Sitting of 6 May 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Scarborough Gas Bill; as amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill, read the third time, and passed.
Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway Order Confirmation Bill, read the third time, and passed.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill, read a second time, and committed.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill, To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the Urban district of Athy and the rural district of Naas (No. 1), ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland and Mr. Wyndham.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill, To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the urban districts of Ballymena, Ballymoney, Banbridge, Bangor, Carrickfergus, Dromore, Holywood, Larne, Lisburn, Newry, Newtownards, Portrush, and Warrenpoint, and the Counties of Antrim, Armagh, and Down, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland and Mr. Wyndham.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill, To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the urban districts of Armagh, Clonakilty, Fermoy, Kinsale, Lurgan, Macroom, Midleton, Portadown, Queenstown, Skibbereen, and Youghal, the Counties of Armagh and Cork, and the Kildare Drainage District, ordered to be brought
1498
in by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland and Mr. Wyndham.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill, To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the urban district of Athy and the rural district of Naas (No. 1)." Presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. (Bill 181.)
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill, To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the urban districts of Ballymena, Ballymoney, Banbridge, Bangor, Carrickfergus, Dromore, Holywood, Larne, Lisburn, Newry, Newtownards, Portrush, and Warrenpoint, and the Counties of Antrim, Armagh, and Down. Presented and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. (Bill 182.)
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill, To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the urban districts of Armagh, Clonakilty, Fermoy, Kinsale, Lurgan, Macroom, Midleton, Portadown, Queenstown, Skibbereen, and Youghal, the Counties of Armagh and Cork, and the Kildare drainage district. Presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. (Bill 183.)

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP No. 4).
MR. KEARLEYreported from the Committee on Group No. 4 of Railway Bills, That the parties promoting the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill had stated that the evidence of Walter Tomes, of 6, The Grove, Hammersmith; and James Joseph Rayner Green, of 12, King Street, Hammersmith, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that their attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Walter Tomes and James Joseph Rayner Green do attend the said Committee to-morrow, at half-past eleven of the clock.
Ordered, that Walter Tomes and James Joseph Rayner Green do attend the Committee on Group No. 4 of Railway Bills to-morrow, at half-past eleven of the clock.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B.)
MR TENNANTreported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills, That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday next, at twelve o'clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Middlesbrough Corporation Bill. Reported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Stroud District and Cheltenham Tramways Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Elgin, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.

  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Newtown (No. 1); Oakengates; White Rose; Arral Griffin; Mardy; Tredegar; Pochin (No. 1); Blackwood; Whitworth (No. 2); Clyde; Longton (No. 1) Lodge; Sand-ford Hill, Longton; No. 1 Pit, Wheat-sheaf, Pendlebury; Newtown (No. 2); Bonds Main; Coalburn; Carluke; Leigh; Old Silkstone; Strafford Main (No. 2); Forth and Wilsontown; Church Lane, Dodworth; Grange Moor; Oldham; Wortley and Farnley; Wharncliffe Silk-stone (No. 2); Bunker's Hill Lodge; Goldenhill; Kidsgrove; Halmer End; Pittshill; Audley; Rookery, Audley; Brown Edge; Burnley and Sladderhill; Talke (two); Bucknall; Harriseahead; Foxley and Kenmure; Smallthorne; Ford Green; Jamage, Audley; Roundwood; Wet Earth and Day Eye; Alsager Bank; Clay Cross; Sheep-bridge (No. 1); Chesterfield; Cadzow; Gilbertfield; Llanbradach; Hill of Beath; Pleasley; Walton; Alma; Holmwood; Glasswell; Lepton; Bretby; Granville;
  1500
  and, Nadin and Company's Collieries; to lie upon the Table.

  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Colchester; and, Todmorden; to lie upon the Table.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Fetteresso; Baldernock; and, Logie; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Elgin, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Elgin, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Two Petitions from Eccles, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMEND MENT BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: from Dunfermline; Cardross; Elgin; and Car noustie; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMEND MENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Bridgeton; Haddington; and Perth; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Stirling, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
  Petition from St. Pancras, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Reading, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Murton Colliery; Lea and Holloway; Halifax; Siddal; Dewsbury; Rishton; and Nether-thong; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Aberdeen; Leith; and Dundee; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
  Petitions from Todmorden, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Stockross; and Tongham; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
  Petition from Hamilton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADES DISPUTES BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Newtown (No. 1); Oakengates; White Rose; Arral Griffin; Mardy; Tredegar; Pochin (No. 1); Blackwood; Whitworth (No. 2); Clyde; Longton (No. 1) Lodge; Sandford Hill, Longton; No. 1 Pit, Wheatsheaf, Pendlebury; Newton (No. 2); Bonds Main; Coalburn; Carluke; Leigh; Old Silk-stone; Strafford Main (No. 2); Forth and Wilsontown; Church Lane, Dodworth; Grange Moor; Oldham; Wortley and Farnley; Wharncliffe Silkstone (No. 2); Bunker's Hill Lodge; Goldenhill; Kids-grove; HalmerEnd; Pittshill; Audley; Rookery, Audley; Brown Edge; Burnley and Sladderhill; Talke; Buck-nail; Harriseahead; Foxley and Kenmure; Smallthorne; Ford Green; Jamage, Audley; Clay Cross; Sheepbridge (No. 1); Chesterfield; Pleasley; Gilbertfield; Cadzow; Llanbach; Hill of Beath; Lepton; Holmwood; Walton; Glaswell; Bretby; Nadin and Company's; Round-wood; Agecroft; Fenton Lodge; Pen-coed; Middleton; and Granville Collieries: to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  RAILWAY RETURNS (PRELIMINARY STATEMENT).
  Copy presented, of Return relating to the railways of the United Kingdom for the year 1902 (Preliminary Statement) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW CHILDREN (COTTAGE HOMES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 16th December, 1902; Sir Walter Foster]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 145).
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Copy ordered, of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Copy ordered, of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill.—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No 6.) BILL.
  Copy ordered, of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill.—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Status of Store housemen in Portsmouth Dockyard.
  MR.KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to give a reply to the communication received by his Department during July, 1901, from the storehousemen and storehouse labourers at Portsmouth Docks.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) I have nothing to add as yet to the reply given on this subject to the hon. Member for Portsmouth on the 22nd April?†, but the proposals for the re-organisation of the storehouse staff are in a forward state.

  Brussels Sugar Convention—Invert Sugar.
  MR. LOUGH (Islington, W): Toask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it will be necessary, under the provisions of
  † See page 109.

  1503
  the Brussels Sugar Convention, to place the manufactories of invert sugar in this country in bond.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The answer is in the negative.

  Exchequer Contributions to Ireland.
  SIR EDWAED STRACHEY (Somersetshire, E.): To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount in the last financial year contributed out of the Imperial Exchequer to Ireland for police, Congested Districts Board, railways and tramways, and for other grants-in-aid of local taxation in Ireland; and what would have been the amount so contributed if it had been calculated on Ireland's taxable capacity, giving in each case the amounts separately.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) I beg leave to refer the hon. Member to House of Commons Paper No 256, of 1902, which gives full particulars of the Exchequer issues for Irish services in the year 1901–2, the latest year for which the information is yet available. I cannot undertake to say what would have been the issues for any of these services in that year if they had been calculated on Ireland's taxable capacity.

  Water Supply of Entebbe, Uganda.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is aware that the town of Entebbe, the administrative capital of the Uganda Protectorate, has no water supply other than water carried by porters from the lake, and that this water is contaminated by sewage; whether the local medical officers have made any recommendations on this subject; and if so, whether their recommendations will be carried into effect.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The water supply at Entebbe is receiving the attentive consideration of the Commissioner and his medical advisers. Suggestions have been made for bringing the water in pipes from some distance out in the lake and for digging wells, but hitherto the reports we have received upon the quality of the water have not been unfavourable. The local authorities
  1504
  have a free hand within reasonable limits, and are alive to the importance of the question.

  Native and European Quarters at Entebbe.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that huts have recently been built at Entebbe for a number of natives belonging to the Uganda Marine, and their families, in close proximity to the houses of Europeans; and whether, with the view to combating the spread of malaria, the Foreign Office will direct the removal of these huts to another site.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The question of the situation of the native settlements at Entebbe is receiving the careful attention of the Commissioner and the principal medical officer, who are in the best position to judge what can be done, and have a free hand in the matter.

  Duties of Outdoor Postmen at Cork.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state what was the date of the last general revision of the duties of the outdoor postmen at Cork, and at what intervals revisions usually take place; so a revision now proceeding; and if so, when is it expected to become operative.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) A scheme for the revision of the outdoor force at Cork is now under consideration; the last revision took place in 1894, and a fresh revision should have been undertaken earlier. I had drawn attention to the oversight before this notice appeared upon the Paper.

  Indian Railway Service.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Mr. Hodson, Officiating Secretary to the Government of India in the Railway Department, presided over the railway conference at Delhi regarding the increased employment of Europeans in the Indian State Railways, and will he state whether this conference was held with the sanction of the Secretary of State;

  1505
  and whether he will take steps to prevent any race preference being shown as regards employment in the Indian railway service.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The Conference met to discuss certain representations received from the Anglo-Indian Association as to the possible employment of Eurasians on Indian railways. I have no information as to who may have presided at the meeting. The Government of India have informed me that the resolutions of the Conference were referred to the railway managers, and that no action by them for the present is contemplated.

  Military Courts-Martial.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of Court-martial proceedings which in the years 1900, 1901, and 1902 respectively were submitted to the Judge Advocate-General's Department in London; in how many cases in each year findings were quashed; and in how many cases in which soldiers were sentenced the punishment or part of it had been served before the findings were quashed, or before a remission of the whole or part of the sentence.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The number of Courts-martial received in the Judge Advocate-General's office, and of convictions wholly quashed, were as follows:—1900, 17,711 Courts-martial, 47 quashed; 1901, 19,349 Courts-martial, 67 quashed; 1902, 14,732 Courts-martial, 47 quashed. In all cases where a sentence of imprisonment had been confirmed and then ultimately quashed by the Judge Advocate-General a certain, though never very great, portion of the sentence had necessarily been served. The cases in which sentences were quashed were, in almost all cases, due to some want of legality in the procedure.

  Recognition of Services of Militia Officers in South Africa.
  MR. YERBURGH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any of the recommendations of the commanding officers of Militia battalions that went to South Africa in 1901 have been favourably considered; and whether
  1506
  the services of these commanding officers have received any recognition.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The reply is in the affirmative. Three commanding officers received rewards, and in all but one of the units which went out during 1901 officers or men received rewards. Six units which went out in December 1901 were placed in the same category as those which went out in 1902, the conditions being the same.

  South African War—Rewards and Promotions.
  MR. YERBURGH: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what number of officers and men served in South Africa in the Regular forces, in the Militia (including officers serving with, and Militia Reserve drafted to, Regular units), in the Yeomanry, in the Volunteers, and in the Irregular forces, respectively; and what were the number of promotions and rewards conferred upon each force.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I doubt if it would be to the public advantage to compile such a table as is proposed. In order to give a just comparison, the distribution of these forces in South Africa and their relative exposure to war risks would have to be estimated, those circumstances having largely influenced the recommendations of the Commander-in-Chief.

  Employment of Foreigners by Transvaal Government.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN (Wolverhampton, W.): To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the preference given to foreigner s for employment by Government in the Transvaal, and to the fact that during the last few months seven Germans and other foreigners have been appointed in the Surveyor-General's Department; and if so, whether he will use his influence to obtain, if not preference, at least equality of treatment for British subjects in such appointments for the future.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) There is no foundation for the statement that preference is given to foreigners. Only one official of German origin is

  1507
  employed in the Surveyor-General's Department, and he is a naturalised British subject of good qualifications. It is not intended to employ other than British subjects in the Government service of the Transvaal.

  Midwives Board.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Midwives Board, appointed under the provisions of the Midwives Act which came into force on 1st April, has held any meetings since that date; and, if so, when the minutes of such meetings will be issued for information.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Midwives Board has met several times since the 1st of April for the purpose, among other things, of framing rules under the third section of the Act. These rules when approved by the Privy Council will be published, but the minutes of the Board's meetings are for the exclusive information of the Board.

  Preservation of Historic Buildings
  MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.): To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the proposals to erect a building in a modern style close to Shakespeare's birthplace house at Stratford-on-Avon, he will consider the advisability of appointing a committee to inquire into the propriety of establishing a national trust for the consecration of buildings of historical or biographical interest within the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I sympathise with the hon. Member in what I take to be the hon. Member's object, but I am not clear as to the methods by which he proposes to carry it out nor as to the precise meaning he attaches to the word "consecration." If this is to include purchase, compulsory or otherwise, by the State of all buildings now in private ownership which are of historical or biographical interest, the scheme seems to be impracticable. If it falls short of this it will hardly be efficacious.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    New Naval Base on the Forth—Garden Cities.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, in connection with the proposed Naval base north of the Forth, it is intended to acquire sufficient land for the erection of dwellings for the officers and workpeople; and whether the opportunity can be taken to build the new town on scientific principles according to the plans, in Mr. Howard's work on Garden Cities.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast,. W.): Until the Naval Establishments at Rosyth are laid out, it is not possible to say how much land will be available for residential dwellings. The suggestion contained in the latter part of the Question will then be considered.

    West India Dock—Admiralty Stationery Store Staff.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that on the occasion of a first-class warehouseman, who was in charge of the Admiralty stationery store at the West India Dock Naval Department, being transferred to a foreign station, a labourer with only nine months' service was placed in charge of the store, whilst the claims of men with from three to-seven years' service were overlooked, and whether, seeing that as a consequence a second class store houseman with ten years' service has resigned, he will make inquiry into the claims of the men passed over.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. Member's Question appears to be based on inaccurate information. The arrangement referred to is a purely temporary one made pending the arrival of a store houseman from a foreign station, and the statement that the labourer placed in charge of the store has only nine months' service is incorrect. The only store-houseman who has recently retired was already considerably beyond the ordinary age for retirement, and was, moreover, in temporary charge of the store at the, date of his ceasing duty.

    Obsolete War Ships.
    SIR CHRISTOPHER FURNESS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the stipulation in the disposal of obsolete war ships that the vessels should be broken up in the United Kingdom is abrogated in the case of the sales of vessels to take place on the 13th at Devonport.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The reply to the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative, but the sale will be subject to conditions which will prevent any use being made of these ships, and will ensure their being broken up within a stipulated time.

    Government Contracts and the Employ ment of Women.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the employment of women at 12 s. per week in the manufacture of sword bayonets by Messrs. Chapman, of Woodside Lane, Sheffield, in room of men who were receiving 35s. per week; and will he say what action he proposes taking in the matter.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,: In reply to inquiries Mr. J. A. Chapman states that most of the methods he is using are entirely new and different from those adopted by the few other makers of sword bayonets, in some cases rendering skilled labour absolutely unnecessary, and that in consequence he is employing four women; that the statement that he is paying 12s. to women for work previously done by men at 35s. is not correct; and that he is paying the same rate as other manufacturers, both for skilled and for unskilled labour.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Have the terms of the contract been revised, or are Messrs. Chapman receiving the same prices while paying lower wages to women?
    LORD STANLEY: Messrs. Chapman are fulfilling all the conditions of the contract.

    Military Service in India.
    CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can name the exceptional circumstances under which it is proposed to take for service in India men who have been enlisted for three years only.
    LORD STANLEY: Circumstances may arise which might make this course necessary, and the answer given was intended to convey that we do not debar ourselves from taking such action.

    Transvaal Mines.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can inform the House what legislation is now in force in the Transvaal with regard to the ventilation of mines and protection of workers; and by what means and to what extent it is enforced.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The law in force is No. 12 of 1898, and the Department of mines is responsible for its administration.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Can hon. Members interested in the question see the law?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: If there is no copy in the Library I will see that one is placed there.

    Trinidad Riots.
    MR. WEIRbeg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Water Ordinance, which the Governor of Trinidad in Council recently sought to impose on the people of Port of Spain, received his sanction, and will he state the number of deaths which up to the present time have resulted from the riots of the 23rd March, and the value of the public property destroyed.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Port of Spain Waterworks Bill was not submitted to me before its introduction into the legislature. Such a course in regard to a Bill of purely local interest would have

    1511
    been unusual and unnecessary. The statement that the Governor sought to impose this Bill on the people is not accurate, but the whole circumstances will form the subject of consideration by the Commission which is now sitting, and it would be improper to enter on any discussion of the matter pending their report. The number of deaths which have resulted from the riot of the 23rd of March up to the 24th is fifteen. No information has been received as to the value of the public property destroyed.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)asked whether the Governor of Trinidad was still acting as Governor.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly.

    Delhi Railway Conference.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to state the views of the Government of India with reference to the resolutions passed by the Railway Conference at Delhi, in January last, recommending the adoption of certain racial distinctions in appointments to the administrative staff of the Indian State railways; whether it is intended that this policy should be applied to the other two classes of Indian railways, the guaranteed and subsidised, with or without reference to the boards of these railways in this country; whether he can state the preliminary estimate, by percentage or otherwise, of the additional cost which the carrying out of these suggested changes would entail in the working Charges of the railways concerned; and whether he will lay Papers before the House on the subject.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,: The Conference referred to met to discuss certain representations received from the Anglo-Indian Association as to the employment of Eurasians on Indian railways The resolutions passed by the Conference were circulated to the managers of the railways. No action by the
    1512
    Government of India has been taken, or at present is contemplated.

    Famine in Central Africa.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will he state what action has been taken to protect against starvation the 20,000 people in the British Central Africa Protectorate who are affected by the famine at Ruo and Lower Shiré; and will he say what has been the increase in the mortality on account of this famine.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE, Rochester): The scarcity is at present confined to the two southernmost districts of the Protectorate, whilst in the north there are good crops. Relief works have been organised at Chiromo, giving assistance to 200 families, and affording the means of any further relief that may become necessary. The administration is also prepared to make free issues of rice if required. It is hoped that in connection with the recruiting of 1,000 natives for labour in the South African mines, a large number of families will become independent of relief, and the construction of the railway to Blantyre about to be commenced will probably make all assistance from Government needless.

    Railways in Uganda
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government propose to construct a railway from Lake Victoria to Lake Albert in the Uganda Protectorate; and if so, what is the estimated cost of such a line.
    LORD CRANBORNE: No, Sir; His Majesty's Government have no such intention.

    Income Tax Inquiry.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can say when the suggested inquiry into the machinery of the Income Tax, and which inquiry has been demanded for years past, is likely to take place.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I am not in a position to make any statement as to when the inquiry into the machinery of the Income Tax will take place, and I would ask the House to have some little patience. As they will understand, I have others to communicate with, and the thing cannot be done in a hurry. But I assure the House that I sincerely desire that it should be done.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.): Will the Committee be appointed this session?
    MR. RITCHIE: Oh, undoubtedly; I hope so.

    Cross Channel Transit of Irish Live Stock.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any official reports showing how far the regulations made by the Departmental Committee on cross-channel transit of live stock have been carried out in respect to vessels engaged in the live stock carrying trade between Ireland and Great Britain; whether he can state how many prosecutions have been instituted for violations of those regulations; whether he is aware that complaints are made respecting the survey of those vessels; and whether he can take measures to prevent suffering being inflicted on live stock through neglect of the regulations.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,: This Question is one which concerns the Board of Agriculture, from whom I have received the following reply. The carriage of live stock between England and Ireland is regulated by the Animals (Transit and General) Order of 1895, and a corresponding Order for Ireland, which embody as far as is possible the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which sat in the previous year. The trade in question is kept under close and continuous observation by Inspectors of the Board of Agriculture and of the Irish Department of Agriculture, additions to the staff having been authorised for the purpose. It is not possible to give any statistics of the number of prosecutions which have taken place for offences against the Order.
    1514
    They may be instituted both by the local authorities and by private individuals. As a rule, however, the representations made from time to time to owners of vessels have been satisfactorily met, and the need for prosecution has therefore not generally arisen. No complaints respecting the survey of vessels appear to have been received. The two Departments concerned are most anxious to do all that is practicable to prevent the occurrence of loss and suffering in connection with the trade, and would be glad to receive any suggestions and recommendations which those concerned may be able to make for its improvement.

    Wages of the Rural Postmen in Northumberland.
    MR. BURT: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will explain why rural postmen at Barrasford, Felton, Wark, Bellingham, and Humshaugh have not been paid the higher maximum introduced by Lord Tweedmouth's Committee; and whether he will cause the payment of arrears to be made to those postmen who were at the time of the introduction of the present scale at the maximum, or have since reached it.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): There is no question of arrears in the cases referred to by the hon. Member. The situations filled by the postmen in question will in future, as vacancies occur, carry fixed wages instead of a scale; but this alteration does not affect the present holders, who were allowed to retain their former scale with a maximum of 19s. In the course of last year it was found that the circumstances were such as to justify an increase of this maximum to 20s., and authority was given accordingly.
    MR. BURT: Will the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman is about to appoint have power to deal with matters of this kind?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; they will have power to take evidence and make recommendations to me but not, of course, power to deal with them of their own motion. This is one of the kind of cases which the men by their representatives can bring before the Committee.

    Glycerinated Calf Lymph.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will explain why the money paid by the Local Government Board for Scotland for glycerinated calf lymph is not shown in the Estimates under appropriations in aid; and will he state the amount thus received for the last financial year.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): No money is received by my Department from the Local Government Board for Scotland in respect of glycerinated calf lymph.

    Avoch (Ross-shire) Harbour.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state what sum the Fishery Board for Scotland propose to provide in aid of the construction of a harbour at Avoch, Ross-shire.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRY, Buteshire): At a meeting held in January, 1902, the Fishery Board delayed consideration of an application for a grant-in-aid of the cost of constructing a harbour at Avoch, Ross-shire, until a Provisional Order had been obtained, and the Rev. Mr. Philip was informed accordingly.

    Inebriates' Home in Scotland.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, seeing that in the Vote for the Office of Secretary for Scotland there appears an item of £2,300 under Subhead G for expenses under the Inebriates Acts, will he state the number of certified inebriate reformatories referred to, and the amount which it is proposed to contribute to each.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: Up to the present the only institution certified by the Secretary for Scotland under the provisions of the Inebriates Acts is the certified reformatory at Girgenti in Ayrshire, managed by the Corporation of Glasgow. The sum expended under the head of State contributions and inspection in the year ended 31st March, 1903, amounted to £1,302 18s. 2d. Applications from other authorities have been received, but it is impossible to say how the Vote for 1903–4 will be allocated.

    Lymph Supplies for Scotland.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, seeing that a sum of £155 appears in the Estimates for the Local Government Board for Scotland, under Sub-head D, as the cost of vaccine lymph and glycerinated calf lymph, will he state the entire cost of the lymph annually supplied to the Local Government Board for Scotland.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The amount expended by the Board in respect of glycerinated calf lymph and vaccine lymph during the year ended 31st March last was £120 14s. 3d.

    Ulster Winter Assizes.
    MR. WOOD (Down, E): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, if any, and what, arrangements have been made for the trial of civil business at the Ulster Winter Assizes.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): No arrangements have yet been made. Several suggestions which have been put forward have to be considered.
    MR. WOOD: But is it the intention of the executive to provide for the hearing of civil business at the Ulster Winter Assizes?
    MR. ATKINSON: To answer that would be to answer the Question on the Paper.

    River Bann Floods.
    MR. CHARLES C. CRAIG (Antrim, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say when legislation for the abatement of the flooding caused by the overflowing of the River Bann and of Lough Neagh will be introduced.
    MR. WOOD: May I, at the same time, ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when he proposes to introduce the Bill to abate the flooding which has caused, and is causing, loss to the occupiers of land in the vicinity of Lough Neagh, the scheme for which was approved by the First Lord of the Treasury in the year 1888; and if he will recommend that those occupiers

    1517
    be relieved from their present annual payments pending the passing of the promised Bill.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. WYNDHAM, Dover): In reply to these Questions, I shall consider the question of assisting these projects out of the funds provided by the Development Grant Bill, should that measure become law. The answer to the concluding inquiry in the second Question is in the negative.

    Sligo Grazing Lands.
    MR. O'DOWD (Sligo, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Sligo Rural District Council relative to the sub-division amongst small farmers and labourers of the Knocalassa and other similar grazing ranches in the county of Sligo; and if so will he state what action, if any, will be taken in the matter.
    MR WYNDHAM: The resolution has been received. The sale of the estate containing the farm at Knocalassa has not yet been brought before the Land Commission. The estate is administered in the Land Judge's Court, and any application respecting this farm, in the direction suggested in the Question, should be made to the Land Judge in the ordinary manner.

    Ireland and the St. Louis Exhibition.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Irish Department of Agriculture will take steps to have a special exhibit of Irish industries at the St. Louis Exhibition.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject; negotiations are still in progress.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I will put another question later on.

    Irish Resident Magistrates.
    MR. WOOD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the names, quali-
    1518
    fications and religion of the resident magistrates in Ireland appointed to this office within the past twelve months.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have forwarded to the hon. Gentleman a return containing this information.

    Election of Petty Sessions Clerk, Co. Mayo.
    MR. O'KELLY (Mayo, N): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state (1) when Mr. Jacob Beckett, J.P., Ballyvary, Castlebar, was appointed to' the Commission of the Peace for the county of Mayo, (2) the number of his attendances at Castlebar Petty Sessions each year since his appointment up to 20th February, 1902, and (3) whether his qualification to vote at the election of Petty Sessions Clerk for Castlebar District is an attendance or a residential one.
    MR. WYNDHAM: 24th October, 1899. He attended Castlebar Petty Sessions four, six and four times during each of the three years ended 19th February, 1900, 1901, and 1902, respectively. His qualification to vote at the election in question would appear to be on the ground of attendance at Petty Sessions.

    Mr. Heraghty, J.P.
    MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state the number of attendances at Castlebar Petty Sessions made by Mr. Thomas Heraghty, J.P., Chairman Ballinrobe District Council, since his appointment as Chairman of the Ballinrobe District Council up to 25th February, 1903.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Ten.

    Irish National Schools Inspectors' Reports.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY (Limerick, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state when the Inspectors of National Schools in Ireland sent their reports for the year 1901 to the Board of Education.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There is no date fixed for the making of such reports. I will inquire as to the particular report which the hon. Member may have in view, if he will send me details.

    Farranes Licensing Prosecution.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has Been directed to a case heard at Shandangan Petty Sessions on Tuesday, 7th April, in which Sergeant Glynn, Crookstown, charged Mrs. Catherine O'Leary, of Farranes, with a breach of the Licensing Act; whether he is aware that the sergeant, for the purposes of the prosecution, represented on the day previous to the alleged offence that he was going on leave; and that he subsequently, on the morning of the Sunday on which the alleged breaches of the Licensing Act occurred, entered through a window of an unoccupied house from which the licensed premises could be observed, and though he saw several offences against the Licensing Act committed, took no steps to prevent them; and whether, seeing that it is an official instruction to the Royal Irish Constabulary that their duties are preventive as well as repressive, will he state what action it is proposed to take in reference to the conduct of Sergeant Glynn.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are stated with substantial accuracy. The sergeant, in explanation, reports that the Licensing Acts were systematically broken in this locality, and that as the movements of the police were closely watched, it became necessary for him to resort to stratagem in order to cope with the evil. It would have been better had he entered the licensed premises when people were observed on them; but the Inspector-General is satisfied that he was actuated by good intentions and zeal for the public interests, and it is not proposed to take any further action in the matter.
    MR. SHEEHAN: What right had he to enter these unoccupied premises?
    MR. WYNDHAM: My reply covers that question.

    Foreign Orders—Acceptance by British Officials.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, is he aware of the Foreign Office Regulation, dated 23rd June 1898, and now in force, which declares that permission will not be given to any subject of His Majesty to accept a Foreign Order from the Sovereign of any foreign country, except in the case of the chief of a complimentary mission, or of a military or naval attaché on the termination of his appointment, and of the established rule that no British Ambassador shall accept an Order from the Sovereign to whose Court he is accredited; will he explain how it has occurred that the British Ambassador at Rome has accepted from His Majesty the King of Italy the Grand Cordon of the Order of St. Maurice; and is it proposed in future to depart from the established practice and to rescind the existing regulations; and, if so, by what new practice and regulations will they be replaced.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I am aware of the Foreign Office regulations with regard to the acceptance of Foreign Orders by His Majesty's representatives abroad; but I think it will be recognised that the special circumstances of the King's recent visit to the King of Italy justified a departure from the general rule. It is not proposed to make any change in the existing practice.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is possible, and I hope almost certain, that the debate on the Irish Land Bill will finish at half-past seven to-morrow. In that case I shall commence the discussion on the Budget Resolutions at the Evening Sitting to-morrow and continue it on Tuesday next. Monday next will be devoted to Supply.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I presume it is only conjecture on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that the debate will close tomorrow afternoon.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is hypothetical, but I think it would be greatly

1521
to the convenience of the House if it were possible to come to some such arrangement.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman expects the Budget Resolutions to be finished in an evening sitting?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not said so.
MR. RITCHIE: I think they might be.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The arrangement is dependent upon the conclusion of the debate on the Land Bill by the dinner-hour.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend to force the Budget Resolutions through at an evening sitting?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Some men are optimists and some are pessimists. I belong to the pessimistic order; my right hon. friend belongs to the happier order.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Sir JAMES FERGUSSONreported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Stuart-Wortley to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in the place of Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice.
Sir JAMES FERGUSSONreported: That they had appointed Sir James Fergusson to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, at the conclusion of the consideration of the Employment of Children Bill, in the place of Mr. John Edward Ellis.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILL.

  MILITARY LANDS BILL.
  "To amend the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1900, with respect to the
  1522
  acquisition of Land for Military Purposes," presented by Mr. Charles Allen; supported by Mr. Russell Rea; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 184.]

SOUTH AFRICAN LOAN AND WAR CONTRIBUTION [GUARANTEE.]
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): I have some little hesitation in addressing the Committee at this stage and in making a statement with reference to the proposed loan, because I have already presented to the House, in the form of Blue-books, all the information which directly relates to the subject; and although, of course, I am most anxious to give any further explanation which may be desired, to add anything in my power to the information already conveyed, I am afraid that, in making a general statement, I may indulge in some needless repetition and to that extent weary the House. On the other hand, I have felt that the House would probably on the whole be glad that I should make something like a summary of the whole of the circumstances which have led to the loan, how it is that His Majesty's Government have undertaken this obligation, and that I should say something more as to the present condition of the two colonies which we are seeking to benefit. I am afraid that in carrying out my intention, I shall stray a little from the direct course, of the debate based on the Resolution before the Committee; but, at the same time, matters in South Africa are so closely interwoven that, if I do stray, these excursions will not be objected to. seriously. Let me say, in the first place, that this loan, which is, as the Committee knows, a guaranteed loan of £35,000,000, for the purpose of the two colonies, is closely connected with the question of the war contribution. It is true we are not dealing today with the raising of the loan of £30,000,000, which will be required in order to pay the British Exchequer the contribution the colonies are willing to make; but the whole arrangement must be treated together;

1523
and I might almost say that the support of the Committee to the loan which is now under consideration is indeed conditional upon the contribution of £30,000,000 to which I have referred. I think it would be most convenient, therefore, if I deal in the first instance with the circumstances attending this proposal on behalf of the two colonies to contribute the substantial sum of £30,000,000 towards the expenses of the war. The Committee is aware that during, and subsequently to, the war, the Government have constantly declared that it was their policy to secure this substantial contribution. They have done that through the mouth of my right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and also in the speeches I myself have made. But we have always laid down two conditions on which alone we thought it possible to obtain this assistance for the British Exchequer. The first condition was that we do not intend to impose any additional taxation in the Transvaal beyond the 10 per cent. profit tax that we have put on the mining industry, and, as regards that, I do not think there ever has been, or can be, any difference of opinion. The whole burden of taxation in the Transvaal was excessively high. There is no other country or population or colony which is subjected to anything like the same taxation per head as the population of the Transvaal. These burdens affect, in the most serious degree, the cost of living, and the comfort, the happiness, and the welfare of the people; and I think it will be recognised that we were right, even while the war was going on, in saying that we did not intend, when the war was over, to impose a heavier burden in the shape of additional taxation upon the existing sources of revenue in the Transvaal. Of course that did not mean that the revenue was not expected to increase, but it meant that we were not going to invent new taxation for the purpose of a contribution from the colony to this country, or were going to make personal pressure on the individual in the Transvaal any heavier than it had been under the old administration. The second condition which we ourselves laid down for our own guidance and control was that in asking for a contribution from the Transvaal for the expenses of the war, we should not put upon them any obligation which would hinder the
1524
prompt and sufficient development of the country. That has always been a cardinal feature of the policy of the Government.
No one who has not studied this question carefully on the spot, or even at home, can form a conception of the extremely backward state of our new colonies—backward, I mean, having regard to all the circumstances of the cases. This is not a poor country. It is a country of enormous potential wealth, whether you look at it from the point of view of its mineral resources or of its possible agricultural productions. But in regard to both, owing to circumstances which I need not now develop, the progress made in the expenditure of the capital necessary for the development of its natural wealth has, up to the present time, been very slight indeed, and, in our opinion, one of the great securities for the future peace of our new colonies is to be found in the development of their prosperity. The first security for peace in any country is that the people shall be prosperous, and, therefore, contented. In my judgment, there is every prospect of the greatest prosperity, not only for the present population of the Transvaal, but for a largely increased population; but that depends on the development of all those accessories to industry and production which only the investment of a I large amount of capital can secure. Our view has been that, in the near future, sums which I am almost afraid to name I will be required, and can be profitably expended either by individuals or by the State. It is probable that, in the first I instance, at any rate, it is to the State that we must look, in an undeveloped country, of this kind to find the requisite capital. That, bear in mind, has always been our experience in regard to our experiments and our great successes in colonisation. We sometimes make the mistake of attributing to our colonies and to undeveloped protectorates and lands powers and facilities which are only possessed by a rich and civilised and old country like our own. When you are dealing with these new lands, unless the State can come in and act as the beneficent landowner would act, and find the capital to develop the estate, there is no probability that in any reasonable time any good results would be attained. We have found, as

1525
I have said, that in all our colonies, and still more our children have found it in those self-governing colonies which we have handed over to their local administration—in Australia, Canada, and South Africa itself, the State has intervened and found the capital by which the prosperity of the colony has been secured. Enormous sums are required in South Africa for the development of this vast, rich, undeveloped estate. They are required for railways. At the present moment, in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, there is little but the main lines of communication. Vast spaces of country, which is undoubtedly as fertile as any country in the world, are waiting for the means of communication before they can be brought into cultivation. What is the good of growing cabbages on the veldt which sell at half-a-crown in Johannesburg if there is no railway to take them there, and if the only way to bring them to the population in want of them is by the process of ox wagons and all the difficulties of unfinished roads. Therefore, great railway development is the first and most essential feature of any policy of the kind that I am describing. The railway must be fed by roads. I have had some personal experience of roads in the Transvaal—not, I believe, in the worst districts; but I can say that they are open, at all events, to improvement, and I have no doubt that a very large sum of money might properly and wisely be spent in putting into fitting condition these useful means of transport.
Then there is the much larger question of irrigation. In such an enormous country as I am referring to, of all varieties of climate, soil, and cultivation, it is impossible to doubt that there are, at the present time, vast spaces of land which are just as fertile as those places in Egypt which, under British rule, have been made to blossom like the rose, having previously been nothing more nor less than desert; and the one thing wanted in a great part of South Africa is water. Under anything like a proper system of irrigation, there is no doubt whatever that South Africa, which at present is depending for all the necessities of life, for its corn, for its flour, for its meat, for everything, in fact, upon foreign supplies, would not only be able to find everything necessary for its own population,
1526
but might probably become an important exporter. On the question of irrigation, the Committee will always bear in mind that I am speaking of results which have been achieved in a few weeks, and within a few months after a great, desolating war. But already, in regard to this question of irrigation, considerable experiments have been tried, and always with the best results. In some score or more of cases, employment has been found for the bywoners. For the prisoners and other members of that class who have returned to their homes, employment has been found in making dams on a small scale, to secure the irrigation of what are comparatively small areas. It is believed that when these dams are completed, those who have been employed in making them will be the settlers on the irrigated land thus created, and will ultimately become the owners of the land they themselves have thus helped to make fertile. Let me say, in order to avoid misapprehension, they have been well paid for doing it. It has not been done in the sense in which it is pointed out sometimes that it was done in Ireland, at the tenants' own cost; but wages have been paid to them in order to provide them with subsistence during a short period of temporary necessity, from which I hope they profit, not only by the wages they receive, but by their establishment on the land which they have helped to improve. That has been done in a considerable number of cases, but on a comparatively small scale. Hut no one who is connected with the administration of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony has any doubt that in course of time it will be most desirable that these experiments should be carried out on a large scale. In one of the recent letters I received from Lord Milner he referred to a scheme which was under his consideration for the embankment of the Vaal, which would, if it were successful, make a rich and enormous expanse of territory, and so provide means for a great additional population.
There is another source of expenditure to which I look forward as calculated immensely to raise the whole status of tie new colonies, and that is the schemes of land settlement which at present are only in their infancy. Let it be clearly understood what these schemes mean. It is not an attempt by the British Government—

1527
an attempt which would be utterly foolish and ridiculous, and which has never been entertained by any person with any knowledge of the facts—to swamp the Boer population. Nothing of the kind would be possible in my opinion, nothing of the kind would be desirable. But you have got this enormous country, at present so sparsely inhabited that over vast tracts you cannot see a house or the smoke of a chimney, which, nevertheless, has been proved to be extraordinarily rich and capable of a great and increasing production. It is desirable to bring in a larger population, in order to develop this country which otherwise must remain in its present condition. That population, so brought in, will be, to a large extent, British. I hope we may anticipate that; and that would be a good thing. I have had some experience in this matter in visiting some of the settlements already created and one interesting incident, I might mention to the Committee. In a great settlement of bywoners and others in the neighbourhood of Potchefstroom, I was told by Boers, not by Englishmen or officials, who might be prejudiced, that the settlement had already derived the greatest possible advantage from the accidental fact that a few families of Italian settlers had been placed on the same ground. I was assured that the example they gave of activity and energy, and the superior methods they brought to bear on the cultivation, had already had marvellous effects on their Boer comrades, and that the prosperity of the settlement was likely to owe a good deal to this introduction of new blood; and the same people, and others in the course of my travels, I found perfectly ready to welcome new blood, expressing a desire that in different parts of the country, where now only Boers are settled, a number of English families should be brought in to introduce new methods and to set this example of industry and of activity and generally to bring cultivation more into harmony with modern ideas and conditions. There are, therefore, four objects for which large sums of money have to be expended, and upon which I say that the greater the expenditure, and the more quickly it can be made, the more certain will it be that not only the peace (for as to that I never had the remotest doubt) but the more speedy will be the restoration of the country to its former prosperity,
1528
the increase of its prosperity and of its riches, and consequently the security which will be given by a population all of which will be in a prosperous condition.
I have said that there were two conditions which we laid down—one was that any contribution from the colonies should not necessitate the increase of the heavy burden of personal taxation already borne; in the second place, that it should leave the way free for this development of improvements which it is important to assist. I now add to that a third condition, perhaps not publicly declared before, but which I think the Committee will readily accept, and that is that any contribution which is to be made by these new colonies should be made willingly, voluntarily, and not be enforced or imposed upon them by the superior Power. I ventured when I was in South Africa to promise—at all events oil behalf of my own Government, and I believe I can safely do so on behalf of the whole House of Commons—that, although technically they were Crown colonies, and, as such, subject in the last resort to any ultimatum that might be propounded from Downing Street from the Colonial Office, that the Government would treat them in all matters in which Imperial interests are not directly concerned as if they were self-governing colonies. I am perfectly certain that that is the only policy open to us. That on its own merits it will stand as a wise and prudent and an honourable policy, I do not doubt, but my point is that it is the only possible policy. You are dealing in South Africa—in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony—with a very exceptional state of things. It is not the ordinary case of a Crown colony where you have a native population, more or less, by the necessity of the case, to be treated as children. You are dealing with the Boer population to begin with, intelligent no doubt in their way, and accustomed to a great measure of independence; and you are dealing with a British population which, in my opinion, represents the very best elements of the British character, and which also, therefore, has the British love of liberty and independence with regard to its local affairs. Well, Sir, I say then that it was a necessity, in my opinion, in regard to any contribution to

1529
be made, that it should be made voluntarily. It was not to be supposed that the Boer population, our recent opponents, should eagerly come forward to contribute to the expense of a war in which they have been defeated. But I think I may fairly say in regard to them that, although they are not eager in this matter, they are practically indifferent; and during the whole time I was in. South Africa, when I met again and again individual Boers and their representatives on deputations, there was only, as far as I can recollect, one single occasion on which any reference was made by any Boer to this matter of the contribution, and then it was only to suggest that the matter should be delayed, that, in fact, it should be left to be ultimately decided at a time when in the future the colony became self-governing Why were the Boers indifferent? I think I can give a good reason for it. In the first place, the terms of surrender provide that no taxes should be put on the land, the thing in which they are chiefly interested, as a war contribution. That does not really preclude the Government of the Transvaal at some future time from establishing a land tax, supposing such a course was thought desirable; but it absolutely precludes us, as a matter of honour, from putting on any tax which would in any way be associated with the war contribution. In the second place, I may say the Boers, who generally supply their own wants from their own farms and import very little, would in any circumstances contribute a very small amount towards any such amount as might be paid over for this purpose; and any contribution that they did make would be altogether insignificant in comparison with what we are doing for the Boers in the way of granting them loans to assist them, and in the way of compensation of various kinds which we are giving them in order to enable them to restore their position. The cost of this contribution will fall chiefly on the British population, and, of course, mainly on the principal industry of the Transvaal. Under those circumstances, it is important to know what is the British feeling in regard to this matter; and to me it is a matter of some pride in my countrymen, some satisfaction to my conviction of the
1530
general patriotism of our colonial fellow-subjects, that in every case, from the highest to the lowest, there was a universal acceptance of the principle of the contribution, and a universal willingness to make sacrifices in order to meet it. That was apparent among those who are responsible for the conduct of the mining industry, upon which the chief burden will fall. It was also evident in the case of the trading and professional classes, and it was not less apparent in the case of the working classes generally. In regard to that an incident occurred which I think of great interest. When the terms and conditions of the contribution were submitted to a representative assembly, at which all classes were present by their delegates, a resolution was moved approving the arrangement, and it was carried with four dissentients. The four dissentients were two delegates of the Miners' Association and two delegates of the Trades Union Council. At first sight that seemed to imply that the working classes of the Transvaal—there, as elsewhere, the great majority—were opposed to this arrangement. But before I was a day older I received from working men and associations of working men letters full of indignant protest against what they assumed to have been the action of their delegates, and declaring that they as well as any other section of the community were not prepared to shirk their obligations in the matter, but were willing to take their part in such general contributions as were thought necessary to the expenditure of the Empire. The whole thing turned out to have been a misapprehension. The four delegates of the various working men's associations did not intend to vote against the resolution. They were voting only on a minor point—the question whether a public meeting should be held on the subject—and they, came to me later on with a desire that their names should be added to those of all the rest of the representatives. Accordingly, an absolutely unanimous vote was obtained from this most representative meeting in favour of the proposals which were made.
The principle of the contribution having been accepted, it became necessary to consider what should be its amount; and what should be the method of providing it. I must say hare that in going to South

1531
Africa I had in my mind an arrangement which, ultimately, I altogether abandoned. I was prepared to propose that any contribution should be considered as a charge upon the future assets of the Transvaal; that, in accordance with the conditions that it was not to interfere with the present development, or increase the present burden of taxation, we should earmark certain new sources of revenue to be derived from new discoveries, new mineral resources and matters of that kind, or from the increased product of existing taxes, and apply them from time to time as they occurred, to the settlement of the contribution in aid of the war expenditure. Of course, under those circumstances, it would have been necessary to fix the maximum, and I should have been prepared to fix it very high. In fact, I do not see how you could fix it low. In a matter of this kind, where so much is speculation, you must take into account that the development may be even greater than the most sanguine of us venture to anticipate. I was prepared to fix that maximum sum at £70,000,000 or £100,000,000. I have seen this matter referred to under some misapprehension. But it must be borne in mind that if we had fixed any sum of the kind—say £100,000,000—it would be only a deferred payment, which would have to be extended over a great number of years, which would have been small at first, although it might have increased afterwards; and, according to the best calculation I was able to make, the present value of £70,000,000 or £100,000,000 completed fifty years hence—which was the shortest time in which I thought that arrangement could be completed—would have been anything between £30,000,000 and £50,000,000. Therefore the actual value of the alternative proposal, which, at I say, I came afterwards to abandon, must not be put at £70,000,000 or £100,000,000, but it must be put at whatever may be calculated as the present value of a deferred payment, with a maximum of that amount. But when I got to South Africa and entered into communications with those who were best able to advise me, and who were most interested in the matter, I found a number of serious, and to my mind insurmountable, objections to the course which I had previously proposed to
1532
take. In the first place, an arrangement of that kind would have given no immediate relief to the British taxpayer. It would only come in from time to time, and in the first instance the sum received would have been extremely small; and the British taxpayer would have obtained no relief, either as a taxpayer, or as a person responsible in his proper proportion for the National Debt. In the-second place, a scheme of this kind was of course, purely speculative. I myself entertain the most sanguine views as to the future of the Transvaal. But other-people may say that those views are exaggerated and optimistic, and it is impossible for any one to prove the contrary. If a proposal of that kind had been submitted to the House of Commons, other Members, whose judgment would have been just as good as mine, and whom I could not have proved to be wrong, might have said that a compromise of this sort was. not likely to be worth the paper it was written upon, inasmuch as those large sources of revenue from which I hoped to derive these sums were not likely to arise. But from the point of view of the Transvaal and good government there was another view. Earmarking sources of internal revenue would involve, at any rate, supervision of the internal finance of the Transvaal by the British Government and the British Treasury; and every tax that was removed might lessen the security. The question, for instance, of legislation in order to secure for the State its fair proportion of the undeveloped riches of the Transvaal would have to be submitted to the British Treasury, and have to be considered—as it would be their duty to consider it—not from the point of view of the advantage of the Transvaal, but from the point of view of the probability of the Exchequer's not gaining from these sources all it had expected to obtain. I was told, and I readily believed it, that a provision of that kind, carried on over a great number of years would be found to be absolutely intolerable, would produce the greatest irritation and friction; and that at all hazards we ought to get rid of it, if possible. Lastly, I became convinced, especially when I learned more of the qualities, the great qualities, of the population of the Transvaal—that love of independence, that self-confidence which possess so

1533
many of our colonies, and especially possess those active, energetic men, who have gone as pioneers of this new industry, into this new country—when I appreciated all that, I came to the conclusion that a contribution which depended upon annual amounts paid over year by year, for a period of certainly more than a generation, was a possibility which was liable to many serious objections. Taking the people as they are now, full of a lively patriotism, full of intense sympathy with the mother country, and of a deep gratitude for all that she has done for them, that, or indeed any other arrangement might have been readily accepted by them. But who is bold enough to say that thirty years hence an arrangement of this kind might not be thought very different? Political agitation might be brought to bear against what would then be called a tribute to the mother country; and, even if the agitation failed in its purpose, still the relations between the colony and the mother country might become strained.
For all these reasons I was thrown back upon the arrangement which we have adopted, which was to fix the contribution of the Transvaal at the largest possible sum which it could pay, having regard to its present resources, in the course of the next year or two; and the proposal which I ultimately made with the approval and authority of my colleagues to those with whom I was negotiating was by them—and I think I may say by the British population in the Transvaal generally—accepted unanimously. It was that the Transvaal accepted as their contribution of the British cost of the war a sum of £30,000,000, payable in three annual instalments of £10,000,000 each, which would be provided by a loan secured solely upon the assets and resources of the Transvaal, and not guaranteed by the British Government; and, in order that the success of the loan might be made assured and to show their own confidence in the prospects of this country in which they are interested, the financial groups associated with the gold industry undertook to underwrite the first £10,000,000 of the loan so as to make its issue an absolute certainty. The loan as suggested was to
1534
be a 4 per cent. loan; but before I left South Africa I explained to those with whom I was in contact that if it should appear—as I myself think it will appear—that the credit of the Transvaal will justify the issue of a loan at a lower rate of interest, we should, without hesitation, adopt the course of issuing it below 4 per cent. In that case, however, the obligation of the mining groups to underwrite the £10,000,000 would, of course, fall to the ground. We should either abandon the condition altogether as being unnecessary, or, if we desired that it should still stand, we should have to engage in negotiations with the mining groups to see how far they would be willing to accept their portion of the loan at a lower rate of interest. But that will be decided when the loan is brought forward. All I wish to say at the present time is that, although the negotiations took place on the basis of a 4 per cent. loan, it was not certain that it should be issued at that rate, because the general condition of the Transvaal might probably justify its issue on more favourable terms. What are the advantages of this arrangement? In the first place it is a final arrangement; after three years we shall hear no more on the subject. The Bill will have been paid, the claim will have been met, and we shall have no longer any ground whatever for intervention, and all interference in the internal finance of the Transvaal will have been avoided. The loan cannot be repudiated—not that I think such a course of action would ever, under any circumstances, be possible in a British colony, but under the existing arrangement it is impossible. It is not a case of repudiating an obligation to a Government, but it would be a case of repudiating obligations to all those who should have taken up the loan, to all the private subscribers; and a country which did that would, of course, almost for ever, at all events for an immense period and until it recovered its position, absolutely destroy its credit. Now, if there is one country in the world which has need of an extensive and unlimited credit it is the Transvaal. And, therefore, even if I could conceive it possible that anybody could be dishonourable enough to suggest a repudiation of this obligation, I say it would not be able to do it. And, lastly, as I have said, this contribution, large as

1535
it is—and remember it is large if you will only take into account the white population of the Transvaal and the heavy burden which they already have to bear—has been willingly accepted. Sir, I say, having regard to all the circumstances, the losses which the great industry of the Transvaal suffered during the war, some of them direct losses, others indirect, owing to the cessation of the industry—considering the fact that up to the present time they are still hampered by the lack of labour, considering the enormous burden of taxation which the Transvaal population bears, and which amounts at the present time to considerably more than £10 per head—considering all these things, I say this contribution is indeed, in my opinion, a fair and just contribution from the colony, and may well be regarded as a generous proof of the solidarity between the colony and the mother country.
Before I leave this part of the subject, I should say that I have also to deal with the case of the Orange River Colony. At the present time the finances of the Orange River Colony show an equilibrium. The colony has never hitherto been considered as a rich colony; it has hitherto been entirely an agricultural colony, and as long as that is the case it would be perfectly unresaonable to expect from it any contribution whatever towards the cost of the war. But arrangements have been made whereby the Legislative Council of the Orange River Colony will take upon itself in behalf of the colony a hypothetical liability of £5,000,000, as a contribution towards the cost of the war, to be charged upon new resources—that is to say, to be taken as a charge upon any sums which may hereafter be received by the Government of the Orange River Colony in connection with new discoveries of mineral resources. I think myself such discoveries are, to say the least of it, extremely probable, if not almost certain; and I think, therefore, that we may probably look forward to an additional contribution of £5,000,000 from this source without imposing any additional burden on the population of the Orange River Colony. But I do not press that. The arrangement is, as I have said, purely hypothetical, and I only mention it now in order to make the whole situation clear.
1536
Now these arrangements for contribution are connected with and conditional upon the loan which I am now recommending to the Committee. That loan I prefer to describe, in order to distinguish it from any other, as the Development Loan. It is a loan of £35,000,000. Beyond that, as to the price of issue the time of issue, and all the rest, I must leave members of the Committee to learn the particulars from the prospectus; and I am sure they will feel with me that there are obvious reasons why no premature disclosures should be made on these points. But I would like to point out with regard to this loan of £35,000,000 that the major portion of it is not a new charge upon the Transvaal. The major portion of it is required in order to discharge existing liabilities, and as a substitute for existing debts. In the first place, there falls to be provided out of this new loan, repayments to the British Exchequer. They are as follows: Advances made by the British Exchequer in aid of the Transvaal and now to be repaid. In the first place, £1,500,000, which was against a deficit in the first year of the British Transvaal administration, when there was practically very little revenue: £3,000,000, a loan granted to both colonies in order to meet the loans which the terms of surrender authorised to be granted without interest in the first instance for a period of two years, and after that at 2½ per cent., in order to enable the Boers to restock their farms and make other provisions: thirdly, £1,000,000 advanced to the Central African Railway—the railway of the two colonies—for the purpose of providing additional rolling stock; and, lastly, £500,000 for repatriation and resettlement. The total is £6,000,000 to be repaid to the British Exchequer, which, of course, forms part of the charge borne by the Transvaal towards the cost of the war; and the sum which we shall receive in reduction of our previous expenditure will, therefore, not be £30,000,000 but £36,000,000. There is another sum which I have not referred to because at present it is under consideration. The military claim from the Transvaal a sum of about £1,000,000 for works executed by them in the way of railway extension and repairs. The Transvaal Government dispute this sum.

1537
It will have to be a matter of amicable arrangement between the authorities here and the authorities in the Transvaal, and, therefore, I take no account of it in the present statement; but possibly a sum of between £300,000 and £1,000,000 will come from the Transvaal to the British Exchequer in addition to the £6,000,000 to which I have referred. Another £2,000,000 will be repaid by the Transvaal to cover the compensation which we always declared during the war we would exact from the new colonies for the injury done to loyalists in Cape Colony and Natal by the first invasion of the Boers. This, added to the£6,000,000, makes £8,000,000. Then there are other charges for repatriation and compensation, including military receipts, of£2,000,000.
It may, perhaps, be a matter of interest to the Committee, if I am not wearying it, to know how this arises. There have been many funds, and it has led to great confusion. There have been many claims on the Imperial Government and on the Colonial (Government for compensation in connection with the war. Some of those are what I may call claims ex gratia. For instance, the Government agreed by the terms of surrender to apply a sum of £3,000,000 as a free gift. That was an eleemosynary gift, and other sums were also applied in the same way. But in addition, there were claims as of right—claims which arose under receipts given by the military authorities for goods commandeered or used by them in the course of the war. A second and a much more difficult item were claims arising under the proclamations which were issued by Lord Roberts, Lord Kitchener, and, I think, by Sir Redvers Buller, promising protection to Boers who surrendered and who subsequently lost their property. When I got out there I found that besides the civil commission which was sitting to deal with matters for which the Transvaal Government and the Orange River Colony were responsible, there were a number of military commissions dealing with claims upon War Office funds—claims under receipt and claims for compensation under the proclamations. This was an unsatisfactory arrangement. Owing to military
1538
exigencies the chairmen of the military commissions were constantly being changed, so that there was no continuity of policy. When a man had got to know his business well, and to understand the kind of questions likely to be presented to him, he was, by the necessities of the case, sent home or removed with his regiment, and another man had to learn it all over again. It was estimated that to conclude the work would take three or four years at the least. There was great dissatisfaction with the decisions of some of these commissions, some of which, after careful consideration, I found myself unable to justify; and altogether the progress of the country, the restoration of the country, was being most grievously hindered by the uncertainty as to what was to be the result of all those claims and commissions; and accordingly, with the authority of the Home Government, and with the assent of Lord Milner and the Government of the Transvaal, we decided to make a new arrangement. We decided to sweep away altogether the military commissions, and to unite the whole business in the hands of the civil commission. We made a calculation which appeared to show that in addition to what had already been paid out by the military anthorities, they were still liable for £4,000,000, much of which, indeed, they might have contested, but which, if not admitted, if generally repudiated, would leave behind a sense of soreness and injustice in the minds of Boers and British alike, which would be highly injurious to the future administration of the country. Therefore, we agreed that by the payment by the military authorities to the Transvaal of £3,000.000 the Transvaal Government would take the whole responsibility on its own shoulders. In doing that the Transvaal Government assumes that the cost to it will be at least £1,000,000, probably more. But while, on the one hand, the Imperial Government secures the great advantage of a final settlement and gets rid of a business which it could not efficiently control, the Transvaal Government has the enormous advantage of being able to treat this as a matter of general policy, not merely from its financial aspect, but having regard also

1539
to the question of conciliation; and under these circumstances the charge is now entered against a new loan of £2,000,000, £1,000,000 of which certainly, and possibly a good deal more, will be required in order to meet fully and fairly, justly and generously, the claims which arose under the military operations. The conversion of the old debt which is now 5 per cent. is, of coure, an economical operation; that will require £2,500,000. In addition to that it is proposed to purchase all the existing railways, and an estimated sum—it can only be an estimated sum—of £13,000,000, is assumed for that object. The total of these sums is £25,500,000, out of a total loan of £35,000,000; and the Committee will see that the whole of this sum is not a new charge, but merely a re-arrangement of existing charges. What remains is £9,500,000. Of that, £5,000,000 are to be expended, as quickly as they can possibly be expended, in the development of the railway system. And in regard to that the Committee have before them in the Blue-book a full account of the discussion of the conference of the railway authorities at Bloemfontein—a conference which, I must say, was most satisfactory, inasmuch as it disclosed on the part of all concerned a general desire to meet fairly all the exigencies of the situation. The sum of £2,500,000, is appropriated for land settlement. I may say in the figures the Committee may have found a sum of £3,000,000, but half-a-million of that is a previous grant from the British Exchequer which is now repaid. The new sum is £2,500,000. And then public works, which include roads, irrigation works, and public buildings, and matters of that kind, are put down at £2,000,000. That makes the total of £35,000,000; and I have only to add with reference to the application of the loan that it is provided any savings which may be made, are to be applied to new development. That is to say, if we can reduce in any way, without injury to the public credit and the general administration, the sums which have been put aside either for the purchase of railways, compensation, or repatriation, the sums saved will be at the disposal of the Transvaal Government for further development in the way of railways and other public works.
Now I come to what I have always considered to be a most important matter,
1540
and it will be a very satisfactory part of my statement to learn what is the security which is offered for this loan which the House is asked to guarantee. The Development Loan is £35,000,000. I will not say a word as to the price at which it is to be issued or the rate of interest, but I must take a figure for the sake of my calculation as to the cost which the loan will impose, and I will assume 4 per cent. as the charge for the interest and the sinking fund together—that is to say the charge for the development loan will be £1,400,000 per annum. What have we to secure it? In the last resort that loan is secured on the whole of the assets and revenues of the Transvaal colony, on its gold, coal, iron, copper; all its revenues of any kind, all its vast resources may be in the last resort made responsible for the payment of the interest and the sinking fund of this loan. But I do not believe under the arrangement we propose that we shall ever have recourse to that security. In the first instance, the loan is to be a charge on what I will call the common fund of the two colonies, which Lord Milner proposes to establish immediately with an inter-colonial Council representing the two colonies to advise and to administer the finances. What is the reason for this? I wish not to minimise but to magnify the importance of this new development under the administration of the two colonies. For the first time they are to be brought together by a common purse. It is on the understanding and the belief that some of their interests cannot possibly be separated. Let it be understood that they have special idiosyncrasies of their own, and nothing would be more mischievous or unpopular than to bring the two colonies under one single government. Their traditions are separate, their modes of administration previous to the war were separate; and, though many times we have discussed and criticised the administration of the old Transvaal government, we have admitted the general propriety of the administration of the Orange River Colony. There is a great local patriotism in these two colonies as between themselves. It is not a question of Boer and British, but it is that kind of particularism which makes, in fact, one corporation jealous, in a sense, of a competitor which happens to be its immediate neighbour.

1541
We cannot ignore it. We are not going to ignore it. It is bred in the bone, and it would be unwise not to give effect to this differentiation. But, on the other hand, there are many things which cannot be separated.
Take the case of the South African Constabulary. We have arbitrarily divided the cost of the South African Constabulary, not with regard to its proportionate advantage to one colony or the other but with some regard to the proportionate ability of each colony to bear the charge. We have charged the Orange River Colony with £250,000, one-fifth of the charge, and the Transvaal with four-fifths. But there is no such distinction to be drawn as regards any of the benefits which this force may confer on the country it is established to protect. I say here that I attach the utmost importance to the South African Constabulary as a great civilising and uniting influence. It may have been regarded in the past exclusively from its military capacity, and indeed during the war, while under military command, some of the most gallant actions of the war conferred the greatest credit on the members of this force. But I was impressed when I was there by the officers and the men that this part of their work was over; and we expect from them in peace greater services than those which they had rendered in war. We regard them not as a garrison but as the protectors and the friends of the people. If the House will consider the circumstances in which its administration has to be conducted, and the immense spaces to be covered, they will see what I mean. How can you bring under a central government and in personal touch isolated farmers hundreds of miles away across a trackless veldt? It is impossible. Their grievances, if they exist, could never come, in ordinary circumstances, to the knowledge of the authorities. There is no close sympathy between the government and the individual members of the community whom it has to control. The South African Constabulary already has made its position. Again and again I found on entering into conversation with the farmers that the men were learning the language of the country, were becoming the friends of the people, were welcomed at every farmhouse, doing little
1542
jobs for the inhabitants, carrying their letters and parcels, giving information, settling their petty disputes—so much so that in one case I had a serious complaint from one of the resident magistrates that his duty was becoming almost a sinecure in consequence of the action of a sergeant of the Constabulary settling all the differences without bringing them to his august tribunal. I can sympathise with the resident magistrate, though I could not but express my entire approval of the action of the sergeant of Constabulary. That is what is happening, and it will happen if only the spirit which prevails among officers and men continues. Therefore, I attach the utmost importance to the continuance of this force, to its permanent continuance, on the same footing on which it is at present. But if it is to be divided as a charge between the two colonies, which differ most materially in their financial resources, it may be well said by the administrators of the Orange River Colony that, however admirable this force is, we cannot afford it On the other hand, the Transvaal, rolling in wealth, might be well able to pay for it. It must be remembered that the Transvaal is interested as well as the Orange River Colony in all that conduces to the prosperity and peace of the whole country.
Then, again, take the case of the railways. How can you separate the interests in the railways? The railways of the Orange River Colony are not mainly or principally for local distribution. They are through lines. They carry the products of an agricultural constituency to the Transvaal and the great industrial centres of Kimberley and Johannesburg; and if that is to be done it ii impossible to appropriate with any exactitude the respective liabilities of one colony or the other, or the respective share or benefit which they ought to obtain. Therefore, having regard to this and other matters, Lord Milner proposes to create a common fund for the two colonies, with revenue derivable from the two colonies and with an expenditure which otherwise will fall separately on the two Colonies. One word more. I have said that I wish to magnify this first step in the new development of colonial administration.

1543
The Committee must see that this is the commencement of the policy of federation that we have always looked forward to. I do not wish to be understood as prematurely anticipating the full completion of this policy. It is our policy, to be carried out as quickly as we think it advisable for settlement. But I attach the greatest importance to the reasoned arguments so well put by the Boer generals when they declined to join the Legislative Council of the Transvaal. In the existing state of the two colonies, where the desire of every reasonable and intelligent man is to get rid of all sources of difference and to unite and cooperate in order to restore the prosperity of the country, it would be most undesirable to provoke political agitation. Therefore, while I look forward to that crowning of the edifice and believe it may come much earlier than some of us originally anticipated, I would not like—in saying that this is the first step towards not only self-government in the Transvaal and in the Orange River Colony but towards the federation of South Africa—I would not like the Committee to think that I looked for it as the immediate consequence of what we are doing. But certainly it will pave the way to that consummation and enable us to gain considerable experience. Meanwhile the service of the loan will be a first charge on the net revenues of the Central African Railway. In the Blue-book it will be seen that that revenue is put by Lord Milner at at least £2,000,000 sterling. In a later despatch or telegram which I have received from him he feels that he may now confidently say that it will not be less than £2,500,000; and really one of our difficulties has been how to deal with the extraordinary growth which we have to chronicle and which comes upon us as a constant surprise month by month as we proceed with our return. Lord Milner has always erred, if at all, on the side of caution in his estimates, and we may take it, therefore, that the revenue of the common fund will be 2½ millions; and that is estimated after the reductions which have been made by the Railway: Conference in connection with the present exorbitant rates. These reductions are calculated to result in a loss of
1544
revenue of £500,000 per annum on the through traffic, and of £250,000 per annum on the local traffic, or altogether a loss of £750,000. And, after that loss, Lord Milner is now confidently able to calculate on a net revenue of 2½ millions. This relief to the consumer in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony of three-quarters of a million does not nearly show the whole advantage that he is going to obtain, because it is accompanied by a reduction in the railway rates of the maritime colonies—Natal, the Cape—and Portugal, and this reduction is estimated at another £300,000, so that the consumer will be benefited to the extent of over £1,000,000 a year, chiefly in regard to the necessaries of life, when these rates come into force, which will be almost immediately. As an illustration, I may say that a reduction of forty per cent has been made in wheat and flour and in articles of that kind; and all the necessaries of life which have been so exorbitantly charged will now be very much decreased in rates. The charge of £1,400,000 for the loan leaves a surplus of £1,100,000 to the common fund, without any question of resorting to any additional security which might be given by the Transvaal Government. But that does not represent the position of what I have called the common fund because it is the intention of Lord Milner to put upon it as second charges other expenditure; in the first place, the expenditure of the South African Constabulary, which is £1,500,000, and then some other joint expenditure amounting, roughly, to £200,000. The total expenditure of the common fund for 1903–4 is, therefore, estimated at £3,100,000. The total income is £2,500,000, and the deficit on the common fund is, therefore, £600,000, which has to be provided out of the separate resources of the two colonies.
That brings me to the separate finances of the two colonies. How do they stand with this ultimate liability hanging over their heads—this liability of £600,000 over and above their ordinary administrative expenses to be used for the purpose of filling up the deficit in the common fund? I must warn the House that

1545
the estimates of the Transvaal are perpetually changing. Every month we get a new estimate, but it is always a better one than the last. Never yet have we had to fear anything in the nature of reaction. I, of course, can only give the latest returns; but my own hope and expectation is that, favourable as they are even they will be improved upon. But, according to the latest estimate, the revenue of the Transvaal for 1903–4, apart from railway receipts, will be £4,500,000. The normal expenditure, apart from the constabulary, will be £3,000,000, leaving a surplus of £1,500,000. The Orange River Colony's revenue will be £500,000, and the expenditure £500,000, leaving no balance but constituting an equilibrium. This estimate is made only after deducting the loss of revenue which will follow upon the intended changes in the Customs duties. There, again, the old Customs duties were inordinate in amount, and, above all, they were grotesquely bad finance in the way in which they were levied. They were levied on the necessaries of life. [OPPOSITION CHEERS.] Yes, but without the direct taxation which in some more favoured countries accompanies the more indirect contributions. But in the case of the Customs duties of the Transvaal, which are, of course, the main element of its revenue, they did undoubtedly press with enormous severity upon the working classes. I had a calculation submitted to me of what it cost in Johannesburg for a decent working man and his wife, with the ordinary family of three children, to live. With house rent and the mere necessaries of life, I was told he could not live decently under £24 a month; and that when he gets £30 a month—as a skilled artisan does—the balance which comes to him for luxuries and other expenses is only £6 out of the £30. That state of things has been brought about by a number of circumstances which cannot be altered all at once; but it is largely due to the extravagant duties and railway rates upon the necessaries of life. The change which has been made involves a loss to the Transvaal of only £130,000 per annum—that is to say, the balance of loss due to the revision of taxation enables a reduction on the necessaries of life much
1546
greater than that. The reduction is in part made up by heavier charges on spirits, and articles of that kind. But the benefit to the people is much greater than the apparent benefit shown by the loss to the Transvaal revenue, because the maritime colonies, under a little gentle pressure, and no doubt animated by the most friendly intentions, have agreed to reduce to a minimum the old transit charges for goods paying at the ports and intended for the Transvaal; and it is anticipated that the saving under that scheme will be at least £300,000, so that the total benefit to the consumer can be reckoned to be between £300,000 and £400,000; while to the most necessitous consumer it will be a good deal more than that. The Transvaal, after making this concession, will have a surplus of £1,500,000. Deducting the deficit on the common fund, there will be a surplus still of £900,000. Next year—that is, in 1903–4—the charge will come upon the Transvaal for its first instalment of the contribution—which is not guaranteed by us, but is a charge on the assets and revenues of the Transvaal—and that will be £400,000. Deducting that from the surplus of £900,000, there will be a. surplus for 1903–4 of £500,000. Next year, assuming that the revenues of the Transvaal do not increase at all, there will be an additional charge of £400,000 for the second instalment of the loan, and the surplus will be reduced to £100,000; and in the third year the whole loan will be issued, and the total charge for it of £1,200,000 will come to bear. Then there will be a deficit of £300,000, if there is no increase in the revenues of the Transvaal. But Lord Milner says—and I think every one will agree with him—that, in the course of those three years, he thinks that it is a most moderate estimate to assume an increase in the general revenue of £600,000. The final conclusion of the argument, therefore, is that, when the Transvaal and the Orange River Colonies have paid for the £35,000,000 loan, and for the £30,000,000 of their contribution, and have made these enormous reductions on the charges on their population, they will still have for further development a surplus of at least £300,000. I say that that is an astounding result. It is now less than twelve months since the conclusion

1547
of the war; and, during that time, everything in the way of restoration has had to progress slowly, industries have had to be restarted, and are not yet in full growth. With regard to all this development, we are assuming it to be a charge which will bring with it no profit, although in many ways we believe that the loan will be very profitable, and that, whereas 4 per cent. may be paid as sinking fund and interest, the net revenue will not be less than 6 per cent. Yet in spite of all these conditions I can show such a Budget as I have had the honour of expounding.
There have been in past times and in recent times most bitter criticism of Lord Milner and his policy, because, after all, he only did his duty to those he was sent to protect, and his duty to the Government that instructed him, and to the country, whose almost universal approval hailed his appointment. But that is past; and whatever differences of opinion there may have been, and may be now, as to particular items of his policy, there is not a man who would be so ungenerous as not to congratulate him on this marvellous result of his energy, his ability and his unexampled devotion to duty. I cannot but recall, though I am not inclined to dwell upon it, the predictions which have been made by those who have been opposed to our policy in regard to its financial results. While I was in South Africa, during the most delicate and difficult task of the negotiations, a message was telegraphed over that the great organ of the Liberal Party said that I was not going to get a penny, and that I should come away empty-handed, as I deserved to do. How that was calculated to help an ambassador the Committee will understand, but at all events it represented, no doubt, an honest opinion. It represented an opinion, which I have heard expressed in this House again and again, that after such a war, and in such a country, nothing was to be expected except desolation, misery and that ruin, and that the charges of peace would be even greater than the charges of war, and that we were placing on the shoulders of the British taxpayers new and terrible responsibilities. I do not go back to that except to hope that, as these were mistaken estimates of the capabilities of
1548
a country which has become our country it may at all events encourage us,—pessimists like my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, optimists like my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself—it may encourage us all to take a favourable view of the future. If I am asked what is the reason for this, which I have described as an extraordinary result, I am indeed at a loss to give anything in the nature of a full explanation. I can only fall back on what was said to me by a Boer leader, by a man who fought against us gallantly to the very end, who since then has helped us in the work of repatriation, and at the present moment sits as a fitting representative of the bravest of the Boers on the new Legislative Council which has been created for the Transvaal. I can only say, in his words, when I asked him how it was that the value of land had gone up so much since the war, "I suppose it is because we have a stable and progressive Government." We have got a stable Government. We have in Lord Milner and his assistants, Sir Arthur Lawley and Sir John Goold-Adams—men who are imbued by his spirit—we have got a progressive Government. We have got an honest Government. We know now, at all events, that every penny collected from the taxpayer will go back for the benefit of the taxpayers, and will not go into the pockets of individuals or of corporations. In that way this great result has been achieved; and I certainly can truly say that my most sanguine expectations—and I have always been sanguine—have been more than realised.
There is only one other word I would like to say before I sit down. I admit it is rather collateral to the main subject. There has recently been held at Bloemfontein a conference of all the colonies. I believe that in its completeness, in its thoroughly representative character, it is really the first of the kind in South Africa; and the result—the extraordinary unanimity of the decisions and the satisfactory character of the conference as a whole—justifies us in forming very satisfactory conclusions as to what may happen in the future when the union becomes still closer. At this conference the arrangements which I have referred to as to Customs and other matters were carried through, I believe all the resolutions,

1549
at all events the main ones, were unanimous. Each colony was represented In the case of the Transvaal there were one or more representatives of the Boers. In the case of the Cape there were one or more representatives of the Dutch, so that it was not exclusively a British conference. Among their recommendations was one which I think is worth the attention of the House of Commons. It is the recommendation—I do not think it can be called a decision—to the various Legislative Assemblies of South Africa to give to Great Britain a preferential Customs rate of 25 per cent. I am not prepared now to predict what the ultimate end of that recommendation may be, but at least I think it must be taken by everybody as an evidence of true loyalty, as a recognition of obligation which we most gratefully acknowledge. I was told, I have been told, that when this matter comes up for discussion in the Cape Parliament the Dutch will object. I very much doubt that. I do not know why they should object, and at all events it will be contrary to the anticipations which I formed when I had the opportunity of conferring with the leaders of the Dutch party. They assured me, in the fullest possible terms, and I gladly and sincerely accepted their assurance, of the loyalty of the majority of our Dutch fellow-subjects in the Gape Colony to the British connexion and the British Crown. I ventured to tell them that I thought that hit her to the Dutch had been too provincial, that they had not sufficiently appreciated the fact that they were not only citizens of a colony but also citizens of the Empire. I confess I was very glad to find that in this view, among the leaders at any rate, there was no want of sympathy. On the contrary, they seemed to share my hope, I will not dare to call it a conviction, that, while it is absolutely impossible and would be undesirable to assimilate Dutch and British so that each should lose their individuality, still you may find for both of them, as for all the races under the British flag, the true link of union in their common devotion to Imperial interests. If this is carried out, and I am not without hope that it will be carried out,
1550
the fact that the Dutch find themselves able to support such a resolution as that which has been made by their representatives at the conference, is evidence for them as well as for us that they do desire to draw closer the ties which connect them with the other parts of the Empire. I referred to this as only collateral. It may be considered irrelevant. It is interesting at any rate, and I say it is one of those things which you have to take into account in considering such a loan as this. We are, for the first time, asked to guarantee a larger sum for our colonies than we have ever been asked before. This is no doubt a precedent, and deserves, therefore, careful attention and consideration, although in this case I believe there is not the shadow of a shade of risk connected with it. Still, the House of Commons is quite right if it takes into its account all the possibilities, and above all, if it considers the spirit of those whom it is endeavouring to assist. We have in other cases made loans and guaranteed loans to foreign countries without much assurance of any reciprocal feeling or obligation on their behalf; but now we are asked to do it for our own fellow-subjects, for our own children, for those who have given evidence of their affectionate regard, of their acceptance of the obligations as well as of the privileges of our common position. It is on that ground that I submit this loan and that I recommend it to the Committee as not only a safe, prudent, and wise measure of statesmanship, but also as the fulfilment of an Imperial duty.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to guarantee on the security of the Consolidated Fund the interest of a loan to be raised by the Transvaal Colony not exceeding in the aggregate an amount sufficient to raise £35,000,000, and the principal of any such loan by means of the guarantee of Sinking Fund payments, and to provide for the application of any sums paid by the Transvaal or Orange River Colony in respect of expenses incurred in or incidental to the prosecution of the late war in South Africa."—(Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.)
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman need not have been under any misapprehension as to any possible impatience on the part of the Committee at the length of his speech. Not only has the Committee listened with the intensest interest and with great sympathy to what he has said, but the information the right hon. Gentleman has given us is exactly what the Committee desired to know. We are now, it seems to me, almost exactly in the position we find ourselves in after the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the year has unfolded his Budget to us. We have received the information of his Estimate of all the matters concerned in that Budget, and I think we shall do well to follow the usual course which is taken upon that occasion, that is to say, that we should simply acknowledge the lucidity of the statement made by the Minister, and state that the subject is of such importance that we must have time to consider the facts and figures that he has laid before us, before we pronounce any opinion upon it. The right hon. Gentleman has, no doubt, taken an optimistic view of the situation in South Africa; but, optimistic or pessimistic, we are dealing with an extremely serious matter in this Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman has said enough to show that when we are called upon for this loan, it must not be regarded as a final discharge of all the liabilities that may fall upon us in the future, but that it may be the first of a series of other grants for assistance which may have to be given to these new colonies. On that very ground alone I think we ought to have time to consider all that he has stated. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware, probably more aware than anybody else, of the extraordinary variety of opinions we receive from South Africa. He has been there and has heard all the different views himself, but we in this country, groping about almost in the dark, hear the most contradictory accounts of the same thing day after day. The right hon. Gentleman speaks very hopefully of the agricultural value of the Transvaal and of the possibility, by the expenditure of large sums of money, of bringing large tracts of land into profitable occupation. I had an accidental opportunity two or three days ago of listening
1552
to a man of the highest importance in that country, a man entirely favourable to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, who assured me that there could not be a greater delusion than to imagine that there was any agricultural value whatever in the Transvaal. I do not set my authority against the other, but these absolutely contradictory statements which we receive bewilder us, and make it difficult for us to estimate what our obligations may be in that part of the world.
There was one matter on which the right hon. Gentleman dwelt which I think is of some consequence, and it is the only individual point which I shall refer to, namely, the proposal now male for a joint council for the two colonies. I know that the right hon. Gentleman must be as fully aware as any of us of the great danger of anything that looks like forcing federation on the colonies in South Africa. We have had great experience already of the attempt to anticipate public feeling in that matter, and, as I have said, I have no doubt that the greatest care will be taken to guard against the impression being conveyed that this is, as it were, the thin end of the wedge put in, in order, before the I colonies have considered it, and before: some of them are clothed with that representative responsibility which they ultimately will have, to prejudice or prematurely foster some scheme of federation which, when it comes, as I hope it will come, spontaneously from themselves, will have every chance, I trust, of the most perfect success. The right hon. Gentleman said a few words—they were very few, but I regret them—with regard to the different opinions which have been held respecting the war and the doubts which have been thrown on the result of it, and especially upon the future prosperity of the colonies. He has seen somewhere some expression of opinion indicative of doubts as to his own success in obtaining any satisfactory financial agreement or arrangement whatever with the colonies. Well, I do not think that ever came from any authoritative or responsible person, at all events among those, of whom I am one, who have not been slow to criticise the policy of the right hon.

1553
Gentleman. But I will say this of him, that we feel confident that no one could have gone out there more capable than himself, or more likely than himself, to achieve the object for which he went. The account he has given to-day, which is fuller than any we have had of the j origin of the transactions which culminate in this Resolution will, I think, convince the country that the interests of this country have been well regarded by him. But when he said that there were some, I suppose, of us who denied that the colonies would be worth anything to us at the end of the war, I think he a little exaggerated any opinion we have ever held, because what was said was that they would be left at the end of the war in a dilapidated and devastated condition, and that is absolutely proved from the mouth of Lord Milner in the early pages of this Blue-book; but we well knew their recuperative power and resources, and that probably the ultimate end would be a prosperous future for these colonies. I only rose to say that I think we ought to reserve the discussion. There may be some questions to be asked of the right hon. Gentleman, but the main discussion of this most important matter ought to be deferred until we have had an opportunity of fully considering the figures put before us—figures which I may say are not reconcileable with those given us in the Blue-book.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: They are taken from the Blue-book.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman in his estimate of the Budget of the Transvaal went far beyond anything that is in this Blue-book. At least I have not found anyone who is able to brace them, but a little opportunity may enable us to discover them lurking somewhere in its pages. I do not think, at all events, that we shall be able to investigate them to-day. Having them before us in the clear way in which the right hon. Gentleman has put them, we shall be better able to judge of the real financial situation of the Transvaal. With these few observations I would only again say that we are indebted to the right hon. Gentle-
1554
man for so fully explaining to us a matter of the first importance.
MR. CLAUDE LOWTHERsaid that no one more fully acknowledged than he did the Colonial Secretary's work in South Africa, but he could not allow this Resolution to be passed without expressing his bitter disappointment at the smallness of the war contribution. He appreciated the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman, the conflicting interests he had to conciliate, and the enormous power of the mining magnates. He had watched the methods of the mining magnates from the beginning, and if their energy, now that the war contribution was settled, in developing the industry was anything like as great as their energy in belittling that industry before the contribution was settled, then he could predict that the Transvaal would have unprecedented prosperity. The Colonial Secretary had a far wider and more splendid object in view than the collection of a handful of millions. His object was the pacification of half a continent, and he agreed that any policy tending to retard that object would have been an extravagant and short-sighted economy. He considered that the British taxpayer should participate in the splendid future which the Colonial Secretary had described, and of which he had laid the foundations. After all it was entirely through our credit that the Transvaal was able to borrow this £35,000,000, and, if the country proved worthless, the liability would fall on the British taxpayer. But if they believed, as he believed, that every million invested would increase tenfold, was it not incumbent upon the Government, who lent the country's money, to intercept a proportion of those profits by ear-marking a deferred share towards the repayment of the War Debt? He regretted that the Colonial Secretary had abandoned the idea of the deferred share. He had told them that the sum might be delayed in its return for perhaps fifty years. If that was too long, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of hypothecating certain sums for a limited period—say ten or twenty years? He expected great

1555
surpluses in the future. Surely if he was able to take in the next ten years£10,000,000 into the national exchequer, that sum was something in these days when everybody was preaching economy.
MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)said the Committee would expect to hear something from the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding this loan. The loan, according to belief in the City, was to be raised at 3 per cent., and that stock had already been dealt in at a premium of 1 per cent. If the City had heard already how the loan was to be raised, and if the speculators on the Stock Exchange were trading on that information, he thought the House of Commons ought to be let into the secret before passing the Resolution. The effect of the Resolution would be that the British Government would guarantee the loan, but the Committee were asked to pass the Resolution without any knowledge of the terms on which the loan was to be issued. It was a good long time since the House of Commons had been called upon to guarantee a loan of this character. It was a somewhat peculiar loan and he did not know whether there was a precedent in favour of the course adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that was to say, of asking the House to pass a Resolution guaranteeing a loan without allowing the House to know the terms on which the loan was to be raised. He wished to say a very few words with reference to the character of this transaction. The Colonial Secretary, in recommending this loan to the Committee, said that this loan and the War Indemnity Loan of £30,000,000 were inextricably bound up together. That was perfectly true. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman said that the inhabitants of the Transvaal, really the people of Johannesburg, had consented to the Indemnity Loan on the condition that this loan would be raised and guaranteed by this country; and there were very good grounds for that, because, from a political and financial point of view, it was better to have a bird in the hand instead of capturing the bird in the bush fifty years hence. But what was the sum total of this financial operation? It was that £35,000,000 were to be added to the National Debt of England—he meant so far as the credit of England, Ireland,
1556
and Scotland was pledged for that amount—in addition to the present burden of the National Debt—whilst only a sum of £30,000,000 was obtained as War Indemnity. In other words, the result of the whole operation was an increase of £5,000,000 on the burden of debt. He believed that the Government on the Rand had shown a pretty keen sense of their own interest, and that they would come off best in this transaction. And when one listened to the Colonial Secretary explaining the results of the recent financial changes in the Transvaal, one could see that that was only a part of the consideration. The gentlemen of Johannesburg only gave their consent to underwrite part of the £30,000,000 loan because they were to get such reductions in the railway rates as would more than repay them. He did not say that the reductions in the railway rates were not a good policy. They would contribute towards the prosperity of the colony; but the immediate result of these reductions would be to increase the profits of the mines and far more than compensate the Johannesburg gentlemen for underwriting the loan. Moreover, they were going to under write the new Indemnity Loan at such a price as would undoubtedly give them an enormous profit out of the transaction. Let the Committee mark this. We were not only taking upon ourselves a responsibility for the £35,000,000 loan, but were also really pledging the credit of this country for the £30,000,000 Indemnity Loan. Did anyone for a single moment doubt that, morally, the success of that £30,000,000 loan depended on the credit of this country? This loan was being raised not by a constitutional free government, which was really the only form of Government which was capable of pledging the credit of the people; it was being raised on the responsibility of this country; and if the interest on the loan were to go into de fault, could anyone say that Great Britain would not have to pay up? The whole structure of this financial edifice, which looked so glorious when described by the Colonial Secretary, depended in the ultimate result on the political experiment of the government of the Transvaal. If the Transvaal were governed in the spirit which characterised the speech of

1557
the Colonial Secretary, or in the spirit which characterised the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman when travelling through that country, he should say that the loan would be repaid. But if another spirit got the upper hand, if the Progressive party at the Cape got the control of the whole government of South Africa, with a policy inspired by Dr. Jameson and Dr. Smartt, and if they embarked on a new career like that which led to the South African War—in that event, which was by no means impossible, the unfortunate taxpayers of England, Scotland, and Ireland, would ultimately be burdened with the whole of the £30,000,000 as well as with this £35,000,000.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had listened with the greatest interest and attention to the statement of the right hon. the Colonial Secretary, but, though lucid and clear, it was so complicated that it made it a little difficult to discuss it at once. That statement consisted of two different Budgets as a justification for two different loans; but he could not say that it was wholly satisfactory. He must confess that he had been appalled lately at the readiness with which debt was accumulated in this country. He seemed never to wake in the morning without coming upon the creation of some new debt for some purpose or other. There was the £159,000,000 loan for the war, the £100,000,000 loan for the purchase of Irish land in the interests of Irish tenants and landlords; there was the loan of £35,000,000 for the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, and there was the further loan of £30,000,000 for which, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, this country would be ultimately responsible. He did not know where this readiness to borrow money would end. It might be that we had ample security for all these debts, but it was a most serious thing to go on piling up debt on the shoulders of the British taxpayer. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bethink himself, not only of the present necessities, but of the future results. There was a certain point on which he did not find himself able to follow the Colonial Secretary. In the first place he understood that there were to be two
1558
loans; this £35,000,000 loan, which we were to guarantee and for which, in effect, we should be responsible. The interest on that, he supposed, would I amount to something a little over £1,000,000. Then there was the other loan of £30,000,000 charged on the revenues of the Transvaal, the interest on which, with sinking fund, would amount to £1,200,000. Now, he held with the hon. Gentleman opposite, that when a Crown colony contracted a loan, charged on the revenues and resources of that, colony, in the final result this country was responsible for it. We could not, in honour, escape from that responsibility. He trusted that the question would never come to a practical point here, but undoubtedly in the case of a Crown colony of Great Britain, which was part of the Kingdom of Great Britain—not like a self-governing colony—we could treat for it and undertake responsibility in respect of it. And in the event of repudiation of the debt by the Crown colony it would be wholly impossible for anyone to say that, as regarded honour, this country should refuse to pay that loan. The interest on the £30,000,000 loan would be met out of a common fund, and that common fund, as he understood, though he might be wrong, mainly arose from the profits of the railways, estimated at £2,500,000 a year. Here was the point on which he wanted information. Was it the fact that the railways did not at present belong to the Government of the Transvaal, but were to be purchased for £13,000,000? Or was it that the Government of the Transvaal had certain rights over the railways, and that the remaining rights were to be purchased for £13,000,000? These£13,000,000 were to come out of the £35,000,000. The first question he asked was, if the railways made a profit of £2,500,000 a year and if they were to be bought for £13,000,000? that was only six years purchase. That was a very small sum; it was better than the Irish tenant paid for his land. A great deal depended upon that, because it was upon that sum that the security rested, to a very large extent. He wished the right hon. Gentleman would say whether he was right or wrong in this respect. He quite conceived that a large part of

1559
the property in the railways might be in the State, and that what was to be purchased was the remaining portion of it. Here was a great difficulty in his mind. First of all, the interest on the £30,000,000 loan was £1,200,000 a year. But how about the interest on the £35,000,000 loan. He did not hear the right hon. Gentleman make any provision for that, although he provided for the interest on the £30,000,000 loan.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: On the credit side of the common fund there is at present only the railway revenue. The debit side is made up of the charge for the £35,000,000 loan which at 4 per cent. for interest and sinking fund amounts to £1,400,000, and is a first charge upon the common fund. If, therefore, I am right in saying that the income from the railways is £2,500,000 there is a surplus of £1,100,000 after paying the full charge on the £35,000,000 loan.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then there would have to be added the interest on the £30,000,000 loan.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not on the common fund.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that then there would be £1,400,000 for the £35,000,000 loan, and £1,200,000 for the £30,000,000 loan which the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies would have to pay.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman entirely confuses two things. He must keep in mind that there are two funds, the common fund of the two colonies, and the ordinary Budget of the Transvaal. The £35,000,000 loan comes upon the common fund, and the £1,200,000 required for the £30,000,000 loan comes on the Transvaal Budget. When I dealt with the common fund, I showed a surplus of £1,100,000 after paying for the £35,000,000 loan. When I came to deal with the Transvaal Budget, I showed a surplus of £1,500,000 which was available for the charge of the £30,000,000 loan.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was obliged to his right hon. friend for making
1560
the matter clearer. The £35,000,000 loan was secured on the common fund arising out of the railway; but there remained a charge of £1,200,000 for the £30,000,000 loan, which was secured on the revenues of the Transvaal amounting at present to £4,500,000. That was a very large proportion of the revenues of the Transvaal to pledge. He agreed with his right hon. friend that it was probable that the Transvaal revenues would largely increase, but £1,200,000 out of £4,500,000 was a very large proportion to pledge at the inception of the career of the colony. With regard to the advance of £6,000,000 and to the military charges to be met, he confessed he could not thoroughly follow his right hon. friend. It seemed to him that, properly speaking, these were military charges which ought to be paid out of the Estimates of this country. He knew that there was great confusion and uncertainty as to what should or should not be put on the Estimates. When he was on the Public Accounts Committee, the Committee was told by the War Office that they could not tell within a million or two what the very charges alluded to by his right hon. friend would amount to, viz., the charges incurred by officers in the field for the purchase of necessary stores. All this rendered it extremely desirable that some statement should be circulated to hon. Members embodying in an abstract form the interesting figures given by the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee would recognise that it was almost impossible to criticise the right hon. Gentleman's statement in any detail. His only criticism would be this—that he felt increasing alarm at the increasing debt which was being piled up on the country. He did not know when it was proposed to take the Bill; but he presumed that a sufficient period would be allowed to elapse in order that the statement which he hoped would be circulated might be considered.
MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E)said he was not quite sure that he understood the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the security for the two loans. The right hon. Gentleman said in reply to the hon. Member for Kings Lynn, that the security for the

1561
£35,000,000 loan would be the inter-colonial fund, and that the security for the £30,000,000 loan, would be the surplus of the Transvaal Budget. He understood the right hon. Gentleman in his speech to say that for the £35,000,000 loan there would be the security of the assets of both the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal. Now he rather gathered that the security for the £35,000,000 loan was to be limited exclusively to the railway revenue.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I never said that. I said that in the last resort we would have the security of the whole of the assets, and the revenue of the Transvaal; but that, in the first instance, the charge would lie on the common fund; and as I believe that the common fund will always be twice, or thrice, or even more the amount that will be sufficient to pay the charge, I do not think it very likely that we shall ever have to resort to the Transvaal revenue.
MR. BUCHANANsaid he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Then there was another question. As the inter colonial fund did not at present exist, and as he gathered from Lord Milner's statement that an Order in Council would be required to constitute it, he presumed that the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to consent to the Order being promulgated. They might, therefore, conclude that the security for the £35,000,000 loan stood altogether higher than the security for the £30,000,000 loan, and had first call on the railway receipts, and after that, a call on the assets and revenue of the Transvaal. [Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear.] The right hon. Gentleman stated in the course of his speech that he had received a telegram from Lord Milner in which he stated that the railway revenue amounted to £2,500,000 for the present year.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the estimate for 1903–04.
MR. BUCHANANsaid that Lord Milner had stated that that was a some what exceptional increase, and that, as regarded the future, the net estimated
1562
revenue should not be taken as more than £2,000,000. Was the Committee to understand that Lord Milner had modified his view, and that the Committee might consider the future estimate to be £2,500,000.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.
MR. BUCHANANsaid that, of course, increased the security for the loan. In the latter part of his statement the right hon. Gentleman gave a glowing account of the possibility of an increased Transvaal revenue in the next few years; but the right hon. Gentleman did not make any statement as to whether there was not likely to be a considerable increase in the annual expenditure of the Transvaal, because it appeared from the Blue-book that that expenditure was rapidly increasing at present. They were introducing into the country new schemes which would undoubtedly cost a great deal of money. There were schemes for agricultural development, educational development, public works and native labour, no estimates of the cost of which had been given; and the Committee should have some information from the right hon. Gentleman as to the probable increase in the expenditure of the Transvaal. If the right hon. Gentleman could give that information he would enlighten the Committee more as to the ultimate security for this large loan. It was a serious matter to impose on a limited community a debt of £65,000,000, which was more than double the debt of Cape Colony.
MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)said he would not have intervened in the debate were it not for a remark which fell from his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn. His hon. friend said that this country never would, and indeed never honourably could, repudiate a liability incurred by a Crown colony in respect of a loan. His hon. friend probably had not observed that in every prospectus issued by a Crown colony a passage appeared that the revenues of the colony alone were hypothecated to the security, and that neither the Consolidated Fund nor the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury were responsible, either directly or indirectly. Therefore,

1563
it could not be represented that this country would incur any legal, or even any moral, liability, in respect of the £30,000,000 loan. There was the liability of the government of the colony in question—that was the security, and there was a reasonable conviction—he put it higher than a hope—that there could be no conceivable risk incurred by anyone investing in the £30,000,000 loan. Because of that, he was not very pleased at the prospect of the commission to be paid to the gentlemen who had under written the loan. He was quite certain that the House of Commons and the country would be glad to know there was no claim for that. Having said that, he thought that those who managed these negotiations did no more than was right. They had secured the basis of the loan, and had made absolutely certain the prospect of the loan being placed and the indemnity to be paid by the colonies being received into the Exchequer. He had noticed one discrepancy in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary. Lord Milner had fixed the sum necessary to compensate the shareholders of the railway at £15,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman put it at £13,000,000. That was a large discrepancy, and he hoped the figures of the right hon. Gentleman were right. But it was scarcely a business-like thing to ask a Committee of this House to guarantee a loan, as to the form of which, and with regard to which, the Committee had no information. He quite appreciated the reasons, perhaps better than anybody else, which rendered it expedient that this information should not be given, and so far as he was concerned he approved of the secret being kept if it was not intended to issue the prospectus immediately, but if the prospectus was to be issued to-morrow he thought the Committee should be given the information and not be asked to give this guarantee in the dark.
SIR ROBERT REIDwhose opening remarks were very indistinctly heard, was understood to say, he agreed that this was not the time for any real discussion upon this matter, and he sincerely hoped the sanguine expectations of the Colonial Secretary would be realised. He com-
1564
plained that there was no proper statement with regard to this matter on which the Committee could rely—there were no estimates which did not vary. He hoped the expectations of the right hon. Gentleman would be realised, but at the same time it was only right to remember that the Transvaal now was taxed in indirect taxation alone to the extent of £10 a head of the population, whilst we, who thought we were fairly taxed, were taxed indirectly to the extent of only £2 per head, so that the people of the Transvaal paid five times as much as we in indirect taxation. One point which he desired to draw attention to, not to depreciate the statement that had been made by the Colonial Secretary, but because it offered food for reflection and would enable the Committee to realise what it was doing, was that a loan of £65,000,000 to a population of 400,000 amounted to a loan of £160 a head. In this country we had a loan of £880,000,000 which worked out at £18 a head. It was impossible for business men not to look upon this loan as a very serious proposition. Then there was the revenue. He respectfully reminded the right hon. Gentleman of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Kings Lynn that we ought to have a statement of the revenue in a handy form. From the estimated revenue it appeared that £2,000,000 was estimated as the average profits of the railway, but the Colonial Secretary had stated it at £2,500,000. That was a most important difference, and there should be some official statement in this matter on which the Committee could rely. Part of this loan was to be spent in payments to those who had an interest in the railway. The right hon. Gentleman said £13,000,000, but in the Blue-book Lord Milner's first estimate was £13,000,000 and his later one £14,000,000.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I may say at once that the £13,000,000 is for railways. The sum of £14,000,000 includes £1,000,000 for rolling stock, which I treated as a separate item. That accounts for £1,000,000. There remains the fact that at a much earlier period Lord Milner, who knew nothing about our

1565
negotiation and could only make a guess, said—
"I suppose £15,000,000 will be the outside of what is required."
We think there is justification for the statement that£14,000,000 will be the outside figure, including£1,000,000 for rolling stock; but it is impossible to go into the details, because we are dealing with these railways. We have made offers to the shareholders and debenture holders of certain of these railways, and we cannot disclose the course of the negotiations. We can only say generally what is our expectation.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he did not challenge the good faith either of Lord Milner or the right hon. Gentleman. He merely called attention to the fact that they had not these figures, and he merely pointed it out as an illustration of the un business like way in which this matter was being dealt with. There was another consideration which he only desired to adumbrate. The right hon. Gentleman in the optimistic policy he supported, gave a rosy picture of the future conditions of the Transvaal. That bring so he could not see why the Transvaal should require this guarantee at all. But putting that on one side altogether, why should we guarantee money for the purpose of buying the railways already built? Why should the Government buy railways which exist now and which now and in the future would assist in developing the country? There might be good reasons, but unless the Committee were told those reasons it did not seem to him that the £13,000,000 they were asked to guarantee were necessary. They were also asked to pay something to build new railways. Railways in the colonies were generally built by contract. If the Transvaal was so prosperous, and likely to remain so, why should not those railways be built by contract instead of this country being asked to guarantee a loan of £13,000,000 for them. The settlement of the land was a more difficult problem. Already a sum of £1,000,000 had been spent in land settlement since the war ended. The whole of that sum had gone in the purchase of land, and it appeared from the Blue-book that the number of settlers settled in the Orange River
1566
Colony was about 360. These settlers had about 1,500 acres apiece, or a total, roughly speaking, of 500,000 acres, which according to his calculation represented a cost of £1,200 per head to the State. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of a large settlement of British people to give a "colour" to the entire population, and Lord Milner, in a previous dispatch, had estimated the cost at £1,000 per head. He pointed out these facts in order that the Committee should appreciate the character of the enterprise in which they were being asked to embark. Whether the policy was right or wrong these were the facts, and Members might well reserve their opinion. Another question was that of irrigation; though it appeared in the present Vote only to a small extent, the Colonial Secretary had suggested that they should look forward to an enormous expenditure on irrigation works, and a long Report in a former Blue-book had recommended an expenditure of £30,000,000 in that direction. When he found that about £23,000.000 out of these £35,000,000 were to be spent either on buying or building railways or in settling lands, it seemed to him there was a danger of this country having thrown on its hands the development of this great tract of territory in South Africa. There were differences of opinion as to the mineral and agricultural wealth of the new colonies, and it was an enormous speculation to embark on an enterprise which would not, or might not, end with this loan, and which already involved an expenditure of £35,000,000 on our credit, and, as he believed, practical or possible responsibility for another £30,000,000. It was a thing which ought to give reasonable men pause. The right hon. Gentleman had the art of persuading where less practised orators would fail. Many serious questions were involved. This was but the beginning of a serious enterprise, and he believed Members were not altogether satisfied with the financial position of the country, though he did not suggest that the national credit was weakened in the sense of there being any doubt of their ability to pay their debts. While he agreed it was not the duty of the Committee to form a hasty judgment

1567
on so grave a matter, he did not think Members ought to go away believing everything was as rosy as might be supposed from the Colonial Secretary's statements.
SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N. E.)said the considerations advanced by the hon. and learned Member were well-deserving of attention, but he could not follow him in the particular view he had put forward. It had recently been pointed out that the price of the Funds compared with the rate of interest was higher than when the interest was 3 per cent.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman desired to make a comparison which was beyond doubt, there were a small quantity of 3½ per cents, in existence before the recent war; they then stood at 107 or 108, and they were now at about 91.
SIR J. FERGUSSONheld that the fact of the price being higher compared with the rate of interest showed that the public credit had not been injuriously affected. The hon. and learned Member had asked what was the object of acquiring these railways. He took it that one reason was the same as that which actuated the Government of India in taking advantage of their powers to acquire the Indian railways at the statutory periods. They were acquiring the railways one by one, to the great advantage of the State, and by pursuing a similar policy in the new colonies they were adopting a course the advantages of which would increase as the colonies were developed. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had referred to the great expansion of public and local debt. But, so long as the debt was incurred for legitimate and profitable objects, the material wealth of the country was not thereby diminished. The public debt of India, in which in the last resort the credit of this country was involved, amounted to £160,000,000 or £170,000,000 but the greater part of it was invested in works of a remunerative character. The railways alone were worth the whole of the debt, and the fact of their being in the hands of the State acted and reacted on the prosperity of the country, because the reduction of the cost of transport gave a
1568
larger profit to the labour of the country and generally added to its wealth. There had never been a better investment of public funds, or one more calculated to benefit a country, than the money spent on public works in India. In the same way he believed the large sums we were proposing to invest in public works in the new colonies would constitute the best means of turning to advantage the resources of those territories, and rendering them profitable possessions of the British Crown. To allow those colonies to remain in an unimproved and undeveloped condition would make their acquisition a foolish adventure indeed. He could speak from experience of the great advantage of having a well organised force of police distributed throughout the country. While a governor in Australia a quarter of a century ago, he had many opportunities of observing the beneficial effects of such a force. They were well-paid, respectable men, and generally well educated, and they were of the greatest possible advantage in keeping peace in those colonies. An armed police force was of the greatest possible advantage in restoring peace and in serving the country in many ways. He hoped the police force which had been established in the Orange River and Transvaal Colonies would prove to be as useful as the similar forces in the Australasian Colonies. He thought this was the wisest possible course to adopt, and he felt sure it would conduce to the stability of the country to substitute police for military establishments.
MR. M'KENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)said the Colonial Secretary had described himself as an optimist, and he ventured to agree with him in that opinion. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of what the finances of the new colonies would be three years hence, when the full amount of the interest on the indemnity loan came to be charged upon those colonies, and he said there would be a surplus of £500,000 in the first year, and in the second year £100,000; and then there would be a deficit of £300,000 in the third year. The right hon. Gentleman further stated that that deficit would be more than met by an anticipated increase of the revenue by £600,000 a year, which was

1569
to take place in the third year. The Colonial Secretary had spoken of this as an unexampled result of Lord Milner's services. Speaking in the year 1903–4, it was optimistic to declare that three years hence they would have a surplus of this kind; when that surplus was realised it would be time enough to speak of it as an unrivalled success. In the meanwhile they ought to take the cautious view. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when this year he reduced by £500,000 a year the amount being paid in discharge of the interest and Sinking Fund of the National Debt, whether he took into account the fact that he was going to add another liability for £35,000,000 to the Debt?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,: I did not reduce the Sinking Fund by £500,000, and we did not take this into account.
MR. M'KENNAsaid the right hon. Gentleman had reduced the total amount which was set aside for payment of interest and Sinking Fund by £500,000.
MR. RITCHIE: I do not think we ought to discuss this matter at present.
MR. M'KENNAsaid he accepted the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he had not taken into account this £35,000,000, which might constitute a new and serious liability on our Exchequer. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take that item into account, and if he had not already done so they ought not to go to a vote on the question of this loan. In the first place they ought not to sanction a loan which they did not know the full terms of; and secondly, they ought not to sanction it until they had an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that proper provision to meet all possible liability in respect of that transaction had been made by him. Under the circumstances he felt that they ought not to be pressed to sanction this loan now, and if a Motion were made to report progress he should support it.
MR. CAWLEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the gloomy forebodings which
1570
had been predicted in regard to South Africa, but he wished to point out that in several Unionist papers it was stated that the cost of the war would be paid for by the Transvaal itself. The sum of £30,000,000 was not much towards a total expenditure of £250,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the financial houses were contributing this money, and that this country was only guaranteeing the loan. Considering the intolerable burden which the war had thrown upon South Africa he thought it was the duty of those financiers to come forward in this matter. The Colonial Secretary had dwelt a good deal upon the enormous potentialities of wealth in the Transvaal, and as far as the mineral wealth of the Transvaal was concerned he quite agreed with him, for it was enormous. But as far as the agricultural potentialities went he was not quite of the same opinion. He did not like to set his own opinion against that of the right hon. Gentleman, but he wished to inform the Committee that ten years ago he went over a great part of the Transvaal, for he made the journey to Kimberley, Johannesburg, Pretoria, and through Natal. He travelled by Cape cart, and thus had a better chance of seeing the agricultural capabilities of the country than if he had travelled on the railway. His own opinion of the agricultural value of the Transvaal was that it had been greatly exaggerated. He had met a great many men from the Transvaal, but he had never yet met one who had been there any considerable time, and who had any real knowledge of the land, who was not extremely sceptical in regard to the future value of agriculture in the Transvaal. Up to now the Transvaal had imported nearly everything, including corn, Swiss milk, and tinned meat, and if their agricultural prosperity had been so great as it had been made out, they would not have had to import these things. There were lots of ways in which they might spend the money in helping the cultivation of the land nearer home than in South Africa. In regard to the contribution to be made by the Transvaal, he wished to ask the Colonial Secretary whether the financial houses who were going to underwrite this £30,000,000 were going to get any underwriting fees.
MR. RITCHIE: No.
MR. CAWLEYthought a 4 per cent. Transvaal Loan was a great deal better than the Cape Loan, which was only 3½per cent. Instead of being thankful to these financial houses he wished to point out that they were making an enormous profit, and yet this was held up as a great virtue on their part. The whole of South Africa depended on the Transvaal, and if that country was not prosperous the whole of South Africa would become of very little value, because nearly everything depended on the mining industry. He had heard something about Italian settlers in South Africa. Anybody who knew the habits of white people there knew that they worked very well for a year or two, but eventually looked to the black people to do the work. In many ways the black people were a curse to the prosperity of South Africa. White men emigrated from this country with every intention of working, but they always delegated their duties to the black people. The Colonial Secretary should take the statement as to the success of that settlement with a pinch of salt and wait a year or two to see whether it was to be a success or not. He was pleased to hear of the satisfactory progress made so far, and he was only sorry that the Transvaal, with its tremendous potentialities, was not going to contribute more to the cost of the war, which the financial houses there had done a good deal to bring about.
MR. RITCHIE: I think the House ought to have an answer from me on the question alluded to on both sides as to what will be the terms of the loan. It is suggested that we are pursuing an unprecedented course in not informing the House what the terms of the loan are to be. That is an entire mistake. In my recollection no such statement has ever been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when a Resolution of this kind was before the Committee. It is quite evident that it would be, for many reasons, very imprudent for a Minister to make any declaration of this kind on such an occasion. The calculations put before the Committee have been on the basis of a 4 per cent.
1572
charge for interest and sinking fund together, but as to what are the terms on which the loan is to be issued, I do-not think that we should be called upon to make any statement, because it would completely tie the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As I have said there are many reasons, but that is the main reason. It is not to be expected that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should tie his hands until the last moment before the issue of the prospectus. The prospectus will, I hope, be in the hands of the public before long, and until it is in their hands I do not think there should be any disclosure made of the terms. We are acting in strict conformity with precedent.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: When will the prospectus be issued?
MR. RITCHIE: I hope to-morrow afternoon.
MR. WHITLEYsaid he was sure that the Committee appreciated what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, and would not insist upon any statement as to the terms of the loan which would not be in the public interest. The fact was that a very glowing prospectus had been presented to the House this afternoon, and the only thing they could usefully do at present was to discuss the Resolution in its broad aspect, without entering into details of the statement just made by the Colonial Secretary. It appeared that under Mr. Kruger's Government the Transvaal had a debt of £2,500,000, and very shortly under the British Government the colony would have a debt of no less than £65,000,000. The broad business question for them to consider was whether that increase of the debt was justified by the state of affairs at present, and by the immediate prospect in the Transvaal. This territory was now part of the Empire and its liabilities were our liabilities so long as it remained a Crown colony. He was not against the expenditure of public money when it was really beneficial and reproductive, and therefore the one question which he asked was how much of this £65,000,000

1573
would be represented by assets reproductive? Looking down the list of figures supplied by the Colonial Secretary this afternoon he could only make out a total of £25,000,000 which would be in any way reproductive. That sum included £13,000,000 for railways, £1,000,000 for rolling stock, £5,000,000 for new railways, £2,500,000 for land settlement, and two or three smaller items, one of which was the rather doubtful one of "repatriation." They ought to carefully consider the position of the new colonies in respect to the fact that their liabilities were just as much our own as if their debt were part of our Consols. He was very glad to hear the Colonial Secretary say that he had given up the idea of al owing £10,000,000 of the indemnity loan to be underwritten by financiers in Johannesburg. Many hon. Members greatly disliked the idea of any portion of the liabilities of the Empire being underwritten by a cosmopolitan ring of financiers in any place whatever. He also objected on the grounds of policy, because if those persons had been allowed to underwrite part of the liabilities of the Transvaal they would have claimed a moral right, with some justice, to have a special voice in the direction of the policy of that colony. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Colonial Secretary would see to it that the second loan on the security of the assets of the Transvaal would be floated without a group of financiers particularly interested, having anything to do with its flotation. He urged that when British credit was being used in this way they should see that the money was spent, and everything possible done, to improve the whole bulk of the people in the colony. A great part of the money was to be spent on the purchase of rails for the extension of railways. These rails would have to be shipped, and he hoped that the shipments would not be made in such a way as to support the present monopoly in freights to South Africa. They all hoped that the reduction of duty on imports and the reduction of railway rates would have a great effect in bringing down the cost of living for white people in Johannesburg, and they hoped also that the Colonial Secretary would do everything he possibly could in his Department to bring about free trade
1574
with South Africa in the matter of shipping freights, so that traders in this country could have a fair chance in the development for which the Committee was now asked to vote £35,000,000. If the right hon. Gentleman did that he would receive the gratitude of the traders of Great Britain, as well as of the people of the Transvaal. He wished the Colonial Secretary had kept to his first intention with regard to the war contribution. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he went out to Africa with the intention of holding that the State should have some right in the future mineral assets of the Transvaal. By adhering to that he would have adopted a very much sounder policy, although the actual money received might have been deferred for some years, than he had done by the bargain he had made. He was sorry indeed that the right hon. Gentleman had been persuaded to confine himself to a 10 per cent. tax on the gold mines in the Transvaal, for he must know that that 10 per cent. had been more than recouped by the saving on the cost of dynamite alone. After all, what tax was fairer than a tax on profits? He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had been able to announce a great reduction in railway freights, which would make it easier for poor white men to live in Johannesburg, but sorry that he had not claimed a greater share of the mineral wealth of the Transvaal to meet the expenditure on the war.
MR. MARKHAMsaid that the Colonial Secretary had referred to the excessive taxation of the Transvaal previous to the war. It was said that the Transvaal was then groaning under the taxation of the Boer Government. Now, the taxation under the old Boer Administration amounted to £3,800,000 a year, while the expenditure of the British Administration vastly exceeded that amount. At the last election in this country they were told from every platform of the excessive burden of taxation that was levied on the white population in the Transvaal, but by some extraordinary coincidence there was under British Administration higher taxation than that levied under Mr. Kruger's Government, and that was before any cost whatever for this loan came into account. The

1575
Colonial Secretary stated that under Mr. Kruger's Administration capital expenditure was slack, and further that unless this country found the money for the advancement of the Colony by the proposed public works, the Transvaal would remain in its present condition. He thought the Committee would hardly agree, if they looked at all the facts, that that was a right conclusion. The gold-fields were discovered in 1888, and in ten years the prosperity of the Transvaal had advanced by leaps and bounds, and its revenues had increased to about £4,000,000 without the aid of the British taxpayer. He looked upon this question as one of policy. It was an Imperial policy, which commended itself to the majority of the House of Commons, to take the money and credit of this country and spend it in the colonies instead of spending it at home. He submitted that this guarantee which they were now called upon to give necessitated large sums of money being taken out of this country which ought to be spent in this country, and sent to South Africa not in the interest of the people in this country, but in the interest of the people in South Africa. He did not agree to that policy. It was our duty, of course, to try and bring back prosperity to the Transvaal, but he did not think it would be a success, from a commercial point of view, to pledge our credit and spend money right and left to promote an Imperial policy abroad. He was, however, glad to notice that the Colonial Secretary, by his visit to South Africa, had created a better feeling in all parts of the South African colonies, and that a different spirit now permeated the newspapers out there. That was to the everlasting credit of the Colonial Secretary. But although the presence of the right hon. Gentleman in South Africa had had an enormous effect for good, yet that must not be taken as a sign that the past was all forgotten. While giving the Colonial Secretary credit for what he had done since the conclusion of the war, he ventured to believe that had the right hon. Gentleman been in South Africa before the war, that war would never have come about. He was also glad to hear that the Colonial Secretary had become an Army reformer, and that he had swept away the incompetency of the War Office in the frequent changes
1576
made on the Settlement Board. But why, in the name of conscience, could not the right hon. Gentleman go farther in the direction of sweeping away in competency at the War Office?
The right hon. Gentleman did not tell the Committee the conditions under which the £30,000,000 loan were fixed. The Committee, no doubt, were not aware that when the right hon. Gentleman arrived at Johannesburg he had an interview with the leading mine owners or their representatives, and as a result a private agreement was come to, fixing the war indemnity at £30,000,000. Although the mining representatives were not in a position to agree to that off-hand, without a reference to their principals in London, the right hon. Gentleman insisted that the whole matter should be settled before he left Johannesburg. The right hon. Gentleman told the President of the Chamber of Mines that unless the amount of the indemnity was fixed before he left Johannesburg he could not say what Parliament would do in the future. Whereupon, so he was informed, the representatives thought it better to come to an arrangement at once with the right hon. Gentleman. The Colonial Secretary went on to say that it would be dishonourable for the people of Johannesburg to repudiate the payment of the sum named. He did not think it would be dishonourable to repudiate a transaction forced on the representatives in Johannesburg within a fortnight of the right hon. Gentleman's arrival in South Africa, within six months of the conclusion of the war, and before the men representing all shades of public opinion had returned to the Transvaal. No public meeting had been held in Johannesburg or elsewhere in South Africa to ratify that agreement; and his contention was that if the people of Johannesburg could come to an arrangement of that kind, then the time had arrived to grant them representative government. They were told that 85 per cent. of the profits of the railways was to be handed over to the Transvaal Government in payment of the £13,000,000 for railway extension, etc. Did that apply to all the other railways as well?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, to the other railways as well.
MR. MARKHAMsaid that the net profit from the railways under the Boer Government was only between £300,000 and £400,000; but now they were told it was to be £2,500,000. He was sure that the present profits of the Transvaal railways were enormous, but that was caused by the large amount of material that was at present being sent out to South Africa to make up for the losses caused by the war; and when that special traffic was ended the revenue from the railways would be very much decreased. If so, then the guarantee for the loan would be gone. So far as he was concerned, he hoped that the prosperity of the Transvaal, foreshadowed by the Colonial Secretary, would be realised. He had no doubt it would be realised; but it could only be realised if they met the labour difficulty in South Africa in a reasonable and proper manner. The future of South Africa depended largely on cheap labour; and he maintained that ample facilities should be given to the mining industry to obtain labour. In his opinion, that was the only way in which the future prosperity of South Africa could be assured.
MR. EDMUNDROBERTSONsaid there were two questions which he wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman. He understood from the right hon. Gentleman that the large sum of £35,000,000 which they were asked to guarantee was only an instalment. Lord Milner in his dispatch stated that the first principle of the situation was that a liberal expenditure on the development of the new colonies was a condition precedent to that great expansion of revenue to which they must look, as well as to provide for their own needs as to share the burden of the British war debt. The right hon. Gentleman did not allude to that very important statement. From that point of view the loan was a security for a war contribution. The right hon. Gentleman himself in his speech at Johannesburg stated the loan would be merely an instalment, and said that he was only asking for what could be spent in two or three years. Therefore, in sanctioning the loan the House of Commons was committing itself to a course of expenditure, without having any information as to its ultimate limit. Could the right hon. Gentleman state now, or at the
1578
Second Reading, how much more money would be required for the development of the Transvaal under the scheme propounded by Lord Milner. He would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would state what was the ultimate limit that was likely to be reached in the course of expenditure on which they were asked to embark. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech said very little about the land settlement. There might be information about it in the Blue-book, but he had been unable to discover it. He had, however, seen some extraordinary statements in the South African newspapers about that scheme. He read in the Cape Times an interview with a certain Captain Owen Thomas, who said that the people employed to make the purchases were incompetent and did not know the value of land, and, to quote his own phrase, "they were going about buying land with a brass band." In one instance, they paid £5,000 for a farm which was sold a few years ago for £200. The person to whom that farm was let was charged a rental of £250 for land which he could obtain from a private owner for £15 or £20. He hoped some account of those transactions would be given before the Second Reading. He gathered from the Cape papers that Captain Owen Thomas had been employed in some official capacity in connection with this question, and had reported to the Transvaal Government.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Captain Thomas has not been employed in any official capacity. He is, I am informed, the agent for a large land company and his report was a private report, made to his employers.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was obliged for the information; he understood that the report was made to Lord Milner. Anyway he thought they were entitled to know something about the land settlement as far as it had gone, in view of the serious statements which had been published. With reference to the cost of the military occupation of South Africa which still continued to fall entirely on the shoulders of the Imperial taxpayer, nothing had been said to-day to lead them to believe that any part of

1579
it was to be shifted on to the shoulders of the Transvaal. Before the House committed itself, considerably fuller information on the matters he had mentioned ought to be given.
THE MASTER OF ELIBANKsaid he wished to ask if the Government had acquired the property of the Netherlands Railway at Delagoa Bay. It was an extremely valuable property, and was likely to become even more valuable. He was informed that the Portuguese Government were trying to put obstacles in the way of the British Government acquiring the property, and, perhaps, the Colonial Secretary would inform the Committee if any arrangement had been arrived at.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: We are in negotiation with the Portuguese Government on that subject, and I have no further statement to make at present. The hon. Member for Dundee asks whether this loan is only an instalment? Certainly, that is the case. He also asks what is to be the extent of the expenditure in the Transvaal? I should be very sorry to put any limit to it. I hope it may rise to hundreds of millions; but that is a matter which does not concern this House. All that concerns this House is the particular instalment of £35,000,000. The cost of the development of the Transvaal may be many times that amount.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Is anything more to be asked for in this way?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, at present there is nothing in the mind of the Government beyond what we are now asking for. Any future expenditure which may be incurred is a matter entirely for the future; and one on which I have no statement to make. The hon. Gentleman also asked for information with reference to the land settlement. We have given the House everything we possess in regard to that, and we have nothing further to offer. When, however, the hon. Gentleman repeats statements as to the in competency of the persons appointed in connection with the land settlement, and the extreme prices they have paid, I can only say
1580
that I shall be perfectly willing to inquire into any specific case brought to my notice. I have done that several times, and I have invariably found that the accusation made in each case was entirely without foundation.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he only quoted from the Cape Times.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the hon. Gentleman consider the Cape Times an authority on the land question? I think the Cape Times knows very little about the land question in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies. I would only like to say that in South Africa especially, and not only perhaps in South Africa, the gossip which goes on with regard to everything that takes place should be received with a great deal of suspicion. When the hon. Gentleman quotes from a newspaper that the Government of Lord Milner has done something which would not be approved by any reasonable person I think on the whole we are justified in not believing such a statement.
SIR ROBERT REIDasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give the statement of the figures asked for by the hon. Member for King's Lynn.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I need scarcely say that I have not the slightest objection; but, as far as I can judge, it will be a statement which can be easily contained on half a sheet of notepaper. I think the figures will be found to have been very plainly put in my speech when hon. Members have the report, but if it is for the convenience of the House I will submit them in the form suggested.
Resolved "That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to guarantee on the security of the Consolidated Fund the interest of a loan to be raised by the Transvaal Colony not exceeding in the aggregate an amount sufficient to raise thirty-five million pounds, and the principal of any such loan by means of the guarantee of Sinking Fund payments, and to provide for the application of any sums paid by the Transvaal or Orange River Colony in respect of expenses incurred in or incidental to the prosecution of the late war in South Africa."—(Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.)
Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

CONTINUANCE OF ADDITIONAL CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TOBACCO, BEER, AND SPIRITS.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the additional Customs Duties on tobacco, beer, and spirits imposed by Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Finance Act, 1900 (including any increased duties imposed by Section 5 of that Act), shall continue to be charged until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and four."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
MR. J. H. LEWISexpressed the opinion that it was an extraordinary circumstance that the Resolution read from the Chair should not have been printed for the information of the Committee. He agreed that it would be both improper and imprudent to print these Resolutions for the information of the Committee before the night when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Budget statement, because it was possible that, although they might be kept back till the right hon. Gentleman made his speech, his intentions might become known; but when these Resolution were brought forward at a later date he submitted they ought to be printed for the information of Members, in order that they might know what they were going to discuss. He applied to the Government to allow that course to be adopted in the future.
MR. CHAPLINsaid he took exception to these Resolutions being taken to-day on other grounds altogether. The Prime Minister had on three occasions distinctly stated that the Budget Resolutions would be taken next week. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet had asked a question on the subject this afternoon, and was then informed that these Resolutions were to be taken to-morrow, and relying on that assurance had left the House. It was a very serious departure from the procedure of the House to alter the order
1582
of business after the Leader of the House had laid down what the order was to be, and if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in proceeding he should move to report progress.
MR. RITCHIEsaid, with regard to the observations of the hon. Member opposite he might say the Government were acting in accordance with precedent. He had been informed that on no occasion had such a course been pursued as was suggested by the hon. Member. With regard to the statements of the right hon. Member for Sleaford, what he understood the Prime Minister to say was that these Resolutions might be put down on Tuesday, but the right hon. Gentleman did not shut out from his mind the fact that they would be put down in their ordinary place behind the Resolution of the right hon. Colonial Secretary. Of the Resolutions now proposed the two first were not likely to lead to any debate whatever. Then came the Income Tax, upon which some discussion might take place. Whatever decision the Committee might arrive at his right hon. friend the Prime Minister was not open to the reflections which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR SYDNEY BUXTONsaid there were a good many Members on both sides who desired to say something on the Resolution as to the Income Tax, before it was taken, who had now left the House. The impression left on his mind, and he believed on the whole House, by the statements of the Prime Minister was that these Resolutions would be taken to-morrow if the Second Reading of the Irish Land Bill was finished before the end of the afternoon sitting, and that if not taken then they would be taken on Tuesday next. There was certainly no suggestion that they should be taken to-day. The Member for Sleaford he was sure did not desire to cast any reflections on the Leader of the House, but it was very desirable if there was any misunderstanding on a matter of this kind, that it should be brought to an end by the Government giving way. He hoped, therefore, the Government would not press these Resolutions now.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he had no special authority to speak for the right hon. Member for Thanet, but he felt bound to say that he had understood the Prime Minister to say that the Budget Resolutions would not be taken until to-morrow, and upon that understanding he had left the House.
MR. RITCHIEsaid that was conclusive. If the right hon. Member for Thanet had left the House upon the understanding that these Resolutions would not be taken until to-morrow he would be sorry to take any further steps. If the Committee thought that none of the Resolutions should be taken he would withdraw them.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL. [LORDS].
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he did not want to interpose in the Second Reading of this Bill but merely to enter a caveat. There was a very important question to be raised in Committee stage of this Bill as regarded its operation, particularly with regard to the great insurance companies. The agents of the insurance companies in many instances derived their remuneration not only from a commission on the original premium paid by the assurers, but also on the subsequent premiums. If the Bill as it now stood were applied to this particular business it would greatly interfere with the excellent and valuable operations of all the great insurance companies and would render it necessary for them to communicate to all their insurers the fact that these commissions were being paid. Several suggestions had been made by the companies to meet the difficulty, which obviously ought to be met. He believed that the last proposal was that there should be a regular tariff of the amount of the commissions paid by the insurance
1584
companies to agents, and that the companies who paid their agents according to that tariff should be exempted from the operation of the Bill. He did not know whether the Government were prepared now to make a statement on the point, but he mentioned it because it was an important public question, which would have to be dealt with in order that a great and valuable business should not be interfered with.
MR. RITCHIEthought his right hon. friend would hardly expect him to make an absolute declaration of the opinion of the Government, but he could assure him that the matter to which he referred was quite familiar to the Government, and that it would receive the most careful consideration.
MR. HALDANEsaid that while he was very anxious that this measure should pass, alterations had been made in another place which would render it necessary that its provisions should be most carefully looked into, otherwise the Bill would do more harm than good. He had received communications from many gentlemen with whom he did not agree, but the points to which they referred well deserved consideration. Certain clauses, as they stood, opened up a prospect of unlimited blackmailing. The House would not be satisfied until considerable modifications had been made in the way in which even some of the great insurance companies did their business. There were many objectionable features, but there were also features which were quite legitimate. Nobody desired to see the latter struck out or the business hampered. They did desire, however, that the principle of the Bill should become law, and until it did public opinion would not be satisfied that our commercial morality was as it should be. He would be quite satisfied if the Government would undertake that sufficient time should elapse between the Second Reading and the Committee stage to enable these matters to be thoroughly gone into.
MR. CRIPPSagreed that the Bill was an extremely important one, and one which certainly ought to be passed, but, with the right

1585
hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, he believed in its present form it would do more harm than good. It was too stringent in certain directions, and its details required careful consideration. He understood, however, that the Government admitted that such examination was necessary.
MR. E. B. FABERsaid he desired to say a few words from the bankers' point of view. As regarded the Bill itself no one wished to shield the guilty. Everyone had suffered from the baneful effects of commissions, and they would be glad to see the Bill as a whole passed into law. At the same time he felt confident that nobody wished to interfere with a legitimate trade, and he ventured to think that if the Bill was passed in its present form the banking interest must at any rate suffer. Bankers every day were instructed by their customers to buy certain stock for them. The banker purchased the stock, and sent the broker's note to the customer, setting forth the commission of half-a-crown, which was divided between the banker and the broker. The bankers held that under such circumstances, there being no secrecy at all, that notice to the principal should be enough to take action of that sort out of the purview of the Bill; and they would ask the Committee carefully to consider the insertion of words that were originally in the Bill, in line 1, section 1, viz., "If any agent corruptly and without the knowledge of the principal," etc. If those words were inserted he should be thoroughly well satisfied.
MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)said it was perfectly reasonable that the fullest opportunity should be given for the consideration of Amendments, but he hoped the Government would not postpone the Committee stage, so as in any way to endanger the passage of the Bill this session.
SIR WALTER THORBURNsaid the Bill affected a great many interests, and required careful consideration. Unless materially altered it would place the insurance companies in a most awkward position. He strongly
1586
desired to see the Bill become law, but as there was not time on the present occasion adequately to discuss its provisions, he moved the adjournment of the Debate.
The Motion failed to find a seconder, and therefore dropped.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that, according to Clause 1, any person serving under the Crown was an agent within the meaning of the Act. He desired to know whether the description applied to municipal officials. If it did not, he thought they ought to be included.
MR. RITCHIEsaid he could not be expected to give off-hand an exact definition of what that particular clause would include. The matter could be considered in Committee, and, if necessary, amended.
MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)pointed out that nobody had the least notion that this important Bill was coming on, and the Government were incurring an enormous responsibility by rushing the measure forward so unexpectedly. Many clauses required careful consideration on the part of the commercial classes, and certain expressions would need a great deal of definition. He thought this Bill was one which should not be sprung upon the House suddenly in this way.
MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)said he was far from saying that the word "absolute" carried out the intention of the clause. Although they wished to take care that these abuses were remedied, they did not want to do it in a way which would interfere with legitimate and honourable commerce.
MR. LAWSON WALTON (Leeds, S.)said it was impossible to resist some feeling of sympathy with the hon. Member who had expressed surprise that a Bill of this radical character should be introduced without notice. Many hon. Members interested were not present because they did not expect the Bill to be taken at this hour. This Bill was a proposal for entirely altering certain accepted principles, not in the definition of the law, but in the rules of evidence by which, legal liability was to be established. There was an extraordinary provision

1587
in the Bill which provided that, in proving a corrupt motive on the part of the person accused, he should be deprived of giving the most obvious and conclusive evidence to establish his own innocence. That was a provision which ought to be considered by the whole House. A provision of that kind involving such inconsistency ought not to be considered as a mere mater of detail. There was another provision which cast upon the accused person the burden of proving his own innocence. If the prosecutor said he was not aware that a commission had been taken, it would be necessary for the accused person to prove that he had not taken it. Take any solicitor who had received the usual commission, and a solicitor or agent said he was not aware of it. In the first place the accused person could not prove that it was the ordinary custom of the profession to take those commissions; and in the second place, the burden of proving his innocence was cast upon him. These alterations were very serious, and the House might very fairly complain of not being allowed a fuller opportunity of discussing them.
Bill read a second time.
MR. RITCHIE: I move that the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law.
MR. WHITLEYasked what was the state of the business before the Grand Committees. They were anxious to see this Bill passed, and as they had just sent a contentious Bill up to one of the Grand Committees, he thought it might interfere with the success of this measure. It was very undesirable that this Bill should be put behind an extremely controversial Bill.
MR. RITCHIE: I understand that the Grand Committee on Trade has two Bills of great importance before it which are likely to take up some time. The Grand Committee on Law has also an important Bill before it, but only one—namely, the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill. I think that it is likely to take up some little time. I do not regret that, because in accordance with the views expressed by many hon. Members it is
1588
desirable that there should be some little interval in regard to it. I think this Bill would have a better chance before the Grand Committee on Law than before the Grand Committee on Trade.
Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.

SUPPLY.
  21ST APRIL, AFTERNOON SITTING.
  Resolutions reported.
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1903–4.

  CLASS I.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £40,600, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £51,400, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £27,700, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Houses of Parliament Buildings."
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £36,120, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for Expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings."
  5. "That a sum, not exceeding £30,150, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."
  6. "That a sum, not exceeding £37,500, be granted to His Majesty, to

  1589
  complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries abroad."
  7. "That a sum, not exceeding £339,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Customs, Inland Revenue, Post Office, and Post Office Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices abroad, including Furniture, Fuel, and sundry Miscellaneous Services,"
  8. "That a sum, not exceeding £222,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain not provided for on other Votes."
  9. "That a sum, not exceeding £119,019, be granted to his Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the survey of the United Kingdom, and for minor services connected therewith."
  10. "That a sum, not exceeding £14,204, be granted to his Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for maintaining certain harbours under the Board of Trade, and for Grants in Aid of Harbours."
  11. "That a sum, not exceeding £17,980, be granted to his Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for constructing a new Harbour of Refuge at Peterhead.

  CLASS II.
  12. "That a sum, not exceeding £48,288, be granted to his Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the
  1590
  31st day of March, 1904, for the salaries and expenses of the Board of Agriculture, and for Kew Botanic and Pleasure Gardens, including certain Grants in Aid."
  Resolutions read a second time:—
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had previously drawn attention to the fact that there was an improper charge in this Vote, and he appealed to the Treasury to make some explanation in regard to it. There was a charge of £20,100 set down for Osborne House, and that was not a royal palace. A portion of it had been left as a royal exhibition or show, but almost the whole of the royal palace had now been set apart for entirely different purposes. Part of it had become a naval college, and the charge for that ought to be on the Navy Vote. Another part had been turned into an Army convalescent home, and therefore ought to come upon the Army Vote. This £20,100 was improperly put upon this Vote, and the responsibility for it lay, not with the Departments which administered the Vote, but entirely and solely with the Treasury, and the person he had to appeal to was either the Secretary to the Treasury, or, failing him, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They had been told that this was only a small portion of the amount to be charged upon this Vote in future years, and before they agreed to the Report with regard to this Vote he thought they were entitled to have an explanation from the Treasury to justify the placing of this item upon this particular Vote.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. ARTHUR ELLIOTT, Durham)said he thought the right course to follow in future would be that so far as the Naval College was concerned, those expenses should appear on the Navy Estimates. As to the hospital expenses, those were chargeable to, and accountable for by the Office of Works, and it was right and proper that they should appear in the Vote for the Office of Works.
  SIR JOHN GORSTthought the hon. Member for King's Lynn's complaint was a just one, for it was obvious that an error had been committed. The Secretary to the

  1591
  Treasury admitted the error so far as the naval part was concerned, and he understood that he had promised that this naval expenditure should appear in the Navy Votes. He did not see why the hospital expenditure should be placed in the Vote for Royal Palaces, and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would extend his promise to this item and place it under its proper head. He thought the hon. Member deserved the thanks of the House for calling attention to this matter.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that if the charge had been placed on the wrong Vote it was owing to the fact that the change in regard to Osborne House had just taken place. He would take care that the matter was considered, and perhaps the Estimate would be arranged more in accordance with the views which the hon. Member had expressed.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsuggested that the matter should be referred to the Public Accounts Committee for consideration.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that might not be necessary.
  MR. WEIRcalled attention to the condition of the drains at Holyrood Palace and stated that the House had not been informed who was to blame in this matter. The blame had been thrown on the First Commissioner of Works, but there was a gentleman in Edinburgh—he thought his name was Mr. Robertson—who was paid to look after the Royal Palaces in Scotland What had that gentleman been about in recent years? This was not the first time he had had occasion to call attention to that gentleman's neglect of his duties. He should have discovered that the drains were defective. He hoped the hon. Member representing the Office of Works would be able to assure him that that gentleman would be dealt with.
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWESsaid he was afraid he could give the hon. Member very little more information than he gave a fortnight ago. The Works Office had looked into the question
  1592
  of the drainage at Holyrood, and as the condition of things was not satisfactory £3,500 had been put on the Estimates for the purpose of having the drains attended to.
  First Resolution agreed to.
  Second Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."—Debate arising.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he wished to call attention to a question which was of more importance than on the surface might appear, namely, Hyde Park and the Ride therein. The Ride in Hyde Park was one of the peculiar glories of London, and the one thing which distinguished London from every other capital in Europe, and, indeed, in the world. It was the resort of all those who wished to maintain their health, and all those who wished to come to that House fit for their duties; and it was the resort of all classes of society, rich and poor. The Ride had for years been shockingly neglected. It was now like a morass, and was full of rocks and precipices, streams of water, over which the most careful horse might break his legs, or the rider's head. It was not creditable to the country, and the Row should be re-made altogether, and maintained in a proper condition for riding. He wished to know whether it would be possible to restore the Row to the condition in which it was previous to 1851. He believed it then extended, not merely to the end of Hyde Park, but across the road over the Serpentine into Kensington Gardens. It would greatly add to the amenities of the Row if it was extended along the unfrequented avenue leading to Kensington Palace, and round the east side of the Palace to the Ride at the north end of the park. That would give a proper and dignified Ride for the Metropolis. Meanwhile, it was perfectly disgraceful to leave the Row in its present condition.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYendorsed what had fallen from his hon. friend. He had made inquiry as to the cause of what he considered the

  1593
  disgraceful state of the Row, and he was informed that it was owing to proper attention not being paid to it. Only the dirt taken off the road was placed on it during the greater part of the year, and he suggested that a little more sand should be put there.
  MR. CREMERsaid that some years ago he several times drew attention to the question of chairs in the parks, and was informed that the letting of them was not a source of profit to the contractor. Although he received that solemn assurance, he found, two or three years afterwards, that the nation received £2,100 for the permission given by the Office of Works to let chairs. Last year he was informed that a new contract was to be made, and that there was a chance of getting even better terms from the contractor. He asked whether anew contract with improved terms had yet been entered upon. This was a matter of considerable importance to thousands of people, who were compelled to pay for seats in the parks, and he thought they were entitled to more information than they had received up to the present time. The late First Commissioner of Works admitted that he had received numerous complaints as to the price and bad quality of refreshments sold at the kiosks in the parks.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, further consideration of second and subsequent Resolutions stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid when Parliament dealt with the hours of labour under Factory Acts, these Acts did not include railway servants engaged in working railway traffic. In limiting the hours of labour in factories and workshops, Parliament had mainly in view the prevention of injury to the health of the workmen employed, and the preventing of the deterioration of the race which was likely to be caused by excessive hours of labour. These objects were as essential and important in the case of railway servants as in the case of
  1594
  factory workers, whilst there was this additional reason in the case of railway servants, that, owing to the dangerous nature of the occupation, there was not only the risk to the life and the possible injury to the person of the workman himself, but there was likewise the risk of loss of life and possible injury to the persons of his fellow workmen and the travelling public, through excessive hours of labour depriving a workman of that amount of vigilance which was so necessary in so dangerous an occupation. It was felt, however, that the case of railways was in a somewhat different position from that of an ordinary factory and workshop. As a rule, the hours of labour could be fixed generally for factories, whilst a latitude was given to certain specified trades owing to special circumstances or being season trades. In the case of a railway, however, punctuality of locomotion was desirable in the public interest, and to avoid the risks of accidents railways were liable to be interfered with by breakdowns, by the state of the weather, and by exceptional public demands. This made it difficult for Parliament to legislate with regard to hours on railways. Railway companies were slow to co-operate in the shortening of hours of labour, so long, at least, as they could get a supply of men willing to work long hours, whilst the men themselves were tempted by the higher wages earnable to work long hours. Of late years, however, the interest of public safety has come to the front. The number of railway accidents, the appalling loss of life of railway servants and the public, and injuries to the person, had directed inquiries to be made into the causes of accidents, and the length of hours during which those concerned were on duty. All accidents, no doubt, were not traceable to excessive hours of labour; but still a good many were, and Parliament was induced to take a first and very important step with regard to the hours of labour of railway servants when it passed the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889, which provided, by Section 4, that every railway should make for the Board of Trade a periodical return of the excessive hours of work on its system. That was a most important statute, but it had happened that the Board of Trade had done very little in the way of attempting to get these periodical returns. Parliament had

  1595
  calculated not on spasmodic but periodical returns. The Act was passed in 1889 and the first return was made in 1891, and that return had been made the basis of the return for 1901. The next return made under the Act was made in 1893, when a Liberal Government was in power, and from then until last year, when the President of the Board of Trade was pressed to obtain a return in accordance with the Act of 1889, no return had been made. The President of the Board of Trade then raised every obstacle in his power, and a Resolution was passed in this House, voted against by the Government, and the Government was defeated.
  The Board of Trade took up the position that it was not for them to act on their own initiative in this matter, that there was nothing in the Act which required the intervention of anybody to set the Board of Trade in motion to compel these returns. The Act laid the obligation on the railway companies, and gave power to the Board of Trade to compel the return. The Board of Trade could not shift the responsibility which the Act had imposed on it by saying they had not been asked to move. The result had been that it had been necessary to bring another Resolution before Parliament in order to compel the right hon. Gentleman to take action on the Act of Parliament. The returns that had been made showed that an enormous benefit had been brought about in the reduction of hours of labour, and he could quite understand the position of the right hon. Gentleman in that regard; but did it not occur to the right hon. Gentleman that the very fact of that improvement rendered it necessary to enforce these returns? It had been proved that legislation had effected this result, and that it had not been brought about by anything the Board of Trade had done. It was mainly due to the Act of 1889, which provided that returns as to excessive hours might be called for at any moment. The subsequent Act of 1893 gave drastic powers to the Board of Trade with regard to excessive hours of labour, and on whom it imposed the duty of investigating as to these excessive hours of labour. Under that Act the Board of Trade were not only bound to take into consideration
  1596
  complaints made by any outsider, but were also bound to take into consideration "either any such representations or otherwise." That word "otherwise" had been inserted there in order that the Act of 1893 should be read with the Act of 1889. If it appeared to the Board of Trade, either through representations after the event, or by the returns which the Board of Trade had received under the Act of 1889, or if it appeared to the Board of Trade as a result of an inspection by their own inspectors, that there were men being worked an excessive number of hours, it was their duty to intervene. He was not surprised that there should be discontent at the inaction of the Board of Trade, which took so narrow a view of their duty. The Board of Trade took the narrow view that they were not expected to act on their own initiative, but it would be most unfair to say that a servant of a railway company should have to make complaint, and thereby run a risk of losing either his employment or his promotion.
  So much for the workman; but the travelling public were interested in this matter. Their safety was at stake, and when it was shown that accidents were largely the result of excessive hours of labour, it was in the interest of the public that these workmen should not be allowed to work an excessive number of hours. Nothing could be more obvious than that in this matter the Board of Trade had mistaken their duty. They had assumed that they had to wait for complaints, but that was not so. Although they were bound to attend to a complaint, that did not relieve them from acting on their own responsibility. They should take action on their own initiative in the same way as the Home Office did with regard to factories.
  Then again, with regard to the prevention of accidents, obligations were imposed on the Board of Trade to make new rules. That should not depend on the initiative of any person whatever; that was a requirement of the Act of Parliament. The Board of Trade might say it was not compulsory, but when Parliament gave instructions to a Department they relied on their instructions being carried out without a word. The difficulty was to convince the right hon.

  1597
  Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that he was to carry out the policy of Parliament and do certain things. These rules affected the safety of those employed, and the Act laid it on the Board of Trade to see that the rules were carried out. If they were not carried out, the Board of Trade must appeal to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, and if that Board were satisfied that these rules were reasonable, and that they were not carried out, they could impose penalties for their not being carried out. It was obvious that if we were to have rules it was necessary that there should be power given to see them carried out. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade could not say that he could not get the money. The money had been voted for two years for two additional sub-inspectors, and therefore he could not complain against the House of Commons or the Treasury. But the right hon. Gentleman had not yet appointed these additional sub-inspectors, which it was his duty to do. If there were any defects in existing legislation they could ask the President of the Board of Trade to bring in that legislation. But it was the first time he had ever heard that it was necessary to apply for an Act of Parliament to compel the Board of Trade to do that which the law permitted them to do. He was sure that no Member of the House would grudge the employment of additional sub-inspectors if that would tend to promote the safety of railway servants. He begged to move.
  MR. BELLin seconding the Motion, expressed his obligation to his hon. friend the Member for Mid Lanark for bringing it forward, and for the opportunity afforded him of meeting such a large number of railway directors. He was pleased to see these Gentlemen turn up when a Motion of this kind was being discussed. His hon. friend had referred very fully to the long hours worked by railway servants in this country. He found from the return which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had obtained, that in December, 1901, there were no less than 216,219 cases of hours worked over twelve on railways in
  1598
  the United Kingdom. There were 109,000 cases of men who had been on duty for thirteen hours, 58,000 for fourteen hours, 21,000 for fifteen hours, 13,000 for sixteen hours, 6,500 for seventeen hours, and 8,000 for eighteen hours and over. Out of the total of 8,087 cases where the men were on duty for eighteen hours and over, 2,890 were credited to the Great Central Railway, with only 3,029 men employed. The total number of cases in which thirteen to eighteen hours had been worked were on the Great Central Railway. 20,922; London and North Western, 10,222; Great Northern, 10,618; Great Western, 34,349; South-Eastern and Chatham, 10,051; Caledonian, 7,995; North British, 20,175; and one small Welsh railway which employed only ninety had a record of 878 cases of men working from thirteen to eighteen hours and over. There was another side to the question, perhaps equally as unpleasant, if not so dangerous, and that was when the men resumed duty with an insufficient interval for rest. There were 21,000 cases where the men resumed duty with less than nine hours rest after having worked from thirteen to eighteen hours and over on the previous day. There were thirty-one cases where work was resumed with only one hour's interval for rest, twenty-two cases with two hours interval, thirty-three cases with three hours interval, sixty-two with four hours, 173 with five hours, 495 with six hours, 1,414 with seven hours, and 18,746 with eight hours interval. One hundred and eighteen of these cases occurred in Ireland, where there was not a very large number of railway men employed. One thousand one hundred and ninety of the cases occurred on the South Eastern Railway, and the little Welsh railway that he had formerly referred to had the worst record.
  It might be said by some hon. Members that it was practically impossible to work railways within reasonable limits of time for the men. Now the London and North Western Railway employed considerably more men than any other company, and they had only 3,771 cases of men who worked above twelve hours. Surely if one great railway could do that

  1599
  the other great railways could follow suit if they chose. Last year, when this subject was being discussed, the late Member for Leeds, Mr. Jackson, said that he had known cases where men had been on duty for four or five hours and not able to go on waiting for connection, and yet these men were counted as having done full duty; and when the hon. Member for Battersea talked of a driver being twenty hours on the foot-plate of his engine Mr. Jackson interjected that there was no such case. Now, on the Great Northern Railway, of which Mr. Jackson is Chairman, 3,958 engine drivers worked thirteen hours, 1,789 worked fourteen hours, 706 worked fifteen hours, 237 worked sixteen hours, 91 worked seventeen hours, and 127 worked eighteen hours, and upwards. The return did not show details above eighteen hours, and he ventured to suggest that of the 127 who had worked eighteen hours and upwards, a considerable proportion must have been twenty hours on the foot-plate.
  The powers possessed by the President of the Board of Trade had been well demonstrated by his hon. friend, and he wished to emphasise all that his hon. friend had said in regard to that matter. All that he asked was that the right hon. Gentleman should exercise these powers. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted to the House last year that the return obtained for December, 1901, was not satisfactory, and that he would call for another return last December. That, however, was giving the railway companies four months notice of what he was going to do. Special efforts were therefore made by the railway companies to keep down the number of hours worked by the men for that particular month, and the right hon. Gentleman would find, if he made close inquiry, that some of the companies had definitely stated to the superintendents and foremen that for certain reasons the return of the number of men who worked more than twelve hours should be nil for that month. Large bodies of men were distributed from the centres all over the line in order that relief might be provided for keeping down the number of hours worked; but when December was over these men returned to the centres from whence they came, and the number of hours worked was afterwards con-
  1600
  siderably longer than in December. He ventured to predict than when the return for December last is issued the number of cases where the men worked more than twelve hours would be nearly blank. He wanted to impress on the President of the Board of Trade that he should not accept that return as satisfactory, or as typical of the number of hours worked; and that in future a return should be got without warning being given to the railway companies. So much on the question of the number of hours worked. He now desired to call the attention of the House to the serious number of accidents which occurred on the railways in the United Kingdom. He knew there was not a single member interested in railways who did not desire to see the number of accidents reduced. It would be inhuman to suggest that any director wished to see the existing number of serious accidents maintained; but he was candidly of opinion that there was insufficient supervision by the responsible officials of the companies, and, might he say, insufficient pressure put upon them to reduce the accidents to the lowest possible limits. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in his reply a fortnight ago compared the number of accidents with the number of miles run. That was a very unfair comparison, because the railway companies, for economic reasons, were turning out more powerful locomotives and the consequence was that the number of miles run showed a great deal less than formerly, although the traffic was greater. For instance, the London and North Western Company's engines ran 1,100,000 less miles in 1902 than they did in the previous year, not with standing an increase in the volume of traffic to the extent of £1,000,000 sterling.
  The Return for 1902 showed that 443 men were killed, and 3,713 injured in connection with the working of trains and the movement of vehicles; while thirty-three were killed, and 9,929 were injured otherwise than by the movement of vehicles, making a grand total of 476 killed, and 13,642 injured. In considering the percentage of deaths and injuries to the number of men employed it was manifestly absurd to take the total number of railway employees, which included clerks and many others who ran no

  1601
  risks in their occupations. The object of the Motion before the House did not apply to those employed in offices, but only to what might be termed dangerous employments on railways. He had extracted half
  a-dozen grades whose occupations might be said to be dangerous, and those who suffered from excessive hours. There were twenty drivers killed, and 313 injured; forty-six porters killed and 480 injured; twenty three firemen killed, and 470 injured; 101 platelayers killed, and 128 injured; forty-four goods guards and brakes men killed, and 779 injured. The total number of the latter employed was 15,708, and the proportion of killed was one in 357, and of injured, one in twenty. There were thirty-four shunters killed and 587 injured. The number of these was 10,841 and the proportion of killed was one in 318, and of injured one in eighteen. The total number in these six grades was 268 killed, and 2,747 injured, or an average over the whole lot of one killed to 719 employed, and one injured to every seventy men employed. Now these were the grades of occupation upon which they were asking the right hon. Gentleman to exercise the powers already conferred upon him of inspection with a view to prevent these accidents occurring.
  There were certain railway premises already inspected under the Workshops and Factories Acts. The number of men employed in these premises was 70,922, and of these thirteen were killed, and thirty-seven were injured, which worked out at one killed in every 5,455 employed, and one injured in every 4,917 employed. That was a comparatively satisfactory result, and his point was that with proper inspection of the dangerous grades the same satisfactory results would ensue. The right hon. Gentleman had referred with a good deal of satisfaction to the fact that the accidents last year were considerably below the preceding year. That was correct, and he appreciated it, but as a counter-blast to that he would point out that the Return in the Labour Gazette recently published showed that the number of fatal railway accidents in March last was sixteen above the corresponding month last year, and twelve above the February of this year. There was consequently an
  1602
  upward tendency this year. The Board of Trade issued a return for the ten years ending 1897, and he had extracted the particulars in respect of goods, guards and shunters for the ensuing five years, making a total of fifteen years. The total number of goods guards and shunters employed in 1888 was 13,678. The total employed in 1902 was 26,549. During that period of fifteen years, 1,176 of these men were killed and 16,508 were injured, making a total of killed and injured in the two grades he had mentioned of 17,684. Taking the mean number of men employed over the period of fifteen years, viz., 20,108, no less than 17,684 were killed or injured during that period. That was certainly too horrible to be allowed to continue, and he hope the right hon. Gentleman would not si with equanimity and calculate those accidents per mile.
  He would take it in another way. During that period of fifteen years 1,180 men were killed or injured each year, out of 20,108 men employed. That was too serious for the House of Commons or any Government Department to trifle with. He was bound to say that the responsibility for that high mortality which fell on the Board of Trade continued to be very great; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would exercise his powers and do what he could to reduce the number of those terrible accidents. He did not wish to weary the House; but it was necessary for him to give facts and figures in order to make his case clear. He would quote extracts from the reports of the Inspecting Officers, the Assistant Inspecting Officers and the Sub-Inspectors of the Railway Department of the Board of Trade. In a report of an accident on the North British Railway on the 14th May, Major Pringle, the Inspecting Officer, said—
  "The derailment may be directly ascribed to the fact that guard Wilson whilst holding a pole in position during a sticking or propping operation stumbled over a crossing and fell; in doing so he allowed the pole to fall to the ground; one end of the pole became jambed against one of the chairs or rails on the siding road, and the other struck the axle-box moving on the down line, thus causing the wagon to be derailed into the 6-foot way."
  Major Pringle added—
  "Of the two methods of use on railways, namely, roping and propping, both are dangerous to the men engaged in the operation."

  1603
  Reporting on an accident on the Great Western Railway on the 22nd August, the Inspector said that the accident was one which might be expected where tow-roping was used. On the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway there was an accident on 8th July in which goods guard Joseph Bates was injured, and the Inspector reported:—
  "This method of coupling brake vans appears to be a common operation both at Normanton and at other places of this Company's system, and I do not think that Bates can be blamed for adopting it in this case. I consider that the operation is unnecessarily dangerous, and it is to be hoped that the company will issue and enforce instructions for its discontinuance."
  On the same railway an accident occurred on 18th July at the Exchange Station at Liverpool, and the inspecting officer said in his report:—
  "The loop line leading from No. 1 siding is not the most desirable position to place carriages requiring such attention, but I understand that arrangements will be made to perform this work while the carriages are standing on the platform road in future."
  Reporting on an accident on the North British Railway on July 25th the inspector said—
  "In accordance with special instructions issued by the company it is necessary for the guard to ride on the leading vehicle of every train while it is being propelled up the Tranent branch, which is about a mile in length. In order to enable the guards to perform this duty safely I consider that a brake van or other suitable vehicle should be provided for their use."
  In a report on an accident on the South Eastern and Central Railway on the 16th of July the inspector said—
  "Tow-roping is always attended with considerable risk, and at this place the danger of such an operation is greatly increased by the presence of some point-rod boxing which stands about fifteen inches high and occupies most of the six feet space between the main line and the siding "—
  the very place where the men had to work. The inspector proceeded—
  "The work can be performed by other means, and to avoid the recurrence of such an accident I would recommend that the company should strictly prohibit the use of a tow rope at this place. The point-rod boxing referred to should also be altered so that it will cause less obstruction than at present. Seeing that the operation of tow roping has been performed at this place with the knowledge of the responsible officers, I am of opinion that the company must bear a certain amount of responsibility for failing to put a stop to such a dangerous practice, and it is desirable that immediate effect should be given to the above recommendations."
  1604
  An accident occurred on the same railway on the 12th of August. The driver, Roots was unfortunately charged with manslaughter, hauled from court to court, but, happily, was acquitted at the Assizes. The inspector reported as follows—
  "Taking all the facts into consideration, I am of opinion that, although Roots was undoubtedly very much to blame, there were extenuating circumstances which cannot be overlooked."
  The inspector then detailed the extenuating circumstances, and added—
  "I would also recommend that the signal arms should be painted more regularly and kept in a cleaner condition."
  He would now quote from the sub-inspector's reports. There was an accident on the Caledonian Railway at Mother well goods yard, in which Alexander Frazer, chief yardsman, was killed, and the sub-inspector in his report said—
  "There are no lamps fixed for lighting up the shunting neck in question. The night shunting is heavy, and for future safety I recommend that at least one good lamp should be fixed near the steps leading to the shunters cabin."
  There was an accident on the Cheshire lines at Warrington on the 1st September, 1902, in which Thomas Beckett, acting shunter, was killed, and the inspector reported—
  "There is no doubt that Beckett did not give the attention necessary for his own safety, but at the same time it; should be noticed that at the time of the mishap he had been on duty for thirteen hours. That, in my opinion, would prevent him moving as freely and being as watchful as is necessary with men engaged in shunting operations."
  He could quote a number of other cases in which inspectors and sub inspectors condemned the system. For the three months ending December, the inspectors and sub-inspectors of the Board of Trade condemned the railway companies in five cases of accidents from riding on buffers where brake vans ought to be provided; in two cases of fly shunting; in three cases of tow-roping; in one case of signal wires being unprotected; in six cases where look-out men should be provided; and in nine cases of insufficient lighting. On the 22nd of April, when the matter was discussed in the House, the President of the Board of Trade said that he did not blame the railway companies, and that they had to safeguard their interests. Neither did he blame

  1605
  the railway companies; but he was trying to safeguard the interests of their employees and to make their position better and safer. The Board of Trade issued rules early in the year before last. Objection was taken to nearly all the rules by the railway companies, and he made objections on behalf of the workmen. The objections were considered, and after consideration the rules were again re-issued; and he understood that it was practically agreed that no further objection was to be taken. However, some of the railway companies took further objection, and the rules had to be referred to the Rail way and Canal Commissioners. He was sorry to have to say it, but the action of the railway companies looked like a little bit of conspiracy, although he hoped he was wrong in that conclusion. The railway companies said to the Railway and Canal Commissioners that they were only going to object to a certain number of the rules. He himself was present, and assisted the Board of Trade, in the interests of the men, to defend their own rules. The rules to which the English companies did not object were, however, objected to by the Irish companies, and were taken before the Irish courts. The Irish companies said they were not objecting to all the rules, but they objected to three rules to. which the English companies had agreed, with the result that each of the rules had to be fought either in England or Ireland. The rules had now been issued by the Board of Trade, and immediately the railway companies revised their own rules and regulations. He would read one which was typical of the others. One of the Caledonian Company's rules was as follows—
  "The movement of vehicles by means of a prop or pole, or by towing with a rope or chain attached to a locomotive, is prohibited except in cases where specially authorised by the superintendent of the line."
  That looked exceedingly well, but the authority of the superintendent of the line was very easy to obtain. On the 29th of August, the Caledonian Railway issued a list of stations and sidings where propping could be carried on, and they numbered no less than 261. That was simply playing with the Board of Trade. In the North British list there were 298; on the Great Eastern list, 261;
  1606
  and on the Great Southern and Western list, 98 stations and sidings where propping was to be allowed to continue. His plea was that the right hon. Gentleman should exercise the power conferred on him and appoint the two sub-inspectors for whom he obtained money three years ago. In the debate on 22nd of April, the right hon. Gentleman said that he himself had asked him to apply the Home Office system of factory inspection to railways, and he said that that had never been adopted by the Board of Trade. But that was the very reason why he was asking the right hon. Gentleman to adopt it now. The right hon. Gentleman had the power, but he was afraid he had not made himself familiar with the Report of the Royal Commission to inquire into the causes of Accidents to Railway Servants, on which the railway companies were represented by the Chairman of the Midland Company and a Director of the London and South-Western Company. After hearing scores of witnesses, the Commissioners reported as follows—
  "Having carefully considered the facts and figures above setout, we have come to the conclusion that the deaths incurred from injuries sustained are unnecessarily great in number, and could be diminished."
  Why should there be any hesitation on the part of the Board of Trade? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman exercise his power? The Commission also said—
  "Lives that could be saved are lost, and men are injured unnecessarily."
  That was a terrible indictment, and he could not understand why a State Department, having the power, should allow such a state of things to continue. Even the present general manager of the London and North-Western Railway, when under examination before the Commission, practically admitted that shunting yards ought to be inspected. The Railways Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900, as he read it, gave definite power to the Board of Trade to appoint officials for the purpose of inspecting railways and seeing that the rules were carried out. The question of inspection was specifically mentioned, and he failed to see upon what the President of the Board of Trade based his contention that he had no power to inspect. Worse still, the right hon.

  1607
  Gentleman declared that inspection was unnecessary. Perhaps he would tell the House how many more railway servants must be killed and injured before he took action. He heartily seconded the Motion, and hoped the evidence he had adduced would satisfy Members there was a case for inspection.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Board of Trade should exercise more vigorously the powers conferred on it by the Railway Regulation Act, 1893, and other Acts with a view of preventing excessive hours of labour by railway servants engaged in working the traffic, and of securing sufficient intervals of uninterrupted rest between the periods of duty and sufficient relief in respect of Sunday duty, and that with a view to the diminution of accidents to railway servants the appointment of additional sub-inspectors is necessary to ensure that the rules adopted under the Railways Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900, are strictly observed."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  MR. ARTHUR MORTONmoved, as an Amendment to the Motion—
  "To leave out all the words after the word 'that,' and add 'this House notes with satisfaction the steady improvement shown in the returns of accidents on railways in the United Kingdom, and expresses the hope that the Board of Trade will continue to use all due diligence in exercising the statutory powers which it possesses under the Act relating to the regulation of the hours of railway servants and the prevention of accidents on railways.'"
  He said that no one of ordinary susceptibilities could have listened to the speeches in which this Motion had been brought before the House without feeling that there was indeed considerable reason for bringing the matter forward. The roll of accidents, as recited by the seconder of the Motion, could only be described, in the words used by the late Mr. Bright on an historical occasion from those Benches, as "horrible and heart-rending." He was brought largely into contact with railway men, and he felt acutely the dangers to which they were exposed and the necessity that existed for stringent measures for the prevention of accidents. But he parted
  1608
  company with the mover and seconder of the Motion on the question as to where to fix the responsibility. He was not satisfied that the President of the Board of Trade was at fault. He did not rise, however, as an apologist for the right hon. Gentleman; he, doubtless, would be able to meet many of the objections and charges which had been made. He desired to express the sympathy which they on that side of the House felt for the railway men in the work they performed, and in the course of which such terrible accidents so frequently befell them. The hon. Member for Derby had directed attention to the long hours during which work was carried on, and to the nature of the accidents from which the men suffered. It had not been proved that the length of hours was due to any cause other than emergency. If it could be satisfactorily proved that railway companies deliberately, and for long periods, caused long hours to be served, it would be a strong reason for assenting to this Resolution. He was not a railway director, nor had he any connection whatever with railway companies, but he believed that railway directors had the ordinary sense of other men, and were as anxious to avoid having to give compensation and have a contented body of workmen under them as other employers were. It required more proof to establish the proposition that these long hours were worked deliberately and habitually by the companies in question. He could not see that sufficient proof had been given of neglect of duty on their part or on the part of the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman's humanity and his anxiety to serve the public were well known, and it was impossible to believe that he would be guilty of any neglect of duty. At the same time, he thought it was most valuable and useful that this question should be brought before the House, as great benefit might arise from the discussion. He desired, however, that the blame should be placed on the right shoulders, and therefore begged to move the Amendment.
  SIR HARRY SETON-KARR (St. Helens),in seconding the Amendment, said he could not admit that any body of Members in the House were callous to the dangers of railway servants. He cordially agreed

  1609
  that if it was shown by the facts to be necessary, Parliament ought to exercise a supervision over not only the legislation regulating the companies but also over the Government Department to whom the administration of that legislation was entrusted. He did not pose as the champion of the Board of Trade or of the railway companies. He sympathised with the spirit in which this Resolution had been brought forward, but he had heard nothing to substantiate the charges which had been made. The essence of the case was that the Board of Trade had not exercised its powers. The hon. Member for Derby had adopted a course of argument much to be deprecated. He had accused a leading railway company of "cooking" their return of the hours of labour.
  MR. BELLsaid he had not accused the company of 'cooking" their return. What he said was that they made a special effort during the month of December to avoid extra hours being worked.
  SIR HARRY SETON-KARRaccepted the explanation, which practically meant that the company produced a return which did not represent the ordinary state of things on the railway, and that they did it with a desire to deceive the House and the Board of Trade. He did not think that that was the kind of argument that should be advanced in the House.
  MR. BELLsaid that circulars were issued by railway officials in which it was distinctly stated that for particular reasons it was specially desired that the return for December should be nil. He had forwarded copies of those circulars to the Board of Trade.
  SIR HARRY SETON-KARRthought he had accurately stated the substance of the charge, and he simply desired to deprecate that line of argument. The hon. Member then went on to say that before the Railway Commissioners the companies entered into a conspiracy. He could not think that such statements tended to strengthen the case for the Resolution. While not desiring in any way to minimise the importance of the
  1610
  statistics of accidents on railways quoted by the hon. Member for Derby, he contended that such statistics were absolutely worthless unless considered in relation to all the circumstances of the case and in comparison with other statistics. He had in his possession figures which he thought put a different complexion on the case. In 1891 there were 381,000 servants employed on British railways, of whom in that year 541 died from accidents. That was a large number in itself, but it was only one-sixth of 1 per cent. of the total employed. On the American railways in the same year, there were 784,000 men employed, and the number of fatal accidents was 2,660—a percentage of one-third of 1, or about I double the percentage in this country. The obvious argument was that the railways in this country were safer than those in the United States, although the latter were often held up as an example for us to copy. In 1901, the number of servants on British railways had increased to 575,000, the fatal accidents had fallen to 491, and the number of non-fatal accidents was 4,200, while in 1902 the numbers had fallen still further to 435 and 3,800 respectively. In the United States in 1901, the number of railway servants was 1,071,000, and the fatal accidents numbered 2,675. That was an improvement, but the percentage was not yet so good as that on British railways. He submitted that these figures justified the statement that the British railway management was at any rate better than the American system, and that it had improved between 1891 and 1901. Another matter was with regard to the number of men killed by the coupling and uncoupling process. In the United States 198 men, as compared with fourteen in this country, were killed in the same period and 2,768 were injured. That was a larger percentage than in the United Kingdom. Another important point to be considered was in regard to the density of traffic per mile and the number of railway servants employed. The density in this country was far greater than in the United States. This meant that although our figures and percentage were lower, the conditions under which the men in this country worked were more conducive to fatal accidents than in the United States. Therefore the figures did not bear out the case put forward

  1611
  by the mover and seconder of this Motion. He desired to call attention to what the Board of Trade had done. In April, 1901, the Board of Trade gave notice of their intention to make thirteen rules, and the railway companies objected to various particulars in those rules, with the result that certain modifications were made in them. The railway companies accepted ten of the rules, but on one of them they appealed to the Railway Commissioners, which was an important tribunal to whom the railway employees could forward their grievances. The Commissioners had absolute power either to reject grievances or to see that they were remedied. This appeal to the Railway Commissioners was made on 29th July, 1902, and they heard the objections of the railway companies to No. 1. of the draft rules. After due consideration they decided that those objections were reasonable. He did not suggest that there was any conspiracy in this matter, for he believed the question was treated with absolute fairness and justice. The Railway Commissioners, while passing the rules which were not objected to, ordered the Board of Trade to bring in a fresh Rule No. 1. Mr. Justice Wright, in his judgment in 1902, said the Board of Trade had been extremely successful with the bulk of these rules, and that the railway companies had accepted them with public spirit. It seemed to him that that opinion disposed of a good deal of what the mover and seconder had said.
  The Act of 1893 gave railway servants the right to appeal against excessive hours; but since 1895 the number of such representations to the Board of Trade had largely decreased, and in 1901 the Board of Trade stated that the object of the Act seemed to have been gained. That was a fact and incident which seemed to undermine the whole case, and it seemed to indicate that the Board of Trade were doing their utmost to carry out the powers conferred upon them. On the 25th February, 1902, there was a debate upon this question in the House of Commons, and the hon. Member for Derby brought forward a number of cases of long hours. Prior to that date a considerable number of cases had been inquired into under the Act, and they
  1612
  increased to 123 in that year. If the object of that debate was to stimulate the action of the Board of Trade, then it had that effect. He thought he had said enough to show [that another complexion could be put upon the facts of the case brought forward by the hon. Members for Mid Lanark and Derby. In the first place, he asked the House to remember, in regard to the hours of labour, that they were not entitled to assume that the railway companies wanted to work their employees unreasonably long hours. There was one practical reason why they should not, and it was, that overtime was an expensive business, because the men had to be paid time and a quarter. As a matter of fact he believed that the men rather liked to work overtime, because they got good pay for it. Another reason why it was against the interests of the railway companies to work the men long hours was, that they were not likely to get such good service from them. Therefore, in their own interests, the railway companies would not work their servants longer than was necessary. No evidence had been submitted to show that the men had been worked unreasonable hours. The seconder of this proposition had read out a long array of figures, which he did not think could be treated seriously, with the object of showing that the Board of Trade were not carrying out their duty. There were cases in which the companies were bound to work their men long hours—cases of fog and accident; but it had not been shown that railway servants were continuously overworked. Long hours, under such circumstances, were the inevitable result of the conditions under which railway servants worked. The same argument applied to sailors during a storm at sea, and to firemen at some great fire. In all employment where the conditions of labour were dangerous, there were bound to be hours of labour which occasionally would be far longer than men ought to be called upon to work. He wished to point out that not a single instance had been given where railway men had been regularly worked for hours which were injurious to their health. He could quote cases of alleged overworking, which, upon examination,

  1613
  had had an entirely different complexion put upon them. He did not think the House of Commons was a tribunal in which the actual facts of any particular case could be fairly judged. If it could be shown that the Board of Trade had not carried out their duties in this respect, he for one would be only too glad to support this proposal. He would conclude by reminding the House that the railway system of the country was not a benevolent institution, but a great commercial undertaking on which the prosperity of the country depended. They were bound, within reasonable limits, to look after the conditions under which the men were employed; but, on the other hand, it was very easy for the House to go too far and interfere in a great industry so as to seriously injure its financial prosperity. Therefore, this was an argument which they must keep within its proper limits. Some hon. Members, in their anxiety to show themselves as the champions of the working classes, seemed to forget that the workmen had to earn their bread and butter, and therefore the financial prosperity of the railways was as important to them as to any other class. He begged to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'that' to the end of the Question, and add the words, 'this House notes with satisfaction the steady improvement shown in the Returns of Accidents on Railways in the United Kingdom, and expresses the hope that the Board of Trade will continue to use all due diligence in exercising the statutory powers which it possesses under the Acts relating to the Regulation of the Hours of Railway Servants and the Prevention of Accidents on Railways.'"—(Mr. Arthur Morton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CHANNINGsaid he had given very close attention to these matters for many years. There were two points with regard to the question of hours which he could not help thinking that the President of the Board of Trade had left out of sight. He wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that his colleague the Colonial Secretary, in 1884, proposed that every railway company should furnish to the Board of Trade every month the details of
  1614
  instances of work in excess of twelve hours per day. This proposal was embodied in a Bill which he (Mr. Channing) carried to a Second Reading on May 19, 1886, and that Bill would then have passed into law but for the dissolution of 1886. The principle of these returns was then sanctioned by Parliament. Notwithstanding this nothing was done till after the Act of 1889, when returns of excessive hours were obtained for two or three different months in 1890 and 1892. These returns were, in one case, for work over twelve, in the other, for work over ten hours. Then they had an interval of some ten years, in which no return had been brought before Parliament until the one asked for by the hon. Member for Derby was granted by the President of the Board of Trade. He thought that showed a gross neglect of duty on the part of the Board of Trade. His second point was this. He wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman recollected the Select Committee, appointed in 1891, after the great debate on railway hours of January 23, 1891, which was reported in 1892. That Report, which, was presented by the right hon. Member for Bristol, then President of the Board of Trade, stated that these returns should be periodically made, and recommended that the hours of signalmen should be not more than eight hours, and of all other branches, ten hours, These recommendations had been absolutely neglected. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that a return of work over twelve hours was practically valueless. They had had the opinion of a former Conservative President of the Board of Trade that ten hours was the fair limit, and returns had been presented on that basis, and in view of the decision of the House and of the Committee, it was futile to present this House with a return of work in excess of twelve hours. He would give one brief illustration of this. In the Report of the Committee which sat upon the question of railway hours, to which he had referred, lie found, from the returns for December 1890, that the number off hours worked by goods railway drivers and firemen in excess of twelve was

  1615
  263,369. But the return of the number of hours worked in excess of ten by the same body of men showed that they worked no less than 416,539 hours. That was at least 60 or 70 per cent. in excess of the instances of working over twelve hours. Ten years ago the House pronounced that ten hours were sufficient, and now they were still working upon the basis that twelve hours was the first point from which they could challenge whether a man was overworked or not. Those were the specific points to which he called the right lion. Gentleman's attention.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD of TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,: The practical effect of the Resolution which has been moved by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark is a censure on the Board of Trade for not having adequately exercised its powers under the Acts relating to the regulation of the hours of railway servants and for the prevention of railway accidents. It may be worth while for the House to know that both sets of Acts are really directed to securing the safety of railway servants and the public. Therefore, the question which we have to decide is whether the Board of Trade has or has not adequately exercised the powers which it possesses to secure the safety of railway servants and the travelling public. I admit fully the importance of that question. It is a lamentable fact that there is a deplorable loss of life in connection with the working of our railways; nobody can read the Report of the Royal Commission on the Prevention of Railway Accidents without being painfully impressed with that fact. There are certain special branches of railway work which are more dangerous than any other employment except that of the mercantile marine. It is not surprising, under the circumstances, that Parliament should have endeavoured, as far as it can reasonably be done, to check this great loss of life. There are, however, some points in connection with this matter which ought not to be lost sight of. In the first place, although the number of accidents recorded on our railways is enormous—I think that in 1902 no fewer than 10,000 railway servants suffered injuries—yet the vast majority of the
  1616
  accidents are not of a serious character. Under the existing regulations every accident is reported which keeps a railway servant from his work for five hours. A Committee, appointed by the Home Office, which has been inquiring into this question has recommended that no accident shall be recorded which does not involve absence from work for at least twenty-four hours. If that change is made it would greatly diminish the number of accidents which now find their way into the reports issued by the Board of Trade.
  Last year 447 railway servants were killed by accidents to trains or the movement of vehicles, and 38 were killed by other accidents, making a total of 485. To these should be added the more serious, though not fatal, accidents, and I find there were 128 cases of loss of limb, and 586 cases of fracture, a total of 714. I do not wish to minimise the importance of this question, but these figures are not large when compared with the total number of non-fatal accidents, which was 10,858. I do not say this because I wish to minimise the importance of these accidents, but I want only to point out that in reading these vast figures it must not be supposed that every case represents a serious accident. It is also important to distinguish between preventable and non-preventable accidents. I am afraid that no care that could be exercised by the railway companies, no precautions which could be imposed upon them by this House, would do more than diminish to some extent the number of accidents upon railways. I fear that the nature of the employment is such that there will always be a large number both of fatal and serious accidents. But we should guard against language which is calculated to imply that even a majority of the accidents are of a character which can properly be laid to the negligence of the railway companies or to failure on the part of the Government Department to exercise the powers which Parliament has entrusted to it. I feel sure that is not so. I am perfectly ready to admit that every effort within reason should be made to diminish the number of accidents, but it must not be imagined that our utmost efforts would entirely preventthem.
  Lastly, in connection with this subject, it should not be forgotten that during the last forty years there has been a remarkable diminution in the number

  1617
  of accidents that have occurred on railways. The Royal Commission which sat on this question has drawn attention to the fact that the accidents in 1872 were no less than three times the number that occurred in 1898, a remarkable diminution considering the large increase in the number of railway servants employed. The number of railway servants killed in 1892 was 435, and going back to 1893 I find it was 446. I do not wish to attach too much importance to the figures for any one year. It is better to take the average of years and it will be found to be not very far from the truth to say that the actual number of accidents during the ten years has not shown any marked tendency to diminish in any one year. The total for one year is about the average for the ten years. But we have to look at the comparison of the figures of accidents with the total number of railway servants. Taking into account the number of men engaged, the result is encouraging; for in 1893 the number of employees was 381,000 and in 1902 the number was 575,000; the percentage, therefore, of accidents as compared with the number of men employed has very largely diminished. A few days ago, in discussing the Board of Trade Vote I referred to the increase in train mileage, which, of course, is a material fact in estimating whether the number of accidents has or has not increased, though the hon. Member for Derby has warned me not to rely too much upon this. I do not quite understand the purport of that.
  MR. BELL: What I intended to convey was that in consequence of more powerful locomotives being used more work is done, though there is actually less train mileage. The mileage is decreasing though the traffic is increasing.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That refers to the future, but my figures have reference to the past. The hon. Member seemed to infer I was using an argument which would hereafter prove a broken reed, but allow me to say that I used the figures as I found them; and if hereafter the train mileage can be shown to have decreased, that will be cited as a circum stance to modify my calculation in an
  1618
  opposite direction. I have cited train mileage increase as supporting my conclusion, justified by facts, that safety of life on railways is steadily increasing; year by year. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark has complained that the Board of Trade have not exercised all the powers they possess under the Prevention of Accidents Act, and he referred to a report by an inspector on an accident which occurred on the Caledonian Railway on 8th October, 1902, quoting the inspector's account of the condition of things he found on the scene of the accident. But I am entirely at a loss to understand how that argument proves that the Board of Trade has not carried out its duties under the Act, or exercised the powers conferred on it. Wherever an inspector makes a report of the kind in question, the attention of the company is called to it by the Board of Trade, and the Board invariably presses, and generally presses with success, that the deficiency of appliances or arrangements which have been the cause, or partly the cause, of the accident shall be remedied. It so happens that in this case one of the deficiencies to which the inspector called attention was the absence of sufficient lighting. The accident occurred on 8th October, 1902, and it was only in August, 1902, that the Board of Trade, by their rules under the Accidents Act, became possessed of the power to insist that the companies should make this change. I hope and believe that by this time the company have taken steps, or are taking steps, to remedy these defects.
  With regard to the question of appointing two additional sub-inspectors, whose salaries have already been provided for, it is probable that the appointments will be made during the current year, Under the Accidents Act two additional officers—assistant inspecting officers—have already been appointed. They were appointed early in 1901, when we had some reason to hope that the rules would come into operation much earlier than, as a matter of fact, they have done. Since the rules came into operation these inspectors have inspected a number of shunting yards which have been alleged to be insufficiently lighted. They have inspected forty-six such yards, and I understand that the companies

  1619
  have expressed their readiness to carry out the changes which are considered necessary. The Lon. Member for Derby has not sufficiently borne in mind this fact. The Act mentions twelve special subjects in respect to which the Board is authorised to make rules; and the Board have made rules with respect to nine of those subjects. A rule on another subject is still before the Railway Commissioners, and with regard to the other two it is thought better to proceed by special order rather than by rule. The nine rules have been in a sense operative since August last year, but in five cases the time at which they will become really effective has been fixed at a year, two years, or even a longer period from the time when the rules were made. That has been done in full accordance with the views of the Royal Commission, which recognised the necessity for giving the railway companies time to deal with these matters. It was also done on the advice of the Expert Committee appointed by the Board of Trade—a Committee of which Lord James, the Chairman of the Railway Commission, was president. I do not think I have heard any complaints from the hon. Member for Hereford that the postponement of the effective operation of these rules was in itself unreasonable. I can assure the House that the Board of Trade are fully conscious of the desirability of carrying out these rules and insisting on their observance by the railway companies. The whole of the inspecting staff has full instructions to call the attention of the companies to any infringement of the rules, and, in addition, they have the great advantage of the complaints made to them by the society represented by the hon. Member for Derby. In view of the fact that we have had only a few months experience of the working of the rules under the Act, I think it is a little early to charge the Board of Trade with neglect in giving effect to the powers which they possess under that Act. We shall watch the working of the Act most carefully, and will certainly appoint an additional staff as it appears necessary; but I cannot honestly think that up to the present time any case has been made out against
  1620
  the Board of Trade for not having properly exercised their powers under that Act.
  As to the complaint of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark in regard to the action of the Board of Trade under the Hours Act of 1893, I think he treated the Board rather unfairly. The circumstances are within the recollection of the House. There was no desire to resist the Motion for a return under that Act; I only desired to make the return correspond in all points to the previous return under the Act. That demand, I submit, was only reasonable, but it was resisted from the other side of the House, and, on a division, the Government were defeated by a small majority. The hon. Member complained that the Board waited to be moved to call for this return by a Motion of the House. Again the hon. Member has done us scant justice, for the real fact is that the Act of 1889 was commonly supposed to have been superseded altogether by the Act of 1893. I am perfectly willing to admit that the Act of 1889, which enables the Board of Trade to call for returns, was not repealed by the Act of 1893.
  MR. CHANNING: They are to be read together.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not repealed, but the general idea undoubtedly was, and it was an opinion shared by the Board of Trade, that the Act of 1889 had been superseded by the Act of 1893. The hon. Member I may possibly say that I ought to have known that the powers conferred by the Act of 1889 were still in force. I admit that, but I think the error was venial, considering that it was shared by all the officials of the Board of Trade. But at any rate when I came to see that the Board had still the power I was perfectly ready to call for a Return under the Act of 1899, and I did call for it, and since then, without being moved to do so at all, I have called for a second Return. I really think that the best reply I can give to the allegation that the Board of Trade has not sufficiently discharged its duty under the Act of 1893 is to give the House a statement of

  1621
  what we actually have done under that statute. In the first place we have recorded and looked into over 700 complaints. Of these 223 have related to the hours of signalmen, 139 affected guards and brakesmen, 124 enginemen, and 115 fixed station men. These numbers, however, give really no idea whatever of the number of men actually affected, for each complaint may affect a very considerable number of men.
  The Board of Trade, when it receives a complaint from any locality, invariably asks for a Return from the railway company concerned, and sometimes from the neighbouring companies. It usually demands a revised schedule of hours, and that schedule affects the hours of work in many cases of a large number of men who have not been referred to in the original complaint. As regards the success of the action taken by the Board of Trade under the Act, it is necessary to distinguish between the men employed at fixed stations and the men employed in connection with trains and the moving of vehicles. I believe the effect of the Act has been very materially to reduce the hours of men at fixed stations, such as signalmen and shunters. I confess we have not been so successful in the Base of men working in trains, such as enginemen, guards, and brakemen, in whose case the difficulty encountered by the companies is much greater, owing to fogs, bad weather, and other causes which it is impossible for any railway company entirely to guard against. But, nevertheless, I am convinced that, even in their case, the effect of the Act has been to very considerably reduce their total hours of work. I admit that the actual hours worked do not always compare favourably with the book time, but it is the constant effort of the Board of Trade to bring the actual hours more into correspondence with the book hours.
  Now I come to the Returns which we have asked for under the Act of 1889 in the last two years, showing the hours worked in excess of twelve. In asking for these Returns we have followed the precedent set by the 1893 Returns. The Return of 1901 undoubtedly did show a very considerable improvement over the Return of 1893, and, as that was a surprise Return, none of these influences to which the hon. Member for Derby
  1622
  called attention could have had effect upon it. It is satisfactory to notice that the greatest improvement has taken place in connection with the largest railway companies. I do not wish to weary the House, but it may interest hon. Members to hear a statement of the figures showing, as regards goods guards and brakemen, and goods engine drivers and firemen, the percentage of days in excess of twelve hours worked in December, 1901 as compared with December, 1891. On the London and North Western Railway the percentage in 1901 was ·562 against 1·24 in 1891 for goods guards and brakemen, and 1·26 against 14·25 for goods engine drivers and firemen; on the Great Western Railway the figures were 14·90 against 19·98 for goods guards; and brakemen and 23·15 against 38·96 for goods engine drivers and firemen; on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway 6·10 against 40·58 for goods guards and brakemen, and 9·37 against 58·43 for goods engine drivers and firemen; on the Midland Railway 18·04 against 25·05 for goods guards and brakemen, and 10·53 against 30·59 for goods engine drivers and firemen; on the Cambrian Railway 5·10 against 43·91 for goods guards and brakemen, and 9·13 against 35·55 for goods engine drivers and firemen; on the Caledonian Railway 6·82 against 20·08 for goods guards and brakemen, and 11·31 against 32·18 for goods engine drivers and firemen; and on the Great Northern of Ireland ·76 against 25·31 for goods guards and brakemen, and 7·18 against 11·18 for goods engine drivers and firemen. I think all the great companies show similar improvements. These are very I remarkable figures, and I do not think they can be attributed to anything else but the working of the Act of 1893.
  The hon. Member for Derby tells us, and I think he is perfectly right so far as my knowledge goes, that the Return for 1902 will be a great deal better. The hon. Member has been good enough to send me the circulars to which he referred. I do agree with him that in two or three cases these circulars are of a very improper character. At the same time I do not myself think that the results, whatever they may be, in the Return for 1903, will be very much vitiated by the few circulars which I am ready to acknowledge were sent out. On the whole I think from what I have said it

  1623
  will appear that the working of the Act by the Board of Trade shows very great improvement, both as regards hours and the number of accidents. I do not question for a moment that further improvement is desirable, and it will be the earnest endeavour of the Board of Trade to bring about that improvement as far as we can by a vigorous working of the Act; but I submit that we are not amenable to the charge the Resolution brings against us, and therefore I shall vote for the Amendment of my hon. friend, which appears to give the hon. Member for Derby all he really desires. I venture to say that he and the mover should be content to withdraw the Motion in the form in which they have put it on the Paper, and accept the Amendment moved by my hon. friend the Member for Deptford, in order that it may be passed by the unanimous vote of the House.
  MR. BRYCE: The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has had so many facts to give us, and he has felt it his duty to go so minutely into the case, that the time left for comments on his reply is extremely short. I do not complain of that. The House will easily understand that it is absolutely impossible for me or any other Member to deal in detail with the statistics which my hon. friend the Member for Derby has brought before the House, or with the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade. All I can do is to try to state to the House what is the general impression left on my mind by the case made for the Motion and the case made by the President of the Board of Trade. We have before us a Motion and an Amendment. The Motion says that the Board of Trade has not been sufficiently energetic in using the powers Parliament has placed at its disposal. The Amendment implies that the Board of Trade has been sufficiently active, and expresses a benevolent wish that it may continue to act with due diligence in the matter. Therefore we are asked to say whether we think that the Department has done all that might have been done during the last ten years in the case of the Act of 1893, and during the last three years in the case of the Act of 1900. I have listened with great attention to the President of the Board of Trade I do
  1624
  not complain of the tone and spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman approached the question, and I feel perfectly certain there exists at the Board of Trade a genuine desire to put the powers of the Act in force and to reduce the number of accidents, which, as has been admitted, is deplorable, and which I would say, considering the progress that has been made, is not creditable to a country like ours. We cannot make any comparison with the United States. I entirely deprecate comparisons of that kind. The United States are not so careful of human life as it is our habit in this country to be. What does the answer of the right hon. Gentleman amount to? With respect to the question of accidents it is substantially this, that many accidents are not preventable. That might have been said ten, twenty, or thirty years ago. Every action Parliament has taken has reduced the number of accidents, and we have every reason to believe that there are still a number of preventable accidents which the energetic carrying out of the powers Parliament has given would further reduce. Then the President of the Board of Trade says he has got power, and even a vote of money, to appoint two additional sub-inspectors and that, he has not yet done so. I confess that I did not gather why these two sub-inspectors have not been appointed, except for the reason that only four of the rules have been put in force. But if there are only four rules in force now, the opportunity would be an excellent one for endeavouring to ascertain at once by the examination of a number of yards whether these four rules are being properly observed, and I cannot conceive that there would not be enough work for the two new inspectors. It would be better to deal with that branch of the subject before the remaining rules come into force. Further than that, sub-inspectors are able to do a kind of work which, I understand, the chief inspectors cannot very well do. The sub-inspectors must be practical railway men taken from the railway service, and therefore they will be conversant with a number of matters which the chief inspectors do not know so well about.
  On the question of hours the plea of the President of the Board of Trade is substantially that considerable improvements have been effected, but

  1625
  he admits that the improvements have been least in the case of the men employed in the moving of trains. These are the men who are concerned, not only with the safety of themselves, but of the public, and therefore I look upon that as a serious drawback. The real question for the House to consider is whether enough has been done. I do not wish to underrate or ignore the difficulties of the Department and the necessity of carrying the Railway Commission with them, when cases are carried before the Commissioners. But I cannot say that as much has been achieved as might have been achieved, or that the Board of Trade
  is entitled to receive that complete approval of their action which the adoption of the Amendment would give them. I do not think, however, that the Motion of my hon. friend ought to be regarded as hostile to the Board of Trade, I hope that my remarks will be received as having been offered rather with the desire to strengthen its hands in the performance of a duty which Parliament has laid upon it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 126; Noes, 161. (Division List No. 75.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Gilhooly, James

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Allan, CharlesP. (Glouc.Stroud

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Rea, Russell

  Asher, Alexander

  Grant, Corrie

  Reddy, M.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Roche, John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hammond, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  Rose, Charles Day

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Harrington, Timothy

  Russell, T. W.

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Clevel and

  Brigg, John

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Shwann, Charles E.

  Broadhurst, Henry

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

  Shackleton, David James

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Hope John Deans (Fife, West

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B )

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Burns, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Joyce, Michael

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR. (Northants

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Sullivan, Donal

  Craig, Robert Hunter(Lanark

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Crean, Eugene

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Cullinan, J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lundon,' W.

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Delany, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galwy

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Tomkinson, James

  Dewar, JohnA. (Inverness-shire

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Toulmin, George

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Tully, Jasper

  Doogan, P. C.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T.

  Duffy, William J.

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Wason John Cathcart(Orkney

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Ellis, John Edward

  Moss, Samuel

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Murphy, John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, F.W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

  Field, William

  O'Donnell John (Mayo, S.)

  Wood, James

  Fitanaurice, Lord Edmond

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

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Bell.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Partington, Oswald

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Arrol, Sir William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hon Sir H

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

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

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Gore, Hn GR. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Penn, John

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Percy, Earl

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bignold, Arthur

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bigwood, James

  Groves, James Grimble

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Renwick, George

  Brassey, Albert

  Hall, Edward Mai-shall

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G.(Midx

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent,Ashfd

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Butcher, John George

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Campbell, J. H. M.(Dublin Univ

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

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn H. (Soms't, E.

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

  Cecil Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H.(Renfrew

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hoult, Joseph

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Chapman, Edward

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith, H C(North'mb. Tyneside

  Charrington, Spencer

  Howard, John (KentFaversham

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

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

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Spear, John Ward

  Coghill, Douglas Harry,

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop

  Stanley, E. Jas. (Somerset)

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Keswick, William

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Stroyan, John

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cranborne, Lord

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks N.R

  Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Tallot, Rt. Hn. J G. (Oxf'd Uni.

  Denny, Colonel

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick, N.S

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Valencia, Viscount

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

  Dorington. Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

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

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Wolff. Gustav Wilhelm

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Worsley-Taylor, Hy. Wilson

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Morgan, David J(Walthamstow

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wylie, Alexander

  Flower, Ernest

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Younger, William

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

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham(Bute

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath

  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, proposed.
  Debate arising.
  And, it being after Midnight, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.

  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.
  Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.