Sitting of 2 February 1904

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

NEW WRITS.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had issued Warrants for New Writs during the recess.
For St. Andrew's District Burghs, in the room of Henry Torrens Anstruther, esquire, who hath accepted the Office of a Representative in the Conseil d'Administration of the Suez Canal Company; City of Rochester, James Hubert Gascoyne Cecil, commonly called Viscount Cranborne, called to the House of Peers; County of Meath (South Division), James
74
Laurence Carew, esquire, deceased County of Leitrim (Northern Division) Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh, esquire, an adjudicated bankrupt; Borough of Belfast (West Division), Hugh Oakley Arnold-Forster, esquire, who hath accepted the Office of Secretary of State for War; Borough of Warwick and Leamington, the honourable Alfred Lyttelton, K.C., who hath accepted the Office of Secretary of State for the Colonies; South-East Lancashire (Westhoughton Division), George Villiers Stanley, C.B., commonly called Lord Stanley, who hath accepted the Office of Postmaster-General; County of Southampton (Southern or Fareham Division), Lieutenant - Colonel Arthur Hamilton Lee, who hath accepted the Office of Civil Lord of the Admiralty; City of Londonderry, James Albert Edward Hamilton, commonly called Marquess of Hamilton, who hath accepted the Office of Treasurer of His Majesty's Household; North Lancashire (Chorley Division), David Alexander Edward Lindsay, commonly called Lord Balcarres, who hath accepted the Office of Junior Lord of the Treasury; Borough of Camberwell (Dulwich Division), Sir John Blundell Maple, baronet, deceased Borough of Lewisham, John Penn esquire, deceased; County of Devon (Mid or Ashburton Division), the Right Honourable Charles Seale-Hayne, deceased; County of Salop (Ludlow Division), Robert Jasper More, esquire, deceased; City of Norwich, Sir Harry Bullard, knight, deceased; Borough of Gateshead, Sir William Allan, knight, deceased; Ayr Boroughs, Charles Lind- say Orr-Ewing, esquire, deceased.
Mr. SPEAKER also informed the House that he had received the following letters:—
"15, Bishopsgate Street, Within, E.C.,
"1st February, 1904.
"The Right Honourable
"The Speaker of the House of Commons.
"Sir,
"I have the honour to inform you that the Firm of Antony Gibbs and Sons, of which I and my brother Vicary Gibbs are members, accepted a contract with the Admiralty on the 2nd December last.
"I am, Sir,
"Your obedient servant.
"ALBAN GIBBS."

75
"1st February, 1904.
"St. Dunstan's,
Regent's Park
"Mr. Speaker,
"I have the honour to inform you that at the latter end of last year, I (as a partner in the firm of Antony Gibbs and Sons) entered into a contract with the Admiralty, and am advised that by so doing I have, under an Act of George
III. vacated my seat in Parliament.
"I beg to remain, Mr. Speaker,
"Your obedient humble servant,
"VICARY GIBBS."

CITY OF LONDON (WRIT).
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)submitted as a matter of constitutional procedure that a new Writ should not issue until a Committee had been appointed to consider and report whether the hon. Member was or was not a contractor within the meaning of the statute. He contended, according to precedents which he cited, viz., the cases of Baron Rothschild in 1845, and of Sir Sydney Waterlow in 1869—in each of which the Speaker of the day suspended the Motion for the Writ until the question had been considered by the Committee—that the question whether a Member had become a contractor with the Crown was one absolutely within the purview of the House, and was not a question for the Member himself.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is a matter entirely in the hands of the House to say whether the Writ shall issue. When it is moved for it will be open to the hon. Member to object, that the proper course would be to appoint a Committee, and then the Motion will be discussed on some subsequent day.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somerestshire, Wellington)SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somerestshire, Wellington) moved the issue of a new Writ for the City of London.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the City of London, in the room of Alban Gibbs, esquire, who has accepted a contract with the Admiralty."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsubmitted that the Writ ought not to be issued on the grounds he had already indicated, and that a Committee should first be appointed to find out whether or not these gentlemen were contractors. In previous cases, when gentlemen had been elected Members of the House and had subsequently discovered that by reason of their being contractors to the Government at the time of their election they were disqualified from sitting, they had been allowed to release themselves by letter to Mr. Speaker, but there was no precedent for following such a course in the present case, and he therefore hoped a Select Committee would be appointed to ascertain whether or not these gentlemen were legally contractors.
MR. SPEAKERsaid that so far as regarded procedure, the present cases were exactly parallel with those in which gentlemen elected at a General Election had found themselves disqualified by holding Government contracts.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLurged that there was a material difference between those cases and the present one, where the hon. Members took contracts after their election. That brought it absolutely within the purview of the House to decide whether or not they were contractors. It was not in accordance with constitutional usage for an hon. Member to thus declare himself a contractor on his own ipse dixit. Further than that, these gentlemen in their public speeches had themselves expressed doubt as to whether they were contractors.
MR. SPEAKER: I do not say it is not in the power of the House to deal with the question. I am only saying that the proceedure followed in this instance was in accordance with previous precedent. Does the hon. Member object to the issue of the Writ?
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Yes, Sir, on the ground that the precedent set in the Rothschild and Waterlow cases ought to be followed in this, and that a Committee should be appointed to find out whether these gentlemen are contractors or not.
MB. SPEAKERsaid that probably the most convenient course would be that debate on the question raised by the hon. Member for South Donegal should be adjourned until to-morrow, the hon. Member meantime putting his Amendment in form.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Very good, Sir.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," —(Mr. Swift MacNeill,) —put, and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

COUNTY OF HERTFORD (MID OR ST. ALBANS DIVISION) (WRIT).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Hertford (St. Albans Division) in the room of Vicary Gibbs, esquire, who has accepted a contract with the Admiralty."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I suppose the same course will be adopted in this case.
MR. SPEAKER: Yes, to-morrow.
Debate adjourned till to-morrow.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
Right hon. Alfred Lyttelton, for Borough of Warwick and Leamington.
Right hon. Hugh Oakley Arnold-Forster, City of Belfast (West Belfast Division).
Right hon. Edward George Villiers Stanley, C.B. (commonly called Lord Stanley), South-East Lancashire (West-houghton Division).
David Alexander Edward Lindsay (commonly called Lord Balcarres), North Lancashire (Chorley Division).
Arthur Hamilton Lee, esquire, County of Hants (Southern or Fareham Division).
James Albert Edward Hamilton (commonly called Marquess of Hamilton), City of Londonderry.
Charles Tuff, esquire, City of Rochester.
Edward Feetham Coates, esquire, Borough of Lewisham.
Frederick Rutherford Harris, esquire, Borough of Camberwell (Dulwich Division).
Rowland Hunt, esquire, County of Salop (Southern or Ludlow Division).
John Stirling Ainsworth, esquire, County of Argyll.
Captain Edward Charles Ellice, St. Andrews District of Burghs.
Harry Trelawney Eve, esquire, County of Devon (Mid or Ash burton Division).
Louis John Tillett, esquire, City of Norwich.
Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh, esquire, County of Leitrim (North Leitrim Division).
David Sheeny, esquire. County of Meath (South Meath Division).

ELECTIONS.
Ordered, That all Members who are returned for two or more places in any part of the United Kingdom do make their Election for which of the places they will serve, within one week after it shall appear that there is no question upon the Return for that place; and if any thing shall come in question touching the Return or Election of any Member, he is to withdraw during the time the matter is in debate; and that all Members returned upon double Returns do withdraw till their Returns are determined.
Resolved, That no Peer of the Realm, except such Peers of Ireland as shall for the time being be actually elected, and shall not have declined to serve, for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, hath any right to give his vote in the Election of any Member to serve in Parliament.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament, or other Peer or Prelate, not being a Peer of Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any Peer of Ireland, at such Elections in Great Britain

79
respectively where such Peer shall appear as a candidate, or by himself, or any others, be proposed to be elected; or for any Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his Commission, to influence the Election of any Member to serve for the Commons in Parliament."(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he proposed to move the omission of certain words, the effect of which would be to confine the operation of the order to the cases of Lords Lieutenants of counties. He did not think the House should continue to endeavour to enforce an authority which they did not possess.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESseconded. He was as great a stickler, he said, for the maintenance of the privileges of the House as anyone, but it did seem to him to be derogatory to the dignity of Parliament for it to pass an order year after year which it had not the courage to enforce.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'Kingdom,' in line 2, to the word 'for,' in line 8."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): The right hon. Gentleman has now raised this question in several sessions, and on each occasion the House by its vote has shown its desire by considerable majorities to maintain this Order. I am not aware of any fresh argument or new circumstances to justify a departure from the practice the House has followed for so many years. In individual instances, no doubt, the Order may not have been observed in the past, and it may be true that the House has no power to enforce it, but I think there are objections which outweigh even these considerations. I believe the Order has a salutary effect, and that it keeps alive a very useful tradition which has worked well in the past. I am sure that the House would not desire that Peers should interfere in elections, neither do I believe that they themselves desire to do so, but I believe
80
that if this Order were deliberately abrogated it would be a direct invitation to them to do so. Under these circumstances I venture to suggest that the House should leave well alone. This is not a matter in which the Government feel great interest, but they do hold that a Sessional Order which has obtained for so many years ought not thus to be changed unless by general consensus of opinion and with the general support of the House. Under these circumstances, I ask the House to reject the Amendment and to pass the Order as usual.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament, or other Peer or Prelate, not being a Peer of Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any Peer of Ireland, at such Elections in Great Britain respectively where such Peer shall appear as a candidate, or by himself, or any others, be proposed to be elected; or for any Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his Commission, to influence the Election of any Member to serve for the Commons in Parliament.
Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath been elected or returned a Member of this House, or endeavoured so to be, by bribery, or any other corrupt practices, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against all such persons as shall have been wilfully concerned in such bribery or other corrupt practices.

WITNESSES.
Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath been tampering with any witness, in respect of his evidence to be given to this House, or any Committee thereof, or directly or indirectly hath endeavoured to deter or hinder any

81
person from appearing or giving evidence, the same is declared to be a high crime or misdemeanour; and this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.
Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath given false evidence in any case before this House, or any Committee thereof, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.

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

JOURNAL.
Ordered, That the Journal of this House, from the end of the last session to the end of the present session, with an Index thereto, be printed.
Ordered, That 500 Copies of the said Journal and Index be printed by the appointment and under the direction of Sir Courtenay Peregrine Ilbert, K.C.S.I., C.L.E., the Clerk of this House.
Ordered, That the said Journal and Index be printed by such person as
82
shall be licensed by Mr. Speaker, and that no other person do presume to print the same.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (RECESS.)
The following Papers, presented by His Majesty's Command during the Recess, were delivered to the Librarian of the House of Commons during the Recess, pursuant to the Standing Order of the 14th August, 1896—

1. Explosions (Cotton Powder Company's Factory at Faversham).—Copy of Report by Major A. Cooper-Key, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the circumstances attending an Explosion of nitro-glycerine which occurred in the Final Washing House of the Factory of the Cotton Powder Company, Limited, at Uplees Marshes, Faversham, Kent, on the 23rd August, 1903.

2. Explosions (Cotton Powder Company's Factory at Faversham).—Copy of Report by Captain J. H. Thomson, His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Explosives, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the circumstances attending an Explosion of nitro-glycerine which occurred in the Final Washing House of the Factory of the Cotton Powder Company, Limited, at Uplees Marshes, Faversham, Kent, on the 9th November, 1903.

3. Sewage Disposal (Royal Commission).—Copy of Fourth Report of the Commissioners appointed to enquire and report what methods of Treating and Disposing of Sewage may properly be adopted, together with Vol. II., Minutes of Evidence, Vol. III., Reports on Bacteriological Investigations, and Vol. IV., Reports on the Land Treatment of Sewage and Methods of Chemical Analysis of Sewage Effluents.

4. Historical Manuscripts (Royal Commission).—Copy of Report on the Manuscripts of Mrs. Stopford-Sackville of Drayton House, Northamptonshire, Vol. I.

5. Historical Manuscripts (Royal Commission).—Copy of Report on the Manuscripts of the Duke of Buccleuch and

83
Queensberry, K.G., K.T., preserved at Drumlanrig Castle, Vol. II.

6. Arsenical Poisoning (Royal Commission).—Copy of Final Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of Arsenical Poisoning arising from the Consumption of Beer and other articles of Food or Drink. Part I. Report.

7. Arsenical Poisoning (Royal Commission).—Copy of Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of Arsenical Poisoning arising from the consumption of Beer and other articles of Food or Drink. Part II. Vol. I. of Minutes of Evidence and Appendices.

8. Arsenical Poisoning (Royal Commission).—Copy of Final Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of Arsenical Poisoning arising from the consumption of Beer and other articles of Food or Drink. Part II. Vol. II. of Minutes of Evidence and Appendices.

9. Electricity in Mines.—Copy of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to inquire into the use of Electricity in Mines, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices.

10. War in South Africa (Royal Commission).—Copy of Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the military preparations and other matters connected with the War in South Africa, with Minutes of Evidence (Vols. I. and II.) and Appendices.

11. Ankylostomiasis.—Copy of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by J. S. Haldane, esquire, M.D., F.R.S., on Ankylostomiasis in Westphalian Collieries.

12. Mines and Quarries.—Copy of General Report and Statistics for the year 1902; Part II., Labour; General Report and Statistics relating to persons employed and Accidents at Mines and Quarries in the United Kingdom, and to the enforcement of the Mines and Quarries Acts.

13. Mines and Quarries.—Copy of General Report and Statistics for the year 1902, Part III., Output; General Report and Statistics relating to the
84
Output and Value of the Minerals raised in the United Kingdom, the amount and value of the metals produced, and the exports and imports of Minerals.

14. Prisons (England and Wales).—Copy of Report of the Commissioners of Prisons and the Directors of Convict Prisons, with Appendices, for the year ended 31st March, 1903.

15. Factories and Workshops.—Copy of Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for 1902. Part II. Tables.

18. Reformatory and Industrial Schools (Great Britain).—Copy of Forty-sixth Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools for 1902. Part II. General Report and Appendices III. to XI.

17. Police (Metropolis).—Copy of Re-port of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for the year 1902.

18. Inebriates Acts (Inspector's Report).—Copy of Report of the Inspector under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, for the year 1902.

19. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the City of Bath, in the county of Somerset (being extensions and deviations of the existing and authorised undertaking of Bath Electric Tramways, Limited), and the abandonment of the construction of certain other Light Railways already authorised in the same city (Bath Electric Tramways (Light Railways Extensions) Order, 1903)/

20. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the Llandudno and Colwyn Bay Light Railway Order, 1898 (Llandudno and Colwyn Bay Light Railway (Deviation and Amendment) Order, 1903).

21. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Rail-ways in the county of Kent, from the River Thames near Greenhithe to Dart-

85
ford and Eynsford, with Branches to Swanley Junction and to Stansted (Dart-ford District Light Railways Order, 1903).

22. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending The Lastingham and Rosedale Light Railway Order, 1900 (Lastingham and Rosedale Light Railway (Extension of Time) Order, 1903).

23. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, reviving the powers granted and extending the period limited by The Bankfoot Light Railway Order, 1898, for the compulsory purchase of lands, and extending the period limited by that Order for the completion of the Railway and works by that Order authorised (Bankfoot Light Railway (Extension of Time) Order, 1903).

24. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the borough of Burton-upon-Trent, the urban districts of Swadlincote and of Ashby-de-la-Zouch, and the rural districts of Repton and of Hartshorne and Seales and of Ashby-de-la-Zouch, in the counties of Stafford, Derby, and Leicester (Burton and Ashby Light Railway Order, 1903).

25. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the borough and rural district of Dover and parish of River, in the county of Kent (Dover and River Light Railway Order, 1903).

26. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the Bere Alston and Calstock Light Railway Order, 1900 (Bere Alston and Calstock Light Railway (Extension of Time) Order, 1903).

86

27. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Southampton, from Totton to Fawley (Totton, Hythe, and Fawley Light Railway Order, 1903).

28. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the rural district of Dartford, in the county of Kent (Dartford Light Railway (Extension) Order, 1903).

29. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, transferring to the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Nelson the powers conferred upon the Barrowford Urban District Council by the Barrowford Light Railway Order, 1901, and amending that Order and the Nelson Light Railways Order, 1901 (Barrowford Light Railway Order, 1901 (Transfer, &c.) Order, 1903).

30. Light Railways Act, 1896.—Copy of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Gloucester, in the parishes of Henbury and Shirehampton (Avonmouth Light Railway Order, 1903).

31. Railways (Continuous Brakes).—Copy of Return by Railway Companies of the United Kingdom on the use of Continuous Brakes for the six months ending the 30th June, 1903.

32. Statistical Abstracts (Foreign Countries).—Copy of Statistical Abstract for the principal and other Foreign Countries in each year from 1891 to 1900– 1901 (Twenty-ninth Number).

33. Commercial Mission to South Africa.—Copy of Report received from Mr. Henry Birchenough, the Special Commissioner appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into and report upon the present position and future prospects of British Trade in South Africa.

87

34. Colonial Import Duties,—Copy of Return relating to the Rates of Import Duties levied upon the principal and other Articles Imported into the Colonial and other Possessions of the United Kingdom.

35. Conciliation Act, 1896 (Trade Disputes).—Copy of Fourth Report by the Board of Trade of Proceedings under the Conciliation Act, 1896.

36. East India (Sanitary Measures).—Copy of Report on Sanitary Measures in India in 1901–2 (Vol. XXXV.).

37. East India (Irrigation).—Copy of Report of the Indian Irrigation Commission, 1901–3. Part I. General. Part II. Provincial. Part III. Maps. Part IV. Appendix.

38. East India (Railways).—Copy of Report on the administration and working of Indian Railways, by Thomas Robertson, C.V.O., Special Commissioner for Indian Railways.

39. East India (Statistical Abstract). —Copy of Statistical Abstract relating to British India from 1892–3 to 1901–2. (Thirty-seventh Number).

40. East India (Trade).—Copy of Review of Trade of India for 1902–3.

41. East India (Trade).—Copy of Tables relating to the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries for the five years 1898–9 to 1902–3.

42. Imperial Institute (Indian Section).—Copy of Annual Report of the Imperial Institute (Indian Section) for the year 1902–3.

43. Irish Land Commission (Proceedings).—Copy of Return of Proceedings during the months of May, June, July, August, September, and October, 1903.

44. National Education (Ireland).—Copy of Appendix to the Sixty-ninth Report of the Commissioners, being for the year 1902. Section I.

45. National Education (Ireland).—Copy of Appendix to the Sixty-ninth Report of the Commissioners, being for the year 1902. Section II.

46. National Education (Ireland.—Copy of Appendix to the Sixty-ninth Report of the Commissioners, being for the year 1902. Section III.

88

47. Queen's College (Galway).—Copy of Report of the President for the Session 1902–3.

48. Agricultural Statistics (Ireland).—Copy of Tables showing the extent in statute acres and the produce of the Crops for the year 1903.

49. Agricultural Statistics (Ireland) (Migratory Labourers).—Copy of Report and Tables relating to Irish Migratory Agricultural and other Labourers for the year 1903.

50. Agricultural Statistics (Ireland).—Copy of Abstracts showing the Acreage under Crops and the number of Live Stock in each county and province of Ireland for the year 1902–3.

51. Agrarian Outrages (Ireland).—Copy of Return for the quarter ended 30th September, 1903.

52. Agrarian Outrages (Ireland).—Copy of Return for the quarter ended 31st December, 1903.

53. Evictions (Ireland).—Copy of Return of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 30th September, 1903.

54. Evictions (Ireland).—Copy of Return of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 31st December, 1903.

55. Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887 (Eviction Notices).—Copy of Return of Eviction Notices filed during the quarter ended 30th September, 1903.

56. Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887 (Eviction Notices).—Copy of Return of Eviction Notices filed during the quarter ended 31st December, 1903.

57. Banking, Railway, and Canal Statistics (Ireland).—Copy of Report on the Banking, Railway, and Canal Statistics of Ireland for the half-year ended 30th June, 1903.

58. Reformatory and Industrial Schools (Ireland).—Copy of Forty-first Report of the Inspector for the year 1902.

59. Shell-Fish (Ireland). —Copy of Report of the Local Government Board for Ireland on the Shell-Fish Layings on the Irish coast as respects their liability to sewage contamination.

60. Board of Education.—Copy of Reports from University Colleges, 1903.

89

61. Board of Education (Special Reports).—Copy of Special Reports on Educational Subjects. School Training and Early Employment of Lancashire Children.

62. Board of Education (Education Committees).—Copy of Statement of Schemes for the Formation of Education Committees approved during the period 1st August to 30th November, 1903, by the Board of Education, under Section 17 of the Education Act of 1902.

63. Board of Education.—Copy of Return showing the Number of Persons on the Teachers' Register under Regulation 5 (2) (a) of the Teachers' Registration Regulations.

64. Board of Education. —Copy of Regulations relating to the Royal College of Science, the. Royal College of Art, and to Museums under the Board of Education from 1st August, 1903, to 31st July, 1904.

65. Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.—Copy of Report on the Results of Investigations into Cider Making carried out on behalf of the Bath and West and Southern Counties Society in the years 1893 to 1902, by F. J. Lloyd, F.C.S, F.I.C.

66. Postal Convention (Denmark).—Copy of Agreement between the Post Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Post Office of Denmark. Dated 22nd August, 14th September, 1903.

67. Wireless Telegraphy. —Copy of Procés-Verbaux and Protocole Final of the Preliminary International Conference at Berlin on Wireless Telegraphy.

68. Meteorology.—Copy of Report of the Meteorological Council to the Royal Society for the year ending 31st March, 1903.

69. Preferential and Retaliatory Duties.—Copy of Return of Preferential and Retaliatory Duties imposed, raised, reduced, or repealed in the years 1823, 1824, 1825, 1826, 1842, 1843, 1844, 1845, 1846, 1853, and 1860, stating (1) the rate of duty levied, and (2) the revenue derived from, and the quantities imported, of the articles concerned, in the three years preceding and in the three years following such change.

90

70. Chapter House, Westminster. —? Copy of Memoranda by Professor Church, F.R.S., furnished to the First Commissioner of His Majesty's Works, &c, concerning the treatment of Decayed Stone-Work in the Chapter House, Westminster Abbey.

71. Peterhead Harbour.—Copy of Reports respecting Peterhead Harbour Works.

72. Colonial Reports (Annual). —Copies of Reports Nos. 394 (Turks and Caicos Islands, Annual Report for 1902), 395 (Seychelles, Annual Report for 1902), 396 (Ceylon, Annual Report for 1902), 397, (Gold Coast, Annual Report for 1902), 398 (Barbados, Report for 1902–3), 399 (Fiji, Annual Report for 1902), 400 (Lagos, Annual Report for 1902), 401 (British Solomon Islands, Report for 1902–3), 402 (Cocos-Keeling Islands, Annual Report for 1903), 403 (St. Vincent, Report for 1902–3), 404 (Grenada, Annual Report for 1902), 405 (Southern Nigeria, Annual Report for 1902), 406 (Straits Settlements, Annual Report for 1902), 407 (Trinidad and Tobago, Report for 1902–3), 408 (Basutoland, Report for 1902–3), 409 (Northern Nigeria, Annual Report for 1902), 410 (Malta, Report for 1902–3), 411 (St. Lucia, Annual Report for 1902), 412 (Mauritius, Annual Report for 1902), 413 (British Guiana, Report for 1902–3).

73. Colonial Reports (Miscellaneous). —Copies of Reports Nos. 22 (Seychelles, Report on Para Rubber), 23 (Dominica, Roads and Land Settlement. Report on the Expenditure of the Parliamentary Grant-in-Aid), 24 (Grenada, Report on Land Settlement in Carriacou), 25 (Hong- Kong, Bubonic Plague. Memorandum on the Treatment of Patients in their own Homes and in Local Hospitals).

74. Canada.—Copy of Canadian Sessional Paper containing Correspondence in connection with the German Tariff.

75. West Indies.—Copy of Further Correspondence relating to the Volcanic Eruptions in St. Vincent and Martinique in 1902 and 1903.

76. Straits Settlements.—Copy of Reports on the Federated Malay States for 1902.

91

77. Cyprus.—Copy of Despatch from the High Commissioner covering a Report on the Agricultural Fund for the year ended 31st March, 1903.

78. Marriage and Divorce Law (Colonies).—Copy of Papers relating to the Laws of Marriage and Divorce in self-governing British Colonies.

79. Transvaal.—Reports of the Transvaal Labour Commission.

80. Army (Recruiting). —Copy of Annual Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting for the first nine months of the year 1903.

81. Army (Volunteer Corps).—Copy of Annual Return of the Volunteer Corps of Great Britain for the year 1902.

82. Military Prisons.—Copy of Report on the Discipline and Management of Military Prisons in 1902.

83. Patriotic Fund.—Copy of Forty-second Report of the Royal Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund.

84. Rifle Ranges.—Copy of Return of Rifle Ranges available for Regular Troops and Militia, and of Rifle and Carbine Ranges available for the Imperial Yeomanry and Volunteer Forces [Address 16th July, 1903; Mr. Courtenay Warner.]

85. Judicial Statistics (Scotland).—Copy of Report on the Judicial Statistics of Scotland for the year 1902.

86. Census of Scotland, 1901.—Copy of Eleventh Decennial Census of the Population of Scotland, taken 31st March, 1901, with Report (Vol. III.).

87. Board of Manufactures (Scotland).—Copy of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the administration of the Board of Manufactures (Scotland).

88. Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903.—Copy of Tables showing the Populations of Counties, Local Government Districts, and Burghs in Scotland with reference to the Provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act.

89. Naval Manœuvres. —Copy of Report of the Naval Manœuvres of 1903.

90. Census of England and Wales, 1901.—Copy of Index to the Population Tables for England and Wales in the
92
county volumes of the Census Report, 1901.

91. Highways.—Copy of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the President of the Local Government Board to inquire into the subject of Highways Authorities and Administration in England and Wales, with Minutes of Evidence.

92. Treaty Series (No. 12, 1903).—Copy of Convention between the United Kingdom and France respecting Commercial relations between France and Jamaica. Signed at London, 8th August, 1902. Ratifications exchanged at London, 12th August, 1903.

93. Treaty Series (No. 13, 1903).—Copy of Accession of Mexico to the Industrial Property Convention, 1883, and additional Act of 1900. 7th September, 1903.

94. Treaty Series (No. 14, 1903).—Copy of Accession of Germany to the Industrial Property Convention, 1883, etc. 1st May, 1903.

95. Treaty Series (No. 15, 1903).—Copy of Parcel Post Convention, with detailed regulations, between the United Kingdom and Chile. Signed at Santiago, 21st October, 1902.

96. Treaty Series (No. 16, 1903).— Copy of Protocol for submitting to Arbitration certain questions as to the interpretation of treaties with Japan with regard to leases held in perpetuity. Signed at Tokio, 28th August, 1902.

97. Treaty Series (No. 17, 1903).—Copy of Treaty between the United Kingdom and China respecting Commercial relations, etc. Signed at Shangai, 5th September, 1902. Ratifications exchanged at Peking, 28th July, 1903.

98. Treaty Series (No. 18, 1903).—Copy of Agreement between the United Kingdom and France providing for the Settlement by Arbitration of certain classes of questions which May arise between the two Governments. Signed at London, 14th October, 1903.

99. Treaty Series (No. 1, 1904).—Copy of Convention for the establishment of a Parcel Post Service between the United States and Hong-Kong. Signed at Washington, 21st November, 1903.

93

100. Turkey (No. 4, 1903).—Copy of further correspondence respecting the affairs of South-Eastern Europe.

101. Turkey (No. 1, 1904).—Copy of further correspondence respecting the Affairs of South-Eastern Europe, March to September, 1903.

102. China (No. 3, 1903).—Copy of Report by Acting Consul Litton on a journey in North-West Yunnan.

103. China (No. 1, 1904).—Copy of Report by Mr. C. W. Campbell, "His Majesty's Consul at Wuchow, on a journey in Mongolia (with a Map).

104. Africa (No. 11, 1903).—Copy of Reports on the Geology of the East Africa Protectorate, by the late E. E. Walker (Government Geologist).

105. Africa (No. 12, 1903).—Copy of Report by the Mombasa - Victoria (Uganda) Railway Committee on the Progress of the Works and Revenue Working, 1902–3 (with two maps).

106. Africa (No. 13, 1903).—Copy of Report on the Trade and General Conditions of the British Central Africa Protectorate for the year 1902–3 by Major F. B. Pearce, Acting Commissioner.

107. Africa (No. 14, 1903).—Copy of Despatch to certain of His Majesty's Representatives abroad in regard to alleged cases of ill-treatment of Natives, and to the existence of Trade Monopolies in the Independent State of the Congo.

108. Africa (No. 15, 1903). Copy of General Report on the Uganda Protectorate for the year, ending 31st March, 1903.

109. Forestry Laws (Commercial No. 8, 1903).—Copy of Reports from certain of His Majesty's Representatives abroad respecting Forestry Laws.

110. Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses (Commercial No. 9, 1903).—Copy of Return of Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses in existing Treaties of Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain and Foreign Powers, stating the period when terminable, and showing whether they apply to the British Colonies, in force on the 1st July, 1903.

111. Houses of Legislature (Official Reports of Proceedings), Miscellaneous (No. 5, 1903,—Copy of Correspondence
94
showing the systems in force in certain foreign countries for publishing Official Reports of Proceedings in the Houses of Legislature.

112. Drama (State or Municipal Support) (Miscellaneous, No. 6, 1903).—Copy of Return as to Financial Support given from State or Municipal Funds to Dramatic, Operatic, or Musical Performances in Foreign Countries.

113. Trade Reports (Annual Series).—Copies of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3066 to 3113.

114. Trade Reports (Miscellaneous Series).—Copies of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, Nos. 596 to 601.

Ordered, That the said Papers do lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY PENSIONS.
  Copy presented, of Return showing the names of all Constabulary Officers now in receipt of Pensions, of all Head Constables, Sergeants, and Constables, and of all Widows and Children to whom Pensions have been granted since the Constabulary Estimate for 1903–4 was prepared, with the amount and date of Pension in each case [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IMPERIAL OTTOMAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1855.
  Copy presented, of Account for the year 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREASURY BILLS.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 24th January, 1904, amending the Regulation laid down in the Treasury Minute of the 31st May, 1889, relating to Tenders for Treasury Bills [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 1.]

  ST. LOUIS EXHIBITION COMMISSION, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 29th August, 1903, directing that the Accounts of the Royal Commission for the St. Louis Exhibition, 1904, shall

  95
  be examined and audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1859.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 20th August, 1903, awarding a Special Pension to Sir Kenelm Edward Digby, K.C.B., late Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATIONS.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 21st November, 1903, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Deputy-Governor of a Convict Prison in Ireland professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the Public Service are required [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATIONS.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 10th November, 1903, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Secretary to the Civil Service Commissioners professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the Public Service are required [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 30th September, 1903,declaring that Thomas Ashbrook Forster, Postmaster, Newtown Post Office, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 2nd October, 1903, declaring that Alfred Wellham, machine hand, Royal Small Arms Factory, Birmingham, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 2nd October, 1903, declaring that
  96
  Charles Chamberlain, principal foreman, Royal Carriage Department, War Office, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 23rd December, 1903, declaring that William Edward Bird, engine driver, Royal Gun Factory, War Department, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BANK OF ENGLAND.
  Copy presented, of Return of the amount of Notes issued more than forty years which have not been presented for payment, and which have been written off on the 28th October, 1903, from the total amount of Notes issued from the Issue Department of the Bank of England [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS.
  Account presented, showing the gross amount received and expended on account of the Telegraph Service during the year ended 31st March, 1903, &c. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 2.]
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (PARTICULARS OF PIECE WORK WAGES) (WEARING APPAREL).
  Copy presented, of Order, dated 17th December, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, applying with modifications the provisions of Section 116 of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, to the manufacture of Wearing Apparel, and revoking the Order dated 22nd April, 1897 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (SPECIAL EXCEPTION —CREAMERIES).
  Copy presented, of Order, dated 23rd October, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 42 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, granting certain special exceptions to Creameries,

  97
  and revoking the Order (Ireland) dated 9th June, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (SPECIAL EXCEPTION —OVERTIME).
  Copy presented, of Order, dated 29th December, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 49 of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, with regard to the overtime employment of women on not more than thirty days in the year; and revoking all existing Orders [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (MANUFACTURE OF EARTHENWARE AND CHINA).
  Copy presented, of Amended Special Rules, dated 30th December, 1901, and 28th November, 1903, for the Manufacture of Earthenware and China, as established by the Awards of the Umpire, Lord James of Hereford [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (DANGEROUS AND UNHEALTHY INDUSTRIES).
  Copy presented, of Regulations, dated 21st November, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 79 of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, for the Manufacture of Electric Accumulators [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (HEALTH—BAKEHOUSES).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, dated 30th December, 1903, in pursuance of Section 3, Sub-section (2), of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, modifying the proportion of cubic feet of space to be provided in certain Bakehouses [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (SPECIAL EXCEPTION—LIMEWASHING).
  Copy presented, of Order, dated 2nd November, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of Section 1 (4) of The Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, granting special
  98
  exceptions from the provisions respecting limewashing, &c, to certain factories and parts of factories; and revoking the Orders dated 16th November, 1895, 8th February, 1896, and 26th March, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  EXPLOSIONS (BLENHEIM ENGINEERING COMPANY'S FACTORY AT TUNNEL LANE, GREENWICH MARSHES).
  Copy presented, of Report by Major A. Cooper-Key, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the circumstances attending an explosion of fulminate composition at the factory of the Blenheim Engineering Company, Limited, at Tunnel Lane, Greenwich Marshes, on the 18th December, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
    INCORPORATION OF ASTON MANOR.
    Copy presented, of Charter of Incorporation of the Borough of Aston Manor, dated 17th August, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  INCORPORATION OF BROMLEY.
  Copy presented, of Charter of Incorporation of the Borough of Bromley-dated 17th August, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  INCORPORATION OF GILLINGHAM.
  Copy presented, of Charter of Incorporation of the Borough of Gillingham, dated 17th August, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  INCORPORATION OF HORNSEY.
  Copy presented, of Charter of Incorporation of the Borough of Hornsey, dated 17th August, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES (REGULATIONS).
  Copy presented, of Regulations made with the approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the management and discipline of the certified Inebriate Reformatory at Ackworth, Yorkshire [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  INEBRIATES ACTS, 1879 TO 1899 (REGULATIONS FOR STATE INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES).
  Copy presented, of New Regulations made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department prescribing the diet for ill-conducted or idle inmates of State Inebriate Reformatories, and revoking Regulations 64 (b) and 66 (b), and so much of Appendix A as relates to the diet of ill-conducted or idle inmates, of the Regulation dated 21st June, 1901 [by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of Licence granted to Ellis Smith, under the Provisions of the Penal Servitude Acts, 1853 to 1891, to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of a Licence granted to Patrick Hardigan, under the Provisions of the Penal Servitude Acts, 1853 to 1891, to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE.)
  Copy presented, of a Licence granted to Mary Ann Phillips, a convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting her to be at large on condition that she enter the Home of the Holy Rood at Worthing [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of Licence granted to Timothy W. Nolan, a convict, to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto, [Ordered 13th August, 1903; Mr. M'Govern]; to lie upon the Table.
  AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) ACT, 1899.
  Copy presented, of Thirty - three Minutes by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland sanctioning Forms of Instruction 1 for certain County Boroughs, Counties, and Urban Districts [by Act]; to lie: upon the Table.
  PHARMACY ACTS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Order in Council, dated 9th October, 1903, approving of a Regulation made by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MILITIA ACT, 1882 (DEPUTY LIEUTENANTS, IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of descriptions of qualifications of Deputy Lieutenants lodged during 1903, as furnished to the Chief Secretary for Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  WINTER ASSIZES (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of an Order in Council, dated 9th October, 1903, and three Orders, dated 4th November, 1903, for holding Winter Assizes in Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Time-Table of Examinations for 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  INTERMEDIATEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Additional Rule made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland as to Experimental Science and Drawing [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of amended Rules made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland for the Examination in Music [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Additional Rule J made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland as to Experimental and Practical Science [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND), 1877.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council, dated 1st December, 1903, giving effect to a Rule of Court [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND), 1877.
  Copies presented, of two Orders in Council, dated 21st January, 1904, giving effect to Rules of Court under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  WAGES, AND EFFECTS OF DECEASED SEAMEN.
  Account presented, of the Sums received and paid in respect of the Wages and Effects of Deceased Seamen in the year ended 31st March, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GENERAL LIGHTHOUSE FUND.
  Account presented, of the General Lighthouse Fund showing the Income and Expenditure for the year ended 31st March, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 3.]
  SEAMEN'S SAVINGS BANKS (MONEY ORDERS AND TRANSMISSION OF WAGES).
  Accounts presented, of all Deposits received and repaid during the year ended 20th November, 1902, and Statement as to Money Orders issued and paid from 1855 to 31st March, 1903, and of Receipts and Payments in connection with the Transmission of Seamen's Wages from 1878 to 31st March, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 4.]
  RAMSGATE HARBOUR.
  Copy presented, of Statement of the Receipts and Payments for the year ended 31st March, 1903, together with an Account of the Receipt and Issue of Stores [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 5.]

  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY (EXTENSION FROM BANAVIE TO MALLAIG).
  Copy presented, of Second Annual Report by the Board of Trade as to the condition and working of the Banavie and
  102
  Mallaig Railway, the rates and charges for traffic, and the receipts and expenditure of any Company in working the Railway, for the year ended 1902–3 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 6.]

  ARMY (PAY, NON-EFFECTIVE PAY, AND ALLOWANCES).
  Copy presented, of List of Exceptions to the Army Regulations as to Pay and Allowances sanctioned during the year 1902–3 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUGAR.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 30th July, 1903; Colonel Denny]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA).
  Copy presented, of Return of all Loans raised in India, chargeable on the Revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ending on the 30th September, 1903, &c. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 7.]
  EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN ENGLAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of all Loans raised in England, chargeable on the Revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ending on the 30th September, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 8.]
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (CAMBRIDGE).
  Copy presented, of Statutes made by the Governing Body of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, on 16th March, 1903, in substitution for the existing Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 9.]
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (CAMBRIDGE).
  Copy presented, of Statutes made by the Governing Body of Magdalene College, Cambridge, on 22nd June, 1903, in substitution for Statute XXV. of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 10.]
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
  Copy presented, of Statute made by the Governing Body of New College, Oxford, on 17th June, 1903, amending certain clauses of Statute III. of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 11.]
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
  Copy presented, of Statute made by the Governing Body of St. John's College, Oxford, on 15th May, 1903, amending Statute XV., I, of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 12.]
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
  Copy presented, of Statute made by the Governing Body of Oriel College, Oxford, on 24th April, 1903, amending Statute IV., 7, of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 13.]
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copies presented, of Two Orders in Council of the 29th January, 1904, providing for the re-measurement for tonnage of French and Spanish vessels in British ports [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copy of Order in Council of the 9th October, 1903, applying the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, in the case of deserters from Japanese vessels [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copies presented, of Orders in Council of the 16th November, 1903, confirming bye-laws made by the Pilotage Authority for the Ports of Gloucester and Burntisland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT ACTS, 1844 TO 1886.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 9th October, 1903, giving effect to the accession of Denmark to the
  104
  International Copyright Convention of 9th September, 1886, and Additional Act of Paris, 1897 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Order in Council under the Act (The Zanzibar Order in Council, 1903) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1858.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 8th December, 1903, approving a statement of proposed new and revised appointments and alterations of salaries in the establishment of the Secretary of State for India in Council [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL ACTS.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 9th October, 1903, sanctioning certain pensions now granted from the Funds of Greenwich Hospital being supplemented from Naval funds [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1878.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 19th October, 1903, approving a new denomination of Standard Weight of Fifty Pounds, or "Half-Cental" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889 (ORDINANCE).
  Copy presented, of University Court Ordinance No. IX. (Edinburgh, No. 3) Regulations for the Degree of Bachelor of Law (B.L.) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 14.]
  UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH.
  Copy presented, of Report on the state of the Finances of the University, made by the University Court, for the year 31st August, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 15.]
  UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH.
  Copy presented, of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Edinburgh for the year 1902–3 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 16.]
  UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
  Copy presented, of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Glasgow for 1902–3 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 17.]
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1903.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Secretary for Scotland under Section 109 of the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Rule made by the Secretary for Scotland appointing the Police Cells at Kirkcaldy to be a legal Prison for the detention of untried prisoners for a period not exceeding fourteen days before or during trial, and of convicted prisoners for a period not exceeding seven days from the date of conviction [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 18.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3116 and 3117 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNITED STATES (No. 2, 1904).
  Copy presented, of Map to accompany Correspondence respecting the Alaska Boundary (United States, No. 1, 1904) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Lunacy.—Copy of Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, the number of patients seen, and the number of miles travelled by the Visitors of Lunatics between 1st April, 1903, and 30th September, 1903 [by Act].

  2. Lunacy.—Copy of Return of all sums received by the Visitors of Lunatics for travelling expenses, or upon any other account, from 1st January to 31st December, 1903 [by Act].

  3. Supreme Court (Rules).—Copy of Rules of the Supreme Court, dated 15th January 1904 [by Act].

  4. County Court (Rules).—Copy of County Court Rules, 1903 [by Act].

  5. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.—Copy of Accounts of the Mersey Docks
  106
  and Harbour Board for the year ending 1st July, 1903 [by Act].

  6. Public Records (Disposal of Documents).—Copy of Additional Rule under the Public Record Office Acts, 1877 and 1898, for the disposal of certain Documents [by Act].

  7. Public Records (Colonial Office).—Copy of Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents existing or accruing in the Office of His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].

  KING'S SPEECH.
  Mr. SPEAKER reported His Majesty's Speech, and read it to the House. {See page 1).

  KINGS SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
  MR. HARDY (Kent, Ashford): In rising to undertake the responsibility that falls on me to-day, I will not ask for that indulgence which has so often been asked by Members standing in a similar position, because during the twelve years I have sat in this House I have never received anything but courtesy and kindness from all sides. But, as in this year of climatic disturbance we have often found moments of calm and quiet, so after the tempestuous controversies of the recess it may be hoped that in this House my hon. friend and myself may enjoy a few moments of quiet sympathy. The Speech from the Throne itself leads us to a somewhat similar feeling, because in its opening paragraph it breathes of peace and goodwill. Used as we have been, alas, on many occasions in recent years, in the Gracious Speech from the Throne to references to wars and to the consequences of war, we must now feel a great sense of satisfaction when we find paragraph after paragraph pointing out other ways of settling international difficulties. It suggests a hopeful augury for a future when peaceful arbitration will take the place of the dread arbitrament of war. In this I think a right note has been struck in the

  107
  first paragraph, which alludes to our relations with our neighbour the great country of France. That personal note is raised by the allusion to the King's recent visit to that country, and I must say that when we look at this and other paragraphs one cannot doubt that we owe much in this regard to the tact, bonhomie, and diplomatic powers of His Majesty himself. There is reference also to another exchange of international courtesies. We have been accustomed to visits between the heads of great States, but for the first time there has been an interchange of visits between the legislatures of the two countries, thereby helping to cement a friendship which I trust may continue. We heartily welcomed those who came to us as guests from France, and we in our turn were welcomed with equal warmth. We may trust that the people of the two great countries so contiguous to each other may long remain on terms of amity and of friendship. We have to remember that if we seek these new ways of deciding international disputes, there must always be those who get their way and those who are unsuccessful. In the next paragraph we find an allusion to that tribunal which has been dealing with questions of great difficulty and delicacy which had arisen between Canada and the United States. While we may congratulate ourselves that at last these ancient controversies have been put an end to, we have to remember that the adverse decision tried peculiarly our kinsmen across the sea, and we cannot withhold our admiration of the Canadian people for the calmness and good sense with which they received a decision which was undoubtedly unpalatable to them.
  I pass on to the next paragraph dealing with affairs in the Far East. We all know that the fear of war is brooding over a vast area of country. We ourselves have in late years had bitter experience of the sacrifices of life and treasure involved in war. But that experience was only in connection with a land war, and we do not know what would be the result of a war by sea as well as by land, fought between the ancient Empire of Russia and the newer Empire of Japan. I think we may feel
  108
  satisfied, however, that the Government —with its own experience of what war-means—will do their utmost to maintain peace. Our interests in those distant countries are very great, and deplorable would be the effect of war upon them—commercially, politically, and in every other way. Whatever the issue of the war might be, we cannot but feel that any alteration in the balance of power in that part might lead to results which might be far more deplorable than even any attack on our trade would be. At all events, as long as there is peace there is hope, and trusting in the good sense of the Emperor of Russia and our allies, the Japanese, we may still hope for a peaceful outcome of the negotiations.
  I now pass from foreign matters to those which affect our colonies. I think it must be a matter of great satisfaction to us that the Commonwealth of Australia and the Colony of New Zealand, following up what occurred at the Colonial Conference in 1902, have now expressed their willingness to take up their responsibilities, to some extent, in connection with Imperial defence, and I think we ought to note that the acceptance of responsibility on their part is at the same time an acknowledgment of the necessity of unity of policy in this connection rather than a mere selfish interest. They are willing to contribute to wards Imperial defence in an Imperial manner. I think, too, we may feel very glad that the Legislature of New Zealand, following the example of Canada and of South Africa, has given sanction to a tariff which gives preference to the produce of the Mother Country in the markets of New Zealand, and I hope that this example may be followed in other parts of the Empire. With regard to the mission to Thibet, the Papers which are to be laid shortly before the House will, of course, explain its objects, and here again it must be a matter for satisfaction that it is a political mission, undertaken by the concurrence of the Suzerain Power, to enforce treaty obligations, and that it is in no sense aggressive or caused by any desire to push forward the limits of the Empire. It is, in fact, a peaceful mission for the promotion of our interests, and we hope that like many which have

  109
  gone before it may remove difficulties which have been a constant source of friction on our borders.
  Next I come to the Estimates. The paragraph as to these has been framed in a rather different form as compared with previous Speeches. Undoubtedly economy must be the ideal which we put forward in connection with our financial responsibility. There can be no shirking of the burdens which fall upon us in consequence of the necessity for defending this Empire, but I am sure, judging from the criticisms which have been delivered, that the national interests are closely connected with the question of defence, and we must be prepared to meet a very considerable expenditure in connection with our two great defensive forces. Only lately the Government had to purchase two battleships, the acquiring of which by other nations would have entailed very great expenditure on ourselves in order that we might maintain that standard which is absolutely necessary to secure our supremacy on the seas. We have obtained those vessels, and I do not doubt the House will acknowledge as a patriotic duty that they must be paid for. In reference to the Navy there is one critic whom we shall very much miss—one whose frank presence, rugged eloquence, and transparent single-mindedness always made his contributions to our naval debates most welcome. We shall always miss such critics, because we know that their criticisms are levelled against what they believe to be actual defects by which the supremacy of the Navy is impaired.
  I do not think it would be wise to dwell to-day upon the other side of our defences. It was only yesterday the country had the advantage of learning the opinion of experts on the question of War Office reform, but it undoubtedly points to the fact that great expenditure must be incurred, though we may also hope that in future the return will be a little more worth the money. One paragraph in the Report of the War Office Reconstruction Committee seems very appropriate to the occasion. They say—
  "The experience of the South Africa campaign has clearly shown that the system of administration prevailing was not adapted to
  110
  the requirements of war, and an examination of the methods and regulations of the War Office strengthens the impressions that the real object for which this Department exists—the preparation of the military forces of the Crown for war—has not been attained."
  If we have not attained that object, I am sure the House, backed up by the country, will insist on it now being attained.
  In the later paragraphs of His Majesty's Gracious Speech, there is promised legislation of a social character, dealing with matters which have been thoroughly inquired into by Committees and Commissions in the past few years, and I hope that those matters will receive the careful consideration of the House. During the last two or three years we have passed measures dealing with the sale of intoxicating liquors in England and Scotland, and one characteristic of those Bills was that they were debated with good temper and a serious desire to remedy actual defects in the law without any unnecessary opposition or obstruction. May I appeal to the House that in further amending the law we should approach the matter in the same spirit and with the same desire to remove defects and so bring about real temperance reform? We cannot expect such a matter to be uncontroversial, and when we attempt to deal with such questions as the permanency of licences, compensation, the restriction of the number of licences, and the discretion of the licensing authority, we are certainly in rather deep water. But is it not our business to find some solution of a question which, even in the opinion of those who have been most devoted to temperance reform, is a very real difficulty and a stumbling block in their path? I need not use my own words, as fortunately I can refer to words written by an expert in this matter which are better than any I could use. In a recent pamphlet the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division of Yorkshire uses these words—
  "The necessity for abolishing and the right to abolish licences in the public interest is fully admitted, but the difficulty and hardship which are involved in selecting the individuals upon whom the loss shall fall is felt to be so great that it blocks the way both to the efficient administration of the present law and to the passing of the reforms that some of us earnestly desire.

  111
  He goes on to say—
  "Some of our friends have been so long and, to a large extent, so exclusively engaged in conflict with the liquor traffic that they have come to act and talk as though they and the liquor people were the only parties to be consulted. They almost entirely overlook and ignore that great middle element in the community which is not identified with either the temperance or the liquor party, but which is the majority of the nation and is the element in our midst with whom the ultimate decision will really rest."
  It is to that middle element we have to appeal, for if it is difficult for the Legislature to take upon itself the duty of deciding between licensees, it is also a somewhat arduous duty to throw upon the licensing authorities. Since the question of compensation was last fully discussed in this House, there has been a growing feeling on every side that some form of compensation must be devised if ever you are to have a settlement of this difficult problem. Surely, then, we ought to approach it this year with a desire to find a solution. The Royal Commission, both in its Majority and its Minority Report, decided on compensation, either in value from public funds or from the trade, or by a time limit. Last year, by a majority of two to one, this House decided in favour of compensation, and during the recent recess a great temperance manifesto has been sent out, appealing to the common-sense of middle class opinion, in which it is said that some form of compensation is necessary. Public opinion being thus formed, I trust we shall approach the question with a desire to remedy the immediate grievance caused by the action of certain licensing authorities in the country, and, at the same time, devise some means by which licences may be restricted without doing injustice to individuals, so that eventually we may approach a settlement of the question which hinders all true temperance reform.
  As a county Member I must say a word as to the Bill for dealing with the valuation authorities. Long as we have been promised the reform of local taxation, certain as it is that that reform is as necessary as ever it was, there is one step which must be taken before we go into that matter; we do require a strong valuation authority, and we want one
  112
  basis of valuation in connection with rating. Therefore I welcome the intention of the Government to deal with the matter; first, because it is a crying grievance in itself, and secondly, because I trust it will lead to that further reform of local taxation which is one of the most important subjects of legislation. We in agricultural parts have received a certain form of relief, but it has been only of a temporary character, and when the time comes for a thorough revision of the matter the agricultural interest will again have to ask from the hands of Parliament consideration of their special grievances—grievances which still bear heavily upon them, and which always come more and more into evidence as the burden of local taxation increases.
  There is one other matter, and that is the announcement that a Bill is to be brought forward to remove a somewhat curious anomaly which exists in the recollection of Members on the acceptance of office. This is a self-denying ordinance, inasmuch it will not apply to the present Parliament. Doubtless there will be found some persons on the other side who love bye-elections so much that they will object to forego the chance of having one; but surely if the matter is looked into it will be seen that this is a case for reform. Is it not somewhat ludicrous that in the reconstruction of a Ministry the battle should fall not on the leading Ministers, because they change from one office to another without the necessity of seeking re-election, but with the youngest members of the Ministry who, perhaps, have not held office before? In other cases just when Ministers ought to be devoting themselves to the details of their work they are thrown by this necessity into the midst of an election. Then there is the further fact that the requirements of re-election must at times influence the decision of the Prime Minister in I selecting the best men he can find to direct the affairs of the country. The whole thing is anomalous and obsolete, and I am very glad that the Government have announced their intention of dealing with it at an early date. There is one thing which I do not notice in the Gracious Speech with which I am

  113
  personally interested, having been connected with the Committee which sat on the Bill—I mean the Port of London Bill. Although not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne I may remind the House that the Bill still exists, and will come before us again this year. I do trust that another session may not be allowed to elapse before we deal with such an important matter as the port of the greatest city in the world, a measure which is necessary in order that we may regain our commercial supremacy. With regard to the last words of the Address in which His Majesty asks for guidance from on High, I cannot disguise from myself the fact that there are subjects which are not included in His Majesty's Gracious Speech, which have undoubtedly created much controversy in the country and amongst Members of this House. I cannot look around these Benches without noting this fact. Although these words of His Gracious Majesty may appear to be purely formal, yet I feel that there can be no occasion more than the present when this House should more desire some guidance in its great debates, some higher sanction in order that we may still maintain before the face of the world an acknowledgment as the oldest legislative assembly in the world, that we can still carry on our debates in a manner worthy of a great Empire, giving to each other that credit for substantial common-sense which has been the characteristic of our people. I do trust, whatever may be the issue of this controversy, that this House may still deserve to rank amongst the greatest deliberative assemblies in the world. I beg to move.
  MR. PLUMMER: I rise to second the Motion which has just been so fittingly proposed by the hon. Member for the Ashford Division, and if in so doing, I, like him, do not commence with the customary appeal for the indulgence of the House, it is not because I do not fully recognise my need for such indulgence, but simply because whatever else my experience here may have failed to teach me, it has at any rate taught me that, to those who endeavour to secure the goodwill of their colleagues, the House will always prove to be that friend in need who is, after all, the friend indeed. One is glad,
  114
  moreover, to remember the sympathy which is extended on these occasions to those called upon to perform a duty which has been described by the Prime Minister—whose absence, I am sure, the whole House regrets—as one of the most difficult and delicate duties which a Member of this House can be called upon to perform. It is, I venture to say, all the more difficult because we are assumed to have special private and privileged information on the one hand, while on the other hand we are "cribbed, cabined, and confined" by those twin tyrants of custom and precedent, which always enter so largely into the debates of this House, and which particularly govern the debate on this Motion, which I have now the honour to second.
  One of the rules ordained by custom upon this occasion is a rule which, I think, will meet with general approval, and it is that the mover and the seconder of the debate should, as far as possible, divide the subjects mentioned in His Majesty's Speech, and that the seconder should refrain again, as far as possible, from dealing with those matters which have been dealt with by the mover. I shall, therefore, leave comparatively untouched those subjects which the hon. Member for the Ashford Division has dealt with, and I will pass to other subjects, some of equal importance, and some, possibly, of greater importance. What are sometimes called the foreign relations of this country must ever be of great importance to Parliament and particularly to the House of Commons as being that body upon which constitutionally rests the responsibility of voting those supplies which are inevitably required in the event of any unfortunate interruption of those foreign relations. It must, therefore, be a matter of congratulation to the House and the country that His Majesty is able to assure us of our peaceful relations with foreign Powers. Like the mover of this Motion, I agree that this result is greatly due to those State visits which His Majesty has already paid, and proposes to continue, to the Capitals of Europe, as —may we not say it in a special sense—the Great Ambassador of the Nation. The desire to maintain those peaceful relations is shown in the I numerous references in this Speech to

  115
  arbitration and arbitration treaties. With regard to these I would only make one remark —the hon. Member for the Ashford Division having already dealt with it—and that is that it is an old saying, the truth of which ought never to be overlooked, that "Peace hath her victories no less renowned than war," and whilst to gain a victory in a war which has broken out is no doubt a great thing, to be able honourably and consistently and in accordance with our obligations to the Empire to prevent a war from breaking out is undoubtedly a greater. Unfortunately arbitration is not always possible, and when, as in the case of Somaliland, it has been found necessary to resort to force, it is particularly desirable that the support of this House should go out to those who are fighting amid great difficulties of climate and transport a half civilised foe numerically superior to us. I am sure the sympathies of this House will go out in no less a degree to the relatives of those who have fallen in the recent successful engagement, and particularly to a noble Lord attached to the Party opposite, because they have bravely met their deaths in one of those little wars which are inevitable to this Empire rather than in a great and conspicuous campaign. Sir, such a campaign is unfortunately looming largely in the far East, and I am sure the House will regret the strained relations which at present exist between two great Powers, and will re-echo the hope expressed in the speech that even at the eleventh hour a peaceful solution may be found for the difficulties which now exist. If we turn from the far East to the Near East we find similar cause for concern and anxiety, and though for a time that anxiety has been allayed it is scarcely possible for even the most optimistic observer of recent events to regard it as permanently removed. It is difficult in view of the lessons of experience that have been taught us from that part of the world to express confidence, but the House will observe with satisfaction that in connection with one reform European officers, including officers of the British Army, are to be employed to assist in carrying it out, and we must hope to ensure its performance.
  116
  Now, sir, I turn to a question nearer home; we find a reference in His Majesty's Speech to the danger which is threatening one of the great industries of this country, namely, the cotton industry, in the imperilled supply of that raw material upon which, of course, depends not only the prosperity of that industry, but also the welfare of a large population in Lancashire and elsewhere, which is in turn dependent upon its continued prosperity. I believe the House will welcome the concern expressed in His Majesty's Speech on behalf of a great national industry, and will endorse the hope that by the efforts now being put forward that industry may be placed in a less dependent position upon other countries, and that the position which it now occupies may be considerably relieved. Sir, a self-contained and self-sustained Empire may be but an idle dream or a visionary ideal, but at least it is a worthy ideal, and though it may prove difficult and slow of accomplishment that is no reason why this country should rest content with a greater dependency upon other countries than is absolutely necessary either in this matter of the cotton industry or in other matters.
  With regard to the defences of the country the House, I am sure, will welcome any economy that can be effected, provided that it is effected otherwise than at the expense of efficiency, whilst in connection with what has been,' described as the general problem of Army and War Office reform, I venture to express the hope and belief that the Volunteer Forces will receive that greater support which I am persuaded is the wish of the country generally.
  With regard to the promised legislation for the session, the hon. Member for the Ashford Division has largely dealt with it but he has not referred to one measure, which I am sure the House and the country considers has been delayed too long—I mean the question of alien immigration. However diverse may be our views—and we all know they are very diverse upon that question which, to the detriment of the English language, has come to be described by the classic phrase of "dumping"—I am quite sure none can be found to contend in favour of the continued "dumping" on our shores of pauper and criminal aliens at the expense of the

  117
  country generally, and too often at the expense of a large number of our fellow-countrymen in our great cities, who find it difficult enough to secure employment in some of the trades effected, at reasonable rates of remuneration and under reasonable conditions of labour.
  The other measures referred to in the Address which my colleague has not dealt with are those relating to the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Hours of Employment in Shops, and the Public Health Acts, all of which indicate that what is sometimes called social legislation is to have its due share of the time of the House and that Home questions will not be overlooked amid many pressing Imperial problems. Sir, I have used the phrase "Imperial problems," but I will content myself to-day by adopting the words of the late Sir John Mowbray, who by his many years valued service in this House was well entitled to express the opinion that—
  "The spirit which animates the House of Commons as a body is much the same as it ever has been, namely, a patriotic spirit conscious of the great traditions which it inherits and anxious to work for the good of the Empire."
  Sir, the Government have no doubt been the subject of much criticism, but that is the fate of all Governments, and, indeed, of all responsible and not a few irresponsible bodies. It is an old saying that a man must serve his time to every trade, save censure, critics all are ready made; whilst Lord Beacons field, who for many years was so conspicuous a figure in this House, used to declare that it was always much easier to be critical than to be correct.
  Now it only remains for me to thank the House, and I do so most sincerely, for the patience and attention with which they have listened to what I hope have not been unworthy remarks, and in conclusion, may I add, that in my humble judgment it is well that we should be reminded—lest we forget—well that we should be reminded as we are reminded in His Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne, that our deliberations here ought to be carried on with a conscious sense of our obligations to Him who after all is the source of all authority and power, and by whom alone Kings reign and Princes decree justice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth—
  "Most Gracious Sovereign,
  "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament"—(Mr. Hardy.)
  SIR.H. CAMPBBLL-BANNEPMAN: Sir, the first thing that I will say to the House, with the certainty of having with me its full concurrence and sympathy, is to give some expression to the sincere regret with which we note the absence of the Prime Minister, and above all our regret on account of the cause of that absence. We all trust that the cause of his absence will soon disappear, but I think it is peculiarly to be regretted on this particularly occasion because I for one shall find it to be my clear and urgent duty in the course of my remarks to examine into the position of the Government upon that great fiscal question which so largely occupies the attention of the country, and to address to the Government some very plain and direct questions in regard to it. We should have all preferred that we should have the answer to these questions from the Prime Minister's own lips rather than from any other lips, but after all it is not the Prime Minister's policy; it is the policy of the Cabinet, and the Cabinet Minister whom he has deputed to represent him to-night will no doubt be perfectly competent to give us all the information we desire.
  I shall not be contradicted when I say that seldom has the opening of a session of Parliament excited such keen interest as that in which we are now taking part. The personal presence of the King, accompanied by His Gracious Consort, is a source of pleasure and satisfaction to all His Majesty's subjects It enhances the dignity of the occasion, expressing it partly by the imposing ceremony which attends his presence, and it also marks in proper constitutional fashion the high importance

  119
  of our duties. But when I speak of the interest attaching to our proceedings I do not refer to the form, but to the matter and substance of those proceedings. How we stand is this. In one of the most vital spheres of political opinion and action, a revolutionary movement has been instituted and pursued with zeal, insistency, and profusion during many months, directed against the accepted and established fiscal policy of the country. In fact we are told that there are two policies of departure, and not one only. But while there are some who can detect a difference between the two policies, there are others who maintain that they are in essence implicitly one and the same, that the one is ancillary to the other, and that they are not exempt from the ordinary natural law which controls all terrestrial things, I and according to which the whole is greater than its parts, and the greater includes the lesser. Be this as it may, what I am concerned with is the fact that Parliament has never yet had an opportunity—I will not say of discussing this question—we are not nearly that length yet—but of being informed as to the real nature and intention of the two schemes, if there are two. This House sat for three months after the proposed changes were broadly announced, and was never given an opportunity of discussing them. Our Parliamentary information as to the intentions of the Government was confined to two facts—that a statistical inquiry was to be conducted for the benefit of the Cabinet, and that the Prime Minister had no settled convictions. The lack of settled convictions did not appear to be a very good equipment for a Prime Minister who was setting about furnishing a new commercial system for the greatest commercial nation that the world ever saw. But there we were left, and it is only now, at last, after all this time of delay that we have the means of ascertaining the true position of this momentous matter, and the actual intentions in regard to it of the Executive Government, and the whole country waits with anxious curiosity to hear what the Government have to say. But there are one or two subordinate causes of interest at the present time
  120
  also. We have practically a new Ministry in power. A turn of the wrist has been given, and there has been a kaleidoscopic change on the opposite benches. Familiar faces are found in strange places, and strange faces in familiar places. Is it a new Government? I said practically a new Government. I thought that was safe although not very definite. Is it a new Government with a new policy, or is it the old Government with a new policy? The old Government may be on the Front Bench more or less, but the old policy is mostly on the Back Benches. But then on the Back Benches also is the leader of the new policy, so that I confess I give it up. The situation is too bewildering, and the only way to cure the confusion is to appeal to the common-sense of the electors of the country.
  This leads me to another cause of interest at the present moment. We have seen that remarkable array of new Members who took their seats to-day. The hand of death has been heavy upon this House, and we miss the faces of many friends whose places have had to be filled. I hope it will not be thought out of place if I say that beyond this House there is a great loss to note, which the country has had to meet, and which in all of us who are engaged in politics has excited the most sincere regret. I mean the removal from among living men of Lord Salisbury. We on this side often differed, and differed keenly and widely, from Lord Salisbury, but we had long learned to admire, not only his great intellectual endowments, but his high - mindedness, his devotion to duty, and the sound views, let me add, which he strove to act upon in his conduct of the foreign relations of our country. These losses among us have led to what is often spoken of as a general election in miniature, continuing and completing, with hardly any break, the remarkable series of by-elections we have had during the last two years. Where is now the authority of the Government opposite? It is dispersed to the winds; afflavit it populus el dissipati sunt. From the first we disputed your authority. I will not; go back upon the reasons for that. They are known. We maintained from the first that the result of the election of

  121
  1900 was a false result, and the facts that we founded that opinion upon were not the mere snarls of disappointed and vanquished combatants. They were facts which now, in the perspective of three years, have commended themselves to all those who look back upon that time. And yet the Government has gone on very gallantly expending the nation's money; plunging the duty and work of education at the instance of one ecclesiastical body —[Cries of "Oh, oh!"]—I do not wish to be contentious, and I withdraw the word instance, and say—for the benefit of one ecclesiastical body; plunging, I say, the work of education into the cauldron of sectarian strife, unsettling many things and settling few. And now the country, in election after election, is knocking at their door. These are the men, Mr. Speaker, with this invalid authority, who would now take upon themselves to remould our whole fiscal policy—not here a part of it and there a part of it, but to alter the whole tone and spirit and intention of it; or who, if they refrain from action, if they have not the courage to make a definite proposal, are using the influence which they accidentally, and, as events are showing, precariously enjoy, which their precarious position gives them, to further schemes which they dare not openly propose. Sir, at this stage, information is what we ask for; and later, before I sit down, I shall recur to this subject, and point out in what respect information is required.
  And this is also true of questions which have arisen in many quarters of the world, in the East of Europe, in two parts of Africa, and in two parts of Asia. In all these my task will be, as it has been often since I have held my position—mainly that of interrogating and asking for Papers and claiming, on the part of the House of Commons, and putting forward its right, to be fully informed. I do not remember any time when such serious events have been occurring all over the world with Parliament still in the dark as to their true origin, and as to the part which is being played in our name. Sir, the mover and seconder have—and I think this will be
  122
  the general opinion—discharged their duty in a manner which redounds to their credit. They have spoken with force and ease and have avoided any undesirable disclosures while rambling round a great many subjects. That, after all, is the principal duty of the mover and seconder of the Address. On this occasion that, I think, the hon. Members opposite have fully accomplished. [Cries of "Oh, Oh" and "Order."] I do not wish to speak disparagingly of the hon. Gentlemen mentioned, but in their praise. I have known, in my time, very indiscreet speeches made by hon. Members in moving and seconding the Address, and that certainly has not been the case on this occasion. Now, the first part of the King's Speech we all listened to with unmixed pleasure and satisfaction. We may all congratulate ourselves on the conclusion of a treaty of arbitration with France and the prospect of similar treaties with other countries. Even more important than these actual instruments between the countries is the spirit of mutual friendship and good understanding which has been established with the chief European nations, the creation and maintenance of which has been largely the noble and worthy work of His Majesty the King, who has not only served the best interests of his own country, but has also set a good example to us all, to all his subjects; and besides that has earned our gratitude and the gratitude of Europe. The visits of the President of the French Republic and of the King and Queen of Italy—the latter visit oddly enough not mentioned in this Address—have done much to cement good relations; and I think it was quite proper that some allusion should be made to those civilities which have been exchanged between the members of the Legislative Chambers of Paris and London,and which have given pleasure to the Members themselves and gratification to both the peoples.
  There are other quarters of the world where the outlook is not by any means so cheerful. The situation of affairs between Russia and Japan is so critical that I think it wisest and most in accordance with my duty to refrain from any comment at all. Papers will, no doubt, be laid,

  123
  and then we shall know what has been done in our name, and also what the grounds of the dispute really and actually are, of which we have no authentic knowledge at present. I trust that they will show that no effort has been spared in the past, and that the good intention and good will of this country is not confined to the future, as the wording of the Address might almost seem to convey. Turning to the deplorable story of Macedonia, I would recognise the benevolent part taken by Lord Lansdowne in instituting and supporting measures of reform and relief in that country. The first scheme of reform put forward early last year altogether failed. The second was accepted in form by the Turks in the autumn, but it may be so delayed and thwarted as to be really ineffective; and the news we have is far from reassuring. At the present there is universal suffering and discontent and suspicion, and the general expectation is that the insurrection will break out again in spring. Sir, I hope the Papers will show that the Government of this country has pursued a strong and definite policy, and that they always bear in mind the peculiar degree of responsibility in which we of this country stand towards the victims of Turkish misgovernment. But even if the Government were to be unmindful of that, the country is not unmindful of it; and it looks to the Government to leave nothing undone for the aid of this unhappy people.
  Two military undertakings require notice. There is the little war in Somaliland, which has been so unduly costly in life, and which, to the outward view, does not appear to be very much advanced after all from what it was at this time last year, when I was asking the same sort of question and making the same sort of review. What everybody asks is this— "What are we doing there at all? What do we want and expect to gain by interfering with the interior of that country when our interest is confined to a portion of the coast?" Shall we never be able to curb the zeal—the patriotic and praiseworthy zeal—of the man on the spot? And shall we always continue the evil habit we have acquired of treating contemptuously everyone who
  124
  opposes us, and setting down every man who stands out against us as being mad, and denouncing as Dervishes all who, after all, do not like an invasion of human imports into their own country? The other case, Mr. Speaker, is that of Thibet. Papers are greatly called for here, and until we receive them, again I say, we can hardly judge of the case. We are sending a large force in mid-winter into a country, perhaps the most inhospitable on the face of the earth—a country also which is of all least accessible from the quarter from which we apparently suspect danger. We hold that a case which justifies such action would need to be a strong one, but in our present ignorance of it, as I have said, we cannot judge it.
  Sir, since the House rose, the Report of the Commission on the War has been issued, and I think the universal opinion of the country gives the highest credit to Lord Elgin and his colleagues for the manner in which that inquiry was conducted. The Report contains much that is startling, and much that is instructive, and well deserves the public attention that has been given to it. And now, yesterday, we were able to read in the papers the recommendations of the small Committee of eminent and capable men who have been inquiring into the organisation and administration of the War Office. Well, these recommendations must be quietly and carefully scrutinised. There is general agreement everywhere as to the creation of an Army Board, or an Army Council, to give the Secretary of State for War the best military advice in the best form. But as one who has long held that view—I have tried myself, with my own hand, the forming of such a council—I welcome that step in advance. The principle is sound; and the precise form which the council is to take, and the details of its composition and work, can easily be adjusted. But one thing which I should like to say and to impress on the House is this: by far more important than any form or system of administration is the maintenance of loyalty, good feeling, and confidence between the Secretary of State, the civilians at the War Office, and the military men at the War Office, and among these different classes I

  125
  have just named, themselves. That is the secret of the whole position. I would not go so far as to say that "Whate'er is best administered is best," but certainly the most important thing of all is that, whether you have a board or council, or whatever you have, it should be such as to encourage that spirit I have mentioned.
  With regard to the Army itself it is difficult to know how it stands. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, who has been so persistent and acute a critic, has now taken it in hand to administer and build up. Perhaps he may discover from the inside real difficulties which when he viewed the matter from the outside seemed to him imaginary. I can only hope that he may succeed in combining all that was good in the old system with all the advantages he is going to confer upon us under the new system. He tells us that he sees what ought to be done—in which he is exceptionally fortunate—but he asks for time. Let me assure him—and I think I may do so in the name of the House and the country—that we shall not be impatient; because we know that he deserves consideration from the House of Commons, which fully appreciates his earnestness of purpose and his assiduity and intelligence.
  Now I wish to call attention to one of the most singular facts in connection with the Speech—namely, that no reference whatever is made in it to South Africa. Is, then, that country so quiet, so prosperous, its people so contented, its finances so flourishing, that there is no occasion to refer to it? I am afraid that the truth gets through to us with great difficulty from South Africa; but we know enough to be aware that it would be almost true to say that the exact contrary of all this is the case. The promises and expectations of past years, even of last year, have been disappointed. But the outstanding question for the moment, which drawfs all others, is the question of the importation of Chinese labour into the Transvaal. A week or two ago I wrote to the Prime Minister to ask him whether he did not agree that there should be no definite or final step taken by the Government either on the spot or at home in this matter until Parliament had an opportunity of con-
  126
  sidering the question. He has not favoured me with any answer to my letter; but I saw the other day that the Colonial Secretary stated in a speech or a letter that an opportunity would be given to the House, and nothing would be done until that opportunity had been used. Therefore I would now venture to ask the Government, in the first place, that all the Papers connected with this subject should be presented to us as speedily as possible, including the Report of the Labour Commission, and the ordinance itself, and all other documents relating to the question; and then, when hon. Members have seen and had an opportunity of considering all these documents, a day should be given for the discussion of the question. That is the only satisfactory way in which we can deal with it, and I think it is a fair and reasonable claim to make. In that case I would advise hon. friends of my own who are anxious to move an Amendment or Amendments to the Address on this subject not to do so on the understanding that the opportunity I have spoken of should be given us in the future. I will not discuss, therefore, to-day the question itself; but I will only say this, and dwell upon it for a little time, because I think it is an important matter that the House should say clearly—and I believe it will attract a large degree of agreement—that the inhabitants of the colony ought not to be committed to a line of action which must irrevocably affect their future without their undoubted and express assent. Now what the Colonial Secretary says is—
  "The policy of the Government is to treat the Transvaal as though it were a self-governing colony, unless a distinctly Imperial interest is concerned."
  Putting aside that question, and supposing the importation of indentured Chinese labour is not an Imperial question—which is a large assumption, if we have regard to the doctrines affecting trade and labour which are now in circulation —how on earth is a Crown colony to be treated as a self-governing community? I much prefer the words of the late Colonial Secretary on this point, because he said he had informed Lord Milner that—
  "Before I assented to any introduction of Asiatic labour, whether Chinese or Indian, I

  127
  must have reasonable proof that it was a policy which the Transvaal, if a self governing colony, would approve."
  This puts it very much better, above all when we are dealing with a Crown colony of the type of the Transvaal. It has a Governor and a hierarchy of officials; it has a council to assist the Governor composed of fifteen officials and nine nominative members. But besides that, consider the laws which are in force in that colony—under which any man whose act or word is unpalatable to the Government can be deported out of it without being tried. How can you say that you have freedom of opinion in these circumstances? Every man carries on his business or employment at the mercy of the Government—the tender mercy, I hope and believe—but still he does not enjoy full independence, especially in a matter like this, on which the Government may have taken a particular line. That is the country which is said to be treated as self-governing. It is said in the newspapers that there has been a sort of referendum. I have read also that a referendum has been refused, and that what has happened is merely that a certain memorial has been put out under the auspices of a committee who are anxious for this importation. But under those influences to which I have referred I do not think the signatures to such a memorial are of great value as an indication of the genuine feeling of the inhabitants of the colony. Therefore the conclusion I come to is that, so long as these colonies are Crown colonies, so long the responsibility of governing rests upon the Imperial Government and the Imperial Parliament, the use of Chinese labour is therefore a matter for us to consider. It is not merely that we are in an offhand way, after a casual debate, to approve or; disapprove of it. It is on us the responsibility in this matter rests, and we can only judge of it when the opportunity is given to us. I am content to leave the merits of the question to the promised opportunity. I trust that in the course of this debate a statement will be made as to the financial position in South Africa, as to the instalment of £10,000,000 in the loan of £30,000,000, and as to the progress and work of repatriation and compensation, for which the House has
  128
  sanctioned the expenditure of huge sums of money.
  I turn to the domestic programme. The first and most obvious remark is that so meagre a list has seldom been submitted to a Parliament. The only conclusion we can come to is that the Government do not anticipate a very long or protracted session. The Government are going to stop or to control alien immigration, to the great delight of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield. It is a curious coincidence that, just at the time when it is proposed to introduce Chinamen into one of our colonies with the effect of ousting from employment our own countrymen who live there, a Bill is to be introduced by the Government to prevent the immigration of foreigners into this country because of their undue competition in labour. Another very curious fact is that a large proportion of these destitute aliens whom it is desirable to keep out of this country come from the very high-tariff countries in which we are told the workmen are so much more happy and prosperous than here. This is a Bill which we must see before we say anything about it. Then there is to be a Licensing Bill. All I would say of that is, that any restriction on the discretionary power of the magistrates will be hotly and pertinaciously resisted. I turn to a more sentimental question with me, that of Scottish education. I trust that whatever the right hon. Gentleman does will be done in harmony with Scottish traditions and providing amply for popular control. But I must confess to the House that I am subject to a most improper sentiment in regard to this matter, because I have great confidence, which I ought not to have, in the right hon. Gentleman whom I am glad to see, and every one is glad to see, in the position of the Secretary for Scotland. He is a real Scotchman; he knows Scotchmen and is known of them; and I hope also, apart from his own very proper and wise intuitions, he will take counsel with the Scottish members; and I would particularly advise him to take counsel with the four Scottish Members who have been returned to the House during the last year, who from their fresh contact with the people must know more about the subject than some of us.

  129
  There is to be no English Education Bill. There were rumours in the newspapers, as usual wrong, to indicate that there was to be. Sir, there will be no peace or success until those parts of this new system of education are removed which infringe the rights and hurt the consciences of large masses of the people.
  Now at last I come back to this great fiscal question, which, like the subject of South Africa, is, in the old phrase, made conspicuous by its absence from the Speech. In the past history of this controversy, what are the salient facts? One fine day in May the right hon. Gentleman that Member for Wet Birmingham breaks loose, declares against free trade and in favour of preference with a tax on food. He comes to the House, and, having apparently consulted nobody, makes a great declaration of policy. Thon ho waits to see what will happen. This was an unusual way for a Minister to proceed. If a Minister has a policy to propose he generally goes to the Cabinet first. If he dissents from a policy, and tells the House that it is so, he resigns. The right hon. Gentleman did neither. The next thing would have been respectfully to invite him to resign. I have been looking up the text-books on this question, and I find that this is how it is laid down—
  "If a Minister differs from his colleagues he must resign or else he must be held responsible for their action. He cannot be allowed, like Lord Camden, to retain office and the emoluments of office, and after wards repudiate the action of Those with whom he has been associated."
  Again, it is said—
  "The Prime Minister must manage as well as rule his subordinates. When we say that a Prime Minister can dismiss a colleague we mean no more than this—that a strong Premier can say to the Queen, 'He or I muse go."
  That is the state of the law as laid down in Sir William Anson's "Law and Customs of the Constitution." Fortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, if not for Parliament and the country, an extraordinary conjunction of favouring circumstances awaited him. He discovered, in the first place, that on this question of the reversal of the fiscal policy of the country and of the constitutional relations and the fiscal relations of the Empire, the Prime
  130
  Minister possessed no settled convictions. That was a most auspicious discovery for him. Then the question arose in the Cabinet—How are we to meet Parliament and conduct affairs of State with a Prime Minister who has no policy, and a Colonial Secretary who has a policy of his own and who will not keep quiet with it? Here, again, see how fortune favoured the right hon. Gentleman. The Cabinet decided to treat the question as an open one, on which their lips were sealed, and if they could have compassed it they would have liked to seal the lips of the House of Commons as well; and as an apt, candid, and correct description of this resolve they agreed to come here and tell us that a solemn inquiry, in which the whole nation was invited sympathetically to take part, was to be undertaken—an inquiry which, as they hinted, only the blind partisan or the intolerant fanatic could fail to respect. Meanwhile, outside, not a word was to be said. That leaflets covered the country under the auspices of one of the Ministers, did not matter. We know now that a Cabinet crisis was raging the whole of this time; and what I now say is that the whole thing was one of the greatest impostures ever foisted upon Parliament and the country. The climax came in September, when the Government was remodelled. I should have had a great deal to say if the Prime Minister had been present as to the part which he played in this matter; but in his absence I prefer not to make any personal allusions to his conduct, because he is not here to speak for himself. Perhaps we shall have some other opportunity. Well, now outturn for inquiry has come. I notice that some members of the Government, by the way, have been saying how delightful it is that now at last the opponents in this quarrel will speak in each other's presence in the House of Commons. I should have thought that members of the Government were the very last persons to like that condition of things, because they have been for months taking different lines on this subject, some ardent and staunch for free food, and others extreme preferentialists; and it will be very awkward for them to get up one after another in a debate. We may also have some sympathy with any one,

  131
  if such there be, whose method of controversy leads him to use impressive but untenable arguments, garnished with startling but inaccurate statistics, and when the argument is refuted and the errors are exposed to take no account of the correction but go on repeating them. We may imagine how such a one in this House will sigh for the sweet insulation, immunity, and autocracy of the platform. Now the larger policy, which has been so clearly expounded with so much energy, and, let me add, with so much variety, by the right hon. Gentleman the late Colonial Secretary—that is a clearly intelligible policy. The plan has been greatly altered from time to time; that one would have expected from the natural adaptability of its author; but it is always clear. But my questions to-night refer, not to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, but to the policy of the Executive Government opposite, and on a future occasion in this debate my right hon. friend the Member for Montrose will move an Amendment which will raise both these questions, and include, in fact, the whole subject. He would have moved this Amendment immediately, or as soon as convenient, in this debate, but out of consideration for the fact that the Prime Minister is necessarily absent it has been arranged that he should defer his Motion.
  The great advantage of this movement is that the House and the country can find out now what the Government really means. The difficulty of appreciating their position has two main causes. In the first place, the extreme vagueness of the Prime Minister and others in their statement of the official policy; and, secondly, uncertainty as to its real and avowed relation with the major, and unofficial or quasi-official policy. This Government policy of retaliation has never got beyond the stage of phrases and generalities and formulas. These are no good at all. You can discuss retaliation and reciprocity and freedom to resume negotiations in the abstract for months, and get no further. As far as we can understand it, there is to be some method of dealing with outrageously unfair competition. The dumper is to be come down upon when his commodity is too cheap, and the foreign tariff is to be taken
  132
  in hand when it is too high. How are you going to do it? The whole thing turns upon that. We do not know. The inquiry has taught us nothing. There is not a single case in the concrete except the Sugar Convention, and there the result is not encouraging. In the first place it was hoped that it would help West Indian sugar. But notwithstanding four months of Protection, the imports have fallen off in a year nearly by one half. Also the Indian tea trade has been retaliated upon by Russia, as the penalty of excluding her sugar from our ports. So far as it goes, the experience suggests that blows may be delivered very much at random—sometimes you may hit yourself, and sometimes you may hit the wrong man. The Government should come down from the clouds and tell us what are the machinery and procedure that they contemplate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon —it requires a lesson in geography to describe these retired Cabinet Ministers—in his letter of resignation complained very properly of having been kept in the dark. He wrote—
  "I would gladly give consideration to any practicable scheme for obtaining access to foreign markets or for meeting evils of which we complain; but we have had no scheme placed before us."
  Let us see your practicable scheme. But there are some points on which explicit information can be given, this retaliatory policy, does it mean Parliamentary or merely Executive action? Is it intended that Parliament—that this House especially, with its power over its own duties—should hand them over to the Executive to impose or alter as it chooses? If that is intended, then I am afraid that is a very wide issue, and one quite apart from the question of tariffs and duties. This must be made quite clear. As to the procedure in the case of dumping, I would ask, is there to be a sliding scale of tariffs regulated by the price of imports, or is it to be simple prohibition, as under the Sugar Convention? Then, again, how is this thing to be worked as a defence against foreign tariffs? Other countries go into commercial negotiations with a full tariff, sometimes with two scales, a higher and a lower, according

  133
  as they are met by the other country. But this country always obtains entrance under the lowest scale. We are not to have a full tariff. How then are we to proceed? Supposing the United States is said to be shutting out Bradford woollen goods, or Russia shutting out bleaching powder, and there appear to be grounds for taking action. The Government have, no doubt, thought out the line of action. They have thought of the imports on which retaliation in those two cases might take effect; the consequences to traders and consumers, who are in no way responsible for any high tariff, but who will nevertheless be pawns in the game. Have they reflected that some traders may secure protection by a side wind, and that others are bound to suffer from restriction? Do they realise all the confusion, all the clamour for protection from other trades, and the difficulty of abolishing a tariff, established for retaliatory purposes, when that purpose has been secured? Have they considered the case of those protected countries, where, if we are to retaliate at all, it must be upon either food or raw material? Well, those are a few of the points which want elucidation from the Government. Some of us have asked about it in the country, and we want to know what the Government's plan is. It is only by considering these practical questions that we can come to a right conclusion. The answer to them will show the country whether, quite apart from high theory and principle, the policy of retaliation is a practicable policy; and they ought to have been cleared up before the Government assumed to themselves the title to revers, annul, and delete at their pleasure the principles upon which the fiscal policy of the country is based. Again, there is some doubt—and to this point I would invite the attention of the House —as to whether this policy, this formula, is to be put into operation, or whether it is meant only for show. But it must be a real policy, because we have had the resignation of Ministers on it; and the precedent of the Sugar Convention bears substantial testimony to the reality of what is certainly in itself a somewhat flimsy-looking thing to be called a policy. Besides, I hope the House will notice this. What did the Prime Minister say
  134
  in his letter to the Duke of Devonshire, written, if one may judge from external evidence, under circumstances of some tension? He said this—
  "I see no difficulty in successfully carrying out the policy which for a fortnight you were ready to accept, by the help of the Administration which for a fortnight you aided me to reconstruct."
  Surely the charm of this balanced sarcasm can hardly have carried the Prime Minister out of his depth and induced him to make an admission which he did not intend. He, at least, could see how it can be done. He says—
  "I see no difficulty in successfully carrying out the policy,"
  and he contemplates this Administration doing it. But here we only get another contradiction and anomaly. Here is the President of the Board of Trade. He opened to us the most—I will not say charming vista; ugly vista, possibly, according to our ideas, of years and years, Parliament after Parliament—a perfect ladder of Parliaments up which we are to climb before we attain Protection, and therefore there was no harm done by whatever people said now. The country would not be committed until all these years are over. But here is the Prime Minister, on the other hand, implying that it is a thing on purpose for which the present Government has been reconstructed. It has renewed its youth for the express purpose of putting into effect a given policy. Well, then, why is that policy not mentioned in the King's Speech? If you can palliate the blows of the foreign plunderers, why do you not do it, and would it not be a much better thing to do, after all, from your point of view—I do not want to do it—than to deal with the drink trade, which is neither a languishing nor a slaughtered industry, and to which you are going to give another dose of protection?
  The second point on which we seek light is the relation between the minor and the major, the official and the quasi- official policy. We have documentary evidence as to the origin of what may be called the co-ordinated policy. It occurs in the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham's letter of resignation. He says—
  "I suggest that you should limit the present policy of the Government to the assertion of

  135
  our freedom in the ease of all commercial relations with foreign countries, and that you should agree to my tendering my resignation of my present office to His Majesty and devoting myself to the work of explaining and popularising those principles of Imperial union which my experience has convinced me are essential to our future welfare and prosperity."
  Which are the most important and significant and characteristic and illuminating words of that passage? The first two, "I suggest." So that this halfway house does not mark the natural limit to which the Prime Minister and the Government would go, it is an artificial structure suggested by the late Colonial Secretary to calm the fears of the nation, and to preserve a safe appearance and cover up the ultimate designs. To this suggestion the Prime Minister, with the utmost docility, agreed; and as he explained in his further letter—although he did not explain it, as it would appear, to the uninitiated members of his Cabinet—he and the Government accepted the duty imposed upon them, and agreed that the work should be specialised. What does the difference between the two amount to after all? It is but a pure matter of expediency. At heart they were united about the preferential policy, and they both felt that the times were not ripe for imposing the food taxes which alone could give effect to it. The whole transaction has the look of a mere affair of Party accommodation. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet were to remain at the base until the moment came for a general advance, while the late Colonial Secretary moved forward to survey the field, maintaining his lines of communication. That seems to have been the understanding; and colour is given to it by the proceedings of Ministers themselves in their subsequent speeches, and, above all, by the presence at the Treasury and in the Cabinet of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who accepts the Birmingham policy in all its branches. Now we are left asking why did the late Colonial Secretary resign at all? He would have been quite comfortable in his old place. Half the Ministry have declared for him. Look at the President of the Local Government Board. He is never weary of proclaiming his adhesion to the right hon. Gentleman. He supports a Tariff Reform League candidate
  136
  in Wiltshire, against a Conservative free trader. Why, any day another letter may come "suggesting" that the time is ripe for the Member for West Birmingham to take formal command of the position that he dominates from the outside. Any day the signal may be given for a move forward from the trenches and the abandonment, bag and baggage, of the makeshift policy. What wonder if we regard the declared policy of His Majesty's Government as a mere hors d'œuvre, as trumpery as it is indigestible, to whet the appetite for bigger dishes—a mere lever de rideau, designed to prepare the minds of the audience for the full five-act tragedy of protection? Why, Sir, I come to The Times of to-day, to the political weather prophet of The Times of to-day-we always read his prophecies, although we do not always agree with them—he says—
  "That a General Election may be looked for"—
  this is accidental on this subject—
  "at no distant date may be inferred, from the preparations for the conflict which are being made by both Unionists and Liberals. So far as the Government are concerned, there appears to be no desire to precipitate affairs until —"
  until what?
  "until Mr. Chamberlain's Tariff' Commission has completed its Report."
  Sir, what I say is, that the time has come for clearing up the situation. That is why I take the very first moment open to me, avoiding as much as possible personal references to the Prime Minister, as I have said, but dealing with the Government as a Government. After all, it is not a one-man Government. I do not know how many men are in it; and we are entitled to plain answers to plain questions. Let me, in one or two sentences, recapitulate. We want to know, in the first place, something more as to the character of the declared policy, and the time and manner of its coming into operation; and with regard to the larger policy we want to know whether, severally and collectively, the Government associate themselves with it, or disassociate themselves from it. There are preferential duties, and there are the taxes on food. Yes, but there are also the ten

  137
  per cent. protective taxes on manufactures. We have never had an authoritative announcement from the Government of the light in which they view that part of the proposal, which, if I may say so, has, like Aaron's rod, eaten up the rest in the recent course of this discussion. The Government and its members have spoken with two voices long enough, and it is high time that they should put themselves in order before Parliament and the country by reverting to the theory of Ministerial responsibility and utterance with which we are familiar. That is all I am going to say, and I thank the House for listening to me on this great question. If I have spoken at length it is because I wish to bring the whole of the matter of inquiry fully before the House.
  But now I will trouble the House only with one or two sentences on another subject, and it is the supreme importance of it which must be my excuse. It is a subject in which I suspect may be found at once the key and the cause and the cure of any real uneasiness that exists as to fiscal policy, and as to the condition of trade. What is causing serious embarrassment to the country, and bringing, more perhaps than anything else, discredit to the Administration, is the difficulty of finding the money to carry out the policy to which they have committed the country. We cannot expect any sudden relief from taxation, for they have spent and borrowed and taxed and committed the taxpayers during these prosperous years for some time to come. If lean years are before us, the expenditure of these vast sums of money is at once in a great degree the cause of them, and has largely increased the difficulties attending them. And, unfortunately, much of the expenditure to which we are committed is of a progressive nature; and here is a point I would urge upon the House. It is a point which is within my memory and the memory of those much younger Members of the House than I. am. The grip of the spending services over the expenditure has greatly gained of late years on the control of Parliament and the Executive. Some of the most taking administrative schemes which have been put forward, whatever their merits may be, have the secondary effect—I mean schemes for organisa-
  138
  tion, or for increasing the facility of managing those Departments —have the secondary effect, if it is right to call it secondary, of weakening Departmental responsibility as well as Parliamentary control. In the Address there is a little ray of hope—oh, such a little one—through a narrow chink. It says—
  "The possibility of diminishing the burden is being carefully considered"
  They have got to the stage of consideration! Why, the stage of action ought to have begun long ago. Consideration, however, is, at least, an improvement on last year. If I remember rightly, the Government then mentioned this great and growing expenditure without a word of indication of any means being taken to stop it. What is wanted—and to this I would invite the assistance of all Members of the House on both sides, for this is surely not a Party question—is to direct public attention to this vital matter, and that this House and the Executive alike should set their faces towards frugal administration and the reduction of taxation, satisfied that nothing will bring greater advantage to the national industries and the welfare and happiness of the people.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTIN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): In the unfortunate absence of the Prime Minister, the responsibility has been imposed upon me of discharging the task which he would naturally have discharged of replying to the questions which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has just addressed to His Majesty's Government. Let me, in the first place, thank the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of my friends on this side of the House, for the reference which he made to the Prime Minister's illness. His absence from the House, still more the cause of it, is, I am sure, universally regretted. His scrupulous fairness to opponents, his constant courtesy to all, have endeared him to friends and opponents alike. My next duty is to discharge the task, which no one would have performed more gracefully than the Prime Minister himself, of complimenting my hon. friends the mover and seconder of the Address on

  139
  the success with which they achieved what is, I believe, one of the most difficult tasks that can be imposed upon any Member of this House. They brought to bear upon it a tact, a consideration for the feelings of the House, an avoidance of controversy in dealing with controversial subjects, and a knowledge of the subjects they treated which, I think, make their speeches memorable even among those delivered on these occasions.
  As regards at any rate, the opening paragraphs of His Majesty's Speech we are all at one. We note with gratification the reference which is here made to the cordial relations established by recent Royal visits, and fostered by subsequent international civilities between ourselves and the neighbouring Republic, and between ourselves and other nations. I think the whole country feels that we are indebted in a very special manner to His Majesty for the part he played, to use the fine phrase which has been applied to him, as a great Ambassador taking upon himself a mission of peace and goodwill towards our neighbours.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the serious state of affairs now existing in the Far East, and said that he felt that in the complicated situation before us he had better make no comment on what was proceeding. I think I shall do well to follow his example. This is not a moment at which I think I could usefully say anything upon this subject, nor is it a moment at which His Majesty's Government have to lay Papers before the House. There will be no desire to withhold information from the House when the moment at which it can be given comes; but, for reasons which I need not mention, I think the House will see that the present is not a suitable moment for the presentation of information to Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman expressed the hope that Papers would be laid on the subject of Macedonia, and that when they were presented it would be found that His Majesty's Government had acted with a due sense of their responsibilities to the people of that unhappy country, and had used their influence to promote the scheme of reform which it is known the Powers have been pressing upon the Forte's acceptance. I understand that
  140
  a Blue-book on this subject is being prepared and will be laid before the House. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that when they see that Blue-book they will find that the efforts of His Majesty's Government have been uniformly exerted to the best of their ability to impress upon the Porte the urgent need for reform, and to promote such an amelioration in the administration of the country as may remove the evils under which it has suffered. We have felt that in so doing we could best act in concert with and through those two Great Powers who are most immediately interested, and who from their geographical position have the best opportunities for carrying these reforms into execution. I am glad to think that some progress is being made, and the right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that we shall be wanting in no endeavour in order to increase it and secure relief for that country. I am bound to pass rapidly over these important matters.
  The right hon. Gentleman made some inquiry about Somaliland, and the remarks he made seemed to show a very imperfect acquaintance with the circumstances which have led to the present operations. He appeared to regard them as an unprovoked attack on the part of His Majesty's Government upon a deserving ruler in rightful possession of the country, who was only anxious to prevent the dumping of foreign populations—I think that was the right hon. Gentleman's phrase.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: An invasion of human imports.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Who was only anxious to prevent an invasion of human imports into his territory. That is not history. It does not bear the remotest resemblance to it. There are certain tribes in the neighbourhood whom we have undertaken to protect as long as they live in peace and amity with us, and it was not our human invasion of this peaceful potentate's dominions, but his attack on these protected tribes which forced His Majesty's Government to act. Let me say that no one could regret the necessity for that

  141
  action more than His Majesty's Government. We did not enter into an undertaking of this kind with a light heart; we knew the enormous difficulties which the character of the country imposed upon any military operations. We would gladly have remained within our own territory if we could have secured those to whom our protection was due. That was not possible. We have learned by bitter experience that you cannot afford to allow one of these fanatical Mahomedan Powers suddenly to spring into existence and obtain great proportions in these territories. We felt that we were bound, both for the immediate protection of those under our care and for the future safety of that portion of the world, to take steps to crush the Mullah's power. I trust that the brilliant successes gained by General Egerton in this campaign—which is one of extraordinary difficulty—have greatly advanced the objects which we have in view, and I hope when the operations in which he is now engaged are concluded he will have obtained complete success, and that we shall be able to retire again within our own boundaries.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked for some information about Thibet. My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India has prepared Papers, and they will be laid before Parliament in the course of the next few days. In the meantime, let me say that this political mission hardly, I think, justifies the language in which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken of it. The Government of India has been singularly patient in its dealings with Thibet. For years we have been subjected to difficulties with that country, culminating in infractions of the frontier of Sikkim, a protected State, and in the return unopened or unanswered of communications which the Viceroy addressed to the Dalai Lama. In regard to these matters of complaint, and with the concurrence of the Chinese Government, this mission entered Thibetan territory. There has been great and unfortunate delay in the arrival of the Chinese representative, who, with the representatives of the Thibetan Power, was to meet our representative. I hope that he will hasten his arrival, and that we may yet attain
  142
  the objects of the mission—a peaceful settlement of our trade relations, the protection and maintenance of our undoubted Treaty rights with that country, and an agreement as to the proper boundary between that country and Sikkim. I think I have traversed over the questions of foreign affairs to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded.
  As regards South Africa, the importance of the questions which are there arising is recognised fully by the Government The right hon. Gentleman asks—as is usual and very necessary on these occasions in order that the House may be able to form a judgment—for Papers. I hope that these Papers will be circulated to-morrow in time for any discussion which hon. Members think desirable. I think the Report of the Labour Commission is what the right hon. Gentleman asked for.
  SIR H. CAMPBBLL-BANNBUMAN: Will the papers contain the evidence given before the Labour Commission, which is most necessary?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, I am afraid not. The Report is what was asked for before.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In talking of the Report of a Commission we usually include in that phrase the evidence, which in this case is most necessary.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have not made myself familiar with the evidence, which, I understand, fills a bulky volume. On that matter perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will communicate with the Colonial Secretary. The Papers to be circulated to-morrow will give very full information as to the labour difficulties and as to what has taken place, and will, I think, include all that the right hon. Gentleman has asked for specifically.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: —Will they include the debates in the Legislative Council?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman also made some reference to the financial

  143
  position of the Transvaal. It is true that the progress of the Transvaal towards prosperity has not been as rapid as we had hoped and believed would be the case. I should have thought that was not a matter for congratulation.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I did not say it was a matter for congratulation. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of what the Government "believed," and I said "Hear, hear."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman said anything at all. My remark had no reference to him; if he chooses to apply it I can have no objection. I was saying I thought it would not be a subject of congratulation or jubilation in any quarter of the House. After all, it is upon the people of the Transvaal that any temporary distress or any postponement of the return of prosperity first falls, and whatever be our view as to events which are past, we must all desire that the healing effects of prosperity may make themselves felt in that country as soon as possible.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.): Chinese labour!
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In the meantime it is, of course, the case that, having regard to the situation of the finances of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony at the present time, and to the position of our own money market, His Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that this is not a proper time at which to raise the first instalment of the War Contribution Loan.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, N.): Hear, hear.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman cheers that sentiment. I am well aware that it is one of his most cherished convictions that under no circumstances shall we ever receive any contribution from the Transvaal on account of the war. I differ from him. I see no attempt on the part of the people of the Transvaal to escape from the obligation which they
  144
  are under, and I am confident that at the first moment when either they or we think that the operation can be successfully and properly carried out they will be anxious to take the share which they undertook to take in the expenses of that war. As regards repatriation, I may say the work has been most successfully concluded. As regards compensation, I think the right hon. Gentleman must formulate in more definite terms the question which he wishes to put Now I turn to the more controversial part of the right hon. Gentleman's observations. His speech was, indeed, of a peculiar character. I do not remember ever to have heard a speech from the Leader of the Opposition on an occasion of this kind of such a character as that which the right hon. Gentleman has thought it right to make.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There never was such an occasion.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I confess I think the speech bore traces of that change which the right hon. Gentleman himself indicated in that he had intended to attack the Prime Minister warmly, but that in his absence he omitted his name from a large portion of his remarks. What was the result? Instead of addressing himself in the main to the policy of His Majesty's Government, or to the conduct of the Prime Minister or his colleagues, the right hon. Gentleman delivered an attack upon my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. He very generously and kindly substituted the name of my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, who is present to defend himself, for the name of the Prime Minister, who is unable to be present. Yet the right hon. Gentleman says that these are different policies.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: They profess to be.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I was talking about persons for the moment, not policies. I say that a large portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech dealing with this matter

  145
  was devoted to an attack upon the Member for West Birmingham—to his conduct first in remaining in the Government and then in going out of it—and not upon the policy of the Government at all. I think that is a very extraordinary and unusual proceeding. I am not aware that there is any precedent for interrogating a gentleman who is no longer a member of the Government as to the course he intends to pursue. As regards the Government, what is the right hon. Gentleman's complaint? He complains that the House of Commons has had no opportunity of discussing this question; that during all last session they were silent. I thought we had several debates. But if we did not have the question more definitely and directly put before us, whose fault was that? The Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, again and again offered the right hon. Gentleman a day for any Motion of Censure upon the course which the Government took which the right hon. Gentleman could find the courage to produce. The Motion was never produced, and we still await that Motion, which we are now informed will be moved in the course of the next few days. The right hon. Gentleman alleges that the Government has no business, as I understand him, to continue in office. He challenges us to at once take the decision of the electorate on this subject. He denies our competence to frame any policy, or oar representative capacity. Yes, but he took exactly the same line previous to the election of 1900. He and his friends of the Opposition repeatedly in this House challenged our representative capacity before that election, and invited us to go to the electors for their verdict. We went to the electors; we took their verdict. [Mr. DALZIEL You said the war was over then.] The Leader of the Opposition has ever since been trying to find some reason to explain that the electors did not mean what they said upon that occasion. The appeal to The electors on our policy will come in good time. In the meantime, I think the right hon. Gentleman should make up his mind exactly as to what line of attack he wishes to adopt. He says we are shrinking from an appeal to the electors. If that be so, why does he and
  146
  other gentlemen opposite accuse us of attempting to rush a verdict without due consideration? He cannot have it both ways, he must choose one accusation or the other. If I might venture to say so, it is desirable, if possible, that at any rate the leading Members of the Opposition should agree upon the same line of argument. In the absence of the Prime Minister I am not going to deal with the history of what happened in the Cabinet. I have no authority to do so and I understood the right hon. Gentleman himself to wish to reserve that question until the Prime Minister is in a position to be present. But this I say, and I say it without fear of contradiction, that no man was ever more loyal to his colleagues, no man was ever more generous to his supporters, than the present Prime Minister, and whatever misunderstanding may have arisen, none of those who served with him will ever accuse him of having wilfully or deliberately deceived them.
  The right hon. Gentleman passed from his fancy picture of Cabinet proceedings to a series of interrogations as to what the policy of His Majesty's Government was. That policy has been explicitly and clearly stated by the only man entitled to pronounce as to the policy of the Government—by the Prime Minister himself. The right hon. Gentleman asks me, in reply to a series of detailed inquiries, to say how, when, why, and where each fiscal change is to be carried out? There is a question which has to be decided before we enter upon these details; that is whether you want fiscal reform or not. The right hon. Gentlemen wishes to know how exactly we propose to lower the tariffs, and how exactly we propose to prevent "dumping" at unfair prices. There have often been requests for information of that kind far in advance of any practical issue, but I venture to say that they have never been conceded, and that the person to resist the demand for information of this kind in regard to future legislation would have been Mr. Gladstone himself, who had not infrequent opportunity of showing how rigidly he was opposed to the declaration of detailed methods of carrying out a policy until the time came for the policy to be placed before the country. There

  147
  is a question to be decided before that, and it is "Are you in favour of fiscal reform?" The right hon. Gentleman pretends to be less informed as to the fiscal question than I can give him credit for being, for he has been talking of fiscal reform at many meetings, yet he still pretends not to know what it is. I should have thought that it would have been well for him to have acquainted himself with it before he undertook to pledge himself and the country to objections at the threshold to any kind of reform whatever. The first question for the House and the country is whether they desire to reform the fiscal policy. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to prevent "dumping?"1 should be glad of an answer. [MINISTERIAL cheersand laughter]. But perhaps before he gives it he will consult the Member for West Monmouth, who, to this portion of fiscal reform at any rate, has promised his careful consideration.
  SIR WILLIAM HAECOURT: I said I would consider any plan dealing with dumping which was proposed by His Majesty's Government.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBEELAIN: I venture to think the right hon. Gentleman has not in his mind what he stated in South Wales. I think he said that it was a very serious question, particularly to his constituents.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I remember perfectly well what I said. I said I should be ready to consider any plan dealing with dumping which was proposed by His Majesty's Government, or by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If that was exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said, then I am bound to take his account of it. But it must have been cold comfort for his constituents and for the representatives of certain South Wales industries who waited upon him on this subject when he assured them of his willingness to consider any plan dealing with dumping. In due course we are promised an opportunity of a wider discussion of this question, and I do not propose to go further with it now. I think we must
  148
  wait until that opportunity offers. I altogether deny that there is any doubt about the attitude of the Government, or that there is any difficulty, for those who wish to ascertain, to make sure of what it is. As to the particular methods by which that policy is to be pursued, I think we are entitled to maintain our freedom. It is not wise in matters of negotiation to go into details too closely, and it has never been the practice of this House to bring forth detailed schemes in advance. What we ask the House to say is that our fiscal scheme stands in need of absolute reform and change; that it is a policy that has bound us hand and foot, and left us helpless in the face of these high foreign tariffs, and that it has failed to secure for us that open door which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose tells us is so vital to our existence; that our fiscal policy has failed to guard those great interests on which the prosperity of the Empire depends.
  MR. BUCHANANrose at 7.28 to continue the debate, but, his utterances were lost in the noise made by Members leaving the House.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [2nd February],"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth—
  "Most Gracious Sovereign,
  "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Hardy.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. BUCHANAN: When the House rose at half-past seven I wanted to lay before the consideration of the House, and press a little further than my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, two subjects. They are geographically somewhat far apart, yet they are subjects of some considerable interest in view of the statement in the King's Speech. I wanted to say a few words, first about Thibet and then about the Transvaal finance. I am sorry at this moment the Secretary of State for India is not present, because, if he answered my preliminary question, I should say no more on the question of Thibet. He has promised us Papers,—they were promised in the King's Speech—but no statement was made as to when they were to be produced. If the right hon. Gentleman said they were to be produced immediately I should say nothing more on this subject until a later stage of the debate, but as no time has been mentioned, we cannot expect them to be produced immediately. I would also have asked him whether he could give an assurance that after the Papers have been produced we should be given an opportunity to discuss this question, because otherwise what may and probably will happen, will be that after the debate on the King's Speech comes to an end there will be no opportunity for raising discussion on any Indian subject until the Indian budget comes on, which is in the last week of the session. Not only is that an unfavourable opportunity, but events will then have gone forward in such a way that all the discussion we shall be able to have will be on events that have taken place instead of being able to offer criticisms on a policy of which some of us may approve and some may disapprove. I do not think either the paragraph in the King's Speech or the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer really advances us further on the subject than we were in August last when the House adjourned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us there was friction on the frontier; there were difficulties connected with grazing and difficulties in connection with trade rights on the frontier. That is almost the exact statement which was made to us in August last by the noble Lord the then Secretary of State for India in reply to a
  150
  Question put to him from this side of the House. The point of difference between then and now is this, that while the noble Lord then stated that in consequence of these differences an expedition had beed dispatched under Colonel Younghusbann with an escort of 200 to a place called the Chumbi Valley over the Jeylepla Pass the state of affairs now is very different. Now, instead of a peaceful escort of 200 men, Colonel Younghusband has something like 2,000 men with him, exclusive of camp followers. It seems to me to be an abuse of the King's Speech to describe this as a simple political mission. In the first place you are sending a mission over the border into a foreign country and you are accompanying it with a large military force. It cannot be described as a political mission. Colonel Young-husband is accompanied by a force too large for an escort and too small for an army, and the conditions are exactly similar to those which led to the Afghan war. Then we had imaginary Russian intrigues in Afghanistan; now we have imaginary Russian intrigues in Lhassa. I say the course of events bears an ominous and ill-omened resemblance to the course of events that led up to the Afghan war, and we ought to have from the Government some assurance on the subject beyond the vague promise of the production of Papers at some time or other. It is useless for us to be put off by fair words; public opinion is gravely alarmed at what has taken place. The Thibetans up to the present have been a peaceful people. On the south of the Sikkim frontier the land is grand and fruitful; on the northern side it is arid and barren, and no doubt they do prefer to pasture their flocks and herds on the southern side. Of that we are aware, but so far as official statements go there has been nothing to show there has been any serious increase in that grievance or that there has been any serious character in that grievance for months and years past, yet we have this expedition to within 100 miles of Lhassa. No wonder the Thibetan people should be seriously alarmed at what we may have in view, and that they should be, to say the least, doubtful as to what our intentions are.
  When one wants to see what ideas are held, one only has to look at

  151
  the Anglo-Indian newspapers to sea that we desire by our expedition to enforce on the Lamas of Thibet a British Agent at Lhassa, which they are strongly opposed to. And it must be remembered that they are not only opposed to a British agent but they have never allowed a Russian or any foreign agent whatever in Lhassa. We want also to annex the Chumbi Valley, a splendid country, and it is currently believed in India, at all events, that we desire to enforce absolutely on Thibet Indian trade, if necessary by force of arms, not only through the Jeylepla Pass and the Chumbi Valley but in the other directions as well. These ideas may be all imaginary, and it only needs a word from the Government to prove them so, but we have had no explanation whatever either from the Indian or the Home Government of what our motives are and the purpose for which this expedition is sent over the border into a foreign country. I will not go further on this subject on the present occasion, but I do hope before the debate on the Address ends we shall get some further information from the Secretary of State for India or some other member of the Government. I should not wish to carry this matter to the length of bringing a Motion before the House, but I am afraid that what happened in 1873 will happen in this case. When Sir Neville Chamberlain was sent with 1,000 men over the Khyber Pass it is true no Motion such as I have referred to was put before the House. But what happened? Sir Neville Chamberlain had to go back and war ensued,. We have now sent Colonel Younghusband with 2,000 men over the Jeylepla Pass, and no doubt collisions will occur, and then the Government will have to bring a Motion before the House. I do not know whether the time is yet ripe for bringing forward such a Motion.
  I now turn to the other subject on which I desire to say a few words, the subject of the Transvaal finance. It has been alluded to by my right hon. friend the Loader of the Opposition, and was partly alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply. My right hon. friend confessed that he was surprised, and I am as surprised as he, that there was no mention of the subject of South Africa
  152
  in the King's Speech. Occasionally no news is good news, but on this occasion I am afraid no news is the reverse of good news, and I was somewhat surprised that in the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Gentleman omitted entirely to deal with one side of the question, because it not only affects the finance and prosperity of the Transvaal, but it materially affects the finance of this country. It must be in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and most Members of this House that on the debate on the Budget of last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of that time, was criticised and pressed as to the provision he had made for diminishing and paying off the National Debt, and as to the sufficiency of the provision made. His reply always was—
  "We have got £30.000,000 coming from the Transvaal, £10,000,000 in January, 1904, £10,000,000 in January, 1905, and £10,000,000 in January, 1905."
  All that was to go in reduction of the National Debt as a payment from the Transvaal and Orange River Colony towards the expenses of the war. Not only did the then Chancellor of the Exchequer say that, but it was put into an Act of Parliament, because in sub-Section 2, Clause 2, of the South African War and Loan Act, 1903, it is specially provided that these repayments shall be devoted to that purpose. It was a binding agreement between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the supreme authority of the finance of this country, and these colonies. We know now that the first instalment is not forthcoming, and what I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he were here, or any other member of the Ministry, is this: What steps has the Chancellor of the Exchequer taken, as the supreme authority of the finance of this country, or what steps does he propose to take, for the diminution and paving off of debt in the current year, in 'view of the fact that this £10,000,000 on which he relied is not forthcoming? As I have said, it was put into an Act of Parliament, and last session it was defended again and again, because, while the Finance Bill was going through the House, my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition drew

  153
  attention to Clause 6; to the want of definite security for the advance of this £30,000,000, and he was supported in his criticisms by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol. The reply of the Chancellor of Exchequer was, so far as words go, as reassuring as could be, particularly with regard to the first £10,000,000.
  "Therefore," he said, "so far as the first £10000,000 we are quite safe."
  That was the assurance given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on an Amendment moved by my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition on this specific point as late as the 22nd of June. Not only was that assurance given, but we had equally strong assurances given by other members of the Government of equal weight and authority with regard to this part of the business. What I want to press upon the House and the Colonial Secretary is this, that the issue of this loan of £30,000,000 to the Transvaal was part and parcel of the whole scheme of Transvaal finance. It was one part of the bargain by which this country was prepared to advance £30,000,000 to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colonies. I do not wish to labour the subject, but I have here several statements by the late Colonial Secretary on the subject. They start with one at Johannesburg. In setting out the scheme he described it as the second part of the agreement that another loan of £30,000,000 should be called up in annual instalments of £10,000,000; but there was a much stronger statement than that made by the right hon. Gentleman after he came home on the 6th of May, in which he said—
  "The whole arrangement, that is the two loans, must he treated together, and I might almost say that the support of the Committee to the loan now under consideration is indeed conditional on the contribution of the £30,000,000 to which I have referred."
  What could be stronger than that? But he goes onto say that in order that success might be assured, and to show their confidence in their country, the capitalists of the Transvaal agreed to underwrite the first £10,000,000 of the loan. On the 27th of July, on the Second Reading of
  154
  the Bill, these are the words the right hon. Gentleman used—
  "I have no doubt that a satisfactory agreement will he made between us and the underwriters of the loan to make it absolutely certain as to the first instalment of the loan that will be placed upon the market,"
  and we have a further statement made in the House on the same day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the question raised by my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth on the same subject, when the right hon. Gentleman said a draft audit was being made and being sent out to South Africa, and that when it was settled it would be laid on the Table of the House. What we want to get from the Colonial Secretary now is some further information on the subject than has been vouchsafed. So far as details go, we know nothing of what has taken place since July last. I have been informed that a Motion was tabled in the Legislative Council of the Transvaal that this money should not be advanced. At any rate we are in possession of the fact that the loan has not been brought our, and that the first instalment has not been paid. We want further information. We want to know what was the close of these negotiations which were going on in July last. Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us, and can he table the correspondence of the same? Can he inform the House of the views of the Transvaal authorities on the subject? I gather from his nodding assent that he will be able to give us full information as to why, in respect of this guaranteed advance, they have now gone back from the guarantee they gave. It is a matter in which there ought to be further investigation and information from the Government, and when the Colonial Secretary gives this information we should also like to get from him information on the other points, as to which my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition asked, with regard to Transvaal finance. The statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is rather disquieting, both as regards the £10,000,000 and the interest of the £30,000,000. I think we ought to get from the Colonial Secretary some particulars on this subject. The House is well aware that the security for the payment of the interest on the

  155
  £35,000,000 depends primarily on the railway revenue of the Transvaal, and, beyond that, on the general assets of the two colonies combined. In the middle of last summer Lord Milner had what seemed to some of us somewhat rosy anticipation as to the development of the revenue and the restrictions of the expenditure of the Transvaal, and I hope we shall have from the Colonial Secretary a complete statement as to the railway revenue, and also the general revenue for the half-year ended December 31st last, and, further, as to the separate expenditure of the two colonies for that period, and the joint expenditure for the South African Constabulary. Such information would give us an idea as to how far the finances of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony have declined during the past half-year, and enable us to make some rational estimate of the probabilities of the future. It will be remembered that when the Bill was under discussion the £35,000,000 were devoted to a variety of objects, and the amounts to be paid for specific purposes were left somewhat vague and general. Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us what has been paid for the purchase of railways, and state the correct estimate for the settlement of the claims between the military and colonial authorities with regard to the railways? By so doing he will strengthen our knowledge of the condition of affairs in South Africa, and reassure the rational fears which we feel as to the security for the loan of £35,000,000, and as to the possible future fulfilment of the pledges of the Transvaal and the guarantors with regard to the £30,000,000, and particularly the first instalment due in January of this year.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I am sure that all Members of the House who took part in the recent visit to the French Deputies appreciate the mention in the King's Speech of the great courtesy and attention which they received. It is impossible to speak in too high terms of the hospitality and kindness with which we were received by the French Deputies, the French Government, the Mayors, the Presidents of the Chambers of Commerce,
  156
  and the French people generally. The President of the French Republic, in receiving the Deputation, referred in these terms to the visit—
  "There is infinite cause to be glad for the movement which is going forward and now being carried on by the two great western nations. A new era of fraternity is opening before us which must never be permitted to close."
  It would have been unworthy not to acknowledge the kindness with which we were received, and the pains taken in the matter by Baron D'Estournelles dc Constant and the hon. Member for the Romford Division of Essex.
  The mention in the Speech of the redemption of the promise made by the Prime Minister of New Zealand to inaugurate preferential trade between Great Britain and New Zealand will afford great satisfaction. The mover of the Address referred to the fact that five years ago Canada established this preferential treatment of British goods, and on the visit of the right hon. Gentleman for West Birmingham to South Africa the Customs Convention gave a preference of 25 per cent. to British goods entering the South African markets. The fact that this preference has been established in New Zealand and that the proposal has been so warmly taken up by the Legislature and the people of the colony, cannot be otherwise than a great relief to large numbers of people in this country who are suffering from the present depression of trade. The condition of affairs in many parts of the country is well illustrated by the Labour Gazette for the present month. In the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition there was much that was interesting and amusing, but it contained no proposal or suggestion tending to provide a remedy for the actual condition of things which exists. According to the Labour Gazette, 37,500 trades unionists were out of employment at the latter end of December. If that is the case with regard to skilled artisans, it is quite certain that the state of affairs with regard to unskilled labour is infinitely worse, though no definite returns are available. During the years 1901–2–3–3,000,000 workpeople sustained decrease in wages, while on a single day in December last 370,469 people in the

  157
  United Kingdom were dependent on poor law relief for their existence. Moreover, during the year 1903 261,363 persons emigrated from the United Kingdom, going for the most part to countries where their industry and labour would be protected, in despair of being able to obtain a livelihood in this country. We must express our gratitude that the first measure mentioned in the Speech is one to deal with the evil of alien immigration, to which for many years some of us have called attention. While over 260,000 people emigrated from the United Kingdom last year, their places were taken by no less than 82,000 of the scum of Eastern Europe. The Leader of the Opposition said that these people came from the most highly protected countries, thereby implying that they were dissatisfied with their condition in those countries; but what about the 260,000 who left the Free Trade market of this country to go to countries where their industry would be protected? I earnestly hope the Government will introduce the promised Bill at the earliest opportunity, and press it forward with the utmost speed. This is not the first time that such a Bill has been announced. A measure was promised in 1896, and in the subsequent session the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon stated that the Government had no intention of departing from the pledges they had given on the subject, but, with the exception of the appointment of a Royal Commission, nothing further has been heard of the matter until now.
  There is only one other matter to which I desire to refer, and that is the general problem of the Army and War Office reform. The scheme which appeared in the papers yesterday has been well received generally. There is one matter of military administration which is very serious indeed, and presses for early consideration and amelioration —the condition of the Militia and Volunteer forces. Both of those branches of the auxiliary forces show a serious decline. It is harder than ever to get officers for the Volunteers; the force is under-officered to the extent of between 2,000 and 3,000; recruits are coming in very slowly indeed, and the resignations are very numerous. I am aware that a
  158
  Commission is at present inquiring into these matters, and it will be difficult for the Secretary of State to bring forward any scheme until that Commission has reported. The matter, however, is an extremely urgent one, and the recent speech of the Secretary of State for War gives us great hope that in his hands the Volunteer force will receive fairer treatment and better consideration than it has recently experienced at the hands of the military authorities.
  MR. PAULTON: Perhaps I ought to apologise for intervening in the debate, but I do so for the purpose of asking a definite Question on a matter of considerable public importance. In the debate on the Amendment moved to the Address last year, calling attention to the case of the London and Globe Finance Corporation, the view was taken by the Government that the present state of the law did not enable them to advise a prosecution in the case as matters then stood, but the Prime Minister gave a definite pledge that legislation should be introduced to amend the law in the respects in which it was held to be defective. The words of the Prime Minister were—
  "I ask the House to be content with the pledge that I have given, that we should endewour to amend the law in accordance with that broad view of commercial morality so ably defended by my hon. friend."
  No reference whatever is made in the King's Speech to that pledge or to the subject on which it was given. As the Attorney-General is in his place, and in view of a debate which I understand is to be raised on an Amendment referring to the matter, I trust the hon. and learned Member may be able to explain to the House why no reference has been made to the matter.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): I feel that the Question of the hon. Member is a perfectly reasonable one. As regards the inquiry with which he concluded I would remind the House that it is not necessary to include in the King's Speech every matter with regard to what it may be the intention of the Government to introduce legislation, but I shall certainly endeavour to

  159
  answer fully and frankly the substance of the Question which the hon. Gentleman has put to me, and for that purpose I think the House will agree that it is probably desirable that I should enter into matters on which my mouth was closed while the case out of which this Question arises was still pending. When this matter was under discussion a year ago I told the House that nothing would induce me to say a word which would prejudice either the prosecution or the defence, and to that resolution I adhered. Now, of course, no such considerations are applicable, and I am at liberty fully to answer the Question asked by the hon. Gentleman. I desire to say, before I enter into the matter, that I hope that the fact that this Question has been raised at this stage and that I now make a statement upon it, will not in any way interfere hereafter with the fullest possible discussion of the Question which the House may desire. Opportunities may arise hereafter, and it certainly would be my desire, and I am perfectly certain that it would be the desire of the Government, that the fullest possible discussion which the House might think requisite, should take place upon this subject. In the first place, I wish to make clear one matter on which I think there is a good deal of misconception. It seems to have been supposed that the decision as to not putting the Director of Public Prosecutions in motion in the case of Whitaker Wright was the decision of the Government. It was nothing of the kind. The sole responsibility for that decision rests upon myself as Attorney-General. It is not a case in which the Government decide. It is not a case in which the Government are advised by the Law Officers. The law casts upon the Attorney-General the duty of deciding upon such a question in what I may call almost a judicial capacity. In the discharge of the duties which the law devolves upon him no other member of the Government either can or would dream of endeavouring to interfere with his discretion.
  A NATIONALIST MEMBER: On what principle do you send people to gaol?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: One other observation I desire to make is that
  160
  the responsibility of the Attorney-General in this matter is not one which is to be shared with any of his colleagues. I am the first to acknowledge the invaluable assistance which I have derived in this and in all other cases from the gentlemen who have co-operated with me, but the decision rests with the Attorney-General, and for that decision those who have assisted him in the matter are in no sense responsible. The sole responsibility rests upon him alone, and it is the Attorney-General alone who is answerable to the House and the country for the manner in which he exercises his responsibility. In dealing with the question as to putting the Director of Public Prosecutions in motion the Attorney-General, as I have said, must decide almost as if he were a judge. It is for me to decide in a quasi judicial capacity. I have referred to the fact that last year I said that on the subject of the grounds of my decision my mouth was closed, because a summons was then pending before a judge for leave to prosecute, and I felt that anything I attempted to say in justification of myself might have operated either to help the prosecution or the defence, and no consideration relating to myself would induce me to utter one syllable which would interfere with a fair and unprejudiced trial of any case which was pending. Now I am at liberty, after what has taken place, to state what my grounds were; and I think that, in answering the Question put by the hon. Gentleman, the House is entitled to expect from me not only a categorical answer to the Question, but also an explicit statement of the grounds upon which I took the action I did in the case of Whitaker Wright, and of the grounds upon which I thought, as still think, that an amendment of the law is urgently required. What I have to say, of course, as to the grounds on which I acted relates solely to the case as it appeared on the materials then before me in 1902, when I had to decide upon it. I am about to deal with the case as it was then presented to me. With regard to the subsequent prosecution and the result of these proceedings, I have one thing to say to the House, and one only, and that is that since the case has been terminated the

  161
  Treasury have, with my full concurrence, determined that they ought to bear the cost of the prosecution. I now proceed to state what were the grounds that actuated me in the course which I took.
  Whitaker Wright was, as is well-known to the House, the managing director of the Globe Company. The Globe Company was a company which carried on a highly speculative business. In the year 1900 it had got into very great difficulties, and Whitaker Wright, on behalf of the company, engaged in an enterprise which was intended to restore its fortunes. That enterprise was this—he endeavoured to establish what is called a corner, on a very large scale, in the shares of a company called the Lake View, a corner in Lake View Consols; and the particular operation that he was engaged upon was this—he entered into contracts for the purchase of Lake View Consols on a very large scale, and at the same time he was taking measures to secure that the very shares which he was buying should be under his control, so that many of the sellers to him would have to go to him when the day for delivery came and give him any terms he chose to ask for in order that they might be in a position to fulfil the purchase. That was the operation. If I that operation had succeeded, as it very nearly did succeed, the fortunes of the Globe Company would have been to I a very great extent retrieved. It failed. The enterprise in itself was, in my view, contrary to every sound code of commercial morality. I believe that it is an absolutely immoral thing for a man to enter into a transaction of that kind when he is buying and at the same time is taking steps to prevent those from whom he is buying from being able to fulfil their contracts, except by submitting to any terms he may choose to dictate. Further than that, I have no doubt whatever that such an enterprise falls within the range of the criminal law if it is carried out by several persons in combination, at least if any circumstances of misrepresentation attend it. I most carefully considered this question in the summer of 1902, and I most certainly should have directed a
  162
  prosecution of Whitaker Wright for a conspiracy of this kind if it had been possible to obtain any evidence that others acted in conspiracy with him in the matter. I was informed that no evidence of that kind was obtainable. So strongly did I feel upon this point that I adjourned the consultation in order that inquiries might be made as to whether any such evidence could be obtained. I was informed that no such evidence was obtainable, that Whitaker Wright had operated in substance alone. I do not think that the criminal law can reach an enterprise of this kind carried out by one person by himself and not in combination with others. The law of conspiracy would not apply. The question, therefore, was reduced to this, whether I could properly direct a Treasury prosecution of Whitaker Wright for issuing a fraudulent balance sheet.
  The balance sheet of 1900, in my opinion —and I of course speak only of the case upon the evidence as it was submitted to me in the summer of 1902—contained statements which were grossly untrue. That was the impression I formed upon the evidence before me, and I do not pretend to speak as to anything else. But then a further question arose before a prosecution could be properly directed, and that was the question as to the intent with which these misrepresentations had been made. Now I feel very strongly that the law ought to be that any wilful misrepresentation in any document issued by officials of a company ought to be punishable. The shareholders and the creditors of the company are entitled to know the truth; and whatever the intent with which a misleading statement is put forth, if that misleading and untrue statement is wilfully made. I think the officials of the company who make that statement ought to be punishable. But beyond all controversy that was not the law up to the end of December, 1900. It was necessary, further, that the misrepresentation should have been made with intent to defraud certain classes of persons. The question depended upon Section 84 of the Larceny Act of 1861. According to the provisions of that section there must not only have been misrepresentation in a document

  163
  issued by the officials, but that misrepresentation must have been with the intent to deceive or defraud shareholders or creditors, or to induce persons to become shareholders in the company, or to induce persons to entrust or advance property to the company, or to become security for the company. The section does not provide at all for the case of misrepresentations made with the general intent to defraud the public, unless it happen to fall within the particular classes to which I have referred as enumerated in the section. The most material intent for this purpose was the intent to deceive or defraud shareholders or creditors. The word deceive in that collocation, in my mind, means, substantially, the same thing as defraud—that is, to mislead persons on questions of fact with a view to prejudicing them pecuniarily. I cannot better illustrate my meaning than by quoting to the House the language in which Chief Justice Cockburn charged the jury in a case under this section in the year 1880. The case was one of great magnitude, the trial of which extended over many days. It was a prosecution under this same Section 84 of the Larceny Act of 1861. It was a case in which the assets of the company had been dissipated in rash speculation, and after that had taken place the directors issued a balance sheet in which certain of the assets of the company were most grossly overvalued. The summing up of Chief Justice Cockburn appeared in The Times of May 6th, 1880. In the course of that summing up he dealt with the question of the intentional misrepresentation of the facts in stating that assets that were said to be worthless were of the value of between one and two millions. Then he came to the question of intent, and he said, addressing the jury—
  "But even if you should be of opinion that the accounts were intentionally falsified, that alone would not be sufficient to determine this question, because, even if you are of opinion that the defendants acted contrary to their duty in treating this property as a real and substantial asset of the company, you will have to say whether you are satisfied that they did so with the fraudulent purpose of defrauding the shareholders and the creditors of the company or to induce persons to become shareholders in order to defraud them also. There would scarcely have been any intention on their part to defraud the shareholders and the
  164
  creditors, because it is plain that the very best thing that could be done under the circumstances in the interests of the shareholders and of the creditors was to keep the bank going."
  Sir John Holker, I should observe, was then Attorney-General, and this was a Treasury prosecution. The Chief Justice continues—
  "Sir John Holker suggested that that was the very motive of the fraud he imputes to the defendants. But how could keeping the bank going defraud the shareholders or the creditors? No doubt to have made the real state of things known would have been to have produced an immediate depreciation of the property of the shareholders, and it was in the interest of the shareholders that the facts should be kept, as it were, in abeyance, and not at once disclosed so as to alarm the public."
  I do not think that ought to be the law. I think that if an untrue statement is made by officials of a company in the balance sheet they ought to be amenable to the criminal law. But in deciding this matter one could only deal with the criminal law as it stood at the time when the transactions took place. I therefore had to inquire before I set the Public Prosecutor in motion whether, on the facts before me, the intention of Whitaker Wright in making these misstatements in the balance-sheet was to defraud any class of persons mentioned in the section. After most carefully considering the matter on all the materials that were at my disposal in 1902, when I determined this point, it seemed to me that the purpose of these misstatements was really to support a corner which, if successful, would have reestablished the fortunes of the company, to keep the company going till it succeeded; and, however reprehensible the whole enterprise in its very nature was, however reprehensible these misrepresentations which were intended to assist it were, that it was done, not with intent to injure, but with a desire to benefit, the shareholders and the creditors of the Globe Company. That was the real substance of the matter with regard to this transaction in the year 1900. As regards the balance sheet of 1899, there is one further observation which I should make. The Official Receiver did not bring the balance sheet of 1899 before me at all as a possible subject of prosecution. It was brought before me subsequently in the month of December, 1902, by Mr. Flower.

  165
  I, with my colleagues, had a long consultation upon this point. The Official Receiver reported to me that, in his opinion, the case upon this balance-sheet of 1899 was a very weak one upon the fact of misrepresentation. Upon these materials I came to the conclusion that I ought not to direct that the Public Prosecutor should institute a Treasury prosecution in this case.
  I need hardly say that the fact that the case is not taken up by the Public Prosecutor sets no bar whatever against a prosecution by anyone else. Anyone may issue a prosecution, and anyone, where a company is in liquidation, may apply to the judge for a direction that, at the expense of the estate, a prosecution be instituted. My decision was given and announced in this House in the summer of 1902. It was open to those who desired a prosecution either to prosecute themselves or to apply at once to the judge in whose court the winding-up of the company was proceeding. Nothing of that kind was done until the month of January, 1903. During the six months that elapsed before that application was made, attempts were made in various ways to induce me to give the weight of the name of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the proposed proceedings. I think the House will agree that it is absolutely unnecessary for me to notice any suggestions that were made, that my action in this ease was due to any unworthy motive; and I think the House will further agree with me that it is important, and, indeed essential, that those with whom the responsibility of administering the criminal law rests should not allow themselves to be urged into action either by pressure or by dread of misrepresentation of their motives.
  There is another consideration which had weight with me in determining whether this was a case in which the Director of Public Prosecutions should lend all the weight of his name and authority to the proceedings that were desired. Many Members of the House will be aware that in the year 1902 an action was pending by the Globe Company against certain brokers for selling shares in the Lake View Company, in breach, it was said, of agreement not to sell under a certain price, and;
  166
  by that sale under the agreed price causing the collapse of the whole scheme on which Whitaker Wright had relied for the restoration of the fortunes of the Globe Company. If that action had succeeded large damages would have been recovered for the shareholders and creditors of the Globe Company. That action was continued by the Official Receiver; it had been commenced by the company before the company went into liquidation. The question of directing a prosecution was never brought before me until after that action had failed, as it failed in the summer of 1902. In that action Whitaker Wright had been the principal witness —in fact, the material witness who was put forward on behalf of the company. All the matters which were relied upon in respect of the application for a prosecution had been known for a long time and were known while that action was pending. The question I had to consider was whether the Public Prosecutor should, at the instance of the Official Receiver, when the action failed, lend the weight of his name to a prosecution in respect of these very matters which had been known at the time when Whitaker Wright was put forward as a witness in support of that action. It seemed to me that such a course would have been open to very strong and just observation.
  As regards the alteration of the law in the future, I have two things to say. The first is this—I am not prepared to recommend to the House to proceed to deal with the law affecting what are called corners, or the analogous subject of rigging the market. The question is one of very great intricacy, and legislation upon it, however desirable in the interests of commercial morality, would be attended with very great difficulties. I should like that something should be done in this matter, but it cannot be done until after very full and complete inquiry into the whole subject, and the views are ascertained, not only of lawyers, but of business men, with regard to it. With reference to the question of making punishable the issue of statements by officials of public companies which they know to be untrue, I have a very strong and definite opinion that legislation ought to proceed on the lines adopted in the 28th Section of the Companies Act of 1900. By that

  167
  section, which relates only to documents required by, or for the purposes of the Act of 1900, any wilfully false statement in such a document is a misdemeanour. The provision is not encumbered with the necessity of proving intent to defraud any classes of persons such as contained in the 84th Section of the Larceny Act of 1861. Now, surely this is right. Shareholders and creditors, in regard to statements promulgated by the officials of companies, are entitled to have the truth, and any wilful misstatement by officials of companies in such documents should be an offence. If there is no intent to defraud, that ought to go and would go in mitigation of punishment, but if a misstatement is wilfully made, in my judgment in every case, it ought to be amenable to the criminal law. If such a change were made it would relieve all those who have to deal in subsequent cases with such problems as came before me in 1902, from the difficulty which attended the proposal that I should direct the Public Prosecutor to institute a Treasury prosecution in this particular case. I think I have answered the Question which was put by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and in conclusion, I have only to say this: any Attorney-General would be unfit for his position, who from any by-motive failed to prosecute in a proper case, and more than that, and on the other hand, any Attorney-General would be unfit for his position, who, because a particular prosecution would be a popular thing to do, sets the Public Prosecutor in motion without being satisfied that it is a proper case for that intervention. Indeed where a case has in it materials which are likely to inflame public feeling, I think it is the duty of the Attorney -General, under whose orders the Public Prosecutor has to act, to be very cautious as to what his action is. Whatever view may be taken of the conclusion at which I arrived on the materials which were before me in 1902, I feel perfectly certain that the House—and I hope I -nay say that every hon. Member, in whatever part of the House he may sit —will have no doubt that in this case I acted to the best of my ability, and with a single eye to the discharge of those delicate and responsible duties which the law casts upon the Attorney-General.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: The hon. and learned Gentleman has, with that lucidity which we all admire, dealt with this case as it concerns himself personally. I do not rise to offer any observations on his remarks further than to say that I am sure I for one willingly concur in the sentence with which he concluded his speech. I rise rather to make some remarks in continuation of those which fell from the hon. Member for East Perthshire earlier in the evening, and which I wish had been listened to by a more crowded House than that which the hon. Member addressed. He put some very searching questions to the hon. Gentlemen who is now in the position of Colonial Secretary, and I am about to follow up those questions by some others. In the excellent speech to which we listened from the Leader of the Opposition, it was remarked that this was the first time for long —ten or twelve years, I think I might say —that we have had no mention in the Speech from the Throne of South Africa. I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman who holds the seals of that office has found and will find that South Africa bulks very largely in the labours he has to undergo, and will do for many a day. We are all familiar with the rosy pictures drawn from the Benches opposite, and notably by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, with regard to the state of that country—how we were to get repayment of the money advanced, how the country was to be a field for emigration of white labour and so forth. The right hon. Gentleman made a most remarkable speech on 6th May last, beside which the speech of any company promoter perfectly pales. In that speech, which occupies nearly thirty columns of "Hansard," the right hon Gentleman came under some very serious obligations I hope in this connection we shall have from the Colonial Secretary very explicit assurances on the head of finance. With respect to the £30,000,000, the late Colonial Secretary used rather significant language on the 6th May, 1903. He then said—
  "It is true we are not dealing to-day with the raising of the £30,000,000 which will be required in order to pay the British Exchequer the contribution the colonies are willing to

  169
  make; but the whole arrangement must be treated together; and I might almost say that the support of the Committee to the loan which is now under consideration is under condition not upon the contribution of £30,000,000 to which I have referred"
  My hon. friend dealt so fully with the details of the finance that I shall not say a word more on that subject.
  I turn to what the Leader of the Opposition said as to the importation of Chinese labour into the Transvaal. We want a great deal more information on that subject. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman has given us to-day two Reports of the Labour Commission, but these Reports are unaccompanied by the evidence. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the essence of the case often lies in the evidence. I notice in running through the Reports that they refer to the evidence, and, therefore, I venture to say that the Reports are very imperfect, and of very little use indeed, until you can refer to the evidence. I hope when the right hon. Gentleman speaks he will tell us when we may expect the evidence that was placed before the Labour Commission. This subject cannot be overestimated in importance. It is many years now since the action of George III. and his Ministers in refusing to allow the American Colonies to put an end to the slave trade of that day. The whole difficulty in the United States came from the action of the English Ministers with respect to the intrusion of black labour in that country. I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman remembers the debates on the question of Kanaka labour in Queensland, but if he looks into"Hansard," he will see the part that many of us took in regard to that question. It is remarkable that one of the first acts of the Australian Commonwealth Parliament was to put an end to the Kanaka difficulty. From the 31st of March this year, no Kanaka can be imported into Australian territory. Anyone who looks into the question of Chinese labour must see that it has in it the seeds of a problem of the most serious consequence to South Africa. Anybody who lives in San Francisco will tell you that you must be mad to allow it. Not only have we not got the evidence with the
  170
  Reports, but we have not received the correspondence that passed between Lord Milner and the late Colonial Secretary on the subject. We want information brought to date by the official dispatches on the matter. We want an opportunity, free from the trammels of the debate on the Address, of discussing this question in all its relations. I wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a promise which he gave. It was rather a remarkable promise for a Secretary of State to give. He said on 25th January, through his private secretary—
  "Mr. Lyttelton desires me to say in reply to your letter of the '22nd inst., that it is intended to give an opportunity for a full discussion in Parliament of the question of the importation of labour."
  I claim the fulfilment of that promise. To "give" an opportunity implies much more than that the Opposition shall "take" one.
  It is the one vital matter before the people of Cape Colony. The right hon. Gentleman talks of treating the new territories in these matters as self-governing colonies. I venture to say that the first thing to do is to give them the institutions and rights of self-governing colonies. The opinion of the Legislative Council is hardly worth the paper it is written on so far as it conveys the opinions of the inhabitants of the Transvaal. I hope we may look forward to getting from the new Secretary of State more information of a detailed and official character as to what is going on in these new territories than we have received in the past. I must say in sitting down that we meet here under rather unfavourable circumstances owing to the most regrettable absence of the Prime Minister. I do earnestly hope that he will soon be restored to health, for we have at present a headless Government. No one could have listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I say this without any disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman—without feeling that the House was being left rudderless, because the pointed and authoritative inquiries of the Leader of the Opposition had been left unanswered. I hope that will be remedied in a few days, and that we shall have some one here to speak with the voice of authority

  171
  on all the vital matters which must come before us.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has made an attack of considerable force—I might almost say ferocity—on His Majesty's Ministers on the occasion of the Address. I think he has shown a want of consideration for the position of His Majesty's Government. They have lost some of their greatest figures. In Lord Salisbury they have lost a great statesman, who has left his impress on the politics of Europe; they have lost the late Secretary for India, and three Chancellors of the Exchequer; they have lost that eminent statesman whom the Prime Minister writes to as "Dear Duke," but whom the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, with greater familiarity or affection, addresses as "My dear Devonshire." The forlorn remnant who now sit a little band of heroes on that Bench must feel what their position is. They know that, though like the lords of the Philistines they sit on the roof making sport, there is beneath them a blind Samson bowing himself between the pillars to bring down the whole structure upon their heads. I think, therefore, that more consideration should have been shown than the speech of the right hon. Gentleman displayed. I will not detain the House at this late hour on that, but will come to the points referred to in the King's Speech. One has already been touched upon, but if the hon. Gentleman who drew attention to it will permit me to say so, I think he missed the point of the case. An expedition has been sent into Thibet. The Gracious Speech tells us that it is sent with the concurrence of the Chinese Government, but not a word is said as to whether we have the concurrence of Thibet. That is the most important point of all. If there is concurrence of Thibet, then this is a mission; if not it is an invasion. I put the specific Question whether this is a mission or a military operation of invasion to any Gentleman on the Front Bench who feels competent to answer it, and I take the Attorney-General for choice. It is really an extremely important Question, because if this is a military operation—and in
  172
  my belief it is—the clause in the 1858 Act for the government of India, forbidding any application of the Revenues of India for military operations beyond the Indian frontier without consent of both Houses of Parliament, has been disobeyed and the law broken. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham is not here, but I may remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in 1878 this very question was raised by the right hon. Gentleman, who gave notice of a Motion in these words—
  "That, this House regrets that in the present instance the consent of the nation, through its representatives, was not obtained before war was declared, and that the Government withheld from publication the Papers."
  That was the exactly similar case of the war in Afghanistan and I may remind the House that the Member for West Birmingham, Lord Hartington, and Lord James of Hereford all voted against the Government of the day on this very ground. We are therefore entitled to most specific information, firstly, as to the reasons for the mission or military operation, secondly, as to its quality, and thirdly, as to whether in addition to the assent of China the assent of Thibet has been obtained to this missionary or invading operation.
  With regard to China and Japan I hope no Member of this House will say more than the very least he can on the subject. I shall say very little, but this I must say. We have had for centuries but one ally in the world—Portugal. We have now taken another in Japan. Japan is the second country in the world which in a treaty we call an ally. Let the House and His Majesty's Government remember that when you have given that name by treaty to a State, and if that State should come to extremity, it is impossible to abandon them. I shall say no more on that subject except that up to this moment, and at this moment, it is this country that holds the balance. In any naval war coal is the determining factor, and we hold the coal. My hope and trust, and I would add my belief, is that His Majesty's Government have made their position and intentions clear in this matter to those who are concerned—absolutely clear, though in terms no doubt of the utmost courtesy. I do

  173
  not believe they have failed to do so. If they have their responsibility would be great indeed. Let me remind the House what happened after the Russo-Turkish War of 1878, which bears in a most important degree on the situation at this moment. Lord Beacons-field, speaking in July, 1878, after he had returned from the Congress at Berlin, used these words—
  "One of the results of my attending the Congress at Berlin has been to prove, what I have always suspected to be the absolute fact, that neither the Crimean War, nor this horrible devastating war which has just terminated, would have taken place if England had spoken with the necessary firmness."
  The Question I put to myself and to Ministers is: "Has England spoken with the necessary firmness in this case, and is she now speaking with the necessary firmness?" If not the most serious consequences may ensue. I pass now to the most important Report on the proposed new supplementary body to the Defence Committee. It is dated 11th January but it is not yet in our hands, and I must say I feel some surprise to find no mention of it in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, except a casual and incidental reference to it, as if it had something to do with the question of economy. This most important subject lies at the root of the whole thing, at the root of our conduct in regard to this very Russo-Japanese War, at the root of our conduct in Thibet, for the Defence Committee is the very body to which we must look for guidance and we should take the advice of such a body before embarking on the very first steps in these matters. The subject is so extremely important that I do trust the greatest attention will be given to it by the Government. It is my belief that the new body, which, as I have said, is intended to be a supplementary body to the Committee of Defence, is entirely mis-conceived; that its constitution is wholly wrong, and that it will occupy a position which will render it nothing but a fifth wheel in the coach. It is proposed to make a new department, but the gentlemen who recommend it seem never to have had before their minds the official heirarchy or the necessity of finding a place in that hierarchy for the suggested new department. Who is to be at the head of it? The sugges-
  174
  tion is that the head of it should be the Prime Minister, an official unknown to the English law but who usually is, and always ought to be, First Lord of the Treasury. When that is so is this new department to be under the Treasury; when it is not so, when, as recently, the Prime Minister is Lord Privy Seal, then under whom is the department, as a department, to be? To this some answer is required. The constitution of the pro-posed nucleus of a department is also to my mind fatally defective. The object is that it is to be permanent, but this body has no permanency about it. The secretary is to be appointed for five years, and the nucleus is to be composed of six or seven gentlemen of inferior rank, naval and military, to be appointed for only two years. Therefore, I do seriously say to the Government that there is a necessity for the reconsideration of the constitution of this body. I lay before the Government two points. First of all, you should have on such a body as this an archivist, someone corresponding to the Clerk of the Privy Council who keeps the book of the Council; and secondly, it is absolutely essential that you should have as a member of this body a man cognisant with international law, especially in sea matters. My suggestion has been that the archivist, clerk of council, or chancellor should be an international lawyer. My own belief is that no body to consider and co-ordinate our strategic and political problems can be satisfactory unless it be in the nature of a permanent Royal Commission, with a permanent clerk or archivist whose salaries should be charged on the Consolidated Fund in order to prevent their acts being discussed in this House, for that I would prevent.
  The references to finance in the King's Speech are certainly not encouraging; to many they will be discouraging. The House will remember that when the late Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget last year I most earnestly warned him that his estimates were exaggerated, and I affirmed to him more than once my confidence that his estimates of revenue would not be reached. As we now know, they will not be reached. It seems to me quite certain, however, that the Government were under the belief that

  175
  these estimates would not only be reached, but would be surpassed, for it is on that theory alone that I can understand their buying the two Chilian warships for £1,800,000. The House will recollect that I suggested in Blarch last to the Government to buy these warships, but the First Lord of the Treasury then said that they would not buy them because the vessels were not Suited to our requirements. I cannot reconcile their former statement and their present purchase. My own belief is that they are and were always better ships than we had ourselves, and that it was a very good step on the part of the Government to make the purchase. But they could not have done so unless they believed that they were going to have a surplus to enable them to accomplish it. The Government could not treat these £1,800,000 as a portion of the sum to be spent on their naval programme and spread over several years; the money being actually expended must, I conceive, be treated as a portion of the expenditure of the year. If that be so, and if my rough estimates of the probable financial results of the year ending 31st March next, are at all near the truth, I can only foresee a deficit of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 which is rather an alarming outlook.
  Then as to the £10,000,000 of the Transvaal loan guaranteed by the great mine-owners, we are now told that this is not an opportune time to issue the loan. But the loan is guaranteed; and it is the guarantors who have to see how and in what manner they will provide this money. They have guaranteed it to us, and we have a right to call upon them to fulfil their guarantee. I am the first to admit that the moment is not favourable for the issue of any loan—neither this loan, nor the Irish loan, nor anything else. Nobody who studies the finances of the country can be without great apprehension for the future, were it only for the fact that Consols during the reign of this Government have fallen 27 per cent. Our finances are in a very uncertain, dangerous, and unstable condition, and it is very uncertain to look forward to a time which will be opportune for the issue of this £10,000,000 loan, or any loan at all. I see no such
  176
  opportune moment in any prospect of the near future.
  I wish to address a few remarks to the so-called fiscal question, which in reality is not a fiscal question at all, but a tariff question. Now I speak for nobody but myself, but I will say, and I think there are some who will agree with me, that if the road of taxing food is to be entered upon, I will not follow in that road whoever may lead. Thathow-ever is not the road the Government are taking; that is not the policy of the Government as explained by the only man competent to explain it, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has too modestly said. As to retaliation, I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was a little unfair in his description of the retaliation policy of the First Lord of the Treasury, whose absence I deeply deplore, and the cause of it. The policy of the Government, and of the First Lord of the Treasury, as regards retaliation is the most strictly limited policy ever presented to the world as a policy. Its central point is the exclusion of the taxation of food or raw material. It excludes also the creation of a high and a low tariff, although that is the only means I can see by which tariff retaliation can be effectually carried out. It is, furthermore, not to include a general tariff war, nor is any retaliation to be carried out without the assent of Parliament. I had the honour of elucidating this point by a letter to the Prime Minister who said he did not contemplate any change in the law, which implies that no new tax would be imposed without Parliamentary consent. Retaliation is therefore limited in an extraordinary, and to me in a most satisfactory degree, and I, for my part, am prepared to give the fullest and most favourable consideration to any proposal of retaliation limited in that manner. But it is impossible to forget that since the declaration of the Prime Minister at Sheffield, which I, for one, fully and completely accept, there have been other voices besides his. The Lord Privy Seal, the Postmaster General, and the President of the Council are convinced Free Traders; they are more than free fooders, they are Free Traders; but

  177
  the Minister for Agriculture, the President of the Local Government Board, and what is more, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are very different and have openly avowed their full sympathy with the food taxers. In fact the Government has been speaking with two voices—some members of it with one, some with another —and the Prime Minister occasionally with both. Therefore it is absolutely necessary, for those who, like myself, are convinced that it would be ruinous for this country to tax food, to have some clear and unambiguous enunciation of the policy of the Government. When we have the great advantage of the presence here of the First Lord of the Treasury, I trust that he will give us complete satisfaction on this point. We intend to support the Prime Minister as against the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and we feel confident that he will stick to the guns that he trained upon the enemy in his great speech at Sheffield.
  Now I have alluded to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I feel great interest in the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I congratulate him on attaining so great a position as he now enjoys. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also feels a great interest in me. He has most kindly and thoughtfully written a letter to one of my constituents in which he stated that nobody who knew me would attach the slightest importance to anything I said. While the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making that magnificent oration which so stirred the House to-night, I wished and longed that I could have the same feeling towards him that he has towards me, and that I need not pay any attention to him. But that is impossible. For, after all, he is Chancellor the is Exchequer. There is no doubt about that; hard as it may be to believe, it is the fact, and doubtless, among all the young Catos that have ever sat on that Bench and risen to speak, he gives a greater promise of developing in later days the effect produced by his right hon.
  178
  friend, or relative, in his unparalleled efforts and stupendous successes at Newcastle, at Leeds, at Cardiff, and greatest of all in the Guildhall of London. There is, however, even in him, a certain want of definiteness as to the view of the Government on this question, and I may observe here that the First Lord of the Treasury has very largely added to the doubts some of us feel as to the attitude of the Government by what he said at Bristol so late as 14th November. He said there—
  "A new charge is now brought against us namely, that the members- of the Government, who are agreed on the immediate practical issue are not agreed as to the desirability or practicability of further developments. This is no doubt a fact."
  Thus there are not only two voices, there is admitted undoubted disagreement in the Government itself; wherefore it is most desirable, and indeed absolutely necessary, that some plain, definite, unambiguous statement of the policy of the Government should be made. Having that in view, it is in my opinion scarcely decent to initiate a debate in the most regrettable absence of the First Lord of the Treasury, who, it is true, is the only man competent to give us authoritatively the last declaration of the policy of the Government. It seems to me that it is impossible that the debate could be conducted adequately in his absence; I go farther, I consider it is absolutely im-Droper that an Amendment to the Address should be moved from the Front Opposition Bench during his absence. Therefore I would appeal to right hon. Gentlemen opposite to curb their impatience, and to appeal to the Government to grant what I feel sure the Government would accord, a special day for the discussion of a special Resolution raising the whole tariff question. In my opinion, that is the proper course to be taken, and it would be calculated to draw forth from the Government the declaration which we all desire. That some such declaration is necessary I think must be apparent to the House and the whole country. I

  179
  myself follow and adhere to the declaration which the Prime Minister made at Sheffield, but we who have been somewhat disturbed by the various utterances that have since been made, including his own, feel that some further declaration is now necessary, and we hope and behave that, as at Sheffield so now, the Prime Minister will declare himself in accord with those of us who are determined to oppose to the last and to the very utmost any attempt to tax the food of the people.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I wish to intervene for a very few minutes in the debate. I do not desire to talk lightly on what may be a very serious matter to a great many people inside and outside the House. I concur with my hon. friend in thinking that this matter would have been raised more conveniently by a special Resolution; but when the debate does come on I think the House is entitled, and especially the Members of the Ministerial Party, to have a declaration from the Government on their fiscal policy more definite than anything which has yet been given. It is no mere academic question, and should not be treated as such, either in this House or in the country. It is in fact being made, whether with the approval of the Prime Minister or not I do not know, a test of Party loyalty and membership of the Party. Months ago I was told, long before the Duke of Devonshire's letter in connection with the Lewisham election, that a tariff reform candidate would be run against me at Greenwich. Many other Members had a similar experience. A more striking, a more surprising, a more scandalous thing has recently taken place, a member of the Government, the President of the Local Government Board, who Bits on the Government Front Bench in virtue of Free Trade votes, using, or, as I should say, abusing his position, went down and supported the candidature of a gentleman who was standing in opposition to a Conservative Member of the House. The justification alleged for this is that there is a policy before the country which every loyal Conservative is bound to accept. Then we ought to know with the utmost precision what that policy is. There is a story of a
  180
  17th century persecution which is familiar to many Members, according to which King Charles I. propounded a certain oath requiring people to accept the government of the Church of England as laid down by Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacons, et cetera, and those subjected to this oath very reasonably complained that they did not know what the phrase et cetera covered. But the lot of people in those days was easy compared with that of members of the Conservative Party now, because they had a great number of details of the ecclesiastical establishment whereas we have almost nothing except the et cetera. We are being told in great urgency that the policy of the Government is a policy of fiscal reform. What does "fiscal reform" cover? The Prime Minister directed us to ask ourselves whether we were in favour of fiscal reform. He might as well ask whether one is in favour of taking medicine. So much depends on what the medicine is. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to indicate that all that was meant was an admission that the commercial and industrial position of this country was not in its essence unreformable. Of course anyone can point out defects. I admit to the full that high foreign tariffs are a great evil; but in admitting that one does not necessarily admit that anything which calls itself a remedy is to be adopted. It is not wicked to be a protectionist and not wicked to be a free-trader, but it seems to be wicked, because it is exceedingly cruel, to propound to the country and the members of a Party a policy the limits of which no one knows. If we are to have a standard of orthodoxy in the Conservative and Unionist Party, and if Members are to be driven out who cannot accept that standard, then that standard should be stated with the utmost clearness and precision. When I am asked whether I am in favour of the policy of retaliation, I am obliged to make a very long speech in reply, explaining in what points I agree, and in what points I differ. It is exceedingly cruel to propound to the country, and to members of the Party, a policy the limits of which no one knows.

  181
  There are two points which I wish to see cleared up. First of all whether, in the view of the Government, it is premature to propose the taxation of food. What is the meaning of the word "premature?" Does it mean that it would be mature in a year, or three years, or at any time to which politicians need have no regard —say ten years? Does the House understand that the Government are pledged not to put a tax on food any time in these ten years? One still more important element in the policy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham is a duty averaging 10 per cent. on manufactured goods. Does the Government contemplate at any time supporting such a proposal as that? If I followed the Prime Minister's speech at Sheffield, I understand that my right hon. friend rejected that policy. But it is clearly a point that should be settled, for either the Government are in favour of it or they are against it. This particular policy involves the whole distinction between Protection and Free Trade. Surely when there is a violent feeling excited in the country, when Members are threatened with exclusion from Parliament, the House ought to be told whether this general duty of 10 per cent. is what they are required to assent to or not. The matter has got to a point at which dexterity becomes unfairness, and a clear and straightforward statement ought to be made, and I am quite certain, whatever may be the case with one or two Members, that a great many votes in the House will depend on the sort of declaration the Government will make.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I understand that the Government have
  182
  no objection to adjourning earlier to-night than usual. I beg, therefore, to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. John Redmond)—put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

PRIVATE BILLS.
The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSreported, That, in accordance with Standing Order 79, he had conferred with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Private Bills should be first considered, and they had determined that the Bills contained in the following List should originate in the House of Lords, viz.:—

Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway.

Appleby Corporation Gas.

Barnard Castle Gas.

Barrow-in-Furness Corporation.

Barry Railway (Extension of Time, &c).

Barry Railway (Steam Vessels).

Belfast and North East Ireland Electricity and Power Gas.

Belfast Corporation (Tramways).

Bexhill Corporation.

Bournemouth Corporation (Tramways).

Bridlington Corporation.

Bristol Corporation.

Bristol Tramways (Extensions).

Buxton Urban District Council.

Cambrian Railways.

Cardiff Railway.

Chesterfield Corporation Tramways and Improvements.

Chesterfield Gas and Water Board.

Coulsdon Tramways.

183

Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power.

Derwent Valley Water Board.

Ebbw Vale Urban District Water.

Edwardes Square Protection.

Elysée Palace Hotel Company.

Filey Improvement.

Gosport Water.

Great Western Railway.

Great Yarmouth Corporation.

Harlow and Sawbridgeworth Gas,

Harrogate Waterworks Tramroad.

Holy wood Tramways.

Huddersfield Corporation Act, 1902 (Amendment).

Hutcheson's Hospital and Hutcheson's Educational Trust (Substituted Bill). Ilford Urban District Council.

Ipswich Dock Commission.

Isle of Thanet Light Railways.

King's College Hospital.

Lancashire Electric Rower.

Leeds Corporation (Waterworks) Railway.

Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power.

Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company.

Liverpool and Wigan Churches.

Llanelly Harbour.

London, Chatham, and Dover Railway.

Maidenhead Bridge.

Manchester Corporation (General Powers).

Manchester Corporation Tramways.

Manchester Ship Canal.

Manchester Ship Canal (Finance).

Matlock and District Gas.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.

Metropolitan District Railway.

Metropolitan Railway.

Mid Cheshire Tramways.

Milwr and District Mines Drainage.

Minehead Urban District Council Water.

Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway.

184

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation.

Newcastle and Gateshead Water.

New River Company.

New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company.

North Wales Electric Power.

Nuneaton and Chilvers Coton Urban District Council.

Oakengates, Dawley, and District Joint Water Board.

Portmadoc, Beddgelert, and South Snowdon Railway.

Preston and Blackburn Tramways.

Preston and Lytham Tramways and Tramroad.

Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways.

Preston Corporation Water.

Saint Bartholomew's Hospital.

Saint Mary Woolnoth.

Shipley Urban District Council.

Southport and Lytham Tramroad (Extension of Time).

South Staffordshire Mines Drainage.

Stretford Urban District Council.

Ticehurst and District Water and Gas.

Trafford Park Dock and Railway.

Tynemouth Corporation.

Tynemouth Gas.

Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads.

Ulster Electric Power.

Victoria University of Manchester.

Victoria University of Yorkshire.

Weaver Navigation (Additional (Finance).

Weaver Navigation (Constitution and Finance).

West Metropolitan Railway (Abandonment).

West Metropolitan Railway (Extension of Time).

Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier.

West Riding Tramways.

Withnell Gas.

York Town and Gas.

Adjourned at a quarter after Eleven o'clock.

THE KING'S SPEECH.
THE KING, being seated on the Throne, and the Commons being at the Bar with their Speaker, His Majesty was pleased to make a most gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, and then retired.
His Majesty's Speech was as follows—
My Lords and Gentlemen,—
My relations with Foreign Powers continue to be of a satisfactory character.
My Government has concluded with that of the French Republic an Agreement which will, I trust, do much to promote the recourse to arbitration in cases of international dispute. Apart from its intrinsic value, the Agreement affords a happy illustration of the friendly feelings prevailing between the two Countries, of which striking proofs were given during My visit to France and that of the President of the French Republic to Great Britain, and of which further evidence has been furnished by a recent exchange of international courtesies.
Similar Agreements are in process of negotiation with the Governments of Italy and the Netherlands.
An Agreement has been concluded between My Government and that of Portugal for the settlement by arbitration of the frontier line between the possessions of Portugal in South-West Africa and the territory of the Barotse Kingdom. His Majesty the King of Italy has been pleased to accept the office of Arbitrator.
The Tribunal appointed under the Convention concluded on the 3rd March last between My Government and that of the United States has given a decision on the points referred to it. On some of these the verdict has been favourable to British claims; on others it has been adverse. Much as this last circumstance is to be deplored, it must, nevertheless, be a matter of congratulation that the misunderstandings, in which ancient Boundary Treaties, made in ignorance of geographical facts, are so fertile, have in this case been finally removed from the field of controversy.
The military operations in Somaliland are being pushed forward as rapidly as difficulties of climate and transport will permit. The successes recently obtained

3
by My troops under General Egerton will materially contribute to the destruction of the Mullah's power and the consequent pacification of the country. I have received cordial co-operation from the Italian Government, and from the Emperor Menelik of Abyssinia, who has organised a force which, by advancing from the west, will, it is hoped, materially assist the movement now in progress.
I have watched with concern the course of the negotiations between the Governments of Japan and Russia in regard to their respective interests in China and Corea. A disturbance of the peace in those regions could not but have deplorable consequences. Any assistance which My Government can usefully render towards the promotion of a pacific solution will be gladly afforded.
The scheme of Macedonian reforms proposed in February last by the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Governments, with the concurrence of the other Powers Signatories of the Treaty of Berlin, has been improved and strengthened in several important particulars. The revised scheme has been concurred in by the other Powers, and accepted, after a regrettable delay, by the Porte. The winter has brought a cessation in the disturbances which prevailed throughout Macedonia during the greater part of last year; and it is to be earnestly hoped that advantage will be taken of this respite in order to carry out those practical measures of amelioration which are so sorely needed in these unhappy regions.
Amongst these measures the organisation of the Macedonian Gendarmerie deserves a prominent place. I note with satisfaction that His Majesty the Sultan has appointed a distinguished General Officer of the Italian Army to take charge of this reform. He is to be assisted in the discharge of his task by other officers appointed by the Powers, and I have authorised the employment of a Staff Officer of My Army, aided by other British Officers, for this purpose.
I am gratified to observe that the Legislatures of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Colony of New Zealand have passed laws giving effect to the Naval Agreements entered into at the
4
Colonial Conference of 1902, under which they assume a larger share than heretofore in the general Scheme of Imperial Defence. The New Zealand Legislature has also sanctioned a Tariff which gives a preference in its markets to the produce of this Country.
The insufficiency of the supply of the raw material upon which the great cotton industry of this Country depends has inspired Me with deep concern. I trust that the efforts which are being made in various parts of My Empire to increase the area under cultivation may be attended with a large measure of success.
With the concurrence of the Chinese Government, a Political Mission has entered Thibetan territory in order to secure the due observance of the Convention of 1890 relating to Sikkim and Thibet. A Chinese official has been despatched from Pekin to meet it, and I trust that an arrangement may be arrived at with the Chinese and Thibetan authorities which will peacefully remove a constant source of difficulty and friction on the northern frontier of My Indian Empire. Papers on the subject will be laid before you.
Gentlemen of the House of Commons, —
The Estimates for the year will be laid before you. Although they have been framed with the utmost desire for economy, the burden imposed on the resources of the Country by the necessities of Naval and Military Defence is undoubtedly serious. The possibility of diminishing this burden is being carefully considered in connection with the general problem of Army and War Office Reform.
My Lords and Gentlemen, —
A measure for the purpose of dealing with the evils consequent on the Immigration of Criminal and Destitute Aliens into the United Kingdom will be laid before you.
A Bill amending the Law with respect to Licences for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors in England will be submitted to you.
A measure for the Amendment of the Law with respect to Valuation Authorities and the Preparation of Valuation Lists will be introduced.
A Bill to Amend the Laws relating to Education in Scotland has been prepared for your consideration.
A measure will be introduced to Amend the Labourers Acts and the Housing of the Working Classes Act in Ireland.
Proposals will be laid before you for Amending the Workmen's Compensation Acts, for Amending the Law relating to Public Health, for dealing with the Hours of Employment in Shops, for Consolidating the Enactments relating to Naval Prizes of War, for removing, after the termination of the, present Parliament, the necessity for Re-election in the case of Acceptance of Office by Members of the House of Commons, for Supplementing the Powers of the Congested Districts Board in Scotland, and for Amending the Law relating to Sea Fisheries.
I commend your deliberations to the care and guidance of Almighty God.

NEW PEERS INTRODUCED.
Sir Ughtred James Kay-Shuttleworth, Baronet, having been created Baron Shuttleworth of Gawthorpe, in the County Palatine of Lancaster, was (in the usual manner) introduced.
George Forrest, Lord Bishop of Bristol, was (in the usual manner) introduced.

SAT FIRST.
The Earl Fitzwilliam sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.
The Lord Stanley of Alderley sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.
The Marquess of Salisbury sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

ROLL OF THE LORDS.
Norroy, King of Arms, attending, delivered at the Table (in the usual manner) a List of the Lords Temporal in the Fifth Session of the Twenty-seventh Parliament of the United Kingdom. The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
SELECT VESTRIES.
Bill, pro forma, read 1a.

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
EARL FITZWILLIAM: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships' House for the first time, I venture to express a hope that I may be accorded that consideration which is so often extended to those who find themselves in my position. Your Lordships will have noticed that the opening paragraph of the Gracious Speech which has been read from the Throne, contains the now happily usual announcement that our relations with foreign countries continue to be friendly. Surely at no time has this familiar phrase to be repeated with more satisfaction than at the present moment, when the omission of it would spell all that your Lordships' House do not desire, and perhaps give a difficult and uncongenial task to the mover of this Address.
Your Lordships will have noticed with much satisfaction the announcement of the conclusion of a treaty of arbitration with France. The principle of arbitration is one which will always commend itself to this House. There is, my Lords, perhaps no nation with which it would be more advantageous for us to enter into Articles of Arbitrament than with our nearest neighbours. In the treaty recently concluded with the French Republic, the principle of arbitration is affirmed, subject to reservations which, if they limit the scope of the Agreement, do so in a manner which prudence no doubt requires. The treaty proceeds upon business lines. It lays down, in the first instance, that those matters which it has not been found possible for the contracting parties to settle by diplomacy shall be accurately ascertained; and, secondly, that a special Agreement in each case shall set out clearly the matters in dispute, and also the scope of the powers of the arbitrators. Great Britain and France have naturally availed themselves of the Hague Tribunal as an Arbitral Court for the purposes of the treaty, and it becomes clear that that Court, the institution of which we owe to the humane instincts and peaceful endeavours of the Czar, is destined to have

7
important uses in the future. My Lords, everything which tends to a better understanding with France must inevitably appeal to your Lordships. As the representative of the French Republic at this Court has said so well lately—
"The business relations of the two countries are so important that it would be absurd to allow anything to cause a rupture of them."
The Treaty to which I have alluded may be a very great or striking departure, but at least it is a step in the right direction, and may prove valuable as a means of avoiding the irritation consequent on the discussion of questions in which neither party sees its way to arrive at a settlement.
My Lords, while in this time of tension our minds are drawn to the events now taking place in the China Seas, we cannot pass over without due reflection those occurrences in the Near East which during the past few months have seemed to portend such grave possibilities. With reference to that paragraph in the Speech which deals with the reforms formulated by Austria-Hungary and Russia, acting in this matter in the name of all the Signatories of the Treaty of Berlin, the correspondence shows that while His Majesty's Government have been willing to give their assent to the proposals which these Powers have put forward for a settlement of the difficult state of affairs which has arisen, they have from the first regarded them as a minimum. In view of the approach of the season when the climate will no longer offer an obstacle to military operations, it is to be earnestly hoped that no time will be lost in giving effect to the necessary measures. In the case of these reforms not proving effectual, it is not beyond the scope of the Governments concerned to suggest other remedies. Indeed, His Majesty's Government have specially reserved to themselves the power of suggesting further reforms. I would especially invite your Lordships' attention to the project of a reorganised gendarmerie under a General of foreign nationality, in the service of the Imperial Ottoman Government, to whom military officers of the Great Powers will be attached. Your Lord ships will
8
readily realise that the better administration of Macedonia constitutes an important factor in the maintenance of European tranquillity, and it is our duty and our interest to express an earnest hope that the measures recommended by Russia and Austria-Hungary may prove to have in them that which is essential to the good government of the races subject to the Porte.
As regards Thibet, the House is aware that last autumn a mission, with an escort to secure its safety, was despatched by the Government of India to meet Thibetan and Chinese officials, with a view to securing the future observance of the Articles of the Convention of 1890, and the trade regulations arranged under Article IV. of that Convention. The policy involved in the mission, I need scarcely assure your Lordships, is not to acquire territory, neither is it conceived in any aggressive spirit. The object in view is to obtain assurances that treaty obligations will be observed and that encroachment may not be renewed. I would recall to your Lordships that we have formerly had occasion to complain of aggression on the part of the Thibetans. I refer to the invasion by them of Sikkim in 1886. An aggressive attitude has again been adopted. Our representative has been treated with insolence; boundaries have been ignored; treaty obligations have been ignored. Your Lordships will easily recognise that His Majesty's Government have had no alternative but to seek and to insist on reparation. It is well known to this House how necessary—how essential it is in the East that we should claim and maintain rights which belong to us as the fruits of fair negotiation, and never for a moment tolerate that our representative should be treated lightly, far less subjected to indignity.
The next subject which claims the attention of your Lordships refers to our colonies. The House is aware that for many years past our Australasian Colonies—true to their inherent instincts of loyalty—have not allowed us to be alone in our maintenance of an Imperial Navy. But that which has been deemed by them in the past to be sufficient for that purpose, is now found not to be adequate to their self-imposed duty,

9
and we observe—and observe, my Lords, I think with great pride—that our colonies are anxious and willing to increase their material support to the Navy. Whereas Australia and New Zealand before this date have only jointly contributed £126,000, they have now agreed to double their contribution. The mention of New Zealand, that Colony whose watchword is "Forward" in all that is patriotic, leads me to ask permission here to advert to another striking proof of the Imperial mind of that Colony. I refer to the Act passed in November last in the Colonial Legislature for the purpose of encouraging trade within the British Empire. That Act imposed duties of a very substantial amount upon foreign imported goods, and in one case—that of tea—entirely remitted the duty on that commodity when grown within the British dominions, whilst placing an additional equivalent duty on the foreign grown article.
My Lords, it has been truly said that times change and we change with them, and I would ask your Lordships to consider the application of the aphorism to our own case. For during the reigns of two Sovereigns the populations and necessities of these Islands have waxed and multiplied so exceedingly that probably those who formerly saw a sufficiency of existence within the area of these Islands would surely now, under changed and magnified conditions, share with us what has been so aptly described as "the dream of Empire." That dream, my Lords, has not been a dream which has been dissipated with the dawning day, for, unlike most dreams, it has found its realisation, and to-day it must be acknowledged by all subject to this Crown that there is a common tie which binds our colonies and ourselves to the Alma Mater here. And in this there is perhaps no finality. For who can say where a present controversy, which is now being discussed, not only through the length and breadth of the Empire but also throughout the civilised world, may eventually lead us? This theme offers a tempting subject for discussion, but I feel that I should be wanting both in respect to your Lordships' House, and also in regard for the rules of debate were I to pursue it further;
10
but may I say that I do not believe that we have yet arrived at the final and ultimate destiny of our Empire.
In turning to the domestic topics foreshadowed in the Speech, the all important question of Army reform presents itself. Some comfort may be derived from the knowledge that the experiences which the late war have produced have been exhaustively examined by Lord Elgin's Commission, which collected a mass of material unique in our military annals. As one of the consequences of the Report of that Commission, the Prime Minister appointed a Committee, composed of three distinguished gentlemen, who have been engaged in elaborating a scheme of War Office reform, based on the lines of the Admiralty Board, the result of whose deliberations have now been before your Lordships for the last twenty-four hours. It would seem that, whatever the ultimate effect may be, their recommendations must appear to your Lordships at any rate to be thorough. They have recommended, amongst other things, besides a supreme direction in the Committee of Defence, the institution of a new Army Council which will terminate the inconvenience attaching to a system of dual control at the War Office.
There will be no difference of opinion amongst your Lordships that there is always more and more need for increased efficiency with regard to our Army. Notwithstanding a general feeling of admiration and respect for every unit of the British Army, whether at home or beyond the seas, still, with the experience of three years which we leave behind us of uninterrupted warfare, and with a prudent estimate of the future with its rumours of wars and possible wars, we should be doing an injustice not only to ourselves but also to that Army and that Empire, were we not to avail ourselves of this and every opportunity to add efficiency to our military system, and lay an adequate foundation to meet the unknown possibilities with which a world-wide Empire like ours is constantly brought face to face. In this connection perhaps it may be permissible to recall the oft-quoted platitude that on the efficiency and preparedness of our arms must to a

11
very great extent depend the success of our diplomacy. It behoves us, moreover, never to forget that scarcely a year passes hut that some portion of our Army is called upon, not only to be ready to act in support of our diplomacy, but also to act in defence of our possessions, wherever they may be.
In calling the attention of your Lordships to the subject of Alien Immigration, the House will recognise the advent of an old friend. We must all acknowledge, my Lords, that the problem has become an exceedingly serious one. This view is supported, not only by the condition of our labour market at the present minute, but also by the action of the Legislatures of some of the most progressive civilised countries of the world, as well as by the fact that in this country for many years past the subject has received the close attention of successive Governments. I do not wish on this occasion to enlarge on that aspect of the question or to refer in detail to the various inquiries and reports which will be in the recallection of your Lordships, but noble Lords will not lose sight of the fact that as a direct consequence of other nations having prohibited the influx of workers without any possible means of support and with no prospect of employment, we have naturally become the recipients of those who are found undesirable to other countries—countries quite as industrial as ours, and, moreover, many of them with virgin possibilities, in which respect they have an advantage over us with our congested and growing population and limited area of expansion.
There is another aspect of the question to be submitted to the House. It must be remembered that many of these immigrants arrive on our shores, not only without resources, but even without an elementary knowledge of our language, and are naturally attracted to our great centres of commerce. What, my Lords, is the consequence? It would appear to be that some few are fortunate enough to obtain employment, largely by underbidding our labour market, whilst others, finding themselves without knowledge or necessary information for procuring their daily bread, and driven to despair by hunger and hardship, lapse to the inevitable goal of criminality. These few
12
remarks may be sufficient to allow your Lordships to perceive that there is ample justification for the legislation promised by His Majesty's Government. Turning to the Bill to amend the Workmen's Compensation Acts, I would submit to the House that the whole history of a workman's security for his stock-in-trade, which perhaps it is un- necessary for me to define as his labour —be it skilled or unskilled—has gradually been built up on liberal and equitable lines to its present state, and it will be well to remember that up to now provision has been made for all workmen engaged in dangerous trades, who, through no fault of their own, have become what has been termed "the wounded soldiers of industry." Heretofore these principles have been deemed sufficient as applying to a large number of workpeople, though not to all. But experience and the forward tendency of the age have shown, and are showing us daily, that a further step in advance may legitimately be adopted. It has become apparent that there are others who, although not exactly to be included in the radius of what were formerly known as dangerous trades, are yet entitled to protection by legislation. There are working men who in the pursuit of their daily task constantly incur risks as dangerous and frequent as do their more fortunate fellow-workers who have hitherto received the benefits of the Acts. Surely we are justified by such a consideration in our contention that the time has come to perfect and complete a measure which it has been deemed necessary to refer for examination and report to a Departmental Committee of the Home Office because it does not at present fully meet the case for which it was designed.
In passing from a subject affecting the prosperity and safety of the working classes, your Lordships will observe, on reference to the Gracious Speech, another subject affecting the moral and material welfare of those classes. I refer to the mention of a Bill to amend the law of licensing. Such a measure will be welcomed by all who do not push their convictions—however honestly and ardently cherished—beyond a judicious limit. The publican, in the absence of proved misconduct,

13
has the right to pursue his calling—a lawful calling—without undue harassment. It is rather the tendency of the fanatic than of the well-balanced reasoner to invoke the fires of Smithfield to purge what he deems to be heresy. Your Lordships —in your desire for temperance—would be the last to argue that the grant of licences should be unchecked. But in dealing with a subject which gives rise to so many divergent views, the only rule of safety appears to reside in holding fast to a principle. My Lords, the principle which I think will commend itself to this House is that it is not in accord with the dictates of common honesty or justice that any man engaged in the liquor trade should be dispossessed of the means of earning his livelihood unless on proof of gross misconduct. Your Lordships may have an opportunity of observing later in the session that His Majesty's Government have not been unmindful of this principle. In conclusion, I beg to tender my most respectful thanks to your Lordships for the kind way in which you have listened to my remarks.
Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in reply to the Gracious Speech from the Throne."—(Earl Fitzwilliam.)
LORD HYLTON: My Lords in rising to second the Address, and to speak for the first time in this House, I, too, must ask for your Lordships' indulgence. Before attempting to discharge the duty which has been imposed upon me, I should like, in a few words, to refer to the great loss which the country and the House have suffered since Parliament was prorogued, by the death of the late Marquess of Salisbury. Others infinitely more qualified than myself will probably speak on this subject, but those who merely had the advantage of listening to him in this House, cannot fail to retain a lifelong impression of the wisdom of his utterances, the dignity of his address, the keenness and polish of his wit. And anyone who, like myself, has had some slight experience in the Diplomatic Service will, I think, feel convinced that his name was held in higher respect in every foreign country than that of
14
perhaps any other Englishman for more than one generation.
There is one other topic to which I will still more briefly allude. A change has just taken place in the Leadership of this House. Speaking from these Benches one cannot forget the deep debt of gratitude which our Party owes to the noble Duke, the late Leader of the House. But I do not wish to say a word of a Party character on this occasion. In his capacity as Leader of this House the noble Duke enjoyed the goodwill of both sides alike, and I hope I shall not be considered presumptuous in expressing my belief that both sides alike cordially hope that he may still render great public service for many years to come, whatever quarter of the House he may occupy, whether in or out of office.
I now turn to the Gracious Speech from the Throne. With regard to the treaty signed between France and Great Britain, I think your Lordships will view with pleasure any extension of the system of arbitration as a means of arriving at a fair and peaceful solution of international disputes. The class of questions which will call for solution under the new treaty may be of a limited scope, but the principle adopted appears easily capable of enlargement: and your satisfaction in this matter will, I feel, be the greater, inasmuch as it affords a further proof of the amicable relations which happily exist between ourselves and our neighbours across the Channel. The same considerations apply to the hope expressed in the Gracious Speech of a similar treaty with Italy. Great Britain viewed with sympathetic interest the union of the Italian Peninsula under the sceptre of the House of Savoy, and the bonds of friendship which have ever since united the two countries have been lately cemented and confirmed by the interchange of visits between their respective Sovereigns. What I have said of the treaty with France and the proposed treaty with Italy applies with equal force to an arrangement with Holland and Portugal.
The conclusion or negotiation of treaties of arbitration with these European Powers affords striking evidence of the desire of His Majesty's Government to resort to this method of settling international differences. In the

15
case of one difference of this kind His Majesty's Government have given practical proof of their belief in this policy by resorting to the assistance of a tribunal, not strictly speaking an arbitral tribunal, but one independent of the diplomacy of the two countries affected. The question of the Alaskan Boundary is not a new one. In the year 1825 the Russian and the British Governments signed a treaty or arrangement by which the boundaries of the Russian possessions in North West America and of our own territories in that quarter of the globe were defined. At that time no one seems to have entertained a suspicion that doubt or difficulty could thereafter arise owing to the terms in which the frontiers were described in the treaties. The whole region was sparsely inhabited, its geography little known, and most of its territory unexplored. So far as we can judge at the present day of what was passing through the minds of the statesmen of 1825 when they signed the treaty, they signed it under the impression that they were laying down boundaries which required no further definition. Time passed; in 1867 the United States bought Alaska from Russia; a larger population became settled in some parts of this hitherto almost uninhabited country, and, in consequence, questions arose as to what was meant by the definition of the treaty of 1825. On comparing the language of the treaty with more recently acquired geographical information, it was argued that more than one interpretation might be given to its meaning, and that in more than one portion of the frontiers. Papers laid before Parliament explain these details.
It sometimes happens that the provisions of a will lead to doubts and litigation, and in the end have to be decided in accordance with what the law lays down as having been the intention of the testator. This is precisely what has happened in regard to the Alaska boundary. No one can go into the witness-box at the present day and say with certainty what the negotiations of eighty years ago intended. But an exhaustive examination of the whole case has taken place before the Tribunal
16
appointed for that purpose, and although it was so constituted that its deliberations might not have been conclusive, it was able to come to a conclusion.
The award has been favourable to the American rather than to the Canadian interpretation of the treaty of 1825. The extreme American claims have not been conceded, but the award is, undoubtedly, in favour of the American contentions rather than of the Canadian contentions. In one sense the question may be said to affect Canada more perhaps than the Mother Country, but in one sense only, for Great Britain can never feel indifferent to any matter touching the prosperity or welfare of the Dominion of Canada; and I say this, not as a vague compliment to Canadian loyalty and Canadian patriotism, but because I am sure that such are the sentiments of the people of this country towards Canada. The Colonial Secretary, in a speech to the Canada Club on the 19th ult., well pointed out that the consolatory speeches of well-meaning friends give little satisfaction to a litigant who has just lost his case—but I believe that in Canada, as well as in this country, many will be found ready to acknowledge that it is for the benefit of all parties that this question, which might at any moment have given rise to serious international differences, should have been set at rest.
With regard to the paragraph in the Speech relating to Somaliland, the House will have noticed with satisfaction the success of our troops under General Egerton —success all the more gratifying after one or two disappointments which have occurred in that region—disappointments not, I believe, owing to the strength or the character of the enemy, but merely to climatic conditions and to the want of water. Your Lordships will have seen with pleasure the statement in the Gracious Speech that Italy, whose sphere of influence adjoins our own in that region, has rendered us every possible co-operation, both by sea and by land.
Your Lordships will, I think, participate in the concern expressed in the Gracious Speech as to the differences which unhappily exist between Russia and Japan. Whilst we cannot shut our eyes to the critical nature of these

17
differences, we must all share the hope that a peaceful solution may not be impracticable and honourable to both the nations concerned. We may reflect with some degree of satisfaction on the one hand on the pacific tendencies of the Emperor of Russia, which have been repeatedly proved both by word and action ever since he ascended the Throne, and, on the other hand, on the calm and statesmanlike attitude displayed by Japanese diplomatists throughout this crisis.
I now come to the paragraph respecting Macedonia. As far back as the time of the Treaty of Berlin, the Turkish Government undertook to introduce good administration into all the provinces of European Turkey, and the great Powers who were Signatories to that treaty incurred certain responsibilities in the matter. I think it must be admitted that great forbearance has been shown to the Turkish Government, and every allowance has been made by the Powers for the grave intrinsic difficulties which no doubt attend the institution of any form of government in Macedonia which would be equally acceptable to the various nationalities inhabiting those Provinces. Your Lordships are aware that these Provinces contain an extraordinary mixture of races and creeds, which must in any case render the task of their rulers a difficult one. But, my Lords, after making every allowance for the difficulties I have indicated, it has remained the clear duty of the Powers to press for reform in this region. Reforms have been pressed upon the Turkish Government times without number. Times without number the Sultan has promised to introduce adequate measures. Unfortunately, His Majesty's beneficent intention and pledges have failed to be carried into effect. What has been the result of this failure on the part of Turkey to provide a satisfactory administration in Macedonia? My Lords, the answer to that question can best be expressed by the simple word "Anarchy," and anarchy marked by all the horrors which usually attend such a condition of affairs. If proof were required of my statement, I would refer your Lordships to the Blue-book which has just been presented to Parliament respecting affairs in
18
South-Eastern Europe, and which affords melancholy reading. The situation is aggravated by the animosity displayed towards one another by the different subject peoples.
Your Lordships will probably consider it unnecessary to endeavour to apportion the blame for the lamentable occurrences which have taken place among the various antagonistic parties. What we are concerned with is the fact that the ever increasing anarchy in this unhappy country reached such a pitch some twelve months ago that the great Powers unanimously concurred in intervention with a view to bringing about practical reform, and the task of seeing those reforms carried into effect has been entrusted to the Governments of Austria-Hungary and Russia. Your Lordships will see from the Papers laid before Parliament that the policy of His Majesty's Government has been, in co-operation with the other Powers, to urge by every possible means on the Porte the execution of the "Vienna Programme," strengthened later on by the more stringent provisions introduced after the meeting of the Austrian and Russian Emperors in October last. With regard to the more stringent provisions then adopted, I think your Lordships will give some credit to His Majesty's Government, and I would refer the House on that point to a despatch from the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Sir Francis Plunkett, dated September 29th last. I need not trouble your Lordships with all the details of the scheme of reform, but the appointment of two civil agents—an Austrian and a Russian—to act as assessors to the Turkish Inspector-General, together with the nomination of a distinguished Italian officer with the rank of General to re-organise and command the gendarmerie, form too important a feature in the scheme to be passed over in silence. These officers have now taken up their duties, and, including their subordinates, there will soon be, I believe, some 50 or 100 foreign officers distributed throughout Macedonia who will watch over the action of the Turkish troops; and this material supervision, backed up by the moral weight of the Concert of Europe, seem to attach a fairer chance of success to the present

19
scheme of reform than has been the case on any previous occasion. The authors of this scheme do not claim perfection on its behalf, but the public declarations of European statesmen have been made in its favour, and all they ask is that the public will exercise a little patience in their criticisms as to its ultimate merits.
Before passing from this subject I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the conduct of our Consular representatives in Macedonia. Exercising rigid impartiality, they have incurred dangerous enmities on all sides; two of their foreign colleagues have been assassinated within the last twelve months; their own lives have been threatened, as you will see from the Blue - book, and many of their despatches have been practically written under fire. Our principal Consuls and Vice-Consuls in the Levant are selected from a body of picked men, and the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople would, I am sure, bear witness to the excellent services these gentlemen have rendered under exceptionally difficult circumstances. I think the House will consider that His Majesty's Government is very fortunate in being served by such excellent officers. The Gracious Speech announces a lengthy list of measures of domestic legislation. Some of them appear more appropriately fitted for discussion in another place, whilst others have been so amply and clearly dealt with by my noble friend that I do not propose to make any observations upon them. It only remains for me to thank your Lordships for the patience with which you have been good enough to listen to me, and to second the Address.
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, before I come to the Speech from the Throne, I must refer to some events that have ccurred since the adjournment of the House last year. The noble Lord the seconder of the Address spoke in most appropriate words of the great loss the House and the country have sustained since that time by the death of that distinguished statesman and orator, Lord Salisbury. I fully share the views the noble Lord so well expressed. Lord
20
Salisbury filled a unique position in this House—a position of transcendent power; and I am quite sure of this, that no one who has been as long as I have been in this House can forget the lucid and eloquent words which always came from his lips without an error and without check. We deeply deplore that the country has lost him. When the noble Marquess resigned the Leadership of this House, which he held with such distinction so long, he was succeeded by my friend the noble Duke, to whom reference was also made by the noble Lord the seconder. The noble Duke has not held that position very long. He has been for little more than one session Leader of this House. I venture to remind your Lordships that when he undertook the duties of that position I said that I felt confident that his high character and his high ability would enable him to fulfil them to the satisfaction, not only of his own side of the House, but of us who sit on the Opposition side. My Lords, he amply fulfilled those prophecies.
And now, my Lords, as we have his successor here to-night for the first time since he has assumed the Leadership, I hope the House may pardon me if I refer to some historical events with which his great name is connected. The noble Marquess will not be the first of his family who has been Leader of this House. Fifty-two years ago the Marquess of Lansdowne of that day stood in his place, and, on the resignation of the Government of Lord John Russell, stated that he probably would no more again in an official capacity address this House. But he did address this House on one very remarkable occasion in the same year. It was the year signalised by the death of that great warrior, patriot, and citizen, the Duke of Wellington; a most eloquent reference to that noble Duke was made by the Marquess of Lansdowne, and I will quote what the noble Marquess further said:—
"My Lords, I stand in somewhat of a peculiar situation before your Lordships, addressing you on this subject, because it may not be known to the greater number of your Lordships—indeed, there are not many now alive to recollect it—that the individual who has now the honour of addressing you, some forty-seven years ago, in his place in the other House of

21
Parliament when young in his Parliamentary life, was permitted and authorised by his colleagues of that time to call on that other House to do justice to the memory, and to provide for the family, of one of the greatest heroes that ever lived, and with whom alone, in the military annals of this country, the noble Duke, now no more, could be compared."
I mention this because it establishes a very interesting historical connection between the noble Marquess, now our Leader, and his grandfather, who, on two occasions, at an interval of forty-seven years, moved a vote and made an eloquent eulogy on our two greatest heroes—our greatest naval hero, Lord Nelson, and our greatest military hero, the Duke of Wellington. I am sure that we who know the noble Marquess may rely with confidence on the part which he will take in this House. We know his distinguished career in Canada and in India. We know from experience the ability and courtesy with which he has conducted many controversial debates in this House, when he has been the head of two important Departments of the State. I therefore feel assured that this House will allow me to congratulate, and will itself congratulate, the noble Marquess on the position in which ho is placed, and will congratulate itself in having him as its Leader. I now come to the speeches of the mover and seconder of the Address. I have had considerable experience in this House, and I have seldom heard two more interesting speeches, or two speeches which commend themselves so much to the good feeling of the House. The noble Earl who moved the Address belongs to a very distinguished family, and I am happy to think that I can claim personal, though not political, friendship with him. The noble Lord the seconder to the Address made a singularly able, intelligent, and interesting speech. He showed great knowledge of diplomacy, and spoke in very appropriate words of many of the passages in the Gracious Speech. May I express this hope—that the desire of taking part in the public debates in this House in the future will not be damped so far as they are concerned, as I fear it has so often been, not only with young speakers but also with older speakers, by the cold and somewhat depressing atmosphere of this House?
22
I will now come to the words of the Gracious Speech from the Throne. I am glad to congratulate His Majesty's Government on the four paragraphs which commence the Speech. There is no subject in which, I think, the country takes at this moment a deeper interest than the question of arbitration. This subject has come prominently before the world in recent years owing to the action of the Czar and the conferences which took place at the Hague. I rejoice to think that His Majesty's Government have been able to use this noble and humane principle of arbitration—a principle which, we may hope, will not only diminish the terrible risks of war, with all the accompanying loss of life and sacrifice of treasure, but may, if properly followed, not only by ourselves, but by other nations, possibly lead to what we all must desire so heartily, and that is the diminution of the gigantic cost of preparation for war. That is one of the considerations which, I think, is prominently now before this country. The great cost of preparation for war is sapping, to a great extent, the resources of many countries, and it prevents the development of other most important reforms. It will probably affect the great question of education, to which it is so necessary to attend at this time in this country. It may also affect other social reforms; therefore, I do sincerely trust, if the example which His Majesty's Government has set with regard to arbitration is followed, we may find it will have some permanent and beneficial effect upon this enormous expenditure, which I believe everybody, to whatever side in politics he belongs, deeply deplores.
With regard to arbitration with our great neighbours in France, I sincerely rejoice at the friendly interchange of visits that have taken place between His Majesty the King and the President of the Republic; and I cannot help thinking that this country feels deep gratitude to our august Sovereign for the great impulse and support which he has given to this friendly feeling, and I venture to say we may trace, to a great extent, to his influence the successful movement which has been made with regard to foreign countries. It is satisfactory

23
to know that the same process is going on with regard to agreements with Italy and the Netherlands, and I should be glad if the noble Marquess is able to inform us that the agreement with Italy has actually been made. I cannot also but congratulate His Majesty's Government on having successfully arrived at some conclusion with regard to the Alaska boundary. His Majesty the King has referred to that in very expressive words, and I think we may heartily rejoice, although in some respects we may regret part of the decision, if these misunderstandings which have been so fruitful of controversies in the past will now pass into the domain of history.
I now come to a subject as to which, I confess, I feel considerable regret. I refer to the war in Somaliland. On a former occasion I ventured to ask his Majesty's Government to give an explanation as to how far our troops were to go into the great desert and the waterless country which faced them. I pointed out what very grave results might follow such proceedings. I fear I was not very incorrect in my foreshadowing of what was about to take place. We have had long marches, and, I will not say reverses; but often very serious difficulties in our advance, and though now our arms seem to have been crowned with victory, the Mullah, or whatever he is called, like a will-of-the-wisp, flits in front of the troops, and there seems but little hope of catching him or surrounding him. I know we all feel great sorrow at the losses that have taken place, and perhaps I may say a word, and only one word, of great sympathy and affection to a friend of mine and a Member of your Lordships' House. We mourn the loss of his gallant son, and we sympathise most deeply with him and his friends their in bereavement. What I should like to know about this is, are expeditions farin-to a country like that essential to maintian the honour and dignity of the country, and to effect the objects we have in view? I know that negotiations with tribes of this sort are impossible; but is it impossible to occupy strongly posts round the settlements where our colonies are placed, and to defend them with the utmost strength, repelling any attack, and in that way punish these wild tribes,
24
instead of having to pursue them in the manner in which we have had to pursue the Mullah? May I sincerely trust that the reference to General Egerton's victory may be the forerunner of the close of these operations, and that we may hear that the object we have in view has now been attained, and that we shall be able to withdraw our gallant troops, who have behaved, the officers specially, with such extraordinary gallantry, from the waterless land where they have been so long? The next paragraph touches a subject of the profoundest interest to this country. We have been watching with the keenest anxiety the negotiations which have been going on in the Far East between Russia and Japan. Two years ago we had a discussion in this House with regard to that subject and the treaty; but whatever may have been thought at that time of that treaty, it would not be proper or desire-able at this moment to enter into any discussion upon it, and I shall entirely abstain from doing so. I sincerely trust that the hope held out by the noble Marquess, that the treaty would conduce towards peace, may have been, or will be, fulfilled, and that we may, before long, see removed the dark cloud which has been hanging over us, and which, though for the moment it hangsonly over the East, may spread further and come nearer to us, and that we may see Japan developing her resources in peace and harmony. Anybody reading this paragraph of the Speech would believe that His Majesty's Government have been merely contemplating what has been happening in the East without taking any part whatever in it. There is no word of what they have done. There is merely the expression of a prospective hope that power may be exercised to promote a pacific settlement. I cannot suppose that this is all that has been done. I cannot help thinking and hoping that the good and friendly offices of His Majesty's Government have been warmly and courteously given to both Powers—and, possibly, more especially to the Power with whom we have a treaty—to induce them to come to amicable terms, and to prevent a war which would be so disastrous. I hope the noble

25
Marquess will be able to explain this paragraph.
With regard to Macedonia I have very little to say. It is a question which has been long before us. The noble Lord opposite said that all we wanted was patience. I would ask your Lordships, is not our patience nearly exhausted? The first solution proposed by Russia and Austria came to no good result. Then another solution was proposed, and during a great part of last summer the most fierce warfare was going on between the Turks and the insurgents in Macedonia. I fear that when the season becomes more favourable to the movement of troops we may again see this insurrection and this lamentable state of warfare arising in Macedonia; and I therefore feel considerably disappointed that at this season we cannot have more satisfactory assurances from His Majesty's Government. But I really hope that the Government, knowing what the feeling of the country is as to the necessity of, if possible, putting an end to the disastrous condition of affairs in this part of the dominions of the Porte, will do their utmost to support the Governments who are more active in the matter in arriving at a happy solution of this great question. I shall presently refer to the latter part of the reference to the acts of the New Zealand Legislature; but let me now express my satisfaction that the New Zealand Government, and I suppose also the Australian Government, have come to a new arrangement with His Majesty's Government in regard to their contribution towards the naval forces which protect our dominions across the sea. We have always held that we were doing the duty we were called upon to do as an Imperial Power in finding for the colonies the naval forces which they required, but we also thought that the colonies ought to contribute some sum towards the expenditure on those forces. That sum, certainly, has not been hitherto a large one. The noble Earl who spoke first had the advantage of knowing what we do not know—at least I do not know—of what the colonies are now proposing to do. I congratulate the Government on having made this advance towards getting a fairer payment for the
26
work which our naval forces do in that part of the world.
I now come to the expedition to Thibet. We are promised Papers with regard to this question, and therefore I shall not go at great length into it. But there are one or two questions to which an immediate answer, I think, would be desirable which I wish to ask His Majesty's Government. The noble Earl opposite told us that this expedition has become necessary for various reasons. We shall look with great anxiety at the Papers to see what that necessity arises from. The convention of 1890 was carried out, I believe, when the noble Marquess was Viceroy of India. That Convention was made direct with the Chinese Government. Now we hear, certainly, that, "with the concurrence of the Chinese Government," this expedition has gone on; but why has the tradition that existed in India before, that negotiations should go direct to the Chinese Government, been departed from, and why have these negotiations not been made with the Chinese Government? There is another question. We know that this force is advancing into a mountainous country, a country where the utmost rigour of cold prevails. We are told that the cold there is somewhat like that which prevails on Mont Blanc. We know that the expedition has gone at the most inclement season, and, if the newspapers are correct, that it has already lost nearly the whole of the animals of transport. I want to ask what is the pressing need and the wrong that we have to redress which require this force to be sent at such an inclement season? I have another point. We know that in the Government of India Act, 1858, there is a particular clause, the 55th I think, with regard to the Indian Government not using its funds for the purposes of an expedition outside its own boundaries. I want to know whether the Indian Government have taken that particular clause into consideration. Is this a mere friendly group of visitors sent by the Government of India to Thibet, or does it mean more? We hear of an escort of something like 500 going with the expedition, carrying guns and other munitions of war, and there is a large body, numbering, I believe, some 2,000

27
men, who are keeping up the communications. I am bound to say that at present the expedition seems to be much more of a military expedition than a mere friendly diplomatic visit to the natives. I do not suppose, from what I have heard and from what I have learned, that there is much danger of our troops being attacked, or, if they are attacked, of any disaster happening to them; but there is no doubt they are suffering considerable hardships and privations.
With regard to the Estimates, I do not say much. The Estimates belong more to another place; but there are important considerations which I shall touch upon presently which affect the interests of the whole country and should not be lost sight of by your Lordships' House. I read, however, that His Majesty's Government are really considering the possibility of diminishing the terrible outlay on naval and military defence which is now weighing down the country, and may in the future be a very serious drawback to our prosperity, and I sincerely trust that they may be able to effect economy in this great expenditure. I now come to the omnibus clauses with reference to administration. I hardly think there is any what I may call a great political administrative Bill mentioned. There are, I will not call them friends, because some of them I do not at all like, but there are some old stagers travelling on the Parliamentary road which we all know very well. There are the aliens; there is the question which interests so much some of my noble friends on this side of the House—the hours of employment in shops; there is the Compensation Act, and there are other proposals; but I do not see one Bill which was pressed forward last year —namely, the Bill With regard to the Port of London. There is one Bill on which I want to make some remarks. That is a Bill with regard to the necessity for re-election in the case of acceptance of office by Members of the House of Commons. I can well understand that His Majesty's Government may desire very ardently to carry this Bill. His Majesty's Government have probably had more experience in remodelling Governments than any Government within our memory, and it is just pos-
28
sible that in trying to distribute offices among its supporters His Majesty's Government have sometimes been unable to make the best selection owing to the difficulty of elections. I can, therefore, quite imagine that His Majesty's Government may desire to have the existing law altered. But we do not quite look at it in the same way. I admit that in the past the Party to which I have the honour to belong have also altered the law. I think it was their Bill in 1869 which did away with the dissolution on the demise of the Crown. There has also been a measure to render unnecessary an appeal to the constituencies on a mere change of office within the Government. But this Bill goes still further. If there is anything in the old principle that a Government should not remain in office or be encouraged if it has not the support of the constituencies of the country, that old doctrine, I think, is not quite exploded, and there will be a good many people who will still wish to see it applied.
The Bill with regard to licensing and the sale of intoxicating liquors in England is a matter of very great importance. Much depends upon the way in which His Majesty's Government frame their proposals. We on this side of the House will deprecate most strongly any attempt to deprive the magistrates of their full discretion in this matter. I do not believe that there is any case whatever to show that the magistrates have exceeded their powers; and, if this Bill goes any length to thwart the magistrates in the exercise of their discretion, that measure will receive most determined opposition from this side of the House and from our friends in the other House. With regard to the Valuation Bill, it is difficult, in the words of the Gracious Speech from the Throne, to say how far it may go. It may be a mere technical measure altering slightly the machinery with regard to the valuation authorities in their preparation of the valuation lists. If, however, it follows the lines laid down by the important Commission, of which Lord Balfour was Chairman, I can assure His Majesty's Government that we shall give it the very best consideration in our power; for, in my opinion, there is no measure so much wanted at this moment as a

29
thorough, complete, and wise reform of all matters connected with the incidence of local taxation. If the measure is of that character I do not think His Majesty's Government will find any obstructive action on the part of the Opposition.
I have now touched upon the various points which have been referred to in the Speech from the Throne. But there are other questions which have been omitted and which, in my opinion, are of the utmost moment, and ought to be at once brought before the attention of Parliament. It is a remarkable thing that in this Speech there is no reference whatever to South Africa. At the last meeting of Parliament we had constant references to South Africa. At this time last year a distinguished statesman, who was then Colonial Secretary, had not returned from his tour in South Africa. He had been there conducting most important negotiations, and he had proposed and apparently brought about the settlement of a considerable number of questions, That gave rise to Bills and to very important discussions. Parliament, I think, will demand a great deal of imformation with regard to South Africa. We want to know how far the settlement of the country is progressing, and how far the farmers who were dispossessed of their farms are settling down. We want to know what number of troops have been withdrawn from that country, and what number of troops remain there. We want also to know what has been done with regard to the financial arrangements which were discussed so much last year. What has become of those loans? What has become of a certain £10,000,000 which was to be paid towards the expenses of the war into the Imperial Exchequer, guaranteed by millionaires in the Transvaal? We hear rumours that this payment is not to be made, or that it is to be deferred. We want to know whether that is to be the case. All these questions require the attention of the Government, and explanation by them.
There is also the question of labour in the Transvaal. I cannot conceive a greater question than that. We hear that it is proposed to introduce into the Transvaal—it may be wrong, but rumour says something like 100,000
30
Chinese. What will result from that? It will completely revolutionise the labour organisation in the Transvaal, and will have a profound effect in other colonies of South Africa. We hear more than rumours—we hear reports of what has been done in the Cape Colony, where, if I am not mistaken, there is pretty nearly a unanimous opinion against this action. Not only is this a serious thing in regard to the Transvaal, but it is also a serious thing in regard to the question of federation. If this dispute arises between the colonies will it not retard this great measure which some statesmen who know South Africa well look to as the final solution of the difficulty? I wish to be clearly understood. At the present moment the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony are Crown colonies. When we deal with self-governing colonies we have a prime principle on which we base our views, and that is that in all matters of internal government those colonies are to be supreme, and they are to settle what they consider right for the prosperity and benefit of the subjects of the Crown in those colonies. I at once admit that, if this question had been submitted to a self-governing colony, and if they had decided that it was necessary to introduce this large number of Chinese labourers, then, however much one might have disliked it, and dreaded the moral and social effect of such an act, and the position in which these Chinamen themselves would be under the restrictions under which they would be placed, I certainly should have accepted the position. But how can we tell, until free and responsible government is given to the Transvaal, that they are in favour of this stupendous and gigantic step? I think this is a matter that requires the profoundest attention. It was only yesterday that we had the Papers on the subject. It is impossible in twenty-four hours to deal with a Blue-book on the subject of the deficiency of labour in the Transvaal. But I notice there is a minority and a majority Report, and I rather think- there is no mention of the immigration of Chinese labourers into Africa. I hen, we have not got the important ordinance which has been passed. I have said enough to show that this is a matter of great importance; and I should like the

31
noble Marquess to say whether I am right in the belief that the Colonial Secretary has declared, in a letter which I think appeared in a newspaper within the last few days, that he does not intend to give his assent, or to allow this great change to be effected, until full discussion has taken place in Parliament.
Now I come to another matter which has been referred to to-night—I mean the Report from the Royal Commission which was presided over by Lord Elgin. I consider that a very important and a very remarkable document. It is couched in the most moderate terms. There is no attack upon the Government, no indictment of the Government, and in some respects it even defends the Government, But anybody who studies the evidence in that Report will I think, find a most serious indictment against the Government of the day for their conduct before the war and in the early part of the war with regard to the preparations and other matters. There are some who say that this report is not sufficient, because it only deals with the preparation for the war, the ammunition, transport, and other matters up to the time of the occupation of Pretoria. There is a great deal after that which also requires consideration. Well, I do not for a moment deny that there may be something in it; but I do think that the evidence giver is a very serious matter, and that Parliament cannot for a single moment overlook it. I have heard it stated in very high quarters that we must let bygones be bygones, and that we are not to consider that which has happened in the past; we are told to let the dead bury their dead—hat we must only look to what His Majesty's Government have done and what it is now proposed to do, the changes which are probably imminent in consequence of the evidence given before the Commission. I do not subscribe to that at all. I fully admit that there have been great changes. We have, indeed, had two changes in the office of Secretary of State for War, my noble friend opposite has become Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and his successor has become—has been promoted, if I may say so, to be—Secretary of State for India. I do not think that
32
these changes should prevent us from discussing the past.
The scheme at this moment presented to Parliament, and which, no doubt, is a very important one, must receive the most careful attention of Parliament. The Report covers the whole ground, and touches what took place in the preparations for the war. No doubt the Secretary for War is chiefly responsible for a great deal that has been found fault with. At the same time there are other members of the Government who must be held responsible. There was the then Colonial Secretary who knew of our want of preparation; he knew the position we were in while the negotiations were going on. I think he very rashly rushed to conclusions the negotiations when he knew that at any moment he might have expected that his action would bring about hostile action on the part of Mr. Kruger. He is responsible; but most of all I cannot allow that we are to absolve the Cabinet from responsibility for this great default. I do not want now to go at any length into this matter; I merely raise it to show that I shall have something to say on the subject of the blame which is to be attached to the Government. My Lords, I find that there was no plan of campaign before the war began. There was a great neglect of the information placed at the service of the Government by the Intelligence Department as to the strength of the forces of the Transvaal, the amount of ammunition, and the number of the guns that they had. All this seems to me to have been overlooked. Then as to ourselves, there was an insufficient supply of ammunition, and there was an enormous number of rifles with most imperfect sights, one of the most dangerous things to be placed in the hands of skilled riflemen. Here they had given them rifles which would not shoot properly. There are many other points which can be raised against the Government in regard to the conduct of the war. The country must be shown what has been the cause of these great errors; and I venture to say that the proper responsibility should be fixed on members of the Government, and the Government itself, for what I am afraid led to the prolongation of the war, and in many cases brought about disaster-

33
and certainly enormous expense, to the country. We on this side of the House shall not lose any opportunity that we may have to bring these matters before the House, which is so well able to discuss questions connected with the military and naval forces.
I have only one subject more to which I shall refer, and I fully admit that it is a subject which is of the greatest national importance that can be brought before the country. I refer to the fiscal question. We all know that since Parliament was prorogued, in every political centre in the country, discussion has been going on on one side and the other with regard to this great fiscal question. It has been conducted with great courage on one side by one man, and it has been conducted on the other side by his opponents with great ability. Now I cannot help referring to the manner in which this discussion has been carried on. The result of the action of the late Colonial Secretary—one result—is that it has entirely transformed and changed His Majesty's Government. First of all came the retirement of Mr. Chamberlain. It was followed by the resignations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary for India. Later on came the almost more important resignation of my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire, who, during the whole of the Government of Lord Salisbury and Mr. Balfour, had been one of the strongest pillars of that Government. At the same time another distinguished member of the Government, the Secretary for Scotland, highly respected not only in this House, but in Scotland, resigned. There were certain minor changes; and I venture to say that the Cabinet which existed before these resignations took place, before this transformation, was entirely changed.
I cannot go into the question which is likely to be raised here; I shall not tonight go into detail of the manner in which these changes took place. But I shall venture to point out the remarkable changes which have taken place in the line of the argument of the principal speaker, Mr. Chamberlain, in the conduct of his great campaign. He at first argued the question as an Imperialist. We were told that we must do something to keep united with us our colonies, that
34
we must make some sacrifices to do that, in the building up of a great Empire, and that it was of the utmost importance that this policy of his should be carried out. I confess that it always seemed to me a strange time to propose that special measures should be taken to unite our colonies immediately after the marvellous loyalty, patriotism, and devotion to this country shown by so many colonies during the war. It seemed to me almost an insult to say that we were obliged by some fiscal measure to secure that loyalty which, before any such preference had been given, had already been displayed by the colonies. Well, that was the commencement. We were told that we must sacrifice something to secure this union and co-operation. Any increase in cost to the people was to be made good to the working classes in various ways. At one time it was by old-age pensions. That has disappeared. In the autumn campaign we hardly ever heard anything, or very little, about preference. Protection took its place. That was to meet the attitude of the colonies themselves. We know from many sources of information that Canada objects to give us any preference or to abate in any way her duties, because Canada considers that that would injuriously affect her manufactures.
We have heard something with regard to New Zealand. We have lately seen a very eloquent and patriotic speech made by Mr. Seddon in introducing a measure with regard to tariffs. It may be that in one respect he has offered to do something as regards tea, but in every other respect he has not abated in the slightest degree the duties against British manufactures. The remarkable thing is that what is the most striking thing in this Bill is the proposal to give reciprocity to foreign countries. This is offered to any foreign country which is willing to make a reduction of its duties. I will venture to say that one reason for this change of attitude on the part of the ex-Colonial Secretary was that he found that the only force which was a potent one with the constituencies was this question of Protection. Therefore, I maintain that Mr. Chamberlain's policy is now one of Protection. If that is so, your Lordships will understand how those with whom I

35
act, who are strongly opposed to Protection, will make every effort to withstand and defeat a policy we consider so dangerous to the prosperity of the industry and trade of this country, and which will bring such difficulties on the working classes by increasing the cost of food and of necessaries of life. I wish to press on His Majesty's Government that they should declare their position. We have had statements from the Prime Minister, statements in which he has said he was quite ready to alter the fundamental fiscal position which has prevailed through generations, and what does this mean? Does it not indicate a wish to return to Protection? I am aware that he has said he is a free trader; but I cannot see how he can retain that character. He has given his benediction to Mr. Chamberlain's policy, but he has said we must not be in too great a hurry. He thinks it would be premature to adopt this policy now, that caution must be used in advancing on the lines of Mr. Chamberlain's policy, but he certainly does hold out a hope that at some future day, when the country has been prepared by the advocacy and the propagandism of Mr. Chamberlain, it may adopt preferential duties with our colonies, adopt the taxation of food; and there are those who support Mr. Balfour who would conform to that.
But is that the policy of His Majesty's Government? If we look to members of the Government we find various opinions expressed. We find these opinions of the Prime Minister, which, on the whole, are distinctly favourable to Mr. Chamberlain, supported by the new Colonial Secretary and others—I am not sure whether my noble friend opposite, the Minister for Agriculture, supports that view. On the other hand, there are Ministers who have repudiated that policy most distinctly; there is the noble Lord, now Postmaster-General, who made a most remarkable speech the other day, in which he said that though he was a supporter of Mr. Balfour, he would not remain in the Government if the Government took up anything like a policy involving taxation of food. Other Ministers have expressed similar views. But what is the Government policy—for a policy they must have—on this great
36
question? It is impossible for a Government to remain without a clear and distinct declaration of their position. This is a point I would like to put to your Lordships—is it right that a policy should be dangled before the country, should be held in suspense for a long time? The Prime Minister has said it cannot be decided for some time, and there is an idea that not one election can decide it. Will not this hesitation have a very injurious effect on the finance, the commerce, and the industry of the country? There are continual declarations from the President of the Board of Trade and others that the trade of the, country is declining, but I am convinced this is an entirely erroneous view, and that trade was never more prosperous in this country, though I admit some changes may be necessary, for we have to meet a keen and active competition from other nations, and must look to ourselves and see that we are fully armed for the struggle. The people of this country must be fully educated to meet this competition, but I cannot believe or admit that the trade and prosperity of this great country is on the wane. Such declarations cannot but be detrimental to the interests of this country abroad, and also at home. This is not agreed to by some who say the change is so far off that it does not affect the people at the present time, but I venture to think it must have a serious effect on the trade and industry of the country. I trust that very soon we shall have a decision that will remove all doubts that exist. I very earnestly appeal to His Majesty's Government to declare themselves on this subject. I understand the position taken up by Mr. Chamberlain. It is quite clear; but I defy anyone, however ingenious, however able, to understand the position of the Government. I appeal to them to make their position clear. It is their duty to do so. Though this is a matter that should principally be debated in another place, we shall not here sit quiet, but take every opportunity we can—and we hope we may not be entirely without support from some Members on the other side of the House whose patriotism will come before their adherence to Party—to bring this question before the country, if possible to awaken

37
the people to a proper sense of the stupendous effect this great change would have on the prosperity of the country.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, before I address myself to the controversial matters with which the noble Earl 'has dealt in the course of his speech, there is one subject upon which I will ask to be allowed to say a very few words. It was touched upon by the noble Earl and also by the noble Lord who seconded the Address. I refer to the great loss, the irreparable loss, this House has sustained by the death of the late Lord Salisbury. It has been truly said his position in this House was unique. We think of him as a great statesman, as a great Party Leader, as a great diplomatist, but to us who had the advantage of sitting with him in this House he will always appear above all things a great and illustrious Member of the House of Lords. No one ever took a more prominent part in upholding the best traditions of this Assembly, no one imparted more authority and dignity to its debates; and even towards the close of his life, when those of us who watched him closely noticed, with pain, signs of the weariness which resulted from long years of public service and responsibility, even then we listened to him as we listened to no other Member of the House of Lords. Surely we who lament him may say of him, with regret and reverence, "Oh, how much wisdom sleeps with thee." I pass from this subject in order to associate myself with the noble Earl in congratulating my two noble friends who moved and seconded the Address. I do not think I ever had the privilege of hearing what has always seemed to me to be a most difficult and most embarrassing duty performed with greater taste and ability. My noble friend the mover has had the advantage of apprenticeship in the House of Commons, and has no doubt derived benefit from the invigorating atmosphere of that Assembly. The noble Lord who seconded served his apprenticeship in the Diplomatic Service; and I must say that, as I listened to his well-chosen words and noticed the felicity with which he expressed himself, I felt that the House of Lords had gained a valuable
38
recruit and that the Diplomatic Service had lost one who would have taken a useful, I might almost say an eminent part in that profession. Both my noble friends, speaking with becoming modesty, asked your Lordships to grant to them the indulgence never refused to those who address the House of Lords for the first time, and I ask leave of my noble friends to stand alongside them for once. I cannot claim from your Lordships indulgence as a young and inexperienced Member of this Assembly, but I am reminded by what has been so kindly and considerately said by the noble Earl that I need the indulgence of your Lordships at least as much as my two noble friends. We in this House always succeed in maintaining courteous and considerate relations between those who sit on different sides of it; and I must express my thanks to the noble Earl and tell him how deeply I am touched by the kindly references he made, not only to myself, but to a predecessor of mine, who bore the name I now bear with a distinction to which I can never aspire.
I now pass to the different matters which the noble Earl referred to in the course of his remarks. The noble Earl was good enough to congratulate His Majesty's Government on the contents of the first four paragraphs of the Speech from the Throne. I feel sure that all of us will regard with genuine satisfaction the fact that so considerable an approximation has taken place between the great country which is our neighbour on the other side of the Channel and ourselves. I do not think you will find, either here or in France, that too much credit is taken to themselves by the diplomatists of either country for this happy condition of things. It is due, no doubt, partly to those courtesies which have recently been exchanged and to which reference has been made; but I believe it to be due mainly to a deep-seated conviction on the part of the peoples of the two countries that there is no real divergence between our interests, that the greatest of our common interests is peace, and that there is no greater security for the peace of Europe than that it should be desired both by France and Great Britain.

39
The Treaty of Arbitration, to which reference is made in the Gracious Speech, is a very strictly limited one, but it is valuable as giving expression to the feelings which I have just endeavoured to describe; and it has been followed by a similar Treaty with Italy, signed within the last two-days, and by a Treaty with the Netherlands, which is in course of negotiation. In the case of the United States we have endeavoured to translate into practice what in the treaties with France and Italy is laid down as a matter of principle. It is quite true that the tribunal which has lately disposed of the Alaska difficulty, was not, strictly speaking, an arbitral tribunal. It affords, nevertheless, an illustration of the possibility of settling by other than diplomatic means a long-standing and dangerous international difference. I describe it as dangerous because the frontier of Alaska might at any moment have brought us into serious and acute controversy with the United States. And for this reason, that the Alaskan frontier might have been challenged not only by diplomatic protests, but by overt acts on the part of the population which has resorted to that remote country for the purpose of pursuing the mining industry. Any serious clashing on the spot between the settlers belonging to Canada, on the one hand, or to the United States on the other, might at any moment have brought about an incident of the utmost gravity. It is therefore most fortunate that we should have been successful in removing that question from the path of our diplomacy. The result in the finding of the tribunal has no doubt not been entirely satisfactory to us, and in this respect I do not draw any distinction between the interests of the Dominion of Canada and our interests. The question at issue is a question of the position not merely of the frontier of Canada, but of the frontier of the British Empire, for the defence and the integrity of which we are responsible. But, my Lords, I do not think that any one seriously expected that we should obtain a favourable verdict on all points; and I am inclined to find some consolation in the fact that our military and naval advisers tell us confidently that the two islands in the Portland Channel which,
40
under this award were given to the United States, are of no strategical value whatever.
The noble Earl expressed disappointment that more progress had not been made in bringing about an improvement in the position of the long-suffering and misgoverned population in Macedonia. The policy of the Government has been based upon a desire to avoid a breach of the peace in Macedonia, and upon an equally sincere desire to bring about an amelioration of the condition of the population. I connect these two objects very closely, because there can be no doubt that if a conflagration were to break out in the Balkan Peninsula the greatest and most immediate sufferers would be the unfortunate inhabitants of those vilayets in which the recent disturbances have occurred. We have, at any rate, come to the conclusion that we could not do better than support the two Powers—Austria-Hungary and Russia —in the schemes of reform which they have put forward. But, as the Papers which have been laid on the Table, I believe to-day, will show your Lordships, we have spared no efforts in order to give to these schemes as much completeness as possible, and we have made it perfectly plain to all concerned that if these schemes should fail to produce the desired result, we reserve to ourselves entire liberty to take into consideration and to propose alternative and more far-reaching measures. I think we may fairly say that something has been achieved, and I trust that advantage will be taken of the next few weeks in order to accelerate the introduction of those reforms. The situation is undoubtedly an extremely grave one, and I can conceive no greater misfortune than that, either on account of dilatoriness on the part of those who are putting forward these measures, or on account of obstructiveness on the part of the Porte, we should find ourselves once more at the beginning of what may, I suppose, be called the fighting season without any real progress having been achieved in the direction which we so much desire.
In his reference to the negotiations between Japan and Russia, the noble Earl asked me whether he might infer from the language of the paragraph in His

41
Majesty's Speech that His Majesty's Government had used their good offices with the object of bringing about an understanding between the Powers. My answer to that is this. I believe it to be an axiom of diplomacy that it is not desirable to offer your good offices unless you have reason to know that they are desired. We have not been invited to extend our good offices; and it is indeed, I believe, an open secret that one, at all events, of the disputants has intimated plainly that he does not desire mediation at the present time. We have therefore, I think, been perfectly correct in advising the use in the Gracious Speech of language which shows that our desire certainly is to promote a pacific solution, and that if the opportunity of contributing to that end should happily present itself, we should be glad and ready to avail ourselves of it.
The noble Earl referred to the paragraph in which the Speech deals with the military operations in Somaliland. He expressed a very natural feeling of impatience at the manner in which these operations are being prolonged. I feel quite as impatient as he does. But it is our duty to bear in mind that the country is one in which the forces engaged have not only to contend with a formidable enemy, but with conditions of climate which render operations most arduous and most difficult. These operations in their earlier stages were certainly not wholly unsuccessful; but they were not so conclusive but that we thought it necessary to enlarge their scope and to endeavour to deal a crushing blow to the personage who has been commonly referred to as the Mullah. The noble Earl asked us why we could not establish ourselves strongly within our own settlements and avoid entangling ourselves in operations outside their limits. The answer to that is that we have not been allowed to do so. The noble Earl is no doubt aware that we not only have settlements actually on the coast, but that there are tribes immediately adjoining those settlements who have entered into arrangements with us, and who have a right to claim our protection. Beyond those tribes there lies the friendly kingdom of Abyssinia, and beyond that our East African Protector-
42
ate. It is impossible for us to allow a region of this kind to fall a prey to a Mahdi or to a Mullah, or indeed to any one who is capable of organising a fanatical movement, the extent of which it would be impossible to foretell. You may find it convenient to leave things alone and to allow the movement to develop itself, but you have always to pay for it in the long run. We at any rate have determined that these operations shall not conclude until the Mullah has been taught a sufficient lesson. The extent of the success achieved by Colonel Egerton can scarcely yet be fully gauged, but there is no doubt that he has dealt a very severe blow to the Mullah's prestige and that our position in Somaliland is at this moment infinitely stronger than it was a few months ago.
The noble Earl spoke in feeling terms of the losses by which these operations have been attended. In all such operations we pay a penalty in the shape of a long casualty list which invariably includes an undue proportion of British officers. There is no attribute of our British officers of which we have more reason to be proud than their power of leading troops and levies drawn from comparatively uncivilised countries and races. The secret of that success is this, that they never shrink from exposing themselves wherever danger is greatest, with the result that they too often pay the penalty with their lives; I am sure every Member of your Lordships' House will join with the noble Earl in offering our sympathy to a popular and much respected Member of the House of Lords who has suffered a grievous and lamentable bereavement in this recent action. It is satisfactory to know that these operations have been considerably assisted by the Italian Government, which has allowed us to make use of Italian ports, and has in particular done a great deal to suppress that pernicious traffic in arms which does so much to aggravate the difficulties of those engaged in warfare of this kind.
Then the noble Earl asked me a series of questions with regard to the mission to Thibet, and expressed a hope that an explanation would be given of the circumstances in which that mission originated. We are laying Papers on the

43
Table, and the Noble Earl will learn from them that this affair had its origin, not, as seems sometimes to he supposed, in a British invasion of Thibet, but in a Thibetan invasion of a State under British protection. That event took place some years ago. We treated the Thibetans with the utmost leniency; we did not deprive them of any territory, we did not ask them for any indemnity. All we did ask for was that they should enter into a neighbourly agreement with us, under which the frontier was to be clearly demarcated and facilities were given to persons engaged in trade across it. That agreement, so entered into, has been constantly broken; the boundary pillars have been removed, peaceful traders have been interfered with, our agents have been turned back, our letters have been returned unopened, and British subjects have been arrested and carried away. It is impossible that we should tolerate conduct of that kind, and the Government of India very properly determined to insist on obtaining a more satisfactory arrangement for the future. Then, says the noble Earl, "Why have you not been content to deal with this matter through the Chinese Government?" The answer to that is this. In 1890 we did deal with the Chinese Government, and the agreement then entered into by the Chinese Envoy, aided by a Thibetan assessor, was absolutely repudiated by the Thibetans. On this occasion, although we have again invoked the assistance of China, we have done so quite in vain. The Chinese Government began by sending down an officer of inferior rank and quite incapable of assisting the conduct of the negotiations. The Chinese representative at Lhasa endeavoured to dissuade the Thibetans from continuing their opposition, but he attempted to do so in vain. Finally, it may interest the noble Earl to know that the Chinese Government deputed an envoy to go to Thibet for the express purpose of settling these matters; that that envoy left Pekin in December, 1902, and is still on his way to Lhasa. I think, therefore, I am justified in saying that the Chinese Government are a broken reed to lean upon.
The noble Earl asked whether this Thibetan mission does not come within the purview of the 55th clause of the
44
Government of India Act. That clause runs thus—
"Except for preventing or repelling actual invasion of Her Majesy's Indian possessions, or under other and urgent necessity, the revenue of India shall not, without the consent of both Houses of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operations carried on beyond the external frontiers of such possessions by Her Majesty's forces charged upon such revenues."
We do not admit that the Thibetan mission, which is described in the Speech as a political mission, is a military operation. That matter has been thoroughly considered by the Government of India, and they are satisfied that there has been no contravention of the Act. So far as the people of Thibet are concerned, Colonel Younghusband seems to have been received in a very friendly manner. The opposition he has to encounter is, we believe, entirely confined to the monks at Lhasa, who constitute the civil and religious authority in that strange country.
Then the noble Earl passed to events in South Africa, and expressed his surprise that no information was forthcoming in the King's Speech with regard to the progress of settlement in that country, the number of troops employed there, the state of the finances, and last, but not least, the question of Chinese labour. I really think that a Speech from the Throne including subjects of this kind would be an extremely unusual document. So far as the general position of affairs in South Africa is concerned, I hope the noble Earl will be content to let us discuss that question on some more suitable occasion. But I do feel called upon to say a few words in reply to his observations as to the question of the employment of Chinese labour. The noble Earl said that in a self-governing colony he did not believe that the kind of action we were about to encourage or permit would be tolerated.
EARL SPENCER: Oh, no. I said that whatever is done in self-governing colonies, however much we might criticise the importation of Chinese labour, we should not interfere.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Of course this is not a self-governing

45
colony; but it has been the desire of His Majesty's Government to deal with this question as nearly as possible as if we were dealing with a self-governing colony. That is the gist of our policy, and I think I am justified in pointing to the manner in which this proposal to introduce Asiatic labour has been supported in the Transvaal and in South Africa generally. I find that at the Bloemfontein Conference last year—a Conference at which all the South African Colonies were represented —a resolution was carried in favour of the introduction of Asiatic unskilled labour under proper Government control and on the understanding that the labourers should be repatriated at the expiration of their period of service. Then I find that the Labour Commission reported by a majority of ten to two in favour of that step. Then comes the action of the Legislative Council of the Transvaal, which decided in favour of the introduction of Asiatic labour by a majority of twenty-two to four. Finally, I find that a petition has been signed by more than half the male population of the Transvaal in favour of the introduction of Asiatic labour. Dealing as we were with a colony without self-governing institutions, we could not possibly have a greater weight of local authority in support of the proposed measure. I am afraid that the figure of 100,000 which the noble Earl gave us is not one founded upon fact. I believe that what is proposed is that 10,000 of these labourers shall be introduced as an experiment. Lastly, I have to say that the noble Earl is quite correct in stating that the Colonial Secretary has announced that nothing will be finally settled on this point until opportunity has been offered for a full discussion in Parliament. My noble friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies reminds me that the Papers will be presented as soon as possible.
Now I should like to say a few words on a question which I need not tell your Lordships has aroused a deep interest in the country and has probably a deeper interest for me than for any other Member of your Lordships' House —I mean the Report of Lord Elgin's Commission. That report—the great value of which I am fully prepared to admit—may be used either for one or
46
both of two purposes. You may endeavour to find in it the materials for an indictment of the Government which was in power when the South African war broke out. If you desire to use it for that purpose we are quite ready to meet you. The noble Earl admitted that the report was by no means a condemnation of the then Government at all points. If we are to deal with the report as an indictment of the Government of 1899, we shall ask you to confine yourselves to the terms of that report and to bear in mind, as the noble Earl has admitted, that the report is by no means one which entirely condemns us. I think I shall be able to show that on some points upon which we were most severely criticised at the time, the Commission have reported in our favour. I hope I did not correctly understand what was said by the noble Earl when he told us, as I thought, that he proposed to turn from the report to the obiter dicta of the witnesses. There is an immense amount of evidence published with the report, but I think we have a right to ask that the noble Earl should accept the finding of the Commission, and not try to qualify that finding by citations from the opinions of the witnesses who were examined by the Commission. But this historical and personal aspect of the case, interesting as it may be, painfully interesting as it may be to some of us, is not after all the most important aspect of the report. Its great value is this—that it teaches us, upon authority, the lessons to be learned from the South African war, and, as to that, I hope your Lordships will consider that we have at any rate not been slow to take advantage of the suggestions and advice which are given to us by the Commissioners. Your Lordships have already seen the report of that smaller Committee which was appointed to advise the Secretary of State as to the manner in which effect might be given to some of the Commission's recommendations; and I shall be surprised if any Member of this House is found to say that the report of Lord Esher's Committee is wanting in thoroughness or courage. We intend to act upon it so far as its main principles are concerned; and when the time comes for discussing these questions in your Lord-

47
ships' House you will have before you the facts as disclosed by the report of the Elgin Commission and a clear and distinct statement of the manner in which we propose to deal with the most important subject dealt with in that inquiry—I mean the organisation of the War Office itself.
The noble Earl, at the close of his speech, addressed your Lordships upon that fiscal question which now looms so much in the foreground of our political life. I have no doubt we shall be given frequent opportunity of discussing it, and I therefore treat the noble Earl's observations as more in the nature of a reconnaissance in force than of a frontal attack. But he made one or two observations as to which I should like to say a word. I observe that, following a course which is not very unusual on the part of his friends, he, attacked us, not for any policy which we have ourselves put forward, or to which we are in any way committed, but for the policy which has been put forward and recommended to the country by the late Colonial Secretary. I did not catch, in the course of the noble Earl's speech, any serious complaint of the policy which has been laid before the country by the Prime Minister, except that he did not think the Prime Minister had sufficiently defined it; he asked us whether we could tell him what that policy really was. I must say that I thought Mr. Balfour, in the document which he published, and in the speech which he delivered at Sheffield, followed later by a speech which he delivered at Manchester, had very successfully and completely defined the policy which we as a Government have accepted. It is the policy which is usually, for convenience sake, described as the policy of negotiation and retaliation. I have never heard that noble Lords opposite seriously contend that freedom of negotiation is not a freedom which we should be allowed to enjoy; and, as for retaliation, in all the speeches delivered by noble Lords opposite and their friends, I notice that there is always a saving clause about retaliation, and I also notice that that saving clause is always received by the audience with apparently much more enthusiasm than the other parts of their speeches.
48
The gist of the attack is that we do not conceal our sympathy with the objects which Mr. Chamberlain has proclaimed. I am here to say that I for one certainly do not wish to conceal my sympathy with Mr. Chamberlain's aspirations and objects. The aim of his policy is to draw the different parts of the Empire more closely together, to put the affairs of the Empire, if I may so say, upon a more business footing than has hitherto been the case. Is that an object which any patriotic Englishman can regard with disapproval or indifference? I certainly was under the impression that all of us, for years past, have been seeking to find some way of drawing the colonies nearer to us; and surely the present moment, when the colonies, as is shown in the Speech from the Throne, are, on their side, ready to assume a larger proportion of the burden of Imperial defence, when they are ready to give our commerce facilities which are denied to other-countries, is not the moment when we can afford to say that we will exclude altogether from discussion proposals of this kind. We admit—we have never concealed—that proposals of this kind require the most careful examination. We recognise the immense difficulties which have to be overcome before a practical shape can be given to them—difficulties which are not only of an economical, but of a political kind. And, as I have once or twice ventured to say in this House, I am not sure that the political difficulties are not more serious than the economical.
Well, in these circumstances, having explained with absolute clearness the limits of the policy which we are prepared to adopt and to recommend to the country, we say that the question of an extension of that policy of the kind proposed by Mr. Chamberlain is one with which we are not prepared to deal at the present time. Is that a very ignominious position to take up? The question is one of enormous gravity. If the reward of success in dealing with it might be great, the consequences of failure might be irreparable; and I venture to say that we are only showing common prudence when we decline to be rushed into a decision. You are always complaining of us because you suppose that we have sprung this

49
question upon you and endeavoured to rush you into a decision. Then why is it that you wish to rush us into a negative of all these proposals? If you desire time to look about you, are we unreasonable in asking for a little time for the same purpose? Our position seems to me perfectly logical, and, in the meantime, we are fully prepared to defend the policy which we have accepted; and we shall not be very much moved by the ingenious criticism which goes to show that amongst the members of the Cabinet, or the members of the Government, there may be various shades and gradations of opinion—that some of us are more sanguine and that others are less sanguine with regard to the future—so long as we present a solid front in regard to that part of the policy which we have examined and to which, as a Government, we are committed. I have endeavoured to deal with most of the points which the noble Earl has raised. I am afraid that if I had made it my business to follow him in detail on all of them I should have kept your Lordships to a late hour. It only remains for me to thank your Lordships for the patience with which you have listened to me. I have, during my long period of service in this House, constantly had to take advantage of your Lordships' forbearance and generosity, and I trust that in the new position in which I have been unexpectedly placed by the events of the last few months I may look forward to the same patience and the same kindness which your Lordships have never failed to extend to mo in past years.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I had not intended to intervene, but there is one topic on which I wish to say a word. I refer to the great loss which this House has sustained in the death of the late Lord Salisbury. I, who enjoyed for many years his personal friendship, feel it is impossible to remain silent and not to associate myself with what has been said by the seconder of the Address, by the noble Marquess, and by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition. I would associate myself with those observations which have been made and I
50
feel that in saying anything about him in this House it is an idle thing to attempt to say anything of one with whom your Lordships were so familiar. He has too often exhibited the phenomena of "thoughts that breathe, and words that burn" in this House to render any words from those who appreciated his friendship and admired his genius necessary to enhance the admiration with which we all regarded him. He is a loss, I was going to say, not only to his own country, but to Europe; and I think even that would be less than the truth, because it will be true to say that the whole civilised world must miss one who was a great leader of men and of men's thoughts, and one to whose judgment and sagacity from time to time men of all countries and all races have appealed. But of him, as of some other statesmen, I think it is true to say that the extent of his loss the world does not always understand. His colleagues know better how great that loss is, because they know how much has been saved from time to time by the wisdom and sagacity with which affairs have been conducted. And it is the very fact of success that has sometimes buried in oblivion things which might have led to calamities which his wisdom and sagacity have avoided. The very fact of what he has done has buried in oblivion those things which might have led to war; and I can say most truly, that, in my view, on more than one occasion, his patience and forbearance, his tact and courage, have saved his country from what might have been a calamitous war. I will not trust myself to speak of him as a friend and colleague. No one, I believe, who ever came within the sphere of his influence has failed implicity to trust him, and no man ever trusted him in vain.
I will not be provoked into reference to the other matters which the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition has brought before us. I could not help feeling while I was listening to him that his speech ought logically to have been followed by an Amendment to the Address, and in that case it would have been possible for your Lordships to have expressed an opinion one way or the other. But vague, general declamation against the existing Government, not followed by anything which

51
can give power to your Lordships to express an opinion one way or the other, is not a form of discussion which I think is favourable to those who have an answer to give. I have no doubt that on many occasions we shall have an opportunity of discussing all these topics, and then I shall give myself the satisfaction of occasionally replying to some of the observations which I feel to be unjust, but which this is not the appropriate occasion to discuss.
On Question, agreed to nemine dissentiente, and ordered to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
The Earl of Morley—Appointed, nemine dissentiente, to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this session.
Committee for Privileges—Appointed.
Committee for the Journals—Appointed.
Stoppages in the Streets—Order to prevent, renewed.
Appeal Committee—Appointed.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (RECESS).
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the following Papers having been commanded to be presented to this House by His Majesty had been so presented on the following dates by delivery to the Clerk of the Parliaments, pursuant to Standing Order No. CXI., viz.—
PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (RECESS).

  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  I. Abstracts showing acreage under crops and the number of live stock in each county and province, 1802–1903. (August 15).

  II. (Migratory Labourers). Report and Tables relating to Irish migratory agricultural and other labourers for the year 1903. (November 4).

  III. Table showing the extent in statute acres, and the produce of crops for the year 1903. (December 30).

  WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the military preparations and other matters connected with the war in South Africa; with Minutes of
  52
  Evidence (Vols. I. and II.) and Appendices. (September 10).

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  I. Return for the month of May, 1903. (August 19.)

  II. Return for the month of June,1903. (September 28.)

  III. Return for the month of July, 1903 (October 14.)

  IV. Return for the month of August, 1903. (October 29.)

  V. Return for the month of September, 1903. (November 24.)

  VI. Return for the month of October, 1903. (December 19.)

  TRADE REPORTS.—I. ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3066. China (Amoy.)
  No. 3067. Portugal (Lorenco Marques). (August 21.)
  No. 3068. Germany (Dantzig).
  No. 3069. France (French Guinea).
  No. 3070. Italy (South Italy, Supplementary). (August 27.)
  No. 3071. France (Algeria). (August 29.)
  No. 3072. Russia (Riga). (September 1.)
  No. 3073. Austria-Hungary.
  No. 3074. Greece (Ionian Islands). (August 29.)
  No. 3075. Austria-Hungary (Bohemia). (September 2.)
  No. 3076. Cuba.
  No. 3077. Costa Rica.
  No. 3078. Netherlands (Dutch Guiana). (September 5.)
  No. 3079. Peru.
  No. 3080. Italy (Sicily).
  No. 3081. China (Wuhu). (September 10.)
  No. 3082. Austria-Hungary (Fiume).
  No. 3083. Netherlands (Finances of the Netherlands, 1902–3). (September 25.)
  No. 3084. Japan (Nagasaki). (September 15.)
  No. 3085. Germany.
  No. 3086. Finland. (September 19.)
  No. 3087. France (Madagascar).
  No. 3088. Spain (Canary Islands). (September 22.)
  No. 3089. France (Senegal and Dependencies).
  No. 3090. Italy (Lombardy). (September 24.)
  No. 3091. Hayti.
  No. 3092. China. (October 5.)
  No. 3093. Morocco (Dar-al-Baida and District). (October 10.)
  No. 3094. Austria-Hungary (Bosnia and Herzegovina).
  No. 3095. Italy (Ancona). (October L3.)
  No. 3096. Borneo (Brunei, Sarawak, and British North Borneo). (October 15.)
  No. 3097. Turkey (Crete).
  No. 3098. United States (Charleston and District). (October 16.)
  No. 3099. Siam (Bangkok).
  No. 3100. Turkey (Salonica).
  No. 3101. France. (October 21.)
  No. 3102. Russia (Reval). (October 27.)
  No. 3103. Morocco (Tangier and District). (October 28.)
  No. 3104. Belgium. (November 7).
  No. 3105. Russia (Archangel). (November 18.)
  No. 3106. France (French Guiana).
  No. 3107. Brazil (Para).
  No. 3108. Russia (Trans-Caucasus).
  No. 3109. Persia (Resht). (December 3.)
  No. 3110. Italy (Sardinia). (December 22.)
  No. 3111. Switzerland. (December 30.)
  No. 3112. Mexico.
  No. 3113. Denmark. (January 30.)
  No. 3114. Columbia (excepting the Panama District).
  No. 3115. Russia (Consular District of Rostox-on-Don). (February I.)

  II. MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
  No. 596. Instruction in forestry and forest economy in Germany. (September 15.)
  No. 597. Germany (instruction in mining and metallurgy in Germany and the German mining and metallurgical industries). (October 9.)
  No. 598. Coffee trade in Colombia. (November 3.)
  No. 599. Germany (beer brewing industry of Bavaria). (November 12.)
  No. 600. Technical instruction in Germany. (The building and engineering trades' schools). (November 12.)
  No. 601. Technical instruction in Germany. (Special schools and courses for mechanical engineering and electro-technics). (January 2.)

  AFRICA.
  No 11. (1903). Reports on the geology of the East Africa Protectorate by the late E. E. Walker (Government Geologist). (August 22.)
  No. 12. (1903). Report by the Mombasa-Victoria Railway Committee on the progress of the works and revenue working, 1902–1903 (with two maps). (August 22.)
  No. 13. (1903). Report on the trade and general conditions of the British Central Africa Protectorate for the year 1902–1903, by Major F. B. Pearce, Acting Commissioner. (September 10.)
  No. 14 (1903). Despatch to certain of His Majesty's Representatives abroad in regard to alleged cases of ill-treatment of natives, and to the existence of trade monopolies in the Independent State of the Congo. (October 21.)
  No. 15. (1903.) General Report on the Uganda Protectorate, for the year ended 31st March, 1903. (December 19.)

  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 395. Seychelles (Report for 1902). (August 29.)
  No. 396. Ceylon (Report for 1902). (September 28.)'
  No. 397. Gold Coast (Report for 1902). (September 30.)
  No. 398. Barbados (Report for 1902–1903). (October 8.)
  No. 399. Fiji (Report for 1902). (October 10.)
  No. 400. Lagos (Report for 1902). (October 15.)
  No. 401. British Solomon Islands (Report for 1902–1903).
  No. 402. Cocos-Keeling Islands (Report for 1903). (October 21.)
  No. 403. St. Vincent (Report for 1902–903). (October 28.)
  No. 404. Grenada (Report for 1902). (November 25.)
  No. 405. Southern Nigeria (Report for 1902). (November 26.)
  No. 406. Straits Settlements (Report for 1902). (November 27.)
  No. 407. Trinidad and Tobago (Report for 1902–1903). (November 28.)
  No. 408. Basutoland (Report for 1902– 1903). (December 3.)
  No. 409. Northern Nigeria (Report for 1902). (December 4.)
  No. 410. Malta (Report for 1902–1903). (December 10.)
  No 411. St. Lucia (Report for 1902). (December 16.)
  No. 412. Mauritius (Report for 1902). (December 29.)
  No. 413. British Guiana (Report for 1902–1903). (January 2.)

  MISCELLANOUS.
  No. 22. Seychelles (Report on Para rubber). (September 15.)
  No. 23. Dominica (Roads and Land Settlement. Report on the expenditure of the Parliamentary Grant-in-Aid). (September 22.)
  No. 24. Grenada (Report on Land Settlement in Carriacou). (November 24.)
  No. 25. Hong-Kong (Bubonic Plague: Memorandum on the treatment of patients in their own homes and in local hospitals). (December 8.)

  CANADA.
  Canadian Sessional Paper containing correspondence in connection with German tariff. (August 29.)

  HIGHWAYS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  I. Part I.—Report of.

  II. Part II.—Minutes of evidence taken before the Committee appointed by the President of the Local Government Board to inquire into the subject of highway authorities and administration in England and Wales; together with appendix and index of evidence. (August 29.)

  MINES AND QUARRIES (GENERAL REPORT AND STATISTICS FOR 1902).
  I. Part II. Labour.—General Report and Statistics relating to persons employed and accidents at mines and quarries in the United Kingdom and to the enforcement of the Mines and Quarries Act. (September 1.)

  II. Part III. Output. —General Report and Statistics relating to the out put and value of minerals raised in the United Kingdom, the amount and value of the metals produced, and the imports and exports of minerals. (October 17.)

  IMPERIAL INSTITUTE (INDIAN SECTION.)
  Annual Report for the year 1902–1903. (September 4.)
  STATISTICS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Statistical Abstract for the principal and other foreign countries in each year from 1891 to 1900–1901 (as far as the particulars can be stated), 29th Number. (September 4.)

  TREATY SERIES.
  No. 12. (1903.)—Convention between the United Kingdom and France respecting commercial relations between France and Jamaica; signed at London, 8th August, 1902. (Ratifications exchanged at London, 12th August, 1903.) (September 10.)
  No. 13. (1903.)—Accession of Mexico to the Industrial Property Convention, 1883, and Additional Act of 1900. (September 7.)
  No. 14. (1903.)—Accession of Germany to the Industrial Property Convention of 20th March, 1883, £c., 1st May, 1903. (September 25.)
  No. 15. (1903.)—Parcel Post Convention with detailed regulations between the United Kingdom and Chile; signed at Santiago, 21st October, 1902. (October 7.)
  No. 16. (1903.)—Protocol for submitting to arbitration certain questions as to the interpretation of treaties with Japan with regard to leases held in perpetuity; signed at Tokio, 28th August, 1902. (October 23.)
  No. 17. (1903.)—Treaty between the United Kingdom and China respecting commercial relations, etc.; signed at Shanghai, 5th September, 1902. (Ratifications exchanged at Peking, 28th July, 1903.) (November 3.)
  No.18. (1903.)—Agreement between the United Kingdom and France providing for the settlement by arbitration of certain classes of questions which may arise between the two Governments; signed at London, 14th October, 1903. (November 26.)
  No. 1. (1904.)—Convention for the establishment of a parcel post service between the United States and Hong-Kong; signed at Washington, 21st November, 1903. (January 19.)

  CENSUS (SCOTLAND), 1901.
  Eleventh Decennial Census of the Population of Scotland taken 31st March, 1901, with Report (Vol. III). (September 15.)
  CENSUS (ENGLAND AND WALES), 1901.
  Index to Population Tables for England and Wales in the County Volumes of the Census Report, 1901. (October 23.)
  WEST INDIES.
  Further correspondence relating to the volcanic eruptions in St. Vincent and Martinique in 1902 and 1903. (September 19.)

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  I. (Ireland). Forty-first Report of the Inspector for the year ended 31st December, 1902. (September 21.)

  II. (Great Britain). Forty-sixth Re port, for the year 1902, of the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools. Part II. General Report and Appendices III. to XI. (October 23.)

  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Report of the Commissioners of Prisons and the Directors of Convict Prisons, with Appendices, for the year ended 31st March, 1903. (September 22.)
  INDIA (STATISTICAL ABSTRACT).
  Statistical Abstract relating to British India, from 1892–1893 to 1901–1902, 37th Number. (September 23.)
  Review of India in 1902–1903. (September 24.)
  BANKING, RAILWAY, AND SHIPPING STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Report for June, 1903. (September 28.)
  COLONIAL IMPORT DUTIES, 1903.
  Return relating to the rates of import duties levied upon the principal and other articles imported into the Colonial and other Possessions of the United Kingdom. (October 9.)

  COMMERCIAL.
  No. 8 (1903).—Reports from certain of His Majesty's Representatives abroad respecting Forestry Laws. (October 9.)
  No. 9. (1903).—Return of Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses in existing Treaties of Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain and Foreign Powers, stating the period when terminable, and showing whether they apply
  58
  to the British Colonies; in force on 1st July, 1903. (October 20.)

  BOARD OF MANUFACTURES (SCOTLAND).
  Report of Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the administration of the Board of Manufactures. (October 10.)
  MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE LAW (COLONIES).
  Papers relating to laws of marriage and divorce in self-governing British Colonies. (October 10.)
  CYPRUS.
  Despatch from the High Commissioners covering a Report on the agricultural fund, for the year ended 31st March, 1903. (October 10.)
  POLICE (METROPOLIS).
  Report of the Commissioner of Police of Metropolis, for the year 1902. (October 12.)
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP.
  Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops, for the year ended, 1902. Part II., Tables. (October 16.)

  TURKEY.
  No. 4. (1903.) Further correspondence respecting affairs of South-Eastern Europe. (October 16.)
  No. 1. (1904.) Further correspondence respecting affairs of South-Eastern Europe. March to September, 1903. (January 11.)

  AGRARIAN OUTRAGES (IRELAND).
  I. Return for the quarter ended 30th September, 1903. (October 17.)

  II. Return for the quarter ended 31st December, 1903. (January 21.)

  ARMY (MILITARY PRISONS).
  Report for the year 1902. (October 19.)
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1903.
  Tables showing the populations of counties, local government districts, and burghs in Scotland with reference to the provisions of the Act. (October 21.)
  INEBRIATES ACTS (INSPECTOR'S REPORT).
  Report of Inspector under the Inebriates Acts, 1879–1900, for the year 1902. (October 21.)
  Reports respecting Peterhead Harbour Works (in continuation of [Cd. 1288]). (October 22.)
  NAVAL MANOEUVRES.
  Report of Naval Manœuvres of 1903, carried out by combined Mediterranean, Home and Channel Fleets, and the Cruiser Squadron, from the 5th to the 11th August, 1903. (October 22.)

  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Report on the Manuscripts of:—

  I The Duke of Buccleuch and Queens-berry, K.G., K.T., preserved at Drumlanrig Castle. Vol. II. (October 23.)

  II. Mrs. Stopford-Sackville, of Drayton House, Northamptonshire. Vol. I. (January 16.)

  ARMY.
  I. (Volunteer Corps). Annual Return of the Volunteer Corps of Great Britain, for the year 1902. (October 23.)

  II. List of exceptions to the Army Regulations as to pay, non-effective pay, and allowances sanctioned by the Commissioners of the Treasury, pursuant to the Royal Warrant, dated 27th October, 1884, during the year 1902–1903. (November 17.)

  III. (Recuiting) Annual Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting, for the first nine months of the year 1903.(January 19.)

  IV. Return of rifle ranges in the United Kingdom. (January 21.)

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  I. Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 30th September, 1903. (October 23.)

  II. Return of the number of eviction notices filed during the quarter ended 31st December, 1903. (January 26.)

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Return of Evictions in Ireland—

  I. For the quarter ended 30th September, 1903. (October 30.)

  60

  II. For the quarter ended 31st December, 1903. (January 29th.)

  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1869.
  Report on the Judicial Statistics of Scotland, for the year 1902. (October 27.)
  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.
  Reports on the Federated Malay States for 1902. (October 28.)
  Preliminary Conference at Berlin on wireless telegraphy; Procés-Verbaux and Protocole Final. (October 30.)

  EDUCATION.
  I. Regulations relating to the Royal College of Science, the Royal College of Art, and to museums under the Board of Education. (From the 1st August, 1903. to 31st July, 1904.) (November 2.)

  II. Special Reports on educational subjects (Report on the school training and early employment of Lancashire children). (December 11.)

  III. Statement of schemes for the formation of education committees approved during the period 1st August to 30th November, 1903, by the Board of Education (in continuation of Command Papers, 1564, 1613, 1659, 1675, and 1740). (December 18.)

  IV. Reports from University Colleges (1903). (January 9.)

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  I. Appendix, Section III., to the Annual Report of the Commissioners, for the year 1902. (November 4.)

  II. Appendix, Section II., to the Annual Report of the Commissioners, for the year 1902. (January 4.)

  ANKYLOSTOMIASIS
  Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by J. S. Haldane, Esq., M.D., F.R.S., on Ankylostomiasis in Westphalian Collieries. (November 5.)
  SOUTH AFRICA (COMMERCIAL MISSION).
  Report received from Mr. Henry Birchenough, the Special Commissioner appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into and report upon the present, position and future prospects of British Trade in South Africa. (November 14.)

  MISCELLANEOUS.
  No. 5. (1903.)—Correspondence showing the systems in force in certain foreign countries for publishing official Reports of proceedings in the Houses of Legislature. (November 14).
  No. 6. (1903)—Return as to financial support given from State or municipal funds to dramatic, operative, or musical performances in foreign countries. (December 14.)

  CHINA.
  No. 3. (1903.)—Report by Acting Consul Litton on a journey in North-West Yunnan. (November) 14).
  No 1. (1904.)—Report by Mr. C. W. Campbell, His Majesty's Consul at Wuchow, on a journey in Mongolia (with a map). (January 6.)

  ARSENICAL POISONING (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  I. Report of Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of arsenical poisoning arising from the consumption of beer and other articles of food or drink. Part II. being Vol. I. of Minutes of Evidence and Appendices. (November 16.)

  II. Final Report of Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of arsenical poisoning arising from the consumption of beer and other articles of food and drink.

  Part I. Report. (November 24.)
  Part II. Being Vol. II. of Minutes of Evidence and Appendices (December 12.)

  BOARD OF TRADE (CONCILIATION).
  Fourth Report by the Board of Trade of Proceedings under the Conciliation (Trade Disputes) Act, 1896, 1901–1903. (November 16.)

  EXPLOSIVES (EXPLOSIONS AT THE COTTON POWDER COMPANY'S FACTORY AT FAVERSHAM).
  Reports to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the circumstances attending explosions of nitro-glycerine, which occurred in the final washing house of the factory of the Cotton Powder Company, Limited, at Uplees Marshes, Faversham, Kent—
  62

  I. By Major A. Cooper-Key on the explosion of 23rd August, 1903. (November 19.)

  II. By Captain J. H. Thomson on the explosion of 9th November, 1903. (January 20.)

  INDIA.
  I. Irrigation—Report of the Indian Irrigation Commission, 1901–1903—

  Part I. General.

  Part II. Provincial.

  Part III. Maps.

  Part IV. Appendix. (November 30.)

  II. Sanitary Measures.—Report on sanitary measures in India in 1901– 1902. Vol. XXXV. (November 23.)

  III. Trade.—Tables relating to the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries, 1898– 1899 to 1902–3. (January 28.)

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners and confirmed by the Board of Trade.

  a. Authorising construction of Light Railways in,

  I. The City of Bath in the county of Somerset (being extensions and deviations of the existing and authorized undertaking of Bath Electric Tramways, Limited), and the abandonment of construction of certain other light railways already authorised in the same city.

  II. The rural district of Dartford in the county of Kent.

  III. The county of Kent from the River Thames near Greenhithe to Dart-ford and Eynsford, with branches to Swanley Junction and to Stansted.

  IV. The borough of Burton-upon-Trent, the urban districts of Swadlincote and of Ashby-de-la-Zouch, and the rural districts of Repton and Hartshorne and Seals of Ashby-de-la-Zouch, in the counties of Stafford, Derby, and Leicester.

  V. The borough and rural district of Dover and parish of River in the County of Kent.

  VI. The county of Southampton from Totton and Fawley.

  VII. The county of Gloucester, in the parishes of Henbury and Shirehampton.

  63

  (b.) Amending—

  I. The Bere Alston and Calstock Light Railway Order, 1900.

  II. The Llandudno and Colwyn Bay Light Railway Order, 1898.

  III. The Lastingham and Rosedale Light Railway Order, 1900.

  (c.) Reviving powers granted and extending period limited by Bankfort Light Railway Order, 1898, for compulsory purchase of lands, and extending period limited by that Order for the completion of the railway and works by that Order authorised.

  (d.) Transferring to the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the borough of Nelson the powers conferred upon the Barrowford Urban District Council by Barrowford Light Railway Order, 1901, and amending that Order and the Nelson Light Railways Order,1901.(December 7.)

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Report on the results of investigations into cider-making carried out on behalf of the Bath and West and Southern Counties Society in the years 1893–1902, by F. J. Lloyd, F.C.S., F.I.C. (December 11.)
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE, GALWAY.
  Annual Report of President for Session 1902–1903. (December 18.)
  METEOROLOGICAL COUNCIL.
  Report of the Meteorological Council for the year ended 31st March, 1903, to the President and Council of the Royal Society. (January 1.)

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Appendix to Annual Report of Commissioners for the year 1902—

  I. Section II. (January 4.)

  II. Section I. (January 15.)

  SEWAGE DISPOSAL (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Fourth Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire and report what methods of treating and disposing of sewage may properly be adopted, together with Vol. II. Minutes of Evidence; Vol. III. Reports on Bacteriological Investigations; and Vol. IV. Reports on the Land. Treatment of sewage and methods of chemical analysis of sewage effluents. (January 5.)
  CHAPTER HOUSE (WESTMINSTER)
  Memoranda by Professor Church, F.R.S., concerning treatment of decayed stonework in the Chapter House, Westminster Abbey. (January 8.)
  POSTAL CONVENTION (DENMARK).
  Agreement between Post Office of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Post Office of Denmark. (January 9.)
  RAILWAYS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES).
  Return by railway companies of the United Kingdom for six months, ending 30th June, 1903. (January 16.)
  PATRIOTIC FUND.
  Forty-second Report of Royal Commissioners. (January 21.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Report on shellfish layings on the Irish coast as respects their liability to sewage contamination. (January 21.)
  ELECTRICITY IN MINES.
  Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for Home Department to inquire into the use of electricity in mines, with minutes of evidence and appendices. (January 30.)
  Report of Transvaal Labour Commission. (January 29.)
  UNITED STATES, No. 1 (1904).
  Correspondence respecting the Alaska Boundary. (February 1.)

  AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND).
  Third Annual Report, 1902–1903. (February 1.)
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3116. Belgium.
  No. 3117. France (Indo-China).

  UNITED STATES, No. 2 (1904).
  Map to accompany correspondence respecting the Alaska Boundary (United States, No. 1 (1904).
  TURKEY, No. 2 (1904).
  Further correspondence respecting the affairs of South-Eastern Europe (in continuation of Turkey, No. 1 (1904)).
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Further correspondence relating to the affairs of the Tranvaal and Orange River Colony.

  EXPLOSIVES (EXPLOSION AT THE BLENHEIM ENGINEERING COMPANY'S FACTORY AT TUNNEL LANE, GREENWICH MARSHES).
  Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Major A. Cooper-Key, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, on the circumstances attending an explosion of fulminate composition at the factory of the Blenheim Engineering Company, Limited, at Tunnel Lane, Greenwich Marshes, on 18th December, 1903.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY.
  1. Return of all sums received by the visitors of lunatics for travelling expenses, or upon any other account, from the 1st January to the 31st December, 1903.
  2. Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, the number of patients seen, and the number of miles travelled by the visitors of lunatics pursuant to the Lunacy Act, 1890, between 1st April, 1903, to 30th September, 1903.

  BARBADOS.
  Prison rule relating to the vaccination of prisoners.
  INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT ACTS, 1844 TO 1866.
  Order in Council of the 9th October, 1903, giving effect to the accession of Denmark to the International Copyright Convention of the 9th September, 1886, and Additional Act of Paris, 1897.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1878.
  Order in Council of the 9th October, 1903, approving a new denomination of standard weight of fifty pounds or "half-cental."
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL ACTS.
  Order in Council of the 9th October, 1903, sanctioning certain pensions now granted from the funds of Greenwich Hospital being supplemented from Naval Funds.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Orders in Council of the 9th October, 1903, applying the provisions of Section 238 of the Act in the case of deserters from Japanese vessels.
  Orders in Council of the 16th November, 1903, confirming byelaws made by the pilotage authority for the ports of Gloucester and Burntisland respectively.
  Two Orders in Council of the 29th January, 1904, providing for the re-measurement for tonnage of French and Spanish vessels in British ports.

  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Order in Council of the 8th December, 1903, entitled "The Zanzibar Order in Council, 1903."
  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1858.
  Order in Council of the 8th December, 1903, approving a statement of proposed new and revised appointments and alterations of salaries in the establishment of the Secretary of State in Council of India.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Additional rules made by the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland as to—

  I. Experimental science and drawing.

  II. Experimental and practical science.

  Amended rules made by the Board for the examination in music.
  Time-table of examinations for the year 1904.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) ACT.
  Orders in Council, dated 1st December, 1903, and 21st January, 1904, giving effect to Rules of Court.
  AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) ACT, 1899.
  Thirty-three Minutes by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, sanctioning forms of instruction for certain county boroughs, counties, and urban districts.

  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS, 1853 TO 1891 (CONDITIONAL LICENCES).
  Licences granted by His Majesty under the provisions of the Penal Servitude Acts, 1853 to 1891, to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A. of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864.

  I. To Ellis Smith.

  II. To Patrick Hardigan.

  Licence granted by His Majesty to Mary Ann Phillips, a convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting her to be at large on condition that she enter the Home of the Holy Rood at Worthing.
  Licence granted to Timothy W. Nolan, a convict, to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A. of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864.

  PHARMACY (IRELAND) ACTS, 1875 AND 1890.
  Order in Council, dated 9th October, 1903, approving of a regulation made by the Pharmaceutical Society.
  MILITIA ACT, 1882 (DEPUTY LIEUTENANTS).
  Returns of descriptions of qualifications of deputy lieutenants lodged during 1902, as furnished to the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  WINTER ASSIZES (IRELAND).
  Order, dated 9th October, 1903, and three Orders, dated 4th November, 1903, for holding Winter Assizes in Ireland.

  PUBLIC RECORDS.
  (Colonial Office). Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents existing or accruing in the office of His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State having the Department of the Colonies which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office
  Additional rule made by the right hon. Sir Richard Henn Collins, Master of the Rolls, for the disposal of certain documents.

  CERTIFIED INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES (REGULATIONS FOE MANAGEMENT).
  Regulations made with the approval of the Secretary of State for the Home
  68
  Department for the management and discipline of the certified inebriate reformatory at Ackworth, Yorkshire.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
  (Incorporation of Aston Manor).—Charter of incorporation of the borough of Aston Manor, dated 17th August, 1903.
  (Incorporation of Hornsey).—Charter of incorporation of the borough of Hornsey, dated 17th August, 1903.
  (Incorporation of Gillingham).—Charter of incorporation of the borough of Gillingham, dated 17th August, 1903.
  (Incorporation of Bromley).—Charter of incorporation of the borough of Bromley, dated 17th August, 1903.

  INEBRIATES ACTS, 1879 TO 1899 (REGULATIONS FOR STATE INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES).
  New regulations, dated 29th December, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, prescribing the diet for ill-conducted or idle inmates of State Reformatories, and revoking Regulation 64 (b) and 66 (b,) and so much of Appendix A. as relates to the diet of ill-conducted or idle inmates of the Regulation dated 21st June, 1901.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP.
  (Special Exceptions: Creameries).—Order, dated 23rd October, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 42 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, granting certain special exceptions to creameries, and revoking the Order (Ireland) dated 9th June, 1902.
  (Special Exception: Lime-washing, &c).—Order, dated 2nd November, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 1 (4) of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, granting special exceptions from the provisions respecting lime-washing, &c, to certain factories and parts of factories, and revoking the Orders, dated 16th November, 1895, 8th February, 1896, and 26th March, 1902,
  Dangerous and Unhealthy Industries.—Regulations, dated 21st November, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 79 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, for the manufacture of electric accumulators.
  Particulars of Piecework Wages: Wearing Apparel).—Order, dated 17th December, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, applying with modifications the pro-visions of Section 116 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, to the manufacture of wearing apparel, and revoking the Order dated 22nd April, 1897.
  (Special Exception: Overtime).—Order, dated 29th December, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 49 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, with regard to the overtime employment of women on not more than thirty days in the year, and revoking all existing Orders.
  (Health: Bakehouses).—Order, dated 30th December, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 3, Subsection 2, of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, modifying the proportion of cubic feet of space to be provided in certain bakehouses.
  (Earthenware and China).—Amended special rules for the manufacture and decoration of earthenware and china as established by the awards of the umpire, Lord James of Hereford, dated 30th December, 1901, and 28th November, 1903.

  BANK OF ENGLAND.
  Return of the amount of notes issued more than forty years, and outstanding on 28th October, 1903, which have been written off.
  IMPERIAL OTTOMAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1855.
  Account for the year to 31st December, 1903.
  TREASURY BILLS.
  Treasury Minute, dated 24th January, 1904, amending the regulation laid down in the Treasury Minute of 31st May, 1889, relating to tenders for Treasury Bills, under the Act 40 Victoria, chap. 2, s. 9.

  ST. LOUIS EXHIBITION COMMISSION, 1904.
  Treasury Minute, dated 29th August, 19 03, directing that the accounts of the
  70
  Royal Commission for the St. Louis Exhibition for 1904 shall be examined and audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Professional qualifications Treasury Minutes declaring that professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired on the public service are required for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the offices of—

  I Secretary to the Civil Service Commissioners (10th November, 1903).

  II. Deputy Governor of a convict prison in Ireland (21st November, 1903).

  Treasury Minute, dated 20th August. 1903, awarding a special pension to Sir Kenelm Edward Digby, K.C.B., late Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  Treasury Minutes declaring that the following persons were appointed with out Civil Service certificates through inadvertence on the part of the heads of their Departments—

  I. Thomas Ashbrook Forster, Post master, Newtown Post Office (30th September, 1903).

  II. Alfred Wellham, machine-hand, Royal Small Arms Factory, Birmingham (5th November, 1903).

  III. William Edward Bird, engine driver, Royal Gun Factory, War Department (23rd December, 1903).

  IV. Charles Chamberlain, principal foreman, Royal Carriage Department. War Office (2nd October, 1903).

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899).
  Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Edinburgh to the Secretary for Scotland, under the provisions of Section 30 of the Act for the year 1902–1903.
  Annual Report on the state of the finances of the University of Edinburgh, under the provisions of Section 30 of the Act.
  Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Glasgow to the Secretary for Scotland, under the provision of Section 30 of the Act, for the year 1902–1903.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1877, AND SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND ACTS, 1885–1889.
  Rule made by the Secretary for Scotland appointing the police cells at Kirkcaldy to be a legal prison for the detention of untried prisoners for a period not exceeding fourteen days before or during trial, and of convicted prisoners for a period not exceeding seven days from the date of conviction.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1903.
  Order by the Secretary for Scotland under Section 109.
  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY (EXTENSION FROM BANAVIE TO MALLAIG).
  Second Annual Report by the Board of Trade as to the condition and working of the Banavie to Mallaig Railway, the rates and charges for traffic, and the receipts and expenditure of any company in working the railway, for the year 1902–1903.
  INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN ENGLAND.)
  Return of all loans raised in England under the provisions of any Acts of Parliament, chargeable on the revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half - year ended on the 30th September, 1903, with the rates of interest and total amount payable thereon, and the date of the termination of each loan, the debt incurred during the half-year, the moneys raised thereby during the half-year, the loans paid off or discharged during the half-year, and the loans outstanding at the close of the half-year, stating, so far as the public convenience will allow, the purpose or service for which moneys have been raised during the half-year.

  LOANS RAISED IN INDIA.
  Return of all loans raised in India, chargeable on the revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ended on the 39th September, 1903, with the rates of interest and total amount payable thereon, and the date of the termination of each loan, the debt incurred during the half-year, the moneys raised thereby during the half-year, the loans paid off or discharged during the half-year, and the loans outstanding at the close of the
  72
  half-year, stating, so far as the public convenience will allow, the purpose or service for which moneys have been raised during the half-year.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877.
  Statutes made by the Governing Bodies of:
  Magdalene College, Cambridge, on the 22nd June, 1903, in substitution for Statute XXV. of the statutes of the college.
  Oriel College, Oxford, on the 24th April, 1903, amending Statute IV., 7, of the statutes of the college.
  Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, on the 16th March, 1903, in substitution for the existing statutes of the college.
  New College, Oxford, on the 17th June, 1903, amending certain clauses of Statute III. of the statutes of the college.
  St. John's College, Oxford, on the 15th May, 1903, amending Statute XV., 1, of the statutes of the college.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 1.)

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889, UNIVERSITY COURT ORDINANCE No. IX (EDINBURGH No. 3.)
  Regulations for the degree of Bachelor-of-Law (B.L.); laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 2.)
  MARGATE PIER AND HARBOUR BOARD.
  Report and statement of accounts for year ended 5th April, 1903.
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD.
  Accounts for year ended 1st July, 1903; delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SUBSIDIES TO SHIPPING COMPANIES.
  Return respecting; laid before the House (pursuant to Order of the 13th of August last), and to be printed. (No. 3.)
  ALIEN IMMIGRATION.
  Return of the number of aliens that arrived from the Continent at ports in the United Kingdom, in each month of the year 1904; ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Lord Wolverton.)
  ALIEN IMMIGRATION.
  Return (in part) respecting; laid before the House (pursuant to Order of this day), and to be printed. (No. 6.)
NEW BILLS.
  SEA FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to provide against the destruction of undersized flat fish, was presented by the Earl of Onslow; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 4.)

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to render compulsory the use of the system of weights and measures, commonly known as the metric system, was presented by the Lord Kelvin; read l; and to be printed. (No. 5.)
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.