Sitting of 9 June 1904

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO 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, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  North-Western Electricity and Power Gas Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Skipton Water and Improvement Bill. Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  Dundee, Broughty Ferry, and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill; Leith Burgh Order Confirmation Bill. Read a second time; to be considered upon Monday next.
  Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. Read a second time.
  Motherwell and Bellshill Railway (Abandonment) Order Confirmation Bill. Read a second time; to be considered. upon Monday next.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Sheppy Gas Bill, without Amendment.
Colney Hatch Gas Bill; North Staffordshire Railway Bill; Gomersal Gas Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—Gosport Water Bill [Lords]; Metropolitan Railway Bill [Lords]; West Metropolitan Railway (Abandonment) Bill [Lords]; Harlow and Sawbridgeworth Gas Bill [Lords]; Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company Bill [Lords]; University of Leeds Bill [Lords]; Yorktown and Blackwater Gas Bill [Lords]; Chesterfield Corporation (Tramways and Improvements) Bill [Lords]; without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for the suppression of Betting, in Streets and other public places." [Street Betting Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Education, under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1903, to enable the council of the city and county borough of Birmingham to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts." [Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (Birmingham) Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for rendering valid certain Letters Patent granted to Richard Jaeger in respect of an invention for an improved process for the dry slaking of lime and apparatus therefor. [Richard Jaeger's Patent Bill [Lords.]
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (Birmingham) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 224.]
Richard Jaeger's Patent Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the: Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Inverness, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Glossop; Middleton-in-Teesdale; Love's Beech-burn; Stanley Colliery; Callington; Blunts; Witton Junction; Broughton Park; Machen; Tideford; Kidwelly; Whitland; Stroud; Chalford; Fir Tree; St. George's-in-the-East; Glasgow (five); Trawdon; Loughborough; Northampton (two); Harwood-in-Teesdale; Seven-oaks (two); Nuneaton; Derby; Newquay (two); Rochester; Western Favell; Little Houghton; Great Billing; Ecton; Hertford; North Kensington; Carhampton; Acocks Green; Oldham; Bridlington; Enfield; Plymouth; Hadfield; Hylton Colliery; North Shields (four); Ecclesall (two); Middle Marsh; Radcliffe; Burn-ham; Garton; Silloth; Bridport; Botton; Bolton (two); Dunster; Ayr; Oban; South Ayr; Lintz Colliery; Burnopfield; Winlaton; Fellside; Bridlington Quay; Brindley Ford; Wheddon Cross; Greenock; West Dorset; Paisley; Putney; Winsford; Mytholmroyd; Methley; Liverpool; Charlesworth; Wimblington; Fairburn; Hightown; Kidderminster; Haughton Green; Shetland; Newton Toney; Whiteparish; West Grimstead; Blaydon-on-Tyne; Eccles; Allonby; Warwick Bridge; Clayton; Stocksbridge; Minehead; Luton (two); Harpenden; Abergele; Colwyn Bay (two); Llandyr-nog; Macclesfield (two); Great Yarmouth; Bardwell; Ardwick; Ford; Goldenhill; Congleton; Henshaw; Prud-hce Station; Nether Hallam; Chatteris; Bilston; Daw Bank; Maidstone (two); Pilling; Birmingham (three); Brightside; Hebden Bridge (three); Wrexham (two); Flamstead; Kinsbourne Green; Mark-yate; Hatfield; Chaul End; Huddersfield; Dulwich; Weaste; Saint Pancras; Barnard Castle; Pontypridd; Crigglestone; Coundon Grange; Quernmore; Westhoughton; Oxford Place; Watton Little Cressingham; Saham Toney; Stirlingshire; Bideford (two); Carmarthen; Borough; Walker; Brandon; Chertsey; Greenwich; Ludlow; Barningham; Stanford; Fenton; Brentwood; Wood-
  1204
  land; Chorley; Dalton; Moor; Stainton; Bowes; Brailsford; Ashbourne; Kirkcaldy; Longsight; Burntisland; Cromer; Pegswood; Tarbert; Maindee; Ilford; Roth well; Leeds; Horsforth (two); Outwood; Lower Altofts; Loscoe; Blaenplwyf; Ystumtuen; North Seaton; Watford; Garforth; Skelmanthorpe; Cwmbrwyne; Bridge of Earn; Sunderland; Kinghorn; Manchester; Mingoose St. Agnes; Gwennap; Whitwood; North Bitchburn; Crosby Garrett; Gaisgill; Kirkby Stephen; Stokesley; Rodley; Parwich; Loddon; Gildersome; Farsley; St. Helens (two); Prudhoe; Barnsley (two); Pallion; and Halton and Cross-gates; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Canterbury, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  TRAWLERS' CERTIFICATES SUSPEN- SION BILL.
  Petition from Inverness, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Halt-whistle; Bromsgrove; Turton; and Westminster; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, IMPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA {NATURAL FERTILISERS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 7th June; Mr. Emmott]; to lie upon the Table.
  METEOROLOGICAL GRANT (COMMITTEE).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the administration by the [Meteorological Council of the existing Parliamentary Grant, together with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 AND 1888.
  Copy presented, of Special Reports by the Board of Trade under Section (1) of The Electric Lighting Act, 1888, respecting—(1) Bothwell Electric Lighting Order, 1904; (2) Houghton-le-Spring and District Electric Lighting Order, 1904;

  1205
  (3) Kilpatrick Electric Lighting Order, 1904; (4) Kingswood Electric Lighting Order, 1904; (5) Northampton and District Electric Lighting Order, 1904; (6) Shettleston Electric Lighting Order, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  IRISH LAND ACT, 1903.
  Return ordered, "of Estates purchased by the Congested Districts Board for Ireland in respect of the period of six months ended the 30th day of April, 1904, for the purposes of resale to tenants and the enlargement of holdings, in the following form:—(1) County; (2) Number of estates; (3) Number of holdings under permanent tenancies; (4) Acreage of lands under permanent tenancies and temporary lettings (a) tenanted, (b) untenanted, (c) total; (5) Purchase money; (6) Gross rental."—(Mr. Wyndkam.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRICULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  The Number of Men Employed in Building the Victoria and Albert Museum.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER (): To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, how many men are now regularly employed in the building of the Victoria and Albert Museum.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The number of men now regularly employed on the work is 550, of whom 320 are on the building and 230 are preparing the stonework at the masons' yard.

  The New Silver Coinage
  ME. BAYLEY (): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether all the new silver coinage is being struck at His Majesty's Mint; and, if not, will he state the names of any firms that are minting on behalf of the Government, and the terms of any contracts made with those firms.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) Yes, Sir. All the new silver coinage is being struck at the Royal Mint.

  Religious Observance in Voluntary Schools
  MR. HALSEY (): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether His Majesty's Inspectors have, or have not, acted in accordance with instructions received from the Board of Education in approving a time table for a voluntary school which provides for the attendance at church of those children whose parents do not object, on certain specified days, during the time set apart for any religious observance or instruction in.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Education Department held in 1871, that attendance at church, as described in the Question, was not attendance at school; but that where children, with the consent of their parents, attended church in place of receiving religious instruction in the school premises, they should not be marked on the register while so absent, and that the occasions on which they were to be absent for this purpose should appear on the time table, in order to show that they were not in attendance at school. As attendance at church has never been regarded as attendance at school, and as by-laws now usually require that attendance at school should be for the whole time during which the school is open, it seems to the Board that the time table should not contain any reference to arrangements which have nothing to do with school hours or school attendance, and instructions to this effect are being given to His Majesty's Inspectors.

  Sanitary Condition of Post Office at 10, Oxford Street.
  MR. BAYLEY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will give directions that inquiry should be made into the sanitary condition of the telegraph office at 10, Oxford Street; and whether, in view of the admitted unsuitability of this office for the purposes for which it is used, steps will be taken immediately to acquire new premises.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am not aware that the branch post office at No. 10, Oxford Street, is insanitary, but it is certainly too small. I have been for some time in treaty for more suitable

  1207
  premises in the locality, and I hope to be in a position to carry out the transfer before very long. Meanwhile I am taking steps which will improve to some extent the conditions in the instrument room and in the office generally.

  Clones Post Office
  MR. M'KEAN (): To ask the Postmaster - General whether he is aware that the telegraph room in the new post office at Clones is very small and lighted from an overhead passage, and that the women's lavatory is adjoining this room; and, if so, will he say whether this room was inspected by the Post Office officials having charge of the proper conditions of buildings; and whether he will investigate the matter with a view to improvement.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The new post office at Clones was opened on the 13th ultimo. I am assured that an excellent office has been provided. In an office of this class a large instrument room is not required and the space now available is sufficient. The women's retiring room opens off the instrument room, but it has separate light and ventilation, and the arrangement is not open to any objection in the case of such a small office. The instrument room is lighted from the roof.

  Post Office Guide—List of Offices with Sunday Despatch and Delivery.
  MR. NUSSBY (): To ask the Postmaster-General whether, for the public convenience, he can give directions in the next and subsequent issues of the Postal Guide to make a distinction between those offices which have a Sunday despatch and delivery, and those which have no such service.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Some information as regards Sunday deliveries is already given in the table of mails from London to provincial offices. To give any further information of this sort would necessarily make the Guide more complicated than it is at present; and, as I am not sure that any commensurate advantage would ensue, I should like to have some time to consider the question.

  Chinese Seamen on the British Steamship "Turbo."
  MR. JOYCE (): To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the trial and conviction of fourteen Chinese seamen at the North Shields Police Court on 3lst May last, on the alleged ground of disobeying the commands of the master of the British steamship "Turbo," owned by the Shell Transport and Trading Company, Limited; whether he is aware that the magistrate suggested that an interpreter should be provided for these men, and that the master of the "Turbo" declared this to be unnecessary; and, if so, can he state if these fourteen Chinamen were engaged and signed on at Singapore, as stated in evidence by the master of the "Turbo"; and whether he is aware that on 1st April last, the same master of the British steamship "Turbo" had trouble with fourteen Chinese seamen who were discharged from that vessel at Gravesend, the Chinamen alleging that the master had not complied with the terms of the agreement which he made with them, and that these Chinese seamen were charged £1 each as deduction for police expenses, without the matter being decided before a magistrate.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have received reports on the subject to which the hon. Member refers from the superintendents of the Mercantile Marine Offices at Gravesend and North Shields, and the owners of the steamship "Turbo" have also furnished me with information. As regards the trial of the Chinamen at North Shields, the facts as stated are in the main correct, but it appears that, although an interpreter was not present when the men were first brought before the Court, the magistrate remanded them until an interpreter could be obtained, and the seamen were thus enabled to acquaint the Bench with their position before sentence was passed. According to the agreement of the vessel, all these Chinamen, with one exception, had been engaged at Singapore as stated by the master. From the report furnished by the superintendent at Gravesend, it appears that on 1st April the Chinese firemen on board the "Turbo" refused duty, and eventually fifteen of them were

  1209
  discharged by mutual consent. No complaint was made by the men as to the sums paid to them in respect of wages, which they stated to be correct. I am further informed by the owners that a deduction of £1 a head for police expenses was not made.

  Refused Licences.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES (): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will inform the House of the number of refused victuallers' beerhouse, and other licences, with the ground of refusal, respectively for 1901 and 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The only information in my possession in regard to refusals to renew licences in past years is contained in Returns which have from time to time been laid before Parliament. No such Return was made for the year 1901, and in 1902 there was no general annual licensing meeting outside London.

  Perth Quarter Sessions-Summoning of Justices.
  MR. BUCHANAN (): To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether in calling the statutory meeting of quarter sessions for the election of justices to serve on the county district Licensing Courts as well as on the Appeal and Confirmation Courts, the clerk is bound to summon all the justices and not a section only; whether his attention has been called to the fact that this was omitted to be done in the county of Perth at the quarter sessions meeting in March last, and at the Appeal and Confirmation Court in May; and whether he will give instructions that in future the clerk shall cite all justices to quarter sessions, and all members of the various Licensing Courts to the meetings of such Courts.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) My attention has been called to the incident referred to in the second paragraph of the hon. Member's Question. The conduct of the justice of peace clerk is not a matter as to which I have any jurisdiction, and must be regulated by the justices themselves.

  Admiralty Yatch "Enchantress."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the yacht "Enchantress" is now in commission; what is the difference between her cost as finished and the estimate on which the order was given; where did the speed trials take place, and what was the realised speed as compared with the speed contracted for; did coal consumption trials take place, and, if so, what were the results; and what was the duration of the speed and coal consumption trials respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The "Enchantress" is now in commission. The difference between her cost as finished and the estimate on which the order was given is about £1,200. The speed trials took place in the Irish Channel and Skelmorlie measured mile. Only the trial at fifteen knots was carried out, as it was considered that the pitch of propellers was not suitable for the higher speed of eighteen knots. The eighteen knot trial will be deferred until new propellers are ready. The coal consumption at fifteen knots was 1.94 lbs, per i.h.p. per hour for twenty-four hours.

  Employment of Solicitors for Vaccination Prosecutions in Lambeth.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT (): To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that at Lambeth Police Court on 31st May three persons were summoned by the Lambeth vaccination officer before Mr. Hopkins for neglecting to have their children vaccinated: that in each case a solicitor appeared in support of the summons, and each person was ordered to pay 25s. costs; and whether he will instruct the vaccination officer not to employ a solicitor except in cases of special difficulty.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have no information as to the cases referred to, but I am making inquiry on the subject.

  Additional Expenditure under the Indian Councils Bill.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, if he will state what additional expenditure will be incurred in salaries or otherwise under the Indian Councils Bill.

  1211
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Indian Councils Bill does not increase the number of memberships of Council; it merely removes the special qualifications and conditions now connected with one of them. It is, however, intended, if this Bill is passed, to appoint the full authorised number of Members of Council, instead of leaving one post unfilled, as at present; and it is possible that some increase of the secretariat may in consequence be required; but as to this no details have yet been settled. The pay of a Member of Council is £5,333 a year.

  Political Effects of English Education in India
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (): To ask the Secretary of State for India whether before legislating on higher education the Government of India instituted an inquiry into the political effect of English education in India; and, if so, whether he will state the substance of the views expressed by the various local governments on this subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am not aware of any inquiry directed specially to the subject stated in the hon. Member's Question. The recent legislation of the Government of India in regard to the Indian Universities was, however, preceded by an inquiry into University education in that country by a Commission, whose Report was published in 1902; and in the debates on the Universities Bill, which will be found in the Gazette of India for April last, the various aspects of higher education in India were discussed very fully.

  Estate of the Dewan of Dhar.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that on the death of Bapu Raghunath, Dewan of Dhar, his property was divided amongst his sons, and that because the portion belonging to one of the sons, viz., Ramchandra Rao, was confiscated in November, 1857, on account of his alleged complicity in the Mutiny, Krishna Rao Raghunath and Shanka Rao Bhagwant, who are the descendants of Ramchandra Rao's brothers, have been denied access to the property belonging to their fore-
  1212
  fathers; and will he consider the expediency of ordering some inquiry with a view to the restoration of this property to these claimants.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The facts of the case were stated in a reply to a Question of the hon. Member on the 12th May, 1902,† by the late Secretary of State. I agree with him in declining to interfere further with the discretion of the Native State in the matter.

  Terms of Loans for Irish Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. CLANCY (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the statement of the chairman of the North Dublin Rural District Council, in reference to the terms on which the latest loan for the building of labourers' cottages in that district has been sanctioned, that the terms referred to were so onerous that they would largely tend to prevent the working of the Labourers Acts in the future; and whether he will take such declarations into consideration with a view, by means of an Amendment of the Labourers Bill now before the House, to render those terms less burdensome to the ratepayers of Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The terms upon which such loans are sanctioned are fixed by the Treasury and apply to all loans advanced out of the Local Loans Fund on the security of local rates.

  Wages of Central African Natives in Transvaal Mines.
  SIR JOHN GORST (): To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the minimum wage offered to natives recruited in Central Africa for the Transvaal mines will now be reduced from 1s. 6d. to 1s. per diem for the first six months after their arrival at the mines, so as to correspond with the minimum wage offered to Chinese coolies.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The British Central African natives now
  † See (4) Debates, cvii., 1343.

  1213
  being recruited are, I understand, to be engaged under the same conditions as those recruited last year, as stated at page 14 of Cd. 1950.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  The Sinking of the "Thistle"
  SIR JOHN LENG (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the steamer "Thistle," which sunk at Haulbowline Island on Monday morning, has been raised, and, if not, by whom the salvage operations are being conducted; and whether Admiralty plant is being employed.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): She has not yet been raised. The salvage operations are being conducted by the Admiralty.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the cause which led to the sudden sinking of the Admiralty steam launch "Thistle" in/ Queenstown Harbour on Monday last has been ascertained; and whether periodical examinations are made of this class of vessel, and reports furnished as to their condition.
  *MR. PRETYMAN: The sinking of the Admiralty launch "Thistle" in Queenstown Harbour on Monday was not due to any defect, but to the fact that two scuppers were left open, and when the men left the vessel she heeled over and brought the open scupper below the water line.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Did the vessel carry an unusual number of passengers across?
  *MR. PRETYMAN: It has nothing to do with the overloading of the vessel. The scuppers, being close to the water line, ought not to have been left open. The men all left her on the starboard side and thus caused her to heel over and the water poured in.
  SIR JOHN LENG: If outside assistance is required will British Salvage
  1214
  Companies have an opportunity of undertaking the work?
  *MR. PRETYMAN: Yes, Sir; communications have already been sent inquiring if outside assistance is necessary.

  Lord Roberts' Salary.
  MR. MARKHAM (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if Field-Marshal Earl Roberts' full pay is continued up to January, 1906, while the pay of the other officers in high command, who were similarly and simultaneously relieved of their positions on 9th February last, ceased sixty days after their retirement; and, if so, can he explain the ground for the difference in the treatment of these officers from that enjoyed by the late Commander-in-Chief, seeing this officer received a gratuity of £100,000 during the Boer War.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The facts are as stated in the Question. Field-Marshal Lord Roberts, at the special request of the Prime Minister, consented to place his services at the disposal of the Committee of Imperial Defence and it was accordingly decided that he should be retained on full pay until the period of his employment as Commander-in-Chief would normally have expired.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE (): May I ask whether Lord Roberts will not be employed on this Committee subsequently to January, 1906? In that case will his pay be continued?
  MR. ARNOLD - FORSTBR: If that contingency arises it will have to be considered.

  3rd North Staffordshire Regiment—Case of William Vernon
  MR. WEIR (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state under what circumstances Captain Crosthwaite, of the 3rd North Staffordshire Regiment, signed a certificate for the arrest of William Vernon of that regiment as an absentee, seeing that Vernon was at the time absent from

  1215
  duty on leave under a certificate signed by the same officer; and will he explain why the military authorities were not represented when the stipendiary magistrate at Hanley, Staffordshire, before whom Vernon was brought on the 30th May, ordered his release.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Private Vernon, 3rd Battalion North Staffordshire Regiment, was granted leave from the annual training by the adjutant, Captain Crosthwaite, on the 26th April. Through inadvertence the adjutant reported this militiaman to the police authorities as an absentee; consequently, he was arrested at Tunstall and a report was made by the police to the officer commanding the 3rd Battalion North Staffordshire Regiment on Sunday, the 29th May. The same day the regimental authorities telephoned to Police Inspector Dodd of Tunstall that Vernon had been arrested in error, and the inspector replied that he would explain the circumstances to the stipendiary magistrate on the following morning. It was in consequence of this arrangement that no officer of the battalion attended the Police Court.

  Crimean Pensioners.
  MR. SLOAN (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the present pension the men who served in the Crimean War are in receipt of is inadequate for their support., he will consider the advisability of giving them an increase sufficient to enable them to live outside the workhouse.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: All those in receipt of small pensions, who are in necessitous circumstances, are now being granted special increases provided that they have either been wounded or discharged for disability, or are at the present time suffering from a disability clearly due to their military service.

  Chinese Labour in the Transvaal Mines— Powers of Chinese Consul.
  MR. J. A. PEASE (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the proposal of the Chinese Minister mentioned in [Cd. 2026 2], that a Chinese Consul should have power to visit the Transvaal mines and
  1216
  make representations to the authorities respecting the well-being of the immigrants was acceded to by His Majesty's Government; and if this right is included among those granted to the officer whose appointment is provided for by Article VI. of the Convention signed on 13th May; or, if not, whether this proposal was waived by the Chinese Minister.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): Article VI. of the Convention represents the arrangement finally arrived at in this matter. The Chinese Consul or Vice-Consul in the Transvaal will have all the privileges and facilities in. the discharge of his duty of protecting the interests of his countrymen which are accorded to other Consuls, and the note to the Convention shows that every care has been taken to secure the appointment of Consuls of experience and standing.
  MR. J. A PEASE: Are the Chinese representatives satisfied with that position?
  MR. LYTTELTON: I understand so.

  Chinese Labour in the Transvaal.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Chinese labourers under the Transvaal Ordinance can undertake work of a class in which hitherto white men have been engaged.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I stated some months ago that Chinamen would be excluded from work of a class in which white men had hitherto been engaged. I adhere to that statement, and it is given effect to in the Ordinance under penalties of £500 or two years imprisonment in default of payment. It follows, therefore, that white labour cannot be displaced by the introduction of Chinamen. On the contrary, a larger opportunity for the employment of white men will be afforded.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (): Is it not a fact that the gangers or overseers over the Kaffirs are at present white men. Will it therefore be competent for Chinese to act as gangers?
  MR. LYTTELTON: I do not profess to have any exact knowledge of the precise conditions obtaining now in the mines, but every employment in which the Chinese are permitted to engage is subject to the limitation that it has not hitherto been the employment of white men.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (): On whom is the fine imposed or the imprisonment inflicted? Is it the Chinese labourer who is to be fined?
  MR. LYTTELTON: With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I can hardly think that he is in very much doubt on the subject. Section 31, Clause 5, of the Ordinance says that any person who employs these labourers, otherwise than in unskilled labour, in the exploitation of minerals, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £500, or in default of payment to imprisonment for a period mot exceeding two years.
  MR. CATHCART WASON (): Did not the right hon. Gentleman state clearly in the House yesterday that Chinamen would be employed as overseers?
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that no British miners in the Rand can speak the language of the natives employed in the mines, and that all ganging work in the mines has been exclusively carried out by white men; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will inquire of Lord Milner what construction his legal advisers place on the terms "ganger" and "mine-overseer," which are both found in the schedule of occupations closed to Chinese labourers, seeing that a large number of British miners will be unable to find employment which they otherwise would find if Chinese gangers were not allowed to do that class of work.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The Question only reached me a short time ago. I cannot profess to have any exact knowledge as to the exact conditions of employment in the mines. I think the hon. Gentleman will see that the inquiry
  1218
  he suggests is unnecessary because Chinamen can only be legitimately employed under the Ordinance provided that they are not employed in work that white men have hitherto been engaged in. Anything that can make that clear I shall be glad to do.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON (): May I ask whether the employment of Chinese labourers is not absolutely restricted to unskilled labour, and whether in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion the work of a ganger is a form of unskilled labour.
  MR. BAYLEY (); Are the gangers in the mines going to be Chinamen or white men?
  MR. LYTTELTON: If gangers hitherto have been white men, they will be white men in the future. It is impossible for me to say from my own knowledge the exact conditions of labour that prevail. I should imagine that there would be cases in which, when Kaffirs came up from a considerable distance, speaking different languages, an intermediary would be employed to interpret the orders, and in the case of a black man being employed for that purpose now it would be competent for a Chinaman to fulfil the office. If, however, a white overseer doss the work at present, it would, of course, be competent only for a white man to do the work in future.

  Transvaal Finances.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the latest information he can give in regard to the financial position of the Transvaal; and what are the figures of actual revenue and expenditure of the current year up to date, and the estimated revenue and expenditure for the balance of the current year.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The latest estimate for the current year ending 30th; June, was received by me in a telegram from Lord Milner, dated 4th June, and gives Transvaal revenue £4,430,000; Transvaal local expenditure, with Supplementary Estimates, £3,660,000; surplus £770,000. But this surplus is entirely

  1219
  absorbed by the deficit on the Intercolonial Budget. I have not the actual figures up to date; the financial position will be shown in greater detail in the Papers which I am presenting shortly.

  Transvaal Dynamite Duties
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table a letter, dated 11th July, 1902, addressed by Mr. Goldring, Secretary of the Transvaal Chamber of Mines, to the Colonial Secretary, praying that a duty of 5s. to 7s. 6d. per case should be imposed to assist the De Beers Company and the local factory in the manufacture of dynamite; also all letters before the war from the same association protesting against any dynamite monopoly being permitted by his Majesty's Government; and whether he proposes to adopt the free-trade recommendations of the Transvaal Concessions Commission of which he was Chairman.
  MR.MARKHAM: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by the Chairman of the National Explosives Company at the ordinary general meeting, on 31st May, that this British company, as also other British manufacturers, had been excluded from the Transvaal market owing to the import duty of 6s. 3d. per case levied at the coast in the interest of the De Beers and Modderfontein factories; whether he will now cancel this monopoly provisionally sanctioned in 1902 by the Member for West Birmingham, seeing the effect of the duty has lost the largest dynamite market in the world to British manufacturers.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I will answer the two Questions of the hon. Member on this subject together. I have seen the statement made by the Chairman of the National Explosives Company, but I am not prepared to admit that British manufacturers have been excluded from the Transvaal markets by the import duty, inasmuch as a certain proportion of the dynamite used in the Transvaal comes from sources outside South Africa. The recommendations of the Concessions Commission, of which I was Chairman,
  1220
  were in general terms and did not imply absolute free trade in dynamite, which, indeed would be inconsistent with the general fiscal policy of the Transvaal. The matter is an extremely complicated one, and there are many contradictory statements as regards the comparative advantages or disadvantages of the different sources of supply. I have, not yet been able to satisfy myself as to the true conditions. I have had interviews with representatives of both sides, and I have recently received further statistics, which are now under my consideration. Until I can announce a final decision, which I hope will be in a short time, there would be no advantage in my laying any Papers on the subject.

  Transvaal Gold Mine Profit Tax.
  MR. WHITLEY (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will be able to present the Papers relating to the method of assessing the gold-mine profit tax in the Transvaal.
  MR. LYTTELTON. I propose to lay financial Papers shortly, which will contain the Papers referred to.

  Finance of the New Colonies.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay upon the Table the original and the revised Estimates of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, and of the Inter-colonial Council for the year ending 30th June.
  MR. LYTTELTON: These Estimates will be included in the financial Papers to be laid shortly.
  MR. WHITLEY: Will the financial Blue-book be laid before the Colonial Vote is taken?
  MR. LYTTELTON: I hope so.

  No British Mission to Kabul.
  MR. BOLAND ()I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a British mission is to start for Kabul at an early date; if so, can he state what the objects of such mission are; and whether it is to be of a peaceful character.
  THE SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): The answer is in the negative.

  New Indian Province Administrators.
  MR. SCHWANN (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what is the number and annual cost of the European officers now and usually employed in that portion of the new province beyond the Indian frontier recently described by His Excellency Lord Curzon as stretching from Gilgit to Beluchistan.
  MR. BRODRICK: Eighty-one military officers and seven political officers are employed in Chitral, Dir, and Swat; the Khyber; the Kurram; and Waziristan, which are the portions of the North-West Frontier Province mentioned in Lord Curzon's statement to which the hon. Member refers. The salaries of these officers are approximately 673,900 rupees per annum. To these must be added three police officers with the Samana Rifles whose salaries aggregate about 21,000 rupees per annum.

  MR. Tilak's Case.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state whether the Government of Bombay referred Mr. Tilak's case to the police for investigation; whether the report of Mr. Brewin, the investigating officer, was forwarded to Mr. Tilak; will be explain why, after receiving that report, the Government appointed a special magistrate and a special prosecutor to deal with the case, instead of leaving it to be dealt with in the ordinary course of law; and will he place upon the Table the Government's orders upon the report together with the report.
  MR. BRODRICK: As I explained in replying to the hon. Member on the 14th and 26th April last,† I have no information regarding this case beyond what is contained in the newspapers; but I will transmit the hon. Member's Question to the Government of Bombay for such observations as they may have to make.
  † See (4) Debates cxxxiii, 1194.

  East Africa—Alienation of Territory.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received any remonstrances against the proposed alienation of territory in East Africa from settlers there, or any from officials that he can disclose to the House.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl Percy,): Remonstrances against alienation of territory in East Africa could only be based on a misconception of the intentions of His Majesty's Government, for as I have more than once informed the hon Member no alienation of territory is contemplated.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: May I point out that the noble Earl has not answered my Question whether any remonstrances have been received? Can the noble Earl say that?
  *EARL PERCY: I cannot say for certain. Remonstrances against alienation have appeared in the Press, and may have been sent to os3 but no alienation is contemplated.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: A mere quibble of words.

  Transvaal War Contribution.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of Lord Milner's recent statement regarding the finances of the Transvaal, he proposes at an early date to call on the guarantors to underwrite the £10,000,000 which should have been paid in January last towards the promised war contribution.
  The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN Chamberlain,): As regards Lord Milner's speech I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer which the Secretary of State for the Colonies gave to a Question addressed to him yesterday;† but there is nothing in any report of that speech which [I have seen to lead me to think that the present would be a suitable time for the issue of the first instalment of the War Contribution Loan.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxv., 1062.
  MR. WHITLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give no indication that he has a hope of receiving this contribution at an early date.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have no reason to abandon the hope of receiving the contribution, but I am quite unable to give any indication of the time when the issue of the loan will take place.
  MR. WHITLEY: Is there any hope of receiving it this year?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have answered the Question.

  Tests of High Explosives.
  MR. MABKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department will he say what are the tests required before placing high explosives on the permitted list for use in the coal mines of this country, and whether he is aware that one, if not more, of the explosives on the permitted list emits a flame on explosion; and seeing the danger constituted thereby to the lives of persons in mines where such explosives are used, will he say what steps he proposes to take.
  *THE SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Akers-Douglas,): Before an explosive is placed on the permitted list it is tested at the Home Office Testing Station at Woolwich. The conditions of the test and the standard required to be reached are set out in an official memorandum, of which I shall be happy to send the hon. Member a copy if he desires to see it. As regards the latter part of the Question, it was recently reported to me that flame had been seen when a certain explosive on the permitted list was fired. I directed a special inquiry to be made, and experiments were carried out, the result of which was to show that the flame seen when the explosive was fired was not such as to constitute a source of danger. I shall also be happy to let the hon. Member see a copy of the memorandum prepared on the subject of these experiments in March last, after the inquiry above alluded to.
  MR. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one particular explosive gives off a long flame? I saw it only last week. It is like gas. Under these circumstances, will he make further inquiries?
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Yes, I will see whether there is any reason to make further inquiries.

  Treatment of Habitual Criminals.
  MR. DALZIEL (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the communications which passed between his Department and His Majesty's Judges in reference to the treatment of habitual criminals.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The communications which passed between the Home Office and His Majesty's Judges-in this matter were confidential, and I do not think that it would be desirable to lay them on the Table of the Rouse. The quotation given by my hon. friend the Under-Secretary was not from the Judges' report, but from a private not from the Lord Chief Justice discussing certain points in the drafting of the Bill-There is, therefore, no obligation to lay it on the Table, but I may say that the passage quoted is a postscript to the letter and is complete as quoted.

  Irish Railway Servants and Benefit Societies.
  MR. LUNDON (): On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Irish railway companies make it a condition of their service that all employees shall join the benefit societies managed by the company; and whether, seeing that this condition discourages membership to the-Amalgamated Railway Servants' Society, he will consider the advisability of taking steps to prevent this interference with, these men's liberty.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Gerald Balfour,): I have no information that the Irish railway companies make

  1225
  such a condition as the hon. Member refers to. The matter does not appear to be one in which the Board of Trade could: intervene in the manner suggested.

  Grant to the Meteorological Council.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Coi2imittee appointed to inquire into the expenditure of the grant to the Meteorological Council.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY of the TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): Yes, Sir. The Report will be laid to-day.

  Motor Car Regulations.
  MR. GARDNER (): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government. Board whether he proposes to make regulations in accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Motor Cars; and, if so, whether, before framing them, he will ascertain the opinion of the county councils upon those recommendations.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Walter Long,): I shall be happy to consider the representations which any county council may wish to make on the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. The representations should be made promptly, as regulations on the subject are now in preparation.

  Motors in the Parks.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he can now state what steps have been taken to check furious driving of motor machines in the parks and roadways under his control.
  LORD BALCARRES (): Under the new regulations the speed of motor-cars on the roadways referred to is limited to ten miles an hour. The road north of the Serpentine is closed to motorists.
  Dr. FARQUHARSON (): I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley. as representing the First Com-
  1226
  missioner of Works, whether the attention of his Department has been directed to the invasion of Hyde Park by motor cars, which dash wildly along, interfering with the convenience and safety of those who use the crowded thoroughfare, and impairing the quality of the air by dust and the fumes of petroleum; and whether, by prohibition or restriction, he can protect the public from the growing nuisance.
  LORD BALCARRES: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. Under the new rules the speed of motorcars in Hyde Park is limited to ten miles an hour, and the First Commissioner hopes that this may prove sufficient to protect the public from the nuisance of which the hon. Member complains.

  Astley Abbotts (Shropshire) Postal Arrangements.
  MR. HUNT (): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that there is no post or telegraph office in the parish of Astley Abbotts, Shropshire, with a population of over 600, and that the inhabitants on an average live about; or more than three miles from any post or telegraph office, he could see his way to allowing a post and telegraph office to be set up there.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord Stanley,): I will have inquiry made on the question; of establishing a post and telegraph office at Astley Abbotts Shropshire, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member. May I ask that more notice should be given me privately of Questions such as this, as it is obviously impossible in the short notice given to make inquiries sufficient to enable me to answer fully.

  Sunday Pay of Adult Messengers in the Belfast Post Office.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that certain adult messengers at Belfast are paid extra for work performed on Sunday while others of the same staff are obliged to work on Sunday without remuneration, he will consider the advisability of extending the extra pay to the latter.
  LORD STANLEY: I will make inquiry and communicate with the hon. Member.

  Use of Public Elementary Schools for Political Meetings.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will consider the desirability of issuing a circular directing the managers of all schools receiving Government grants to allow their use for the meetings of any political Party.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir William Anson,): The control and use of school premises out of school hours rests, in the case of council schools, with the local education authority, and, in the case of voluntary schools, with the trustees or owners of the building, and in neither case with the managers appointed under the Act. The Board see no reason in either case to interfere with the discretion of the persons or bodies in whom such control is vested.

  Irish National School Plans.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state what decision has been come to with reference to the proposed new plans for national schools.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. Wyndham,): I have nothing at present to add to my reply to the similar Question the hon. Member addressed to me on the 12th May.†

  Valentia Ferry.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state why no progress has been made with the providing of a suitable ferry at Valentia, county Kerry, in view of the statements made by him when the Marine Works (Ireland) Bill was under consideration.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No specific undertaking was given by me to expend money on a ferry at Valentia. Three proposals for works at this place have been made, namely, (a) the construction of a jetty
  † See (4) Debates, exxxiv., 1170.
  1228
  at a cost of £800, (b) the extension of the existing slip and provision of a breakwater at a cost of £8,000; and (c) the provision of a railway pier on a new site involving an expenditure of £14,000. The Knight of Kerry does not consider the smaller work suitable, and is not prepared, I understand, to accept it. The plan of the second work was referred to the Great Southern and Western Railway Company in May, 1903, and has not since been returned.

  Irish Outdoor Relief Regulations.
  MR. MACVEAGH (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that under present regulations a board of guardians in Ireland is not enabled to grant outdoor relief to any person in occupation of more than a quarter of a statute acre of land, though such person may be disabled or even certified as unfit for removal to the workhouse hospital; and whether he will recommend the Local Government Board to instruct their auditors not to surcharge on the guardians any relief extended in deserving cases outside the present limitation.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The prohibition to grant outdoor relief to persons in occupation of more than a quarter of an acre of land is a statutory one, and the Board has no power to instruct its auditors in the manner suggested. In cases of sudden and urgent necessity a relieving officer is empowered to afford outdoor relief until the next meeting of the board of guardians, irrespectively of the quantity of land held, and such relief may be renewed if new circumstances arise under which there is a necessity for affording relief promptly and immediately.

  French Fishing Boats in the Kenmare River.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that during the past three weeks three large French fishing boats have been fishing every night in the Kenmare River, to the detriment of the local boats, who are afraid to shoot their nets anywhere in the vicinity because of the risk of being run down; whether he is aware that H.M.S. "Skipjack" has only visited the

  1229
  coast once within the same period, and then confined its attention to hunting up fishing boats to see whether the letters and numbers on their sails were perfect, although steam trawlers had frequently been within the limit; and whether steps will be taken to protect the local fishermen.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Only two cases of alleged fishing by French boats in territorial waters have been brought under the notice of the new Department. These were investigated by the commander of H.M.S. "Skipjack," but no definite proof of the commission of the offence was obtainable. The Department's cruiser has frequently patrolled this part of the coast for vessels engaged in illegal steam trawling. Two such vessels have been captured, and proceedings have been instituted, and are now pending.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the fishing tackle seized shall not be sold back to the trawlers from which it was taken?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question.

  Blocking Motions.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that on the Notice Paper of the House there are thirty-four Notices of Motions for which no days have been fixed, and that in consequence of such Notices the House is prevented from discussing the following amongst other questions: Fiscal Reform, Preferential or Protective Duties; the Misgovernment in Macedonia or in the Congo State: the War in Tibet; the Reorganisation of the War Office; Asiatic Labour, the Rate of Mortality in South African Mines, or the Recruitment or Payment of Chinese Indentured Labourers; the Public Health; Military Training or Compulsory Military Service; Local or any other Taxation; the system of putting down blocking Motions; and the necessity for an immediate dissolution; and what steps the Government propose to lake to promote liberty of debate on such subjects.
  THE PRIME MINISTER and FIRST LORD of the TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I suppose the hon. Gentleman by the phrase in his Question," the House is prevented from discussing" questions, which he proceeds to enumerate, means prevented from discussing them on Motions for the adjournment of the House as definite matters of urgent public importance or on Motions for adjournment for the holidays.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I admit that some questions can be discussed in Supply.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The first example which the hon. Gentleman gives is Fiscal Reform and Preferential Duties. That has been discussed nine days in the present session. The second example is Macedonia. That has been discussed twice in the present session and can be discussed again this afternoon. The third is the War in Tibet. There was a long discussion on that on 13th April. The next is the War Office. A discussion on that will be in order, I imagine, on the Vote for the Secretary of State for War. The next is Asiatic Labour, which has been discussed on five days in the course of the present session. Then there is the Congo, which, I believe, is to be discussed on the Vote to be taken this afternoon. Then there is Public Health. We have had the Local Government Board Vote discussed a whole evening. Military Training or Compulsory Service might, I suppose, be incidentally referred to in connection with War Office reform —with the Army reforms to be explained by the Secretary of State for War. Then there is Local Taxation, on which subject a Valuation Bill has been introduced. There remains the necessity of an immediate dissolution. It will be seen that most of the subjects about which the hon. Gentleman complains have not only been discussed, but in most cases have been rediscussed and re-rediscussed. As to the remainder, while many have been discussed or are subjects for the discussion of which opportunities still remain, they are not questions which by any possibility could be brought up on a Motion for the adjournment of the House. In these circumstances it appears

  1231
  to me that the hon. Gentleman's enumeration of grievances is not one which is likely to support his case.
  MR. PIRIE (): With regard to the question of fiscal reform, which the right hon. Gentleman says has been discussed nine days, may I ask whether it is not the case that the Government have always shirked the plain issue on that question?
  Me. A. J. BALFOUR: I will not argue whether this is an accurate description of what has occurred or not, but I will make two observations. In the first place an adjournment debate never can raise a plain issue, and that is the grievance of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Then, if the Government have avoided a plain issue on nine occasions, they are not likely to be taken in on the tenth.
  MR. J. F. HOPE (): Is the Prime Minister aware that another discussion on the fiscal question is blocked by a Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware of that fact, if it is—as I have no doubt it is—a fact, but it does not seem to me to touch the general question with which I have been dealing.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will agree to the appointment of a small Select Committee to consider the difficulties which have arisen from the placing on the Paper of Motions designed to prevent the House from considering definite and urgent questions of public importance.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who asked the last Question was good enough to bring forward instances of the nature of the grievance, and I do not think an examination of them greatly strengthens the case of the right hon. Gentleman. But I quite admit that in my opinion, at all events, there ought to be no limitation of the powers of the House to discuss anything upon a Motion for adjournment for the holidays. I do not think any limitation
  1232
  ought to exist, provided a reasonable arrangement be made for the duration of such debates. I am prepared to put down on the Notice Paper my idea of a Rule which would meet, I think, legitimate desires on both sides of the House. As. regards the wider question whether we should alter the *Rule about blocking Notices preventing discussion on matters of urgent public importance, I do not think that can be treated by itself. I think we should have, in addition, to discuss whether the present Rule allowing, the adjournment has been abused, and, if it has been abused, whether it is capable of amendment. I think we should also have to consider whether there are no other abuses of the existing Rules of the House—as an example I may mention taking a division upon the Question put from the Chair by the Chairman of Committees that he should report an agreed Resolution — whether that also ought not to be discussed. But I think it would perhaps be sufficient for the present needs of the case if I put down, my idea of an Amendment which would remove such legitimate grievance as exists in respect of Motions for adjournment for the holidays.
  MAJOR SEELY (): Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in point of fact the abuse of Motions for the adjournment to which he refers is very largely owing to the existence of these blocking Motions. It is essential—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! The hon. Gentleman is now proceeding to argue the question.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these blocking Motions are occasionally put down after consultation with the Government Whips?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never inquire into matters of consultation either on the other side of the House or on this.
  MR. WEIR: A policy of retaliation.

  Trade Disputes Bill.
  MR. LUNDON: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask the First Lord of

  1233
  the Treasury whether the Government intend to give facilities for the Third Reading of the Trades Disputes Bill this session.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Bill in question has not yet reached the Committee stage so that it is premature to consider the question of giving facilities for the Third Reading.

  Licensing Bill.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state if the consideration of the Licensing Bill will be continued on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It will not be taken next week.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is there any foundation for the announcement in the Standard that the Bill has thus been postponed on account of Ascot?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is postponed because we are going to take the Scotch Education Bill.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What will be the Supply nest Thursday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it would probably be convenient to the House to take the salary of the Secretary of State for War in Committee of Supply on Thursday next. I must not be considered as giving an absolute pledge, but I have very little doubt that is the arrangement which will be made.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Does that mean the Army Estimates generally? Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate going on with the discussion upon the statement which will be made, without any opportunity being given to Members of previously considering the statement?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will consider that point. I understand that what the right hon. Gentleman desires is that there should be no immediate discussion upon any plans laid before the House by the Secretary of State for War.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That there should be a further discussion.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, and therefore other business might go on immediately. I will consider whether it would not be convenient, as being very germane to the first Vote, that I should put down the secretariat to the Defence Committee; but perhaps I may be allowed to consider that matter.
MR. WHITLEY: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the trade interests concerned, he will be able to take the Finance Bill soon? There is a great deal of anxiety in the country on it.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree, and I am very anxious to get on with the Bill, I will state more on Monday.

New Writ for the Borough of Devonport, in the room of John Lockie, esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—(Sir A. Acland Hood.)

REGISTRATION OF CLUBS (IRELAND) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 204.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 204.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, 17th June, and to be printed. [Bill 223.]

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 225.]
NEW BILLS.
  PORT SANITARY AUTHORITIES EXPENSES BILL.
  "To remove doubts as to the legality of certain payments by Port Sanitary Authorities," presented by Mr. Plu,mer; supported by Sir Joseph Dimsdale, Sir James Joicey, Sir Henry Seymour King, Mr. William Lawrence, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Mr. MacIver, Sir Edward Reed, Mr. Robson, Sir John Barrington Simeon, Mr. Charles "Wilson, and Mr. Yerburgh; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 226.]
  CARRIERS ACT (1830) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Carriers Act, 1830," presented by Mr. Bill; supported by Mr. Arthur Heath, Mr. Bond, Mr. Strutt, and Mr. Trevelyan; to be read a second timeupon Thursday, 23rd June, and to be printed. [Bill 227.]
  PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Public Entertainment," presented by Captain Jessel; supported by Mr. William Frederick Smith, Sir George Fardell, Sir Robert Mowbray, Dr. Macnamara, Major Jameson, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Crooks, and Mr. Shackleton; to be read a second time upon Monday, 20th June, and to be printed. [Bill 228.]
  STREET TRAFFIC (REGULATION) BILL.
  "To provide for the Regulation of Traffic in Streets," presented by Mr. Shackleton; supported by Mr. Bell, Mr. Crooks, and Mr. Henderson; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 22nd June, and to be printed. [Bill 229.]

SUPPLY [12TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [12TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1904–5.

    Class II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum. not exceeding £35,771, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge
    1236
    which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905 for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE ()said the Foreign Office Vote was generally used for the purpose of a general discussion on the political situation of the country in regard to other Powers. They had had a very recent debate in which most of the topics which could be safely dealt with in the present state of Europe were discussed. He referred to the debate on the Anglo-French Convention, and although there might be questions asked in the course of that afternoon in regard to the action of the Government in Macedonia and Armenia, it was not his intention to deal with more than one subject that day. He doubted very much whether, in the present state of Europe, with the Russo-Japanese War proceeding, and with our engagement towards Japan, it was wise that the House of Commons should attempt to discuss these subjects. At all events, he should refrain from doing anything of the kind. It might easily cause harm, it could do no good, and silence seemed, under the circumstances, to be the best course at the present moment. But there was a matter which they discussed last year, on a separate Motion, for a full day in the House of Commons, and in regard to which they carried a unanimous Resolution. Since that time four Papers had been laid, one of them having been circulated only that morning, showing the course which the Government had pursued in consequence of the agitation which led up to the passing of the unanimous vote to which he had referred. The subject was, of course, the affairs of the Congo State, a matter on which public feeling in this country had been excited for many years past to an extent that had rarely been known. It was a matter on which public opinion had been still further excited by the revelations which the Government had had itself to make in consequence of the action it promised last year. The Motion of last year was passed on 20th May, when attention was called by several

    1237
    hon. Members to the treatment of the natives in the Congo State, and to the responsibilities of this country in connection therewith. In the course of that debate complaints were made that the Concessionaire Régime constituted a breach of the treaty conditions under which the Congo State was established, inasmuch as the effect of what was going on was to lead to the actual depopulation of the country under circumstances of the most horrible cruelty. The country was being worked out as a merely temporary possession, and it was not being kept going for the benefit of future generations. These were the allegations which were made on the occasion of the debate in the House of Commons, when it was resolved that measures should be adopted to abate the evils prevalent in that State. That debate was followed by the issue of a Government Paper, Africa No. 10, 1903, which contained a note from the Congolese, Government which was, he thought, intended for the purposes of the debate because it was dated two days before the debate actually occurred. In that Paper there was a dispatch to which he must draw special attention. He did not like to make disagreeable comments upon any of our public servants, but he confessed that he was a little disappointed that it should have been thought his duty by Sir Constantine Phipps to state that the correspondence led him to the, conclusion that—
    "If the operation of the Commission has not been so effective as might have been, anticipated the fault is due not to any deficiency of conception or absence of energy on the part of the central Government."
    Now, he believed that statement to be entirely contrary to the facts and he regretted, therefore, to find it in the dispatch. It appeared to him to be contradicted by the whole of the information which the Government had subsequently themselves, upon official information laid before the House of Commons. The next Papers that were circulated were circulated at the beginning of the present session, one bearing the date Africa 14–1903. This was a dispatch written by the Government in consequence of the Motion made in that House, and in consequence of the Resolution passed by the House, and in that dispatch
    1238
    the Government spoke in all moderation; in fact, the dispatch was couched very much in the terms used in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister when he accepted the Resolution. In it the Government pointed out in the Note to the Powers that new instances of cruelty were proved, and they referred to the possibility or probability that those instances of cruelty might be connected with the system of administration, itself. They said that it was reported that the method of obtaining men for labour had often but little difference from that employed formerly to obtain slaves. It was an authoritative statement that new slavery existed, and that compulsion in regard to bringing in produce was exercised by irresponsible native soldiers uncontrolled by Europeans It was suggested that that was vouched for by men whose testimony could be relied upon. It was pointed out that vast territories were held by companies closely connected with the State, and the Note quoted the opinion of Mr. Casement as a Consul of wide African experience, to the effect that even in the treatment of British subjects by the Congolese Government there had been revealed instances of Cruelty, oppression, and horrible administration, and that as that occurred in the case of foreigners protected by their own Government, it might be assumed that the state of affairs was far worse in the case of the natives. It was said further that the Reports of Mr. Casement, the Consul, gave evidence of cruel maladministration and ill-treatment, that the Congo stations were shunned, the only natives seen being soldiers and prisoners, and then the Note went on to speak of the depopulation of that part of the country. Now the defenders of the Congo State, who, he was happy to state, were almost exclusively foreigners and not Britons, were too apt to suggest that the original state of that country was horrible in the extreme, and that, however bad things might be at the present, moment, at all events they constituted a great improvement on the past. That however, was not the opinion of this administrator of wide African experience He continually returned to the statement that things were getting far worse, and that large native trades which formerly existed had been destroyed, that the

    1239
    people were being driven across the borders, and that the country was becoming void of population. He would ask those who took an interest in the African question to refer to the high authority of Lady Lugard in her recent paper on "West African Negroland" as showing that the allegation that the state of things in former times was far worse was directly contrary to fact.
    In the first Papers issued this year, Africa No. 1, 1904, Lord Cromer, in a dispatch written with that weight and authority which characterised everything that came from his pen, pointed out the extraordinary contrast which struck him when he passed from the Anglo-Egyptian sphere to the Congolese territory. He confirmed the statement that the natives shunned the Congo stations, and said there was no wonder the people should fly from the Belgians, for he was informed that the soldiers were allowed full liberty to plunder The whole administration lived in the country by forced labour and by forced supplies of food. If these things were allowed close to our frontiers in places continually under the inspection of our officers what might they expect in the interior? Lord Cromer's view was absolutely confirmed by Consul Casement's experience on the other side of the State—a thousand miles away. As Lord Cromer told them, there was a total absence of ordinary administration such as obtained in every other colony in the world—the whole administration, from the Governor-Gen era I down to the cannibal soldier, was living in The country by forced supplies.
    Now he came to our own Consul's Report, which had been foully attacked and ought to be defended, seeing he was selected by the Government as an official of great experience to make the investigation, in consequence of a Resolution passed by the House, which was largely responsible for bringing this Congo State into existence, in the name of civilisation. The Report might be divided into two parts—one describing things he saw with his own eyes, and the other conveying statements on what might be deemed to be responsible authority. For instance, a most incredible statement was made by a Swedish missionary, since unfortunately
    1240
    dead, and anyone who saw that gentleman must have been convinced that he was stating facts. Incredible as it might seem, the evidence compelled the belief that cannibal troops were employed by the State and lived as cannibals. It had been said that the late General Gordon employed cannibal soldiers, but, at any rate, he did not ration them on human flesh. There was a horrible story re ported on good missionary evidence of cannibal soldiers asking a white officer to give them an old woman to eat, and he told them to take her, and the soldiers cut her throat, divided the body, and ate it. In describing the things he had seen with his own eyes, Consul Casement said he found steady deterioration and depopulation all the way up the river from the beginning of his journey; what were formerly large and flourishing trade centres he found ruined and laid waste; the inhabitants were forced to supply food for the officials even in Leopoldville; labour was enforced under cruel punishment, and the men were in this way prevented from fishing and trading. If men refused they were seized and sent away for long distances from their homes, and this was the condition of things long before the rubber districts were reached. On page 29 they had a description of how the depopulation of the country was proceeding. There were people who had walked from 120 to 150 mile. and when asked why they had fled they replied that "they had endured such ill-treatment at the hands of the Government officials and soldiers that nothing had remained but to be killed for failure to bring in rubber or to die in their attempts to satisfy the demands." That was why they had fled from the rubber districts. Many in their attempts to get away had been shot down and killed. Again, on page 30 they had a narrative showing how largely native trade had been destroyed. Occasionally Congolese punitive expeditions were employed because the people failed to bring in the required food supply. It was urged that we occasionally sent punitive expeditions, but they were of a totally different character. Heaven knew he had little sympathy with punitive expeditions, but we had never had one producing the results described in this

    1241
    Report. A native sentry belonging to a different tribe and speaking a different language was placed in charge of a village. He was armed with a rifle and supplied with a number of cartridges which he had to satisfactorily account for. He was responsible for seeing that the stores and food supplies were got in, and the more quickly it was done the better he liked it. So he used force to compel the people to work; life was held cheaply and the district was quickly depopulated. On page 31 it worked out thus—a "Government official" makes war on a town "for failing to bring in its fixed food supply. Many prisoners are taken and the women distributed as slaves." One man told Mr. Casement that he had three given to him, of whom one escaped. This was the new slavery— there was unmitigated slavery in connection with these expeditions.
    The Consul's evidence in relation to the Domains priré confirmed that of Rev. A. E. Scrivener, a Baptist missionary, that that the manufacture of baskets for the conveyance of produce in the Government steamer by river and to Europe was enforced upon the natives by flogging. The people were frequently flogged for inability to complete the tale of baskets or food. Several (including a chief) showed scars, and Consul Casement added that" the statements were not untrue was confirmed by his visit to the Domaine pricé store." The district brought home the moral here, that we were not justified in pretending to ourselves that these evils existed only or mainly in connection with the Concessionaire Companies. They evidently existed still more markedly in the Domaine privé and the Domaine de la Couronne, In the Domaine de la Couronne, handed over to the administration of three: persons, two of whom were equerries to the King, a revenue was derived from illegal taxes. In this connection they had the evidence of the Rev. A. E. Scrivener, a Baptist missionary who travelled through the country of the Domaine de la Couronne from July to September, 1903. He told them the condition in which he found that great tract of 30,000 square miles, and Consul Casement's Report confirmed his statement on page 29. Consul Casement alluded to a letter from the Rev. John Whitehead given on page 60,
    1242
    "Notes on Refugee Tribes." Again, pages 63–4 described horrors which existed in the Domaine. The rev. gentleman saw a great number of skeletons, and the people told him that—
    "When the soldiers were seat to make us cut rubber there were so many killed we got tired of burying."
    MR. Whitehead continued—
    "All combined to convince me that during the last seven years this Domaine Privé of King Leopold has been a veritable hell upon earth."
    There was one matter in relation to which the denial of the Congo Government was peculiar. Mutilation was a common mode of punishment, and though the officials declared that in recent years they had put down the practice, there was evidence that it continued, nor was it surprising that it should be so when authority was enforced by barbarous armed sentries in the native villages, who would be likely to inflict this form of punishment. They had described on pages 34 and 45 terrible cases of mutilation. In one a lad of sixteen, another a boy under six, a third a boy between six and seven, and a fourth boy, whose arms were cut off or shot through. One lad had been twice shot through the arm at short range, shattering the bone and burning the flesh. In consequence of this mutilation, flogging, and shooting, the people "fly at the approach of steamers. Villages are emptied of all human beings." Mr. Casement states that he had entered villages which he had visited in happier times and where he had been courteously received, and found them deserted, and at last when he discovered some of his former friends they told him that they ran away from the white man's steamer because of the treatment they got from the white men. In the despatch which was circulated that morning, "Africa No. 7," Lord Lansdowne had a passage on the subject of mutilation. In that despatch, dated 6th June, there was an interesting passage—
    "With regard to the question of mutilation His Majesty's Government note with interest that the Congo Government are aware that Mr. Casement is not alone in his opinion that such atrocities occur."
    He need not detain the Committee with the evidence of the people escaping from this horrible system to foreign

    1243
    territory. On page 36, "Africa No. 1, 1904" it is stated that—
    "In the past they escaped in large numbers to the French territory, but many were prevented by force from doing this, and numbers were shot in the attempt."
    And on page 39 there was full detail of life in villages ruined by State forced labour. There was one case which was only one of thousands, which was personally investigated by Consul Casement—
    "A widow came and declared that she had been forced. … to sell her daughter, a little girl. … about ten. … I found. … on returning. … that the statements made with regard to the girl were true. … The girl had again changed hands and was promised in sale to a town whose people are open cannibals. Through the local missionary.. …"
    Consul Casement bought the child out of slavery, and sent her back to her mother. Now this was done with such knowledge that it amounted to connivance on the part of the authorities. In all those cases the people who were not killed were sold as slaves through the action of a Government which professed to have been established to put down slavery. Afterwards Mr. Casement went to the concessions area, where the same system was followed. Page after page of the Report dealt with the rubber and sentry system. On page 46 Mr. Casement gave his examination of one of these rough sentries. He got hold of this man because he was able to talk freely. Most of them were too stupid — being mere brutes; but this man told Mr. Casement all the facts He asked the man—
    "Why do you catch the women and not the men?"
    And the answer was—
    "If I caught the men who would work the rubber? But if I catch their wives. … the rubber is brought in quickly."
    On page 47 the matter was fully followed up, and on page 48 Consul Casement described how he himself saw men captured by those sentries, dragged on the ground and lodged in what were called Maisons des Otages. There was a House of Hostages on every station where the people were taken and terrified by the risk of flogging, death, or slavery into acting as hostages that those over whom they had authority should bring in a sufficient supply of rubber. This was explained on
    1244
    page 50, after he had talked the matter over with white officers—
    "The truly recalcitrant man who proved enduringly obstinate in his failure to bring in his allotted share of rubber would in the end be brought to reason."
    In his general remarks on this system at page 59, Mr. Casement said—
    "The officers could not but feel themselves bound to consider the profitable exploitation of indiarubber as one of the principal functions of Government."
    Just let the Committee consider what that meant. This rubber was not obtained from plantations, but from the virgin forest where the vines were cut and allowed to bleed to death. The rubber was obtained by this horrible means of torture and slavery; the vines died out; the country became a barren desert and the population disappeared. These wretched people had been exterminated for this temporary profit, and the exploiters passed to another district where the same practices were followed with corresponding results. In their first despatch the Government summed up Mr. Casement's statements on page 83 as "a grave indictment and need no comment." But in "Africa 7," circulated to-day, and which was chiefly filled with the Congolese reply to Consul Casement's statements already published in Belgium and here, and which was not worth much examination, at page 40 Lord Lansdowne in his dispatch of 19th April, which he thought was a weak despatch and which he regretted to see in that volume, asked that—
    "A searching and impartial inquiry will be made into the allegations against the Administration. … and that if real abuses or the necessity should be thereby disclosed, the central Government will act as the necessities of the case demand."
    That was the situation when the Government got their information not only from Members of this House, missionaries, and others, but from Mr. Casement's Report. Surely enough had been disclosed and we need not have been put back where we were many years ago. He fully admitted, however, that on page 61 there was an excellent dispatch in which the Government, going back on their former dispatch, used these words—
    "The inquiry promised is no doubt intended to be of a searching and impartial character, and His Majesty's Government hoped that they

    1245
    would before now have received some indication of the measures designed to carry out this intention. In the peculiar circumstances. … strict impartiality will hardly be attributed to an investigation conducted. … solely by the officers of the State or by the agents of the concessionaire companies."
    That, he was sure, would be the view of the Committee. That was a wise and consistent attitude for the Government to take up. Now, since the publication of Mr. Casement's Report, the Caudron case had occurred. This man, who was a Congolese official, and a coloured British subject from a neighbouring colony, also employed by the State, had been convicted and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. Their sentence was slightly reduced by the Court of Appeal, the members of which were of opinion that their responsibility was to some extent covered by the direct orders of the Congo Government itself. The Court of Appeal asked for the production of the orders under which these men had acted and that demand of the Court was refused by the Congo Free State Government. The Court stated that although they believed that these persons had acted under the orders of the State, they nevertheless found that the acts they had committed were so horrible that no orders could justify them, and therefore, though they reduced the term of imprisonment, they retained a very heavy penalty upon them. The result of the Caudron case was that King Leopold had written a letter to the Governor-General of the Congo Free State in which His Majesty ordered him, after the manner of the Chinese Government, to search out everywhere the people who were responsible for the atrocities and bring them to justice. But these people acted under the orders of the Government of the King, and it was impossible for the Government not to know the system by which these enormous profits were gained. The impartial evidence obtained as to the system pursued in the Domaines was sufficient to show that. He did not think the position of the Congo Free State would be strengthened before the eyes of Europe by that letter of King Leopold.
    He had hitherto dealt entirely with the humanitarian aspect of the question. He now came to the trade aspect, in which Liverpool and Manchester were naturally
    1246
    much interested. The concessionaire system of trade, the depopulation of the country, the destruction of the local trade —all meant the destruction of the international trade which the Congo Free State had pledged themselves to promote, and which was, in Africa, necessary to the happiness of the people. The monopoly system was destructive of the happiness of the people, which depended on general trade being permitted to be practised. Now when the Congo Free State was founded it was for two objects— in the name of the principles of humanity and with special reference to the principle of full liberty of international trade. The late Sir Henry Stanley delivered a most eloquent address on 18th September, 1884, on the subject in favour of the Congo Association just before it was officially brought into existence—it changed its name only after the Berlin Act—in which he said—
    "We are international. … We have laboured for all nations. … Come with your cottons and woollen stuffs and trade freely. … We are not traders ourselves. We do not understand it, but you do. We will not ask what your nation is. … We wish to secure equal rights to all and the utmost freedom of commerce. … Whatever concessions. … we gained in that basin we wish to give away to every bonâ fide trader."
    Everyone admitted that there was the most frightful falling off in the Congo. Personally, he believed that the world had never in modern times seen such horrors as were perpetrated in the Congo State, except perhaps under Spain in the West Indian Islands and Peru, and nothing like them had ever been seen under any Government which professed to be civilised. This country was responsible both from the humanitarian side and the trade side. The Foreign Office assured the Manchester and Liverpool Chambers of Commerce that in any event freedom of trade would be retained. The late Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs said—
    "We had a locus standi … The Congo State had entered into obugations towards us."
    They themselves had stated as individuals that the Congo State was the creation of Europe at the Berlin Conference. The Congo State, how ever, asserted that it was the creation of treaties made some years before the Berlin Act; and that the first of those treaties was with the United

    1247
    States. The Congo State, however, did not change its official name until 1st August, 1885, after the Berlin Conference. But if King Leopold took that view, and that the United States had recognised the Congo State as a sovereign State with a flag, before the Berlin Conference, then the Government ought to be asked to go outside the signatory Powers of the Berlin Act and to appeal to the United States. Having regard to the opinion expressed by the President aid the Secretary of State in the United States on those matters, he believed that such an appeal would be pregnant with good results. As regarded the trade side he would leave that to the Lanceshire Members. This country was now at war with Tibet nominally for the protection of trade; and if British trade were treated in Morocco as it was in the Congo hi believed every British warship in the Mediterranean would be ordered to the African coast. As regarded the humanitarian side, they were, however, all concerned. The responsibility which rested on those Englishmen, some of them Members of the House, who brought the International Association into existence was a very heavy responsibility indeed. In face of the facts which were now officially admitted, he asked the House whether the time had not come when they should sweep away all the difficulties which stood in the way, and force the Government to take stronger action than mere words in dispatches to deal with this horrible scandal.
    *Mr. AUSTIN TAYLOR ()said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had so exhaustively dealt with the serious condition of things in the Congo Free State that he hesitated to add anything to the luminous and lurid description he had given. Perhaps, however, as one of the representatives of a city which was largely interested, not only in trade in the Congo Free State, but also in the French Congo, he might be allowed to say a few words on this important question. The system prevailing in the Congo Free State, and to a certain extent in the French Congo, had been described in words which he would quote and winch seemed to him to sum up the crude method of dealing with tropical
    1248
    countries that had been adopted by France and Belgium. An area of a couple of thousand square miles was marked off on a map of Africa and then the company obtaining the concession was told— "Gentlemen, we, the Government of this African country, grant to you and your associates everything of commercial value which grows within the area marked on the map of that country. You will, of course, make it convenient to pay the native some little trifle for his self-imposed labour in bringing you what you require. Gentlemen, good day; and never forget that we seek only one thing—the moral and material advancement of the dark r ices." The result of that system was that instead of those countries being administered for the benefit of the natives, in the first instance, and secondly, as was originally promised on the founding of the Congo State, for the commercial benefit of those who desired to trade with the natives when they developed in their capacity as trading animals, there was a system of enforced slavery under which the concessionaire sought not the good administration of the country, not the elevation, moral or spiritual, or even material, of the natives, but the exploitation of the forests and the acquisition of rubber, one of the most important and most profitable of commodities, second perhaps only to gold in the steadiness of the demand and the enormously lucrative character of the profit obtained by those who traded in it. The head of the Government by armed violence supported them in their determined efforts to obtain this most valuable commodity, for the attainment of which they expropriated the native from any freehold he might have in the soil, and they wrung out of the soil, and all that grew upon it, everything of value to the utmost farthing, for commercial purposes, not, be it noted, for the benefit of other countries who desired to trade with the Congo State, but for their own benefit as sellers of this commodity in the European market, and also for the benefit of a Government which was not ashamed to share in the nefarious methods by which that commodity was secured. He would cite the very remarkable circular issued from Bema by the Governor-General in respect of the necessity of acquiring rubber in the greatest quantity. The

    1249
    circular was addressed to the commissioners of districts and the chiefs of zones, and referred at very great length to the depreciation in the quality of the rubber, and to the necessity of keeping up the quality, and also improving the quantity. It concluded with these remarkable words, which he thought were worthy of attention as coming from the Governor-General, and which might be taken as indicating what he considered to be the primary object of those to whom the circular was addressed—
    "I may add that the value of rubber, even when free from all admixture, has gone down in every market for some time past. Territorial chiefs must, therefore, not only remove the two causes of loss which they can eliminate, but they must try also to neutralise the third by making unceasing efforts to increase production to the extent laid down in the instructions."
    There they had the Governor-General stimulating the authorities in those countries not for the benefit of the natives, not as a justification for the existence of this European Administration, but for the material profit of those engaged in trade, well knowing that it would lead to the degradation and bitter oppression of the natives. He did not desire to go at any length into the methods by which the natives were compelled to accept forced labour, and to suffer degradation in the process. He should like to quote an extract from the evidence of Lord Cromer. Whatever might be said with reference to Lord Cromer, he would be recognised by the House and by the country as a man who would not commit himself lightly to an expression of opinion in regard to the administration of native States. He said—
    "It appears to me that the facts I have stated above afford ample and sufficient justification of the spirit which animates Belgian administration, if administration it can be called. The Government, so far as I could judge, is conducted almost exclusively on commercial principles, and, even judged by that standard, it would appear that those principles are somewhat shortsighted."
    He should also like to quote an extract from the Memorandum issued by Lord Lansdowne. The Congo Administration had endeavoured in self-justification to asperse the dealings of England with other native races. He was not prepared to contend that we were altogether free to bring these charges against the Free State without
    1250
    laying ourselves open to something that might appear at the first blush as a retort, but Lord Lansdowne, in his Memorandum, summed up with absolute truth and perfect clearness the difference that existed when he said that the native under the British system knew the fixed amount of his obligation, and, once discharged from it, was at liberty to seek where he would labour or leisure; but the Congo labourer might not even leave his village except as a fugitive, and was a close bondsman to his endless tasks. English administration, even if they went a long way back, could not be charged with any such abominable system as that of which details were set forth in the Memorandum on the Congo State. There was no Court of Appeal in Belgium. The public opinion of Belgium had declared through the proper channel that the Congo Free State was a foreign State, in regard to which it had no power of intervention. He was driven to the conclusion, therefore, that the only remedy was for the public opinion of Europe, and particularly of this country, to bring into force the clause of the Convention under which the Free State was founded. Consul Casement mentioned in his Report that 72,000 cartridges were issued in that State, and at the end of three years, when more were asked for, it was stated that all of those received had been used "in the production of rubber"— signifying that they had been utilised to terrorise or slay the natives who did not bring in enough of that commodity. This country could not allow such a state of things as existed in the Free State to go on without protest; and without something which he hoped would be more efficient than mere protest. The British Government had, indeed, moved in the matter, and he was confident that feeling on both sides of the House was unanimous that strong and effective measures should be taken to ameliorate the condition of things. He would not dwell upon that side of the question relating to the French Congo, in which the trade of Liverpool was perhaps even more interested than that of the Free State. The commerce of this country, although opinion differed as to its state at the moment, was sufficient to excite he envy of foreign nations, but the ufferings of those unfortunate natives

    1251
    appealed to something higher and nobler than that commercial instinct which had done so much to make England what she was, and the Government, in any steps they might take in the interests of the moral and spiritual regeneration of the dark races, might rely on the intelligent and ardent support of all citizens of all classes and creeds throughout His Majesty's dominions.
    *MR. EMMOTT ()insisted that the interest taken by this country in Congo affairs was due rather to the humanitarian than to the trade point of view. He admitted that in the French Congo Lancashire commercial interests were placed in an unfair position, and that, he trusted, would be remedied, but in the Congo Free State there had never really been any international trade, and British merchants had not taken any steps in the direction of opening up business. Therefore it was from the humanitarian rather than any other point of view he should address the Committee. After the debate of a year ago, His Majesty's Government issued to the Powers a Note, dated 8th August, asking them to consider whether the system now prevailing in the Independent State of the Congo was in accordance with the Berlin Act, and in various of the replies received from tbe Congo Free State to that and other communications there was a tone of veiled insult against the people, the Government, and the Consul of this country. The apologists of the Congo State had constantly asserted that in this attack the English Government were actuated by interested motives. For instance, the following passage occurred in the reply of the Congo Free State to the Note of 8th August—
    "It is worthy of remark that this campaign dates from the time when the prosperity of the State became assured."
    In the same paragraph it was stated—
    "As the State gave increased proof of vitality and progress, the campaign became more active, reliance being placed on a few individual and isolated cases, with a view to using the interests of humanity as a pretext, and concealing the real object of a covetousness which, in its impatience, has betrayed itself in the writings of pamphleteers and in the speeches of Members of the House of Commons, in which the abolition and partition of the Congo State has been clearly put forward."
    What State in its senses would desire to take up this damnosa hereditas of the
    1252
    Congo Free State? It was, however, important that this country should repudiate any idea of aggression or of "grab" in the matter. If it was true, as no doubt it was, that the attack had grown in force since the revenues of the Congo Free State had increased, it was duo to the fact that the system in vogue in that country was of such a character that it inevitably led to abuses, and the increase in the alleged development of the country had therefore inevitably led to more abuses. Information about those abuses from time to time filtered through to Europe, and this country had felt obliged to enter its protest. After all, the Congo Free State was formed, in the first place, to prevent the great nations of Europe from grabbing portions of the territory, and it was founded on a free-trade and humanitarian basis.
    There were two points in regard to which the Government had given the Congo Free State ground for taunting them with having put forward a case they could not prove. In the Note of 8th August, they drew the attention of the Powers of Europe to the fact that the time of the British Consul—
    "… has been principally occupied in the investigation of complaints preferred by British subjects, and he has, as yet, been unable to travel into the interior and to acquire, by personal inspection, knowledge of the condition of the enormous territory forming his district."
    The Congo Free State jeered at the Government for not sending proof of the outrages upon British subjects. He understood that the particulars required had now been sent out, so that the point was met, so far as the Congo Free State was concerned, but the House of Commons had a right to know what those complaints were. As to the outrages on natives, the Note of 8th August stated—
    "Moreover, information which has reached our Government from British officers in territory adjacent to that of the State tends to show that notwithstanding the obligations accepted under Art. VI. of the Berlin Act, no attempt at any administration of the natives is made, and that the officers of the Government do not apparently concern themselves with such work, but devote all their energy to the collection of revenue."
    With regard to that, the noble Lord had stated that the information had not been sent out to the Congo Free State as it was of ancient date and was not considered worth sending.
    *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl Percy,)was understood to say that that applied to both cases.
    *MR. EMMOTTsaid the following passage occurred—
    "With regard to the application, renewed in the Notes, for previous Reports from British Consular officers, it is necessary to explain that these Reports, though forwarding testimony upon which reliance could apparently be placed, were founded on hearsay, and lacked the authority of personal observation, without which His Majesty's Government were unwilling to come to any definite conclusion unfavourable to the Administration of the Congo State. Moveover, some of the Reports are of old date; the Congo State had admittedly been very active in pushing forward occupation of the country, and it would be unjust to bring forward statements regarding a condition of affairs which may have entirely passed away."
    Four times the Congo Free State had taunted the Government with making statements which they were not ready to back up by proof, and in that matter the Government had certainly placed themselves in a somewhat false position. It was a pity they made the statement if they were not going to back it up by proof, but, having made it, they ought to send the particulars to the Congo Free State, and publish them to the House of Commons. In the reply of the Congo Free State, dated 14th May, 1904, it was stated—
    "The Government of the Congo State regrets that His Majesty's Government does not deem it necessary to communicate to it the other previous Consular Reports to which Lord Lansdowne's despatch of the 8th August, 1903, alluded. As was stated in the Notes of 12th March last, these Reports possessed the interest of having been written at a date anterior to the inception of the present discussion."
    The defenders of the Congo Free State were trying to make Europe believe that these Reports did not exist, and that, having made statements which they had not the material to back up, the Government had sent a Consul into the country to make a Report justifying those statements. That, of course, was absolutely false, but its falsity would be best proved by the publication of the Reports to which the Government had referred. He could not prove what he now hinted at, but he would suggest that some of those Reports were so bad that if they were published the Government
    1254
    would be asked why they had not taken measures at an earlier date to deal with the position. There must have been many other Reports from British Central Africa, Northern Rhodesia, and elsewhere, and he strongly urged the Government to produce those Papers. Since the debate of 20th May the fullest confirmation had been received of every statement then made. It was to be found in Lord Cromer's Report, in Consul Casement's Report, in the statement of Messrs. Scrivener and Weeks, and in the horrible Yaudjali massacre. It had been proved that cannabalism, organised murder, mutilation by order, and depopulation of certain districts existed; that unreasonable demands for food were made to such an extent that the natives themselves were dying of starvation; that excessive demands for rubber were made, and that women were imprisoned in chains. In the Caudron case, the accused was charged with having murdered 122 men in cold blood; he was adjudged guilty of murder and of raiding for rubber; and it was admitted that the only grievance against the men whom he had murdered was that they had not collected sufficient rubber to satisfy the authorities. The ordinary defence of the Congo Free State was that these things only occurred here and there, that the people were punished for them, and the crimes did not occur again. This crime occurred in the Mongala district, the same district where the massacres of 1900 occurred, and it was under the same company. In 1900 Lothaire, the murderer of Stokes, who was appointed by the King as director of this company after he had murdered Stokes, was in charge. It was thought that when these concessionaire companies were displaced these evils would cease, but that was not so, for evils as great occurred in the Domaine privé and the Domaine de la Couronne. Many of these companies were not really commercial companies at all. Consul Nightingale, on page 42 of the last Blue-book, said—
    "The same abases may go on in the Katanga country as have hitherto gone on in the Mongala district, unless most stringent measures are adopted to prevent them."
    He also says—
    "There is a decree published, giving powers to the agents of the Katanga Company to collect the State taxes."

    1255
    What was the Katanga Company? It was a company from which the State received two-thirds of the profits. More than half its directors were State officials and the president was the Finance Minister of the State. This was a question of the whole system. These things were part of a system which was not so much a matter of monopoly as of the absolute destruction of trade. It was not a system of trade at all. Where there was trade there was barter. Trade meant that European merchants wished to exchange their goods for the raw produce of Africa. But in this case the merchant, who is really the State, says, "This land is mine, and the black native must gather the produce. I pay what I like for it, and this black man is to work as long as I wish for the collection of produce." That was not trade at all, but slavery. The black was not going to do this work for nothing, and it meant if he was dealt with in this way that force would have to be used. They committed these horrible atrocities in order to force the collection of rubber. Mark what followed. This black native was not being paid for what he collected, and he could not buy, because he had nothing to buy with, and therefore the trade did not exist at all. Look at the accounts of the Congo Free State. There were none so remarkable in the world, because they showed all exports and no imports. He invited hon. Members who believed that an excess of exports over imports implied prosperity to study the trade statistics of the Congo Free State and they would have their eyes opened. They must look this question in the face. Who was profiting by it? The State and the King principally. Whose interest was it that this state of things should be kept up? Why, the interest of the State and the King. That was a plain statement of the case. This system was wrong and he believed illegal, but whether illegal or not it was fundamentally, wholly, and unutterably bad. This was a danger for which they might have to pay very dearly, for when they were strong enough to raise a great black rebellion in that part of Africa it might affect the dominions of every other Power in negro Africa. What could be done? They must have a root and branch reform and a return to trade
    1256
    methods. By such a system the present head of the Congo Free State would lose. No half-hearted inquiry under the supervision of the King would be of any use, and they wanted something very different. The point was what should be done I They wanted a policy. What they wanted was another European Conference on this question. With regard to that he associated himself with his right hon. friend in suggesting that they should ask America to help them. He believed that America was ready to help them. Other countries should be made to believe that they were in earnest, because if they did; not think this country was in earnest they would not listen to them. Another suggestion made was to refer the legal point to the Hague Tribunal. He should be very glad to see a legal judgment given on that point, but he was afraid that it would not carry them very much further. In order to effect a reference they must both agree to refer and agree upon the terms of reference with the Congo Free State. There would be some difficulty in doing this. Again they could not separate the commercial from the humanitarian aspects of the question, because they were indissolubly interrelated. Suppose after inquiry by the Hague Tribunal—the specific verdict was against them, were they going to stop this agitation? He maintained that that would not affect it in the least. On the other hand, if the verdict was in their favour it would be a mere expression of opinion by the Hague Tribunal, requiring further action at the hands, of the Government.
    He supported his hon. friend opposite as to Consular Courts. They ought to protect all their citizens, for that power was reserved in the Treaty of 188-1, and yet Mr. Stokes was foully murdered. Rabinek, an Austrian subject, was arrested, illegally tried, and sentenced to one year's imprisonment, when one month was the utmost imprisonment permissible for the offence he was charged with, and, as he appealed against this sentence, he was brought down for the case to be retried at Boma, but he died on the way. The treatment of British subjects had been such that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham stopped recruiting in our own neighbouring

    1257
    colonies. They had 2,000 British coloured subjects in this part of the world and the only safeguard they had was the Congo Judicature, which was removable at pleasure. Cyrus W. Smith, who was imprisoned after the earlier Mongala massacre, told them that 100 women who were illegally imprisoned died of starvation on his hands because the State authorities did not give him food to keep them alive. He imprisoned them under orders, and if he had not done this he would have been shot. Take the case of Silvanus Jones. He had seen cruelties perpetrated and had remonstrated. He had been told to catch natives and he sent people out, and one of his boys shot a woman. He reported the affair, and he was sent for to Boma to be tried, but he had no knowledge of the charge against him and no chance of getting counsel to defend him although he had money to pay with. He agreed that men who had committed such wrongs should be punished, but this man said he was innocent. He said he was innocent, but whether he was guilty or not he was not defended and he had not a proper trial. If they had their own Consular Courts they might get at the truth of these things, and they ought to insist upon such Courts. The Congo Free State might protest, but these horrible and detestable crimes justified them in demanding Consular jurisdiction. He did not ask the Government to rush in this matter, but they should make up their minds what they were going to do, and then invite other Powers to follow suit. This was to him the one clear step, if they could not get a conference, by which they would do something to protect their own subjects and bring the Congo Free State more or less to its senses. He apologised for the length at which he had detained the House, but his excuse was that he took a very keen interest in this matter, and it did not lend itself to very short treatment. He hoped the noble Lord would give him a sympathetic answer to this question of Consular jurisdiction.
    SIR JOHN G0RST ()thanked the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean for the very clear and moderate statement he had laid before the House of Commons and the country. He did not wish to dis-
    1258
    sociate himself from a single word the right hon. Gentleman had sail. He had expressed the opinion of those who had taken an interest in the Congo question. He wished also to thank His Majesty's Government for the practical steps they had taken since this matter was under the consideration of the House last year. He hoped the Government would persevere in the course they had undertaken, and he assured them that in their efforts to secure a better state of things in the Congo they would have the support, not only of the House of Commons, but the unanimous and cordial support of the people of the country. It was the on; subject on which they were all agreed. The weighty words in the despatch of Lord Cromer, which had been read to the House, were written by him when In had two examples of administration on opposite banks of the Nile. The example on the one side was that of the new, humane, and enlightened policy of Empire which, at all events in theory, was observed in the administration of all the territories of the British Empire. On the other side he had the example f the old, barbarous, and wicked principle of Empire upon which the Empires of ancient times were carried on, and which lasted in modern times down to the Spanish conquest of America. The principle upon which Lord Cromer, in Egypt, the Viceroy of India, and all the great pro-Consuls of the British Empire, now proceeded in the treatment of native peoples was that the resources and riches of the State belonged to the inhabitants of it, that the civilised power in its administration sought only to develop those resources for the benefit of the people, and that the welfare of the people was the sole object for which the administration was carried on. The gain this country derived from administration of that kind was restricted to the advantages of trade. We believed, and believed justly, that if we made India or Egypt prosperous, that indirectly gave an enormous advantage to our own people. They were customers for the goods and commodities which we made, and they paid for the goods and commodities they bought from us by the produce which they raised and exported to our country. But the old principle

    1259
    of Empire was that the riches and resources of a country belonged to the people who conquered and occupied it, that they had a right to exploit the country for their own advantage, and that the wretched people over whom they assumed the duties of administration were only to be treated as slaves, and only to be employed in enriching those who had undertaken the administration of the country. When once that principle was adopted, as it appeared to have been in the Congo Free State, all the rest flowed from it. There was an example of that kind in the Spanish conquest of America, where the riches of the country were appropriated by the conquerors, and where the people were enslaved and ultimately exterminated. They had to work in gold mines to enrich those who had undertaken the administration of their country. In the Congo, where the same principle seemed to have been adopted, the rubber was regarded as the property of the Belgian State or colony, and it was exploited solely for the benefit of the Belgian monarch and those to whom he had granted concessions. The natives were employed in exporting this wealth to Belgium. If that principle was once adopted all those atrocities which had been described to the House were the natural consequences which flowed from such a method of administration. Without the evidence either of missionaries or Consuls it might be expected that horrors and wickedness of that kind would spring up in a State so administered. The evidence which the right hon. Baronet had laid before the House only confirmed the proposition that from a wicked system of Empire like that the natural consequences were; following.
    They all trusted His Majesty's Government in this matter. With considerable confidence they left it in the hands of Lord Lansdowne and the Government. But there had been two very distinct suggestions made in the course of this debate on which he should: like to say a word. In the first place, he most heartily joined himself with the suggestion made by the right hon. Baronet and by the hon. Member for Oldham, that they should, if possible, in this matter act with the United States. He dared say that the Government would tell
    1260
    the Committee whether anything had been done in that direction. One reason for expressing that wish was that the interest of the United States was identical with our own. The interest of the United States was one of commerce and trade, and, as far as could be judged, they were in the administration of native States adopting principles analogous to those which we adopted. They had the same sense of responsibility and the same feeling that the trust they had undertaken must be exercised for the benefit of the people. He had no doubt that in any matter of this kind we should find the statesmen, Congress, and people of the United States sympathising with the views which were common to our own country. The United States had a peculiar responsibility in regard to the Congo because they were, he thought, the first Power to recognise it as an independent and autonomous State. The other suggestion which had been made and which he confessed he had a little more doubt about, was that if we were driven to it we should subject the Congo to Consular jurisdiction. Consular jurisdiction was not a very good thing for the State against which it was exercised. Those who had taken part in the administration of Egypt knew very well that it produced a sort of confusion which was always mischievous. It was, however, the claim which civilised countries made for the protection of the lives and property of their subjects in barbarous countries. To make such a claim on the Congo would be to advertise to the whole world that we regarded the Congo as a barbarous State. He did not know that we ought to do so now. If they would harken to the representations of His Majesty's Government, and make satisfactory reforms, well and good; but if they refused to listen, and persisted in the wicked course which had been described, it would be right to, at all events, threaten them with treatment as a barbarous country, and to intimate that if they did not reform their Courts and provide regulations for the administration of justice, which would ensure justice being done to British subjects living within the territory, we should be compelled under these circumstances to invite the United States and other civilised Powers to imitate our example, and to exercise the

    1261
    right given under the convention of setting up Consular jurisdiction. That was no, doubt, a subject which would receive the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government. All the Committee could ask them to do was to persevere in their efforts, and to make use of every expedient which the resources of civilisation might give them for the amelioration of the state of things in the Congo, with reliance that Parliament and the country would support them.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL ()said that a year ago he brought forward this question of the Congo in the House, and none of the evidence then adduced had been in any degree shaken. He thought that some reference should be made to the Burrows libel case. A certain Captain Burrows published a book, in which he freely denounced the Administration of the Congo Free State; and a libel action was brought against him by two Belgian officers, who had been mentioned in the book. The action went in favour of the Belgian officers. Those who had been interested in exposing the Congo case knew that the Burrows book was unreliable, and that the allegations in it could probably not be supported. None of them, therefore, had ever quoted a single word from that book as evidence in favour of their case, or from the statements of any discharged servant of the Congo Free State. He fully agreed with the right hon. Member for Cambridge University that those individual atrocities to which so much attention had been called were the inevitable outcome of the financial exactions of the Congo Free State. They could not have forced labour for trivial remuneration, heavy taxation, forest guards left uncontrolled, without frequent outrages and constant punitive expeditions. The result of this system was two-fold: to the companies and to the State it had given enormous profits, which had been eminently satisfactory to them. Take the Compagnie Anversoise one of the chief concessionaire companies, in which the State, in other words King Leopold, held half the shares. Its capital was 1,700,000 francs, and its profit in 1902 was 1,080,000 francs. The A.B.I.R. Company had a capital of 1,000,000 francs, and the profits for four years amounted to 12,000,000 francs. In this company also
    1262
    the State held half the shares. The effect on the natives of this financial system had been abundantly proved. Mr. Casement, who was sent I by the British Government to make an impartial investigation, was an official with twenty years experience in Africa—a gentleman of the highest standing and reliability, and whose good faith even the Congo Free State had not; ventured to challenge. He had written a Report of sixty pages, full of the most; specific and definite instances of cruelty land oppression. There were the cases of mutilation, including several which had come under Mr. Casement's own notice.
    Only last night he was speaking to an English missionary, who had been on the Congo for many years. On one occasion that missionary came down to the river bank, and saw a canoe which had just come in in charge of a number of soldiers. In the canoe was a basket containing fifty human hands, which had been freshly severed from natives by these Congo Free State soldiers. The Congo Free State had most remarkable explanations for these mutilations. A boy who was brought to a distant station by a Belgian official, far away from his friends, was badgered into declaring that he had lost his hand while he was hunting. He saw a wild boar, and endeavoured to seize it by the ears, but the boar turned round and ate his hand off Then La Tribune Congolaise, a semi-official organ of the Congo Free State, explained these dreadful mutilations by saying that the natives suffer from cancer in the hands and that the loss of the hands is merely the result of an ordinary surgical operation! His hon. Friend had referred to the Mongala case, in which three Europeans and a British coloured subject in the employ of the Compagnie Anversoise were implicated and were condemned for certain crimes. What were these crimes? The killing of 150 persons and cutting off sixty hands, crucifying women and children, cutting off the heads of men and nailing them on the palisades of the village; shooting a native with a revolver; killing a native chief; shooting twenty-two women and two children of the village of Momba, and shooting three women outside it; shooting a native soldier; imprisoning sixty women and putting them "in the

    1263
    chain," where all but five died of starvation. These men appealed against their entence, and among other extenuating circumstances which secured a marked reduction of the first sentence imposed on the coloured man, the Court of Appeal cited the following—
    "That it is just to take into account that, by the correspondence produced in the case, the chiefs of the concession company have, if not by formal orders, at least by their example and their tolerance, induced their agents to take no account whatever of the rights, property, and lives of the natives; to use the arms and the soldiers, which should have served for their defence and the maintenance of order, to force the natives to furnish them with produce and to work for the company, as also to pursue as rebels and outlaws those who sought to escape from the requisitions imposed upon them.
    These men, in spite of the extenuating circumstances arising from the connivance of their superiors, were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, but such is the rigour of the administration of the law in the Congo Free State that two of the men had been released after serving three years Precisely a similar occurrence had taken place within the last few months. A man named Caudron was sentenced for crimes almost as gross Again, he pleaded extenuating circumstances and again the Court admitted the plea on the ground that he was authorised to commit these crimes by those having authority over him. He would quote one or two cases to show the extent to which impoverishment and depopulation had been carried out in these regions. On page 46 Mr. Casement says—
    "At a village I touched at up the Lulanga River, a small collection of dwellings, named Z, the people complained that there was no rubber left in their district, and yet that the La Lulanga Company required of them each fortnight a fixed quantity they could not supply. Three forest guards of that company were quartered, it was said, in this village, one of whom I found on duty, the two others, he informed me, having gone to Mampoka to convoy the fortnight's rubber. No live stock of any kind could be seen or purchased in this town, which had only a few years ago been a large and populous community, filled with people and well stocked with sheep, goats, ducks, and fowls. Although I walked through most of it, I could only count ten men, with their families. There were said to be others in the part of the town I did not visit, but the entire community I saw were living in wretched houses and in visible distress. Three months previously (in May, I believe) they said a Government force, commanded by a white
    1264
    man, had occupied their town, owing to their failure to send in to the Mampoko headquarters of the La Lulanga Company a regular supply of indiarubber, and two men, whose names were given, had been killed by the soldier"
    And Mr. Casement gave the case of a man and his family, living in three huts, who were required to pay in an amount of produce equal to £80 a year. In another district he said that—
    "The population of the lake side towns would seem to have diminished within the last ten years by 60 or 70 per cent. It was in 1893 that the effort to levy an india-rubber imposition in this district was begun, and for some four or five years this imposition could only be collected at the cost of continual fighting. Finding the task of collecting india-rubber a well-nigh impossible one, the authorities abandoned it in this district, and the remaining inhabitants now deliver a weekly supply of foodstuffs for the up-keep of the military camp at Irebu, or the big coffee plantation at Bikoro. Several villages I visited supply also to the latter station a fortnightly tax of gum-copal, which the surrounding forests yield."
    Each town, he estimated, was compelled to bring in this gum-copal to the value of £360 a year, for which they were paid in goods to the value of £10. There was also a large mass of evidence from the missionaries. There was the evidence, for example, of Mr. Weeks, who had been for twenty-three years on the Congo. In a letter that gentleman wrote on 30th November last, he said—
    "Last week I returned from spending eight days in the Bokongo, Bongondo and other towns below this, our station at Monsembe, and while there I learned of the killing by Mabata (which was the native name of a Belgian officer) and his soldiers of twenty-two men and women."
    after giving the names of the victims— ten men, eleven women, and one girl—Mr. Weeks continued—
    "And what was the crime of which these unfortunate folk were guilty? They were behind in their taxes, and owed the State between them a few goats."
    He went on to say that the natives were bound to supply goats for the table of the white officers, and that now all the goats had practically disappeared from the district. He gave the names of many cases where the people were actually compelled to sell their relatives and children into slavery to buy goats in order to provide the white officers with food. Another point assertad by the Congo Free State was that all the

    1265
    soldiers employed were Regulars, and never Irregulars not under control. A recent occurrence throws a remarkable light on this contention. On 28th November of last year, four British missionaries going down the river put into a village unexpectedly and found the Congo troops, under the eyes of two white officers, engaged in a horrible cannibal orgie. It was true that, on the complaint of the missionaries, the officers were arrested, and one had committed suicide.
    There was abundant evidence that in despite of their treaty obligations the Congo Free State had failed lamentably to care for the moral and material interests of the natives, and to a large extent the origin of all these evils was the trade monopolies which the Congo Free State, in violation of the Berlin Act, had granted. In reply to remonstrances, the State explained that every one was free to buy or sell what he pleased—only it happened that the whole of the soil of the Congo State had been declared to be vested in certain companies or individuals; if the soil were vested in those companies or individuals the products of the soil were also vested in them; and, consequently, no one else could legally buy those products; they were told, however, that everything else they were quite free to buy. As there was nothing else there, the Congo Free State, by means of this subterfuge, completely defeated the avowed intention of the Powers at the time of the Treaty of Berlin. Not only was this a source of outrage on the natives, but it was also an invasion of legitimate British interests. British merchants had a right to claim that they should be permitted to trade freely on the Congo; and, not only merchants in England, but also merchants in British territories adjoining the Congo State. It should be remembered that the Congo State adjoined British territory at four separate points: in Northern Rhodesia, in British Central Africa, in Uganda, and in the Soudan. On all those frontiers trade was absolutely impossible between British subjects and the Congo Free State. That also gave this country a legitimate right to insist that this illegal system should be terminated. The Government suggested that this specific point should be put to the arbitration of the Hague Tribunal. The
    1266
    only point on which he did not agree with his hon. friend the Member for Oldham was with reference to the utility of that suggestion. It appeared to him most desirable that this suggestion of arbitration should be pressed; and he had little doubt that there would be a. decision in favour of this Government; and then, as they believed, when they got rid of those monopolies they would also get rid, to a large extent, of the outrages on the natives which followed from them. He had sufficient confidence in the impartiality of the Hague Tribunal to believe that if this country were right, it would be judged to be right* and if it were judged to be wrong then they would have to proceed on different lines, and limit their movement to the humanitarian aspect of the question. The Congo Free State had refused to arbitrate. His Majesty's Government had not, however, pointed out—and he hoped they would—that there was another clause in the Berlin Act, namely Article 12, under which the signatories of that Act bound themselves specifically in case of any serious dispute to refer it to mediation or arbitration. Therefore, the Foreign Secretary might clearly point to that particular Article, by which the Congo Free State was bound, and claim as a right that this matter should be put to mediation or arbitration. The Congo Free State said that those were questions of sovereignty and internal administration which could not be properly arbitrated upon. But the great majority of cases now put to arbitration at the Hague Tribunal were questions of sovereignty and internal administration. Three of the four cases now pending or recently decided—the case of the claims of the Powers arising from misgovernment in Venezuela, the case between the United States and Mexico relating to some Church property in California, and the case between Japan on the one hand, and England, Germany, and France on the other with reference to a house tax in Japan—were all cases dealing with. matters of sovereignty and internal administration; and the fact that this matter was also a question of sovereignty and internal administration by no means removed it from the category of international cases fitted to be arbitrated upon.

    1267
    The proposed establishment of Consular Courts commanded the warmest approval of all those interested in this proposal. But that the Government should consent only to a mere inquiry would, he thought, be a most unfortunate outcome. There was once a member of the New Zealand Parliament who committed a bull which, although, it was a mixed metaphor seemed absolutely to express the position of the Government in this matter much better than if a correct expression were used. He said—
    "In this case, sir, I think that the Government are trembling on the verge of a cul-de-sac."
    In considering their assent to a mere inquiry as a solution of this matter, the Government were trembling on the verge of a cul-de-sac. It would lead nowhere, and would only prove—if it proved anything—what was already quite notorious. He sincerely trusted that the Government would press for a much more definite and complete measure of reform. It was often said that from the present Administration they might expect a spirited foreign policy. The phrase often meant a policy of reckless aggression; but there were occasions in which spirit was pre-eminently desirable in a Foreign Secretary; and this was certainly one of them. If the Government pressed this matter with more vigour, he was convinced that it would be supported by public opinion, not only in this country, but probably by public opinion in the United States also. The people recognised that it was intolerable that the Sovereign of the Congo Free State should be allowed to seize the native's land, to reduce him to slavery, to impoverish him by excessive taxation, to expose him to a rôgime of outrage and oppression, to shut out foreign trade, to tear up treaties solemnly made, and, when remonstrances were offered, to meet them with a smile and a shrug of the shoulders. It was not consonant with the duty or with the dignity of this country that the representations earnestly made should be permitted to be treated as if they were of no account.
    *LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE ()said he desired to say a few words on this question because it so happened that at the time the Congo
    1268
    Free State was called into existence he occupied the position in His Majesty's Government that was now occupied by the noble Lord opposite. At that time he took a very active part in the long and somewhat exciting discussions in this House in regard to what was to be the future of those regions; and he ventured to recall to the attention of the Committee what passed then, not merely to develop an argument of a purely historical character and interest, but because it had been already indicated in this debate that what happened then was of the utmost importance in regard to what was happening now with reference to the position of the Congo State. There was an extraordinary hypothesis which appeared to run through all the arguments put forward by the Congo State, and especially through those which emanated from the present Minister or representative, whichever he might be called, and that was that the Congo Free State was like any other State which formed part of the State system of the world. It was positively stated in the first place that the Congo State came into existence as a State long before the Berlin Conference. He ventured to assert that the Congo Free State—and he believed he was expressing the opinion of the whole House—was as much the creation of European law as any corporation in this country which might be created under an Act of Parliament was the artificial creation of English law. Without the Berlin Conference there would be no Congo Free State; and if the reasons which induced Europe to consent to the formation of the Congo Free State failed, and if the conditions of that international contract were not fulfilled, and especially were not fulfilled by the beneficiary of that contract, then, at any moment, Europe, which called the Congo Free State into existence, was entitled to dissolve that State. He ventured to go further and say, though he admitted it was a strong proposition, that any one of the signatories to the great document which settled Africa at Berlin in 1884, was also justified in bringing, before whatever tribunal was the proper one, notice of its intention not to be any longer bound by conditions which were not fulfilled. Further, he would venture to remind the Congo Free State how

    1269
    very easy it would be, if they persisted in what he ventured to call the insolent and insulting tone which permeated those documents, for Europe, or indeed for any State that chose, to practically put an end to its existence by sending a few ships to the mouth of the Congo. They had heard a great deal lately of the great weight of sea power; and the Congo Free State lay absolutely at the mercy of this country, or any other country which chose to say that it would occupy the capital at Boma in the name of civilisation. He did not hesitate to say that the documents which had been published were an insult both in substance and in tone.
    He would venture specially to call attention to one particular passage, in which an attempt was made to introduce into the controversy that most odious of all arguments the odium theologicum. That was an attempt to show that this country and its agents were being influenced by religious motives because they were Protestants. The passage appeared on page 14 of the White Pacer and was as follows—
    "Whether such was his intention or not, the British Consul appeared to the inhabitants as the redresser of the wrongs, real or imaginary, of the natives, and his presence at La Lulonga, coinciding with the campaign which was being directed against the Congo State, in a region where the influence of the Protestant missionaries has long been exercised, necessarily had for the natives a significance which did not escape them. The Consul made his investigations quite independently of the Government officials, quite independently of any action or any co-operation on the part of the regular authorities; he was assisted in his proceedings by English Protestant missionaries; he made his inspection on a steamer belonging to a Protestant mission; he was entertained for the most part in the Protestant missions; and, in these circumstances, it was inevitable that he should be considered by the native as the antagonist of the established authorities."
    He had ventured to call attention to this, because nothing could be more abominable than the judicial murder of Mr. Stokes, especially the concluding passages of it, which took place in the Belgian Courts of Appeal, when every attempt was made the odium cum theologicum in a country where religious feeling runs high. Because Mr. Stokes was an Englishman and a Protestant many appeals were made to that Court, in order to prevent justice being done to the
    1270
    relatives of Mr. Stokes. The blood of Mr. Stokes still cried out from the ground. No adequate attempt was made at that time by the Foreign Office of this country to see that Mr. Stokes's case was properly supported to its conclusion. In his opinion the best counsel—some jurist conversant with all the ramifications of international law—ought to have been retained at the trial. It seemed to him there had been a failure of moral support and a failure of legal support of Mr Stokes' case in the Belgian Court. Then there was the terrible case of Rabinek, who was not a British subject but was on a British ship. This man was not murdered in the off-hand way in which Mr. Stokes was murdered, he died on his way to Boma to take his trial, but, nevertheless, he was practically just as much murdered as Mr. Stokes. AH this might be considered more or less idle lamentation over events that had occurred, but, as the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge had very truly said, the Congo Free State had reached the point when it ought to be no longer recognised as a civilised State.
    What we had to do, as he ventured to suggest, was, in the first place, to take advantage of everything there was in the Berlin Act to exert to the utmost the rights of this country against the Congo Free State, and also to assert, where we could, the international rights of Europe against the Congo Free State. His first suggestion was that we should insist on the establishment of Consular Courts. If we had been entitled to have Consular Courts in a country whose civilisation was not our civilisation, as in Japan, we were certainly entitled to have Consular Courts in the Congo Free State. The Committee was aware that one of the most important clauses of the Berlin Act of 1884 related to the policing and the navigation of the rivers of Africa. It was one of the principal objects of Mr. Gladstone's Government at that time to establish both on the Zambesi and on the Congo some sort of international control, similar to that found on the Danube and other rivers in Europe. Had the treaty which we negotiated with Portugal in 1883 been carried out it would have entirely altered the whole situation in Africa, because there was a

    1271
    saying in Africa that if an Englishman and a Portuguese were put in a boat together the Portuguese would do the rowing and the Englishman would command, and Europe was quite satisfied to put the Congo under Anglo-Portuguese control, and that would have served very well. But that Agreement was thrown out of this House. Then came the Berlin Conference, and an International Commission was substituted for the Anglo-Portuguese Commission and the Congo was placed under its control. When the British Government accepted the International Commission they were not thinking of a river Commission in the mere technical sense of the term, but believed with the other Powers that an International Commission would be of great use in establishing on the Congo the flag of civilisation, and that a Commission of that kind on that river would be a sign to all those who lived in that part of the world that civilisation was on the river. He had always regretted that since that time no attempt had been made to establish an International Commission on the Congo. He ventured to say that the Government should take every step they could for the establishment of an International Commission on that river.
    This state of things which he had described could not fail to show this House and the country that we were facing a very serious situation, and when we remembered that this country by the great instrument which the Government had executed with France, which placed both countries on a friendly footing, each with the other he could not help thinking that they could not give the world a clearer sign of their amity than by making the restoration of law and order in this region the outward and visible sign of it. We owed this Congo Free State to the fact that in 1883–4 our relations with France were not so cordial as we could have wished. There was a good deal of rivalry between us; the French colonial tariff had been proclaimed and actually established in the not distant colony of the Gaboon. Such a tariff would have resulted in our trade and commerce being shut out of the Congo. The Belgians took advantage of the situation, and brandished in the face of a credulous world their magnanimous intentions as against the narrow intentions
    1272
    of France, and promised if they got in there should be universal free trade. The Government of the day were not quite so credulous, but they were overruled by this House, and if he desired any justification for the course then taken by the Government of Mr. Gladstone with regard to the future of these regions, he would find it in this Paper and the others which had been laid on the Table.
    *EARL PERCY: I think the tone of the speeches this afternoon, and certainly their intention, has been favourable to the policy of His Majesty's Government. There has never been a policy of which it might be said as truly as of this one that it was the policy not so much of His Majesty's Government as the policy of the House of Commons. We have been reminded in the debate that that policy was adopted on the authority of a Resolution moved from the opposite side by the hon. Member for Cleveland and passed without a division last year, and that Resolution has undoubtedly been endorsed by the unanimous feeling of the country at large. It has been approved at meeting after meeting during the past twelve months, attended by men of every shade of political and religious opinion; and the indignation which has been expressed at those meetings has found its origin not in any prompting on the part of the Government—on the contrary, we have deliberately withheld our evidence until we could examine it carefully—but in the accumulated facts and horrible indictments which have been brought forward by missionaries, traders, and others who have been long resident in the Congo territories. I allude to this unanimity and spontaneity of opinion because it has an important bearing on the reply to our first Note, addressed to us by the Congo Government. That the Congo Government should not have acknowledged the truth of the accusations brought against them, that they should even have indignantly repudiated them, would not have been surprising. We did not ourselves think that we were justified by the evidence at our disposal in vouching for their accuracy, and the reason why we did not furnish the Congo Government with the earlier Reports was that they contained even less information upon which we could implicitly rely.

    1273
    We put them forward tentatively for what they were worth in the belief that the Congo Government would recognise that, from the standpoint of its own interests, let alone any question of humanity, they constituted a strong, an overwhelming case for searching and impartial inquiry. In that hope we were disappointed. The Congo Government, not content with denying the truth of these allegations or the existence of a case for inquiry, went out of its way to impute motives to those who brought them forward. They alluded to the fact that these accusations only dated from 1895, and they built upon that fact the deduction that the whole of this agitation in England was merely a campaign of calumny motived by feelings of commercial jealousy at the growing trade and prosperity of the Congo State. I regret that the same suspicion of ulterior motives has found an echo in the writings of eminent statesmen and publicists abroad. I refer more especially to an article written, I think, by M. Etienne, in a review some time ago, in which he fastened on a statement alleged to have been made by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, to the effect that he and those who acted with him would gladly see the rule of France substituted for that of Belgium in the Congo State. M. Etienne observed that expressions of that kind were calculated to increase rather than to diminish the suspicion of interested motives on our part. It is no business of mine to defend or to explain the expressions used by the right hon. Baronet; he is far better able to do that himself; but to any one who has the slightest acquaintance with English politics, and knows them, as perhaps only an Englishman can know them, from the inside, the idea that we were actuated in this matter by any selfish or personal motive is simply ridiculous. We entertain no illusions on this subject. We are quite aware that these philanthropic crusades do not contribute to our popularity abroad; we know very well, and we are constantly informed of the fact by the for ign Press, that they are commonly ascribed to motives of hypocrisy, if to nothing worse; and we act, if we act at all, simply from the conviction that an international convention bind-
    1274
    ing its signatories to act on certain definite and recognised principles implies a collective as well as an individual responsibility to see that those obligations are carried out.
    Not only is it absurd to suppose that commercial jealousy alone would have inspired the unanimous feeling which has been manifested on this subject in the country, but the charge of interested motives is about the most double-edged argument that the Congo Government could have possibly selected to employ in its own defence. It is true that this country has not enjoyed the proportionate share in the growth of the trade of the Congo State which it might reasonably have expected. The figures are rather significant. Between 1898 and 1901 the Belgian share of the total trade has risen in the case of imports from 67 to 72 and in the case of exports from 79 to 91 per cent. Other States, however, have grown in prosperity and wealth with even greater rapidity than the Congo State without exciting feelings of commercial jealousy in this country. Where such feelings have been excited, it has invariably been due to the fact that our commerce has been artificially excluded by tariff barriers. If that is not the case in the Congo State the alleged motive of commercial jealousy remains unexplained; whereas if it is the case, the Congo Government admit the contention we have always put forward, viz., that, whether in the spirit or in the letter, they have violated the free-trade provisions of the Berlin Act. But the Congo Government has itself supplied the most conclusive refutation of this charge. In an historical account in the Bulletin Officiel published some time ago, the following sentence occurs—
    "The regions reserved for State exploitations were fixed in 1892. Apart from these lands more than a quarter of the State lands, not counting those below Stanley Pool, were assigned to private persons, who in these zones had the exclusive right of collecting rubber. But only after 1897 did factories spring up on the Kassai, the Thelemba, the Lulonga, and Congo banks, and these were all Belgian. Some firms (as for instance the A.B.I.R. Company, which was originally English) voluntarily abandoned the rights they possessed."
    That is to say, the Congo Government admits that the British firms who are supposed to have inspired these feelings

    1275
    of jealousy, voluntarily abandoned the vantage ground they actually possessed, and that the Belgian firms whose conduct has been the principal subject of complaint never established themselves at all until 1897. So far from being a refutation of the truth of these accusations, I think that the coincidence of dates affords the most remarkable corroboration. Why was it that in 1895 the Congo State first rejoiced in this sudden sunshine of prosperity, that for the first time the revenue balanced the expenditure without the aid of external subventions, and that as the Congo Government itself says 5,000 tons of rubber are now offered for sale where thirty tons were collected in 1887? The Congo Government again supply the explanation. They say that the collection of rubber, the plantations of coffee, cocoa, and tobacco, etc., date from the day when the State assumed the initiative in the matter, and that the exports were insignficant before the impulse imparted by Government enterprise.
    Let me recall to the Committee the specific allegation which we made in our Note to the Powers. We said—
    "The information which has reached His Majesty's Government tends to show that, notwithstanding the obligations embodied in Article 6 of the Berlin Act, no attempt at any administration of the natives is made, that the officers of the Government do not appear to concern themselves with such work, but devote all their energy to the collection of rubber."
    Mr. Casement's Report has been quoted at length, and hon. Members have referred to cases of atrocities reported by missionaries and traders; but I do not think that it is necessary to go into the evidence of Mr. Casement or others in in order to substantiate the specific allegations which we made. We have only to look at the actual findings of the Courts in the Congo State itself. If the House will allow me, I will read from the judgment of the Court of Appeal at Boma in July, 1901. They were trying cases of oppression in the Mongala district and specifying the extenuating circumstances which might be taken into account in favour of the accused. They say—
    "It is just to take into account that by the correspondence produced in the case, the chiefs of the Concession Society have, if not by formal orders, at least by their example and tolerance, induced their agents to take no account whatever of the rights, property, and lives of the
    1276
    natives, to use the arms and the soldiers, which should have served for their defence and the maintenance of order, to force the natives to furnish them with produce and to work for the Society, as also to pursue as rebels and outlaws those who sought to escape from the requisitions imposed upon them. That, above all, the fact that the arrest of women, and their detention to compel the villagers to furnish both produce and workmen, was tolerated and admitted even by certain of the administrative authorities of the region."
    That was the finding in 1901. If that is too early we can come down to 1903, to the circular of the Governor-General of the Congo quoted in Mr. Casement's Report. That circular enjoins the commandants and officers of the "Force Publique" to—
    "rigorously observe the repeated instructions against the employment of black troops unaccompanied by a European officer,"
    and admits that—
    "in spite of the most imperative orders forbidding the employment of black soldiers by themselves on the public service, in many places this deplorable custom continues to be practised."
    Lastly we have in this very year the case of the British subject, Silvanus Jones, who was put on his trial for the commission of murders, including the murder of women and children. He did not deny, I think, that he had committed these crimes, but he pleaded as an extenuating circumstance, which the Court admitted, that he had committed them either in deference to the orders of his superiors, or in the belief that that conduct would have their sanction and approval. Is it possible, in view of the verdicts of the Congo Court itself, let alone any private testimony which may be received from other sources, that a refusal on the part of the Congo Government to institute any inquiry into the circumstances can carry any other conviction to impartial or independent minds than that either the Congo Government is afraid of the revelations to which an honest inquiry might give rise, or eke that, however anxious and eager they may be severely to punish atrocities which are brought to their notice, they will take no effective steps to reform a system which makes the continuance of such atrocities possible for fear that effective reform may entail a possible diminution of revenue? From the point of view of the British Government, the Congo

    1277
    reply to our Note is absolutely irrelevant. The gist of the defence put forward by the Congo Government is that the charges are always of the same character, that they have often been made before—which is unfortunately true but not our fault— that they have very often been refuted and that the refutations have always been ignored. They say that the principle of compulsory labour as an alternative to taxation is universally recognised in all civilised European countries which own possessions in Africa, and they take considerable credit to themselves for the measure which they have adopted to suppress the slave trade, to reform the Force Publique, and to provide schools and hospitals and such like for the natives. I do not know that if we admit every one of these contentions that they in any degree detract from the force of the case which we put forward. No one, as far as I know, certainly not His Majesty's Government, has ever denied that the Congo Government has done a great deal of good work in the Congo Basin. We have never asserted that the provisions of the Berlin Act have been universally or deliberately violated. We fully recognise that in every State the Government of the country has the right to take, either in money or in kind, a reasonable contribution from the natives for the expenses of administration. I do not think that we need be surprised that in an area comprising hundreds of thousands of squares miles and millions of natives, isolated cases of abuse of authority should occur. We draw a sharp distinction between occasional acts of cruelty by individuals, and barbarities which are in fact inseparable from the system. Our complaint is not that white men in the midst of a black population occasionally commit abominable atrocities but that they are enabled to commit them, and in most cases with perfect impunity, by the fact that the Government itself invests them with irresponsible authority, that it exercises no adequate supervision over them, and that in many cases there is no readily accessible tribunal before which they can be brought.
    We are prepared to give the Congo Government every credit for good intentions and we admit that the regulations that they have laid down for the
    1278
    protection of the natives would, in most cases, if they were seriously enforced, probably be adequate for the protection of these natives. But while we make that admission it must be remembered that we have a striking example of what really becomes of the safeguards for the protection of the natives in the case of tin Commission instituted for the express purpose of protecting them. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean alluded to this Commission at the beginning of the debate, and expressed regret that Sir Constantine Phipps should have said in his despatch that if that Commission had proved a failure the blame did not lie upon the central Government, or words to that effect. No doubt at that time we were not in possession of the full facts in regards to the history of the Commission, and Sir Constantine Phipps reported the conclusion he had arrived at upon the data then at his disposal. Subsequent investigations have shown that the Committee for the protection of natives was instituted in September, 1896. During the whole period between September, 1896, and September, 1898, of the six members composing that Commission only three met on two occasions for half a day. The Committee was reconstituted in March, 1901, but the secretary did not arrive until nine months after his appointment, the Committee was never invested with any powers which enabled them to make effective inquiries or to take evidence, and they lived at such long distances from each other that it was almost impossible for the members to come together. In the second period between 1901 and 1903 the Committee never met at all. We may make every allowance for the Congo Government, and for ignorance of what goes en at a great distance from the seat of administration, but I do not think we can possibly acquit them of a grave responsibility for the indefinite continuance of system under which the mere exploitation of commercial resources and the accumulation of rubber is made by their own agents the excuse for insensate and inhuman barbarities.
    What, in view of these facts, is the policy which His Majesty's Government intend to pursue? A great many suggestions have been put before us. Some

    1279
    were thrown out in the debate last year and new ones have been put forward this afternoon. I observe that of the suggestions made last year, only one has been revived this afternoon. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Cleveland last year, and which has been repeated by the noble Lord who immediately preceded me, is that we should entrust the investigation of this question to the International Commission for the Navigation of the Congo, which was intended not only to deal with navigation but to investigate all breaches of the provisions of the Berlin Act. Another proposal was that we should seize the opportunity when the Congo Government desired to raise its import duties to refuse our assent to any increase above the limit fixed by the Act. I think I may say at once that neither of these suggestions is practicable. The first is impossible on two grounds. In the first place the International Navigation Commission has never had any existence, and can only be called into existence on the initiative and by the consent of five of the signatory Powers; and, in the second place, even if it existed at the present moment, under the wording of the Act its activities would be restricted to those parts of the Congo Basin where no Power exercised any Sovereignty, and therefore it would not meet the difficulty in this particular case. The second suggestion with regard to Customs duties is impossible because the provisions of the Berlin Act have been set aside and superseded by the subsequent Act passed at the Brussels Congress, in which it was laid down that any of the signatory Powers might raise their import duties to 10 per cent, in default of any subsequent agreement. The only practicable suggestion which I think has been made this afternoon is that this country should revive its claim to the exercise of extra-territorial jurisdiction in the Congo State. It would be a novel and inconvenient course if the representative of the Foreign Office in this House were expected not merely to defend and explain the policy adopted by the Government, but also to discuss en clair, and express approval or rejection of every possible expedient by which that policy might be carried out. Of course I do not dismiss a suggestion of this kind, but I will only make one or two observa-
    1280
    tions in regard to it. There is no doubt whatever that we have an explicit treaty right to claim extra-territorial jurisdiction ii we choose in the Conga State, but I cannot help thinking that we ought to be very careful Bow we mix up two questions which have really nothing to do with one another. If British subjects in any part of the world, whether in the Congo Basin or elsewhere, are unable to secure legal protection, then it is the bounden duty of the Government at home to see that protection is secured to them whether by the assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction or by any other method. But that has little to do with the general question of maladministration and the atrocities committed not upon British subjects, but upon subjects of the Congo State itself who would derive no benefit whatever from the exercise of extra-territorial jurisdiction by this country, while, of course, all cases in which Congo subjects were defendants and British subjects prosecutors would be tried not in British, but in Congo Courts. No doubt in certain cases His Majesty's Government have had to complain of delays and of what we conceive to be failures of justice in matters affecting British subjects. The most recent instance his been that of Silvanus Jones, to which I have already alluded. The House will remember that Jones advanced as an excuse for the murders he had committed that he had acted under the authority, or at any rate with the approval, of his superiors. I think it will occur to the minds of most Members that there would be a certain lack of humour in the selection by His Majesty's Government as the occasion for demanding extra-territorial jurisdiction the condemnation of a British subject by the Congo Courts for atrocities of the very kind which we are complaining that the Congo Government takes no effective steps to prevent.
    In stating the view of His Majesty's Government in regard to the position of affairs in the Congo, I think I must invite the attention of the Committee to two paramount considerations. In the first place, we have never claimed, nor do we claim now, any special responsibility, or any special right of intervention iu the affairs of the Congo State. It was because we were anxious that any

    1281
    representations that were addressed to the Congo Government should be, as far as possible, invested with an international character that we made our I appeal, in the first instance, to the various Powers who signed the Treaty of Berlin. We have refrained from pressing these Powers for a reply to our circular, because we understood that some of them, at all events, were conducting independent local inquiries of their own, but I am bound to tell the House that, so far as we can judge, most of those Powers are not prepared to? act with us in the matter. I may mention, by the way, in answer to questions asked by several hon. Members, that although the United States was not one of the signatories of the Berlin Act, in consideration of the active part which that country played in connection with the inception of the Congo State, we did communicate to them Mr. Casement's despatch as well as to the other Powers. Italy, the United States, and Turkey have informed us that they are giving our representations their most earnest consideration. But most of the Governments I am afraid take the view, which to us is quite incomprehensible, that their material interests are not sufficient in the Congo Basin to warrant any active participation in the matter. The second consideration, which I ask the Committee to bear in mind, is that the situation has been somewhat altered by the character of the last Note addressed to us by the Congo Government. I think some complaint was made of the tone of one of the later despatches we had addressed to them. I do not agree with the right hon. Baronet that the alteration in the tone of our despatches was not justified by the alteration, the very satisfactory alteration, in the tone of the last reply of the Congo Government which shows a far juster appreciation of the motives which have actuated His Majesty's Government. In that reply the Congo Government did not recur to the imputation of selfish or interested motives., and although, of course, they did not admit the truth of the allegations made in Mr. Casement's Report, they did not reject them in toto, but, on the contrary, recognised that they formed a strong case for inquiry, and intimated their in-
    1282
    tention to promote an investigation of that kind.
    I think perhaps the House may be interested to hear the measures taken in this connection by the Congo Government which have up to the present been brought under our notice. They are at all events a satisfactory indication that the action of this House and the representations which have been made by His Majesty's Government have not been without their effect. They include the issuing of orders to the local administration at Boma to make a detailed inquiry into the system of forced contributions, and the conduct of the gardes forestières, the appointment of Italian officers as State inspectors, and the creation of a new office of Royal High Commissioner of the Congo who has been instructed to ensure the complete execution of the measures which have been taken for the protection of the natives. Instructions have also been issued to the A.B.I.R. Company forbidding restrictions on the freedom of commerce, and, lastly, that company has itself sent out an officer armed with independent powers to inquire into its administration, and to insist upon the removal of any officials whom he thinks ought to be removed. I do not pretend that those measures are all, or anything like all, which we have a right to expect. The reply of the Congo Government leaves absolutely out of account the question of our trade rights and the trade rights of Europe in the Congo Basin. His Majesty's Government in their original Note to the Congo Government, while asking that the question of the system of Administration should be submitted to an international conference composed of representatives of the Powers who signed the Treaty of Berlin, asked also that the question of trade rights should be referred to the Hague Tribunal. The Congo Government have made no approach at all towards meeting our views as to the latter question. But the Committee will remember that this question of the compatibility of the concession system with the free trade provisions of the Berlin Act has arisen not only in the Congo State, but in the French Congo and in other parts of the conventional basin of the Congo.

    1283
    In fact, I may say at once that we ourselves have found very considerable difficulty in drawing up the form of our concessions in the East African Protectorate with strict fidelity to the phraseology of the Berlin Act. We are perfectly willing, if we can obtain the concurrence of the other Powers, to submit to the Hague Tribunal our own practice with regard to these concessions in British territory, and we are at present in friendly communication with the French Government, with a view not only to the settlement of the private claims between British firms and French firms, but also with a view to obtaining a satisfactory interpretation of the meaning of the free-trade clauses of the Berlin Act. I hope, at all events, that if we are successful in that attempt, it will have the effect of removing the wholly unwarrantable suspicions with which the Congo Government has hitherto viewed the appeal which we have made to them.
    Another consideration which renders it impossible for us to pronounce as wholly satisfactory the steps which that Government have already announced is that we are still wholly in the dark as to the character and scope of the proposed investigation and as to the composition of the tribunal by which it is to be carried out. It is obvious that an inquiry confined to the specific cases mentioned in Mr. Casement's Report, and conducted, as in the Epondo case, by the agents of the Administration or of the companies whose action has been the subject of criticism would command no general confidence, nor would its conclusions carry weight with any independent mind. We have drawn the attention of the Congo Government to these considerations in connection with their request to be supplied with the names of natives who gave information to Mr. Casement. Those names we on reflection decided to suppress for reasons which are fully explained in the White Paper, and will, I think, commend themselves to the judgment of the House. We are willing to give every information in our possession to the Congo Government provided we have adequate security that measures will be taken to p event the exercise of any pressure to withhold evidence in the future and the possibility of retaliation on the witnesses
    1284
    for the evidence they have given in the past, and provided the composition of the tribunal is such as to deserve our confidence. We hope that the Congo Government will meet our views in that respect. We adhere to our original view that the more complete the international character that is given to this tribunal, and the more absolutely it is divorced from the local administration, the better it will be for the reputation of the Congo Government, and the more quickly will they secure the removal of a regrettable source of misunderstanding between two friendly Governments. But that is a matter which we must leave to their discretion. They met our appeal to an international conference by a denial of the competence of such a tribunal. Sir, we made that appeal in good faith, in no spirit of animosity to the Congo Government, and in the belief that that Government would welcome a tribunal before which they would appear, not merely as defendants or witnesses, but as joint assessors with the other Powers. The Berlin Act provides no machinery for enforcing the obligations registered therein, and though there is some force in the point of view urged by various speakers, notably by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, it is at any rate technically true that it is not from the Berlin Act that the Sovereignty of the Congo State is derived. When the United States first, and the European Governments subsequently, recognised the existence in the Congo Basin of a Government possessed of a national status, that recognition was accorded not to the Congo State, but to an association professing an international character, and proclaiming before the world as the object of its being, not the accumulation of rubber at an infinite cost of human life and suffering, but the protection and civilisation of the natives of Africa. The international character of that association has long ago departed, but I Suppose that the lofty professions and the great responsibilities remain. For good or evil the Congo State stand to day in the eyes of millions of the heathen throughout the darkest regions of that unhappy continent as the mandatory of Europe, the sole exemplar and interpreter of Christian methods of government. What is at issue if that

    1285
    position is abused and that trust betrayed is not the question of the existence or the Sovereignty of a State—that is a matter on which the Congo Government may make its mind easy—but the fair fame of Western civilisation, and the reputation of the creed upon whose principles that civilisation is avowedly based. It is with that conviction that we made our appeal, not less to the Governments of Europe than to the ruler of the Congo State itself, and it is in that spirit that we earnestly hope the Congo Government will now address itself to the inquiry which it has publicly and solemnly announced.
    SIR EDWARD GREY ()said he had listened with too much satisfaction both to the tone and substance of the noble Lord's speech to wish to add much to it, and if he followed him it was only for the sake of emphasising his agreement with the general view which he, and every one, had taken on this question. It was not often that there was such unanimity in the House of Commons, but it had been a somewhat gruesome unanimity; one wished that it could have been disturbed by some one who could have qualified or contradicted. But the facts were too well established. It was quite true that the noble Lord did put in some qualifying remarks on behalf of the Congo Government as to their having done good work in some respects; it was also true that Sir Harry Johnston and Major Gibbons, and some others, who had travelled, he thought, mostly on the frontier of the Congo State, had reported favourably of what they had seen in the particular districts they had been in, and had borne testimony to the fact that they had known Belgian officers who had done their best for the Africans under their care. But to say that the practices they had heard about that afternoon were not universal in the Congo State was neither here nor there, what was detestable was that they should exist at all. The story they had listened to, told by men who had gone closely into the question and who had disregarded all that seemed to them doubtful and had selected only what seemed to them clearly established, was one that would have been distressing to read about
    1286
    if it had related to the history of centuries ago; it was intolerable to hear about it in relation to contemporary history. As the noble Lord had said, the European Powers had a responsibility and the European good name was in question. He did not think any of the great European Powers, with the facts so clearly established as they now were, ought to be content, in view of their own honour in the matter, to sit still and do nothing. The Congo State was not an independent Power in the same sense as the great European Powers, it was really the mandatory and trustee of the other European Powers. At a time, or just before the time, when the great European Powers themselves were becoming anxious to get portions of African territory, and during the time when they had been engaged, some of them, in scrambling for territory, a scramble which aroused great jealousy and suspicion, they allowed not one of themselves, not even a small State, but an individual to possess what they might call the heart of tropical Africa. And why? Because it was a possession established in the interests of philanthropy and free trade. Well, it had led to the story they had heard. The State was really created by a sort of self-denying ordinance on the part of the various great Powers: but he would put it higher than that; he-believed that many of them sanctioned it by a really generous impulse, to see civilisation spread. That that should have led to the state of things which they had heard recounted ought to be intolerable to the Powers which sanctioned it.
    The noble Lord had said measures were being taken by the Congo State to improve the state of things. Well, they had heard of something like those measures before, and of course what they wanted was results and not promises. It would be satisfactory, or at least more satisfactory, if the Conga Government would definitely instruct their officials, not only to take these measures generally, but to take them specifically, even at the sacrifice of revenue As long as the officials were called to account when there was any falling off in the revenue collected, a general instruction as to good intentions

    1287
    would remain a dead letter. He agreed that the Government should take whatever steps were possible; he agreed in the steps that had been taken, but they looked to them to take further steps which were possible. What further steps were possible? He thought the noble Lord was entirely justified in declining to be too explicit as to what further steps might be possible. We wanted to take as few steps as might be necessary, but at the same time we wanted other Towers to take steps, and if it remained perhaps a little doubtful as to the exact steps we might be disposed to take our selves in the matter, it might predispose other Powers to be a little more active than they had been in co-operating with us. It was true we had no intention of interfering permanently with the Government of the Congo State, but interference, as the noble Lord told them the other day, had often been forced upon them against their will.
    With regard to the jealousy and suspicion with which separate action on our part might be regarded, let them be under no illusion in the matter. Now, as at all other times, we wished to avoid exciting such jealousy ox suspicion, but they knew that there was a proverb abroad about Englishmen, as Lord Salisbury once told the House of Lords—"First missionaries, then Consuls, then gunboats." Missionaries were in the Congo State; it had been suggested that we should appoint more Consuls there, and there were people who would say that these were only preliminary steps to gunboats following. These things would be said, and we must run the risk of exciting jealousy and suspicion; indeed, he expected we had excited some already by the steps that had been taken. But a matter of that kind cut both ways; it was true it made it difficult to take separate steps, but, on the other hand, whatever step we had to take was likely to lead the other Powers to take steps also. He gathered that some of the Powers whose co-operation would be most essential in this matter had declined to co-operate because they said they had no material interests. He was glad that in that debate whatever material interests we might have bad been entirely subordinated to other motives. There were trade questions in-
    1288
    volved. They had heard with great satisfaction from the noble Lord that certain discussions with France were proceeding in a friendly way with regard to trade concessions, which might possibly lead to the clearing up of the difficulties connected with the Berlin Act, and might be a help in getting some trade difficulties within the Congo overcome, but that had not been the motive of that debate. Nobody could think for a moment that material interests had not been entirely superseded in the minds of the Committee by humanitarian interests and a general sense of the responsibility of the civilised Powers. To the Powers which said that they had no material interests, he thought they must say that we also had no material interests sufficient to justify separate action on our part, but that as it was so obvious that very little combined pressure from the European Powers would effect what was wanted, and as the honour and good name of the Powers who consented to the creation of this State was involved, they, like us, must see that there was a little more than the question of material interests involved.
    The first change, he thought, which was wanted with regard to the Congo State, whenever there was an opportunity of bringing it about, was that the Government of that State should be one which was responsible to a Parliament. He did not care what European Parliament, so long as it was a European Parliament. If that Government had been responsible to a Belgian or other Parliament these things would have been put a stop to long ago. Whatever happened, let them never again be a party to setting up in any part of the world a private irresponsible Government of this kind. He hoped that the other Powers would join with us on the first opportunity in saying that this Government should be responsible to some representative assembly. With regard to our appointing Consuls, he was very glad that the noble Lord did not dismiss that suggestion.
    EARL PERCYsaid he was speaking of Consular jurisdiction.
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he meant Consuls with Consular jurisdiction. The

    1289
    right hon. Member for Cambridge University had said that we could only do that, practically, by dealing with a barbarous Government. He thought we might put the establishment of Consuls on the ground that if other Powers would not co-operate with us in this matter, in what we considered the general interests of humanity and civilisation, which were as much theirs as ours, we must at any rate see to the protection of our own subjects. It was true, as the noble Lord said, that there was not a favourable opportunity at the present moment; but when we had a case like the Stokes case on record, a case in which a man was clearly illegally executed, we had a case which could not have happened under Consular jurisdiction of our own, and which would have been ample justification for our taking steps to establish a Consular jurisdiction. It was true that the susceptibilities of other Powers might be aroused if we appointed Consuls. Then by all means let them appoint Consuls of their own. He would point out to the noble Lord that his hon. friend the Member for Oldham, in pressing this step on the Government, put it exceedingly moderately and suggested that it should not be taken without first entering into communication with other European Powers. By all means let that be done, and if other European Powers did not like our taking such steps let them suggest other steps. He would like to see some conference called to revise the Berlin Act. The Berlin Act, under which this State was created, and which had other conditions, was now getting rather old, and these international Acts when they got old began to lose their force, just in the same way, he believed, as an accumulator charged with electricity lost a great deal of its force and ceased to be of any use if it were left for sometime. The results of these European conferences tended after a time to lose their force. Sometimes it was a happy thing that they did so tend, but here there was occasion why they should remain in force, and he thought the time had come when the Powers might usefully consider the question of coming again into conference and considering how far the Berlin Act needed revision. He trusted that the Government would be on the look-out for any
    1290
    favourable opportunities which might arise in European politics for pressing this question. There was an ebb and flow, and there were currents and eddies in European politics which sometimes provided unexpected opportunities of getting the Powers to work together in a matter of this kind. He was convinced of this, and he was sure that the noble Lord would feel, from the tone of the debate that afternoon, from the fact that this was a House of Commons policy, and from the way in which his own speech had been received by the whole House, that the country would be only too ready to support the Government in any steps they might feel justified in taking.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES ()said he had waited until the conclusion of the debate on the Congo State to introduce another subject, which would not occupy the attention of the Committee at any great length. He referred to the action of the Foreign Office under the Brussels Sugar Convention. He would not enter into the merits of that Convention except to say that he believed it had not produced all the marvellous results predicted for it; it had not brought prosperity to the West Indies, and certainly had not brought anything but dearer sugar to this country. The permanent Commission established under the Convention at Brussels was in a position to dictate to this country the whole of its tariff policy in regard to sugar; and Papers had been presented to the House giving a description of the further findings of that Commission. They were very important Papers indeed, for various reasons; and having read them he confessed to a desire, which had long existed in his mind, that some means could be found of endowing the Foreign Office with some gentleman possessed of elementary notions of business and language. The permanent Commission which had been set up under that Convention went on holding its meetings at Brussels and giving its decisions with regard to bounties and the duties which the various countries, including Great Britain, should put on, and yet the House had no adequate information in regard to its proceedings. He submitted that having regard to the importance of the decisions, arrived at by that Convention and the

    1291
    binding nature of those decisions on this country, it was absolutely necessary that the proceedings of that Commission, as represented by the procès-verbaux, should be laid on the Table of the House, in as much as they comprised part of the duty this House had to perform, and the House ought to know the decisions their masters had taken, and what steps it was necessary for the Government to take. It was true that there were copies of some of them in the library, but those copies were incomplete and did not contain the most important report, namely, that of the twenty-third sitting. He pointed out that the despatch of Sir Henry Bergne on the decision of the Commission arrived at on 16th October, as published in the White Paper, contained a most serious error. The delegates actually arrived at the decision that the Russian system gave rise to a bounty, but according to the White Paper Sir Henry Bergne stated that the Commission affirmed that the Russian system did not give rise to a bounty. By the courtesy of the noble Lord he had been able to ascertain that the word "not "was a mistake, But what a mistake to make. A mistake which represented to us the exact contrary of the decision at which the Commission arrived. How it could have been allowed to pass by those who read the proofs of the Foreign Office Papers or by Sir Henry Bergne himself, who presumably read the proof, he could not conceive, but it was a most serious thing. The House would remember that in the original translation of the Convention there were so many errors that the Government had to withdraw the Paper, but this blunder was of capital importance, and so extraordinary a blunder raised great doubts in his mind as to the accuracy of the other Papers.
    There was, again, the important point of the treatment of the sugars of our self-governing Colonies. The Commission came to the conclusion that bounties on sugar were given by three groups of British Colonies—Canada, South Africa, and the Australian Commonwealth. They fixed the countervailing duties on those sugars at 3f. 63c. per hundred kilos of refined sugar in the case of Canada, 3f. 89c. in the case of South Africa, and 5f. 62c. in the case of the Australian Commonwealth. That, he imagined, in the last case would amount to about 2s. 6d. per Cwt.
    1292
    The effect of that decision with regard to those colonies was that every one of those countries which had contracted with us for the presumed advantage of our West Indian Colonies, and with whom in return we had contracted to exclude sugar which was bounty-fed and so prevent our people having cheap sugar—every one of the contracting parties to the Sugar Convention was obliged to place these countervailing duties on their sugar. They would put duties on all Canadian, South African, and Australian sugar that they received, and this Government, which had taken up the defence of the self-governing Colonies against the wicked, foreigner, would be obliged to submit. It was true that this country would not impose such duties, because at the moment of ratifying the Convention His Majesty's Government declared that they would not carry out the undoubted obligation of the Convention by imposing countervailing duties on sugar from the self-governing Colonies. It was also true that this country was the greatest consumer of colonial sugar, so that the imposition of the duty by the other contracting States was not so important as it would otherwise be. Still. it was important, because the exportation of sugar from the Colonies to the other contracting States might become larger, but whatever dimensions it assumed, so long as this Convention lasted, every pound of that sugar would be subject to this differential tax. Of the twenty-third sitting of the Commission the House had no account.
    They had not the procès-verbal, in the French, and consequently had to rely on Sir Henry Bergne's account. That account, however, did not give the date of the-sitting—dates and time were nothing to the Foreign Office—but he thought he might fairly assume that it was in October last. At that sitting Sir Henry Bergne raised the serious question of sugared products. Personally, he believed that the Convention and all its principles applied to both sugar and sugared products, and it was only right that if it applied to one it should to the other. Sir Henry Bergne stated—
    "In the course of Thursday's sitting I had the honour to put the following question to the Commission whether according to Article I. of the Convention the contracting States have power to

    1293
    levy a surtax on sugared products sufficiently high to give rise to a bounty."
    The matter was discussed, and it was quite clear that the whole tendency was that while we were still bound to exclude from our ports any sugar in its crude state which had received a bounty, however cheap it might become, or however advantageous to our people, any other country was to be allowed to send sugared products, and we had no remedy. This Commission was now engaged in the work of interpreting the treaty, a work for which it was not suited, and for which it was never intended. The whole of the important questions which had been discussed turned upon the interpretation of the treaty. They came to the conclusion in October last that they were not quite ready to interpret this treaty. There was no doubt to his mind as to its meaning, for it applied to sugar in its raw state as well as to sugared products, and all the penalties and obligations applied to both. The object of this country was that sugar should be cheap, but their object was dear sugar and the retention of the monopoly. When this serious question was submitted to the Commission they said they could not decide upon it. First of all, let him say that there was a vote taken, but it appeared that the affirmation made by the Commission that the contracting States had the right to levy on sugared products a surtax higher than Article III. allowed was come to by the vote of eight in the affirmative, and one in the negative, that one being Great Britain. The very result had happened which the opponents of the Convention had always predicted, namely, that the voice of this country, the great sugar-consuming country, the country upon which these sugar-producing countries lived, which ought to be the dominating voice, was overruled by the countries interested in dear sugar. The question of how this was to be dealt with was left open. According to Sir Henry Bergne the delegates had received instructions of such a nature as left no hope of obtaining a satisfactory solution of the matter that session, and Sir Henry urged the Commission to fix the next meeting at a not J very distant date. Could the noble Lord tell him the date of the twenty-third sitting?
    EARL PERCY: I think it was in March.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the noble Lord appeared to know no more than he did as to the sittings. The question of the time was very important. The next meeting was fixed for October and that was a very long time. That was seven months, but his impression was that it was twelve months from the last meeting. He wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to these declarations. Sir Henry Bergne said—
    "If, however, my Government assents to an adjournment it must be well understood that they reserve full liberty to take in the interval any measures which seem to them necessary to protect British trade in sugared products against the competition of bounty-fed products."
    On page 30 at the bottom Sir Henry Bergne had pointed out that the only remedy for any misdeed was the absolute exclusion of the sugar. He wished to ask the noble Lord—What has the Government done, what are they doing, or what do they propose to do to carry out Sir Henry Bergne's declaration between the twenty-third sitting of the Conference and October next? Sir Henry Bergne's declaration referred not to a sitting in October, but to what would happen in the meantime. Did the Government propose to take any steps, or did they mean to wait till the month of October, leaving British trade in the meantime subject to what would be unfair competition prohibited by the Convention? The whole Sugar Convention had been the most unfortunate and blundering business ever entered into by this country. The same blundering seemed to be committed in every act done, and in every document issued. He thought the noble Lord would be shocked at the amazing and unprecedented blunder committed in this Paper. He, himself, had considerable difficulty in accepting it as at a11 accurate, and he should like to see the proès-verbaux.
    MR. CATHCART WASON ()said he regretted that owing to the answer he received that afternoon from the noble Lord in regard to the alienation of territory in East Africa he could not indulge in the universal congratulations which had been showered upon his conduct. He had

    1295
    for some time tried his best to get information from the noble Lord with regard to the concessions to which for the first time he had vaguely alluded that afternoon. The noble Lord had, made some suggestion as to submitting these concessions to the Conference at the Hague. He thought the Members of the House of Commons were also fairly entitled to have these concessions submitted to them. Why should they not be submitted here? If he could find them for himself he would not trouble the noble Lord about them. There was a great deal of mystery about them. What were the concessions which he was prepared to submit to the Hague Conference. When a straightforward Question was asked that afternoon the noble Lord endeavoured to evade it by what was more or less a legal quibble.
    *EARL PERCY: I spoke of concessions. The hon. Member asked about what he calls the "alienation of territory." It is quite a different thing.
    MR. CATHCART WASONsaid it was the same thing as alienation. It was parting with property which was in possession of this country to some persons. The House of Commons was entitled to know who were the persons who had got it and what consideration had been paid for it. Why should this alienation of territory be shrouded in mystery, and why should the House of Commons be absolutely refused information on the subject? What reason could there be for this secrecy?
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Uganda and East Africa Protectorates are under separate Votes, and that it would not be in order to discuss them on this Vote.
    MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he was discussing the noble Lord's refusal to give information, and the taking advantage of a legal quibble because the word "alienation" instead of lease had been used. If it was out of order to do so he would not pursue the subject further at present.
    *EARL PERCY: If the hon. Member wishes to know exactly which concessions we would refer to the Hague Tribunal I cannot tell him. But the conditions if the lease of land to the Jews are still under consideration and have nothing to do with the matter.
    MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he was entitled to call attention to the noble Lord's refusal to answer a Question on the Vote for his salary.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can allude to the noble Lord's refusal to answer the Question, but he cannot go into the Vote to which the Question refers.
    MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he did not propose to do so. The Question which the noble Lord refused to answer was not asked in any unfriendly spirit to the Foreign Office, and the noble Lord took a line in regard to the Question which he had never known to be taken in the House before. The information asked would, he believed, be of great interest to the House. It referred to a definite matter in which the whole country was immensely interested. Surely there was nothing whatever to be ashamed of in the noble Lord's action in connection with the matter.
    And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL. (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL (BY ORDER).
  As amended, considered.
  Clause (For preventing obstruction at Westminster Bridge).
  "Whereas it has been arranged between the Council and the Commissioner of Police that on and after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and five, the Council shall not run any car on that portion of the tramway in Westminster Bridge Road which lies to the west of its junction with York Road on such days and

  1297
  at such hours as the Commissioner of Police may from time to time direct. Such arrangement is hereby confirmed.
  "Provided always, that if any question shall arise between the Council and the Commissioner as to whether any such direction is reasonable, such question shall be determined by the Secretary of State for the Home Department."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be now read a second time."
  DR. MACNAMARA ()said he gathered from the new clause that something in the nature of an agreement had been arrived at between the London County Council and the Commissioner of Police. He had great respect for the judgment of the London County Council in these matters and greater respect for his hon. friend the Member for Battersea, who was the faithful historian of the poor of London for all time. At the same time he was sorry to see the London County Council tacitly agreeing to this new clause. Of course there was congestion at Westminster Bridge, but that was because the Government would not allow the tramway to be run across the bridge. Colonel Yorke, the railway inspector of the Board of Trade, had stated that the real remedy to remove the congestion was to allow the trams to be run over the bridge. This proposal was to remove the terminus 250 yards further south. He greatly regretted that that decision had been come to. It would constitute a great hardship to the working people of South London. They would have to walk this distance in order to make their connection with the traffic going east and west by St. Thomas's Hospital, and that was bad enough, but when they came to go home it would be far worse. People going home found it impossible to get a seat at the terminus, and they walked down very often as far as the South-Western Railway Bridge and got into a tram there which was coming up to the terminus, and paid an extra halfpenny for the privilege of riding home, and if this line was thrown back to the middle of York Road, these poor people would have to walk nearly to Christ Church before they could obtain a seat.
  1298
  He could not, however much he regretted the decision which had been arrived at, divide the House against this clause, because the hon. Member for Battersea was a very shrewd man in all these matters, and of course it was quite possible that he had obtained a quid pro quo for this arrangement. He contended, however, that the difficulty would be accentuated by sending back all these trams to the middle of York Road. He would not labour the matter, but he would just ask the representative of the Home Office two questions. The new clause said the trams should stop at York Road "on such days and at such hours as the Commissioner of Police may from time to time appoint." Would it be contended for the police that for the whole of certain days no trams should come past York Road? He hoped no such interpretation would be put upon it. The second question was, would the halfpenny buses, which now were the property of private owners, and ran from St. Thomas's Hospital over the bridge and so linked up the tram system, be compelled lo start from York Road, because if that could be done the difficulty might be mitigated a little.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL ()said that they had always heard from the representatives of the London County Council in this House that it was essential, if this congestion was to be removed, that the trams should run over the bridge; now they heard that in spite of all those protestations the London County Council had come to an agreement with the Government which made it impossible for the tramways ever to cross Westminster Bridge. He reminded the House of the very strong evidence given by the police before the Committee upstairs as to the congestion.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Hear, hear! Take the trams across the bridge.
  CAPTAIN JESSELsaid he did not propose to argue that question at the present time, because it had been already decided by the Instruction given to the Committee on this Bill. If any justification had been required for the course which had been taken in this matter, it was to be found in the fact that the

  1299
  London County Council had agreed to this clause. But he was surprised that the hon. Member for Battersea had taken it lying down. He rather suspected there must, as the hon. Member for Camberwell had said, be some quid pro quo. and he could not; but think, with all due deference to the London County Council, in the face of the clause before the House, that those hon. Members who had always strenuously opposed the extension of this tramway across the bridge had been amply justified in the course they had taken.
  MR. JOHN BURNS ()said he declined to be drawn upon a subject which would be very properly discussed at a later stage. Sufficient for the evening was the good thereof. He had no complaint to make of the very just strictures which the hon. Member for Camberwell thought fit in a genial way to pass, but he would remind the hon. Member for St. Pancras that by force majeure the hon. Member for Peckham, assisted by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, put a disabling Motion upon the London County Council. They were responsible for denying to the people of South London the right of access to the bridge and over the bridge by tram. The hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham was a full blown reactionary, and was proud of his reaction, but he, Mr. Burns, had such confidence in the courage of the hon. Baronet that he knew when be took a right course he would face his critics with the courage he always displayed when doing the wrong thing. This course had been put on the London County Council by the House of Commons. The London County Council had had to defer to the House of Commons in this matter. Then the Home Office, which was responsible for the police and the regulation of street traffic, came along and suggested that in consequence of the congestion on the south side of Westminster Bridge, which could not be removed except by bringing the trams over the bridge, and turning them down the Embankment, they must do something. The police already had power to make the London County Council do this, without this clause. The London County Council did not initiate this clause; the Home Office asked for it and
  1300
  the London County Council had to defer, showing that sweet reasonableness which they always did, and which ought to count to righteousness. He acquitted himself of all responsibility for this clause, and the only consolation he had in his misfortune was that the London. County Council was not responsible for it, and only gave a reluctant consent to it. He repudiated the suggestion that the London County Council had derived any advantage elsewhere in consideration of accepting it.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,)said at one time he did not think it necessary to say anything in regard to the clause which he had moved, but after the speech of the hon. Member for Camberwell, who took upon himself to speak on behalf of the London. County Council—
  DR. MACNAMARA: No, not on behalf of the London County Council.
  *MR. COCHRANE: Then I should like to know on whose behalf the hon. Member did speak.
  DR. MACNAMARA: On behalf of the people of Camberwell, whom I have the honour to represent.
  *MR. COCHRANEsaid the hon. Member, speaking for Camberwell, had accused him of seeking some quid fro quo from the hon. Member for Battersea for the clause he now moved, and, that being so, he was compelled briefly to state the steps which led up to the moving of this clause. He failed to understand what the hon. Member for Battersea meant when he said that the London County Council reluctantly accepted this clause.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid to prevent any misunderstanding he would explain that he meant reluctantly in the sense that the London County Council wished to get rid of the congestion by carrying the trams over the bridge and down the Embankment: that having been beaten upon that scheme, they were reluctantly compelled to consent to the suggestion of the Home Secretary only in that sense.
  *MR. COCHRANEsaid he thought it was not quite accurate to say that the Council reluctantly accepted the clause. The hon. Member for Camberwell appeared to accuse the Home Department of being the friends of the omnibus proprietors, and not of the public. It was because the Department were the friends of the public that they had thought it necessary to move this clause. Representations had from time to time been made as to the danger arising from the congestion of traffic at this point, and when the County Council took over the tramways system their attention was called to the matter. The Council took up a non-possumus attitude; they were not prepared to do anything.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that was not the case. The Council wished to take the tramway over the bridge.
  *MR. COCHRANEsaid the Commissioner of Police stated before the Committee that in two years there had occurred at this point in the Westminster Bridge Road 179 collisions and ninety-three accidents, of which three were fatal und six or seven were serious. The hon. Member for Battersea did not seem willing to accept it, but the London County Council very frankly and fairly recognised the true state of the case when it was pointed out to them. He had no complaint to make of the manner in which he had been met, and they entirely agreed in substance with the clause which he had now put down. They suggested some slight alteration in the wording, but that made no difference as to the stringency of the provisions, which gave authority to the police to regulate the traffic on the spot any day the Commissioner of Police might think fit. Power was given to stop omnibuses at certain parts, so as to ^facilitate traffic. He hoped he had made out a case for the clause. He felt that it was unnecessary for him to deal with ancient history, and he would not have detained the House so long but for the terms in which the hon. Member for Camberwell had twitted him with being squared by certain particular parties.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. REMNANT ()said that the Amendment which stood on the Paper in his name referred to the extension of the Hampstead Road Tramway down half the length of Tottenham Court Road. His opposition to this extension was not to the tramway as a tramway. The district which he had the honour to represent would do their best to support any reasonable proposal for a tramway where facilities were wanted and could properly be given. But he hoped the House would agree with him that a case for this particular line had not been made out. There was a tramway terminus at the north side of Euston Road, where, on account of the narrowness of the street, there had been for a considerable number of years great congestion of traffic. The proposal now before the House was to carry the tramway across Euston Road, and practically half way down the length of Tottenham Court Road. The original proposal was to carry it the full length of Tottenham Court Road to Oxford Street, but that had been unanimously rejected by the Committee. He was not opposing the present extension in the interest of any private people, but on broad grounds of public policy. He held that tramway termini in the central districts of London were a mistake. They should be placed in the outskirts, or away as far as possible from the congested areas. Sanction had already been given for a tube railway down Tottenham Court Road, and no reason had been shown for this short extension of the tramway in a narrow street. Instead of relieving the congestion at Euston Road, it would increase it. One was led to believe that the London County Council had some ulterior motive in asking for this short line which led to nowhere, but after the Traffic Commission, which was shortly about to issue its Report, had made its recommendations the rejection of this small extension line would not prejudice any large comprehensive scheme which included the Tottenham area being adopted. There was no urgency for this short line, which could not be worked by itself. Moreover, the Chief Commissioner of Police had reported that this tramway would cause great delay at Euston Road, and render the traffic there almost unworkable. In

  1303
  one part of Tottenham Court Road there was not sufficient room for a double line of rails and to give the statutory nine feet six inches clear roadway from the kerb. He begged to move.
  MR. BULL ()said he seconded the Amendment on the ground that this extension should be rejected until the report of the Traffic Commission was issued. He hoped that the Traffic Commission would give some attention to the question of tramway termini, which were practically butt ends in the middle of large thoroughfares. What they must have was some system, tinder which the tramways would start in a side street. The London County Council should set aside a large piece of land at the side of the road where the cars should start without stopping the traffic, and where the people could wait for the cars they wanted without danger.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 7, line 17, to leave out the words in lines 17 to 24 inclusive."—(Mr. Remnant.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. COMPTON BICKETT ()said that the Committee upstairs, of which he was Chairman, had considered this short line quite apart from the Report of the Traffic Commission. They had interpreted the necessity for it on the principles adopted by Parliament for existing lines. The centre of London was approached from several sides. There were tramways along Gray's Inn Road, and there were tramway termini in Theobald's Road, Aldersgate, Aldgate, Whitechapel, and in Moorgate Street, and the amount of traffic in these thorough-fares was rather more than less than the traffic in Tottenham Court Road. The conditions of Tottenham Court Road were in no way such as to claim exception compared with these other lines of approach to the centre of London. Parliament had decided that London should have a tramway system as well as a tube system. People who were only going a short distance would not go to a tube station, be carried down in a lift to the tube, and then at the next station go up
  1304
  a lift again, when they could jump on a tramway and proceed to their destination more pleasantly. The Committee had declined to allow a double line of tramways to be carried along Tottenham Court Road beyond the point at which there was a clear width of nine feet six inches on either side of the outer rails. In the portion of the line now sanctioned there was that width, and in some places more. The Committee had also to consider the question of Euston Road. The block of traffic there was caused not only by the tramway terminus at the foot of Hampstead Road, but by the narrowness, of the street proceeding westwards towards Portland Street Station. Moreover, at present the tramways were horsed, and it was always cumbersome to change the horses at the terminus, and that process tended to increase the block. When the electrification of the line took place there would not be the same blocking by the moving of the horses. It had been said, why not adopt a shallow subway as in New York—a system which allowed the tramway to get underground when the streets were crowded, and to return to the surface at spots where the traffic was less? That system was impossible in Tottenham Court Road, for the very good reason that the Metropolitan Railway passed along Euston Road, and the crown of the tunnel came within 8 feet of the surface.
  The lease of the tramway company for the Hampstead line would fall in shortly, and the London County Council desired to extend the line down to Oxford Street. That the Committee declined to sanction; and the line would now stop short at Francis Street, which would relieve the congestion of traffic at Euston Road and Hampstead Road. The width of the road at Francis Street was 48 feet, which gave a margin on either side of the rails of 16 feet 8 inches. The pavement on the west side was 22 feet in width, and on the east side 18 feet, so that there was ample accommodation for the foot traffic at the terminus. There was, therefore, ample accommodation; and even if the terminus at Hampstead Road were widened, there would only be the same width of roadway. The proposed terminus at Francis Street would be far more convenient.

  1305
  It was little over one-third of a mile from Oxford Street; and the trams running down Tottenham Court Road would collect a great deal of traffic. Moreover, the vast number of people employed in shops in Oxford Street would be able to avail of this service, and distribute them selves throughout the North and North-East of London. Therefore, even if the line were not to run to Oxford Street, there was a good case for having the terminus at Francis Street. Messrs. Maple and Shoolbred appeared to be afraid that their interests would be affected. He had had a great deal of experience of Tramway Bills, and he found, as a rule, the same evidence given and the same fears expressed; but the fears immediately disappeared when the line was constructed. A tramway only effected a certain class of residents. The little shops were benefited as was also property of a residential kind of a lower character. Carriages coming from the West End would only have to cross the line and put down their occupants at the shops and then wait in a side street. Further, the tram cars would take the place of omnibuses, and that would leave a greater margin for carriages.
  With regard to electrification, although the London County Council would not possess themselves of the tramways until 1909, they had the right to compel the company to electrify them. Therefore, within twelve months this new line would be laid; and the whole system in North London would probably be electrified. The decision of the Committee was not unanimous; but he trusted that the House would support the majority.
  CAPTAIN JESSXLsaid as the Member representing the Division in which the new tramway was proposed to be put down, be hoped he would he pardoned for intervening in the debate. It was not a very usual course to take in this House to ask the House to upset a Report sent from a Committee upstairs; but on this occasion the circumstances were not of a usual character. It had been frequently said that the fact that the Traffic Commission was sitting was no reason why this tramway should not be passed. Counsel for the London County Council upstairs said that it was an extraordinary thing that no Instructions to this Bill were moved in
  1306
  the House; but they were so confident that the Committee upstairs would reject the scheme that they did not wish to waste the time of the House by moving an Instruction. If however, they did not object now, their action might be construed if the Bill went to another place as being favourable to it. He wished to remind the House that the scheme of the Bill was not the original scheme. The original scheme was for a tramway from Hampstead Road right down to Oxford Street. The Committee stopped the tramway half way down Tottenham Court Road, and he thought they were wise, but they were not quite wise enough. There was no doubt, as the hon. Member for Scarborough said, that it was the intention of the London County Council to connect North and South London; but it was precisely because the question of connecting North and South was such a very important one that he hoped the House would not prejudge the case by sanctioning this small extension, especially as a Royal Commission was now considering the subject.
  As regarded St. Pancras, he would tell the House frankly the position. Three out of the four Divisions were in favour of the tramway. The reason was obvious—people who lived away from the tramway did not mind; but as regarded his own Division there was the most strenuous opposition to this scheme. Fifteen members in wards in his constituency were returned in opposition to the tramway; and at the last London County Council election both county councillors in his Division were returned more or less because they were not in favour of the tramway scheme. With one exception, every single local municipal representative was against the extension of the tramway. With reference to the proposed terminus at Francis Street, everyone knew that driving to Euston, St. Pancras, or King's Cross from the West the usual way was to turn down Tottenham Court Road and up Francis Street. If the terminus were at Frances Street there would be a tremendous amount of congestion there, which would cause accidents and block the traffic right in the middle of one of the most busy streets in London. He would remind the House that the London County Council would not proceed to widen Hampstead Road, which was one of the most dangerous

  1307
  spots in London unless the borough council consented to the tramway being extended down Tontenham Court Road. Under the circumstances, it was only natural that the representatives of North-west and East St. Pancras should have voted for this tramway when they were going to secure a great benefit in the widening of Hampstead Road. He was very much in favour of linking up the tramway system between North and South; but he maintained, with all due deference, that this was not the best method of doing it. There were other alternatives; and he would ask the House to wait until the Traffic Commission, which was specially appointed to consider the subject, had reported, and not allow a few yards of tramway to be laid down in Tottenham Court Road against the wishes of the inhabitants of the district.
  *MR. HUDSON ()said he had frequently himself had to wait at the junction of Hampstead Road and Euston Road before the police would permit him to pass. There was very heavy traffic from the West End to the stations of the Central Railway, the London, and North-Western, and the Midland Railway, and the greatest possible inconvenience was caused at that point. The road was very narrow, and if the London County Council would make it wider it would be a very great convenience, or general traffic.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid not for the first time the House of Commons had resolved itself into a sub-Committee of the High-ways Department and discussed matters which would have been much better left to the London County Council acting with the local authorities. They had the duty imposed upon them of defending in the House of Commons proposals that were remitted by the House to a Committee, and which, after thirteen days of exhaustive consideration, were passed. After that they had resurrection pie in the House itself, to an extent which interfered with the business of Parliament and which was a discredit to every hon. Member when the broad facts of the situation were considered. He did not see why the House of Commons should waste its time in
  1308
  discussing the question of Hampstead Road, Tottenham Court Road, or Westminster Bridge. The proper tribunal for all such details was the Committee upstairs. The House of Commons had, how ever, decided to adopt this view on tramway questions and, therefore, he was compelled reluctantly to reply to one or two points put forward by various speakers who opposed the Bill. First, there was the hon. Member for Holborn who, strictly speaking, had no locus standi at all, because no portion of the tramway allowed by the Committee was within the jurisdiction of the borough of Holborn. The hon. Gentleman said that the difficulty which this extension would remove could be got rid of by the widening of Hampstead Road. As a matter of fact, the London County^ Council, by arrangement with the local authorities, were going to widen Hampstead Road at the point where the tramway now stopped. But, when that widening was carried out, at enormous expense, the road would not be any wider than at the new terminus.
  *MR. HUDSONsaid that there was a large lavatory in the middle of the road at Francis Street.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that that difficulty could be easily got over by removing the entrance to the pavement. The hon. Member for Holborn asked what was gained by extending the tramway a few feet? The few feet happened to be 1,800 feet.
  MR. REMNANTsaid he mentioned a little distance.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid be would accept the correction; but the little distance was 600 yards along the widest part of Tottenham Court Road with afoot pavement twenty-seven feet in width, which would permit a large number of people to collect there without any inconvenience. That was the reason why they wished to remove the terminus. The hon. Member for Holborn spoke about tube railways. Whenever tramways were mentioned tube railways were always suggested as an alternative. He had only one opinion about tube railways, and he would strongly recommend investors

  1309
  not to put their money in them, because in ten years time he believed Mr. Yerkes and Mr. Perks would be handing their tubes over to the London County Council as relief sewers because people would not travel in them. Tube railways were no alternative. People preferred the trams. Why? Because they were cleaner, cheaper, and more rapid than the tubes and less dangerous than the omnibuses. The omnibuses were the main cause of congestion in the London streets. The hon. Member for Holborn said that the extension would lead nowhere. He could assure him that it would. It would lead into the widest portion of Tottenham Court Road and to a terminus much more suitable than the present terminus. The hon. Member tried to catch the ear of the House by saying that there was no intention to electrify the trams. There was such an intention, and it would be proceeded with as soon as engineering difficulties could be got over. He was surprised at the opposition of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, who represented a district through which the London United Tramways ran. The hon. Member said that tramway termini were practically railway stations. That was in a sense true; and the only way to get over it was by having a circular route. But pending that, the only plan was to avoid, as far as possible, putting termini at cross traffic roads. They should be put in the widest portion of the thoroughfare, where they would do the least harm. In that way the London County Council were pursuing the line of least resistance, because they did not propose to have termini at shops or cross roads. The terminus at Hampstead Road, where four roads met, was one of the worst places for such a purpose.
  MR. REMNANTsaid he never doubted it.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that then the hon. Gentleman should agree with him. What induced the Home Office to seek powers to put the terminus at Westminster Bridge further back? It was to avoid the congestion of traffic coming from a number of converging roads. It was worse still at Hampstead Road, because the horses had to be changed,
  1310
  and that occupied a very considerable part of the roadway. Their proposal was to have no stopping place for 100 yards at either side of the present terminus; and then impatient Members of Parliament driving to railway stations would be able to get across without being stopped. Therefore, he contended that the hon. Member for Holborn had no case. As regarded the hon. Member for St. Pancras he did not represent his own constituency in the matter. The hon. Gentleman was elected on higher questions. He was told to think Imperially, and to vote patriotically in the House of Commons on political questions. The hon. Gentleman claimed to represent St. Pancras in the matter; but three of the four divisions in St. Pancras were in favour of the Bill. What was more, the Mayor and several aldermen stated before the Committee that St. Pancras wanted the congestion at the Hampstead Road terminus removed. The view of the House of Lords on this question of tramways was more acceptable than that of hon. Members opposite, and when the House of Lords agreed with Battersea they were unanimous. The House of Lords gave the London County Council permission to take the trams over Putney Bridge. It had only a width of twenty-two feet between the herbs, and yet the House of Commons was now asked to reject a Bill for a tramway through a road with a width of forty-eight feet and very large pavements on either side.
  Messrs. Maple and Shoolbred were the only firms who objected to this scheme. He had great respect for both those firms in their proper lines, and no one regretted more than he the lamentable death of the genial Baronet the Member for Dulwich. They all admired Mr. Shoolbred's four-in-hand. He had often seen it in Hyde Park, and it was a beautiful turnout. But every Londoner could not have a four-in-hand; the substitute was the half-penny tram. What right had Mr. Shoolbred to deny his shop-girls, warehousemen, and assistants the right to ride in a tram from Highbury or Islington down the Tottenham Court Road? These people had been compelled to write letters from here, there and everywhere, against this Bill because a kindly-hearted governor asked them to I do so. Shoolbred's and Maple's might

  1311
  supply Members of Parliament with furniture and other domestic conveniences, but they had no right to supply them with arguments or legislative directions. The omnibus owners also had opposed the Bill, and they had been exceedingly busy during the last fortnight. The House of Commons would soon have to take into consideration the extent to which'bus owners, tube railway promoters, and other interested persons frequented the precincts of Parliament. No doubt the 'bus-owners had a perfect right to take every legitimate step to maintain their present monopoly of the streets of London, but on a wet day thousands of people had to walk the whole distance of Tottenham Court Road to secure a conveyance, so full were the omnibuses, and this Bill was required to make good the deficiency of transit the omnibuses were responsible for creating. Provincial authorities had had to fight this battle over and over again, but fears had been shown to be ungrounded, and apprehensions misplaced, and he appealed to provincial Members to resist this Motion. Even if the Bill would do one or two shopkeepers harm, Parliament had no right to ignore the rights of the 300,000,000 passengers who in the course of a year would use the tramway. As the police had no objection and the Home Office did not oppose, he appealed to London Members, especially those on the other side of the House, to confer the boon of this Bill upon their constituents, and to reject the Amendment which had been moved.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY ()said it was most regrettable that the hon. Member for Battersea should invariably attempt to make out that these questions necessarily involved a struggle between the rich and the poor. That was not the case at all. If any other county council in the kingdom came forward with a proposal of this kind it would be received by the House with the utmost astonishment; but Parliament had become accustomed to all sorts of grotesque proposals from the London County Council, who ought now to be told that no decisions on these matters would be come to until the Commission which was inquiring into the whole matter had reported. It was not right
  1312
  that the recommendations of that Commission should be prejudiced by the adoption of this tramway scheme. As a Londoner familiar with the district concerned, he submitted that the present proposal was altogether unjustifiable. For many years the County Council had enjoyed the right to call upon the company working the Northern lines to electrify those tramways, but they had made no real effort in that direction, and there was no immediate prospect of electrical traction being adopted; therefore, the Amendment, if carried, would lead to no delay. All sections of the community could be properly served without the inconvenience which this terminus would create, and if the decision of the matter was left to Members who either represented metropolitan constituencies or dwelt in London, he had no doubt the Amendment would be carried by an overwhelming majority.
  *MR. PEMBERTON ()reminded the House that the Committee upstairs were not unanimous in their decision. Personally, he was strongly in favour of a tramway connection between the North and South of London, but such connection should be by sub way or some other means and not make the existing traffic more dangerous. The points which induced him to vote against the proposal in Committee were the decidedly dangerous character of the crossing at Euston Road, and the fact that, in consequence of a cab-stand and a shelter, there would be a distance of only about ten feet between the cars and the kerb at the north end of Tottenham Court Road.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR ()said that a consideration which weighed with him on the Committee was that the line was to be made not by a private company for private profit, but by a public authority for the public convenience. The matter had been carefully considered by the County Council and their experts, and all agreed that the construction was highly desirable in the public interest The last borough election in St. Pancras was fought mainly on this question, with the result that the composition of the Borough Council was completely changed, so strong

  1313
  was the feeling in favour of the proposal in the locality. The only opposition came from the frontagers, who were usually against tramways, although it had not been proved that tramways necessarily harmed the frontagers. As to the danger at Euston Road, there would probably be less danger in crossing in a tramcar than on foot, and as 150 electric tramcars would do the work of 300 omnibuses the condition of the traffic in that neighbourhood would be greatly improved by the adoption of this scheme.
  MR. CREMER (), as a ratepayer of St. Pancras and one who had for thirty years lived within 200 yards of the present terminus, said that for twenty-five years the local authority of the district had had this matter under consideration, but in their desire to get the tramways extended they had always been defeated by the forces in
  Tottenham Court Road and by the two publicans at the corners of Hampstead Road, who preferred that passengers crossing London should be tempted to patronise their respective establishments by being dumped down at the present terminus. Every effort had been made by the people of St. Pancras to get this improvement carried out, and if ever there was a matter in regard to which attention should be paid to the views of the locality it was the case under consideration. It was monstrous that the time of the House of Commons should be taken up in discussing a matter which had long been sanctioned and urged by the localities concerned, and he earnestly hoped the Amendment, would be rejected.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 106; Noes, 135. (Division List No. 143).

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Harwood, George

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Price, Robert John

  Allen, Charles P.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Rea, Russell

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herb. Henry

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Rickett, J, Compton

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Boland, John

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Roc, Sir Thomas

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Brigg, John

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Runciman, Walter

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Joyce, Michael

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Caldwell, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Shackleton, David James

  Cameron, Robert

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John R.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lambert, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Spear, John Ward

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leng, Sir John

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Crooks, William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sullivan, Donal

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Lough, Thomas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Lundon, W.

  Tomkinson, James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Doughty, George

  M'Crae, George

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Ellice, Capt E. C. (S Andrw'sBghs

  Murnaghan, George

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Murphy, John

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Norman, Henry

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert Jn.

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS TOR THE AYES—Mr. John Burns and Dr. Macnamara.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Malley, William

  Hammond, John

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Mich. Hicks

  Bignold, Arthur

  Graham, Henry Robert

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Bigwood, James

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Brassey, Albert

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Bull, William James

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Percy, Earl

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Perks, Robert William

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hunt, Rowland

  Reddy, M.

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Renwick, George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Keswick, William

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cullinan, J.

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sheehy, David

  Delany, William

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Denny, Colonel

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

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes,

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Dobbie, Joseph

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Stroyan, John

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriesshire

  Tuff, Charles

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Milvain, Thomas

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

  Forster, Henry William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

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

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

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

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Remnant and Captain Jessel.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Bill to be read the third time.

SUPPLY [12TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY [12TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1904–5.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £35,771, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
    MR. BBYCE ()asked whether the Government had been following recent events in Crete, and whether they were satisfied that a policy was being pursued which made for peace among the various elements of the population. He also wished to put a question regarding the troubles which had during the last few weeks broken out again in Armenia and the interior of Asia Minor. In view of those fresh troubles and the grave massacres which had taken place, he thought we could hardly remain silent. He desired to know whether the Under-Secretary could give a little more information than he gave across the Table a few days ago, both with regard to action already taken and the action which the Government, in concert, he hoped, with the other Powers, was prepared to take. Some three or four weeks ago the Turkish troops destroyed a number of villages and slaughtered a large number of people,

    1317
    and when the Grand Vizier was asked for an explanation by Sir Nicholas O'Conor, he gave one of those answers which had been given so regularly that they might almost be lithographed—namely, that, owing to revolutionary movements, troops had been marched into the district and there had been some small conflict, but that now an amnesty would be granted to those who had come in and submitted. These attacks were made upon a comparatively defenceless population, and when the people armed themselves and resisted, then the Turkish forces marched in and slaughtered them. All this happened on a very large scale in 1894, when there was a frightful massacre, defended by the Turks on the ground that they were dealing only with one or two revolutionists. A European Commission was sent out there and the culprits were named, but no punishment followed and no displeasure was ever shown by the Government in regard to the persons who perpetrated these horrors. It was perhaps a plausible view to take that the object of these massacres was to exterminate those districts where the Christians were in a majority and that was the idea present in the minds of those who governed Turkey. On this occasion he was glad to learn that some remonstrances were made by Sir Nicholas O'Conor, and that the representatives of Great Britain and France and Russia appeared to be acting together. He was glad that the Russian representative especially was acting, because it was the resistance of Russia which foiled the efforts of Lord Salisbury in 1896. If the Powers were firm and acted together—and he thought it was not too much to expect that France, Italy, and Great Britain would act together—and if, instead of whispered remonstrances, firm language was used, these things would come to an end. He earnestly hoped that the British Government would take the lead, and that they would be able to tell the House that they did not intend to remain indifferent. He might put his appeal simply on the basis of the amount of human suffering which went on in a country which was subject to such constant suffering and such constant massacres; but he would like to put it also on the ground that this state of things was a constant source of danger, and that they could never tell when
    1318
    there might not be an attempt at revolution on a large scale, which would lead to a deluge of blood. He hoped the Under-Secretary would be able to give them some reassuring statement on the subject.
    *MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR ()said there was one point which he wished to bring to the notice of the House. The noble Lord had said that because a British subject had committed several murders in the Congo Free State this was a difficult moment to remonstrate with that Government He did not agree with the Under-Secretary on that point. He wished to emphasise the fact that it was in the Congo Basin alone that such atrocities were committed with impunity. Another point he wished to mention was that the Treaty of Berlin was so badly conceived that there was no machinery provided therein by which pressure could be brought to bear to secure the carrying out of the objects of the Treaty, which was simply disregarded. His main object in rising was to call attention to the commercial Papers dealing with the functions of the Ministries of Commerce in foreign countries. Although he had asked for these Reports in 1902, it took over a year to produce them. The Reports now in the hands of Members were not comprehensive enough. It would be a matter of interest to the House to know that nearly all other countries had Ministries of Commerce and ours was practically the only country without one. The Report placed in their hands was insufficient and did not go to the root of the inquiry which was asked for, and it did not give a full account of the commercial needs of this country. With regard to Somaliland, he understood that thousands of pounds had been spent upon the purchase of camels, and the transport animals were utterly useless for the purpose, while he understood that a large amount of transport of all kinds was still at Berber. He wished to know whether it was a fact that General Manning was so incompetent that even the officers serving under him were on the point of mutiny.
    *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Consular question cannot be discussed upon this Vote.
    *MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid he was only criticising the policy of the Government in trusting for the information which guided the Foreign Office to a gentleman who had not the confidence of his officers. He thought that at the present moment this country was singularly fortunate in having at the head of the Foreign Office statesmen like Lord Lansdowne and his noble friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The conciliatory tone of this debate showed that they enjoyed the confidence of both sides of the House, but he thought they would have better results if there was only a little more commercial aptitude introduced into the Foreign Office.
    *EARL PERCY: Upon questions relating to the Consular service I will reply on the Consular Vote. With regard to a question raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland concerning East Africa, the Government do not contemplate any alienation of territory there. It would be premature to lay Papers on the Table before the conditions of the lease, which is all that is contemplated, are determined upon. The hon. Member for King's Lynn complains that the procés verbal of the last meeting of the Sugar Commission is not to be found in the Library, but, as the Committee will Pee, their substance is contained in the covering despatch of Sir Henry Bergne, and the final decision in regard to the surtax has been deferred to a subsequent meeting. I must enter an emphatic protest against the strictures the hon. Member has made on the qualifications and capacity of Sir Henry Bergne. We could not have a better qualified representative, and, as a matter of fact, Sir Henry Bergne is not to blame because unfortunately in his despatch as printed it is stated that the Congress came to a decision that the Russian system did not give rise to a bounty, whereas, in fact, they came to an opposite decision. It is an unfortunate typographical error that crept into the text. The error is not in the written despatch, and if hon. Members will remember the mass of printed Papers that are prepared by the Foreign Office at very short notice, it is not surprising that a trifling error should occasionally occur. [An HON. MEMBER:
    1320
    It is not a trifling error.] It is trifling in the sense that anybody who reads the despatch will see from the context that it is a typographical error. The hon. Member is wrong when he says that foreign countries have been enabled by the Convention to penalise British colonies which export bounty-fed sugar-products. As a matter of fact they do not export, and even if they did the Convention has made no change in this respect. I have also been asked whether the Government intend to take any steps to prevent sugared products which have received a bounty from entering this country.
    MR. LOUGH (): You said you would take prompt steps.
    *EARL PERCY: If it should be found that any quantity of such products found their way to this country.
    MR. WHITLEY ()asked if other countries had not already put a surtax on our sugared products.
    *EARL PERCY: There never was anything to prevent other countries putting on such a tax. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has asked if I can say anything in regard to Crete. He seems to think that there is some chance of disturbances arising there. We have no information to that effect. The only question which has raised any serious difficulty has been that of the Cretan indemnities. The arrangement that has been come to in regard to these indemnities is that, on condition that the Cretans will put aside a sum of 1,000,000f. for the settlement of foreign claims, a sum of 5,000,000f. will be set aside for the satisfaction of the Cretan and Greek claims, and that that sum will be met out of a loan to be raised on the security of a guarantee by the Powers for a prolongation of the surtax which has already been sanctioned until the loan has been paid off. The right hon. Gentleman also asked me whether I could give him any information as to what was going on in Armenia. I do not think he asked me about Macedonia, but perhaps I may anticipate any question on that subject by observing that we

    1321
    have already discussed it three times during the present session, and I am afraid there is nothing to add to the information we have already given to the House. I do not deprecate the raising of the question, because I think it is extremely important that it should be made known that the House of Commons continues to take an interest in the settlement of this problem, but no one will seriously expect that we can announce any startling progress from week to week in regard to the scheme for the re-organisation of the Turkish gendarmerie. In order to carry out a scheme of that kind some time is required for our officers to acquaint themselves with the present conditions of service in the force, with the character of the personnel, and with the nature of the changes which will have to be made. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that our expectations in regard to this re-organisation, so far as our own area is concerned—and that is the only area in regard to which we have any detailed information—have been more than fulfilled. Colonel Fairholme has reported that he and his fellow officers have been received with the greatest cordiality by the Turks and have received all the assistance which they could possibly have expected from all classes of officials. Till now the Civil Assessors have been engaged in elaborating in detail the scheme of civil administrative reforms. I doubt whether the Turkish Government will insist upon putting obstacles in the way of the Civil Assessors if they desire to undertake tours of inspection on their own account, unaccompanied by Turkish officials. With regard to Armenia I can add nothing to what I said on the Motion for adjournment at Whitsuntide.
    MR. BRYCE: A great deal has happened since then.
    * EARL PERCY: The right hon. Gentleman refers, of course, to the reports which have appeared in the public Press. How far these are based on facts it is impossible for us to judge accurately at the present moment. As far back as February last our Consul at Erzeroum reported a serious condition of unrest in the neighbourhood of Mush and
    1322
    Sassun. We thereupon made representations to the Sultan to abstain from any measures which were likely to produce disturbance. Shortly after that it was suggested that it might be well to invite the assistance of the Armenian Patriarch in placing the Turks in communication with the insurgents. The Sultan accepted that suggestion and the Bishops of Mush and Bitlis were instructed to attempt to confer with the leaders. On two separate occasions they have made the attempt, and on both these occasions the Armenians have rejected their overtures. Apparently the Armenian Patriarch represented from the outset that he thought mediation of that character would be more likely to be successful if the Bishops were accompanied by a Turkish military official. This suggestion was refused and the Armenians at Sassun rejected the proposals made to them on the ground that they did not consider the guarantee for their safe conduct suffiicent. We also suggested that, failing mediation by the Bishops, the task might be committed to our own Consul, in conjunction with the French and Russian representatives. That course was agreed upon after some negotiation with the two Governments. The French Government instructed their representative to proceed to Mash where our representative already was. The Russian representative has been unfortunately detained for some weeks at Tiflis, and has not yet arrived. I am bound to say that if he had arrived I do not think the offer of mediation by the Consuls would have had much prospect of success at the present moment, because the insurgents are dispersed. There was an affray between the Armenian and the Turkish troops in the course of which, according to the Turks, about forty-two Turkish soldiers were killed, and some eleven villages were destroyed. There are at present in the town of Mush 1,000 Armenian refugees, for whom the Turkish Government have sent out relief. I will only say, in conclusion, in regard to the Armenian question, that I must dissent from the view which the right hon. Gentleman always takes on this question. I think that very often the action of the Turkish Government in these matters is very ill-advised, and that when affairs have

    1323
    proceeded to an extremity their conduct is open to far severer strictures. But there is no use in disguising the fact that in these troubles between the Turks and the Armenians there is ground for believing that the Armenians to a certain extent are to blame. No one can doubt—it has been avowed over and over again—that the aims of the revolutionary committees are to make incursions into Turkish territory, to create disturbances, to provoke the Turks to commit atrocities, and then to point to those atrocities as a reason for invoking the intervention of Europe.
    MR. BRYCE: Of course we do not know the facts yet about the recent troubles, but that was certainly not the case in 1894. There was no incursion from outside, and the massacre then was entirely wanton on the part of the Turks. That has never been disputed.
    *EARL PERCY: I will not dispute what the right hon. Gentleman says if he limits it to Sassun, but it is certainly not the case if he extends that observation to the whole series of atrocities which occurred in those Armenian vilayets which border on Russian territory. But apart altogether from any question of justice to the Turkish Government, knowing what the aims of the revolutionary committees are, I cannot imagine anything more disastrous than that any Member of Parliament, however much he may be actuated by humanitarian sentiments, should allow it to be supposed for a moment that the British Government and the House of Commons are going to allow themselves to be made in this way the catspaw of revolutionary intrigue. The right hon. Gentleman has complained of His Majesty's Government not using language of proper severity. It may be right to employ severe language when the action that is to follow it has been decided on; but I am all against the use of it when it can carry little conviction to those who know the small extent of our personal interests in these regions, and can only mislead the revolutionaries into the belief that the British Government will come to their support. The sufferers are not those who provoke the atrocities, but the unhappy people who are supposed to be in complicity with the movement.
    MR. JOHN CAMPBELL ()said the hon. Members who had addressed the House in regard to the administration of the Congo had used very strong expressions in denouncing certain acts which were alleged to have occurred there. He thought some of the statements which had been made were superfluous, and that there had been too much protesting altogether. The late Sir Henry Stanley had said that the sentiment which inspired the charges against the Congo was jealousy The Congo had succeeded better than any other State in Africa. The Committee had heard a great deal to-day about the cause of humanity, but he had during his own short political experience heard enough to make him doubt that kind of philanthropic preaching. It was said in regard to the Transvaal when the war commenced that the British did not seek the goldfields or any addition of territory. They now knew what had been the result of that affirmation. The religious motive had been brought on to the carpet in connection with the charges made against the Con o. He had no desire to drag in the odium theologicum, but he wished to point out that Belgium was a Catholic State, and that the charges against he Congo had been formulated in great part by Protestant missionaries of various kinds.
    And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

MILITARY MANŒUVRES (ORDER IN COUNCIL).
Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make the Order in Council under The Military Manœuvres Act, 1897, a draft of which was presented to this House on the 9th day of March last.—(Mr. Secretary Arnold Forster.)
To be presented by Privy Councillors and Members of His Majesty's Household.
Adjourned at four Minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) [H.L.]; Trams' ways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) [H.L,]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5); Loch Leven Water Power.
Also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied S with:—Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Various Powers); Brymbo Water; Surrey Commercial Dock.
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—Strabane, Raphoe, and Convoy Railway.
The same were ordered to lie on the 1 Table.
Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Tottenham Improvement Bill; Strabane, Raphoe, and Convoy Railway Bill. Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders, referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.] and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. Read, and agreed to: All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to
1182
be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.
Canal Rates and Charges (Regents Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Oakengates, Dawley, and District Joint Water Board Bill [H.L.] and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Canal Rates and Charges (Regents Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.] and the Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. Read, and agreed to: All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
Great Central and Midland Joint Railways Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Scarisbrick Estate (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]; Lord Tredegar's Supplemental Estate Bill [H.L.]; De Trafford Estate Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a.
Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Liverpool and Wigan Churches Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a. An Amendment made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Derwent Valley Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Belfast Corporation (Tramways) Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Kirkby-in-Ashfield Urban District Gas Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]. TO be read 2a To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. House in Committee (according to order). Bills reported

1183
without amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill. House in Committee (according to order). An Amendment made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of the Amendment to be received To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [H.L.]; Doncaster Corporation Bill; Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Barnet District Gas and Water Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the Home to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.):—

D. Northumberland (chairman),

D. Wellington,

L. Tenterden,

L. Emly,

L. Cranworth;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Thursday next at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

PETITION.
  SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY BILL [H.L.]
  Petition for amendment of; of Mayor, etc., of St. Pancras; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Report by George Andrew, Esq., one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Schools in Scotland, on the Gemeindeschulen of Berlin and Charlottenburgh.
  AFRICA, No. 7 (1904).
  Further correspondence respecting the administration of the Independent State of the Congo (in continuation of "Africa, No. 1 (1904)").
  BOARD OF TRADE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT HOARD.
  Report of the Committee appointed to consider the position and duties of the Board of Trade and of the Local Government Board.
  Forty-seventh Annual Report of the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery, 1903–1904.
  Report of the Committee on the Eastern Mail Service.
  METEOROLOGICAL GRANT COMMITTEE.
  Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the administration by the Meteorological Council of the existing Parliamentary Grant; together with minutes of evidence and appendices.

  NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING.
  Annual statement of navigation and shipping of the United Kingdom, for the year 1903.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minutes—
  Dated 25th May, 1904, declaring that George Hockett, artificer, Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, War Office, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department.
  Dated 2nd June, 1904, granting a retired allowance to Matthew Farrelly, examining officer, second class, Liverpool Customs, under Section 2 of the Superannuation Act, 1887.

  PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
  Treasury Minute, dated 3rd June, 1904, authorising the lease of a house and small yard attached at the landward end; of the West Pier, Kingstown.
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRE- LAND) PENSION FUND.
  Account of receipts and payments in respect of the capital and income of the above fund for the period to 31st December, 1903.

  HARWICH HARBOUR.
  Abstract of the accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board from the time of their incorporation down to and inclusive of the 31st March, 1904.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877.
  Statute made by the Governing Body of Trinity College, Oxford, on the 26th February, 1904, amending Statute VI. (Pension Fund) of the Statutes of the College. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 94.)
  SEAMEN'S AND SOLDIER'S FALSE CHARACTERS BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND RAILWAY RATES.
  *THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, I rise to call attention to correspondence which has recently taken place between the Board of Agriculture and the railway companies; and to ask His Majesty's Government for some further information as to the scope of the reference to the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire as to the existence of preferential railway rates; and to ask what further action the Board have taken to secure freedom of milk from taint of other articles during transit. In February last I drew the attention of the House to the conditions affecting the carriage of milk and other agricultural produce, and in answer to certain Questions I put to him, the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture said he was at that time in correspondence with the railway companies on this subject, and hoped shortly to place that
  1186
  correspondence on the Table of the House together with other information which he was then collecting. The Blue-book I hold in my hand contains the correspondence. It was published before Whitsuntide, and I now desire to draw attention to some of the points contained in it. The correspondence began on 28th September, 1903, with a circular letter from the Board of Agriculture to the railway companies. An answer was received from the railway companies in January, 1904, and a further letter followed from the Board of Agriculture in April last. The first letter written by the Board of Agriculture commenced as follows—
  "I am directed by the President of the Board of Agriculture to inform you that since his appointment to office he has been giving his attention to the general subject of the existing facilities and charges for the conveyance of agricultural requisites and agricultural produce. The necessity of improvement in these respects has been pressed upon Lord Onslow in many directions, and the question is undoubtedly regarded as being one of great importance to the prosperity of the rural districts at the present time."
  The letter went on to state that there had been an informal conference of the railway companies, and that—
  "The exchange of views which then took place made it abundantly clear that the companies represented were very ready to consider, in a fair and reasonable spirit, any representations which might be made to them by agriculturists, either directly or through the agency of the Board themselves. At the termination of the conference it was agreed that it would be desirable that the Board should bring under the notice of individual railway companies the various topics which had been discussed in general terms, and in pursuance of this understanding Lord Onslow now desires me to submit the following observations."
  The letter contained observations under eight heads. I wish, in the first place, to allude to No. 7, "Foreign and Colonial Produce." Under that head the letter proceeded—
  "An impression undoubtedly exists in agricultural circles that foreign and colonial agricultural produce is conveyed from the ports to the great centres of consumption at rates which compare favourably with those charged for the carriage of British produce from inland stations. The evidence which has from time to time been adduced in support of this belief is not of a satisfactory character, and Lord Onslow is of course well aware that if undue preference could be proved a remedy is provided by Statute."

  1187
  The communication went on to say—
  "Lord Onslow would therefore be glad to receive information which might be placed before agriculturists as to the rates and conditions specified for the carriage of the principal items of foreign and colonial agricultural produce from the ports of arrival to the great urban centres, with similar information as to sea freights where the companies are also the owners of lines of steamships. Some indication of the principles which guide the companies in the settlement of these rates and conditions might at the same time be given. By this means greater confidence in their propriety would, in Lord Onslow's opinion, be established, and difficulty and friction avoided."
  The reply of the railway companies to that portion of the Board of Agriculture's letter was as follows—
  "The railway rates from ports to inland stations are not applicable exclusively to foreign produce, the rates being, on the contrary, applied indiscriminately to home-grown, foreign, or colonial produce so long as the conditions; attaching to them are complied with. The request for information as to rates and conditions is of so general a character that it is felt that any information which the companies would be in a position to furnish would not be of any practical value."
  In answer to that the Board of Agriculture again wrote, on 16th April—
  "Lord Onslow had hoped that the publication of such information as the companies might have been in a position to supply in response to his inquiries under these heads might have had the effect of removing the existing feeling amongst agriculturists that they are not fairly treated as compared with consignors of agricultural produce from the ports of arrival and the larger urban centres."
  And then the Board went on to state that Lord Onslow therefore proposed to appoint a Departmental Committee, the reference to which is set out in the Blue-book as follows—
  "To inquire as to the rates charged by railway companies in Great Britain in respect of the carriage of foreign and colonial farm, dairy, and market-garden produce from the port of shipment or of arrival to the principal urban centres, and to report whether there is any evidence to show that preferential treatment is accorded to such produce as compared with home produce, and, if so, what further steps should be taken, either by legislation or otherwise, to secure the better enforcement of the law in the matter."
  I think, my Lords, the Board of Agriculture are fully justified in the appointment of this Committee. This is a very old grievance and one which is always rankling in the minds, not only of the agricultural community, but also of the trading community, audit is a very fitting
  1188
  thing that this Committee should inquire once more whether the charges are really well founded or not. That there is great feeling on the subject is certain, and in evidence of that I should like to call attention to the fact that on a Railway Bill being brought forward in the House of Commons this spring an Instruction to the following effect was moved—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they insert provisions in the Bill requiring the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, in respect of any through rates for the carriage of merchandise between foreign countries and places in the United Kingdom which the company make or charge, or to which they are party, to set out in their public rate-books at the ports of Goole and Hull, and any ports which may be hereafter established between those places, how much of each such rate is justly and reasonably appropriated by them, or is paid, payable, or agreed to be paid to or by them for (1) land carriage abroad; (2) dock, harbour, and shipping charges abroad; (3) conveyance by sea; (4) dock, harbour, and shipping charges at the British port; (5) and conveyance by railway, either by goods or passenger trains, including any terminal and cartage charges in the United Kingdom."
  The object of this Instruction was—
  "To enable traders to ascertain how 'through' railway rates from foreign places are made up. At present these 'through' rates often include in one charge the foreign railway rate, all dock, harbour, and shipping charges, carriage by sea, and the home railway rate; but, if divided under the five heads specified in the Instruction, it will be easier to determine whether any preference is given to foreign as against home produce."
  To show the interest that was taken in this proposal I may say that 79 voted for the Instruction and 103 against. The Government took no official part in the division, and those who voted against the Instruction probably thought it unfair to pick out a particular company in a general question of this kind. There is further evidence that this matter requires very careful attention. If we look back to the Report of the Royal Commission on Agricultural Depression published in 1897. and the result of, I think, two years continuous hard work by a very competent body of men, we find the following statement on railway rates, Chapter 8, paragraph 526—
  "It must not, however, be supposed that we view the existing position with satisfaction. We think that it is open to doubt whether legislation has given clear expression and effect to the intentions of Parliament, especially as regards preferential rates on foreign produce and rates which have been increased since 31st

  1189
  December, 1892, and that the present state of the law is confused, ineffective, and requires amendment."
  I contend that on that paragraph alone there is ample justification for the action of the Board of Agriculture in appointing this Committee to inquire into the whole question. I come now to the composition of the Committee. There are upon it my noble friend Lord Jersey, who is Chairman, Sir James Lyle Mackay, and Colonel W. Kenyon-Slaney. These three gentlemen may very well be supposed to represent the public interest in this matter, and they will be well supported by Colonel Sir Herbert Jekyll, an Assistant-Secretary of the Board of Trade, and by Mr. E. Cooper Stoneham, also of the Board of Trade, as secretary. As regards agriculture specially, there are Mr. Ernest G. Haygarth Brown, a superintending inspector of the Board of Agriculture, and Mr. George Lambert, who was on the Royal Commission to inquire into the depression of agriculture, and who is a well known authority on agricultural matters. We then come to the appointment of two gentlemen representing the railway companies—one a railway director, and the other the general manager of one of the great railway companies. I must say it seems to me rather extraordinary to ask these two gentlemen to sit on an inquiry which is going to be held into the conduct of the railway companies, and to consider whether they have infringed the law or not, and, if they have infringed it, what remedies should be provided by legislation. It places them in an invidious position; they cannot be expected to go against their own interests. I quite understand that it was necessary to obtain the co-operation of the railway companies, but I should have thought that could have been managed without actually putting two railway directors on the Committee itself. Perhaps the noble Earl, when he answers my Questions, will give his reasons for having included two railway directors on the Committee. I should next like to refer to the point raised in Lord Onslow's letter with regard to the aggregation of mixed consignments. I am bound to say that the railway companies have, in most cases, come to an agreement on this subject, and are giving considerable help to the agricultural community by their action
  1190
  in this matter. I have before me a leaflet published by the largest of the railway companies, headed "Reduced rates for the Conveyance of Agricultural, Farm, and Dairy Produce, etc." It is stated in the leaflet that—
  "The company are prepared to arrange special rates for regular consignments of agricultural, farm, and dairy produce sent in large quantities by goods or passenger trains."
  When we received this leaflet we wrote to ask whether milk would be included under dairy produce. The following was the letter we sent—
  "With reference to the leaflet issued by your company on the subject of reduced rates for farm produce by passenger train, the last paragraph states that special rates are arranged for regular consignments in large quantities. Will you please let me know if this arrangement is applicable to large consignments of milk? For example, from one station there may be fifty churns a day consigned by thirty different senders to thirty different consignees. If from another such station a consignment of fifty churns a day were sent by one consignor to one consignee, would you in the latter case be prepared to quote a specially reduced rate for the carriage of the milk? If so, what special reduction could you allow?"
  We have agents now in most of the large towns acting for the farmers; the milk could easily have been consigned to the agents, and thus we could have ensured large and regular consignments. The answer we received from the railway company was as follows—
  "In reply to your favour, I beg to inform you that the rates for the conveyance of milk by passenger train are already on a very low basis, and we cannot see our way to reduce them for such traffic when sent in large quantities."
  I do not complain in the least. I know that milk is carried at a low rate. At the same time I call attention to the fact because these leaflets refer to "Dairy Produce," and it would be well in future for the companies to state that milk is excluded.
  Then we come to what is, to my mind, the most important part of the Board's observations—namely, the paragraph referring to the loss and damage of produce conveyed at owner's risk, as it more especially affects the milk trade. The Board of Agriculture stated—
  "Representations have from time to time been received by the Board as to the hardship which arises in cases in which consignments of agricultural produce are lost or damaged inconsequence of the negligence or misconduct of the

  1191
  servants of a railway company, but in which no compensation is recoverable by the consignor owing to the fact that the goods were carried at less than the normal rate and at his own risk. It is, of course, to be remembered that the consignor in such a case has contracted himself out of any right to look to the company for redress, but at the same time it is easy to understand that a considerable sense of hardship is excited if this view of the matter is adhered to, whatever may be the fault of the servants of the company. The Board understand that the companies have decided that they will consider claims in respect of total loss in transit, and that they will not refuse to make reasonable compensation in such cases, contributory negligence on the part of the senders or consignees being, of course, taken into consideration. It is also understood that the companies will consider favourably cases where partial loss or damage arises from circumstances which indicate extreme negligence on the part of their servants."
  The letter proceeded—
  "There can be no doubt that concessions of this character, administered in a reasonable spirit, would remove a painful cause of controversy and friction."
  The noble Earl in this letter expresses the hope that the matter might receive careful consideration. The railway companies, in answer to the Board of Agriculture, stated that—
  "Whilst the railway companies must maintain their legal position in respect to traffic conveyed at the owner's risk, it is their practice, in a friendly way, to consider, on their merits, any cases of total loss, proved pilferage, or misdelivery."
  The Board of Agriculture appear to think, from this answer, that the companies are going on a new line altogether and that they will make up in the future for what they have not taken into consideration in the past. The Board in their second letter stated—
  "Lord Onslow believes that the decision of the companies that they will consider on their merits, in a friendly way, any cases of total loss, proved pilferage, or misdelivery, will do much to remove the sense of hardship which from time to time arises under this head, and he desires me to express his appreciation of the policy adopted in the matter."
  I would merely point out that, to my certain knowledge, they have adopted this attitude for the past five or six years. We have had repeated occasion to press them for compensation under these particular heads throughout that period. We have had volumes of correspondence, but in most cases there has been very little result and very little compensation.
  1192
  This is, then, no new departure. It will be noticed that the railway companies only say they will "consider" cases on their merits. Therefore we have not got very far except that they have put this in writing, which no doubt is a distinct advance. We hope later on to induce them to accept in certain cases the whole loss.
  I wish to call attention now to the conditions of carriage of milk, which appear on page 88 of this Blue-book. There are eleven conditions, and they are all entirely favourable to the railway companies. Short of inducing the railway companies to accept the whole risk, we must try and get some modification of these very onerous conditions. They are most unsportsmanlike in their one-sidedness. Everything is in favour of the railway companies, and there is not one single point in favour of the poor farmer. He has to prepay his milk, and it will be remembered that on a former occasion I called attention to one case where the milk had been eleven days on the road, and where the railway company refused to pay any compensation. I also quoted another case where the milk was lost altogether, the railway company again refusing any compensation. I would ask the Board of Agriculture to consider whether they cannot help the farmer by inducing the railway companies to make some modification in these onerous conditions of carriage, so that the risk note may not put on the farmer such a heavy responsibility. No. 6 of the conditions of carriage states that—
  "The senders and consignees must assist in the loading and unloading of the cans when the milk is carried at the reduced rate."
  Of course, a great deal of the milk comes to London and other places in the middle of the night, and the railway companies in those cases take the milk out of the vans and put it on the platforms themselves. In all cases the railway companies, for their own purposes, check the milk on its arrival, but several of the large railway companies do not make the consignees sign for the milk before they take it away. That is a great hardship on the farmer. Signatures are obtained by a good many of the large companies, but not by all. We want to induce all railway companies to obtain signatures from the consignees before allowing the milk to be removed

  1193
  from the platform. As things are at present, if a dishonest consignee chooses to say that he did not receive the milk, there is nothing to prove that he did. I very much hope that in this particular case the Board of Agriculture will do all they possibly can to induce those railway companies which do not now adopt the practice to obtain signatures from the consignees before allowing them to remove the milk. Condition No. 10 is really the risk note which the farmer has to sign. It states that—
  "Two rates are in operation for the carriage of milk—one the ordinary rate, when the company accept the ordinary liability of a railway company with respect to the carriage of perishable merchandise by passenger train."
  Except for very short distances that rate is, of course, prohibitive and is hardly ever employed. The paragraph proceeds—
  "The other, a reduced rate adopted when the sender agrees to relieve the company and all other companies or persons over whose line the traffic may pass, or in whose possession the same may be during any portion of the transit, from all liability for loss, damage, mis-delivery, delay, or detention, either with respect to the milk or the milk-cans when full or empty, except upon proof that such loss, damage, mis-delivery, delay, or detention arose from wilful misconduct on the part of the company's servants."
  Again I ask the Board of Agriculture if they cannot assist us in obtaining some modification of these very onerous conditions. I maintain that when there is total loss the company should pay that loss, and when they mis-deliver the milk, or it has been many days on the journey, the least they can do is to pay compensation for its loss. If modifications in this clause could be agreed to by the railway companies, it would do a great deal to remove the undoubted friction which now exists. I hope the Board will consider whether they cannot help us in this respect. I would suggest that the modification should be such as to let the farmer take responsibility for what may be reasonably assumed to be accidental, and make the company responsible for what is due to carelessness.
  There is one more point I wish to bring to the notice of your Lordships, namely, the insanitary state of many of the milk vans. The noble Earl the President of the Board of
  1194
  Agriculture called attention to this question in his letter to the railway companies in April last, in which he said—
  "Lord Onslow desires me to take the opportunity of saying that he has recently received very numerous complaints as to the unsuitable and even insanitary conditions under which milk is from time to time conveyed."
  This Blue-book was published before any answer was received from the railway companies, and I hope that when my noble friend replies to me he will be able to tell the House that the railway companies have accepted this proposal in a reasonable spirit. I called attention in February last to the fact that fish, offal, and live boars were very often sent in milk vans. The noble Earl said live bores pervaded all classes of society, and that it was difficult to get rid of them; but I hope that at any rate they will be excluded in future from milk vans. I do not know what the answer of the railway companies was, but I would point out that this grievance is still going on. I have in my hand two letters from farmers, one written on the 31st of May, and the other on the 1st of this month. In the first letter the writer states that almost every morning there is fish in the milk van, and that the water from them runs out in the van. He adds that the stench is sometimes very bad indeed, and that with the warm weather coming he is afraid there will be complaints about the milk not keeping. The other farmer writes—
  "I understand you have had, or are having, a complaint from Mr. — about fish being in the same van as milk. I can endorse this. The stench is something awful. The liquid runs out of the van on to the footboard many a time, and when you open the door it makes you stand back."
  It will be seen from the date of these letters that the grievance is still going on. I hope the President of the Board of Agriculture will be able to tell us that the railway companies are taking this matter seriously in hand, and will introduce remedies. It is not a matter that affects agriculturists alone; it affects the public very largely, because, if the milk arrives at the big centres contaminated or tainted, there is risk of injury to the health of the general population. I hope that if the Board of Agriculture are not able to deal with this alone, they will induce the Local Government Board

  1195
  to assist them in getting the railway companies to convey milk in suitable vans. In conclusion, I desire to congratulate the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture on having initiated this friendly correspondence with the railway companies, for I am sure that in the end the result will be of benefit to the agricultural community.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, before the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture answers the Questions of my noble friend, perhaps I may be permitted to make a very few remarks on this subject. Whilst I agree wth many of the observations of the noble Earl who raised this question there was, however, one remark with regard to the composition of the Committee with which I am not so thoroughly in accord. I refer to the introduction of railway directors. For my own part, I think that if, in the words of the noble Lord, we are to obtain the cooperation of the railway companies in this matter, which it is highly desirable we should do, it is only fair that the companies should have some representative on the Committee. You might just as well appoint a Committee to consider the question of temperance and not put any brewers on it as appoint this Committee without including representatives of the railway companies. I should like to be allowed to join with the noble Earl in congratulating the President of the Board of Agriculture on the course which he has pursued. I think, if he will permit me to say so, he has taken a highly judicious course in writing in a friendly spirit to the railway companies on this matter. He has raised a subject of considerable importance to agriculturists at large, and I have great hopes that the outcome of his efforts may be of benefit both to agriculture and to the public generally.
  The noble Earl behind me has fully pointed out to your Lordships the course which the President of the Board of Agriculture has adopted. He wrote a general letter to the railway companies, and received a reply which I consider to be of special value. I think it is the first time we have had an authoritative answer from the railway companies with regard to the interesting points which the noble
  1196
  Earl opposite raised in his circular letter. We then have the second letter of my noble friend somewhat criticising the reply of the railway companies, and the whole finally culminates in the appointment of a Committee with regard to one particular subject, and it is rather in that direction that I would venture to make one or two observations. I do not think it would have been right for the noble Earl to have acted otherwise than he has done in limiting the Committee to the specific object he had in view. The question of preferential railway rates is of a highly complex and difficult nature, and it would have been unwise on the part of my noble friend to have overburdened the Committee by adding other subjects.
  I fully concur in what the noble Earl behind me said with regard to the conveyance of milk. The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture has himself very strongly drawn the attention of the railway companies to the evils that might result from the contact of milk with insanitary matter during transit. That is a question of the highest importance to farmers, because dairy farming is, as we all know, an increasing industry in this country, and therefore it is desirable that the trade should not be injured by conditions over which the farmers have no control. This question of the proper transit of milk has a far wider bearing. It has an effect on the public health generally. I think my noble friend might be able to do something with the help of his own inspectors, who might press upon the railway companies the desirability of observing sanitary conditions in the conveyance of milk. If that particular subject does not come quite within the purview of my noble friend's Department, he, as a member of His Majesty's Government, can press it on the attention of the Local Government Board. Before I leave the question of the milk supply, I would ask my noble friend whether he is satisfied with the replies of the railway companies, and, if not, what course he proposes to pursue with a view of securing that the measures he himself has so strongly pressed upon the railway companies shall be carried out.
  On the subject of the conveyance of small parcels of farm and dairy produce,

  1197
  the reply of the railway companies was to this effect—
  "There are already specially low rates in operation on all railways for farm and dairy produce in small quantities, as well as still lower exceptional rates for larger quantities, and the Companies are of opinion that these rates, generally speaking, sufficiently meet the case."
  I do not like the words "generally speaking," and I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he is quite satisfied with that reply. I notice that he himself, in a further letter, states that the practice of the various lines is by no means uniform, and I think it would be desirable if he could obtain from the railway companies a guarantee that as far as possible the practice should be uniform. On the subject of rates and charges from rural stations, the Board of Agriculture, in their letter to the railway companies, stated—
  "Lord Onslow is aware that such anomalies cannot be altogether avoided, especially in the face of competition with carriage by water, but he is of opinion that something might be done in the direction of the equalisation of the rates for the carriage of goods from the rural districts with those enjoyed by traders in urban districts."
  I consider that to be a very important question. What is the reply of the rail-may companies? It is brief, but I do not think it is entirely satisfactory. They say—
  "The companies are unable to admit that this complaint has any general application."
  I would not go so far as to say that the railway companies had ventured to snub so important a person as my noble friend, but I do think the answer is of a somewhat; terse and perfunctory character. I again ask whether my noble friend is satisfied with that reply, and, if he is not satisfied, what action he has taken or intends to take to get his wishes carried out. I hope the noble Earl will be able to state that, if necessary, he will use all his powers, not only the powers of his own Department but his powers as a member of His Majesty's Government, to secure the carrying out of the reforms he has set forth; and, if he is successful, he will have conferred a great benefit on agriculturists and the public at large.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I have no complaint to make of the tone of the re-
  1198
  marks either of the noble Earl who introduced the subject or of the noble Lord opposite who at one time occupied the office I now have the honour to hold. I am glad to find that there is a general opinion in your Lordships' House that the question of railway rates, and especially as to whether a preference is or is not given by the railway companies to goods of foreign origin, is of great importance to the community and ought to be determined without delay. As your Lordships will have gathered from the remarks of the two noble Lords who have spoken, a Committee has been appointed to consider the subject. I am extremely glad that the noble Earl on the back benches, Lord Jersey, whose acquaintance with these subjects is well known, and who is a prominent agriculturist, has consented to be the Chairman, and I have also secured as members of the Committee several gentlemen who are deeply interested in agricultural subjects. I am told that the blot on the Committee is that there is upon it a railway director and a general manager of a railway. I would say, in passing, that Mr. Baldwin, besides being a director of the Great Western Railway Company, is largely interested in agricultural matters—he is a member of the Central Chamber of Agriculture in London—and Sir Charles Owens, the general manager of the London and South Western Railway, is perhaps better acquainted with this intricate and difficult subject than any other man connected with the railway interest.
  I am asked why I placed railway men on the Committee at all. Unless a Royal Commission had been appointed, with powers to send for persons and papers and to examine witnesses on oath, it would be almost impossible to get from the railway companies the necessary information about rates unless they were willing to give it. There is one stage in these proceedings which is not contained in the Blue-book. I had an interview with the chairmen of all the railway companies who carry produce from the Continent to England and the Channel Islands, and I obtained from them a most unqualified assurance that every possible assistance in finding out what the rates are should be given to the Committee. Under those circumstances I think it would not only have been unwise, but most unfair to the

  1199
  railway companies, if they had not been represented on the Committee. As to legislation the reference to the Committee speaks of "legislation or otherwise," and what I had in my mind was not so much whether it would be desirable for Parliament to carry out the views of the Committee by legisation as whether it might not be possible to bring the questions at issue between agriculturists, traders, and railway companies before some tribunal at much less expense and with less parapher nalia than are involved in taking a case going before the Railway Commissioners. With regard to the milk traffic, to which both noble Lords attached considerable importance, I think it is very desirable that cases of compensation for total loss, for pilfering, and for misdelivery should be considered, and for the first time, I think, the railway companies have agreed to consider these questions.
  An important point which has not been touched on is the holding of local conferences where there are disputes between the agriculturist and the railway companies. The first of such conferences took place at Northallerton yesterday, and I am informed that, broadly, the result has been that both parties will in future meet each other half-way. I may say that I am not satisfied with the reply which I received from the railway companies on the question of uniformity of charges for small parcels, and I am pursuing the subject further. There is a great deal of difference between the companies measured by the extent to which they are interested in this question. There are some which depend almost entirely on agricultural produce and others to whom the agricultural traffic is a mere bagatelle, and it is difficult to get the latter companies to adopt a basis of charge as low as that which obtains on the lines which depend more largely on this traffic. But my efforts are directed, if I may use the phrase, to getting the companies to work on a most-favoured-company basis, so that we may get as low charges on all the lines as are now made by the companies which treat the agricultural interest most kindly.
  I believe the railway companies are anxious that milk shall in very case be carried without contamination. The companies give general orders to their servants,
  1200
  but we know only too well in the case of our own establishments that general orders are not always carried out. The companies have begged me, whenever a. case of milk being carried under insanitary conditions is brought to the notice of the Board of Agriculture, to acquaint the general manager of the company concerned, who will at once take steps to have the matter inquired into. There are three kinds of vans, and the only case in which contamination can occur is when the milk is carried in the guard's van, where pigs or dogs may also be carried. I think that care should be taken to avoid this. It would be desirable if milk were sent in more convenient churns that could be locked, so as to prevent pilfering. Farmers are occasionally prosecuted for mixing water with their milk and fined, and it has been afterwards found that the adulteration has been practised by the porters of the railway company. It would be better, too, if the tops of the milk churns were convex instead of concave, so that articles could not be put on them. I heard of a case the other day where a porter placed a bag of periwinkles on the top of a milk churn, and the salt drippings from the bag presumably trickled into the milk. I am glad to think that both the noble Earl and my noble friend, who was formerly President of the Board of Agriculture, welcome the appointment of a. Committee of Inquiry into this matter. I know it has exercised for some time past the minds of the agricultural community who believe they have been unfairly treated by the railway companies. I am perfectly satisfied from the composition of the Committee and the friendly spirit which the railway companies have shown towards the inquiry, that the Committee will be able to arrive at the truth, and that if there are grievances, it will not be beyond the powers of the Committee to suggest what steps should, be taken to remedy them.

MILITARY MANŒUVRES ACT, 1897.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty to make the Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897,

1201
a draft of which was presented to this House on the 8th March last.—(The Viscount Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore)).
Agreed to.
Ordered, That the said Address be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at half-past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Tea o'clock.