Sitting of 26 February 1904

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  PRIVATE RILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with viz.:—Barnet District Gas and Water Bill. Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

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

  1153
  Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Southend Water Bill. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. Bill to be read the third time.
  Hampton-in-Arden Gas Bill. Reported with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  BOROUGH COUNCIL ELECTIONS (HOURS OF POLLING).
  Petitions from Deptford, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law: from Blaenau Festiniog; Llanfrothen; Trawsfynydd; Cambridge; Kentish Town; Ilfracombe; Sheepbridge; Collyhurst; Leigh; Neath; Bwlehgwyn; Stockton-upon-Tees; Bury; Selly Oak; Bournbrook; Halesowen; Worcester; Everton; Putney; Dunstable; Comp-stall; Blænwenen; Blackwood; New Tredegar; Nantyglo; Abertillery; Maesteg; Peckham; Rhymney; Liverpool; Southgate; Shrewsbury; Middleton; Llanelly; and Bristol; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Gloucester, against; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petition of the Mining Association of Great Britain, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, RETORTS, ETC.

  EXPLOSIONS (NATIONAL EXPLOSIVES COMPANY'S FACTORY, UPTON TOWANS, CORNWALL).
  Copy presented, 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 precipitating and final washing houses of
  1154
  the factory of the National Explosives Company, Limited, at Upton Towans, Hayle, Cornwall, on the 5th January, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Fifty-sixth Report from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
  Copy presented, of the Electoral Act, No. XXXV., of 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CROFTER AND COTTAR COLONISATION SCHEME.
  Copy presented, of Fourteenth Report of the Commissioners appointed to carry out a scheme of colonisation in the Dominion of Canada of crofters and cottars from the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Naval Gun Sights.
    MR. HARMS WORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state whether the sights of H.M.S. "Prince of Wales" proved satisfactory during this vessel's recent gun trials.
    (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The sights of H.M.S. "Prince of Wales" are quite satisfactory, but they were not tested for accuracy during the recent gun trials, the primary object of these trials being to test the strength and working of the mountings. Accuracy tests of sights are carried out in dry dock, which affords a far better means for proving their accuracy.

    Workmen's' Compensation—Amendment of Law.
    MR. J. F. HOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department' when he hopes to

    1155
    introduce the Bill to amend the law of workmen's compensation.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I cannot fix a date for the introduction of this Bill. The Committee whom I appointed to advise me in the matter are hard at work, and have I understand, nearly concluded the taking of evidence. They will lose no time in considering their Report.

    Extension of Workmen's Compensation Act.
    SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is yet in a position to state to what trades the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act will be extended.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) This is one of the matters now under the consideration of the Departmental Committee which I appointed to advise me on the subject of the amendment of the Act. I can make no statement with regard to it at present.

    Estate of the late Thomas Flynne
    MR. O'DOWD,: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will ascertain from the American Consul when the estate of the late Thomas Flynne, who died in Warwick, Rhode Island, in February, 1902, will be available for distribution amongst his next of kin, who are British subjects residing in Glasgow.
    (Answered by Earl Percy) The case has not been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State, but inquiries will be made.

    Exports of Coal into France.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will state what was the amount of coal exported from the United Kingdom to France in the years 1902 and 1903, respectively; and what was the amount of German coal imported into France in the same periods.
    (Ansioered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The total quantity of coal exported from the United Kingdom to France in 1902 was
    1156
    7,408,000 tons and in 1903 6,976,000 tons. The total quantity of coal imported into France from Germany in 1902 was 1,013,000 tons and in 1903 1,054,000 tons.

    Produce of Coal Export Duty.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what was the produce of the export duty on coal in the years 1901-2 and 1902-3, respectively.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The net produce of the export duty on Coal in the financial years 1901–2 and 1902–3 was £1,311,706 and £1,991,767 respectively.

    Coal Export Duty.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is; aware that, owing to the shilling export duty on coal, the producers of small coal have been compelled to sell it abroad at 6s., whereas, in innumerable instances, but for the export duty on coal, its export market value would have been 6s. 6d. to 6. 9d.; and whether, in these circumstances, he intends to retain the duty in its present form.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I have no official information which would enable me to reply to the earlier part of the hon. Member's Question. As regards. the latter part, I am not prepared to anticipate the Budget discussions.

    Dogs Bill.
    MR. CROMBIE: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, when the-Dogs Bill will be printed and issued to Members.
    (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) I understand from my noble friend that he expects this Bill to be delivered to Members early in the coming week.

MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. MOUNTsaid he had to claim the indulgence of the

1157
House, which was always accorded to those Members who intervened for the first time in debates in the House of Commons. The Musical Copyright Bill, the Second Reading of which he was about to move. enforced rights of which the House had already approved. This Bill introduced no new principles and established no new privileges. It inflicted no disabilities on those who endeavoured to keep within the spirit of the law, and its aim was to provide proper safeguards for rights which had already been sanctioned. He did not think he needed to labour the point that the same right of property belonged to copyright in music as to copyright in books and other things. Already the owners of musical copyright had been given the same benefits as was given to owners of literary copyright. In the Copyright Act of 1842, the House gave the owners of musical copyright the same privileges and benefits as the owners of literary copyright, and they were placed upon the same level. He would further point out that these rights and privileges given by the House to musical copyright were real and not imaginary rights, because in that Act remedies were given to enable those rights to be enforced, and means were provided to prevent any infringement or infraction of that right. That Act gave the best remedies that could be provided at that time. He would endeavour to show to the House that the intention that musical copyright should be placed upon the same level as literary copyright had never been reached. An Act was passed in 1902, which had for its aim and object the restraining of action which was undermining the rights recognised by Parliament. Until two years ago practically the only remedy which owners of a musical copyright had against infringement was an action for an injunction, and that remedy was found to be inadequate on account of the standing of the ordinary offender. Piracies, as they were all aware, had increased enormously, he did not need to labour that point. Why this was so it was not for him to say, but he thought the reason would probably be found in the fact that these musical pirates had discovered a very easy method of breaking the law without running much risk of bringing themselves within the arms
1158
of the law. The remedy was a civil action, but it was obvious that this was a quite inadequate remedy against those people who were breaking the law. Civil action was inadequate, because the hawkers who were selling copies of copyright music were men of straw, and it was useless to attempt to bring any civil action against people of that stamp.
The Act of 1902, therefore, was intended to put a stop to the infringement from which owners of musical copyright suffered. Under that Act a further advance was made beyond civil action, and power was given to a constable, in certain cases and under certain circumstances. to seize pirated copies and take them to the police court for destruction. That Art pointed clearly to the fact that Parliament at that time intended to protect the right in musical copyright. but that was about as far as the Act went. The Act was, unfortunately, a failure. and although it was passed with the object of putting a stop to this sort of proceeding they found that immediately following the passing of that Act the number of pirated copies sold greatly increased. In fifteen months after the passing of the Act no less than 468.000 copies of pirated music were seized by the police, and that was only a very small proportion of the number published and sold. What was more remarkable still was that in 1901 there were only forty-seven pirated editions known, but in 1903 the number of pirated editions had increased to 231. Whatever was the intention of the Act of 1902 that Act had failed, and he did not think the causes of the failure of that Act were very far to seek. Under the Act the constable might take to the Court the copies which he had seized, but it was held that unless a summons had been served on the person in whose possesion they were found the copies could not be destroyed. As the alleged owner in ninety-nine cases out of every 100 was an itinerant hawker with no settled place of abede he might quite honestly give a common lodging house as his address. and the evidence given before the Departmental Committee showed that in many cases these itinerant hawkers gave false and wrong addresses-Out of 5,000 summonses issued against

1159
musical pirates at the instance of the Musical Copyright Association they were only able to serve:287. Then, again, although 468,000 copies of pirated music had been seized, only 57,000 had been ordered to be destroyed. Therefore, it was necessary that something should be done to remedy this state of things. It might be said that the loss to the hawkers was the same whether the copies were destroyed or not, but he contended that this increase in piriacy showed that some other penalty was necessary. No doubt hon. Members had noticed that these hawkers carried very few copies with them at one time, and he was informed that arrangements were often made between the hawkers and the middlemen that no charge should be made for copies seized by the police, and consequently in many cases no loss whatever fell upon the hawkers. It was clearly obvious that some penalty ought to be inflicted. But there was another person in a much larger way of business than the hawker who ought to be dealt with, namely, the printer and the distributor, in whose premises the pirated copies were stored. They were not touched by the Act now in force and they carried on their work with very little chance of detection. It had been held that the Act of 1902 conferred no power of search so long as the business was conducted within closed and locked doors, but these persons were really more culpable than the hawkers in the street. Those were the main defects which had shown themselves in the Act of 1902. The penalties were not severe enough to be felt by the itinerant hawker, and some further power was wanted to get hold of those who evaded summonses, and to render amenable to the law those who were now able to avoid detection. He wanted the House to consider how far those defects were removed in the Bill he recommended to the House.
The present Bill followed on the lines of the Fine Arts Copyright Act of 1862, and made it an offence for any person to print or cause or procure to be printed, any pirated musical works or to distribute or carry about any copies of any pirated musical work for the purpose of sale or of being dealt with in the course of trade. It also made it an offence for any person to solicit orders by post or to import or
1160
export copies of pirated music or to be found in the possession of any plates' from which such copies were to be printed. Those offences, it was proposed, should be punishable by fine or imprisonment before a court of summary jurisdiction. The second clause gave power to the police to take into custody without a warrant any person who, within the view of the police, committed an offence under the Act, and whose name was unknown and could not reasonably be ascertained by the constable. This procedure was similar to that adopted under the Police Act of 1839, and was recommended by the Departmental Committee which dealt with this question. He did not think this clause would be dissented from even by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark. He would point out that the majority Report of the Departmental Committee recommended it, and that Committee had as its Chairman Mr. Fenwick, whose great experience as a metropolitan police court magistrate ought to have considerable weight with the House on this question. The evidence went to show that this clause was not likely to inflict any injury or hardship. If a man was arrested he would be taken to the police station, and if he was an honest man he did not think there would be any difficulty in persuading the inspector that he would be forthcoming when the case was tried. There still remained the difficulty in regard to those who were not less culpable, but who were in a larger way of business. Under Clause 3 power was given to issue a search warrant where—
"There are reasonable grounds for believing that pirated copies of such musical work or the plates thereof are being kept for purposes constituting an offence under this Act."
It is also provided that—
"The Court may, by warrant, authorise any police constable named and referred to in such warrant to enter such house, premises, or place at any time between the hours of nine in the morning and six in the afternoon, and to search for and seize and carry away such copies and plates and any other copies of pirated musics' works or plates kept as aforesaid."
The hours of search had been limited to between nine in the morning and six in the afternoon, and this clause relating to the search warrant followed the precedent of a similar clause in the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887. The evidence showed that

1161
if power was taken in the Act to deal with the hawkers in the street and to issue search warrants under certain circumstances, this traffic would probably cease. Those were briefly the suggestions embodied in the Bill and he urged the House, if they desired to put a stop to this illegal practice, to give effect to the evidence which had been tendered upon this question.
With regard to dealing with forfeited copies, as the law now stood no order could be made for their destruction without a summons. If the Bill became law as it stood it was provided under Sub-section 2 of Clause 5 that—
"If the person alleged to have been dealing with such copies is unknown or cannot be found an information or complaint shall be laid by or on behalf of the owner of the copyright, or by his agent thereto authorised in writing, or on behalf of the police, for the purpose of enforcing the forfeiture and destruction of such copies and plates, and the Court may without summons, on proof that the musical work to which the copies or plates seized relte is pirated, or that such copies or plates were in the possession of such person under such circumstances as to constitute an offence under this Act, order such copies or plates or any of them to be forfeited and destroyed at the expiration of a period of twenty-eight days unless the rightful owner of the copies should within that time come and prove his claim to the copies."
He ventured to think that a clause of that kind would meet the difficulty without inflicting any hardship upon any innocent persons.
He wished to say a word on a question arising on the first section of the Bill. There was a provision that any person committing any offence indicated in the section—
"Shall be deemed to have committed an offence under this Act unless he proves to the satisfaction of the Court that he did not know and could not with reasonable care have ascertained that—(a) such musical work was pirated; (6) or that such plates were the plates of pirated musical works."
The clause placed the onus of proof on the defendant. This was a matter which would be dealt with in Committee, but as it had been referred to in the Report of the Departmental Committee he thought it right to say a word or two on it now. He would say first of all that the clause was framed in accordance with precedent. By the Police Act of 1839 a person charged
1162
with being in possession of property suspected of being stolen or unlawfully obtained must satisfy the magistrate that it came into his possession rightfully. There was another, and he ventured to say a stronger, precedent in the Merchandise Marks Act passed in 1887. When the Act of 1832 was passed this provision in regard to the onus of proof was not incorporated in it, but after twenty-five years experience it was found advisable to enact such a provision. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark had pointed out in the Minority Report that the difference between the Merchandise Marks Act and the Bill now before the House was that the object of the latter was to safeguard the interest of the owners of copyright, while the former was to safeguard the interest of the public. With all due deference he would suggest that the reason why in both cases the onus of proof was placed on the defendant and not on the prosecutor was that they dealt with matters which were particularly within the knowledge of the defendant. He knew there were some who objected to the Bill because they thought the price charged by music publishers too high. They might think that publishers were making exorbitant profits; he ventured to differ from that view, but he would leave this part of the subject to be dealt with by his hon. friend the Member for South-West Manchester, who had always taken a great interest in this matter. He had endeavoured to point out that Parliament intended to grant the right of property in copyright, and so long as such intention lasted it was, he thought, their duty to safeguard it.
MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S.W.)congratulated his hon. friend on the manner in which he had spoken when addressing the House for the first time in introducing this Bill. This was a measure by which it was proposed to deal effectively with a gross injustice which had been perpetrated far too long upon a law-abiding section of the community. He trusted that the House would pass the Bill, and that, despite the obstructive efforts of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, they would put an end once and for all to the abominable practice which had grown up with such

1163
rapidity in recent years. Many motives had been attributed to those who had taken an interest in this question. He was sure that the hon. Member for Mid Lanark had no financial interest, direct or indirect, in the publication of music. Nor had he himself any such interest in the matter, either as composer or publisher. His interest was that of a purchaser, and he was proud to say that he had no sordid or pecuniary benefit to derive one way or another. In June last year his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland came and told him that the publishers were in despair because the hon. Member for Mid Lanark was not only as obdurate as in previous years, but that he was blocking their Bill with even greater pertinacity than before. He endeavoured to get the hon. Member to withdraw his opposition which, he considered, was neither in the public interest nor creditable to himself. His efforts were unavailing and the session passed without any Act being placed on the Statute-book dealing with the subject. His hon. friend who moved the Second Reading of the Bill to-day had pointed out how serious the position was. It was essential, if the citizens of the country were to have confidence in the laws of the land, that some change should be made immediately in the copyright law. He took the opportunity early in the recess of presenting this view to the Prime Minister, who suggested after some discussion that the Government early this session should ask the House to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the matter. There would have been many advantages in having a Select Committee, but there was one great disadvantage. It was impossible, as experience had shown, to pass an unopposed Bill through the House dealing effectively with (he subject so long as the hon. Member for Mid Lanark remained a Member of the House. That being so, it seemed to him that, if a Select Committee were to be appointed, it would take some time to hear evidence, and the probability was that there would not have been much time left in which to pass the Bill. He was sure the ingenuity of the hon. Member and his friends would have been quite sufficient to prevent the passing of the measure, which he hoped would be placed on the Statute-book before the end of
1164
the session. He, therefore, suggested to the Prime Minister that it would be advisable to have the matter dealt with more quickly, and the right hon. Gentleman agreed to the suggestion that a Departmental Committee should be appointed. He desired to associate himself entirely with everything that fell from his hon. friend, who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, with respect to. the ability and courtesy with which Mr. Fenwick presided over the Committee. It was on the Report presented by the Committee that his hon. friend asked the House to pass this Bill. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark had made a great complaint that what he called the interests of the public had not been represented on the Committee.
MR. CALDWELL: I did not say that they were not represented on the Committee, but that there was no representation of them in the evidence. The publishers were represented—the other side was represented—but there was no witness on behalf of the public.
MR. GALLOWAYsaid he would read a paragraph from the separate Report by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark and leave the House to judge—
"The evidence given disclosed the existence of another interest—that of the general public interested in the cultivation of music—an interest, however, which was not specially represented at the inquiry; which is practically ignored in the Report of the majority of the Committee; but which, nevertheless, falls to be considered in any amendment of the Law which may be deemed necessary."
The hon. Member now came forward as the great apostle of the cultivators of music, whose interest, he said, was not specially represented at the inquiry. As he himself had something to do with the appointment of the Committee ho would call the attention of the House to the Gentlemen who constituted it. Mr. Fenwick, the chairman, represented more especially the Home Office; Mr. Scrutton, an eminent lawyer, was put on to represent the Board of Trade, who, curiously, had an interest in copyright. It was an extraordinary fact in connection with the public service that copyright came under the Board of Trade. What was more extraordinary was that copyright

1165
was dealt with in the Railway Department. Mr. Murray was put on the Committee to represent the publishers. He was an eminent publisher with a world-wide reputation. Then there was the hon. Member for Mid Lanark and himself. He certainly thought that they were put on to represent the general interests of the public. If he was not put on for that reason he did not know for what reason he was put on. He was quite sure if that was not the reason for the hon. Member for Mid Lanark being put on, the only other possible explanation was that the Prime Minister thought him an dequate representative of the pirates.
MR. CALDWELL: Is the hon. Member in order in attributing that motive to the Prime Minister. He suggests that the Prime Minister selected me because he considered that I would adequately represent the pirates. I venture to say that is not an observation which should be put in the Prime Minister's mouth.
MR. SPEAKER: I do not know whether it was intended as a jest or seriously, but if it was intended seriously it was certainly somewhat objectionable to suggest that the hon. Member was put on the Committee to represent the interests of the pirates.
MR. GALLOWAYsaid that, of course, he wished at once to withdraw the remark. He was sorry he had wounded the feelings of the hon. Member. If the hon. Member were only half as careful about the feelings of other people as he was about his own, he would have had no reason to object to the expression used. He certainly intended it as a jest. He understood that the hon. Gentleman was put on to represent the general interest of the public. The Committee took a large amount of evidence, and the result of their deliberations was presented to Parliament in the form of two Reports. He thought the House owed a deep debt of gratitude, not to himself, and he might also exclude the hon. Member opposite without wounding his feelings, to the three other gentlemen who, entirely from public spirit, served on the Committee without fee or reward. They had to give their time at a period when they could have been financially more
1166
profitably employed, and he thought their services ought not to pass unnoticed. The Reports spoke for themselves. All the other members of the Committee sincerely regretted that they were unable to carry the hon. Member for Mid Lanark with them. They endeavoured by every means in their power to obtain unanimity, and even refrained from asking questions of witnesses which might indicate antagonism to the views which the hon. Member had retained so strongly. Anyone reading the Report would see that the hon. Member showed a bias against the publishers which made the other members fearful that they would not get him to agree to their Report. The hon. Gentleman grudgingly gave a remedy, but he ought to know, if he did not already know, that his remedy would be entirely ineffectual and useless. His hon. friend who moved the Second Reading of the Bill said that copyright in music-was really part and parcel of the general system of copyright in the country. Parliament gave those rights to prevent the productions of authors and composers being appropriated by third parties before those authors and composers had any fair opportunity of obtaining proper remuneration for their skill, labour, and time. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark admitted that a remedy was needed, but he would not agree to a remedy that was any good. He tried a remedy of his own in 1902, and not only did it do no good, but it did a great deal of harm. There was another reason why Parliament gave copyright rights. It was to encourage authors and composers to produce works which they otherwise would not produce unless a prospect of remuneration was secured. Surely those two objects should be respected, not only from the point of view of justice, but from a national point of view, if this nation desired to take its place among the artistic nations of the world. The author and the composer ought to have the same right given to them as is given to the owner of a watch, to use. the example given by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark. It was quite right that the nation should ultimately get the benefit of an author's or a composer's brain at the end of a certain period of time, and that his work should be circulated as widely and as cheaply as possible, but he said deliberately that if authors and composers

1167
were not fairly remunerated they would turn their talents in other directions. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark desired to pose as a great supporter of cheap music. Last session he himself moved a Resolution dealing with the question of national opera and the desirability of placing music within the reach of the poorer classes. What action did the hon. Gentleman take? At 10 o'clock he drew Mr. Speaker's attention to the fact that forty Members were not present, and he is the hon. Gentleman who now comes forward and poses as being interested in increasing the knowledge of music. The deathbed repentance of the hon. Gentleman was not worth very much.
With reference to the piracy of music it began in 1901 and had been spreading ever since. His hon. friend who moved the Second Reading of the Bill said that there were now about 231 copyrights which had been pirated. The number of summonses issued was between 5,000 and 6,000, but only 287 had been served owing to the fact the hawkers had given inaccurate addresses. Only 400,000 pirated copies had been seized, whereas if they had a proper remedy the number would be infinitely greater. Messrs. Boosey & Company, one of the most eminent firms, issued twelve summonses at a cost of £500, and in only two cases did they recover any costs, and then they amounted to only £30. It cost them £500 to endeavour to protect their own property, and by the remedy offered by the hon. Gentleman opposite they were refunded to the extent of £30. Was that fair? At present the remedy was entirely ineffectual. He received a letter from the agent to Messrs. Hopwood & Crew, written only yesterday. The writer travelled all over the country and had considerable experience. He said that he knew the Musical Copyright Bill was coming on that day, and he wished to communicate an incident which happened yesterday to show the difficulty of dealing with pirates under the present law. In Cardiff a man had two shops in the market, in one of which he sold legiti-mate music, and in the other, which was in the gallery and which was locked up, he sold pirated music. The agent called in the aid of a constable and gave them his warrant, and requested him to seize
1168
the pirated copies which were exposed for sale. The owner of the shop defied them and threatened an action for trespass. The constable thereupon refused to act. The agent went to the chief police office and saw the chief officer, who also refused to act, as he said he was afraid of the magistrates hauling him over the coals. The agent applied for a search warrant and after he had waited an hour and a half it was refused. The man who kept the shops supplied all the gutter merchants in the town who acted as his salesmen, and ultimately it cost the agent £13 to secure the destruction of the copies which were exposed for sale. In such a state of things could it be denied that his hon. friend was justified is asking the House of Commons to apply the simple but effectual remedy proposed in the Bill? If the persons who sold pirated music were a respectable class of the community then there might be something to be said on the other side, but it was well known that they were not in any sense respectable citizens who were carrying on a respectable trade. Willats, who was called the king of the pirates, admitted that he had been summoned four or five times for selling pirated music, and that he had been fined.
MR. CALDWELL: The man was not fined; he had to pay the costs.
MR. GALLOWAYsaid he was surprised at the hon. Gentleman's want of information. Still, he was content to accept his definition of the case.
MR. CALDWELL: I may say I know nothing whatever about this man. During the whole time of the inquiry I had no communication direct or indirect with anyone. Until his letter came before the Committee asking to be heard, I was absolutely ignorant of the existence of any pirate of the name. I think it is not fair that the hon. Member should attack me in this way.
MR. GALLOWAY: I think it is a case of honi soit qui mal y pense. I did not accuse the hon. Member of having been connected with pirates. I only said he seemed to know all about them.
MR. CALDWELL: Yes, because on the evidence laid before the Committee, it was plain what had taken place. I

1169
paid attention to what the Committee was doing.
MR. GALLOWAY: I am aware that the hon. Member did pay careful attention to what the Committee was doing. I am bound to admit that I did not stop there all the time, but I never made any suggestion that the hon. Member was in league with the pirates, and I do not do so now. I am quite prepared to accept his statement that he had no knowledge of the man Willats. At all events, that man, when he gave evidence before the Committee, admitted that he had had to pay the costs of the action which had been brought against him. Does the hon. Member defend this man seeing that, by having been called upon to pay the costs, he was shown to be in the wrong? Does the hon. Member defend him for having, under such circumstances, endeavoured to break the law of the country? If he does not, why did he interrupt me when I stated that this man had been fined; why did he seek to draw the distinction that the man had only paid the costs? I have gone into this matter thoroughly, and I know a great deal about Willats that is not to his credit; but I do not see any necessity for going into his past character now. I only ask the House to remember what sort of a man he is, so that they may know how much reliance to place upon his word. I do not believe that the House would be justified in believing him under any circumstances.
MR. GALLOWAY: I do not ask that, but perhaps the House will allow me to enlarge the knowledge of the hon. Member as to this man's real character. I will quote from the evidence which he gave. He was examined by Mr. Serutton, and he was asked whether this was the first time he had come in conflict with the laws of thiscountry. Tothatheanswered—
"I do not understand."
then came the question—
"You have been imprisoned?"
and to that the answer was—
"I will tell you what it was for."
next he was asked—
"Were not Messrs. Whittinghame the proseeutors?"
and to that he replied—
"Yes."
1170
There they had evidence that the man had been guilty of embezzlement.
MR. CALDWELL: Read the rest of it-Let the House hear his explanation.
MR. GALLOWAY: I did not want to take up the time of the House. This man pleaded guilty, and he has been imprisoned for three months for embezzlement, but, if the hon. Member is so impatient, I will read on. Am I not right in saying he pleaded guilty?
MR. CALDWELL: No, he did not.
MR. GALLOWAY: Then he was found guilty of embezzlement, and sentenced by the judge to three months imprisonment in the second division. The man certainly goes on to explain the circumstances under which he was convicted. He said that Messrs. Whittinghame owed him, £25, that they were going into bankruptcy, hat he collected an account from one of their customers, and informed them that he had so collected it; that no notice was taken of his having done so until after the bankruptcy, when the matter went into the hands of the Official Receiver, who wrote and told him that; if he liked to pay the money back, no more would be heard about it, but otherwise, he would be prosecuted. That letter was not produced in Court, and he had serious doubts whether it was ever written.
MR. CALDWELL: I rise to a point of order.
MR. GALLOWAY: I decline to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I really do not know why he is anxious to defend this man; it is most extraordinary on his part. All I wish the House to bear in mind is that this man was a pirate, and his position should be carefully considered before he is believed.
MR. CALDWELLhere rose again.
MR. GALLOWAY: I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. He will have an opportunity of placing his explanation before the House later on. I will read further what the man said in explanation. He said he did not think

1171
he had done anything wrong; he looked upon what he had collected as belonging to him. Unfortunately, however, for him the judge took a different view. Had I known that the hon. Member was going to challenge my statement on this point I should have come prepared with further facts about this man which would have put, I think, an entirely different construction upon the case. Still, I repeat that all I want the House to bear in mind is that this man, Willats, is one of the class of hawkers and pirates. The Committee also had before it Superintendent Moore, of the Police, who had had a great deal to do with this question, and had dealt with it so far as the police could possibly do anything under the existing law. He was asked a question in regard to the class of people from whom these pirates were drawn, and he informed the. Committee that they were mostly of the criminal class, that they were persons who had been convicted, that they were gutter-men, that they lived in common lodging-houses, and that, consequently, there was considerable difficulty in serving summonses upon them. He also added another fact in which the House would be interested, namely, that a large number of them were foreign, alien Jews, so that, unfortunately, we in this country not only had pirates among our own countrymen, but we imported them from foreign countries. He trusted that by the end of the session the Home Office would have put a stop to that practice. In considering the remedies which they were to apply in a case like this it was well to understand the character of the people with whom they were dealing. They must apply their remedies carefully. He wished to give one or two words of personal explanation. During the Parliamentary recess he issued to every Member of the House a copy of the Bill which he proposed to introduce, with a short statement as to what the Bill was about, and he asked for assistance in obtaining a position in the ballot. The Bill was drafted before the Departmental Committee had reported, and all the remedies he suggested were remedies which had been practically agreed to by (he hon. Member for Mid Lanark last session.
MR. CALDWELL: I thought the hon. Member represented me as opposed to any remedy whatever?
MR. GALLOWAYsaid he was sorry that either the hon. Gentleman had wilfully misunderstood him, or was incapable of understanding him. What he said was that the hon Member had opposed every effectual remedy that had been put forward, and that he wished to repeat. The Bill, as he had said, contained all the remedies to which the hon. Gentleman last session had agreed. He merely mentioned that in order to explain to the House why, while he was willing to try certain remedies then, he was now supporting the much more drastic remedies proposed by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill. The evidence given before the Departmental Committee had convinced him that there was no possibility of effectually dealing with the evils by the remedies which he had proposed, and he had, therefore, come to the conclusion that if they were to effectually deal with them it would be necessary to have the much more severe remedies which the Committee suggested. The evidence given before the Committee left them in no doubt whatever as to what remedies ought to be applied. One of the witnesses was Sir Harry Poland, for many years the Chief Public Prosecutor, of whom it was said that in the whole course of his experience he had never once been known to prosecute a prisoner unfairly. If that were true, and he believed it was, surely the House ought to attach great weight to what he had said in his evidence. The Committee also had before them two distinguished police magistrates—Mr. Rose and Mr. Dickinson. Their evidence was practically identical. They suggested the same remedies, and he would like to be allowed to read one extract from the evidence of Mr. Rose He said he was not so shocked as might perhaps be expected, at the idea of apprehending persons who were selling pirated music. If those persons could only be readied by making it penal, and by apprehending them, he confessed he could not see why they should not be so treated That was sufficient to show how necessary it was that the House should grant an effectual remedy for this evil.

1173
When talking of pirates, he wondered how many Members there were in the House who knew how piracy was carriedon. Now, piracy was the taking of another man's property and selling it as though it were his own—a process not indistinguishable from stealing. The pirate selected what songs he would sell. He selected only those songs which had proved to be a success; he photographed them, put that production on a plate and then printed any number of copies. Not only that, but sometimes a song was copied out in rough hand. Now, unless power was given to destroy these plates the root of the evil could not be struck at. Having produced these copies, how were they sold? The manufacturers of these copies were much too wary to go themselves out into the street to sell them. They had agents. They employed a middleman who had no shop or abode, but had what was known as a "lock-up"—a place on an upper story of a building in the city or elsewhere. He himself had been anxious to discover how this process was carried on, and had visited one of these "shops." He found there shelve? carefully partitioned off, in which the various pirated copies were kept. But the middleman was wary; he did not purchase any very large number of copies from the printer, so that he only kept a few there. Moreover, he did not sell them to the public. He employed somebody else; and went to where hawkers were to be found. Now, hawkers were to be found principally in public houses. He made that statement because it might be agreeable to the advocates of temperance reform. The hawker was found in the public house by the middleman, who sold him the limit of twenty-five copies. There was no risk of detection as to who was the printer in purchasing from the hawker, because the hawker did not know who the printer was. Moreover, the hawker adopted various forms of selling. He sold in the street; he canvassed from house to house, from door to door; and solicited orders by post. He sold either from the kerbstone, or from a barrow, or from market stalls. He might even go outside a music-seller's shop who was selling legitimate copies of the music and sell there pirated copies of the music. He could also sell outside a music hall, not according to the merit of
1174
the song, but to its popularity. He commended that fact to the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, if that hon. Gentleman was going to turn a music publisher! Moreover, the pirate sold the music by the yard, so to speak. Four sheets were sold for a penny, no matter what its merits might be; eight sheets for 2d.; and twelve sheets for 4d. But care was taken to print the music as closely as possible. When the hawkers' sales, either in the street, or through the post, or by canvas from door to door, fell off, the middleman issued leaflets or advertised in the newspapers, and assumed various names. Here was a specimen of an advertisement which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on 5th September last year—
"Special Notice.—For the last many years we have been supplying the public at a price unheard of for cheapness, carrying out our orders promptly, scrupulously and conscientiously, with the highest-class music, of which we have always a large variety in stock. The public have not been slow in appreciating our services, in token of which we daily receive letters thanking us for our never-failing attendance. We return thanks to our customers, and warn the public against falsehoods spread by self-interested mischief-mongers misrepresenting us as obtaining money under false pretences. If any lady or gentleman will send us at our undermentioned letter address a claim of an order unfulfilled (if in accordance with our books) we promise to supply order, or send back money within three days. Note letter address, A. Brown, 66, Highbury New Park. N."
It was not a little pathetic that underneath that advertisement there appeared another in regard to the Local Examinations for the Royal College of Music from a student who seemed to be studiously anxious to pass that examination, and in which he asked where he might obtain cheap music. But the middleman also dealt through the post. He issued circulars, and here was one of them from Birmingham—
"Dear Sir,—If you are desirous of purchasing any further copies of high-class music at the present low prices please send your order at once, as after the proposed amendment of the Act of Parliament relating to Musical Copyright is passed it will be impossible for us to supply you with the same copies after a short time."
MR. CALDWELL: Hear, hear.
MR. GALLOWAYsaid that the pirate was quite aware that the ability of

1175
the hon. Member for Mid Lanark to prevent an efiectual remedy being provided was coming to an end, and that he would have to cease soon carrying on his nefarious trade. What was the "high-class" music that was being sold? "The Honeysuckle and the Bee," "The horse the missus dries the clothes on," "You can get a sweetheart any day, but not another mother," "Looping the loop with Lucy," and so forth. If that was the high-class music the hon. Member for Mid Lanark wished to see taught in the board schools, and if it was for the production of such music at cheap rates that the hon. Member thought pi rates should be leniently dealt with, he could only say that, as one who had been interested in music all his life, he would be sorry for the musical development of the country. What class of person were the hawkers v ho issued this cheap music? If they were carrying on an honest or a reputable business they would have no need to take any name or address other than their own. but in the cases of hawkers who had been traced they were found to be trading under various names and at different addresses. Another practice was to print a large number of circulars and send them round to their own friends in the trade, who simply placed their names on them by means of a rubber stamp. So the game went merrily on, and the existing powers were not sufficient to stop it.
The hon. Member for Mid Lanark had argued in his Report that the Copyright owners had used their privilege in such a manner as to be detrimental to the interests of the public, and to the advancement of the cause of music, and so as to induce piracy. He would take those argument sin order. As to the interest of the public, what was the method adopted? The composer got his lyrics from the author, who was paid either by royalty or by fee; and then he went to the publisher, who either bought the copyright outright or agreed to pay certain royalties. The song had then to be sung and advertised, and publishers sometimes actually ran concerts to advertise their songs. This method, which was the growth of years, was fair to the public, because the copyright lasted only forty-two years, and it was fair as between composer and publisher
1176
because it was the system adopted all over the country. There was no compulsion whatever upon the composer and author to adopt this method unless they thought fit. As a matter of fact, at one time the composers and authors endeavoured to do without the publisher by forming a combination amongst themselves. but the attempt utterly failed, the reason of the failure being that capital was necessary, and for the most part neither composers nor authors were possessed of much wealth. If the present system was detrimental to the interests of the public, it necessarily followed that some other system ought to be adopted, but he maintained that there was no other system possible except that of the composers and authors themselves publishing. That meant that a person would be able to acquire the copyright only if he composed, published, advertised, and sung his own songs. He might be able to satisfy the first three, but the fourth of those requirements would be a serious impediment to composers. The next argument of the hon. Gentleman was that the present system was detrimeiital to the advancement of the cause of music. It was difficult to understand the sudden desire evinced by the hon. Member to advance the cause of music. Doubtless he had some ulterior motive—he did not say it was a bad one, but it was not apparent on the face of the circumstances. It was the more difficult to understand inasmuch as the hon. Member was the person who succeeded in preventing the House of Commons from discussing the question last year. The third argument of the hon. Member was that "the excessive price charged to the public for music, as compared with the cost of production (even after allowing the fullest remuneration to the composer) offered a great temptation to piracy." If there was anything in that argument, it followed logically that if the price was reduced piracy would cease. But what had happened? An eminent firm of publishers, Messrs. Day & Co., had published a sixpenny edition of a cheaper class of music, and those very songs were amongst the first taken by the pirates. In the face of that fact how could it be argued that the dearness of music had anything to do with the piracy?

1177
The complaint was that the price of music was excessive. How was a song produced? The publisher had to agree with the author, and his royalty was frequently about 1d. per copy, and sometimes he was paid a fee of perhaps twenty or thirty guineas. He was speaking from the point of view of the publisher. He often had to pay to the composer not only a retaining fee, but sometimes a royalty of 6d. per copy. One of the most eminent of English musicians, whose memory was still fresh to the English musical public, got as much as 6d. per copy in royalties during the latter years of his life. The publisher having got the song and published it, it had to be advertised, which often was very expensive; and not only this, but it had to be sung, and some of the eminent singers, like Miss Clara Butt and Mr. Andrew Black, had been known to get as much as 3d. per copy. He had heard of one eminent singer who got as much as £600 for singing a copyright song. The hon. Member for Mid. Lanark, who had discussed this subject without having mastered the facts, believed that English copyright music was largely printed abroad. Here was one of those cases where a little knowledge was a dangerous thing. The hon. Member had got that information from the evidence given by Mr. Enoch in reply to a question put by himself. Mr. Enoch stated that four-fifths of English copyright music was printed abroad, and upon that the hon. Member for Mid Lanark made his statement that four-fifths of English music was printed abroad. That was a mis-statement of the facts, although he did not wish to throw any reflection on Mr. Enoch's evidence or the Report of the hon. Member opposite. Take, for example, Messrs. Chappell&Co., Boosey & Co., and Messrs. Novello, who were the principal publishers of music in London. Messrs. Novello had got their own printing works and engraving staff, and not a note of any kind produced by them was sent out. Messrs. Chappell & Co. employed their own printers and engravers, and so did Messrs. Boosey & Co. The hon. Member had referred to Glasgow. Was he aware that even from his own native town of Manchester they sent music to be engraved and published in Glasgow, and what was more, it was done
1178
more cheaply there than abroad. The statement that four-fifths of English copyright music was printed abroad was therefore very misleading, and it was absurd for the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, on this statement, to take that to be an absolute fact without inquiring into its accuracy.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he took it from the evidence of the hon. Member for Manchester's own witness, and he had no other evidence or knowledge; and in his Report he referred to the answer that four-fifths of the English copyright music was printed abroad.
MR. GALLOWAYsaid he did not think the hon. Member knew anything else, and when he knew that fact he did not know much about the question. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark issued a Minority Report containing some statements which ought to be dealt with. The statement that the printing of copyright music was done mostly abroad was misleading and inaccurate. Then again, the publisher had to pay office expenses, and rent and other expenses, and for the first few months every song was sold at not more than 8d. per copy to the trade. He wished to add, and he believed he was right in stating, that the number of successes proportionate to failures in the publication of new songs, was about one in fifty, and in some cases only one in a hundred. Surely if that was true it ought to be taken into consideration. The purchaser did not need to pay those prices and there was no compulsion upon anyone to buy the music. Frequently the public paid 6s. for a new book, and therefore it could not be said that 1s. 4d. was a very high price for a piece of music. The 6s. novel was, as a rule, only read once, but a piece of music was played time after time and often played by many persons. The hon. Member had argued that music was more expensive in England than in other countries. He did not think that was accurate, for his experience was that music was far more expensive abroad than in England. Take, for example, a copy of a musical play like "The Geisha." That was sold at 6s., or with the discount taken off, 4s. 8d. If they went to France they would have to pay twelve francs for a copy of "The

1179
Geisha." He could give the House many instances of that kind, and it was erroneous to say that the cost of music was more in this country than it was abroad.
The hon. Member opposite had said that he could only agree to certain remedies on condition that the precedent of the Patents Act was carried out. That Act under certain circumstances provided that they might insist upon the owner selling at a certain price. Nobody had any settled idea as to the actual working of the Patents Act in this respect. They were entirely in the dark as to the view of the Privy Council upon it, and it was not unreasonable to say that before they extended that principle they should at least know the result of the working of the Act. He did not attach any importance one way or the other to it, but he did not think that composers and music publishers should have such an extreme remedy used against them. The hon. Member opposite in his Report objected to two points, but he would deal first with the question of exports. As regarded exports the Committee had received some extraordinary evidence from Mr. Stephen Adams who said he had been in Canada and his works had been sold there. In his opinion what they required was to get at the printer, and not so much at the person who aided and abetted the printer, and that was a point which it was most desirable should be dealt with. It had been suggested in the Minority Report that the piracy of books in America was stopped by bringing down the price of books, and it had been argued that if they did the same thing in regard to music they would stop piracy here. He doubted this, but his point was that in America the stopping of piracy had not been brought about by the reduction in the price of books. In 1892 there was no law dealing with piracy in America and books were pirated there wholesale, with the result that the Copyright Act was passed.
MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to call attention to the fact that there are not forty Members present.
Forty Members being present the House resumed.
MR. GALLOWAYsaid he had taken an interest in music all his life. He had had many friends who had been deprived of their livelihood and brought to the direst straits of poverty through the piracy complained of. The House was probably aware that the Berne Convention had been construed as giving the same protection to owners of foreign copyright in England as was given to English copyright in foreign countries. He thought it was essentially desirable that that should be done. If this country received favour from foreign countries in this matter it was equitable that we should give the same advantages to others. He wished to say a few words with regard to the price of music. Anybody who had read the Report by the hon. Member for Mid. Lanark would see that he made a great point on that matter. The whole of the hon. Member's Report was based on the assumption that music was too dear, and that in consequence the poorer classes were shut out from purchasing it.
Mr. JOSEPH DELVINrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
MR. SPEAKER: I cannot accept that Motion, but I hope that the hon. Member will confine himself strictly to the question raised in the Bill before the House.
MR. GALLOWAYsaid he was going to deal with the question of the price of non-copyright music, but he would pass from that and deal with another question which he thought was as essential as that of price. It was said that the remedies proposed by the Bill should not be given because Parliament had already passed enactments restricting the price, and had thereby done all that was necessary to protect the composers of music and at the same time to protect the public. He did not in the least hold that view. He thought it was founded on an incorrect interpretation of the Statute. He did say that Parliament, having given the right which was established by the Act of 1882, ought to provide powers by which the Statute could be carried out. He submitted that the remedies proposed by the Bill were the only remedies which would effectually carry out that object. He asked the House to accept the principle of

1181
the Bill by agreeing to the Second Reading, reserving minor points for consideration in Committee.
MR. CALDWELLsaid the speech to which they had just listened was a complete justification of the action taken last year in refusing to allow the Bill to pass without discussion. He thought it was very useful indeed that they should have an opportunity of discussing the Bill. He did not know how far the hon. Member had helped the progress of his Bill, because if it had taken two hours to deliver one speech on the Second Reading he did not know how, in the limited time after Whitsuntide, it would be possible to get through a contentious measure containing a great many clauses. That was, however, probably a matter for the future. He was not going to follow the hon. Member into his personalities. The hon. Member had referred to his opposition to Bills. He would point out in answer to the hon. Member that of about 170 private Member's Bills introduced in the past two sessions only a very small number (15) became law. and that, of those which were passed, the majority were Bills which were introduced on the Government side of the House, and not one of which had an early place on the ballot. The suggestion that Bills were blocked on the Opposition side of the House was not justified. When the hon. Member talked of the blocking of Bills he would remind him of one Bill which passed the Second Reading by a large majority, and passed through the Standing Committee and through Report in the House down to the last Amendment, by large majorities. That was the Innkeepers Liability Bill, which was promoted with the view of providing refreshments for cyclists. The hon. Member for South-West Manchester talked it out. Not only did he do that once, but on another occasion, when there was half an hour to spare, he talked it out again. He was not the man who should come forward and reprove sin of that sort. Reference had been made to the constitution of the Committee.
He received a letter from the Home Office, when in Scotland, asking him if he would attend a Departmental Committee. It was said that another Member
1182
of Parliament was to be on the Committee. The subject was one which he thought ought to be inquired into by a Committee, and he consented to serve, stating that he thought the Government ought to introduce the necessary legislation. He came from Scotland to London and spent the whole of January sitting on the Committee in the interest of a Bill dealing with the matter, and then the hon. Member suggested that he was put on the Committee because he was the representative of the pirates. That was a dishonourable imputation to bring against a Member of the House. What was the composition of the Committee? The hon. Member for South-West Manchester represented the copyright owners. He did not conceal his friendship for them. Another member was Mr. John Murray, Publisher, the man who held the greatest interest in copyrights in the kingdom. Another was Mr. Serutton, K.C. It had been said that he represented the Board of Trade. He was counsel and adviser for the Musical Copyright Association, in proceedings under the Musical Copyright Act, 1902. How could he judge impartially in the matter? In this House it was understood that when counsel was engaged in a case he should not take part in the vote upon it. Mr. Scrutton was the member of the Committee who wrote out the Report of the Majority of the Committee. It was not a Report written by the chairman. The House had only to look at the questions put by him from the beginning to see exactly where his bias lay. Mr. Fenwick was, he admitted, impartial, able. and courteous, but everybody knew that matters of piracy had been before the magistrates, and that they had formed a definite opinion on the subject. Not only so, but the Musical Copyright Association in one of their statements said that they had received "loyal assistance" from the magistrates as well as the police. It was a grand thing to have on the Committee one who had given loyal support to the copyright owners when the matter was being considered and reported on. The only Member of the Committee left was himself, and it could be seen at once that there was a great disparity—four against one. The witnesses were all brought forward by the Copyright

1183
Association. Not one was brought forward by him (Mr. Caldwell) and as to the king of the pirates, he absolutely knew nothing about him or about a single pirate until the Committee received a letter from Willetts asking to be heard. He had no sympathy with the pirates, and he had had no communication, direct or indirect, with anyone. He had no grievance to represent on the Committee. He was there to look at the matter purely from the public point of view.
Coming to the merits of the Bill he thought he could state the matter shortly in this way. The difference between the two Reports lay in the difference of view which had been taken as to copyright. The majority had acted on the view, which was openly stated, that they considered copyright was a right of property the same as a man had in his watch. They also asserted that he had a right to charge the public anything he pleased for his copyright [An HON. MEMBER: No.] and that the public had no right or interest whatever with regard to price or the manner in which the right of copyright was exercised. Every witness maintained that it was a right of property, and therefore the Report of the Committee was a logical consequence. If copyright was the same right as a man had in his watch obviously they got in the criminal law at once. But they were not content with getting in the criminal law, because it was proposed to change the onus of proof. They said that a man must prove his innocence They said that an accused person could give evidence as a prisoner to prove his innocence. If it was to apply in this case it should apply to every other. The contention of the Minority Report was that copyright was a privilege conferred by Parliament. The words conferring that privilege were—
"the sole and exclusive liberty of multiplying copies."
That liberty was conferred by Parliament for a limited number of years, and under certain conditions, and the public had a right to demand that the privilege should be exercised fairly and reasonably in the interests of the public. That privilege was not absolute property in the same sense as a watch was a man's absolute
1184
property. In the case of musical compositions, copyright carried with it not only the sole and exclusive right of multiplying copies but also the sole right of representation and performance, the penalty for infringement in the latter case being not less than 40s. or the proceeds of the entertainment whichever was greatest. Under this law, copyright holders mulcted people in villages in penalties of not less than £2 for singing a song in public without receiving the authority of the holder of the copyright; but in 1888 Parliament interfered, and imposed more modest penalties, and gave absolute discretion to the Judges as to costs. The result was that now no one had the slightest compunction in singing a song in public, even supposing they had not asked the consent of the composer. If Parliament granted a privilege to anyone, Parliament could take that privilege away. For instance, under the Patents Act, 1802, where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Privy Council that the reasonable requirements of the public are not being satisfied, the Privy Council have the power to compel Licences or may revoke the patent. Why was it that there had been so much piracy in regard to music, and so little in the case of books? The explanation of that was very simple. Cheap 6d. editions of novels originally published at 6s. were offered to the public. The cost of production had something to do with piracy. The engraving only cost a few shillings, and a thousand copies could be printed for £1–10s. for the printing off and 10s. for the paper. That only came to one halfpenny a copy, and it would be even less if more than 1,000 copies were printed.
Reference had been made to advertising, but everybody knew that advertising did not add to the cost of production. A man advertised because it paid him to advertise; and it was ridiculous to talk about advertising adding a single penny to the cost of production. The net price to the trade was 7d. per copy, and the lowest price charged at the stores to the public was 1s. 4d., so that the dealers got 9d. for handing a piece of music over the counter. In Birmingham and Scotland the retailer charged the public 1s. 8d., and there were retailers who

1185
charged 2s. The music was published at 4s. and professors and teachers of music could charge up to that amount. The burden of the song of the hon. Member for Manchester was that the brains of the poor composer were being stolen. If they were, it was the publishers who were stealing them. The customary royalty in the case of the very few tiptop composers was only 2½d. net. A great number, however, only got a few shillings for a song, and some only a few copies, which cost a farthing each, as their reward for the copyright. In the case of "Ora Pro Nobis" by Piccolimini thousands of pounds had been drawn by the publishers, and how much did the composer get?—A miserable sum of £10! The public paid the same price for the most trashy piece of music as they did for the best, because the publishers had a ring or combination among themselves to keep up the price, whilst the Musical Copyright Association, according to their own statement, had an army of agents, and spent thousands of pounds in enforcing the copyright law. This putting forward the poor composer was like putting women and children in front of a line of soldiers.
The next question was, "Was there a market for cheaper music?" They all knew that things had changed very considerably since 1842. Singing was now a part of the code in every public elementary school, and there were now pianos and other musical instruments in working men's homes in abundance. Parents did not complain of the fees paid for teaching singing and music, but they complained of the enormous price charged for the sheets of music—2s. for what only cost a halfpenny to produce, plus the royalty to the composer. The complaint was that there was piracy. Why was there piracy? It was because the hawkers could not get cheap music. They and the stall-holders in the market places were selling large quantities of classical music at popular prices, and naturally desired to supply their customers with popular music of the day at reasonable prices, and claimed that they had as much right to sell music and have their profits as any man in Bond Street. The hon. Member for Manchester said that 500,000 copies of music had been
1186
seized; but did not that show in what direction the public sympathy and demand lay? The existence of a large market for cheap music was admitted by Mr. Day the president of the Musical Copyright Association. He stated that the pirates did not claim that the price of all music should be reduced, but that there should be two editions, one at a high price and another at a low price, like the cheap sixpenny novels. Mr. Day, whose firm established a sixpenny series last October, in all respects the same as the 4s. series, said he felt sure that there was a demand on the part of the public for it. The sixpenny series was sold to the trade at 2d. per copy and that included the copyright, the cost of engraving, of printing, an I every other expense. That series was commenced in October, and was it not a blessing that the Bill was not passed last session. Hawkers bought that series at 2d and could sell it at anything between 2d. and 6d. That showed what could be done if the wide market instead of the narrow market were taken. What did the Bill ask for? It asked for the power of imprisonment, in order that the price of music should be kept up to a minimum price to the public of 1s. 4d. per copy and anything from that up to 4s. It would shut out the hawkers from earning a living in the market places in the interest of a few West End music sellers. As regarded the composers, if a wide market were opened up, they would be appreciated by the working classes, and their talents would find an opening which was now closed against them by the music publishers. A smaller royalty would bring in larger returns owing to the enormously larger sale through the reduction in price. Concurrently with any remedy for putting down piracy, care should be taken to safeguard the rights of the general public. There ought to be a clause in the Bill that, if the reasonable rights of the public were not satisfied, the Privy Council should have the power to compel licences or cancel the copyright. He was sure that no hon. Member who was concerned for the public interest rather than for the selfish interest of the publishers would object to give power of that kind to such a responsible body as the Privy Council. It appeared to be imagined that imprisonment would be a

1187
remedy, but imprisonment would be useless unless there was public sympathy behind it. As long as there was a public grievance owing to the excessive price charged for the music, no matter what legislation was passed it would be a failure. The solution was the 6d. edition, which would enable hawkers and others to sell to their customers at a profit, and only legitimate music would then be sold. As regarded imprisonment, it was complained last year that prison accommodation was becoming insufficient. Imprisonment was now being passed for the smallest thing—almost for blowing one's nose—and the result was that the prisons were becoming overcrowded, numbers going to prison rather than pay the fines. How many men were there in the market places of London who would run the risk of being sent to prison, where they would be better fed and better housed, for what would not be considered a dishonourable offence? For himself he would not object to the Second Reading of the Bill. The question was not the rejection of the Bill but the protection of the public, and he hoped the House would remember when the Bill came back in the Report stage to take their time at any rate in discussing the details.
MR. MALCOLMsaid he ventured to intervene in the debate because he had been for a very long time interested in the subject before the House. Hon. Members who had been any considerable time in the House had seen the hon. Member for Mid Lanark play many parts, and he hoped the hon. Member would forgive him for a good-humoured analogy when he said that the hon. Member surprised the House by sailing in in the character of Captain Kidd, under the Jolly Roger, to look after the interests of the pirates. There was no doubt that those who were interested in the Bill were at present suffering from certain quite admitted evils. The operations of the pirates struck not only at the roots of the prosperity of the musical community and the rights of property, which some people did not appear to regard very much, but he was not putting it too high when he said that they struck also at
1188
that respect which people ought to fee for the law and public morality generally Parliament had granted absolute privileges to the musical profession in the Copyright Act, and he thought that the hon. Member for Mid Lanark was quite wide of the mark when he said that those privileges were granted solely in the interests of the public. They were granted to protect the brain-property of British citizens, who had as much right to that property as people had to material property. It was a humiliating position for Parliament to find that the Act which was passed in 1842, and which it was thought granted privileges to the musical community, was nothing but an empty form which was defied by the enemies of musical copyright. Was it any wonder, when a procession of four-in-hands was driven through an Act of Parliament over the defenceless bodies of music publishers and composers, that they should come to Parliament and ask Parliament to make good its word and intention as expressed in the Act of 1842? The evidence before the Committee showed falling receipts on the part of music publishers and diminishing royalties on the part of musical composers and singers, as a result of what he might call the State-aided invasion of the pirates, most of whom were foreigners. After an intimate acquaintance of fifteen years with music publishers and composers he knew that not only the publishers who had given evidence suffered but that the small men suffered too. Were they not to be allowed to stand up for the small men? The hon. Member for Mid-Lanark ought to have justified his self-confident assertion that the music publishers were making large profits. As a matter of fact they did not. If on a fine song they made a profit, there was to be set against it the losses on other songs. The remedy provided in the Bill was swift, sure and cheap, and he hoped the Government would help to pass the measure into law.
He objected to the new morality which was being preached by the hon. Member for Mid Lanark. The hon. Member said, in effect, that what the public wanted it was to have at its own price and honestly, if it could get it, otherwise dishonestly; legally if it could get it, otherwise

1189
illegally. To satisfy this alleged craving on the part of the public they were asked to continue to allow a coach-and-four to be driven through an Act of Parliament. It was said that the pirate helped musical education and that it would be retarded if this Bill were passed; but he thought it very questionable whether the songs which were pirated had any educational value at all. No one admired more than he did songs from "The Geisha" or "The Country Girl," but he doubted if they had any educational value, and he was quite certain that their composers did not learn their art from either musical comedies or sentimental songs. As for the pirates he thought that the last thing that entered their dishonest brain was that they were giving the people music of educational value. But although the works pirated might have no educational value, they were the property of the man who produced them, and he ought to be protected from the man who waited for the moment when, after expensive advertisement, they had become popular, and then stepped in to deprive him of his profits. This man waited till he heard the hon. Member for Mid Lanark whistling the song on the top of a bus, then bought a copy, photographed it, sold it at a ridiculously low price, and earned a dishonest income out of it. The hon. Member advised music publishers to take a leaf out of the book of the pirate and sell music at 6d. instead of 1s. 4d. Mr. Day himself admitted that his firm did not aim at publishing high-class music, but even the music-hall songs published by Mr. Day's firm were pirated and there would be no chance for his firm in the long run. He regretted that the genius and geniality of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark should have been wasted in opposition to the Bill. He had once looked on the hon. Member as the model of all the Conservative virtues; then he became the apostle of advanced Radical views, and now he was the arch-priest of the old-time calling of piracy and of unearned increment. The hon. Member would take a great responsibility on himself if this Bill was rejected. He would be doing a great deal to ruin a trade which had branches not only throughout this country but also in the Colonies, and he would be doing a great deal to diminish the incomes
1190
of musical composers who were giving their best work for the benefit of the country. The hon. Member would also be doing much to show the impotence of Parliament to enforce its own laws of copyright, by methods which were well known and very effective in foreign countries.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE HOME OFFICE (Mr. COCHRANE, Ayrshire, N.)said he desired to briefly express his views on the Bill which was introduced in such an eloquent and able speech by the hon. Member for the Newbury Division. He would not attempt to emulate the eloquence of the hon. Member for Mid. Lanark, but would put a simple statement before the House. The hon. Member for Mid. Lanark complained of the nature of the speech of his hon. friend the Member for South-West Manchester, but the hon. Member himself in explaining last session his attitude in blocking the Bill, said that it was of such a contentious character that it ought not to be passed without full discussion, which it could not receive at the then period of the session. He did not think that his hon. friend did more than his duty in bringing before the House all the arguments. He wished to associate himself with all that had been said in praise of the manner in which the Departmental Committee had carried out the task entrusted to it by the Home Office. Mr. Fenwick was one of the most experienced of men, and he thought that for the pains which were taken by it, the Committee deserved the thanks of the House of Commons. The two hon. Members who had addressed the House showed how thorough the investigations had been, and he thought their painstaking labour ought to be appreciated. The conclusion at which the Committee arrived was that a widespread system of piracy had grown up and was doing serious injury to the property of composers and publishers of music; that this piracy owed its origin to the inadequacy of the remedies provided by Parliament to protect that property against persons, of no means and no settled abode, who deliberately conspired to break the law. The Acts which had been found by the Committee to be inadequate were the

1191
Acts of 1842, 1869, and 1902. As regarded the Act of 1842, which the hon. Member for Mid Lanark said was passed to encourage music and not to protect property, the preamble said—
"Whereas it is expedient to amend the law relating to copyright and to afford greater encouragement to the production of literary works of lasting benefit to the world."
Then "copyright" was construed to mean—
"The sole and exclusive liberty of printing or otherwise multiplying copies of any subject to which the said word is herein applied."
The remedy against piracy in that Act was that the pirate should be liable to a civil action on the suit of the proprietor of such copyright to be brought in any Court of Record in that part of the British dominions in which the offence was committed. Then a further section said that pirated copies should be deemed to be the property of the proprietor of such copyright. The hon. Member for Mid. Lanark seemed to deny that copyright was in any sense personal property. He said that copyright was not property as was a watch. That was perfectly true; but was not copyright like the lease the hon. Member probably had of his own house. If the hon. Member disputed that he would refer him to Copyinger, a well known authority on copyright who asked what property could be more a man's own than his literary works. There was clearly property in copyright, not perhaps the same as with the hon. Member's watch, but as was possessed by a leaseholder, and Parliament ought to give similar remedies for infringement of copyright as were given if a lease were in any way infringed. The Act of 1842 said that the pirate could be proceeded against by civil action, but it was absolutely impossible to proceed against a man who gave no name or address, or who gave a false address. A typical case had been mentioned in which a man transferred his business to his wife, and thus, though continuing to sell pirated music, evaded the injunction. It was obvious that civil proceedings against an anonymous person without means were useless. The Newspaper Act of 1869 had been held by the Attorney-General not to apply to publications such as music, and the fiat of the Attorney-General was necessary to give effect to
1192
proceedings under that Act. The Act of 1902 was deficient because it gave no power to enter premises by force to search for pirated copies. The case had been mentioned of a seller of pirated copies whose open shop was in the basement and whose stock of pirated music was in a locked-up shop upstairs which could not be entered by the police. In another case the door was barred and pirated music sold through a wicket. It was known that there was any number of pirated copies of music in the house, but the police were in the circumstance unable to make an entry and seize them. The police did eventually get in when the people inside got thirsty and sent out for beer, and several thousands of pirated copies were seized. That showed that the law required strengthening. Again, copies when seized remained at the police offices for a long period. The whole stock was not accessible when seizures were affected, and, before what was seized could be destroyed, the proprietor had to be summoned to appear; but it was impossible to discover the owner, so that the police were rapidly accumulating enormous-masses of these productions, which they had no legal power to destroy. He thought that that required the remedy provided by the Bill.
Let the House glance at the extent of the evil which they had to face. Its magnitude had only become apparent since 1901. In that year, only forty-seven copyrights were infringed, now no fewer than 231 pirated copyright editions were known, and 467,575 copies had fallen into the hands of the Metropolitan Police in eleven months. In one week 45,000 copies were seized, and the "king of the pirates" had described these as only a small toll of the numbers that might be found. The composer and publisher, having invested their brains and money, had a right to look for some protection. Mr. May brick had told the Committee that, on asking the street-seller of a pirated work of his who the publisher was, the man said, "Good morning," and ran away too quickly to be overtaken. Some better remedy should be open to the composer other than that dependent on his ability to pursue the pirate through the streets of London.

1193
That the law was ineffective was well-known to those who had knowledge on the subject. Sir Harry Poland, Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Rose had all testified to that effect. They had described the method adopted by these pirates, and pointed out how a man hawking these piracies in the street only had a few copies in his possession at a time, which were practically of no value, and when he had sold them drew more out from his store in a depot close by. Then there was the practice of canvassing from house to house, and of soliciting orders through the post, the letters being addressed from some small shop where only a few copies were kept. It was hard that the composer and publisher should put their brains into their work and secure publicity for it at great expense, risking many failures for a percentage of successes, and that then the pirate should step in and by ingenious means undersell them. Civil actions were unsatisfactory in their results, for out of twelve Messrs. Boosey had only succeeded in recovering any costs in two instances, and they had spent no less than £500 in doing so. That was a very heavy outlay for so small a result, and what did the public gain by buying these cheap productions of copyright music? If it were a gain at all, it was one obtained at great cost, for ultimately it must result in starving out the best composers and discouraging all legitimate enterprise in this direction. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark had stated that the right of copyright was not an absolute one.
MR. CALDWELL: I pointed out that in 1888 Parliament had so whittled down the sole right of representation and performance owing to abuses by the owners of copyright that it was practically inoperative.
MR. COCHRANEsaid the hon. Member had complained also of the prices charged for copyrighted music. Did he want it fixed by some authority; did he desire a return to the Sumptuary Laws? Really he was a great Conservative at heart! Probably he would like to go back to the enactment of Queen Anne, under which the copyright prices were ordered to be fixed at a reasonable figure by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Chancellor and Lord
1194
Keeper of the Great Seal, the Bishop of London, the Chief Justices of the Queen's Bench and Common Pleas or other designated officials. The Bill in its main principles was one the House would do well to adopt. Some of the details would require careful consideration in Committee, especially those having relation to penalties. He believed it was in the public interest that the law should be clearly defined and its provisions made more stringent for the prevention of piracy leading to all kinds of fraud and impropriety. He hoped the House would give the Bill a Second Reading and refer it to the Standing Committee on Trade.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc."—(Mr. Mount.)
MR. CALDWELLobjected, and urged that the purely legal character of the Bill required consideration by the Committee on Law.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)agreed with this view, and moved the substitution of the Law Committee for the Trade Committee.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Trade, etc." and insert the words "Law, etc."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. GALLOWAYsubmitted that the Bill dealt with a purely trade matter, and therefore they thought the Grand Committee on Trade the proper body to deal with it. So far as the promoters were concerned, however, it did not matter which Committee it was sent to.
MR. COHEN (Islington, E.), as? A member of the Standing Committee on Trade, confessed that he felt totally disqualified to deal with the intricate points of law raised by the Bill. Could not the difficulty be met by nominating, the President of the Board of Trade to

1195
represent that Department on the Grand Committee on Law while the Bill was under consideration?
MR. COCHRANEsaid he suggested that the Bill should go to the Standing Committee on Trade because the question was one largely dealt with by that Department.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLpointed out that the Standing Committee on Law dealt with shipping questions which were essentially matters of trade.
MR. SAMUEL EVANShoped that the Bill would be sent to the Grand Committee on Law.
Question put and negatived.
Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.

MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS (Merionethshire)said he rose with considerable diffidence to move the Second Reading of this Bill, not because of the nature of its proposal but because he felt his personal inability to do justice to all the arguments in its favour. It had no doubt intense interest for all the miners of Great Britain, and that interest was shared by Members. With the exception of those in Durham and Northumberland, the proposal to restrict underground labour to eight hours a day had the support of the miners of the United
1196
Kingdom. The Bill was not over burdened with clauses: its effective clause simply proposed that the hours passed by miners underground in their labour should be restricted to eight, and that the proposal should extend to all underground working in the United Kingdom. Many thousands of boys were employed underground, and he would ask hon. Members if that fact alone did not constitute one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Bill. What were the claims of miners to this concession from the Legislature? The first was the large number employed in the mining industry. Then the peculiar nature of their work should plead on their behalf, seeing that so many hours had to be spent in daily labour far from the light of day, and amidst great risks and dangers. The death roll in 1902 to totalled 1,172, and how often did they hear of terrible cases, such as the aged father and mother being suddenly deprived of all means of support by the death at one time of their three sons while working in one mine. Surely it was not unreasonable to demand that the daily hours of the underground labour should be restricted to eight.
Having had but little mining experience he was not very well versed in these matters; he preferred to quote the opinions of three eminent statesmen in support of these proposals. The late Lord Salisbury in 1890 said he believed that, as a rule, eight hours a day was quite as much labour as the muscle or tension of the brain of an average man could give. Mr. Gladstone, speaking at West Calder in the same year, said that though he was not a miner he had been down a coal pit and had the feeling, which it seamed to him every man who had been in a mine must entertain, that eight hours out of every twenty-four

1197
was quite enough for any human being to labour under such conditions. And, finally, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose asserted—also in the same year—that public opinion was unmistakably in favour of the proposal to limit the hours of working underground to eight at a time. Miners were paid according to the amount of work they did, and experience had taught them that shorter hours meant concentrated energy, while longer hours involved dilatory application. In his opinion long hours meant useless, inefficient, and bad work. It had been urged that because the Northumberland and Durham miners were opposed to the proposal the House ought to reject it, but he had yet to learn that any law had ever been the product of unanimous assent. It was because unanimity was impossible in a community that law became necessary. He did not wish to pass lightly over the opposition of a valuable contingent of mining labour to the Bill. He was prepared to give every consideration to the views of that group. The respect and esteem, in which its representatives were held in this House by every Member of it, and by himself in a special degree, were such that had he them on his side the burden of his task would be light indeed. He felt sure bad he this assistance it would have such an effect upon the judgment of this House as would ensure the passing of the Second Reading with accord. He begged to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. JOHN WILSONon rising to move the rejection of the Bill on behalf of the representatives in the House
1198
of the miners of the North of England, thanked the hon. Member for the kind and sympathetic expressions which he had used towards them. But he wished the House to bear in mind that he and his colleagues did not approach this question merely from the point of view of miners. They desired to face it in its general aspect and to discuss on broad grounds its merits and demerits. The hon. Member had pleaded ignorance on the question, and he was bound to say if hon. Members generally were more versed in the technicalities of the question, and knew the difference that existed between the mines in the Midlands and the North, they would not be so ready to support the measure. He acknowledged the pathetic truth of the hon. Member's description of the effects of a mining accident, but he would have liked him to explain how this Bill would lessen the number of these accidents. It had been stated that the great majority of the accidents in mines occurred during the latter part of the day. That was not so, for the return secured by the hon. Member for Wansbeck showed that a large proportion of the accidents in mines occurred in the early part of the day. It had further been suggested that long hours in the mine tended to conduce to careless kind of work, but there again they must bear in mind that in many cases men worked by themselves and that their lives were in their own hands, and it was to be feared that if the hours were shortened the desire would be to crowd more work into the time so as to make more money, and this eagerness might in itself beget carelessness, and an unintentional disregard of the necessity for taking all proper safeguards. As he had said, the return obtained by the hon. Member for Wansbeck had disproved the assertion that accidents in mines occurred with greater

1199
frequency in the latter part of the day. It should be borne in mind that work in a mine was quite different from any other occupation. Its technicalities, conditions, and circumstances varied, whereas in the case, say, of engineering, the conditions that surrounded the men were uniform and constant. This fact had been the principal groundwork of the opposition of the North to this Bill. There was a great difference in technicalities between the North and the Midlands, and to apply this Bill in its rigid form would be an impossibility.
The mover of the Bill had said it was a simple measure. That was true. He remembered reading at school the old story of the bull-dog and the bull, in which the bull-dog said it was his breeding that made him attack the bull, whereupon the bull replied that in that case his breeding had destroyed him. The simplicity of this Bill was its danger. It declared that every man in a mine, regardless of the nature of his work or the necessities of the mine, should work eight hours a day, no more and no less. Suppose there were 300 or 400 men going down the mine. Between the going down of the first and the last of those men half an hour would elapse. What guarantee was there that the first man down would be the first man up? Different men had different distances to go when they reached the bottom of the shaft, and that fact alone showed that the Bill required some modification in that particular. The measure was promoted by the Midland Federation. It was with much sorrow he remembered that since last session the most prominent figure in that Federation had been taken from them. Though at times some of them regretted what they considered to
1200
be his obstinacy, they all acknowledged his sincerity, and they believed that he promoted this Bill firmly believing it would be for the benefit of the men he represented. But they who opposed the Bill contended that it would be unjust to the men themselves. Some worked in the fresh air at the shaft; others worked in the wagon-ways where the air was fresh and the work light; others were engaged in the arduous coal-getting in cramped positions, sometimes in seams eighteen inches or two feet high; therefore, if the measure was to conduce to the welfare of the men all round it should allow an arrangement to be made whereby the men engaged in the lighter forms of labour might work longer hours to meet the necessities of the mine, while the men employed in the more arduous departments worked less. It was this want of elasticity of which the North complained. The average number of hours of the coal-getters in Durham was not 6¾ per day from bank to bank. The men could not be down the mine for longer than seven hours a day. By an arrangement which had been in existence for fourteen years a difference was made between the lighter and the more arduous forms of work, and thus justice was done to the men themselves. Two ideas had prompted both the promotion of and the opposition to this Bill. One was expediency. If he admitted that his colleagues in the Midland Federation were anxious for the welfare of their men, he claimed that the leaders in Durham and Northumberland were equally solicitous with regard to the men in the North, and it was because of the expediency of the matter, the difficulty of the universal application of the principle, and the revolution that it would cause in the

1201
coal mines of Durham and Northumberland, that they strongly opposed the measure. He regretted exceedingly the difference of opinion that existed between the miners' leaders on this matter, but he and his friends spoke of what they knew and with the sanction of the great majority of the men they represented. If the Bill passed he believed it would be the worst day's work the House of Commons ever did so far as miners were concerned.
Reference had been made to the views of three statesmen, but he assumed that the idea they had in their minds was that of eight hours actually at work, not eight hours in the mine. He had shown that in the North they considered eight hours' work too much, as their average was 6¾ and the men were allowed twenty-five minutes to travel a mile, so that if a man's work was a mile from the shaft he was allowed fifty minutes for travelling in and out. Numbers of people in the country believed the Bill meant eight hours' work in the mine, but that was not its meaning at all. What it meant was eight hours from the time the man left the surface. When the proposal was first brought forward two main reasons were urged—the necessity of the men for more leisure and an opportunity to improve their minds. "Humanity" was the generic term for the motive that prompted the Bill. But what was the reason now? It was not humanity, but a desire to settle competition between districts. ["No."] In 1894 the Bill was read a second time, and on the Committee stage the senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil secured the insertion of the "local option resolution,"viz.—
"In any county in which this Act should be adopted by a majority of the working men
1202
employed underground therein in the manner hereinafter provided it should become law."
Immediately that resolution was carried the promoters refused to proceed further. Why? There was no humanity in it, for one of their own spokesman, Mr. S. Woods, said—
"It would put the districts in a very unequal position with regard to competing one with another. What we want is not to create inequality, but to cure it by putting all on the same level.…We want to give them equal rights and equal facilities for competing in the markets of the world."
That showed that Durham and Northumberland had not stood in the way of the other districts getting an eight hours day. They were willing then, as they were willing now to vote, for an optional Bill The Midland districts could then have their eight hours, and the men of the North if they came to the same way of thinking could do the same. They had recommended option; they had recommended negotiation. Parliament in it; care for the welfare of the people had certain functions to perform, but there were certain matters that were better taken out of the purview of this House and placed in the hands of the people themselves. To settle these matters he suggested negotiation between men who knew the circumstances, whose minds were full of compromise and mutuality, and who were willing to arrange matters in a manner that would conduce to the welfare of the mining community as a whole. Many Members would vote for this Bill who ought first to put their own house in order—men whose employes in shops and elsewhere worked fourteen or sixteen hours a day under conditions not conducive to health. How could they consistently vote for such a Bill? His teaching was "Physician, heal thyself." If he wanted a thing done for other

1203
people he first of all did it for his own and then he was able without hypocrisy to vote for it in regard to other people.
COLONEL PILKINGTON, who spoke amid cries of "Speak up" and "We cannot hear a word," was understood to say that the opponents of this Bill deplored the accidents in mines as much as anybody could, but it was well known that every care was taken to prevent them. The Bill was an impossibility. It provided for eight hours in the pit from bank to bank, but of that eight hours a large part would be occupied in going to and coming from the work. Persons unacquainted with the conditions of work in the mines when they read about an "eight hours' day" naturally supposed it meant eight hours' work, but that was not the case. Out of the eight hours would have to be taken the dinner hour and the time occupied in going to and coming from the work, so that the actual labour would be reduced to about six hours. Therefore all the work of the mines would have to be carried on under conditions of rush and hurry, and matters which were now carried out at considerable leisure would have to be crammed into the six hours. All authorities connected with mining considered that the passing of the Bill would lead to an increase in the number of accidents. It would certainly reduce the amount of work done, as it would be perfectly impossible for the men to do their present work in six hours. In all probability the output would be reduced by 25 per cent. Moreover, it would be impossible to employ any except the younger men. All middle-aged men and men of experience would be eliminated from the mines. ["Why?"] Because
1204
they could not work at the pace required by such conditions. The reduction of the output would reduce the wages and increase the price of coal. Cheap coal was one of the vital necessities of the country; it was the basis of all our large manufactures, the foundation of the wages and occupation of the workmen, and the material of all others which was required in every hamlet in the land.
MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
And, it being half-past Five of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Thursday, 14th April.

NEW BILL.
  TOWN AND COUNTY COUNCILS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) (SCOTLAND).
  Bill to enable women to be elected and act as members of Town and County Councils in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Parker Smith, Mr. Baird, Colonel Denny, Mr. Charles Douglas, Mr. Munro Ferguson, and Mr. Ure.

  TOWN AND COUNTY COUNCILS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To enable Women to be elected and act as members of Town and County Councils in Scotland," presented accordingly, and read the first time to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]
  Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Mid-Cheshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a, and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Llanelly Harbour Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Ticehurst and District Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [H.L.]: Withnell Gas Bill [H.L.]; Matlock and District Gas Bill [H.L.]; Cambrian Railways Bill [H.L.]; Barnard Castle Gas Bill [H.L]; Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [H.L.]; Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [H.L]; Isle of Thanet Light Railways Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl Fitzwilliam be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Verulam; read, and agreed to.
Dumbarton Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3' (according to order), and passed.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CROFTER COLONISATION.
  Fourteenth Report of the Commissioners appointed to carry out a scheme of colonisation in the Dominion of Canada of crofters and cottars from the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland; with appendices.
  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
  Fifty-sixth Report from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England; with an appendix.

  EXPLOSIVES (EXPLOSION AT THE NATIONAL EXPLOSIVES COMPANY'S FACTORY, UPTON TOWANS, CORNWALL).
  Report to the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by Captain J. H. Thomson, His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Explosives, on the circumstances attending an explosion of nitro-glycerine which occurred in the precipitating and final washing houses of the factory of the National Explosives Company, Limited, at Upton Towans, Hayle, Cornwall, on the 5th January, 1904.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA.
  The Electoral Act, No. XXXV, of 1904. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILL.
  SITE FOR DUKE OF YORK'S SCHOOL BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for extinguishing certain rights of way over certain lands situate in the parish of Guston, in the county of Kent—Was presented by the Lord Windsor; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 17.)

THE MISSION TO TIBET.
LORD REAY, who had given notice "To call attention to the Papers on Tibet, and to move for further Papers," said: My Lords, the very interesting and rather formidable Blue-book relating to Tibet can be divided into three parts. There is first the period when Lord Elgin was at the head of affairs in India. I need say very little about his policy, because it was essentially a policy of peace. In Mr. Cuningham's letter, dated 4th March, 1896, my noble friend's policy is clearly laid down in these words—
"The policy to be adopted towards the Tibetans should, therefore, be one of conciliation, and all action likely to produce friction should be carefully avoided.…The Governor-General in Council would deprecate recourse to threats."
With this attitude I am in cordial agreement. There is one other feature

1111
of his administration to which I must call your attention. In the letter mentioned above it is stated that—
"In respect to territory near Giaogong, the Tibetans probably possess claims which it would not only be impolitic but inequitable to ignore."
Those words contain the admission by the Government of India that the demarcation under the Treaty of 1890 was open to objection and to revision. I now come to the second period, the administration of Lord Curzon. Lord Curzon is prepared to leave to Tibet those lands to which Lord Elgin had declared Tibet had claims, but he is only prepared to do so on condition that phari is thrown open to native traders from India. He attaches a condition to the surrender of these lands to the Tibetans, but he is warned in a letter of the 13th of September, 1899, of the Government of Bengal, that the Tibetans would never consent to the opening of Phari to Indian traders except under compulsion. Three reasons are given for that resistance: in the first place, because it would injure an existing monopoly of Tibetan traders; and, in the next place, because the Tibetans were afraid that friction might arise with the British Government which they wanted to avoid, and because they have an inveterate dislike to the entry of any foreigners, Chinese as well as English, within their territory.
The next point to which I wish to call attention is that relating to the attempts to enter into direct correspondence with the Dalai Lama. Three attempts were made, but all three failed. Ugyen Kazi, the Bhutan Vakil, was employed for that purpose on two occasions. Hearing that the first and second attempts had failed, the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal pointed out, in a letter of the22nd of December,1899,that it would be useless to make any further endeavour at present to open direct communication, through an agent, with the Tibetan authorities. The Dalai Lama could not take a letter without consulting the Council and the Chinese Amban, and he knew they would not agree, and he could not write a letter without first consulting the Amban. Ugyen Kazi says that—
"The Dalai Lama is a clever man, and is really sorry that he was unable to accept the Viceroy's letter or send any letter."
1112
In the account of Ugyen Kazi's visit to Lhasa it is stated that the Dalai Lama went on to say that he was precluded from writing any letter to any foreign Government, as during the time of Tangya Iling Demorin pochi an agreement was entered into by the Lamas, Sehaffis, and Ambans that no letters should be written without first consulting the Ambans. The Dalai-Lama added that this agreement was not made by him but by his predecessor. This shows clearly that the proper method of communication was with the Chinese authorities, and not to attempt these useless representations to the Tibetan authorities, who were unwilling to receive them.
The next difficulty is that with regard to the removal of boundary pillars. Indian administrators are well aware that boundary pillars in inaccessible regions are very likely to be removed, and that we cannot hold the Native Government in every single case responsible for such removal. Hero, again, I would call attention to the view which Lord Elgin took as to the removal of boundary pillars. He stated in his despatch of the 25th c: June, 1895, that—
"No serious practical inconvenience had apparently arisen through the frontier being undcinareated,"
and he mentioned this very important fact, that—
"Demarcation was not provided for in the Treaty of 1890."
That treaty gave us no right to insist on demarcation. The next controversy had reference to the grazing question. In a despatch dated the 8th of January 1903, the Viceroy states that—
"The grazing rights on the Sikkim side of the border, which had been usurped by the Tibetans, are, in fact, balanced by similar rights winch are conceded to the Sikkimese across the Tibetan border, and that the status quo is probably the most convenient arrange merit in the interest of both parties."
The grievance with regard to grazing rights is therefore considered to be nonexistent. Dealing with these three points—the refusal to receive or to send letters, the removal of the boundary pillars, and the usurpation of grazing rights—I cannot see that they justify an advance of a mission into the heart of Tibet.
I now turn to the correspondence in the Blue-book, and, in the first place, to

1113
the despatch of the 13th of February, 1902, from Lord Curzon, in order to see what were the other difficulties with Tibet which could justify this mission. The Viceroy states that they were—
"Informed by the Government of Bengal that an attempt which was made last year by the Indian Tea Association to introduce Indian tea into Tibet was rendered fruitless by the obstruction of the local Lamas and officials."
This was an attempt to push the tea trade into Tibet notwithstanding that the Tibetans prefer an inferior kind of Chinese tea and do not wish to change their usual habits. I do not see why we should insist on the Tibetans giving way on this point. There is in the despatch a very interesting passage about retaliation. The Viceroy says—
"Another possible and legitimate course would be to stop all Tibetan trade with India, and all intercourse between the two countries. Such a stop would, doubtless, prove a serious obstacle to Tibetan trade, and might tend to force the authorities to enter into negotiations with us,"
I would especially call your Lordships' attention to what follows—
"but it would also entail hardship upon our own traders, and might ultimately result in the diversion of the Tibetan trade to Nepal."
The Viceroy therefore desists from retaliation. Retaliation would have injured our own traders and Nepal would have been the fertius gaiudens. These are the usual results of retaliation. I almost regret that this experiment was not tried, because, if he had followed that course, we should have had an object lesson in retaliation, and the present, situation would not have arisen. The Viceroy gives a further explanation of his policy. He says—
"The policy of isolation pursued by the Tibetan Government is one that, from its own point of view, it may not be difficult to comprehend. But it is not compatible cither with proximity to the territories of a great civilised Power at whose hands the Tibetan Government enjoys the fullest opportunities both for intercourse and trade, or with due respect for the treaty stipulations into which the Chinese Government has entered on its behalf. It is indeed the most extraordinary anachronism of the 20th century that there should exist, within less than 300 miles of the borders of British India a State and a Government, with whom political relations do not so much as exist, and with whom it is impossible even to exchange a written communication. Such a situation cannot in any ease be lasting. But it seems
1114
desirable that it should be brought to an end with as little delay and commotion as possible."
I quite agree that it would be desirable to put an end to such a situation if you could do it without any commotion, but that certainly has not been the case; and a good deal of commotion is created by our attempt to force the Tibetans out of an isolation to which I hold they have a perfect right.
The next very important despatch is that of January the 8th, 1903, in which the Viceroy puts forward another reason for his policy. He says—
"The second combination of circumstances that has materially affected the situation is the rumoured conclusion of a secret Agreement by which the Russian Government has acquired certain powers of interference in Tibet."
The Viceroy himself points out in another sentence, in which he says—
"It is unnecessary for us to remind your Lordship that the Russian border nowhere even touches that of Tibet, and that the nearest point of Russian territory is considerably more than a thousand miles short of the Tibetan capital, which is situated in the extreme south, and in close proximity to the northern frontier of the Indian Empire."
How remote is the direct contact of Russia with Tibet.
Now, anyone who has read the fascinating account of Dr. Sven Hedin's attempt to get into Tibet through the desolate country which separates Tibet from Russia will have seen how incredible it would be that Russia should advance into Tibet from that side. But in the Blue-book we have important and positive declarations of the Russian Government. Count Lamsdorff informs Sir Charles Scott on July the 8th, 1901, that the mission of the Tibetan visitors—
"Could not be regarded as having any political or diplomatic character."
With regard to a rumoured Agreement, between Russia and China concerning Tibet of which the terms arc given in the Blue-book. In the first place two Chinese ministers told Sir Ernest Satow on September the 8th, 1902—
"That no such arrangement had ever formed a subject of discussion between the Chinese and Russian Governments."
But the Russian Ambassador, Count Benckendorff—
"Was able to assure the noble Marquess officially that there was no convention about Tibet, either with Tibet itself or with China,

1115
or with anyone else, nor had the Russian Government any Agents in that country or any intention of sending Agents or missions there."
I cannot conceive that any declaration could be clearer or more definite than this declaration of the Russian Government which is contained in a despatch from the noble Marquess to Sir Charles Scott of April the 8th, 1903. The only link between Russia and Tibet is the large number of Buddhists in the Russian Empire who venerate the Dalai Lama as was pointed out by Count Lamsdorff to Sir Charles Scott on the 8th of July, 1901.
There is a very important despatch from the noble Marquess to Mr. Spring-Rice of the 17th November, 1903, in which it is stated that the Russian Ambassador said—
"It was most unfortunate that, at the present moment, when the Russian Government were, as I was aware, disposed to enter into an amicable discussion of our relations at the various points where British and Russian interests were in contact, an event of this kind, so calculated to create mistrust on the part of Russia, should have occurred."
My Lords, that is an extremely important statement. It is inherent to our political position that, whenever we advance, there should be mistrust in Russia, and whenever Russia advances, there should be mistrust in England. Therefore the statement that the Russian Government was disposed to enter into an amicable discussion is most satisfactory, and I trust that the noble Marquess will inform us that on his part there was the same amicable disposition to enter into that discussion and to attempt to remove, once and for all, the causes of reciprocal suspicion of motives which ought not to exist between two Powers having such enormous—not necessarily conflicting—interests in Asia. I return to the Viceroy's despatch in which he proposes to accept the Chinese proposals of having a Conference, but he adds the most extraordinary condition that the Conference shall take place, not upon our frontier, but at Lhasa. Now it was obvious that such a proposal could never be accepted by the Lamas. In that same despatch there is an interesting extract from a despatch from Sir Thomas Wade to Earl Granville. No one knew China and the methods of the Chinese
1116
better than Sir Thomas Wade, and great weight must, therefore, be attached to what he says. He stated—
"If the trade (i.e., between India and Tibet) be worth the effort, I think that it might possibly be opened, were a mixed official and commercial mission pushed forward without reference to the Court of peking, which is always careful to declare that in this or in any other matter Tibet may act as she pleases, and if that mission were authorised in the first instance to spend money rather freely."
But the Government of India of that date, who were asked for their opinion on this suggestion by the Secretary of State, replied in an unfavourable sense, not being impressed, as our records show, with the trade prospects. And when I look at the figures which are given in the Blue-book with regard to our present trade with Tibet, I am bound to say that I am not impressed by the prospects of that trade; and it seems to me that it is hardly worth while forcing unwilling Tibetans to take our merchandise. I think that we must use those means which Sir Thomas Wade suggests and "spend money rather freely" and avoid anything which has the appearance of a hostile act. With regard to the suzerainty of China, the Viceroy used this extraordinary expression—
"We regard the so-called suzerainty of China over Tibet as a constitutional fiction—a political affectation which has only been maintained because of its convenience to both parties."
This strikes me as an extremely impolitic assertion that a situation which our Government had always recognised, which is founded on law, history, and tradition should be considered a constitutional fiction—extremely impolitic when we realise what suzerainty means to us in India.
The Viceroy continues—
"Our proposal therefore is that, assuming it to be decided by His Majesty's Government to respond in a favourable sense to the overtures of the Waiwupu, the Chinese Government shall be informed that we can undertake the negotiations nowhere else than at Lhasa, and that a British Commercial Mission will start for that place at a suitable date in the forthcoming spring, there to meet the Chinese resident and a duly appointed high official of the Tibetan Government. We propose that the negotiations should cover not merely the small question of the Sikkim frontier, but the entire question of our future relations, commercial and otherwise, with Tibet; and we think that they should culminate in the appointment of a permanent British representative, Consular or Diplomatic, to reside at Lhasa."
That was a most imprudent proposal, and one which I am happy to say the

1117
home Government vetoed. A very important despatch from Lord George Hamilton, dated 27th February, 1903, followed, in which it was stated by the Secretary of State that—
"His Majesty's Government fully recognise that the establishment of a powerful foreign influence in Tibet would disturb those relations, and might even, by exposing Nepal to a pressure which it would be difficult to resist, affect those which at present exist on so cordial a basis between India and Nepal. Having regard to these considerations, His Majesty's Government, while regretting the necessity for abandoning the passive attitude that has hitherto sufficed in the regulation of the affairs of this portion of the frontier of India, are compelled to recognise that circumstances have recently occurred which throw on them the obligation of placing our relations with the Government of Lhasa upon a more satisfactory footing. Your Excellency's proposal to send an armed mission to enter Lhasa, by force if necessary, and establish there a Resident, might, no doubt, if the issue were simply one between India and Tibet, be justified as a legitimate reply to the action of the Tibetan Government in returning the letters which on three occasions you have addressed to them, and in disregarding the Convention with China of 1890, the validity of which was repudiated by the Tibetan officials who visited our Political Officer while he was inspecting the frontier laid down by that Convention. Such action undoubtedly warrants the adoption of strong measures, and I have expressed this opinion in my despatch of the Kith August, 1901. But His Majesty's Government cannot regard the question as one concerning India and Thibet alone. The position of China, in its relations to the Powers of Europe, has been so modified in recent years that it is necessary to take into account those altered conditions in deciding on action affecting what must still be regarded as a province of China."
Far from looking upon the suzerainty as a constitutional fiction the home Government looked upon Tibet as a province of China. Lord George Hamilton continued—
"It is true, as stated in your Excellency's letter, that we have no desire either to declare a protectorate or permanently to occupy any portion of the country. Measures of this kind might, however, become inevitable if we were once to find ourselves committed to armed intervention in Tibet, and it is almost certain that, were the British mission to encounter opposition, questions would be raised which would have to be considered not as local ones concerning Tibet and India exclusively, but from an international point of view, as involving the status of a portion of the Chinese Empire. For these reasons His Majesty's Government think it necessary, before sanctioning a course which might be regarded as an attack on the integrity of the Chinese Empire, to be sure that such action can be justified by the previous action of Tibet, and they have accordingly come to the conclusion that it would be premature to adopt
1118
measures so likely to precipitate a crisis in the affairs of Tibet as those which your Excellency has proposed."
Lord George Hamilton very wisely would not hear of a mission to Lhasa or of an agent at Lhasa, and that proposal was therefore set aside. In his telegram of 29th April he says—
"There is no objection to the Chinese, Tibetan, and Indian representatives meeting, as proposed in your telegram of 16th April, at Khambajong, or to the military arrangements you recommend; but His Majesty's Government consider that, without previous reference to them, the British mission should not advance beyond that place, as, in existing conditions, even in the event of the failure of the Chinese and Tibetan parties to meet, any sudden advance to Lhasa is not, in their opinion, justified."
The home Government very clearly saw the tendency of the policy of the Viceroy, and tried to check it. But the Viceroy, in his telegram of 7th May, returns to the charge. He says—
"Having regard to stultification of existing treaty provisions and to the unsuitability of Yatung, Phari, or any other place in the Chumbi Valley for a trade mart in which business can be transacted directly between British and Tibetan merchants without incurring monopoly of local traders, it is necessary to insist upon opening a new trade mart and upon having a British Agent at Gyangtse, an important trade centre on main route to Shigatse and Lhasa. I think that having British representative at Lhasa, which would be best possible security for future observance of conditions, would be far preferable."
The Viceroy still insists on the British representative at Lhasa. He continues—
"but, assuming the unwillingness of His Majesty's Government to press this caim, our proposal of Gyangtse is a suitable alternative. In any case the British representative must reside on north side of the passes so as to be able to communicate prom fitly with the Capital In framing the new regulations the Tibetan and Chinese authorities should be made clearly to understand that fullest facilities must be given to the British representative for direct communication with the Tibetan Government in all matters, and that if he is met by attitude of obstru-tion, it will be necessary to resort to alternative of moving him forward to Lhasa."
The Viceroy does not accept Lord George Hamilton's policy, and proposes an alternative policy, which involves conditional resort to a forward move to Lhasa, which was the very contingency to be most scrupulously avoided.
The Secretary of State, on 28th May, replied—
"They (His Majesty's Government) wish, however, that the negotiations should be restricted to questions concerning trade relations,

1119
the frontier, and grazing rights; and they desire that no proposal should be made for the establishment of a political agent either at Gyangtse or at Lhasa."
Lord George Hamilton very judiciously added that—
"Such a political outpost might entail difficulties and responsibilities incommensurate, in the judgment of His Majesty's Government, with any benefit which, in the circumstances how known to exist, could be gained by it…His Majesty's Government are unwilling to be committed, by threats accompanying the pro posals which may be made, to any definite course of compulsion to be undertaken in the future. They authorise you, then, subject to the conditions above stated, to communicate with the Chinese Resident and Tibetan representative, fixing Khanibajong as the place of meeting."
It is therefore quite clear that the home Government did not wish any other course to be pursued than that 01 friendly negotiations; and that threats or hostilities should be avoided. Then a new incident occurred. Two British subjects were imprisoned at Shigatse, and the Tibetans declined to restore them. The last information regarding those two prisoners is contained in a letter dated 22nd December, from the Chinese Minister, in which he says that the two natives who were reported to have been put o death arc a live and well, but still under detention, and that instructions have been given for their immediate liberation. Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to tell us where those two British subjects are at present. Then on 16th September the Viceroy warned the Government that Colonel Younghusband despaired of a peaceful solution and said that until the Tibetans realised the seriousness of our intentions nothing would be done. The Viceroy continued—
"He (Colonel Younghusband) foresees that the occupation of the Chumbi Valley and ad vance of Mission seventy-five miles beyond Khambajong to Gyangtse will be eventually necessary. We think that occupation of Chumbi Valley will be insufficient to put serious pressure on Lhasa, and that it is almost certain that Mission will have to advance."
And the Viceroy adds that—
"His Majesty's Government should realise that the Lhasa Government have no conception of our power."
It seems to me that one of the reasons why the Tibetans are so anxious to preserve their isolation is that they are
1120
well aware of our power, and that they are afraid of it. That seems to me a much more natural explanation of their attitude than that they have no conception of our power. The Viceroy goes on to say—
"A further complication is that any sort of action will be difficult after November."
But in his telegram of 26th October the state of the weather after November is not considered to be likely to lead to complications, for the Viceroy says—
"Though cold, the season of the year is entirely favourable, and we anticipate no difficulty in carrying through operations and maintaining communications and supplies."
Again the Secretary of State tries to restrain the Viceroy. In his telegram of 20th September, Lord George Hamilton said—
"In the event of coercion becoming necessary, military situation will have to be considered, but proposal to advance far into the interior is regarded with grave misgiving by His Majesty's Government, who are disposed to think that the fact that we are in earnest may be sufficiently brought home to the Tibetans by the occupation of the Chumbi Valley in the first instance."
In his last telegram of 1st October and I regret that Lord George Hamilton is no longer at the head of Indian affairs with which he was so thoroughly conversant—he says—
"If complete rapture of negotiations proves inevitable, His Majesty's Government, having again considered position, are now prepared to authorise not only occupation of Chumbi Valley, but also the advance, if it can be made with safety, of the mission to Gyangtse."
Subject to certain conditions—"if a complete rupture of negotiations proves inevitable," and "if it can be made with safety," the mission may advance to Gyangtse. The Viceroy in his telegram of 26th October thereupon recommends that immediate advance to Gyangtse through the Chumbi Valley should be sanctioned. He says—
"Country beyond Chumbi Valley is open and rolling, and Tangla Pass, leading out of Chumbi Valley, is quite easy. Gyangtse is about eighty miles from Phari and about 140 miles from our frontier at the Jelap Pass. We shonld hope to commence movement by end of November. We do not anticipate any serious resistance."
Therefore, Khambajong is abandoned and the route of the Chumbi Valley is taken. The Secretary of State asks on

1121
the 29th October whether the rupture of negotiations has taken place, and the Viceroy answers on 4th November—
"The rupture of negotiations with Tibet (if, indeed, negotiations can be said to have ever begun) is not only inevitable, but has taken place."
We now enter on the third period of our recent relations with Tibet.
The Viceroy, in his despatch of 5th November, draws a line between the attitude of the Tibetan Government and the Tibetan people. He says that the Tibetan people, "instead of being suspicious or hostile, are, on the contrary, well-disposed and cheerful." If that is so, then I ask whether it would not have been wise to utilise their cheerful and peaceful disposition, and not to send among them a mission with an armed escort, which is of course required, but which is certainly not likely to increase their friendly feelings towards us. Again, the Government at home warned the Viceroy that the advance to Gyangtse, which they sanction, should not be allowed "to lead to occupation or to permanent intervention in Tibetan affairs in any form." The Secretary of State says, in his telegram of 6th November—
"The advance should be made for the sole purpose of obtaining satisfaction, and as soon as reparation is obtained a withdrawal should be effected. While His Majesty's Government consider the proposed action to be necessary, they are not prepared to establish a permanent mission in Tibet, and the question of enforcing trade facilities in that country must be considered in the light of the decision conveyed in this telegram."
The Viceroy states on 6th December—
"The Tibetan General at Yatung is reported by Colonel Younghusband to have asked to be given a pledge that if the Tibetans make no attack upon us, no attack will be made by us on them. To this Colonel Young-husband has replied that we are conducting the mission, under adequate protection, to a place better fitted for negotiations, that we are not at war with Tibet, and that, unless we are ourselves attacked, we shall not attack the Tibetans."
The last telegram of the Secretary of State, dated 30th January, refers to this, as follows—
"Every safeguard should be employed to ensure security of mission, but Colonel Young-husband should be definitely instructed to observe the spirit of his statement to the Tibetan General; reported in your telegram of 6th December. No hostile action must be taken by him unless he is attacked or finds
1122
that there is actual danger of his communications with base being cut off by Tibetans."
The House will see from this narrative that the Viceroy is convinced that our relations with Tibet cannot be placed on a satisfactory footing without a representative at Lhasa and that he has been able to persuade the home Government to accompany him as far as Gyangtse.
Now I wish to ask the noble Earl whether we can receive an assurance that Colonel Younghusband will in no circumstances be allowed to advance beyond Gyangtse, and whether the Indian Government has been informed that an occupation or advance upon Lhasa will not be authorised by His Majesty's Government. I further wish to hear from the noble Earl when the last intelligence was received from the mission, where Colonel Younghusband is at present, where General Macdonald is, and what their next movements will be. I trust we may be told what is the exact object of the negotiations, and whether any recent instructions have been given to Colonel Younghusband in order that he should seize every opportunity which may present itself to enter into negotiations. It is quite clear that it is unnecessary and impolitic to insist on these negotiations being conducted at Gyangtse, and that there is no reason why they should not be initiated under favourable auspices before Gyangtse is reached. If the Government—as I am quite willing to believe—wish to avoid hostilities, they should take the earliest opportunity of negotiating a new treaty. At a moment when events of such importance are occurring in the Far East and in the Near East, it is obviously the duty of His Majesty's Government to abstain from any action which might embarrass this country in Asia or in Europe.
Moved, "That an humble address be presented to His Majesty for further Papers relating to Tibet."—(The Lard Reay.)
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of HAKDWIOKE): My Lords, I do not think His Majesty's Government need take any serious exception to the criticism made against us in regard to the Blue-book that has been

1123
published on Tibet. At the same time we are not prepared to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord that our policy is in any sense different from the policy pursued by Lord Elgin. This question is not a new one, and the policy that we are endeavouring to carry out is contained in the words of Lord Curzon's despatch, in which he says that—
"Our wish is to establish those amicable relations and means of communication that ought to subsist between adjacent and friendly Powers."
It is as long ago as 1774 that Warren Hastings, with this very object, despatched a Mission into Tibet under a Mr. Bogle. That mission went to Shigatse and though, so far as I am aware, no arrangements were come to with regard to trade, there is not the least doubt that very friendly relations were established between Bengal and Tibet. So much so that in 1784 Warren Hastings despatched a second mission also to Shigatse, under Mr. Turner, and on that occasion a very satisfactory arrangement was made. Tibet agreed to grant free admission into their country to all such merchants, natives of India, as should come recommended by the Governor-General, to yield them every assistance requisite for the transport of their goods, and to assign them a place of residence for vending their commodities. It would seem that our Indian trade developed considerably with Tibet till 1792, and then, unfortunately, the Nepal Gurkhas invaded Tibet, who then turned for assistance to China. That assistance was rendered and the Chinese troops defeated the Gurkhas and drove them out of Tibet. Unfortunately, China and Tibet believed that the authorities in India had played some part in this invasion, and the result was that from that day forward strangers were prohibited from entering Tibet at all, the trade that had been so satisfactorily developed ceased, the door to Tibet was closed to India, and it has been closed ever since. No further attempt was made for nearly a century to open relations with Tibet; but in 1873 a real and serious attempt was made, a Commissioner being instructed to inquire into the condition and prospects of trade with Tibet, and the advisability of making a road through Sikkim to the Tibetan frontier. That road was made, and in 1885 it was
1124
decided to send a mission into Tibet. I think that is the mission which the noble Lord referred to. The Chinese Government approved, and the mission was organised. For reasons which is not necessary for me to enter into, that mission was countermanded, and an opportunity was lost of establishing relations with Tibet, which, I think, might have prevented the situation arising in which we now find ourselves. The abandonment of that mission had a disastrous effect on the minds of the Tibetans, who believed we had not sent it because we feared them, and the result was that they invaded Sikkim, and it became necessary for us to despatch a force of troops to turn them out. They were turned out in 1888, and during the ensuing two years negotiations with China were carried on, and they resulted in the signing of the convention of that date. This convention recognised our claims in Sikkim, defined the frontier and made provision for the subsequent discussion of trade regulations with Tibet. These regulations, which are also contained in the Blue-book, were discussed and agreed to by the Commissioners appointed for that purpose by His Majesty's Government and on behalf of China in the year 1893.
I have ventured to give this short historical survey of the past, which brings us to the date at which the Papers dealing with this question commence, to show that there has been only one policy entertained with regard to Tibet, and it has been a policy of establishing relations and commercial intercourse with that country. It seems to me that a country adjacent to India, whose frontiers for hundreds of miles on the West and South are continuous with our frontiers, should not be in an isolated position; and the Government of that country should not be so exclusive as to refuse communication with us in any shape or form. The present position is the outcome of the policy which has been pursued. It may be an unfortunate outcome, but as our object was to establish trade relations and commercial intercourse with Tibet, the signing of the convention of 1890 left us no alternative to seeing that the terms of that convention were carried out. It is true that we might have adopted

1125
another policy altogether. We could hardly have said we would ignore the existence of Tibet, but we might have abandoned all hope of having any relations with that country at all. In that case, we should have had to fortify our frontiers at great cost in order to be in a position to resist any hostile combination that might take place. That would not have been a wise policy, and it has never been entertained by any Viceroy or Government; and for that reason I claim that we are now carrying out the one policy that has been adopted towards Tibet.
I now turn to the noble Lord's suggestion that we should have relied solely on China to see the terms of the convention of 1890 carried out. The noble Lord pointed out that Sir T.Wade, to whose experience and opinion he attached the greatest importance, had declared that, if trade between India and Tibet be worth the effort, he thought it might possibly be opened were a mixed official and commercial mission pushed forward without reference to the Court of Peking. I should very much like to know what is really the view of the noble Lord. Sir T. Wade's opinion was that we were not to have any reference to Peking. The noble Lord, on the other hand, says that we ought to have relied on Peking. I can only say that so far as the policy of His Majesty's Government is concerned we have always recognised the suzerainty that China has over Tibet; and in all the negotiations that have taken place the noble Marquess the Foreign Secretary has been in close communication with the Chinese Minister and with the Government of Peking.
LORD REAY: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I did not say we should rely exclusively on Peking.
THE EARL of HARDWICKE: Then I understand the noble Lord to be in exact agreement with the policy that has been pursued by His Majesty's Government. We have not relied solely on Peking, but have recognised throughout the suzerainty of China; and the mission which was sent to Khambajong was despatched with the full cognisance and consent of the Chinese Government.
1126
There is a despatch in the Blue-book from Mr. Townley saying that the Chinese Government were thoroughly satisfied that the mission was advisable. I pass to another point that was raised by the noble Lord. The noble Lord referred to the despatch from the noble Marquess behind me to Mr. Spring-Rice, dated 17th November, 1903, and he read an extract from that despatch in which the noble Marquess said that the Russian Minister had informed him that the Russian Government could not help feeling that the invasion of Tibetan territory by a British force was calculated to involve a grave disturbance of the Central Asian situation, and was most unfortunate at that moment, when the Russian Government were disposed to enter into an amicable discussion of our relations at the various points where British and Russian interests were in contact. Well, I should have thought it would have been perfectly evident to the noble Lord that that statement had no reference to Tibet at all. It was not the Tibetan question that was going to be discussed amicably between the two Governments. I do not think that any word has fallen from the noble Marquess to suggest that we recognise that the Russian Government have any locus standi in Tibet.
LORD REAY: I did not state that I understood it had reference to Tibet. I only asked for some explanation.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I misunderstood him. I will pass from that. The noble Lord suggested that if the Tibetans wish to be exclusive there is no reason why they should not be, and that attempts at opening up commercial intercourse with them are really unnecessary, as there is not much trade to be developed. I cannot accept that suggestion for a moment. The Indian Government cannot, in the nature of things, be indifferent to the internal affairs of a country adjacent to India. Though questions such as tea duties, grazing rights, etc., are very important matters and matters which, when they come to be discussed between the representatives of the Tibetans and the members of this mission, will no doubt have sufficient importance attached to them, there are matters of far greater importance than those to be considered.

1127
I need only refer to this Blue-book to show that the Tibetans have refused to have any intercourse with us; but, on the other hand, they have been willing to have intercourse with another Power. We do not care whether the object of the mission sent from Tibet to St. Petersburg was commercial, political, or religious; it makes no difference to us. But we know that the result of that mission, and the result of the intercourse which has passed between the Tibetans and the Russians, has been to inspire the Tibetans with the feeling that they have the power of Russia behind them. They have said openly—
"We do not fear England; we have Russia behind us."
That is a situation that the Indian Government and His Majesty's Government could not tolerate for a moment, and for that reason we have found it necessary at this time to insist upon a final settlement being come to. If we do not attach very much importance to the matters I have just referred to, I would ask the noble Lord, who is well acquainted with Indian feeling and Indian affairs, what Nepal would think of the British Government if we withheld our hand at the present time. Nepal has had relations with Tibet for many years, and yet the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government of Nepal, has urged the Government of India to take fiction, intimating that if the present strained relations are to continue the position will become intolerable.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Where is that?
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: It is in the Prime Minister of Nepal's letter. Then the noble Lord referred to the difficulties of the expedition owing to the season of the year. I am glad to say that the escort, so far as the men are concerned, have suffered very little. Every possible comfort that could be given to them to provide against the cold has been ungrudgingly given, and, though the loss in transport has been very heavy, I do not think that we have any reason to deplore the health, and well-being of the escort itself. With regard
1128
to the telegram from Lord George Hamilton, in which it was laid down that no advance was to take place unless negotiations were broken off, I think the conditions were amply fulfilled by the circumstances of the case. Colonel Younghusband remained at Khambajong for weeks and months, but could not get anyone to negotiate with him. The Chinese Amban was always coming, but never came. He eventually found that his communications on the subject were not forwarded to Lhasaf, and he claimed that his position there was hopeless, and that unless we took further action nothing would come of the mission. The noble Lord seemed to think that there was something unusual in our having an armed escort with this mission. I would inform him that such an escort accompanied the Afghan Boundary Commission in 1885, the mission to Persia, and the Burma-China Frontier Commission in 1897. Therefore there was nothing unusual in sending an armed escort with the Commission which has gone to Thibet for the purpose—the peaceful purpose—of making a convention. The noble Lord asked me whether Colonel Younghusband had any definite instructions. The purposes for which Colonel Younghusband is going to Gyangtse are clearly set out in the telegram of His Majesty's Government, dated 28th May, 1903. In this telegram to the Viceroy it is stated that—
"They (His Majesty's Government) agree with you in desiring the promotion of trade facilities in Tibet, and a guarantee that the Tibetans shall be prevented from evading or rejecting engagements made on their behalf in any new treaty or convention. A procedure, therefore whereby both the Chinese and Tibetan Governments will be bound by the acts of their representatives has their approval. They wish, however, that the negotiations should be restricted to questions concerning trade relations, the frontier, and grazing rights, and they desire that no proposal should be made for the establishment of a political agent, either at Gyangtse or at Lhasa."
Those instructions seem to me very clear indeed, but they are amplified in the Blue-book, page 198, in a letter from the Government of India to Colonel Younghusband, and the instructions he therein receives are set out very fully. The noble Lord then asked what was the latest information we had from the mission. The latest information is contained in a telegram of 23rd February

1129
from Tuna, where Colonel Younghusband is at present. No information is given with regard to Colonel Younghusband's movements, but the telegram contains an important and very satisfactory piece of news. It is that the Bhutan Envoy has met Colonel Younghusband and that they had no hostile intentions; and that he has also seen some Lhasa delegates and has urged them to come to a friendly and peaceful settlement with us. As regards General Macdonald, we have not received any information from him of recent date.
I hope the House will allow me to say a few words as to the general question and the grievances which we have against Tibet. We cannot forget that they have ignored for fourteen years their treaty obligations. A disposition has been shown in every possible way to thwart our trade with Tibet. We cannot pass over the encroachments made on our territories. nor can we ignore the destruction of our boundary pillars. The despatch of Lord Elgin's which the noble Lord referred to was written when the news first arrived of the destruction of these pillars. He will find later on in the Blue-book a more ample account which shows conclusively that the destruction of the boundary pillars was due to the Tibetans. The Tibetans have refused to receive any communication from us. The Viceroy has written three letters, and the noble Lord puts forward, as a reason for the Dalai Lama refusing to answer them, that he was unable to do so because he was pledged to the Suzerain Power not to receive or write any letters without the consent of the Suzerain. But why is it that the Lama did not ask the permission of the Chinese Amban to receive and answer them? If he had asked permission I am sure the Amban would have given it, and this course of action, if taken, might have avoided some of the misunderstandings that have arisen. The Government also cannot forget that while our officers were at Khambajong they did not receive respectful treatment from the Tibetans, and the Tibetans have arrested two British subjects, who, as far as we are aware, have not been released. Rumours of their being tortured came to our notice, but we have had no confirmation of that.
1130
The latest news which we have is contained in the Blue-book. It is a letter dated 25th October to Colonel Younghusband. It shows conclusively the power that the Chinese Amban, as a representative of the Suzerain, is capable of exercising in Tibet, and how little the Government can expect to get from China in this matter.
The final and most pointed request of the noble Lord was that the Government should give a pledge that Colonel Younghusband would not go further than Gyangtse. I can only state, in reply, that His Majesty's Government are not prepared to make any definite announcement on that subject. The instructions of His Majesty's Government to Colonel Younghusband are contained in this Blue-book. At the present time his objective is Gyangtse, and the question whether he goes further than Gyangtse must rest with the Tibetans themselves. I believe that Colonel Younghusband will shortly advance, and we trust that the Dalai Lama of Lhasa and his monastic advisers will yet recognise the peaceful object of our mission, that they will not oppose our advance, that the belated Chinese Amban, who has been since December, 1902, on his way, will be there to meet Colonel Younghusband, accompanied by responsible and duly accredited envoys of the Lamas, and that they will be prepared to discuss frankly and fairly the proposals which Colonel Younghusband has been instructed to submit. The Tibetans themselves have shown that they are most anxious to be on friendly terms with us. They have come forward willingly and eagerly to supply our mission, when they have been allowed to, with all their requirements; but I would point out to the noble Lord, who asked why we did not use the Tibetans in order to get influence with the Dalai lama at Lhasa, that though they are very anxious and willing to be friendly with us they are afraid of its being known at Lhasa. Consequently I do not think we shall have much chance of coming into closer touch with the monastic Government of Lhasa through the Tibetan people, however friendly they may be toward us. If the Dalai Lama prefers to appeal to the arbitrament of

1131
the sword and to provoke hostilities we must necessarily accept that challenge. But I do not think that evidence is wanting of the generous patience that has been displayed by the Government of India, and by the Government at home, towards the procrastinating attitude of the Tibetans and the non possumus attitude of the Chinese during the last fourteen years, and more especially during the last few months. Nor do I think that evidence is wanting to show that Colonel Younghusband will do nothing to provoke a conflict. His instructions are contained in the last telegram in this Blue-book. No hostile action must be taken by him unless he is attacked or finds that there is actual danger of his communications with his base being cut off by the Tibetans. His Majesty's Government believe that those instructions will be rigidly adhered to by Colonel Young-husband, in whose forbearance, judgment, and capacity they place every confidence. I cannot foretell the future, nor can I say whether the Tibetans will oppose our advance or not. I can only hope that the historian of the future will be able to write that the desire of Warren Hastings to promote friendly relations and commercial intercourse with the neighbours of our greatest dependency was attained 130 years later under the able administration of Lord Curzon.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I quite share the aspiration of the noble Earl who has just sat down, that the friendliest relations should be maintained between the Government of India and the people of Tibet. But, my Lords, the question that is really raised by these Papers is, what are the methods by which His Majesty's Government are going to attempt to arrive at that desirable conclusion? The noble Earl in the commencement of his speech said that the policy of His Majesty's Government was identical with the policy of my noble friend Lord Elgin. The policy of my noble friend who preceded Lord Curzon in respect to this question of Tibet was marked, as all those who have read these Papers will, I am sure, admit, by moderation and prudence. I will allow that for a long time the policy of His Majesty's Government, as distinct from the policy
1132
of the Government of India, was upon the lines of the policy of my noble friend Lord Elgin. But I cannot for a moment agree, and I do not think that anybody who has looked at the Papers will be of the opinion, that the policy of Lord Curzon has ever been upon this question identical with the policy of my noble friend Lord Elgin. Lord Curzon entered upon his duties as Viceroy in January, 1899. On 30th March he drafted his first despatch to the Secretary of State for India upon the affairs of Tibet, and I venture to say that it is impossible for anyone to maintain that there was not a most marked distinction of tone and of intention between that despatch and those which had proceeded from the Government of Lord Elgin. And it is mainly the anxiety which the apparent policy of Lord Curzon has created in my mind which leads me to make some observations on the present state of things.
Perhaps I may be permitted to say that throughout the whole of the Government of Lord Curzon this is the first occasion, either in Parliament or out of it, upon which I have ever said a word of criticism of his Government. It is not a pleasant task for one who has been Viceroy of India to indulge in criticisms of a successor. I had believed that Lord Curzon, if he ever held, as I think he once did, what are called the doctrines of the forward policy in India, learnt very soon after he became Viceroy how unwise and how dangerous that policy was, and had decided to proceed upon much sounder principles; but, unfortunately, this Blue-book shows us that that was a mistake in regard to Lord Curzon's intention, and that if he did not pursue the forward policy in Afghanistan he was unfortunately all along endeavouring to pursue that policy towards the frontier of Tibet. There is the most remarkable similarity between the various efforts of the friends of the forward policy in the past and the views which have been expressed by Lord Curzon in regard to Tibet. Every step in that policy has been inspired by a Russian scare. The first fatal Afghan war began on those grounds and terminated as unhappily, we all know very well. In the case of the first Afghan war there was a live Russian

1133
agent. He was disavowed by his Government and put an end to his own life. On the second occasion, too, there was also a live Russian agent. But we have now nothing more than rumours of a Russian agent. There is no proof in these Papers that any Russian agent has been to Lhasa. A certain deputation went to St. Petersburg, but I do not think it can be maintained that that deputation was sent with the authority of the Government of Lhasa.
It is proposed to send an agent—a British agent—to reside at the headquarters of the State. The agent in the present case is proceeding without an army, though with an escort—an escort which I readily admit, if he is going to Lhasa without the cordial consent of the Government there, is a very necessary accompaniment. My fear is that you may be undertaking it with too small, rather than with too large a force. Those proceedings, from the beginning to the end, have always been injurious and contrary to the true interests of India, at least according to the views which ever since I paid any attention to Indian affairs I have always held, and which I think our past experience has proved to be correct. The demand for a permanent British agent at the capital of the country concerned is, I venture to think, the most fatal of all the proposals. You have sacrificed precious lives in the past. Are you going to send to Lhasa somebody else—after you have forced the people of Tibet to accept your policy—to stay there under those circumstances which have led in the past to such fatal and unhappy results? The noble Earl says that the only alternative to the policy of the Government is the policy of isolation, which, if it be accepted, would involve the fortification of the northern frontier of India. Fortify our northern frontier against whom? Does the noble Earl really think that these Tibetans are likely to invade the Empire of India? Then who are you afraid of? It is the Power, the fear of whom inspires all these proceedings of the forward policy. But do you really think that any European Power, or any Power in its senses, would ever invade India through Tibet, over the highest mountains in the world? No, my Lords, I am certain there is no European Power
1134
silly enough to try that game. The invasion, if it ever comes—and I believe it to be one of the most difficult and tremendous undertakings that could ever be entered upon by any great Power—will come from the West of India, not from the North or the East; and therefore I do most sincerely hope that, whatever may be the results of these proceedings, the noble Earl's remark with regard to the proposal to fortify——
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I apologise for interrupting the noble Marquess, but what I said was that that, was an alternative policy. I said it was a policy that had never been suggested or considered by anyone.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I am quite sure that the policy never has been considered, and I am equally certain that, if it was. it never would be adopted. The noble Earl says he put it as the alternative policy. I say it is an impossible policy, and that it would be a stupid policy.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Hear hear!
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Then you say that the Tibetans hamper your trade. I will not go into any discussion at this moment as to the value of that trade; but it is not much. It might be developed, I quite agree. I see in the Blue-book certain representations from friends of mine at Bradford—from the Bradford Chamber of Commerce—on the subject. I do not doubt that if you establish friendly relations with Tibet you may develop your trade. But, in the first place, I would venture to say that the course which Lord Curzon wishes to pursue is not the best one for establishing friendly relations with Tibet; and, in the next place, while I desire the utmost development of our trade and commerce in every part of the world, while I admit that in these days it is a foremost duty of the Government to do all that they can to advance and develop our commerce, I hold strongly to the view that it is unjust to attempt to do it by the agency of force. I know that when I say that I am out of harmony with a considerable body of public opinion in this country,

1135
but it is my deliberate opinion, and, as it involves considerations of right and wrong, I am afraid I am not likely to change it. I have held it for a great many years. In all these cases—more, of course, now than sixty or seventy years ago—there is a strange admixture on the part of those who desire to promote the forward policy of political and trade reasons. First one is put forward, and then the other. I confess that, looking at these Papers, I believe—and I think it is consistent with the character of the noble Lord—that political considerations weigh most with Lord Curzon: but as in these days those considerations have not the force they had atone time with public opinion, trade considerations are added to them, but that does not, in my opinion, change the fundamental error of a policy of this kind. You cannot by force make people your friends. If yon get to Lhasa and force your treaty upon the Tibetan people you will throw their sympathies in the opposite direction. Instead of coming down to the South they will turn to the North. You say that they have threatened to do so already. I dare say they have. The noble Earl shakes his head. I understood him to say that what they felt was that if we attacked them they had Russia behind them. If it is not so I am very glad.
I have said that up to a certain time, even indeed to a late period, it would be quite correct to say that the policy of His Majesty's Government at home was very much in accordance with the policy of my noble friend Lord Elgin. I think we owe much gratitude to Lord George Hamilton for the manner in which he steadily resisted the proposals for advance which came from the Government of India. He fought a long and a firm battle. At the last moment, under circumstances, no doubt, of considerable difficulty, he did give a certain kind of consent to a portion of Lord Curzon's proposals, though not, I think, to his general policy in regard to this question. I know, of course, that it is very difficult for a Secretary of State for India to resist perpetually and continually the pressure and the demands of the Government of India. I have myself been both Secretary of State for India and Viceroy of India, and so I speak with a certain impartiality in regard to the matter; but this I will say, that while I
1136
have always thought that it was a sound principle that in almost all matters of internal administration the Secretary of State should leave the largest discretion to the Viceroy in Council, I draw this broad distinction—and I think the noble Marquess will agree with me—that the Government at homo are bound to exercise a close control over any matters which relate to international affairs. Therefore Lord George Hamilton was fully justified in resisting these proposals as he did. At the same time, I quite understand how difficult it may have been to him to fight the battle to the last.
What you have to look at in this case and in all these cases is, that once yon embark on this forward policy you are pushed on step by step. Colonel Younghusband goes forward; he occupies the Chumbi Valley; he presses for advance, and step by step you are brought to a position in which I quite admit resistance is very difficult. Lord George Hamilton, after he had sent that last telegram, retired from office. I am not going to snake any hostile criticism in regard to Mr. Brod-rick's proceedings; but I am sorry to sec that he has gone further than Lord George Hamilton even in his last telegram. Mr. Brodrick shows, by his telegrams, that he desires to restrain Lord Curzon from his proposed advance as much as possible, and in that respect he is right. But the difficulty is that when you have got a considerable way info Tibetan country it becomes exceedingly difficult, unless special circumstances should arise, to call a halt, and to go back. I do think that there are at the present moment circumstances which call loudly for the suspension of these proceedings, and that is the reason why I think my noble friend Lord Reay has done good service in bringing this subject before your Lordships' notice at the present time. The state of affairs in the Far East is so critical as to make any step on the part of the Government of India of much greater importance and more liable to create difficulties than it would be under ordinary conditions. I suppose it is our policy to maintain the integrity and independence of China, and to set ourselves, so far as we can, against any step on the part of any Power to interfere with that independence or threaten that integrity. It behoves us,

1137
therefore, to be very careful that at such a moment we do not give an opportunity to any other Power to say that we are interfering with China, or threatening the independence of any portion of her country. I know very well that His Majesty's Government have no intention whatever, according to their declarations—and I believe them to be perfectly sincere—of occupying Tibet, of annexing Tibet, or of interfering with the suzerainty of China over Tibet. But, my Lords, we had yesterday very curious proof of the statements which are made by these whom the noble Bail the First Lord of the Admiralty very rightly referred to as persons animated by hostility to this country. We know how they have been seizing of late, on the most unfounded grounds, every opportunity that they could find of attempting to embroil us with Russia. Surely it would be highly inadvisable that at such a moment as this you should give any opportunity for the circulation of false statements as to our intentions in regard to Tibet. I cannot think of anything that might be likely to lead to more serious difficulties for His Majesty's Government than to create, at a time when the Russian people are naturally excited about the present war, any idea that we were attempting to steal a march upon them, and to undertake arrangements with Tibet which they would think in any way threatening to them. They have no right there; our right there is a little shadowy; but, whatever that may be, the Russians have no right there at all. I say that broadly and distinctly; but, nevertheless, they have an interest there, and I think it is a great mistake to proceed with this policy at this time. It would be insane to attempt to stretch the frontiers of India in that direction. To the northeast of India you have a great mountain barrier. Keep behind that barrier; do not attempt to go beyond it, and you will be safe. No one will invade you over those mountains, and India is quite large enough without any further extension of her frontier.
There is only one more point with which I would trouble your Lordships, and which the noble Earl who has just sat down naturally did not allude to—I mean the communication which is to
1138
be found in the noble Marquess's despatch to Mr. Spring-Rice in regard to his conversation with Count Benckendorff. I do not wish to ask for any information that it might be contrary to the public interest to give; but as the noble Marquess has thought fit to include a statement of that conversation in these Papers and in his letter to Mr. Spring-Rice there is no contradiction, that I can find, as to the accuracy of the statement made by Count Benckendorff—the House, I am sure, would be very glad if he would give as much information as he properly can in regard to the nature of those prospective negotiations to which Count Benckendorff alluded.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I am afraid I owe some apology to your Lordships for intervening even for a moment in a debate which would seem naturally to be confined to the Indian potentates of this House. But the Papers which have been presented to Parliament have impressed my mind with a very deep sense of the gravity of this question—one which cannot be discussed quite fully in public, but which at any rate bears in its circumstances so melancholy a resemblance to that first war in Afghanistan which was conducted under the late Lord Lytton, that it must give all those whose minds and memories recur to the past, serious grounds of misgiving when they see once more His Majesty's Government proceeding in the same direction to an end which, I venture to say, they cannot see themselves. And here I must express my difference from one remark in the speech to my noble friend who has just sat down. He urges on the Government with great emphasis, and with all the authority of an ex-Viceroy of India, that these operations should now be suspended and withdrawn. I do not say that I wish that that were not possible, but I am convinced that things have gone so far that it is no longer possible. The mission having been sent out, for good or for evil, it must not be recalled without some substantive result and without leaving some firm impression on the Tibetan mind and imagination which may secure, at any

1139
rate to some extent, the object which the Government have in view.
I confess I am surprised at the speech of the Under-Secretary, who endeavoured to found an argument of continuity of policy with regard to Tibet which seemed to lead us into the regions of fancy and to neglect that firm rock of historical fact which is so necessary in a statement of this kind. The noble Earl alluded to the mission of Bogle, under the auspices of Warren Hastings, and the subsequent mission of Turner to Shigatse. Then he went to the mission of Mr. Macaulayin 1885, and said that there was a continuity of policy on the part of Governments since the time of Warren Hastings. But he omits to note the fact that there is a gap of at least a century. He takes two isolated dates separated by a century and imagines that there was a continuity of policy with regard to Tibet between those two dates. I venture to say that, broadly speaking, the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to Tibet between those two dates was a policy of respecting the isolation of Tibet, and of not endeavouring in any way to interfere in its autonomy and separate existence. A gap of a century is a serious thing in a continuity of policy which only began towards the end of the 18th century, and I do not think that the claim is sufficiently substantiated by the facts the noble Earl brought forward. He referred to the mission of Mr. Macaulay. Now I remember that expedition very well. I did not know that it was going to be referred to, or I should have rubbed up my recollections, but in any case I remember enough to state certain broad facts. The mission of Mr. Macaulay was the hobby of two very gifted men who have now both passed away; one was Mr. Macaulay himself, and the other was Lord Randolph Churchill. Lord Randolph Churchill was greatly set on this expedition, and Mr. Macaulay, a very gifted man, persuaded him that in the interests of British commerce such an expedition was necessary. The noble Earl says that the expedition would have taken place at the invitation—or with the sanction, was it?—of the Chinese Government.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: With the authority.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I think that is very possibly true. The Chinese Government is a weak Government, with an authority which it cannot always vindicate—especially, as the Blue-book shows, in Tibet—and it may have given its authority to that expedition. But I was in office in the succeeding year, and had to deal with the Chinese Government in a convention in respect of Burma, which was of great importance to us for securing our rights and authority in that province. I shall never forget the anguish, if I may use the expression, with which the Chinese Government pressed on us the abandonment of that expedition; and the abandonment of that expedition was one of the main factors in securing that convention, so much importance did the Chinese Government, which had given a nominal sanction to it a year before, attach to its abandonment. And why did the Chinese Government attach so much importance to its abandonment? Because it knew very well what is the position of Tibet. The position of Tibet is unique. It is the most interesting country left in the world: it is a huge monastery inhabited by a nation of monks, with a subject population inhabiting the most inhospitable region in the world, in the worst climate which is habitable by human beings. These people have secured their isolation not for centuries but for tens of centuries; and it has been the policy of their neighbours to respect that isolation. partly I hope from sentiments of veneration and the traditions of antiquity, and partly owing to the very undesirable nature of the country which they inhabit.
There is little or no commerce to be got out of Tibet. My noble friend, with the impulse of a generous nature, said that our commerce might be extended. Our commerce undoubtedly could be extended there, because it is not so great that it is unsusceptible of expansion. It is of the most meagre kind. But when you come to wish to expand a commerce of a narrow kind in a country which does not want you or your commerce, it is wise to count the cost. If I were a

1141
hostile critic, which I am not, of the attitude taken up in these Papers, if I wanted to bring the whole matter into ridicule, I should say that the readers of these Papers who were not behind the scenes, would gather that the whole object of the policy of the Indian Government in what they have done was to make people drink Indian tea who did not like Indian tea and did not want Indian tea. I venture to say that the first hundred pages or something like that of this Blue-book are devoted entirely to the desire and ambition of the Indian Government to impose the drinking of Indian tea on a people which prefers Chinese tea.
There are, no doubt, other causes which are urged as grounds for the expedition which has been sent. There is the neglect of the Sikkim Treaties; there is the destruction of two posts; there is the capture of two dubious and anonymous British subjects. When we think of how many hundreds of millions of British subjects there are in India, it is somewhat difficult to trace who these British subjects are. But what I venture to say of all these causes is that they are very suitable causes for a quarrel if you want to pick one, but they are not causes for a great nation to embark in an unknown expedition of this kind without the gravest reasons of another kind which they do not put forward. I am the more strengthened in this opinion because it is the opinion of His Majesty's Government. I do not know whether it is possible to put the case of the Government in a more terse and admirable way than it is put in the despatch of Lord George Hamilton, who we lament for so many reasons is no longer a Minister of the Crown. He there says that—
"In the event of coercion becoming necessary the military situation will have to be considered. The proposal to advance far into the interior is regarded with grave misgiving by His Majesty's Government, who are disposed to think that the fact that we are in earnest may be sufficiently brought home to the Tibetans by the occupation of the Chumbi Valley in the first instance."
That is the last reluctant struggle of the home Government against an imperious Viceroy. Unfortunately, the sands of Lord George Hamilton's Ministry were running extremely low, and in the last ten days of September—I do not
1142
remember if he had then vacated his office—a change of attitude took place. On the 1st of October the Indian Secretary telegraphs that His Majesty's Government, having again considered the position—
"Are now prepared, if the complete rupture of negotiations prove inevitable, to authorise not only the occupation of the Chumbi Valley, but also the advance, if it can be made with safety, of the mission to Gyangtse."
That was the surrender of His Majesty's Government, as it seems to me, to the Viceroy, and I think if any one looks through the Blue-book up to that point, and particularly after the despatch on page 150, which is the most explicit of the despatches in which Lord Curzon lays down his policy, he will agree with me in thinking that it was with the greatest possible reluctance and only in, I will not say obedience, but in deference, to the strong and energetic impulsion of Lord Curzon that this policy was ever adopted. There is only one other remark which I have to make with regard to this Blue-book. It is with regard to the transaction with Russia. We are always in a state of great suspicion of Russia and Russia is always in a state of not less complete suspicion of ourselves. I cannot find the reference in the Blue-book at this moment, but assurances were given to the Russian Government which seemed to cover a denial of our expedition into Tibet, and almost immediately afterwards we received the announcement from India that the expedition to Tibet was taking place. It is almost needless to say that our assurance was given in perfect good faith; but, at the same time, it is unfortunate that it should have been given so short a time—only a fortnight, I think—before the expedition took place.
I have said that I do not think there is anything in the Papers which really justifies the despatch of this expedition into Tibet, unless for other reasons you wished to send one there. Some of the arguments of Colonel Younghusband are not entitled to serious attention. He addresses them to the Tibetans, whose intellects he evidently does not rate very highly; and when they complain of his advance with an armed escort, which. of course, is necessary under the circumstances, into their territory to negotiate,

1143
Colonel Younghusband seeks to reassure them by telling them that they are hospitably received in Indian territory when they come to negotiate. But he forgets to mention the important and indispensable difference between the two cases, for when the Tibetans have come into Indian territory they have come there by invitation, and in this case our troops certainly have not gone there on invitation. There is only one justification, in my judgment, for the policy of His Majesty's Government, and that is the question, which I know must be treated with the greatest delicacy, of whether there is any understanding between Russia and Tibet which might be of a character dangerous to our interests in Asia. I am not one of those who hold that because the Asiatic dominions of Russia are a thousand miles from Tibet that altogether deprives the relations of Russia and Tibet of their significance or might render them quite harmless to our interests in that region. My view is founded on this—that the authority of the Lama is not a secular but a spiritual one. That is the reason why the Chinese, I suspect, attach so much importance to their connection with the Lama and their connection with Tibet; and I am not learned enough to know how far that spiritual authority of the Dalai Lama really extends through China and the Asiatic dominions of Russia. But it does, no doubt, extend to a very considerable region; and therefore the Dalai Lama and his authority is to Russia, and it is to ourselves, as it is to China, a matter of great significance and importance.
Now, of course, I accept the denial of the Russian Government that there is no agreement or treaty between Russia and Tibet. There is an article in one of the monthly magazines, I think it is the Contemporary Review, signed by a name which is not known to me, which categorically states that such a treaty has been signed and that a friend of the author's was actually present at the signature. I can attach no authority to a statement of that kind where I do not know the position of the person who makes it; but I must say that I attach considerable weight to the Tibetan Embassy to St. Petersburg. The Tibetan Embassy to St. Petersburg, from the very reason of
1144
distance, seems to me to have been an act unwarranted by considerations of neighbourly amity, which therefore assumes a political significance which it is not very easy to overlook. I do not think there is anything in the Blue-book beyond the Tibetan Embassy which need cause us serious disquietude with regard to the relations of Russia and Tibet. The boast of the Tibetans that was quoted by the Under-Secretary is, I think, a boast which was simply related by Colonel Younghusband as a matter of gossip, and is, after all, even if used, probably a matter, may I say of bluff, to which it is not necessary to attach any serious importance. The Tibetan Embassy to St. Petersburg is, I think, a serious symptom; and if the noble Marquess can, without indiscretion, give us any information as to that most material point with regard to our whole Tibetan policy—the relations of Russia and Lhasa—I confess I shall be very glad that this discussion has taken place.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the noble Marquess who spoke last but one delivered an eloquent speech in condemnation of a policy that His Majesty's Government have not only not adopted, but, in the pages of this Blue-book, have gone out of their way to disclaim. The noble Marquess has discovered in Lord Curzon's Tibetan policy an example of that forward policy which he so greatly abhors, and which he so often and so earnestly decries. I have often heard policies denounced as being illustrations of a forward policy which did not appear to me in the least to deserve to be so stigmatised. In this case I think the expression is very much misapplied. This Blue-book sets out clearly the circumstances under which we became involved in this Tibetan difficulty, and I am bound to say that I believe you may search history in vain for a case in which a powerful and civilised Power has dealt more patiently or more indulgently with a barbarous or semi-barbarous neighbour. There have been two questions between ourselves and the Tibetans—the question of trade and the question of frontier. I will freely admit that, to my mind, the question of trade deserves a secondary place only in

1145
these transactions. I do not, on the other hand, wish to treat considerations founded upon the development of trade with disrespect; because we who have been at the Foreign Office know very well that our fellow - countrymen regard it as one of the principal duties belonging to us to sec that no efforts are spared to develop the trade of this country in all parts of the world, and we are, rightly I think, taken to task whenever we neglect such an opportunity.
But it is quite true that in this case the trade for which we are struggling is not a very extensive or valuable trade. At any rate, I entirely agree with the noble Marquess and the noble Earl on the Cross Benches when they repudiate the idea of endeavouring to force trade, whether it be extensive or not extensive, at the point of the bayonet, upon people who do not want to trade with us. The question of the frontier is of an entirely different nature. I think it must be borne in upon us that in many parts of the world these frontier questions are forced upon us in circumstances from which there is no escape. If you have two uncivilised countries conterminous, they rather like not to have a settled frontier; you will find that certain regions belong at one time to one Power and at another to its neighbour, and sometimes they even owe allegiance simultaneously to two different Powers. But these arrangements are not convenient or acceptable when an uncivilised country marches with a civilised Power; and that is the case which confronts us in Tibet. Is it the case, as the noble Earl who introduced this subject suggests, that we have dealt with this frontier question in a spirit other than a spirit of patience and conciliation? I say the whole history of this transaction is a history of British patience and forbearance.
I will not go over the events as they were described to the House by my noble friend Lord Hardwicke; but your Lordships will remember that after the invasion of Sikkim by Tibet in 1886—I see the noble Lord puts on an expression of astonishment, but in 1886, the Tibetans did invade Sikkim and occupied a position twelve miles on the Sikkim side of the frontier. When that invasion occurred, there was no impatience shown on our side. We gave them two years grace before we turned
1146
them out, as we were obliged to turn them out, at the point of the bayonet. From that time it was our object to make a friendly and neighbourly arrangement with the Tibetans, and such an arrangement was attempted in 1890, when the convention of that year was entered into. On that occas on, again, we were careful to avoid forcing our trade upon the Tibetans, because, whereas we insisted upon an immediate settlement with regard to the frontier, we allowed the question of trade to stand over for the time, and no attempt was made to deal with it until 1893. I think it was the noble Earl on the Cross Benches who said that the policy of the Indian Government was to be explained by their desire to force Indian tea upon Tibetan consumers. So little was that the case that in 1893, at the request of the Chinese, with whom we were then negotiating, we dropped the question of tea, for I, think, no less than five years.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: That was under the late Government.
THE MAEQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am merely showing that our policy with regard to trade has been a policy of patience and conciliation. What was our reward for this patience? The boundary pillars were destroyed; and not only was trade not allowed to us, but the Tibetans came down and built a wall close to the spot at which they had engaged that a trade mart should be established. We have heard of tariff walls, but this was not a tariff wall, it was a stone wall. It was because of the failure of this policy of patience that His Majesty's Government reluctantly came to the conclusion that it was necessary to accept the suggestion of the Government of India and to have recourse to a more vigorous policy. The conditions under which we agreed to that policy are set out in this Blue-book; and I must say I do not think that anything could have been more careful than the limitations and precaution-subject to which that policy was sanctioned.
The noble Lord asked us to explain what it was that Colonel Younghusband's mission was intended to obtain for us. I

1147
will answer that question. The convention of 1890 was repudiated by the Tibetans upon the ground that they had not been properly consulted with regard to it. As a matter of fact, I believe that a Tibetan official accompanied the Chinese Amban who negotiated the treaty, but they have persistently repudiated these obligations. We desire that a new convention should be entered into between the Government of India on the one hand, and the Tibetans and the Chinese, as the suzerain Power, upon the other. That is the object of this mission, and we intend to attain it. As to the aggressive tendencies which we are alleged to have exhibited, I cannot help thinking that we have a right to call, if I may say so, as witnesses to character, the representatives of the two adjoining States of Nepal and Bhotan, whose attitude has been referred to during the course of this debate. Bhotan is an independent State immediately adjoining the Indian frontier. I believe we pay a small subsidy to the Bhotanese Government, but we never interfere with them. In the same way Nepal is an independent State. We keep an agent there. But there is no interference with internal Nepalese affairs, with the result that we are on most friendly terms with that State, and we are allowed to recruit within it those gallant Gurkha soldiers who add so much to the strength of the Indian Army. It is perfectly clear that if we have been able to maintain this sort of relations with Bhotan and Nepal, it is not necessary to impute to us sinister designs upon our Tibetan neighbours.
The noble Lord who spoke first referred to the relations of Tibet with China, and quoted and condemned very roundly Lord Curzon's statement that the suzerainty of China over Thibet might be regarded as a constitutional fiction. Lord Curzon, in the words which follow, explains very distinctly what he meant by that statement. Lord Curzon says that what he calls this constitutional fiction—
"Has been maintained only because of its convenience to both parties. China is always ready to break down the barriers of ignorance and obstruction and to open Tibet to the civilising influence of trade; but her pious wishes are defeated by the short-sighted stupidity of the Lamas. In the same way Tibet is only too anxious to meet our advances, but she is prevented from doing so by the despotic veto of
1148
the suzerain. This solemn farce has been re-enacted with a frequency that seems never to deprive it of its attractions or its power to impose."
That is a perfectly accurate account of the value for all practical purposes of the suzerainty of China when you come to attempt to make it a basis for dealing with the Tibetans. But such as the suzerainty of China is, we desire to respect it; we do not wish to minimise it. On the contrary, we have throughout these long negotiations constantly leant on the suzerainty of China, and spared no pains to carry the Chinese Government with us at every step. At this moment whatever is being done in Tibet is being done with the knowledge and concurrence of the Chinese Government. They are not always punctual in their arrangements; their representatives do not always arrive on the scene at the hour when they are most wanted. But that does not in the least affect the accuracy of my statement that the Chinese Government is a party to the transactions now in progress.
I now come to a much more delicate and difficult subject which has been touched upon by speakers to-night—I mean the relations between Tibet and Russia. The attitude of His Majesty's Government in regard to this question is, I think, explained with sufficient clearness in the despatches published in the Blue-book and giving an account of the communications that passed between the representative of the Russian Government and the representative of the British Foreign Office. I do not desire to add to or to take away from what was stated in these despatches. Our view is that the independence of Tibet should be recognised, but that if any other Power is to exercise a preponderance in that country, that Power can only be Great Britain. We have made that sufficiently clear, and I will not attempt to labour the point; the more so, because, whether there had been any question of communications between Russia an Tibet or not, it would, in my belief, have been none the less necessary that some step should be taken to bring the Tibetan Government to reason. What seems to me to aggravate our difficulties in this case is not so much anything which the Russian Government has done, as what the

1149
Tibetans imagine the Russian Government to intend or to have in contemplation. The Russian Government have given us distinct, and, I am bound to say, in my opinion, satisfactory assurances with regard to their policy towards Tibet. I do not desire to call these assurances in question. Nor do I for a moment attach credence to the idle rumours which reach us from time to time as to the presence of large bodies of Russian troops or of Russians of any kind at that mysterious capital, Lhasa. But the evidence is indisputable to show that the Tibetans, who are a people very ignorant and very easily imposed upon, are deeply convinced that they may count upon Russian support, and it is that most unfortunate misapprehension—for I believe it to be an entire misapprehension—which has so much intensified their opposition to us and added so much to our difficulties.
The noble Marquess asked me a distinct Question arising out of the despatch written by myself to Mr. Spring-Rice on 17th Novembsr, and printed on page 298 of the Blue-book. He called attention to the fact that in this despatch the Russian Ambassador was said to have observed to me that it was most unfortunate that at the present moment, when the Russian Government were, as I was aware, disposed to enter into amicable discussion of our relations at various points where British and Russian interests came in contact, an event of this kind, meaning the Tibetan Mission, should have occurred. I understood the noble Marquess to invite me to tell him what it was that that observation pointed to. The observation had no reference to Tibetan affairs; but it had reference to conversations which had taken place upon more than one occasion between myself and his Excellency, in the course of which he had dwelt upon the great advantage which would result to both our countries from a better and more frank understanding in regard to the numerous points at which, in different parts of the world, our interests come in contact. I need not say that I received that statement with the cordiality which it deserved. I am glad to recall it now, and I hope I may be allowed
1150
to say how readily His Majesty's Government would recur to the subject at some time happier and more opportune than the present.
I can only say in conclusion that we have undertaken this Tibetan mission with the utmost reluctance, and that we determined to take it, not because we desired abruptly to change our policy or to abandon that which had been pursued by Lord Elgin, or even that which had been pursued. by ourselves, as shown by the documents contained in the earlier part of the Blue-book, but because we were profoundly convinced that the other policy, after a long and conscientious trial, had completely failed, that China had shown herself powerless to bring about a more satisfactory condition of affairs between ourselves and Tibet, that the Tibetans were quite unable to understand the complaisance and indulgence with which we had treated them, and that the policy which had be en described as a policy of patience and conciliation had been exhausted. In these circumstances, no other course seemed open to us but to adopt the line of action recommended to us by the Government of India; and your Lordships may certainly depend upon it that we shall pursue that line of action with the caution and the discretion which under any circumstances it would have been our duty to observe, but which, in consideration of the present condition of international affairs, it is doubly our duty to keep strictly before our view.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): Does the noble Lord withdraw his Motion?
LORD REAY: No. I understand there is no objection to giving further Papers.
THE EARL OF HASDWICKE: The Blue-book already published contains the latest Papers, and others will be given when they come to hand. I think the noble Lord will be satisfie with that assurance.
LORD REAY: Ceitainly. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave of the House withdrawn.

GRIEVANCES OF RESERVE OFFICERS.
LORD ROSMEAD: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War—(1) Whether the Committee appointed by the late Secretary of State for War to inquire into the whole subject of the grievances of the Reserve officers who were called up for service during the late war in South Africa, has yet made its Report; and (2.) whether the said Report, if made, or when made, together with the proceedings, will be laid on the Table of the House. I have on two former occasions brought to the notice of your Lordships the decided disparity between the treatment of the two classes of Reserve officers called up for service in the late war, and therefore I need not now take up your Lordships' time by repeating what I have already said. My reason for asking this Question is that on 7th August last the noble Earl who was at that time Under-Secretary of State for War intimated to your Lordships, in reply to a Question which I submitted, that the Report of the Committee which the late Secretary of State for War had appointed to inquire into the whole subject of the grievances of Reserve Officers would shortly be published. The announcement of the appointment of this Committee was made to your Lordships on 11th May last by the noble Earl, but I have been unable to ascertain anything whatever about the Committee or its Report. There is a very strong impression prevalent among Reserve officers that the Committee in question has either unaccountably delayed its investigations, or that if it has made its Report it has done so without an exhaustive examination of the case. I attribute this view to the refusal of the War Office authorities to accept the evidence which many of the pensioned Reserve officers volunteered to give before the Committee.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORB): My Lords, the noble Lord appears to be under a misapprehension as to the exact purposes for which the Committee was appointed. The Committee was not appointed to inquire into the grievances of Reserve officers during the late war. It was appointed to inquire into the whole question as to the past, present, and
1152
future re-employment of Reserve officers in time of war. The Committee has made its Report, but no decision has as yet been come to as to whether the Report will be adopted or not. I am unable to say, therefore, whether it will be laid on the Table of the House, nor can I give any pledge to that effect. It may interest the noble Lord, however, to know that the Committee did emphatically report against making any of their proposals retrospective. As regards the proceedings of the Committee, they can never be laid on the Table, as no shorthand notes were taken.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.