materially altered. If we compare the work of our Consuls with the commercial reports furnished by the representatives of the United States and the rapidity with which they produce special and interim reports, we should find that our Consuls are not within the bounds of comparison, and if you had a Department of Commerce the whole tone of those reports would be altered and you would have a commercial aspect given to your Consular reports. Again, with regard to the appointment of Consuls, I think the same change would manifest itself. Instead of being of a more diplomatic character I think those representing us would be more commercial, and though I quite agree with the demand for a commercial head, that is a personal question which it is unnecessary to discuss and many of those who have not been commercial men have admirably ad-

  1321
  ministered the trade affairs of this country. I venture to say that the alteration I suggest would give a commercial aspect to a commercial question, and would give us a more true representation of the commercial feeling of the country.
  This is not, I submit, a mere question of names, for I believe it to have a much more vital significance. I think that it is not a question of a new Ministry either, but it is rather the increase of some duties of the Minister of Commerce or the President of the Board of Trade, and a very considerable limitation of the duties of other Ministers. It is more a matter of the allocation of duties, and it is a very good thing for re-organisation, and for these reasons I venture to think there is real ground for the inquiries which, I hope, may precede the change. My right hon. friend has taxed my hon. friends who have previously spoken, with rather exceeding the true state of things with regard to other countries. I very respectfully venture to differ from my right hon. friend. In Germany there is a distinct Ministry of Commerce, though I admit it is included under the fourth Department of the Home Office. Nevertheless it is a distinctly commercial headship. There is also a Ministry of Commerce in Prussia. If any one doubts that our great commercial rival, Germany, has not organised her commercial departments, both of the State and also of her voluntary associations, on a very different basis to that which we have adopted in this country—if any one supposes that for a moment, they are vastly mistaken. I know that in relation to many trade matters, the German Emperor himself has acted as his own commercial Minister in America, showing that His Majesty takes the greatest interest in the commercial development of Germany. I submit that in France there is a distinct Ministry of Commerce. It is quite true that in France some questions are otherwise dealt with, but the trade organisation there is adapted in the highest degree—although it is not always successful—to bring official action into touch with trade matters, and sometimes this action is very successful.
  In the case of the United States my hon. friend has quite correctly stated that a similar suggestion to this was only made
  1322
  very recently, but practically it was at once carried out, and in the United States the organisation for trade purposes and the assistance given by the Government is manifest in almost every Department. Let us take the instance of one of our colonies which some of us have recently visited. There the commercial development is almost beyond belief—I am referring to Canada. In almost every moderate sized town in Canada there are what they call Boards of Trade, and it is the one country which has especially a Ministry of Commerce devoted solely to the purpose of always promoting in every form the commercial development of the country. We want to put that great vital force behind the commerce of our own country; that force should be omnipresent, not interfering, always available and constantly helping the trader in new fields and markets. We fully recognise that there must be commercial development entirely independent of the Government; this is the very mainspring of a great commerce, but when other nations are helping their people, and Ministries of Commerce devoting large funds, great organisations, and the highest ministerial ability to the help of their traders, then I say we want something behind the people of this country to do the. same thing. We respectfully submit to the House that whatever may be thought of the Resolution there is something underlying this question which needs alteration, and certainly organisation, and an inquiry may present to the House the means of making a great reform and a new departure in the interests of the commerce of our country.
  *MR. BELLsaid the Resolution which had been moved by the hon. Member and the Amendment which had been moved by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean were both proposals which he was inclined to support. The Motion asked for an inquiry to be held with a view of distributing the work amongst the various Departments of the Board of Trade, and the Amendment asked that there should be a re-distribution of the work amongst the various Government Departments. He thought there were several reasons which might be advanced

  1323
  in support of the Amendment, and he for one felt that there were some things at any rate in connection with the Board of Trade Department that might very reasonably be transferred to other Departments. He referred more particularly to the legislation introduced during recent years giving the Board of Trade additional work on the same lines as the work administered by the Home Office, and it would then practically resolve itself into a question of what would the Minister be called at the head of the Board of Trade. It seemed to him to be a question more of a title or name than of anything else. Whether the right hon. Gentleman who now presided over the Board of Trade should hold the office of Minister of Commerce, or whether some other gentleman would replace him was a question to be hereafter decided. Without assuming for a moment that the same right hon. Gentleman would not retain the position at the Board of Trade, or whether he would be called the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister of Commerce, he believed the right hon. Gentleman who now held that position was quite competent and able to do the work under either title. Of course the question of the salary of the President of the Board of Trade, if he were called the Minister of Commerce, was to his mind a very small matter indeed. He could scarcely believe that there was any one Member of that House who would, even under the present circumstances, and with his present title, object to the salary of the President of the Board of Trade being raised to a proper sum. He held that the President of the Board of Trade was under paid as compared with the Ministers of other Departments, and one of the things which had rather occurred to him as being unfair was, that when they had to raise some question about the administration of the Board of Trade they were obliged to move a reduction of his salary in order to bring about a discussion, instead of moving that his salary be raised.
  He had on many occasions felt that he should like to get more work out of the Board of Trade, and in order to bring that before the House he thought it was a very wrong way of going about it to have to move that the right hon.
  1324
  Gentleman's salary be reduced in order to get more work out of him. He should be very sorry to know that there was anyone amongst the class whom he represented who would be against even the terms of this Resolution, and no man, be he a commercial man or a labourer, would put anything in the way of increasing the commerce or trade of this country. If they could assist and foster that trade and commerce in any way, it was the duty of them all to do everything they could in that direction. He had listened with very much attention to what was said by the hon. Member for Islington. He had received communications from the Board of Trade on many occasions, and they had always commenced by saying "I am requested by the Board of Trade to say so and so." Now he understood that Mr. Speaker was one of the members of the Board of Trade, it might perhaps be an advantage in the future to those whom he represented and for whom he sometimes required some attention, that he might perhaps be able to induce Mr. Speaker, as one of the Members of the Board, to use his influence in that direction. He supposed that the Archbishop of Canterbury did not give very much attention to the work of the Board of Trade, and he would not be within his reach for this purpose so much as Mr. Speaker. However, the time had undoubtedly arrived when something should be done in this direction, and he had been asked by the Chambers of Commerce in the borough he had the honour to represent to give his support to this Motion, and he had risen for the purpose of saying these few words in regard to this Resolution. At the same time he should like, if possible, to support the Amendment which, he thought, was equally agreeable to those who supported the Motion.
  MR. RANDLESsaid it was of the greatest importance that they should have their various Departments in good order, but unless they had their commercial position maintained and secured, the increased population and the vastly increased charges which they as a nation were undertaking, would have but little

  1325
  foundation on which to rest. He thought when the Associated Chambers of Commerce that day gave attention to this subject, they were dealing with the question with all the emphasis which they could place upon it, and this question would receive emphasis from a corresponding body of persons representing the labouring or the working classes, had they also been assembled in congress, because he believed that the, interests of the working classes were now being fully recognised by them as being bound up with our commercial and industrial prosperity, and it would be the case that greater attention would be paid to questions of this kind by the electorate in the future than had been the case hitherto. He thought that the time had come when some inquiry should be instituted to find out whether they, as a commercial nation, were properly represented, without having a commercial Department, with authority to deal, not only with questions of electric lighting and things of that kind, but also with wider commercial interests in which they were all so much engaged. He thought they ought to have a Department which would give particular attention to securing foreign trade. Upon this point he might instance the tin plate trade of America. When the United States Government made up its mind that the trade should be transferred from South Wales to the United States they set to work to secure the transfer, and one of the Departments was charged with that particular duty.
  Again, if a foreign Government like Russia determined to capture a particular market, say, for instance, the Persian, it at once laid itself out to do so, and appointed persons whose business it was to give effect to its policy. But in this country we had nothing corresponding to that, and the meaning of the Resolution was that we should have a Commander-in-Chief of commerce, who would keep in close touch with all commercial questions and would see, when any particular interest required backing up by the Government, that it received the necessary support. How that was to be accomplished was merely a matter of detail. What they wanted to secure was that the Government should take the matter in hand and institute an inquiry
  1326
  as to the best way of dealing with it. They wanted to concentrate the authority in the hands of a responsible Minister. He had no doubt that the President of the Board of Trade would hesitate to ask for an increase of staff and of salary, but it certainly was desirable that the responsibility should be placed on his shoulders, and that he should be given sufficient power and authority to enable him to carry out effectually the policy when once decided upon. If they gave him that power and called him, say, the Minister of Commerce and Industry, he might very well be assisted by representatives from each of the Departments concerned—the India, Colonial, and Foreign Offices—who should keep him informed on commercial matters in which they were interested and advise him as to what was desirable to be done. By doing so we should be able to maintain our supremacy as a commercial nation.
  We must not continue to rely on arrangements which served generations ago. It was comparatively easy when we were a manufacturing and industrial nation, as distinguished from agricultural countries, to maintain our supremacy in trade, All we then wanted was cheap labour Now, however, we were seeking, not so much cheap labour as more highly skilled labour. It was necessary also that we should have an efficient Intelligence Department, to which we could apply in case of difficulty. Such a difficulty, for instance, had arisen in regard to shipping matters. It was a noteworthy fact that a vast proportion of the iron and steel sent into India was despatched from continental ports and not from this country; yet India was our natural market, and it might be fairly asked why it was that we did not supply it. The reason might be found in the fact that owing to the action of shipping rings it cost from 2s. 6d to 5s. per ton more to ship this material from Liverpool than it did from Antwerp, and he believed that if we had a Minister of Commerce he would be able to deal with questions of that sort in an authoritative manner. He hoped and believed the Government would consent to take the action indicated in the Motion in the interests of our trade and commerce, and that they would direct an inquiry with a view to

  1327
  such a redistribution of responsibility as would render the office of real commercial advantage to the people of this country.
  MR. BRYCE: There are a number of difficult questions involved in this Motion which are not always sufficiently distinguished in the debates that take place upon this subject. There are questions of name and of substance. There is the question of redistributing the work done by different Departments, and of adding responsibilities to the Minister charged with looking after commercial matters. I will first deal with the question of the change in the name of the Department. It really does not make the slightest difference what you call it. The rose will not smell any sweeter in consequence. The Board of Trade is practically the Ministry of Commerce. The Minister is solely responsible and is entirely independent. There is nothing obsolete in the constitution of the Department. It has a number of most efficient permanent and Parliamentary secretaries, and if there are not sufficient heads of Departments, it is for the President to represent to the Treasury the necessity for increasing the number, and of having more salaries and more men. It is quite true that, owing to an historical accident, the President of the Board of Trade has never become a Secretary of State. Sixty years ago, when Mr. Gladstone was at the Board of Trade, it had practically nothing to do but to watch tariffs, and to advise the Government of the day in regard thereto. All the work the Board of Trade now does has been practically added by statute during the last sixty or seventy years. The duties of the Department are now extremely multifarious and heavy. I suppose there is no Department of the State which has to undertake so many different kinds of work. The Board of Trade is required to look after railways, shipping, fishery and harbour works, labour, electric lighting, tramways, bankruptcy, tariffs, and weights and measures; and when I point out also that it has to deal with industrial and commercial statistics, I do not think I hare even then exhausted the list of its duties.
  1328
  It is obvious, if you look at the work from the point of view of its importance, that the holder of the office is well entitled to be raised to the status of a Secretary of State. We had a debate on this subject five years ago, when Sir Henry Northcote, now the Governor-General of Bombay, brought forward a Motion upon it. On that occasion there was a general consensus of opinion that a good case was made out for putting the President of the Board of Trade on a level with Secretaries of State or the First Lord of the Admiralty. But that is not the most important part of the question. I do not think a Minister of Commerce would be able to do much more for commerce than the President of the Board of Trade now does. I do not think he would have any more influence in this House. These things depend, not on the office, but on personality, and on the amount of ability, energy, and activity put into the work. Still, considering the important part that commerce plays in our national life, it may well be said that the Minister of Commerce ought to hold as high a position as a Secretary of State.
  But let us come to what is really a most important question, and it is the question of the readjustment of the work done in these Departments, Three different suggestions have been made. One, put forward by the mover of the Amendment, was that part of the work now discharged by the Board of Trade should be transferred to the Home Office; a second was that part of the work now done by the Foreign Office should, in future, be entrusted to the Board of Trade; and a third was that a new Minister should be created. With regard to the suggestion that matters relating to labour should go to the Home Office, I see two difficulties in the way of that course being adopted. In the first place, the Home Office is; already heavily worked; it has quite as much work as one Minister can very well discharge. The second difficulty is this, (hat much of the work which would be carried over under that suggestion would be concerned with railway servants and merchant seamen. The Board of Trade has a great deal to do with railway matters. It has to deal

  1329
  with the question of rates; it has to look after the inspection of railroads: and it has to hold inquiries into accidents: and if you are going to transfer to another body the duty of dealing with such questions as the hours of labour, I think it is likely to lead to much confusion and trouble. The same argument applies to merchant shipping. It would still he necessary to leave many matters affecting merchant shipping in the hands of the Board of Trade, and it would be very inconvenient to carry over to the Home Office that part of the duty which relates to the protection of sailors. I think, therefore, on the balance of consideration, it will probably be found better to keep these two departments of labour work with the Board of Trade. Let me say, however, that my experience at the Board of Trade was that there was no serious practical difficulty arising from the fact that some of these labour duties were not in its hands. I know that was the opinion of my right hon. friend the late Home Secretary. We frequently had occasion to consult and discuss, we endeavoured to agree to work on the same lines and principles, and, as I say, no practical difficulty was caused by the fact that part of the work was in his hands and part in mine.
  I now come to another point. The hon. Member for South Islington has suggested that certain work which is done under the direction of the Foreign Office should he transferred to the Board of Trade. In that case, surely, it would be necessary to transfer to the same Department the appointment of Consuls. These Consuls have very often to discharge diplomatic duties, and it would be most inconvenient that duties of such a nature, which are part of the settled policy of this country, should be carried out under the direction of any Department except that which is generally responsible for diplomatic work—viz. the Foreign Office. I should like to say, however, that the Foreign Office is very much to be blamed for not taking more pains to secure the appointment of men with commercial knowledge and skill to the office of Consul. Occasions have frequently arisen
  1330
  in which appointments to these Consular posts have been made without any regard being had to the commercial work to be performed. It is suggested that we should create a new Ministry of Labour, and I can quite understand that being asked for. But there are great objections to increasing more than is absolutely necessary the number of Departments, because one of the first results of such an increase is that those who are interested in a new Department demand that the holder of it shall have a seat in the Cabinet. I recollect what occurred with regard to the Scottish Office in 1884-5. We then appointed a Secretary for Scotland, and the very first thing that was asked for was that he should have a seat in the Cabinet. Another objection to these increases of Departments is that we do not get Cabinet Government in the old sense of the word when a Cabinet becomes too large. I hope, therefore, the House will pause before it presses for the creation of more offices than are absolutely necessary.
  I come lastly to a question which is really in the minds of most hon. Members who have supported this Motion, and is certainly in the minds of the Chambers of Commerce, and that is the idea that the Government should do more for commerce than it does at present. There is but one opinion as to the importance of the interests of trade being carefully looked after by a Government Department, but I think it is doubtful whether a Minister of Commerce could do more for commerce than is now being done by the Board of Trade' I would ask hon. Members what it is they think the Government can do for commerce which it does not now do? I am persuaded that no Government would refuse to do anything for commerce which commercial men want. But will hon. Gentlemen tell us what they do want? I have heard one practical illustration given this evening. The hon. Member who last spoke pointed out what was done by the Government of the United States when they determined to domesticate the; inplate industry. But when they did; hat they had no Minister of Commerce. What was done was done, not by a

  1331
  Minister of Commerce, but by the action of a Committee of Congress, and it was accomplished by imposing practically prohibitive tariffs on tinplates imported from this country. If the hon. Member wishes that to be done let him say so. That, however, is a question of policy which has nothing whatever to do with the establishment of a Ministry of Commerce.
  MR. RANDLES: The point I wished to make was that the Government which dealt with that question did succeed in obtaining certain commercial results. I did not say whether the methods adopted were right or wrong. I only pointed out that the Government charged itself with the duty, and I want our Government to charge itself with like duties. I leave it to say how it will accomplish the object we have in view.
  MR. BRYCE: It was not an improvement in the sense of administration; it was the Legislature, and this Legislature could, if it pleased, impose a particular trade duty on some foreign product, and perhaps succeed in domesticating that product in this country. But that is not a matter for the Government; it is a matter for the Legislature. What is really wanted by the hon. Member, and by many commercial men who urge this new policy, is legislation; that is to say, they want new powers conferred on the Board of Trade. It would be possible for this House to give the Board of Trade further powers for dealing with railway rates. Why is that not done? Because the House has felt that the railway dividends are not so large as to bear diminution, and also because the railway interest is so very strong. It is not due to any laxity on the part of the Board of
  1332
  Trade; in most cases what is wanted is legislation. The hon. Member for South Islington says we ought to do all we can to help our merchants by collecting and diffusing information. Something has been lately done in that direction by the creation of an Intelligence Department, and I hope that more will be done. No President of the Board of Trade or Minister of Commerce would deserve to hold his position if he did not give his constant and cordial attention to any practical suggestions of this kind, either from Chambers of Commerce or from individual traders.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid the work of the Intelligence Department was on a very small scale, both pecuniarily and otherwise.
  MR. BRYCE: But it is a step in the right direction, and no doubt my right hon. friend will be glad to develop it. I believe it may be more fully developed by making fuller use of the Consuls, and by sending out commercial Attaches, travellers or visitors to report on industries in foreign countries and the openings for British trade. That is being done already, and it will be done on a still larger scale. If the House or the Chambers of Commerce wish for more to be done in this direction it is for them to particularise their wishes, instead of making general complaints with which it is difficult to deal. I entirely agree with the spirit of the Motion, but should have thought an inquiry by a Committee was not needed—that it would have been perfectly possible for the Government themselves, having the materials at their disposal, to make the necessary inquiry and prepare a scheme.

  1333
  If the Government think an inquiry by a Committee will be more complete, or will give more satisfaction, I do not think there will be any difference of opinion in the House on the point. In one way or another it is clear that the House desires to see the Board of Trade receive the full status of a Secretaryship of State, and an inquiry made as to whether any redistribution of duties can usefully be effected. I hope therefore the Government will be able to give an answer, at any rate favourable in spirit, to the request which has been addressed to them.
  *MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid the general feeling was that the Board of Trade had imposed upon it a herculean task in having to deal with the commerce of this country. In the course of the debate, however, remarks had been made which would not further the desired improvement. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean had seemed to imply that because improvement was required in all Departments one Department in particular should not be dealt with.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I said that this Department could not be dealt with, for reasons which I gave, without involving changes in one, if not two, others.
  *MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRcontended that improvement was necessary in this particular Department above all others, and if an inquiry could be instituted for the purpose of setting our House in order it would do a great amount of good. The time allocated to the debate was so limited that it was impossible to go into the details of the case for the
  1334
  Motion; all that could he done was merely to glance at the disabilities under which this country suffered. Only recently the Patent Laws had been readjusted, while bankruptcy legislation was still as defective as it could be. Bankrupts were on the increase, and many bankruptcies resulted in greater riches to the bankrupt. That our mercantile marine was slipping away from us was shown by the recent purchase of the Leyland Line and the creation of the Morgan Combine. With a view to showing the disabilities under which the home producer suffered by the advantages given to exporters from other countries, the hon. Member quoted railway and shipping rates, from which it appeared that goods could be carried from New York to Sydney for 15s. per ton, while from Liverpool in the same vessels the rate was 40s. per ton. As to the Irish railway rates, if a man wished to send a piano inland it was often better for him to send it first to New York or Liverpool, and have it re-shipped from there.
  Our Consuls abroad ought to be the ears and eyes of Great Britain, but they were nothing of the kind. This was partly due to the fact that a very large proportion of them were foreigners, while their rate of pay came out at £19 per head, which was not sufficient to secure reliable information. Our commercial attache at Paris had to report not only on Paris but on the whole of France, with Belgium and Switzerland thrown in. Similarly the commercial attache at Berlin had to deal with Germany, Sweden, Holland, and Norway; while the one at Vienna was responsible for Hungary, Austria, Greece, and Italy. If this country desired to know what was going on

  1335
  abroad the number of commercial attaches and agents would have to be increased. The Patent Laws had recently been improved, but he found that out of £196,000 taken in fees no less than £100,000 profit was made, whereas in America out of £246,000 only £20,000 profit was made, the balance being used to protect the inventors and put them on a bettor footing. It was not his view that a new Department should be created. Whether the Chief of the Department was called the President of the Board of Trade or Minister of Commerce was immaterial. What was wanted was an inquiry to see what could be done to improve the work connected with the commerce of the country. At present trade was hampered, and our commerce was fast disappearing. Other countries were securing our trade, not only in neutral markets but in our colonies. He hoped, therefore, the Government would grant the inquiry, so that the country might see that the questions of commercial adminstration were receiving attention, and that they might hope for a reform at an early date.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): I do not propose to speak at any length, but before the debate closes the House will expect to hear in what light the Government view this proposal, and the action they are prepared to take in the matter. This is by no means a new matter; it has been constantly before the House of Commons. Year after year Motions of a similar character have been passed by Chambers of Commerce, and I think there can be no doubt whatever that commercial and public feeling generally tends very distinctly in the direction suggested by the Resolution. But while there is this general feeling that the
  1336
  status of the Board of Trade ought to be raised, I am afraid that too great expectations are being indulged in as to the results such a change would carry with it. No doubt the Board of Trade as at present constituted cannot well be defended on ordinary business lines. It was constituted a great many years ago, when the trade of this country was much less than at present; and while, on the whole, it has no doubt performed exceedingly well the work for which it was called into being, no one would contemplate for a moment instituting a Department of this kind to take charge of the industry and trade of the country if they did not find it to their hand. But although it is an anomaly, and in some respects an absurdity, as at present constituted, I do not think the efficiency of the Board of Trade for its work is at all impaired by the fact that it is a Board and not a Secretaryship of State. The President of the Board of Trade is a responsible Minister, and just as much responsible to Parliament for the work done by the Board of Trade as any other Minister whose Department is differently constituted. I think that there is a great deal to be said for reforming the constitution of the Board of Trade in the way desired; but, as I have said, I rather fear that undue expectations are entertained as to what the result of such a reform will be. Hon. Gentlemen seem to think that shipping rings will at once be abolished, that railway rates will be at once reduced to a proper level, and that the Consular Service will be at once remodelled in the way the commercial community desire. All these things are just as capable of reform under the existing state of things as they would be under a reformed Board of Trade

  1337
  called a Ministry of Commerce. As the right hon. Member for Aberdeen has said, these are matters which Parliament ought to take in hand if we are to have any great reform in regard to them. They must be done by legislative and not by departmental action.
  I should like to say a word with reference to the Consular service, to which many hon. Members referred. I do not know whether it is known to the House that a Committee is at present sitting in order to see whether reforms cannot be made in the manner of appointing Consuls, with a view to obtaining the services of men who are more familiar with commercial matters than many of our present Consuls are. Of course we must not lose sight of the fact that our Consuls perform two different kinds of duties. They have to attend to commercial matters, and their services must always be available with regard to diplomatic matters; and when it is suggested that this matter ought to be taken out of the hands of the Foreign Office and placed entirely in the hands of the Board of Trade I venture to think that an arrangement of that kind would seriously hamper the diplomatic duties of our Consuls, and I am rather afraid that the advantage which the commercial community think would be derived by the appointment of Consuls by the Board of Trade would be very dearly purchased. It is not my purpose to enter minutely into the various matters which have been discussed; but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that public feeling has grown, and is growing, in connection with this matter; and although the mere change from the President of the Board of Trade to a Minister holding the status of a Secretary
  1338
  of State would not in itself do as much as some people imagine, yet one cannot disguise from oneself that there is a belief, I think a well founded belief, that the influence of a Minister who occupies the position of a Secretary of State would be greater than that of the Minister who occupied the position of ['resident of the Board of Trade. I do not share that view; but I am quite certain that there is a feeling of that kind which we cannot ignore.
  We cannot, however, accept the Motion before the House, because it starts with the assumption that there is to be a Minister of Commerce and Industry, having the status of a principal Secretary of State. That is a matter which ought to be embraced in the inquiry. There is no doubt whatever, that there is considerable overlapping of work; and it is only right and proper that in considering this matter we should consider the redistribution of the work with a view to more effectual administration. 'I agree with a great deal that was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the, Forest of Dean. I think it would be a, great mistake to proceed as drastically as some people desire; but there is no doubt that the manner in which the work is distributed between the various Departments is one which might well undergo some change. But in considering that matter, it is quite impossible to confine our attention wholly So the Board of Trade. It is quite true that of late years the Board of Trade has had enormous responsibilities put upon it. So it is with the Local Government Board. For many years, there has hardly been a session in which some important extra duties have not been put upon the Local Government Board. The

  1339
  growth of its staff has been very great, and for a large number of purposes it has now become the Ministry of the Interior. Therefore, in considering the status of the Board of Trade, we must also consider the status of the Local Government Board; and in considering the distribution of work and also the position of the Ministers responsible, both at the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board, I agree that we should also consider the position of the staffs.
  I can speak from experience that the duties of the staff's at the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board are most admirably performed. I have now been in a considerable number of offices, and I can say with conviction and with absolute truth that no Departments of the State possess more highly trained and efficient officers that the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade. Therefore, in considering the position of these two offices, we must also consider the position of their officials. We are then agreed that there should be an inquiry, but I do not commit myself as to the nature of the inquiry. I do not think it desirable that it should be referred to a Committee of the House of Commons, as the Government ought to take some considerable responsibility in the matter and not devolve it on a Committee of the House. If the House will accept my undertaking that an inquiry shall be instituted both into the position of these Departments and into the distribution of their work, I am prepared to give it; and I will consider with my colleagues what the nature of the tribunal should be. In these circumstances, I hope that the movers of the Resolution and the Amendment will not press their Motions.
  *MR. HOULTsaid that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he also desired to withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  BANK HOLIDAYS (IRELAND) BILL, (In Committee.)
  MR. O'MARAsaid that at the request of the Attorney General for Ireland, he would postpone the Committee stage until next Tuesday, in order to enable the hon. Gentleman to ascertain whether any inconvenience would be caused to Irish bankers by the Bill. He did not anticipate that any inconvenience would arise, and he therefore hoped that on Tuesday next the Bill would be unopposed.
  The House adjourned at ten minutes before Twelve o'clock,
  In pursuance of Standing Order No. 1, "Sittings of the House," I hereby nominate—
  The Right Hon. Arthur Frederick Jeffreys,
  The Right Hon. Charles Beilby Stuart-Wortley,
  The Right Hon. Henry Hobhouse,
  Mr. John Edward Ellis, and
  Mr Edward Blake,
  to act during this session as temporary Chairmen of Committees when requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  WILLIAM COURT GULLY,
  Speaker.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—
Milford Docks [H.L.].
Indiarubber, Guttapercha, and Telegraph Works Company [H.L.].
Lima Railways [H.L.].
Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation [H.L.].
Lite Association of Scotland [H.L.].
And that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with—
Preston and Horwich Tramways.
Manchester Southern Tramways (Lancashire).
Manchester Southern Tramways (Cheshire).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRESTON AND HORWICH TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.
HAMILTON, MOTHERWELL, AND WISHAW TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.], WAKEFIELD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Presented, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
RICKMANSWORTH GAS BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Statistics of public elementary schools and training colleges, 1901–1902.

  GERMANY (NEW GENERAL CUSTOMS TARIFF).
  Translation of the New General Customs Tariff of Germany, with comparison, as far as possible, of the rates of Customs duty contained in the tariff with the rates at present in force on imports into Germany from the United Kindom (in continuation and completion of [C. 779.] of 1901).
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BANKRUPTCY COURTS (IRELAND).
  Returns of the official assignees of the Court of Bankruptcy, in Ireland, and the Local Courts, Belfast and Cork, for the year 1902.
  RAILWAY COMPANIES POWERS ACT 1864.
  Certificate of the Board of Trade authorising the Axminster and Lyme Regis Light Railway Company to raise additional capital.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  Annual Report on the state of the finances of the University of Aberdeen under the provisions of section 30 of the Act.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE APPOINTED.
  The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee.

  D. Bedford.

  E. Chesterfield.

  D. Marlborough.

  E. Jersey.

  D. Northumberland.

  E. Lauderdale.

  M. Lansdowne.

  E. Waldegrave.

  E. Derby.

  E. Cadogan.

  E. Denbigh.

  E. Howe.

  E. Amherst.

  L. Ribblesdale.

  E. Camperdown.

  L. Colchester.

  E. Dartrey.

  L. Poltimore.

  E. Lytton.

  L. Kintore.

  E. Carrington.

  (E. Kintore.)

  E. Crewe.

  L. Belper.

  V. Sidmouth.

  L. Brougham and Vaux.

  V. Knutsford.

  V. Ridley.

  L. Fermanagh. (E. Erne.)

  V. Colville of Culross.

  V. Churchill.

  L. Lamington.

  L. Zouche of Haryng-worth.

  L. Herries.

  L. Monkswell.

  L. Barnard.

  L. Newton.

  L. Balfour.

  L. Welby.

  L. Boyle. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  L. Ludlow.

  All Petitions relating to the Standing Orders which shall be presented during the present session referred to the Committee unless otherwise ordered.

  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That a Standing Committee be appointed for the consideration of such Public Bills as may be committed to it by the House.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOE THE STANDING COMMITTEE APPOINTED.
  The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

  E. Cowper.

  L. Boyle.

  E. Stanhope. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  E. Waldegrave.

  L. Ribblesdale.

  V. Colville of Culross.

  L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

  L. Balfour.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Select Committee appointed; the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President, and the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

D. Richmond.

E. Mount Edgcumbe

D. Northumberland.

E. Cawdor.

M. Cholmondeley.

E. Camperdown.

M. Ripon.

E. de Montalt.

M. Breadalbane.

E. Cranbrook.

E. Clarendon. (L. Chamberlain.)

E. Ancaster.

V. Hampden.

E. Chesterfield

V. Cross.

E. Waldegrave.

V. Peel.

E. Spencer.

V. Knutsford.

V. Colville of Culross

L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

V. Churchill.

L. Belper.

L. Windsor.

L. Rowton.

L. Balfour.

L. Tweedmouth.

L. Boyle. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

L. Monk Bretton.

L. Macnaghten.

L. Ribblesdale.

L. Welby.

L. Colchester.

L. Burghclere.

L. Rosebery. (E. Rosebery.)

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
The Lords following, viz.:

E. Chesterfield.

V. Colville of Culross.

E. Waldegrave.

L. Ribblesdale,

with the Chairman of Committees, were appointed a Committee to select and propose to the House the names of the Five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill.

OUT-DOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) BILL (No. 8).

  LIGHT LOCOMOTIVES (IRELAND) BILL (No. 9).
  Brought from the Commons and read 1a; and to be printed.
  House adjourned at half-past Four o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.