Sitting of 9 March 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Great Northern and City Railway (Extension of Time) Bill. As amended, to be considered To-morrow.
London Port and Docks Bill. To be read a second time upon Tuesday, 19th April.
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under The Metropolitan Police Act, 1886, and The Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1897, relating to lands in the parishes of Islington, Tottenham, Putney, and Woolwich, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cochrane and Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under The Metropolitan Police Act, 1886, and The Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1897, relating to lands in the parishes of Islington, Tottenham, Putney, and Woolwich," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 117.]

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP D).
Mr. CREMERreported from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven o'clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Chippenham Gas Bill; Littlestone-on Sea and District Water Bill; South Shields Gas Bill; South-Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway (Extension of Time) Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP No. 2).
Mr. ASHTON Mr. ASHTON reported from the Committee on Group No. 2 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Monday next, at Two o'clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES, ETC., BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.

  LAND VALUES TAXATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from, Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of law; from Stafford (five); Rockferry; Knutsford; Liverpool; Holborn; Surbiton Park; Falfield; Beaminster; Leicester (three); Bradford; Dorset; Lemington on Tyne; Brynamman; Burry Port; Whiteinch; Clangenneth; Radcliffe; Aberllefienni; Ilfracombe; Abergavenny (two); Fordwych; Pontnewynydd; Littlemoor; Cleveley; Duffield; and Marple Bridge; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Moseley Gravesend; Anderston; Peckham (two); Peterborough; Motherwell; Custom House; Canning Town; Roth well; Tottenham; Maidstone; South Tottenham; Bridgeton; Poplar; Edinburgh; Ilkeston; Alfreton; Bristol (two); and Kentish Town; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS ETC.
  POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS).
  Copy presented, of the Postal Order (New Zealand) Regulations, 1904, dated 25th February, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Draft Order in Council relative to Military Manœuvres, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOAN FUND BOARD (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Sixty-sixth Annual Report, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Cows in the County of London
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state how many cows were kept within the area of the county of London during the last five years, giving the number for each year separately.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The number of cows kept within the area of the county of London during the last five years respectively were—1899, 5,467; 1900, 5,040; 1901, 4,972; 1902, 4,669; 1903, 4,689.

  Convictions for Illegal Trawling in Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state on how many days each Fishery Board cruiser has been at sea during the year ending 31st December, 1903, and the number of convictions for illegal trawling secured by each vessel.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The Return for 1903 as required by the hon. Member is—

  Name.

  Number of days at sea.

  Convictions secured.

  "Vigilant"

  275

  2

  "Minna"

  242

  10

  "Brenda"

  224

  6

  "Norna"

  186

  0

  Foreign Trawlers in the Moray Firth.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state how many foreign trawlers have been observed fishing in the Moray Firth during the year ending 31st December, 1903, and their respective nationalities.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) During the year 1903, foreign trawlers have been observed fishing in the Moray Firth upon 195 occasions, on 170 of these occasions the boat was of Scandinavian and the remainder, I believe, were all of I Belgian, nationality. The hon. Member will remember the numbers given are of I occasions on which boats have been observed, and are no index to the actual number of different boats engaged in fishing the Moray Firth.

  Trade with Japan—Japanese Guarantees against Loss.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government I of Japan guarantees against loss vessels proceeding with cargoes to Japan; and, if so, can he state whether such guarantees are restricted to vessels chartered by the Japanese Government or are given generally, and also whether such guarantees are confined to vessels carrying particular cargoes; and, if so, what cargoes.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of the terms of any contracts which the Japanese Government or their agents may have concluded with firms in this country, and are consequently not in a position to answer the right hon. Member's Question.

  Export of Coal—Publication of Return.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydfil): To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can say when the Return relating to exports of coal from various ports in this country to various countries abroad will be in the hands of Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour). The Return will probably be issued next week.

  Uganda Currency.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the fact that shells are now illegal currency in the Uganda Protectorate, he will substitute a coin of as nearly as is possible the same value, and holed.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The introduction into the Uganda Protectorate of new copper coins representing decimal parts of the rupee is dealt with in the Draft Order in Council providing for a new currency, which is now before the Commissioner. The possibility of holing the coinage has not been lost sight of.

  Improvement of Phœnix Park.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury when and under whose supervision it is proposed to expend the extra sum of £3,155 on replanting and improving the Phœnix Park; is he aware that any timber trees planted in the Park in recent years have been of the cheapest and commonest kind; and that there are a variety of expensive trees and shrubs planted in the London Royal Parks to which the Phœnix Park is equally suited, but which are not to be found there; and will the work of replanting be entrusted to some landscape gardener or nurseryman of recognised authority.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The money will be expended after the 31st inst under the supervision of the I Board of Public Works, who have had the best professional assistance as well as the co-operation of amateur experts, one of whom has presented the Board with about 800 specimen trees not to be obtained in the open market. The answer to the second Question is in the negative. No expense is spared in selecting the best trees and shrubs suitable for the soil and climate of the park. The replanting will be entrusted to the park bailiff.

  Pensions of Clerks of Senior Assistant (Abstractor) Class
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many clerks of the senior assistant (abstractor) class have been
  558
  called upon to retire, after twenty-five or more years continuous service, upon pensions of 15s. a week or less; and, having regard to the condition such pensions must entail, he will consider whether some steps can be taken to augment the allowances to these clerks.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I am not in a position to state the number of persons who have retired under the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member, as a list of such cases is not kept at the Treasury. Clerks of the abstractor class are pensioned under the same conditions as other members of the permanent Civil Service; and I see no reason for treating them differently.

  Indian Currency—Gold.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary of State for India if a statement can be presented showing particulars relating to recent working of the modern system of Indian currency; the net export of gold from India during the latter half of last year and the month of January in the present year, stating what amount or proportion of the total has been received here on State account; what amounts of gold were held by the Indian Government at the end of January in the Currency Reserve, the Government Treasuries, and the Gold Reserve Fund, including the amount of the latter invested in Consols; what is the total number of sovereigns disbursed in the above period in payment of the Indian Government's public works material, salaries, and other current charges; and the number of sovereigns, in lieu of Rs. 15, that have been received by the Indian Government for land revenue, Customs, or other fiscal liabilities.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Exports and Imports of Gold—Exports from 1st July to 31st December, 1903, £4,571,700, of which £3,267,700 was consigned to the Secretary of State. Imports, £6,640,300. Net Imports, £2,068,600. Complete figures for January have not yet been received from India. Gold in possession of Government of India, 31st January, 1904; in Currency Reserve, £9,207,000; in Treasuries. £145,000; in Gold Reserve Fund, £500,000; British Securities held on behalf

  559
  of the Gold Reserve Fund, 31st January, 1904—£4,762,150 (amount of stock held). Receipts and disbursements of sovereigns—The Government of India have informed me that for the reason given in the reply to the hon. Member's Question of Kith July, 1903, † it is not possible to furnish the information asked for concerning the disbursements of sovereigns in payment for public works, etc., and the receipts for land revenue, etc.

  Indian Currency—Silver.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state what were the total imports of silver into India during the latter half of last year and the month of January in the present year, specifying the amount on Government account, and sums of silver coined or recoined and issued in the period; what net values of currency notes have been issued, on monthly average, in that period, and what is the gross total estimated now co be in circulation; the amount of the cash balances of the Indian treasuries in India and England, respectively, at the end of January; the estimated profit made by the Indian Government on coinage of silver in the period; and how that sum is allocated or placed to account.
  (Answered, by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Imports of Silver—1st July to 31st December, 1903, £4,682,900 (viz., on Private Account, £2,707,500, on Government Account, £1,975,400). Complete figures for January, 1904, have not yet been received from India. Coinage—Silver coined 1st July to 31st December, 1903, £3,313,700 (including recoinage of old and uncurrent coin). Figures for January, 1904, have not yet been received from India. Currency notes—Gross circulation on 15th February, 1904, £23,608,672. In the seven months period mentioned in the Question there was a reduction of £731,603 in the gross circulation (a monthly average of £104,523). Cash balances on 31st January, 1904—India £9,201,300; England, £5,518,600. Estimated profit on coinage of silver—From 1st July to 31st January, £1,323,000 (this sum has been invested on behalf of the Gold Reserve Fund).
  † See (4) Debates, exxv., 845.

  Post Commission Study for Officers of Indian Medical Service.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state what arrangements, if any, have been made for post commission study by seconded officers of the Indian Medical Service; and in what respects the arrangements in force or proposed are similar to or differ from those of the Royal Army Medical Corps and the medical officers of the Royal Navy.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) An officer of the Indian Medical Service may be granted one month's study leave for each year's service up to twelve months in all. During such leave the ordinary furlough pay will be given, with lodging allowances of 4s. 6d. and 8s. a day for lieutenants, captains, and field officers respectively. In the Royal Army Medical Corps the arrangements for post commission study are somewhat different. All junior officers are posted to the Royal Army Medical College for six months. While there they draw their ordinary pay. The examination at the end of the course is combined with examination for promotion to the rank of major. Medical officers of the Royal Navy are required to undergo a post-graduate course of three months once in every eight years. They receive full pay, lodging allowance at the rate of £50 or £70 a year according to rank, and provision allowance at the rate of £24 a year. In addition to the extra furlough for study granted to Indian Medical Service officers they may be seconded before proceeding to India for the purpose of holding appointments in recognised civil hospitals. During such periods they receive no pay from India revenues.

  Government of India and Coopers Hill Engineering College.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in accordance with the assurance of the Secretary of State on 16th July, 1903, the Government of India have been consulted with regard to continuing or discontinuing the Royal Indian Engineering College at Coopers Hill; and whether any decision has been arrived at.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Government of India were

  561
  consulted as promised by my predecessor, and I hope shortly to announce the decision arrived at by the Secretary of State in Council on this question.

  Irish Purchase Act, 1891—Extended Repayments.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that a tenant has the power, under the Purchase Act of 1891, of extending the period of repayment of annuities from the shorter to the longer number of years and thereby get the benefit of decadal reductions, he can state what the amount of the annuity payable by a tenant would be, and for how many years, who purchased a £20 rental at eighteen years purchase without decadal reductions under the Purchase Act of 1891; and whether he can state, in the case of the same tenant who purchased a £20 rental at eighteen years under the 1891 Act with decadal reductions, what number of years his annuity would have to run, and what would be the amount of his annuity for each of the periods over which he is entitled to get the benefits of the decadal reductions, and what would be the amount of his total payments and his average annual payments under the extended period of repayment, with decadal reductions.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The following table gives the information desired. Acts 1891–1896. Rent £20, eighteen years purchase, purchase money £360. Annuity £14 8s. which would repay advance in forty-two and a half years without decadal reductions. Total amount paid in forty-two and a half years £612.† With decadal reductions—Annuity payable for first ten years, £14: 8s.; second ten years £12 6s. l0d.; third ten years £10 11s. 6d.; final period forty-two and a half years £9 1s. 6d. Total payments—first ten years £141; second ten years £123 8s. 4d.; third ten years £105 15s.; Final period forty-two and a half years £385 13s. 9d.; Total paid in seventy-two and a half years £758 17s. 1d.† Average annual payment for term of seventy-two and a half years £10 9s. 6d.
  †Includes sinking fund and interest.

  Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will arrange that the appointment to be created on the permanent establishment of the veterinary branch, clerical staff, of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction will be filled by the promotion of one of the gentlemen who have from nine to thirteen years service, and whose salaries are still less than £100 a year.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The claims and qualifications of all persons who are considered eligible for promotion to the position referred to will be duly considered.

  Vacancies on First of First Teachers Pension Establishment
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many vacancies have occurred on the First of First Teachers' Pension establishment; and the number who have been promoted to it since the new pension rules came into force in 1897.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The number of vacancies in the pension establishment of the First of First Class which occurred since 1st January, 1898, when the new pension rules came into force, is ninety-four, and the number of promotions is the same.

  Maryborough Prison Warders
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is part of the duties of the prison warders attached to Maryborough Convict Prison to drive the prison horses and carts and deliver vegetables and farm produce in the town and district; whether he is aware that on last pig fair day in Maryborough two warders were sent out in full uniform driving a number of pigs before them; and whether, in view of the effect of the imposition of such duties upon the standard of men who join the Irish prison service, he will take

  563
  steps to insure that such duties shall not in future be imposed on prison warders.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It is the duty of the warder who is detailed to take charge of the prison transport car to deliver farm produce grown in the prison grounds, and to convey goods to and from the railway station. Two warders in uniform assisted the storekeeper on a recent occasion in the manner stated in the second part of the Question, but this was done without the authority of the prison governor, and will not occur again.

  Village Tenants and Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will introduce a clause in his proposed amending Land Bill, giving the tenants of an estate not principally agricultural or pastoral, but consisting of ground rents in a village with plots of land, who agree with their landlord as to the purchase price, the right to purchase under the Irish Land Act, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The reply to this Question is in the negative.

  Training of Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will arrange that every classed teacher engaged in any national school in Ireland who desires to get trained shall, without any entrance examination and by application to the National Education Commissioners, get an order for admission to some approved training college in rotation according to the date of application, in order to save the strain involved in preparation for such an examination.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The question will be considered by the Commissioners at their meeting on Tuesday next.

  Presbyterian Army Chaplains employed during the South African War
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he
  564
  will state how many Presbyterian chaplains, commissioned or acting, were employed during the South African War, and how many belonged to the Established Church, and how many to the United Free Church respectively, and what was the amount of money paid to the ministers of the two denominations for their services in the war.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Six commissioned chaplains of the Presbyterian denomination were employed during the South African war, two belonging to the United Free Church, one to the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, and three to the Established Church. In addition to these there were thirty -two civilian Presbyterian clergymen at one time or another on Army duty. From the information at the disposal of the War Office, it is not possible to distinguish the particular branch of the Presbyterian Church to which they belonged, and accordingly the amount of money paid to each cannot be determined.

  The Army Council.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the principles which are to regulate the proceedings of the Army Council are to be formulated by Order in Council; and, if so, when.
  (Answered, by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster). A portion of the recommendations of the War Office Reconstitution Committee will require to be formulated in an Order in Council. The matter is under consideration; and steps will be taken to frame the Order in Council as soon as possible.

  Army—Chief of General Staff.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a Chief of the General Staff of the Army has been appointed as stated on page 22 of Part II. of the War Office Reconstitution Committee; and, if so, who holds this appointment, and upon what Vote his salary will be borne.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Lieutenant-General Sir N. Lyttelton has been appointed Chief of the General Staff, and his salary is provided in Vote

  565
  13 as a military member of the Army Council.

  Wages of Natives in Rand Mines.
  MR. SOARES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the rate of wages paid to natives in the Rand mines immediately before the war, immediately after the war, and at the present time.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The hon. Member will find the information he requires at page 202 of [Cd. 1895], and in Exhibit I. following after page 671 of [Cd. 1897].

  Immigration of Undesirable Aliens into the Transvaal.
  MR. RANDLES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any law in force in the Transvaal to prevent the importation of persons of any class or colour; and, if not, would he consider with Lord Milner the desirability of legislation for the Transvaal on lines similar to those proposed in the Government measure for preventing undesirable alien immigration into the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) There is no law in force for preventing the importation of persons of any class or colour into the Transvaal, but the Peace Preservation Ordinance affords opportunity of controlling it. Lord Milner proposes later on to pass an Immigration Restriction Ordinance on the lines of the Cape and Natal Acts.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Royal Arsenal, Woolwich.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that pensions are now granted to retired officers, foremen, and assistant foremen of the clerical staff of the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, but withheld from men working in the same establishment on low wages who have served as soldiers or sailors, he will consider the advisability of dealing with the latter in the same manner as other discharged soldiers are dealt with who serve
  566
  in prisons, parks, post offices, barrack departments, and other Government establishments.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member's Question is not understood. Would he be kind enough to specify more particularly the cases which he has in view.

  Army Printing Vote.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that the estimated expenditure for stationery and printing for the Army is given under Class 2, Vote 23, as £140,000 for 1904–5, the same sum as the previous year, will he consider the expediency of ordering some inquiry with a view to ascertain whether it is practicable to effect a saving under this head.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The sum of £140,000 does not represent the total Estimate for 1903–4, which, with Supplementary Estimates, after deducting Appropriations in Aid, came to about £157,000. There is no reason to suppose that the sums provided for 1904–5 will be insufficient. Every effort is, and will be made to cut down expenditure under this head, and there would appear to be no need for a special inquiry.

  Army—Ammunition Vote.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why an increase of £40,000 in the cost of small-arm and machine-gun ammunition is anticipated for the year 1904–5, as shown under Vote 9, Sub-head C, of the Army Estimates.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The difference is due to increase of repayment services which will be found under Subhead M of this vote.

  Donegal Militia—Gunner Murphy's Case
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any allowance will be made to the Longford Board of Guardians in respect of the maintenance of Gunner Murphy, who was wounded by an

  567
  accident at the last Donegal Militia training, and has been an inmate of Longford Union since October, 1903.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir. Gratuity for injuries granted under paragraph 592 of the Militia Regulations is not issued concurrently with maintenance at the public expense.

  Asiatics in the Transvaal.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say whether he has received from Lord Milner any estimate of the number of Asiatics proposed to be introduced into the Transvaal; and whether Asiatics recruited from British territory will be permitted to work in the Transvaal mines.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I have received no definite estimate from Lord Milner, but for the present the introduction of these labourers must admittedly be of the nature of an experiment. It is not proposed to recruit British Indians for the mines, but if any Chinese British subjects desire to go, they would be permitted to do so.
  MR. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that decision with a view to facilitating the exportation to South Africa of natives of Asia Minor from the neighbourhood of Park-lane and Throgmorton Street?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Chinese Labour in Rhodesia.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any proposals have come to his notice for introducing Chinese labourers into Rhodesia.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: The British South Africa Company and the Rhodesian Land and Mine-owners' Association have asked that permission may be given for the introduction of Chinese labourers under the Southern Rhodesia Ordinances No. 18
  568
  of 1901 and No. 3 of 1902. The request is under consideration.

  Asiatic Labour in British Crown Colonies.
  MR. ASHTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in any of the legislative Acts passed during the last thirty years dealing with immigrant Asiatic labour in British Crown Colonies, there are any cases of the introduction of the system of confining the coolies in compounds as proposed in the Transvaal; and, if so, in which Acts.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: The answer is in the negative, but the hon. Member will see from the Parliamentary Paper of 7th December, 1900, that in Trinidad, for instance, and British Guiana, indentured immigrants are bound to reside on the plantation to which they are indentured and in dwellings assigned to them by the employer.

  Chinese Labourers' Wives.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he now proposes to secure that the regulations to be framed under the Transvaal Imported Labour Ordinance shall provide that any Chinese labourer who desires that his wife should accompany or follow him to the Transvaal shall have the right to have her conveyed to the Transvaal at the cost of the persons to whom he himself is indentured.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I have given very definite pledges on this topic, to which I intend to adhere.

  Chinese Labour in the Transvaal.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any Ordinance now in force in any British Crown Colony which prohibits indentured Asiatic labourers from engaging in any occupation other than unskilled labour; whether there is any Ordinance providing for the compulsory repatriation of such labourers on the termination of their indentures; and whether any Ordinance, other than that in force in Trinidad, renders such labourers liable to penalties if they are

  569
  found away from the premises of their employer without a permit.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I may refer the hon. Member to the Parliamentary Paper of 7th December, 1900, In answer to the first paragraph of the Question there is no such Ordinance in the Crown Colonies. In answer to the second paragraph, there is no Ordinance in the Crown Colonies compelling the repatriation of indentured labourers on the termination of their indentures. In answer to the third paragraph, the Immigration Ordinances of all Crown Colonies provide that an indentured immigrant must everywhere reside in dwellings assigned to him by his employer, and absence without a pass and desertion are punishable by fine or imprisonment.

  Johannesburg Free Churches and Chinese Labour.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT (Westmoreland, Kendal): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information with regard to the attitude recently adopted by the Free Churches at Johannesburg on the question of the importation of indentured Chinese labour.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I have no official information as to the attitude of the Free Churches at Johannesburg, but according to a telegram published in The Times of the 7th inst., the Witwatersrand Church Council at a meeting embracing representatives of the Baptist, Congregational, Presbyterian, and Wesleyan Churches of Johannesburg and district passed on the 5th inst., by thirty votes to one, the following resolution:—"That, while expressing no opinion on the economic questions involved, this meeting strongly deprecates the Free Church Council's agitation against Chinese labour, and thinks that fuller knowledge will modify the latter's views regarding the conditions of service, which are voluntary and similar to conditions which have long prevailed in South Africa. The meeting suggests that the Free Church Council's efforts should be directed to securing perfect freedom for Christian work among the Chinese."
  MR. MACVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the terms of the resolution passed by the Free Church Council?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Wages on the Rand.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the rate of wages paid to the Kaffirs working on the Rand was reduced after the war, he will state whether those reduced wages are still being paid; or, if not, what is the rate at present as compared with the reduced rate, and also as compared with that previous to the war.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the mining engineer's figures given at page 202 of Cd. 1895, and to the figures in Exhibit I following after page 671 of Cd. 1897, which give the rate of wages and show that a higher rate is now paid than after the war.
  MR. FLYNN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to answer the Question on the Paper as to the present rate compared with that previous to the war?
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I think, Sir, speaking from memory, that the rate of wages before the war was 49s. 9d., while the present rate is 54s.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether it was not the fact that wages were halved, or nearly halved, immediately on the conclusion of the war.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: Immediately after the conclusion of the war, when the country was suffering, the wages were 33s.
  MAJOR SEELYasked whether wages were not reduced by 30 per cent, in 1897.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I cannot carry the wages in my head for more than

  571
  three or tour years. My impression is that my hon. and gallant friend is right.
  MR. FLAVIN: What increase of wages will the Chinese get for being deported?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Transvaal Excise Duty on Dynamite.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an Excise duty is levied on dynamite manufactured by the De Beers Company entering the Transvaal equal to the coast duty levied on British manufactured dynamite.
  MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir.
  MR. MARKHAM: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, replying to many Questions of this sort a year ago, always replied that the matter was under consideration. As this monopoly has now been in force for eighteen months, can the right hon. Gentleman not arrive at a decision with regard to it.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The conditions have changed. The question of railway rates affects the matter very closely.

  Rawal Pindi Railway.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the sanction of the Secretary of State in Council has been given to proposals, lately formulated by the Indian Government, whereby the railway on two-feet six-inches gauge, planned to start from Rawal Pindi and to run along the frontier south-westward as far as the border station of Bannu, would be changed over the greater part of the line to a sixty-six-inch gauge, with heavier bridge and other works; and, if so, will he state what is the estimated increased cost that will be incurred if such a change should be made in the plan of this military railway, and what is its total length of mileage.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey,): The railway referred to by the hon. Member comprises a section from
  572
  Rawal Pindi to Kushalgarh (seventy-nine and a quarter miles) which has been open since 1881, and was constructed on the broad gauge. The extension of this line across the Indus towards Bannu has beei: carried out as far as Thai on the two-feet six-inches gauge. But the adoption of this gauge for the section from Kushalgarh to Kohat was only a temporary measure, and it was decided last year to convert the line to the broad gauge, and to construct a permanent bridge over the Indus at Kushalgarh in place of the temporary arrangement hitherto provided for crossing the river. The conversion of the Kohat-Thal section has not yet been decided upon. The length of line from Kushalgarh to Kohat, which is to be converted to broad gauge, is 33·1 miles, and the cost of the conversion is estimated at Rs. 1,278,626. The cost of constructing the bridge is estimated at Rs. 1,1 67,191. The length of the two-feet six-inches line from Kohat to Thai is 58.12 miles.

  British Indian Labour—Repatriation Regulations.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if all indentures under which labourers from British India are employed in various British possessions contain provisions for repatriation; whether these provisions have always been strictly enforced; and, if not, will he state in how many instances labourers have been allowed to become free settlers, with the number thereof in each colony.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Except in the cases of Indian labourers in Mauritius and in the Straits Settlements, all indentures under which such labourers are employed in British possessions contain clauses regulating the grant of return passages to India. But if my hon. friend's Question is to be understood as referring to compulsory repatriation, then my answer is that this is in no case provided for in the indentures, except in Natal, where the labourer is bound at the cud of his term either to re-engage or to return to India. I have no reason to think that I the various provisions contained in the indentures of labourers in the different colonies are not strictly observed. As to the number of labourers who have settled in British colonies, I have no complete

  573
  statistics; but I believe that it is considerable.
  MR. MARKHAM: Is it not the fact that Indian coolies in Natal are allowed to re-engage and stay in the country on paying a poll tax?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I must ask for notice of that.

  India—The Official Secrets Bill.
  SIR MANGHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will place on the Table of the House the Draft of the Official Secrets Bill of the Government of India, as amended in Committee; and whether he intends giving the House an opportunity of expressing its views on the measure before giving his final sanction to it.
  *MR. BRODRICK: A copy of the Indian Official Secrets Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, was published in the Gazette of India for February 6th, which my hon. friend will find in the library of the House. The Bill has now been passed without a division through its final stage, and has become law. It requires no sanction from me; but His Majesty the King, has, of course, the power of disallowing this or any other Indian Act, upon the advice of his Ministers, if he should think fit to do so. I will lay a copy of the amended Bill as soon as I receive it.

  Manufacture of Army Equipments in India.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will consider the expediency of communicating with the Secretary of State for War, with a view to secure the manufacture at the Government ordnance factories in India of some of the new Army equipments required for service in that country.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Government of India are at present taking steps for the manufacture in India of horse and field artillery guns and mountings, and rifles, and the factories at Cossipore, Jubbulpore and Ishapore are being equipped with the most modern machinery for the purpose. The principle of making
  574
  India as far as possible independent of assistance from home in the matter of war material has been pursued by the Government of India during recent years. All equipments other than guns and rifles are already manufactured locally.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make the same suggestion as regards Ireland?
  MR. LOUGH: Will this manufacture of artillery not clash with what is being done in this country for India, as explained by the Secretary for War?
  MR. BRODRICK: The factories are not equipped for the provision of the guns which the War Secretary has put at the disposal of the Indian Government.

  Constitution of the Committee on the Indian Official Secrets Bill.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state how many Government officials and how many non-officials were on the Committee on the Indian Official Secrets Bill; and, seeing that the Committee consisted mainly of Government officials, will he say if any non-official members were in favour of the measure, and, if any how many.
  MR. BRODRICK: The select Committee consisted of five officials and four non-officials. All the members of the Committee signed the Report in favour of the measure; but three of the non-official members dissented in regard to two points in the revised draft.

  Indigent Europeans at Mombasa.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the fact that there is no other provision at Mombasa for indigent Europeans but the gaol and labour till they have earned enough to pay their passage out of the country; and whether, under such circumstances, British subjects who are not possessed of a certain amount of capital, or who may be under engagement, will be prohibited from landing, and that foreign Powers who possess

  575
  certain treaty rights will be notified of the Law as applied to British subjects so that they may inform their own subjects of she prospect before them if landed destitute in East Africa.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY, Kensington, S.): No special provision outside the gaol is made for destitute Europeans at Mombasa, and His Majesty's Commissioner will be directed to consider whether any steps can usefully be taken to give publicity to the fact. We have no evidence that the circumstances are such as to call for special legislation.

  Belligerent Ships in the Suez Canal.
  MR. RENWICK: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether precautions have been taken to prevent the sinking in the Suez Canal, intentionally or otherwise, of vessels belonging to either of the Powers at present at war in the East.
  EARL PERCY: The free navigation of the canal is provided for by the Convention of 1888, Article IV. of which stipulates that no act of hostility, nor any act having for its object to obstruct the free navigation of the canal, shall be committed in the canal, and its ports of access. Russia is a party to this Convention, and though Japan is not one of the signatories His Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that Japanese vessels would act otherwise than in accordance with its principles. In addition to the standing navigation regulations to which captains of ships bind themselves to conform, Rule 4 of the Regulations promulgated by the Egyptian Government on the 10th ultimo requires that every belligeren war-ship shell pass through the Suez Canal in the shortest time possible, and without stopping, except in case of necessity, or by order of the canal authorities.

  The Chinese War Indemnity.
  *MR. MCCRAE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether payment has yet been made by the Chinese Government of Britain's share of the Chinese war indemnity, estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1902 at £6,000,000 sterling;
  576
  and, if not paid, whether any steps are being taken to secure payment thereof in the present financial year.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The indemnity is being paid by annuities extending over a period of thirty-nine years. The instalments of the British share are for the present being applied, as received, in discharging the private claims of British subjects.
  *MR. MCCRAE: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply the money, if there is I any balance, to the reduction of the Floating Debt, according to the promise of his predecessor?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The money is being applied to the satisfaction of private claims at the present time. Therefore there is no opportunity of considering the allocation of any further sum.
  *MR. MCCRAE: The predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman said the money being expended on account of the war, when repaid, would be applied in redemption of borrowings. May I ask—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice had better be given of any further Question.

  South African Railway Debt.
  *MR. AINSWORTH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will say who is responsible for the collection of the £1,250,000, admitted by Lord Milner to be due to Great Britain I on account of the Imperial Railways of South Africa; whether he will lay upon the Table Lord Milner's statement on the subject; and say in what way the money will be recovered.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Correspondence is still proceeding on this matter, and, until it is completed, I can add nothing to the information which I have already given to the House.

  Metric System in the United States.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the

  577
  President of the Board of Trade whether there exist any Papers showing the extent of the adoption of any metric system in the United States; and, if not, whether, with a view to the consideration of any measure upon the subject which may reach the House in the latter part of the present session, he will move the Foreign Office to cause a Return to be prepared and laid before Parliament, giving recent information upon the subject.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,: I am in communication with the Foreign Office with the view of obtaining such a Report as the right hon. Member suggests.

  Scottish Fishery Board—Grant for Piers and Harbours.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland in view of the fact that only £3,000 per annum is placed at the disposal of the Scottish Fishery Board in aid of the construction of piers and harbours, will he consider the expediency of arranging for a sum sufficient to meet the requirements of those districts in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland which are outside the Congested Districts Board area.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question. I should be glad if the figure available for the purposes referred to by the hon. Member were more considerable, but I fear there is under present circumstances no prospect of the augmentation to the fund suggested by the hon. Member.
  MR. WEIR: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view of getting an increased grant?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Irish Land Purchase—Stamp Duties.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the declarations on the subject made by him in debate on the Irish Land Bill last session, it is still the practice of the
  578
  Inland Revenue Authorities in Ireland, on the sale of their holdings by Tenant purchasers, to require stamp duty to be paid on the conveyance on the unpaid balance of the loan due to the Irish Land Commission, as if that sum formed portion of the consideration money on the sale; and whether this matter will be dealt with in the Bill to amend the Land Act.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): Until I read the hon. Member's Question, I was not aware that the practice he mentioned had, as he alleges, been adopted, nor do I know what particular declaration he refers to. I have, asked for a report upon the matter, and pending the receipt of that report I cannot reply to the earlier portion of his Question. In reply, however, to the last query, I beg to say that the provision he suggests would be outside the scope of the Bill to be introduced to-day.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The question was raised in the debate last July?
  MR. ATKINSON: I will look it up.

  Irish National Schools—Teaching the Irish Language.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether as the recent instruction, issued by the National Board of Education in Ireland to their inspectors that no teacher of a national school the reports upon which fall below the standard good will be recognised to earn fees for the teaching of an extra subject, is calculated to interfere with the teaching of Irish in schools classed as fair or very fair, he will recommend the modification of this instruction so that children may not be precluded from learning the Irish language.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The recent circular of instructions does not in any way interfere with the teaching of Irish during school hours. It has reference to its teaching as an extra subject, outside the ordinary school hours, for which a special fee is payable. With this aspect of the circular I dealt very fully in

  579
  answer to a Question put to me yesterday by the hon. Member for West Kerry.†

  Irish School Buildings.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when it is proposed to introduce the new plans and estimates for the building of teachers' residences and schools in Ireland; whether he is aware that it is now nearly six years since plan VIA. was condemned as inadequate, and when it is proposed to give effect to the repeated promises to increase the estimates in respect of this plan.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply to the similar Question addressed by him on the 26th May last to the Secretary to the Treasury, ‡ to which reply I have nothing at present to add.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Has nothing been done since then?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Report is under consideration.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: You have been waiting a long time.

  Fair Bent Appeals in North Tipperary.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that the Head Land Commission for the hearing of appeals for the fixing of fair rents has not sat in the district of North Tipperary since January, 1901, and that there are a number of cases still listed for hearing, he will sec his way to arrange for the next sitting of the Court at an early date.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The last sitting of the Commissioners was in November, 1902. It embraced all appeals from the district lodged prior to January, 1901. The Commissioners will arrange a further sitting at as early a date as possible, having regard to the claims of other districts.
  *See page 460.
  ‡See (4) Debates, cxxii., 1791.

  Irish Equivalent Grant.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that twenty county councils, and over 100 other representative bodies in Ireland, have passed resolutions praying that the equivalent grant should be used to improve the condition of national schools; and whether he will give this matter his consideration.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The allocation of the grant has been carefully considered, and can be discussed on the Estimate shortly to be introduced.

  Technical Instruction in Kerry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg-to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if ho will explain why the National Board refuses the use of national schools in Kerry for technical instruction under the county council, as there is no interference with the working of the school as an ordinary day school.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board has not refused to sanction the use of vested schools for the purpose mentioned, provided the manager gives a guarantee that the ordinary school work will not be allowed to suffer, and that any damage done to the premises or furniture will be made good by the County Committee for Technical Instruction. The Commissioners exercise no control over the use of non-vested schools except during school hours, and the managers have the right to grant the use of the buildings subject to the intervention of the Commissioners in cases leading to contention or abuse.

  Trinity College, Dublin—Appointment of Provost.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether there is any legal disability which prevents the Crown from appointing a Roman Catholic as Provost of Trinity College, Dublin; if not, why, as the office is in the gift of the Government, no Roman Catholic has ever been appointed; has his attention been called to the recently expressed desire of the

  581
  Fellows to attract Roman Catholic students; and will he ascertain if the appointment of a Roman Catholic would be welcomed by them.
  MR. WYNDHAM: So far as I have been able to ascertain no legal disability is opposed to such an appointment. The reply to the third inquiry is in the affirmative. In respect to the second and fourth, I must respectfully decline to discuss the methods followed, in the past or the present, to select the most eligible candidate for this important appointment by the Crown.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: When will the Protestant it is intended to appoint be appointed?
  MR. WYNDHAM: At an early date.

  Lucan Estate—County Mayo.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the cause of delay in the sale to the Congested Districts Board of the Lucan Estate, in the parish of Kilmeena, near Westport, county Mayo; and whether, seeing that the emigration season is setting in, he will use his influence with the Board with a view to the speedy purchase of this estate, and its division among the inhabitants of the surrounding district who are in need of larger holdings.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is believed that the solicitor for the vendor will be able to complete the sale of this estate without delay. When this has been done it will be resold by the Board to the tenants.

  Rent Reduction in County Cork.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction among the tenant farmers in Cork county, with reference to the reductions given by the Creon Sub-Commission on applications to fix second-term rents on the Kingston and other estates; and if he will explain why the percentage of reduction on second-term rents fixed during the quarter ending
  582
  December last is only 14 per cent, in Cork county, while it is 22 per cent, in county Down; and whether he is aware that many tenants are deterred from entering the Court on account of the action of the Sub-Commission.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no information on the matters alleged in the Question. The percentages of reduction in rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners vary with the varying circumstances of cases, holdings and districts, and an appeal against their decisions is open to the parties who feel aggrieved.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say on whose recommendation these Sub-Commissioners were appointed?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.

  Queen's College, Cork.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland during how much of the year is the President of the Queen's College, Cork, in residence; whether his absence from Cork is in violation of the regulations on the subject contained in the charter of the college; and why the regulations in force in the Queen's Colleges of Galway and Belfast are not observed in Cork.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The President of the Queen's College in Cork, who is at the present, and has been for some time, under medical treatment, has made it a rule to be in Cork during term except when public business connected with the National Board of Education, or business connected with the Royal University, or his health, has obliged him to be elsewhere. His absence from Cork is not in violation of regulations.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this President spends most of his time at Munich?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.
  MR. FLYNN: It is the fact.

  Mr. Daly, of Dunsandle, and his Tenantry.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the relations which existed between Mr. Daly, of Dunsandle, county Galway, and his tenants; whether he is aware that complaints have been made to the constabulary authorities of the firing of shots at night in the district, and that a constabulary patrol caught a police pensioner, named Hansberry, who is employed by Mr. Daly as bailiff, in the act of firing on the public road between the hours of 9 and 10 p.m. on the night of the 17th February; and, if so, whether, in the interest of the peace of the district, he will arrange that this man shall not have a licence to carry firearms.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that the relations between Mr. Daly and his tenants have improved. No complaints have been made to the police in respect of the firing of shots at night in the district, but on the night of the 17th February they detected Hansberry in the act of discharging a gun on the public road. He was prosecuted and fined. J Further inquiry is being made in the matter.

  Constable Walsh of Rostrevor.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state if Constable Walsh has denied having stopped a lady visitor in Rostrevor, and having insisted on reading to her in the street certain passages from the Bible; if so, whether the lady referred to has been, or will be, afforded an opportunity of identifying him; whether any other charges of engaging in religious controversy have been preferred against him; and whether it is still proposed to retain this policeman in Rostrevor.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The constable denies having acted in the manner suggested in the first part of the Question. I am not aware that the lady referred to asked to be afforded an opportunity of identifying the constable who so addressed her. She informed the police she would be unable to identify him. If she attends
  584
  at Rostrevor every opportunity will of course be given co her in the matter. No other charges of engaging in religious controversy have been preferred against Constable Walsh. The answer to the concluding inquiry is in the affirmative.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is it not the fact that this constable, being wiser than his superior officer, has applied for a transfer? Will his application be granted?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Head Constable Moore, Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has yet been ascertained if any extra remuneration is due to Head Constable Moore for temporary duty in Greencastle, county Antrim; whether he has now been stationed there for eight months; whether assurances were given by the City Inspector, by the Inspector-General, and by the Chief Secretary that the appointment was only a temporary one; and whether he can state when this constable will be recalled.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Head Constable is not entitled to any extra re-numeration. I have answered the last part of the inquiry in reply to a Question of the 2nd inst by the hon. Member for North Kilkenny†.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Were not assurances given by the Chief Secretary and by the Inspector-General of Constabulary that the appointment was only a temporary one. The right hon. Gentleman has not said when he will be recalled.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have answered that Question four or five times.

  King Estate, County Wexford.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the King Estate, county Wexford, agreed to purchase their holdings in the Land Judge's Court, previous to the passing of the
  †see (4) Debates, cxxx., 1480.

  585
  Land Act of 1903, at from eighteen to twenty years purchase, and that the landlord accepted this offer; that, owing to a mistake in the maps, the sale was postponed, on the understanding that the tenants should not suffer by the postponement; and, if so, whether, as the landlord is now demanding twenty-two years purchase, with the bonus, he will direct the Estate Commissioners to arrange that both landlord and tenant will stand by their former agreement.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The tenants did agree to purchase their holdings on the terms mentioned. The agreement, however, was not made with the landlord, and was, as in all other cases, provisional upon its acceptance by the Land Judge, after hearing all parties concerned. It is not the fact that the matter was adjourned on the understanding suggested in the Question, but the tenants' counsel expressed a hope that the tenants would not suffer by the postponement. The matter will come again before the Land Judge on Monday next, by which time it is believed an agreement will have been come to which the Court can sanction.
  MR. FFRENCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Justice Ross stated publicly in Court that the tenants should not suffer by the adjournment of the sale. Is there any way of inducing Mr. Justice Ross to keep that promise co the tenants?
  MR. WYNDHAM'Sreply was inaudible.

  Justice Ross's Court.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a great deal of time is taken up in the Land Judge's Court with questions relating to boundaries, rights of way, turbary rights, and small charges on an estate; and whether the Government would consider the advisability of appointing another of the Irish Judges to deal with these minor matters in order to allow Mr. Justice Ross to give more time to the 40th Section of the Land Act of 1896, and the 7th Section
  586
  of the Land-Act of 1903, so as to remove the congestion in his Court.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A marked diminution has been effected in the amount of business in the Land Judge's Court. The amount of the gross rental returnable to the Court in recent years has been reduced by one-half, a result mainly attributable to the extensive sales effected under the Land Purchase Acts. The reply to the latter part of the Question is therefore in the negative.
  MR. FFRENCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that five days a week and a portion of the sixth are taken up in this Court by disputes on these minor matters. Seeing that so many Irish Judges have been presented with white gloves recently, will the right hon. Gentleman appoint one of them to do this work?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think that the course suggested would really expedite matters.

  Congested Districts Board—Purchase Rules.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the sale of certain estates to the Congested Districts Board has been delayed owing to the non-publication of the rules for carrying out such sales under Section 79 of the Land Act of 1903; could he explain the cause of the delay in publishing those rules; and can he say when they will be published.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The rules have been drafted and are before the law officers. They will be published very shortly.

  Labourers Cottage Schemes—Costs.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the costs of schemes under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts are considerably increased by stamp duties payable on the contracts to build, which requires a 10s. stamp, though a similar contract by a private individual or a limited liability company could be so entered into as only to require a duty of 6d.; on the bond securing the contract;

  587
  on the conveyance of the tenant's interest in each site; on the conveyance of the landlord's interest in each site; on the registration of each conveyance in the Registry of Deeds, when a fee of 10s. 6d. each at least is payable; on registry searches on examining the titles to each plot, which may run up to a very substantial sum; and when the plot is acquired from a tenant purchaser fees for registering the conveyance, insurance fund, opening a new folio, and taking out new land certificate, which may amount to about £1 10s. for each cottage; and whether, in his proposed Bill, he will provide for the same exemption from stamp duties under the Labourers Acts as now exists under the Land Purchase Acts.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are substantially as stated in the Question. The Bill to be introduced to-day does not deal with the matter, which affects the financial arrangements underlying the Labourers Acts and other statutes applicable to England. I will look into it before the Committee stage.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the title be wide enough to enable Amendments to be moved?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I should say so.

  Tobacco Growing in Ireland.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture in Ireland have taken any steps in connection with the growing of tobacco in Ireland during the coming season; and whether any expert has been employed or appointed with a view of giving practical instructions as to planting, growing, and curing of the plant.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Department of Agriculture has arranged for the cultivation of tobacco on a commercial scale in the county Meath during the present year. No expert has been employed to advise on the cultivation of the crop, but one will be employed to advise on the treatment of the leaf when grown.
  MR. FLAVIN: Why has the county Meath alone been selected?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I suppose because it was considered the most suitable.

  Land Purchase—Decadal Reductions.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that a tenant has the power, under the Purchase Act of 1891, of extending the period of repayment of annuities from the shorter to the longer number of years and thereby get the benefit of decadal reductions, he can state what the amount of the annuity payable by a tenant would be, and for how many years, who purchased a £20 rental at eighteen years purchase without decadal reductions under the Purchase Act of 1891; and whether he can state, in the case of same tenant who purchased a £20 rental at eighteen years under the 1891 Act with decadal reductions, what number of years his annuity would have to run, and what would be the amount of his annuity for each of the periods over which he is entitled to get the benefits of the decadal reductions, what would be the amount of his total payments and his average annual payments under the extended period of repayment, with decadal reductions.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This information cannot conveniently be given orally, but I have communicated it to the hon. Member, and it will also be printed on the Votes Paper to-night.

  Dungannon School Estate.
  MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many years purchase the Commissioners of Education have recently demanded from the Clonoe second-term tenants on the Dungannon school estate, and also the number of years purchase for which the Commissioners a few years ago sold to second-term tenants their Fermanagh estate, and the amount of arrears wiped out.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This Question will be brought before the Standing Committee of the Commissioners at its next meeting on the 18th instant.

  Butson Estate, County Galway.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of

  589
  Ireland whether he is aware that on the Butson Estate, county Galway, which is about to be sold in the Land Judge's Court, there is a large tract of grazing land subject only to a temporary Court lease, while the general body of the tenants have only small impoverished holdings many of which are constantly inundated by floods; whether he will take steps for the enlargement of the cottier tenancies, and will the provisions of the Purchase Act which prevent advances of public money to new tenants having no real connection with the estate be strictly enforced so as to prevent the rich grass lands, which it is the policy of the Act to redistribute amongst the smaller tenants, being sold to outsiders.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am making inquiry into this matter, and will ask the hon. Member to repeat the Question on Monday.
  MR. ROCHEasked if the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to prevent the landlord getting advances before this was decided.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The case is in the Court, and I cannot therefore intervene.

  Wexford Harbour.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Board of Works refused the loan of a suction dredger to the Wexford Harbour Board to remove the silt from the harbour, although guarantees were offered against all risks; and whether, as the harbour is silting up more, facilities will be given to the Wexford Harbour Board to purchase a large suction dredger.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): Yes, Sir. The Board are advised that their dredger cannot safely be allowed to work on the Wexford bar until the channel is deepened. I understand that the Harbour Commissioners have already a dredger, and that the Board of Public Works offered last year to send an engineer to demonstrate to the Commissioners that their dredger is capable of removing the sand efficiently.
  MR. FFRENCH: Will facilities be given for the purchase of a large suction dredger seeing that the bar has silted up and that vessels engaged in the cross Channel service have grounded on it?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: We believe the present dredger can do the work if properly managed.
  MR. FFRENCH: That is not so.

  Blacklion, Cavan, Telegram Delivery Charges.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in the case of delivery of telegrams between Blacklion and Glengevlin, in county Cavan, he is aware that full porterage was charged for five miles without deduction in respect of the three miles allowed for limit; whether this is in accordance with the regulations of the Post Office; and, if so, does he intend to modify it so as to allow for the three-mile limit.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): The charge to which the hon. Member refers is in accordance with the Statutory Telegraph Regulations of 1898, and I do not propose to alter the regulations in that respect. I will see, however, whether it is possible to open a telegraph office at or near Glengevlin under guarantee.

  Telephonic Communication in County Limerick.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the want of telephonic communication between Limerick and the following towns, viz:—Ennis, Kilrush, Tipperary, Nenagh, Kilkee, Clonmel, and Mallow; and whether, in view of the commercial advantages it would confer on those districts, he will have such a system established.
  LORD STANLEY: I have received a letter from the Limerick Chamber of Commerce asking that telephonic communication may be established between Limerick and the other places mentioned by the hon. Member. Arrangements have already been made for an extension of the Post Office Telephone System to Mallow and Tipperary as soon as additional funds

  591
  have been provided by Parliament for the telephone service, and I am making inquiries as to the conditions on which similar extensions can be made to the other towns.

  The Tibet Mission
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will arrange that the House of Commons shall have an opportunity of considering the question of the expedition to Tibet before that expedition makes further advance.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): At the present moment I no not think anything would be gained by a discussion of this question, and I do not propose to make any arrangement as suggested in the Question.

  Government Licensing Bill.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury can he say when His Majesty's Government propose to introduce the Licensing Bill; and can he give any indication of its character and provisions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot fix a date at present for the introduction of this Bill, and, of course, any statement as to its contents should be deferred to the period when it is introduced.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say definitely whether it will be introduced before or after Easter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I cannot answer that Question. As the House knows, the business of Supply is being dragged out considerably—[OPPOSITION cries of "Oh!"]—quite legitimately, no doubt, but, as a matter of fact, it is being considerably prolonged. I cannot, therefore, give an Answer until we make further progress.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I may assume there is a Bill prepared?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, you may.

  THE FISCAL POLICY DEBATE.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked the attention of Mr. Speaker to a Motion by the right hon. Member for Ripon on the fiscal question, which appeared on the Papers distributed to Members of the House that morning, in the shape of an Amendment to the I Motion of the hon. Member for North I Aberdeen. He wished to know whether a Motion of that importance could be sprung on the House of Commons as an Amendment with practically no notice whatever. It was said to be what was J called a "put-up job." An important I and highly controversial subject ought not to be dealt with in that way; if not improper as a matter of order, it was highly improper as a matter of convenience, and he hoped he might be successful in eliciting an expression of opinion that the hands of Parliament ought not to be forced on such a matter. Could not some steps be taken to prevent the House of Commons being dragged into such a discussion?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment is in order. No doubt the subject matter of the original Resolution is of great importance as the right hon. Gentleman has said. The Amendment expresses different opinions, which, of course, are also of great importance, and must be if they are relevant to the Motion. The Amendment is relevant and that is the only question I have to consider. It is quite competent on the principal Motion for the right hon. Member for Ripon to propose an equally important Amendment.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: There will be no time to discuss it, Sir.

NEW BILLS.
  VACCINATION BILL.
  "To amend the Vaccination Acts," presented by Mr. Broadhurst; supported by Mr.Thomas Bayley, Sir John Rolleston, Mr. Channing, Mr. Corrie Grant, and Mr. Levy; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 23rd March, and to be printed, [Bill 118.]
  TIED HOUSES BILL.
  "To provide for the abolition of Tied Houses," presented by Mr. Broadhurst; supported by Sir John Brunner, Mr. Thomas Bayley, Mr. Herbert Lewis, and Mr. Levy; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 23rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 119.]
  IRISH LAND BILL.
  "To explain and amend Section 48 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, with respect to the payment and application of the percentage provided by the said section," presented by Mr. Wyndham; supported by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland; to be read a second time upon Monday, 21st March, and to be printed. [Bill 120.]

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOE IRELAND, (Mr. WYNDHAM,): In asking leave to introduce the Labourers (Ireland) Bill I should like to give my reasons for taking the step of introducing it under what is known as the ten minutes rule. Had I followed the ordinary course, it would have been impossible to take the first stage of the measure, I believe, before Easter, and perhaps not before June. I desire to express my regret that, in the circumstances, many Members on this side of the House, who would have wished to take part in the discussion on the Bill, will be precluded from speaking on the subject, a subject in which they feel an exceeding interest. I might have brought in the Bill without any words of explanation, but this would have been open to misconception, and, besides that, I desire to state my reasons for omitting certain provisions suggested to me from many quarters, suggestions in some cases excellent in themselves, but, in my judgment, impracticable under existing conditions, and especially under existing financial conditions. In the first place I have been asked to secure that the period of redemption of loans shall be prolonged and the interest on the loans lowered, but the condition of the money market, not only in England but throughout the civilised world, makes it impossible to take any steps in this direction, and we must await a more propitious time. I
  594
  have been asked also, to increase the minimum of 1s. of the rate which might be imposed on any county under the Labourers Acts, but the same reason may be adduced, and there are also other reasons. When the Labourers Act was introduced in 1893, the local taxation amounted to £4,250,000, but it now amounts to £6,250,000, and I, for one, do not see my way to add to the burden of the rates of the country. The existing limit of 1s. will produce £12,500,000 in all, and as only £2,700,000 has been sanctioned in these loans, I believe that within that 1s. limit a great deal more may be done, providing the procedure is shortened and cheapened.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: On a point of order, I thought the first Bill to be introduced was the Irish Land Bill?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I handed that in. I am now proceeding with the Labourers Bill. Then I have been asked to increase the size of the allotments. I have declined to do so, partly on the same ground, partly because the average size of the allotment in England is three-fifths of an acre, and partly because I could not be accessory to creating a fresh state of congestion. There are grave objections in my judgment to bringing in other competitors for land who would have compulsory powers behind them. What remains to be done, therefore, is to cheapen the procedure. By the first clause we make the representation by six labourers and not by twelve, and provide for a simple statement of the need for accommodation with no formalities attached to it and no risk of being refused on a technical point; by the second clause we enpower the district council to act without representation if no representation is forthcoming; and by the third clause the purchase of land by agreement, and where there is no building a scheme can be arranged without any formal scheme, without any inquiry, and without any Provisional Order. I now come to the pith of the BUI, the scheme which involves the compulsory acquisition of land and which aims at the building of cottages. Broadly speaking, the county council, acting through a standing committee, will take the place of the Local Government Board, and the Local Government Board will take the place of

  595
  the Privy Council. I hold that the county council ought to come and play an important part, an important administrative part, in this matter. It is the county council who receive the Exchequer grant and which has to see that no one district monopolises the resources available. The county council too is cognisant of the general burdens and charges that are laid on the county, and therefore it is proper that it should play the most important administrative part, and I am confident they are competent to discharge that duty.
  I now come to the next stage, appeal from the petitioners. If the county council reject the scheme of the district council there is a petition from the district council to the Local Government Board, and the decision of the Local Government Board, after local inquiry, will define the needs of the locality and the amount of accommodation which should be provided. I now come to an appeal which in certain cases may be lodged, an appeal as distinct from a petition. The appeal under this Bill will be a local appeal to a Judge of assize on a limited issue instead of a metropolitan appeal to the Privy Council in Dublin upon a general issue. There will be an appeal available if the scheme is lodged merely in respect of selection of site to interfere with the demesne or the amenity of the residence, or interfere unreasonably with the user or enjoyment of land in occupation. That is not an appeal against the necessity or amount of accommodation to be provided. By Clause 12 we make a drastic enactment. We say that where the district council fails to put these Acts into operation, I the Local Government Board may step in and take their place. Under Clause 13 there is a plan for redistributing the Exchequer contribution on a more equitable basis in proportion to the loans which are outstanding under the Acts. This I believe to be a fairer method of distribution than the present distribution, which is based upon certain arbitrary data, obtained many years ago. Incidentally it will afford relief to those counties which built a number of cottages before 1891. Clause 16 enables labourers who have discharged their obligations under the Labourers Act, who have paid their
  596
  rents for cottages under those Acts during five or six years, to purchase a farm under Section 2 of the Land Act of last year, but no provision is given in this Bill, and I think rightly, to enable the labourer to purchase his cottage and plot. He would then cease to be a labourer. We hold it is necessary to prevent labourers from coming on to uneconomic land, but we think it necessary to provide a bridge to enable an energetic and successful labourer to pass out of the ranks of the labourer into that of the peasant proprietor. I beg to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Labourers' Dwellings in Ireland."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: While I regret extremely that the Bill by a force of circumstances has been introduced in this particular form which prevents discussion, I would like to say that when it was represented, to me that we had cither to have it introduced in this way or have the Bill postponed until after Easter, I expressed the opinion that it ought to be introduced in this way rather than be postponed, because there was great anxiety in Ireland to see the provisions of the measure. Of course, I cannot express any decided opinion with reference to the value of the Bill, but I am bound to say that there will be very widespread disappointment in Ireland when its provisions come to be known. Of course, as everyone is aware, the chief difficulty in the way of the working of the Labourers Acts in the past has been the cumbrous, lengthy, and costly nature of the procedure; and although the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the object of this Bill is to shorten and cheapen the procedure, I confess that I do not think it has substantially done so as far as I have been able to follow the right hon. Gentleman's observations. It seems to me that so far from shortening the procedure he has added, in the case where there is opposition or contest, another stage to the proceedings. At present the steps are, first, a representation to the district council; then the preparation of a scheme and an inquiry by the Local Government Board, with

  597
  appeal to the Privy Council. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, under the new measure the steps, in cases where there is opposition, will be representation as at present or in a simpler form; the preparation of a scheme by the district council, inquiry by the county council, and then a second inquiry on the spot by the Local Government Board followed in the end I by an appeal to a Judge of assize. So that, in point of fact, there will be two inquiries instead of one, and there will be an additional stage to the procedure. I confess, therefore, that I do not see in what way the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in shortening the procedure. With reference to the abolition of the appeal to the Privy Council, that, of course, is an admirable, amendment of the law, but the right hon. Gentleman substitutes for that an appeal to the judge of assize; the appeal, I admit, is of a limited character, but still an appeal to the Judge of assize, for which there is no precedent whatever in the English law, seems to me absolutely unnecessary. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman has not shown in his new Bill that he materially shortens the procedure.
  Now does the right hon. Gentleman materially cheapen it? and this perhaps is more important still. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech with an apology for not touching the rate of interest. There is no provision which, in my judgment, would so materially facilitate the working of the Act so much as one which extended the period of redemption of the loans. At present loans are repaid by annuities which run from 4½ to 4¾ per cent., and this, coupled with the necessary repairs, means that for every cottage the labourer has to pay about £6 per year. The charge for rent is only 1s. per week, so that the difference, a considerable matter, falls at present upon the ratepayers, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been able, notwithstanding the present condition of the money market, to extend the period of redemption so as to diminish the amount of annuity payable in respect of these loans. It is not only in this respect that the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing to cheapen the procedure. There is no portion of the cost of the present
  598
  working of the Act which is more oppressive than the expenditure connected with the investigation of title and the distribution of purchase money, and the right hon. Gentleman has made no proposals to lighten the expenditure in that regard. Another serious item of expenditure is that on arbitration. Under the present system the progress is slow and the cost very considerable, and I think it is regrettable that the right hon. Gentle man has not seen his way to introduce some limitation of expenditure in this regard. In his measure the right hon. Gentleman has not proposed any substantial shortening of the procedure or any substantial cheapening of the procedure either.
  With reference to the other proposals in the Bill, I have only a few observations to make. The right hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting announcement with reference to the Exchequer contributions which are at present paid to counties for the purposes of the Labourers Acts. Some counties have not used them at all, some have used only a portion of them, and he pro poses to redistribute these in the future on a new principle, giving most to those counties making most use of the Labourers Acts. It seems to me on the first blush that this is a proper proposal, though it is one which will have to be properly discussed. But what is going to become of the existing balances I The right hon. Gentleman only proposes to deal with the contributions in the future, but at the present time there are unexpended balances to the extent of £150,000. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do with these? Although some of the counties may have a local grievance, I think the majority of the people might support him if he intends to take them and make use of them for the benefit of the labourers of Ireland; but, if he is going to take these unexpended balances away from the counties and devote them to any other purpose, then this is a proposal which I believe will be very seriously discussed and very strongly opposed. There are other provisions in the Bill with which I cannot deal, but I wish to say just one word with respect to a proposal which I understand is in the Bill, and which disqualifies from election to district councils, labourers who are tenants of cottages in the locality.

  599
  Now at present they are entitled to be elected. The question was recently tried in the Courts, and it was decided on the analogy of English cases that they were entitled to be elected. And they are, as a matter of fact, elected at present, and if, as I have reason to suppose, the right hon. Gentleman is going to disqualify them he will certainly arouse a very bitter feeling amongst the whole class of labourers and will not certainly smooth the path of his Bill. I will not go into other matters, but will content myself by saying now, as I did at the commencement, that the right hon. Gentleman has sketched a measure which will cause widespread disappointment in Ireland, and I think when we come to discuss it he will find that unless he is prepared to I accept very large Amendments in the direction of improving the position of the labourers, ho cannot count on anything in the nature of general support from tins part of the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wyndham and Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to labourers dwellings in Ireland," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 21st March, and to be printed. Bill 121.]

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHEB (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 227,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  *THE SECRETARY OP STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTEB,)in replying to the Questions which had been addressed to him, said he gladly recognised the favourable tone of the debate that had taken place. The criticisms had been limited in number, and not, to his mind, very important in character. He had found support for the ideas he entertained in the speeches which had come from both sides of the House. There had been exceptions, but he was very glad to find that the vast majority of the House were agreed as to the great value of the Report on the reorganisation of the War Office, and as to the desirability of giving effect to such of its recommendations as they approved. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was the most prominent exception. He ventured once more to express the opinion that, here again, the right hon. Gentleman had got a little out of touch both with the sentiment of the House and the country and with the sentiment of the Army. In his speech he I not only pleaded for postponement of any action in connection with the Report, but I there was scarcely-veiled criticism of the authors of the Report, and unveiled censure of the views expressed by the authors of the Report. He did not find I an echo of the right hon. Gentleman's views in any part of the House. All he could say with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's criticism was that he did not agree with him, and that he did not believe the future would show that such criticism was going to prevail. He had been criticised, not in a hostile spirit, from two quarters with regard to this Report, and the action of himself and of the Government in connection with it. He had been reproached because the Government had been too quick and because they had been too slow. They had been reproached because they had not accepted the Report in its entirety and guaranteed that they would carry it out; they had been reproached, I on the other hand, because they had not given enough consideration to the matter, and because they had already taken action which had committed the Government and which had greatly altered the constitution of the War Office. It was perfectly clear that, whatever their laches in this matter, these particular criticisms were very inconsistent, and that they

  601
  could not be found guilty on both counts at the same time. In his opinion, there was here what there was so very often in practical politics, a via media, which happened to be the road of caution and of experience. They had been reproached with not embodying in the Estimates all the consequences that might possibly flow from the complete acceptance of the recommendations of the Report. He had given the right hon. Gentleman opposite a pledge to which he intended to adhere absolutely, that if they found that any additional expense would be thrown upon the Army Votes in connection with the administration of the War Office by these changes, he would take the first opportunity of informing the House. He retained the belief that no extra charge of the kind would be entailed; certainly none had been entailed up to the present moment.
  They were told they ought to have put all these matters into the Estimates. He went back to the question of dates. The ware commission reported in September. That Report revealed a state of things that made many of them sick at heart. The duty of a responsible Government was to take immediate action to see that that state of things should never happen again. What took place? The Prime Minister almost immediately appointed a Committee, which he and many other people believed was a body calculated to indicate a remedy for the state of things which was disclosed. It happened that one member of the Committee was serving his country many thousands of miles away. He was recalled, and the very day after his arrival the Committee began its deliberations. Within a month, the Committee represented its first Report, in which they laid down that, in their opinion, before the Government went any further some radical changes must be made in the organisation of the War Office. Who was there to dispute that? Who was there in that House who denied that proposition? Who was there now who would be willing to censure their action in adopting that recommendation? He did not believe there were half-a-dozen men on either side of the House who would do so. The Government acted upon that Report,
  602
  and with, as he believed, universal approval they made those changes in the War Office.
  His hon. friend the Member for Oldham had said that the change in the personnel of the War Office was not a matter to be undertaken lightly, and that, if they were going to give the impression to the Army that changes were to be lightly made, and that great officers who had served the country well were to be transferred from one sphere of activity of another without adequate reason, it would be doing much more harm than good. He agreed, but he knew his hon. friend would believe him when he said that they were fully aware of the gravity of the work they took in hand. He hoped the view which some critics had adopted, that these distinguished officers had been dismissed from their employment, would not be adopted in that House. "These officers had not passed out of the service of their country. They were still either capable of being employed or were employed in the service. One name had been mentioned—that of Sir William Nicholson. He had a great admiration for that very distinguished and very highly gifted soldier, but he did not think that great harm had come to the country if Sir William Nicholson's term of service, which would have been curtailed in four months, had now been extended for six months, and if he were doing what he believed was the invaluable service of superintending the whole of the Intelligence work in the Far East during the present war. He could hardly trust himself to speak of Lord Roberts, from whom he had received the greatest and most unvarying kindness in every period of his life. Throughout the whole of these proceedings, Lord Roberts had been the guide and helper of those who were interested in carrying this scheme into effect. He was consulted with regard to all the appointments and with regard to the officers upon whom the posts should be conferred, and he could not too freely acknowledge the generous, the admirable conduct of Lord Roberts throughout the whole of this matter. He only said this because he was rather moved by what seemed to be suggested by the hon. Member for Oldham, that these changes had been undertaken with undue

  603
  rapidity and without due cause. That was not so. They felt throughout that they were performing the wishes of the House and the country, and, while the Government attempted to carry them out in the way which would be most effective, they also endeavoured to secure that it should be the way that commended itself most to all those who were concerned. With regard to the changes that had been made, they had to begin with the personnel of the War Office by selecting the members of the Council. That involved bringing from South Africa and India two of our most distinguished officers. The Council was not yet fully constituted, three of its members were here and the fourth had yet to arrive. Charges had often been made against those responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the nation in regard to the recommendations of Commissions and Committees, and those complaints had more often been made with regard to Army Commissions and Committees than any other, but when the Government got this information they proceeded to act upon it, and in face of the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, he maintained that they had done better to make progress than to wait indefinitely before carrying out what they believed to be right. The process had been carried further than appointment of the Council, they had appointed some of the directors, who were the officers who would carry out the work under the military and civil members of the Council. They had selected these directors, as far as possible, but not entirely. The Chief of the General Staff was not yet in this country, and this selection was to be a direct selection, as the Government were of opinion that those who were to perform the business of the War Office should decide how the business was to be distributed. That did not seem to him to be unreasonable, and did not arise from any apathy on the part of the Government, because they had no interest in the matter.
  With regard to the selection and promotion, of officers, he said nothing about the selection in the past, but he had always felt that so long as what might be called the promotion centre of
  604
  the Army was in London, so long was there a danger that selections for promotion would be made, not by those serving in the field, but by those serving in the administration. Under the present scheme the whole of the promotion of the lower ranks of the Army would come from what we might call the circumference of the Empire. It would be seen that the moment the system was adopted a necessary corollary was that an officer should go about from one part of the United Kingdom to another to correlate the different officers of the Army. Army Corps were not like Fleets. Ships could be brought together, and their commanding officers brought under the scrutiny of a single man. That was not so in the case of Army Corps. There might be two officers of great quality in one Army Corps and two of indifferent quality in another, and the tendency would be for the officers commanding the districts to recommend one man for promotion from each district. Yet it would be quite right for the two men in one district to be promoted, and the two in another to be passed over. It was for this purpose that the Inspector-General was appointed. His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught would not take up his duties as Inspector-General until the beginning of May, but he did not think any loss, from the point of view of the public service, would arise through the absence of the Inspector-General for a month from the post to which he had been appointed. It had been said that the Government ought to have gone further, that they ought to give the Committee a pledge that they would accept the Report verbatim, et literatim. The second part of that Report had not been before the country more than ten days and the last part was not before the country now, yet within two working months of the commencement of the work of the Committee, the reorganisation of the War Office had been begun and great progress had been made.
  The Committee did not want his personal opinion of the method to be adopted to improve our officers. The proper body to discuss this question was the Army Council, but the Army Council was not yet completed, and what would be said if he were to come down to the House and produce a scheme as to

  605
  which, no matter how good his intentions might be, he could not say that the Army Council agreed with it? The Army Council was only just constituted, and the most important member of it, the chief of the general staff, was not yet in England. That being so, was there any relevance in criticism of that kind?
  His hon. friend the Member for Plymouth had spoken of his betrayal—for that was what his words came to—of the views which he had so long entertained. His hon. friend reproached him for saying nothing about all those things which he cared for in days when he had less responsibility and more independence. Well, he had worked very hard for many years in the House of Commons with the section of the House of which the hon. Gentleman was a member, and he thought, probably, that he hon. Gentleman was the only member—if, indeed, he was one—of that section who really believed that he had abandoned or changed his views by one jot or title. For many years he had worked as hard with regard to another branch of the service, and during the three happy years in which he was privileged to take part in the administration of that great service, he was permitted to participate in changes which, every day, were a fulfilment of the proposals which he had advocated in the years that had gone before. He trusted, therefore, that his hon. friends—whose support he desired and honestly hoped to obtain—though they might criticise his powers and doubt his capacity, would at any rate not doubt his good faith, or think that he was any less anxious for the cause in which he believed in former days. He would only say further of this question of the Report that, though they were to discuss it on other occasions—and he thought they might discuss it with much greater advantage when they had the whole of it before them—anyone who was in the House during the whole of yesterday's debate must know, that it was absolutely impossible for him to pass over the matter without some such reference as he had made to it to-day.
  He would ask the Committee to excuse him if he did not now deal with all the subjects which had been brought up in the course of the discussion. It would strike rather oddly upon a foreigner, with
  606
  his continental view of the importance of an Army, if he were to come into the House of Commons and hear he subjects which were discussed on the important occasion of getting the Speaker out of the Chair on the Army Estimates, at a time when the atmosphere was full of clouds, and when the whole Army question was exciting the people of our Empire almost beyond any other question. Yesterday they discussed tailoring, bottled stout, the needs of the Empire, the cost of stationery, the arming of the field artillery, the headings under which salaries should appear in the Estimates, the Army Medical Department, belts and buttons, and the position of the Judge Advocate-General. He thought that these subjects were capable of being segregated, and that they might with greater advantage discuss the larger subjects apart from smaller; and he would do his best to deal with various matters which had been raised when they got to the individual Votes. Some of the questions were doubtless of great importance, and his hon. friend opposite, the Member for Newington, incidentally touched on one of the most important when he asked why they were discussing these Estimates without any knowledge of what the Army had to do? He would ask whether the hon. Gentleman had ever heard the Army Estimates discussed with any real knowledge of what the Army had to do I They had gone on in that House for years discussing the Army Estimates, not only without knowing, but without attempting to find out what the business of the Army was it was only recently that that attempt had been made, and he dated it from the formation of the Committee of Defence. He believed that more had been done in that direction since the formation of the Committee of Defence than had been done in any period that he could recollect since he had been a Member of the House. One great step had been taken. The Prime Minister had laid down a policy which he believed was accepted by nine-tenths of the House as to the functions of the Army. That policy was that the functions of the Army were primarily to conduct military operations across the seas, and that we need not anticipate serious danger from an invading force so long as our Navy was

  607
  kept up to its proper strength. That was an enormous contribution to the solution of the problem.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: We heard exactly the opposite two years ago.
  *MR. ARNOLD FORSTERsaid that the hon. Member could not have heard what he was saying. He was saying that since the Committee of Defence was formed a new and most valuable light had been thrown on the problem which the hon. and gallant Member for Newington raised yesterday. He did not think that even now they knew the complete answer, though they had got nearer to that answer than before; but his own opinion was that until they had a professional staff really taught to consider, day by day and year by year, the needs and the dangers of the Empire they would not get a final and categorical answer to the Question which the hon. Member asked. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would go on asking it, for it was the duty of this Government and of every Government to do its best to try and get a succinct and clear answer. If he wanted an answer, however, let the hon. Member support the recommendations of this Report. One of the principal recommendations was that they should create precisely this general staff which they had so long lacked, and have a bond of union established between the two services to an extent which had never existed before. That was what he considered an important and legitimate subject of debate. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman opposite was always an advocate of what might be called a "thinking department," but he thought the right hon. Gentleman would now give them his support, because they all saw the importance of the proposal. The hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton was afraid that they were going to let loose junior officers in the Intelligence Department upon important State Papers. He might rest assured that that would not be the case, for the proposals were that the heads of the Intelligence Department should in the future, as in the past, be the representatives of the great staffs of the two services on the Committee of Defence. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had fairly
  608
  criticised a portion of the Report which he considered to be inconsistent with the tenor of the remainder of the Report, and which, if taken alone, would certainly not be a correct expression of the opinion of the framers of the Report. The paragraph might have been modified with advantage, n order to express more precisely the intention of those who drafted it; but he believed that if there were a discrepancy, it was a drafting discrepancy only, and that they would find ample ground for agreement in the later paragraphs of the Report, in which the duties of the general staff and the intentions of the authors of the Report in regard to it were made perfectly clear. His hon. friend the Member for Aberdeenshire had spoken of the condition of the soldier, and he would welcome every assistance the hon. Member could give him in improving that condition. One might have thought from the hon. Member's remarks that the recruit was given less to eat than, or food different from that received by, the trained soldiers. He did not get so much pay, but the recruit ate quite as much as, and probably more, than the trained soldier, and it was surely not a very irrational thing to withhold full wages from a boy or man until he was capable of earning them. His hon. friend the Member for Oldham had gone into a great many matters as to which he had great sympathy with him. He had referred to the recruiting of the Militia, the India drafts, and the abolition of the linked battalion system. His hon. friend knew that he agreed with him in thinking that the Army was suffering greatly in all the particulars to which he referred, and he claimed him as a supporter if he were able, as he trusted he might be, to make proposals which commended themselves to his judgment, dealing with some of the evils which they both knew to exist and were equally anxious to remove. He had done his best to confine himself to important questions, and he trusted that he had made the action and the policy, both of the Government and of the War Department, clear in regard to the immediate past, the present, and the future.
  *SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has devoted the greater part of his

  609
  observations to the question of this Report, but he did spare a little time to speak in slighting language, language of reprehension certainly, to the House of Commons of the manner in which it conducted these debates. He said that we wasted the time which ought to be given to those lofty themes with which he is accustomed to deal—that we devoted it to questions of bottled beer. I do not think that it is worthy of the position which the right hon. Gentleman occupies as Secretary of State to make this complaint. The House is enabled to bring forward anything which it thinks is of advantage to be discussed. Its character is like the description which has been given of the elephant, which is capable of picking up a pin or rending an oak. Sometimes the picking up of a pin may be very important, especially if the pin happens to be in a vital part. The right hon. Gentleman complained also of inconsistency on the part of those who have criticised the treatment by the Government of the Report of the Committee; but there is no inconsistency in the criticism of those who say that the Government has been in too great haste in its publication and yet too slow in their action and in the indications of policy which they have given to the House. The extraordinary thing in this matter is the hurry with which this Committee has acted, and especially the haste with which the Report has been published. What advantage has been gained by the publication of the Report at the time when it is not complete, when the Government have not made up their minds upon it, and when there are other things to do in preparing the Estimates for the year? These Estimates are illusory, for they cannot represent what is to be the policy of the future. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government cannot say what that policy will be because they would have to consult their new Council and their new officers. That is true; but it is all the more reason not to publish what has been published, seemingly under their authority, nominally, and indeed, as explicitly stated in the Report itself, with their approval, and thus to mislead to a great extent public opinion on the subject, Why this extraordinary haste? Sir
  610
  George Clark came home at the end of December. Before ten days the first Report was signed; and so on they proceeded at headlong pace. We all know that the Report embodies the views of a certain little knot of so-called Army reformers who have been busy for many years, and of whom the right hon. Gentleman himself is one. They have endeavoured through the Press and otherwise, very properly, to impress their views on the public. But their views are cut and dried views which are capable of being rapidly developed in this way. What was the object of the publication? I remember a friend of mine once saying that whenever a public speaker asked a question we may be perfectly sure that he had furnished himself with an answer beforehand. I will give my answer to my own question at once. The publication was designed to remove from the public the sensation created by the War Commission Report. They said, "Let us get out a revolutionary, sweeping Report; never mind whether it is right or not, let us get it out by all means to occupy the public mind and to get us out of the difficulty in which we find ourselves." There is too much hypocrisy sometimes as to the effect of a policy on the public mind, and the House need not think to deceive itself when everybody knows that it is so. I am not referring to the conduct of the eminent and capable men composing the Committee, but to the action of the Government. These Estimates cannot, it is said, be founded on this Report, and I agree with that view, for it is impossible that the members of the Council who signed the Estimates can either have investigated them or made themselves acquainted with their justification, or even approved the military policy which the Estimates embody. That is what I complain of. I do not complain of the Government for delay, but for not exercising more delay, not with the view of putting off the question or escaping from the necessity of its decision, but in order that they should not mislead and confuse the mind of the country by putting forward as their accepted policy documents which it now appears do not necessarily embody their policy, and then inviting the House to go through what is little

  611
  more than the farce of voting these Estimates, which do not express the policy which they intend to adopt. I do not think that a word can be said in defence of the action of the Government. Some of the main recommendations made by the Committee are such as I entirely approve, as I have shown in the past by taking steps in the same direction. But if the House examines the Report closely and the things in it, I for one should be slow to give my assent to the sweeping denunciations it contains as to certain branches of the public service which have done great good in their day and are still capable of doing great good, and which this Committee seem to have been so rash as to condemn.
  I must now turn to the Estimates themselves, for I have a few words to say to the Committee in regard to them. What is the most remarkable fact in connection with the Army for many years? It surely has been the continuous growth of expenditure. I will take the: period from 1897–98, the first year in which there was a considerable spring in the amount of the Estimates and in the size of the Army. The regular Army has risen from 163,000 to 217,000 men, an increase of 33 per cent. The Guards have been increased by three battalions, the Horse Artillery by six batteries, the Field Artillery by fifty-two, and the Infantry by three battalions. The charge for personnel, including clothing, housing, and food, as shown in Appendix 19 of these Estimates, has increased in these seven years from £11,800,000 to £18,600,000. I direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that this is an increase of 50 per cent., whereas the force has only increased by 33 per cent. That is a significant and remarkable fact. A good deal has been done in increasing the pay. We are all willing to do anything that is possible to increase the comfort of the soldier, and to make the service attractive to him; but I have always held, and I think I am supported by the best opinions on military matters, that no small increase of pay is at all likely to have much effect in recruiting and in inducing men to enlist. If you want to bring into the Army another class altogether, to improve the character of your soldiers, to tap a different social stratum, then you must double the pay
  612
  or immensely increase it. If you do that of course you will incur this evil result of paying all that additional sum for many of the men you already get, and this will be a pure waste of money. At any rate we have this increase of 50 per cent, in the cost of the soldier. At the same time, the cost of the Militiaman has gone up from £15 5s. to £20 11s. 8d., or an in crease of 33 per cent., and we have fewer than ever on the books, both of men I and officers. The cost of the Volunteers j has been increased from £1,000,000 to; £1,750,000—that is, 75 per cent.; and all these things put together give an increase of £9,250,000. What is the outcome of this great additional expenditure; what have we got for it? These Estimates are said to show a small reduction from what the right lion. Gentleman called the normal Estimates. Some questions were addressed to him as to what "normal" Estimates were, and the right hon. Gentleman said that what he meant by "normal" Estimates were Estimates which would be £280,000 greater than these. He gave that as his answer, and I thought it was exceedingly ingenious. Do these Estimates show a real reduction? Are there no future expenses which have been announced to us, and which we must keep in view? There is the cost of the new rifle. We have not been told how much that will come to. It is not to be commenced this year, as I understand.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The new rifle has been under manufacture for some time, and will shortly be supplied to both the Army at home, and in India. I was misreported in The Times, and I have made a correction.
  *SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Everyone must be glad to hear of these improvements, regarded merely from the point of view of the efficiency of the service. But there is the new gun, which does not involve any charge this year, because all the guns of the new pattern are to be sent to India, and paid for by India. But what will it be in subsequent years? Will there not be a large expenditure on this account? Then there are the garrison battalions coming in a short time for their pensions, and other necessary sources of expense to which we

  613
  are already committed, and which must inevitably tend to increase the Estimates still further in subsequent years. What has been the return for this great increase of cost? There have been some additional Guards' battalions, which are not needed, or at any rate not used, now for the purpose for which they were raised, because the Guards no longer garrison the Mediterranean stations. There have been some highly-trained field artillery raised for the non-existent Army Corps. There have been some Indian battalions—and of those I quite approve—to provide for increase of force in tropical stations; and there is the garrison of 21,500 men for South Africa, to be maintained there at a cost additional to what the cost at home would be of £1,360,000. I shall refer to this by-and-by. What is the conclusion of the whole matter? It is nothing but this—that the cost of the whole Army has been allowed so to increase that the burden has become absolutely insufferable. If I seek to find the cause to which this great increase is due, I should say it was due, in the first place, to a policy of conquest and adventure, and, in the second place, to a disposition to hurry which has 'ed to steps being taken on very insufficient consideration and without really increasing the power of the country. I doubt whether the causes of this £9,000,000 of increase, with more to follow, were really properly weighed in the balance before being adopted. Does the country contemplate such a charge as this as being permanent? Not for a moment. I do not think I should find much disagreement if I said that at the present time the country is sick of war—sick of what I have called a policy of conquest and adventure. This scale of military expenditure cannot be maintained. That is what the House of Commons has in its mind and what it must impress on the Government, of the day, whatever Government that may be. And the great expenditure which has been so rapidly incurred can only be reduced by decreasing the numbers of the Army with the Colours.
  We must therefore look forward ultimately to the withdrawal of this garrison in South Africa, whose maintenance at the expense of the British taxpayer is an entirely new departure from the established
  614
  policy of the country. That the garrison is intended to be permanent notwithstanding this established policy is shown by the fact that barracks are being built for it, on the footing, I presume, that it is to be there continuously. I have said that the policy of the country lies in the other direction. It has been laid down, not by one side of the House or by the other, and not by any erratic politician, but after the most serious consideration of all the circumstances, and many years ago, that this country should cease to maintain forces for local purposes unless the colony concerned itself paid for their maintenance. I have some words here of a high constitutional authority on the point which perhaps the House will allow me to read; for this is not a question of some fancy scheme devised by military administrators who found it convenient to withdraw; troops from the Colonies. It was deliberately done under the authority of Parliament—
  "Within the past thirty years a fundamental change has been effected in the administration of the British Colonies by the withdrawal of the Imperial troops, previously scattered throughout every part of the Empire, arid the consequent devolution upon the self-governing Colonies of the responsibility of self-defence. This reform originated in the Report of a Departmental Committee consisting of Mr. Hamilton of the Treasury, Mr. Godley of the War Office, and Sir T. Elliot of the Colonial Office, appointed in 1859 to consider the cost of I colonial military defence. The previous year the military expenditure in the Colonies: amounted to nearly £4,000,000, to which the Colonies contributed something under £380,000, and few of the Colonies had any effective Militia or local force of their own. This was followed in 1861 by a Select Committee which made an inconclusive Report. In 1862 the House of Commons upon the Motion of Mr. Arthur Mills resolved without a division:—' That this House (while fully recognising the claims of all portions of the British Empire to Imperial aid in their protection against perils arising from the consequences of Imperial policy is of opinion that colonies exercising the right of self-government ought to undertake the main responsibility of providing for their own internal order and security, and ought to assist in their own external defence. Thenceforward this principle was adopted by every successive Administration as the settled policy of the Empire."
  We have been told, indeed, that these men are to be maintained in South Africa as a reserve for India. Why, Sir, that is an afterthought. This is a Government of afterthoughts. They waste on afterthoughts what would be better expended

  615
  on forethought. It has the effect of blinding the public to the fact that this is the direct outcome of the Government's policy. I want to ask the Secretary of State a plain question. What army has Lord Milner demanded for South Africa to maintain peace in the Colonies and to protect them? There was the constabulary, which would have been paid locally, and which, while fufilling the ordinary duties of constabulary, would have been useful as a military force; but the constabulary has been allowed to dwindle. The Indian plea is a mere pretence, and the Indian Government has shown that it is so by declining to accept any responsibility for this increased force in South Africa; and to ask for these 21,500 men as a permanent increase in the garrison of South Africa is to proclaim the failure of your South African policy in one sphere, just as the bringing in of Chinese labour proclaims its failure in another sphere. I protest against hurry in all these matters. I wish to know how the three years enlistment scheme is answering, and whether it is found at the present time to work well with a view to supplying the necessary drafts to the Indian garrison. After so many schemes and so many failures the House ought to demand the fullest information before agreeing to any new departure.
  One reference I must make to the Committee on the reorganising of the War Office. Just at this moment, when economies must be enforced, that Report throws a perfectly undeserved slur—and I think a most unworthy slur—on that department in the War Office which is mainly charged with keeping both soldier and civilian within due limits. I saw that part of the Report with great regret, and I am sure that any one who is acquainted from the inside with the working of the War Office—which, though it may have changed since my day, has not changed in this respect—will agree as to the injustice of this summary judgment which is contrary to the published evidence before more than one Committee, and to the opinions of the highest military authorities. It is a slur on a department which I am sure does not deserve it. One other question. The Mowatt Committee's Report and the evidence given before the Committee—ought
  616
  they not now to be laid before Parliament? The Committee was called into being and conducted its deliberations in the hurry-scurry of the war, when there was not a little alarm lest we should be unable to meet the requirements of the war; and a heavy charge was laid upon the public. A good deal of the Report has been published, but surely now that the war is over there is no reason why Parliament should not have the Report and the evidence before it, as the recommendations of the Committee must be the basis for expenditure on stores and armaments in future. I should expect that its decisions will have to be revised in view of the actual experience of the war down to the close. These are the three definite subjects on which I wish to put questions to the right hon. Gentleman:— Lord Milner's estimate of the garrison required in South Africa, the subject of drafts under the three years enlistment arrangement, and the presentation of the Mowatt Report. The policy of the Government is necessarily in a fluid state to a large extent, but what I complain of is that they have forced public opinion on this matter by the partial publication of this Report before they have made up their own minds in regard to it. The right hon. Gentleman said something to which I entirely demur when he talked of the necessity of the War Office Council formulating some great military policy for this country. It is not the War Office Council or even the Cabinet Council of Defence that ought to formulate that policy. It is the Government itself, it is the House of Commons, it is Parliament. It is Parliament that will fix that policy. Our military policy will necessarily depend on the general external relations of the country, the general foreign policy of the country, and in that matter no help can be obtained from any skilled advisers, however eminent. It is a matter which must depend on the feeling, intention, and desire of Parliament and the country.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): We have had some opportunity during the course of the speech which has just been delivered of estimating the right hon. Gentleman in the double capacity of an Imperial

  617
  statesman and a War Office reformer; and I confess that neither as an Imperial statesman nor as a War Office reformer has he raised himself in my estimation, nor, I think, in the estimation of those who in coo blood consider the tenor of the advice which he has given the Government and the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has referred, and he was perfectly justified in referring, to the enormous burden of tine Army Estimates. Nobody denies that burden; nobody denies its magnitude, and there is one question, and one question only, to be asked with regard to it, is or is it not necessary? I do not say that means may not be found for reducing it consistently with our full Imperial obligations; but I do not believe that, consistently with those obligations, it can to any very great extent be reduced unless great alterations are made, which the right hon. Gentleman appears to deprecate, in the constitution of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is possible for this country to alter the amount of the forces available for the defence of this country according to its own humour at the time. I say it is not possible for the country to do that, and that, if the country once begins to consider this question of Army expenditure from that point of view, under modern conditions we run the very gravest peril as an Empire. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the great cost of the Army is due to a policy of conquest and adventure. No doubt we have recently added to the extent of His Majesty's dominions in South Africa, but that the war which has had that termination was undertaken in a spirit of conquest and adventure is a total misrepresentation of the facts. I do not know how far the right Sum. Gentleman thinks the Government of this country ought to submit to His Majesty's territories being invaded before the Government which attempts to repel that invasion is open to the charge of having a policy of conquest and adventure. In that connection may I express my great regret at some observations which fell from the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the South African garrison? I do not precisely understand, I admit, to what conclusion the right hon. Gentleman wished to induce the Committee to proceed; but I am perfectly
  618
  certain, whether it be easy or not for: us in this House exactly to understand the right hon. Gentleman's policy, that hat policy will bear a very clear meaning to the Boer party in South Africa. The meaning that they will put upon it, rightly or wrongly, is that as soon as the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have the control of the policy of this country, so soon will they reduce the South African garrison.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: And make the self-governing Colonies pay for the garrison.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Exactly. I do not know how far the hon. Member for Dundee is an authorised exponent of the policy of the Leader of the Opposition, but I accept his gloss. I think that is exactly the interpretation that will be put upon it—that as soon as Gentlemen on the opposite Bench have the control of our policy the garrison will be reduced to a point at which the Colony itself will be able to pay for it. All I can ay is that assertions like that——
  *SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The assertion is on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. What I referred to was the fact that the necessity which the Government allege of maintaining 21,500 men in South Africa is the fruit of the policy of the Government. It may be true that it is very difficult at present to deal with the result of their policy.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has again, on behalf of his Party, committed the mistake which has led to great disasters in the past. [OPPOSITION Cries of "Oh."] That is my opinion. He has uttered words which in South Africa will be interpreted, as words uttered from that Bench have so often been interpreted, as meaning that the instant the Radical Party come into power the vigour of our South African administration will be diminished, and immediately the hopes of all those, either in South Africa or in this country, who desire to see the results of the late war reversed will have a chance——
  *SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I never said a word to justify any such statement.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is where I differ from the right hon. Gentleman. I do not question the excellence of his motives, but I do say that he has used unguarded language, and of the interpretation of that language I venture to say that I am as good a judge as he is.
  *SIB H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: You are assisting the Boers to put that interpretation on what I said.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I thought that, I would at once withdraw what I have said, because, after all, there are much greater interests at stake than a mere controversy across the Table. I am afraid I cannot lay the flattering unction to my soul that it is what I have said and not what the right hon. Gentleman has said which will produce this regrettable result. The right hon. Gentleman in the earlier portion of his speech severely criticised the Government for the course they have taken in regard to War Office and Army reform. When the right hon. Gentleman speaks in this House he always gives expression to a fine crusted old Tory view of Army reform. He deprecates any haste in this matter. There is no change I know of which has ever been made slowly enough for the right hon. Gentleman. I think he misinterprets public sentiment in this matter, and what is much more important, for public sentiment may change from month to mouth. I think he has mistaken the real necessities of the situation.
  The Government found themselves, after the Report of the War Commission, naturally subjected to a great deal of criticism. I think most of that criticism was unjust. I feel confident that an impartial historian in the future will take that view. In my view the period antecedent to the publication of that Report, ever since Lord Lansdowne took office in 1895, has been a period of Army reform on a great scale. It is perfectly true that the Ministers responsible for that Department worked upon the traditional lines that had been handed down to them ever since Lord Cardwell's time, and which had been worked upon, among others, by the right hon. Gentleman. They worked within those lines, and
  620
  within those lines they carried out, in my judgment, very great reforms—reforms without which it would have been impossible to carry on the South African War in the way in which it was carried on. It is for that reason that I have always thought the criticisms upon my right hon. friend on this Bench and his predecessors are grossly unjust. The impression left on my mind by the War Office Commission was not that any great reform was possible under the existing system, but that the system itself required the most critical examination and revision. We began without one moment's delay to make that critical examination, and carry out the revision. We began, rightly as I think, with the War Office constitution. The right hon. Gentleman has accused us of going too fast. Almost every other critic of my right hon. friends in the Government has accused us of going too slowly. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and other Gentlemen who have taken great interest in Army matters in this House have taken precisely the opposite line to that which commends itself to the right hon. Gentleman, who has told us that we are proceeding with almost indecent haste, and that time should be given to this House and the country for the elaborate consideration of the whole machinery of the War Office. We took precisely the opposite view. We thought that the time for these lengthy examinations by Committee or Commission of this House, by such bodies as the Hartington Commission, had passed, and that the facts were known. We believed that if we appointed this small Committee to suggest a scheme of reform, we should be able to set to work upon the War Office constitution with a speed and a success which no other possible procedure would give us. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that we ought to have waited until the whole of the Report of the Committee had been finished and approved by the Government before publishing. I disagree with him. In the first place let mo say that the approval of the Government is never one of the conditions under which the Report of a Committee ought to be published. I have never heard of such a proposition being laid down. Was the

  621
  Report of the Hartington Commission, for example, never to be made public until approved by the Government?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That was a Royal Commission. This is a small Committee, and we do not even know the terms of reference. It is a small ad hoc Committee appointed for a certain definite purpose, no doubt, by the right hon. Gentleman himself.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That the Committee was appointed for a definite purpose is, I hope, not an uncommon peculiarity of a Committee, and the fact that it was appointed by me appears to me to be wholly irrelevant to the argument. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that because it was appointed on my recommendation, therefore if I did not like the Report I was to keep it indefinitely secret the thing is wholly absurd. The Report had to be published whether the Government approved of it or disapproved of it. Whether it was desirable to publish it on the exact date selected for publication may be open to question, but that it had to be published^ whether we approved or disapproved of it, that is, I think, beyond question. Now the question is, was it desirable to publish it piecemeal? I say it was desirable to do so because it was desirable that we should at once sot to work to constitute the Army Council, which was the pre-requisite and condition of further reform; and the first part, which recommended the Army Council, was one which we were bound to act on at once, and, being so bound, we were compelled to publish it. As regards the second part, I do not know that anything was to be gained by its publication at the particular moment; I do not dogmatise as to that; but the Committee were in favour of its publication, and certainly I saw no reason for taking a different view, and I am perfectly prepared to take the whole responsibility for having accepted the suggestion, and that responsibility I do take.
  Now, about this second portion of the Report, we are not bound because we have published it to approve of it either in whole or in part. That we do look favourably on the general tenor of it the
  622
  House naturally will expect. The Committee was our own creation, and its work, I think, deserves the highest praise from the House and the country. It is our own creation, and on it we have founded high hopes for the reform of the Army system; but we certainly do not commit ourselves either to every statement of fact or every opinion or every recommendation which this part, or any part, of the Report contains. I am not quite sure that I do agree—so far as I can form an opinion I should say I do not agree—with some of the criticisms which the Committee have passed upon the transactions and the work that have gone on in the War Office. Certainly, I do not feel bound to associate myself in any sense with those criticisms; but, nevertheless, I do hope and believe that, we shall be able to carry out great reforms through the assistance given us by the Committee; and we have given a most effective earnest of our policy by revolutionising already, as we have done, the War Office system within a very few months of the access to office of my right hon. friend and the appointment of this Committee. The right hon. Gentleman opposite stands alone. I think, in his view that we have gone too fast.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is the publication I object to.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does the right hon. Gentleman want us to act without publishing? I do not understand what be means. We found ourselves face to face with a situation which, partly on the ground of cost, partly on the grounds supplied by the Report on the South African War, in our judgment required thorough reconsideration both of the War Office system and the Army system. Well, we are carrying that out as fast as in human nature it is possible to carry it out. Some Gentlemen talk as if we were putting forward Reports—I think the right hon. Gentleman himself said so—like throwing bits of meat to a dog that might otherwise be disagreeable. If that charge has any meaning it can only mean that we are amusing the public by hopes of reform which we do not mean to carry out. That is the only meaning that such a metaphor can suggest. Considering that we have already revolutionised the constitution of

  623
  the War Office, what is the meaning of the charge? Some hon. Gentlemen appear to suppose that it would have been possible for the Government and my right hon. friend, before the preparation of these Estimates, to bring forward some new Army system. No one who understands the practical limitation upon the preparation of Estimates can hold that view for a moment. Anything that may be done in the way of reform this year cannot show itself, of course, until the Estimates of next year; but I should be very sorry if this session passes without the Government's being able to make a much fuller statement of their general views upon the Army problem than is either possible or proper at the present moment. Let the House not forget what it too often has forgotten, that the size of our Army depends upon the duties that Army has to perform, quite apart from that imaginary policy of conquest and adventure which appears to haunt the right hon. Gentleman's mind. Apart from that, and looking simply and solely to the question of Imperial defence, I tell the House that no investigation which I have been able to make shows that the military burden of this country can be a light or an insignificant one. It is true, indeed, that many of us have come to the conclusion, after such an examination as we have been able to give to the question, that the invasion of this island by a large regular force, capable of undertaking its conquest, is, if our home forces are kept in anything like an adequate state, and above ail if the Navy is kept in anything like an adequate state—for after all this is really a naval question—that invasion is a dream, an illusory danger, and not one of the contingencies against which it would be right or proper to ask this country to make costly provision.
  MR. LOUGH: You did ask it a year or two ago.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A year or two ago we had nothing to go upon except the system which was then in existence, and the conclusions I have now given to the House are conclusions arrived at by an organisation which was not in existence then. But. Sir though I do not believe that this landing of a great
  624
  organised force, competent to quell this country and reduce it by force of arms, is possible, no man can blind himself to the fact that the whole trend of circumstances in the East is to make us a Continental Power conterminous with another great military Continental Power, and that is the dominating circumstance which we have to take into account in framing our Army Estimates; and no Government, I do not care from which side it is drawn, will, I believe, be permitted to ignore the necessities of which I speak, or in the interests of any economy or reduction of taxation, however desirable, to lower our Army strength beyond a certain limit. I think that one of the most valuable results that have followed from the reconstitution of the Defence Committee is this, that we shall have something threshed out and argued out to go upon, and not mere obiter dicta as to the number of men required in this or that military operation, vaguely estimated by this or that more or less self-constituted military expert. I hope I have indicated to the House the way in which the general problem of Imperial defence and the Report of this Committee strike my right hon. friend and the Government. That we have been lax in carrying out reform seems to me of all the charges levelled against the Government the most absurd. One great revolutionary reform in three months, seems to me not a bad record. Those whose appetite for the revolutionary reform requires the process to be repeated every throe weeks appear to me to have an excessive desire for these dramatic changes. I do not think that anybody who knows my right hon. friend the Secretary for War, or who has understood the spirit in which I have endeavoured to address the Committee, will doubt for one moment that, difficult and complicated as are the problems necessarily presented by a voluntary Army and by the military needs of the British Empire, they are being approached by us in no laggard spirit, with no prejudice in favour of the system which we found existing, but with an earnest and impartial desire to turn to the very be; it account the materials with which the country supplies us, and to make our Army system, if not everything that we could wish, at all events, as far

  625
  as may be, adequate to the great responsibilities which none who look round the world can doubt may have to be met by this Government or some of its immediate successors.
  MR. FULLERsaid his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition had stated that the Committee had been asked to discuss illusory Estimates. The Committee had come dawn to-day to know what the policy of the Government really was; they expected to hear whether the Cabinet as a whole were prepared to adopt the recommendations contained in the second part of the Report of Lord Esher's Committee or not, and until they knew that these Estimates must be illusory. The Estimates were those of the Secretary of State for India; the policy that of the Secretary of State for War. What the Committee wished to know was whether the right hon. Gentleman had been able to force his view and his policy upon his colleagues. Until they knew that it was impossible to discuss the Estimates on their merits. The Estimates did not show the scale and character of the future expenditure, and it was necessary that that should be known. The Army expenditure was becoming intolerable, and it was the bounden duty of this Committee, and the first duty of the Government, to do what it could to reduce an expenditure which had become an intolerable burden to the taxpayer. Not only were the Estimates illusory from this point of view, but they did not represent the actual expenditure that would have to be incurred. The charge for the Somaliland force was omitted, as was also that for the quick-firing guns with which the Field Artillery were to be supplied. There was no Vote to be taken for those guns, and therefore discussion as to their character and quality would not be in order. The people of this country did not realise what an enormous military force they had to keep. Including the Regular forces at home and abroad we were maintaining an army of 561,000 men, and when the Auxiliary forces were taken into consideration, the military force of the Empire amounted to just over 1,000,000 men. The country did not realise the burden which successive
  626
  Governments had laid upon their shoulders. It had long been the settled policy of Governments of both parties to maintain in India an army of 300,000, and when the Committee remembered that India was the only part of the world where we could meet a European enemy, and having regard to the fact that we had an Auxiliary force of 700,000 men he could not help thinking those who desired economy could only come to the conclusion that our armed force was enormously large for the wants of the country. The peace footing of the armies of France and Germany were only 600,000 men respectively, while that of the United States, whose condition more closely approximated that of this country, was 67,000. He would not point out where economy should take place, but his conviction was that a reduction must be made in the direction not of cutting down the expenses of the soldiers and still less of the general staff but in a general and large reduction in the number of the men. If a change of the kind was to be made, and the reduction was to be sufficiently large to have any effect on the Estimates, it must be done on the lines of the Report of the Commission which recommended the abolition of the double battalion system.
  SIR HARRY SETON-KARRsaid he did not agree with an hon. Member who characterised the burden of these Estimates as intolerable. His object in rising was to ask the Secretary of State for War a question regarding the Army rifles. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the other day that he was producing a new rifle, and that 71,000 stands had already been ordered for the Indian Army. He wished to know if that new rifle was any different from the last rifle which he believed was five inches shorter than the weapon used in the Boer War. Tins question involved a rather important general point. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would correct him if he was wrong, but last year when they heard that the new rifle was to be cut down by five inches the impression was conveyed— and he believed it was a correct impression—that some attempt was being made in the form of a compromise between the carbine and the rifle, and it was thought

  627
  probable that both the Cavalry and the Mounted Infantry could be armed with the same weapon. Some of them were not satisfied that such a thing was possible, and from inquiries which he had made he believed that it was absolutely impossible to have a rifle five inches shorter than the weapon used during the Boer War which could possibly have the same trajectory and the same range as the longer weapon. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to arm the Infantry as well as the Cavalry with that shorter weapon? He took it that one thing which was impressed on their mind by the late war, was that the rifle with which our Infantry was armed was a most important weapon. If we were to make a mistake in this respect in the case of future wars our Infantry found themselves armed with a weapon inferior to that carried by their opponents, it might have an important bearing on the result of that war. At all events he believed that it was necessary for the Infantry to have the best possible weapon. He was also one of those who believed that in the past our Army had not been armed with the best weapon as compared with the weapons held by the Continental armies. In his opinion the Norwegian and Swedish, and American rifles wore in many respects better than ours. There were two or three points on which he hoped the Secretary of State for War would give a reply. Was the new rifle to be a longer weapon than the last, which they were told was the latest-weapon with which our soldiers were going to be armed? If the right hon. Gentleman was going to stick to the shorter weapon was he absolutely convinced that it had the same trajectory and range as the old weapon, which was five inches longer. Could he five them some details of the experiments which had convinced him on the point? Finally, would he disabuse their minds of the suspicion that an attempt was being made to arm the Cavalry and the Infantry with the same weapon? He did not believe the latter could possibly be done because the Cavalry could not carry a large rifle on their holsters, but he would like to have some definite statement on the subject by the right hon. Gentleman, and to have
  628
  that statement supported by any information that could be given to them.
  MR. LOUGHcongratulated the hon. Member on being able to bring his mind to the discussion of such details as those to which he had just referred. The effect of the Estimates on his own mind had been to render it impossible for him to consider seriously anything they contained. It seemed to him that the Estimates were a mere blind, brought in to amuse the House of Commons for a few weeks, while the Government completed their revolutionary scheme of War Office reform, without taking the House of Commons into their confidence. Only two days ago the Secretary of State for War had deprecated discussion of the Report of the Reconstruction Committee, and had expressed the desire that the Estimates should be considered without reference to the revolution that was being carried out at the War Office. What example had the right hon. Gentleman set to-day? The whole of his speech had been about that Report, and the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister had spoken about nothing else The Army Council set up under the Report had signed the Estimates, thereby giving the last touch to the unreality or the situation. The Government ought to take the Committee more fully into their confidence. What was there to conceal in these Estimates? What was the extent of the changes the Government intended to make at the War Office during the year? The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the officers to be newly appointed would take the place of other officers already existing, so that no additional cost would be involved. That was not a satisfactory explanation. The House of Commons ought to have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the whole situation. According to the Prime Minister, the Army system had already been revolutionised, but what trace of that revolution appeared in the Estimates? The right hon. Gentleman had urged that the time had come, nor for publishing information, but for taking action, that we had had too much obiter dicta on the matter of Army reform, and the; something ought to be done. But the Report was full of obiter dicta; there was

  629
  no evidence; the House was in ignorance of the reference to the Committee; and the Report was the most informal document ever presented to Parliament; and yet in obedience to its commands all these revolutionary changes were to be effected without the cognisance of the House. What were the terms of the reference? Certainly the methods pursued by the Committee were not such as to entitle its decisions to the deference displayed to them by the Government. The Committee decided not to publish the sources of their information; consequently it was impossible to see whether the recommendations accorded in the least degree with the advice or evidence submitted to the Committee. Possibly there would be another opportunity of considering the recommendations of the Committee in a more complete form, but at the present stage the House ought to protest against the incomplete form in which those recommendations had been submitted.
  As to the Estimates themselves, how could the Secretary of State justify his action with regard to the Somaliland troops? Conflicting explanations had been given of this matter. The first was in the right hon. Gentleman's own memorandum. There the omission of provision was attributed to the impossibility of forecasting the duration of the operations, and the hope was expressed that the War Office would soon be in a better position to judge of the situation, in which case an additional Estimate would be presented. But that attitude was not maintained, for in the Vote now before the Committee, 10,000 men were put down for Somaliland. The second explanation was of a more satisfactory character, because on Monday last the right hon. Gentleman held out hopes that there might, after all, be little or no further expense in connection with the campaign, that a certain success had been achieved, that if a favourable opportunity offered of bringing the operations to a close the Government would seize it, and that in any case the expenditure and the operations would be kept within narrow bounds. But before voting these 10,000 men the Committee ought to have a clear explanation why no corresponding monetary provision was included in the Estimates. The light hon.
  630
  Gentleman had claimed that the present Estimates were £280,000 below the normal expenditure. What was meant by "normal expenditure?" He certainly protested against these inflated Estimates being regarded as the normal Army expenditure of the country. There had not been much hope of economy held out. In a remarkable speech at Liverpool the right hon. Gentleman said that people would be crazy to expect much reduction in Army expenditure.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwas understood to say that he was then referring to the ordinary system.
  MR. LOUGHwas glad to hear the explanation, because the ordinary system was that embodied in the present Estimates, so that probably the new system by which economy would be possible was the system which die Government intended to put into operation during the year. That was the most satisfactory statement he had heard in the debate. After they had had one or two month to consider this Report then the Government might have carried out the reforms they had decided to adopt. That would have been far better than the indecent haste which the Government had adopted in this matter. With regard to the normal cost he hoped his right hon. friend would give them his full mind. How did the right hon. Gentleman arrive at the £29,000,000 suggested in his remark-as the normal expenditure of the Army'. There was one great improvement in the Estimates, and that was the table given of the total expenditure of the last ten years on each Vote. To get the normal expenditure they had to go to the period before the war when they were not affected by the war expenditure. The last complete year before the South African campaign was the year 1898–9. The total in that year was then £20,100,000 and that must be taken its the normal Estimate. That figure carried them back only five years, and, of course, some allowance must be made for the natural growth of the Army, and he would place the amount at between £21,000,000 and £23,000,000 at the outside. He thought that would be a much more reasonable sum as the normal expenditure of the Army than the vas-

  631
  sum which had been put down in these Estimates. This Vote was chiefly concerned with the men, but it was in the men that economy would have to be effected. He believed that a larger amount of pay had been given to the individual soldier and he did not think that was extravagant. He thought it was possible that two well-equipped and better paid soldiers might be as good as three of the class they had had in the past, and therefore better pay need not necessarily add to the expense of the establishment. He thought means ought to be found for saving as much as they paid away in increasing the pay of the soldier, and that could only be done by a reduction in the total number of men. This country was now maintaining 21,000 troops in South Africa at the cost of over £1,500,000 per annum. The Leader of the Opposition had also shown that the constabulary force had been diminished while the Imperial garrison had been increased. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would tell them the total savings the country might expect when the recommendations of the Committee were carried out.
  MR. YERBURGHsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down had for many years been a consistent advocate of economy, and on this occasion he was quite in agreement with him in regard to the Army Estimates. He hardly thought is was necessary for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to tell the House that he still retained in office the opinions he had expressed as a private Member and was prepared to carry them out. He was perfectly certain the right hon. Gentleman would set himself to work with all the energy he possessed to reform the Army. He did not think sufficient attention had been given to the remark made by the Secretary for War that any readjustment of the burdens laid upon the country would be in the direction of perfecting our naval defence and decreasing the expenses of the Army. That appeared to him to be a historic utterance, because it was the first time that a Minister representing the War Office had told them that the claims of the Navy ought to be paramount over the claims of the Army. That was a very wholesome utterance for it was a throwing over
  632
  of the evil traditions revived by the Secretary of State for India. Anybody who had studied the Army knew that there had in the past been an enormous wastage of about £9,000,000 a year, and in ten years that amounted to £90,000,000. They were also face to face with a great expense by taking the soldier too young, for the younger he was taken the more expensive he was. There was a further wastage in time of war because by employing young soldiers and men physically unfit they were incurring a tremendous waste, and in all these directions, by getting a better article, they saved an enormous amount of wastage. They would also obtain a saving in the number of men employed, by getting only men of maturer years and better physical capacity. He quite I believed that they would find in his right hon. friend a strong advocate of economy in the Army. He had told them that too large a machine for the Army would be extravagant, and too small a machine would be a waste of money, but they looked to the right hon. Gentleman to provide them with the machine they wanted.
  With regard to home defence this was where the whole question of economy came in. They had heard the statement that the Militia was in a deplorable condition both in regard to officers and men. He very much regretted this because those who knew the Militia would remember how they rallied during the Boer War. Me was sorry to hear that I the Militia were in this sad state, and he felt sure they would all welcome the words which had fallen from his right hon. friend in which he s id that the prestige of the Militia should be established and restore to the position which it held in the post. He agreed with that view, but ho would go further, I He wished to touch for a moment upon the position of the Volunteers. Everybody in the House sympathised, he was sure, with the position of the Volunteers, because they sacrificed a good deal of time and comfort, giving their services, and they share other people from having to take their share in the defence of the country. That being so they ought not to begrudge paying liberally for their services to the country. Many people thought that the Volunteers

  633
  were not paid enough at the present time. He felt bound, to say that if they put the extra burdens on the Volunteers foreshadowed in his right hon. friend's speech—and he understood that he proposed to make them a body capable of fulfilling efficiently the duties to be placed upon them—they would have to pay them more money, for they could not ask men depending upon a weekly wage to go to camp and thereby lose money which they would otherwise be earning. It was not fair to ask them to do it. If they asked the Volunteers for further service in order to make them an effective force in time of war they must be prepared to spend a further sum of money upon them. He believed that the real remedy for this question of expense, and the real way to get an effective Army for home defence, was to boldly recognise that on every man was laid the duty of defending the country if he was called upon to do so. The time had arrived when, for the purposes of home defence, every man should be taught drill and the use of the rifle, and so qualified as to be able to take his place in the ranks. The Volunteers and Yeomanry should be swept away, and home defence placed upon a force of Militia drawn by ballot. It might be said by some people that this was an un-English proposal, but it really was not so, because from the earliest days in our history it had been the duty of the freeman to take his place in the ranks. Why should not a man I discharge this duty at present as in times past? It might be said that it was against the spirit of a free people, but in answer to that he instanced the admirable Army of Switzerland, which he was told was equal in the matter of efficiency to the other Continental armies. In that country liberty had its home, and any invasion of popular rights would be resented in the strongest way by the people. The Army there was established on a principle which was welcomed by all in the country—rich and poor, and people of every shade of belief. He wanted to know why some in this country should allow other people, because they were more patriotic, to take their place in the ranks, and to bear the share they ought to take in the defence of the country. He was told that under such a system they would get far too many
  634
  men. He understood that in Switzerland only 52 per cent. of the men were taken and that the remainder paid a tax. He ventured to say that if we acted on that principle we would get a good and cheap citizen Army such as we wanted for home defence. He believed that we should be eventually driven to adopt the system of compelling every man to serve the country.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he would not have intervened in this debate but for an incident which occurred when the Prime Minister was addressing the Committee. A conversation took place between the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, which led to the exposition by the Prime Minister of a doctrine which was worthy of the Committee's attention. They were told that the military expenditure in South Africa, was £80,000 a week, and £4,000,000 a year. When the Prime Minister was denouncing the Leader of the Opposition for quarrelling with the military occupation, he interjected he suggestion that the new Colonies might at least pay for it, and on that, coupled with the statement of his right hon. friend, the Prime Minister had based a portentious superstructure involving the abandonment by the Liberal Party of what he called the results of the war. Unless the Prime Minister's speech was a mere attempt to make Party capital of a not too respectable kind—and he was unwilling to believe that—he absolutely failed to understand the question of Imperial military defence. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to shrink with horror from the notion that the new Colonies should bear the burden of their internal military defence, and talked of the suggestion as unheard of The right hon. Gentleman could not have followed the debates on the Navy during the last few years, nor could he have been acquainted with the passage read by the Leader of the Opposition on the constitutional practice of this country, where it was laid down that it was not the duty of the people of the United Kingdom to maintain local armies in the outside portions of the Empire. It was not the case in the Colonies, in India, or even in Egypt. Did the Prime Minister wish to apply

  635
  this doctrine to India? Would he argue for a moment that this country should pay for the military occupation of that country? If India was taxed for this purpose, how could a different rule be justified for the Transvaal? If the Prime Minister's doctrine became established in this country, the people of India would say, "If you are so generous as to pay for the military occupation of a country which is full of millionaires, how can you ask people with an average income of a penny per day to pay for the Army in India?" That was the meaning of his interruption, but it did not justify the interpretation which the Prime Minister seemed to wish to put upon it, and in place of any defence the right hon. Gentleman set up a false; and erroneous doctrine with respect to the duty of this country in Imperial defence. He ventured to prophesy that the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's speech would he very different from what he intended. If a Liberal Government came in it did not follow that the number of troops in South Africa would be reduced. It might be that the Transvaal was too poor to pay, and too disturbed to admit of the reduction of the Army. But that justified his right hon. friend's contention. They had spent £250,000,000 in acquiring two new Colonies with the result that they had to pay £4,000,000 a year for the territory they had captured. The original policy might not have been wrong, but it was clearly not a good investment, and therefore the Prime Minister's extraordinary doctrine would bear fruit that he little contemplated. Was the Secretary for War prepared to announce that no matter how great might be the prosperity that would follow from the introduction of Chinese labour, no matter how profitable the mines might turn out, and no matter how flourishing the country might be, it was the policy of the Government that the poor people of this country were to continue to pay for the Army which protected these industries. If the Prime Minister meant that, he did not understand the problem of Imperial defence. A succession of debates in that House had established the principle that the Colonies ought to paya share of the cost of naval defence. This question had not been recently raised in regard to the Army, but when they were told that
  636
  this expenditure of £30,000,000 a year was necessary not for home defence but for the defence of the outlying portions of the Empire, the question of whether the United Kingdom was to go on for ever doing this must be settled one day or other. That was the question which the Prime Minister had brought up in an ill-advised speech and by a hasty Party manœuvre. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] The Colonial Conference three years ago was addressed by the then Colonial Secretary, who called it, by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Secretary for War, all of whom spoke in behalf of the Government of the day. The Secretary for War submitted a proposal that the Colonies should not only pay for their own military defence out of their own resources but should contribute a force to assist the Imperial Army. To that the Prime Minister was a party, and how, therefore, could he justify the words he had used, which meant that it would be a shame and disgrace if the United Kingdom ceased to pay for the military occupation of South Africa? That was the dilemma in which the Prime Minister had involved himself. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, looking at the matter from a military point of view, ought to be able to tell the Committee whether it was the policy of the Government that, no matter how rich a Colony might be, the people of this country were to pay £4,000,000 a year to the end of time for the military defence of that Colony.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, he could not see that any great public, advantage would arise from the publication of the whole of the Report and evidence of the Mowatt Committee. It gave minute details with regard to the whole of the fortifications all over the world—their past armament, their present, and their contemplated armament. He thought it would not be advisable to publish such a Report, but it would be possible to publish a very valuable summary of the recommendations, and of what it was proposed to do and how far what was proposed had been done.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he had no desire that information of the kind referred to by the right hon. Gentleman should he published.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the nature of the Report was such as he had indicated. With regard to the working of the three years system, he felt a little hesitation in speaking about it because the full effect of that system had not yet come into operation. The men were not called upon to declare their intention of extending their service until the end of the first two years of their period of enlistment. That end would not be reached until the close of this month, and therefore they had no certain evidence as to the extent to which men would continue their service in the Army. He could not say that, pending the light to be thrown on the subject at the end of this month, their experience had been very fortunate. They had had to send out to India men who had not extended, but who were necessary to fill up the Indian drafts. They did not know whether these men on reaching India would extend or not, and there was no doubt at all that if they did not extend, there would be a very considerable additional burden thrown upon this country. He was not convinced of the great value of the system, which enlisted all the men on the basis of a three years enlistment: but he withheld a further expression of opinion until the end of this month, when they would know what was the attitude of the men generally with regard to extension. All he could say in reply to the right hon. Gentleman's Question about Lord Milner and the South African garrison was that the Government had reduced the garrison to the limit which Lord Milner considered desirable in the interests of the safeguarding of that very large extent of country, under the very peculiar circumstances that existed.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Then I understand that the maintenance of 21,000 men is regarded by those responsible as necessary for South African needs?SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Then I understand that the maintenance of 21,000 men is regarded by those responsible as necessary for South African needs?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that was so. The hon. Member for Dundee in concluding his remarks took all the
  638
  sting out of them, if they had a sting, when he said that when the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony were rich and prosperous enough to pay for ail the troops necessary for their defence, they should pay for them.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Are they not now?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, they are not. It would be a mere idle, pretence, almost a waste of time, to contend that the situation in South Africa was normal or could be a normal situation at present. The Army there was, to a large extent, an army of occupation at the termination of a successful war, and the position of these Crown I Colonies could not be compared with that of New Zealand or Australia, The hon. Member said that this was not a commercially successful transaction; but larger views should be taken of these matters than those of mere commercial success. The remarks of the Prime Minister, which had met with the censure of the hon. Member for Dundee, were elicited from him by a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition. What the right hon. Gentleman opposite said was—
  "We must, therefore, look forward to the withdrawal of this garrison in South Africa, whose maintenance at the expense of the British taxpayer is an entirely new departure from the established policy of the country. That it is intended to be permanent notwithstanding, is shown by the fact that barracks are being built for it. To ask for these 21,500 men as a permanent increase in the garrison of South Africa is to proclaim the failure of your South African policy."
  Those were the words which seemed to constitute a very alarming statement on the part of a gentleman in the very important position of Leader of the Opposition. He agreed with the hon. Member for Islington that the proper way to economise on the Army was to see that they got proper value for their money. He had a firm belief in the possibility of their doing so. The hon. Member had criticised his comparison of the Estimates of the year with what he called the normal Estimates. What he did was to compare them with the Estimates for rise year 1903–4, which amounted to £27,588,000. The

  639
  figure for this year was £28,928,000, but in that figure were included two sums which were not normal sums at all. One was the additional amount of £930,000 for the extra expense of the garrison in South. Africa, and the other was for the completion of the Mowatt programme. Il they took away those two figures, they got this year £27,490,000. In regard to the question of the rifle, raised by his hon. friend the Member for St. Helens, he must explain that the adoption of the short rifle was due to the advice of his military advisers tendered after exhaustive trials. It was in some respects an improvement on the existing pattern. The old rule was, that two patterns of rifles were issued. In the opinion of the military authorities there would be considerable advantage, and no loss, if one rifle were substituted for the two. The new rifle was four inches shorter than the old, but the range was practically the same. He was not prepared, however, to discuss this subject with so great an expert as his hon. friend, and would only say that the change had been recommended by his military advisers. He thought he had now answered all the specific Questions which had been asked.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that the Secretary for War was really responsible himself for any misunderstanding that had arisen with respect to the maintenance of the garrison in South Africa. In his own Memorandum the right hon. Gentleman stated that provision had been made in these Estimates for a permanent garrison in South Africa. The word "permanent" was not in accordance with the speech he had made that night. The essence of that speech was that the situation in South Africa was abnormal, and not ordinary, and that this garrison, therefore, was not a permanent and normal garrison, but one which was kept there because the situation so recently after the war was one which did not admit of the garrison being withdrawn. If that were so, then he did not think there would be much difference of opinion. They all knew that the situation in South Africa was not normal to-day; and if this were regarded as an exceptional and abnormal state of affairs he and his friends
  640
  were quite prepared to admit that it might be necessary to make provisional arrangements with regard to the stationing of forces there, which were not in the nature of permanent arrangements at all. But then this ought not to be called a permanent garrison. The idea that they could go on with the policy of holding South Africa by force as a permanent policy was not entertained by either side of the House. Difficulties were thick in South Africa, and in his opinion they were difficulties which would bring people on both sides to the conclusion that the task of government in that country was one which could only be eventually solved by self-government of the white population. When that solution was effected, whatever forces were retained in South Africa would, of course, be retained as in any other colony, with the consent of the Government of the colony itself. An idea was put forward last year, very largely from the other side of the House, that there might be some economy in retaining this force in South Africa in future with a view to the relief of India. The idea was that, if they stationed one man in South Africa, they might save two men at home. If that idea were correct, it would, of course, mean increased efficiency and economy, and it did not mean the creation of an army of occupation, for the force would be kept there only with the consent of the Government of the Colony itself. But if that idea was gone altogether and the Government had made up their minds that there was no efficiency or economy to be gained in that way, there was no object in their building permanent barracks for the forces in South Africa. He would like to know on some future occasion whether barracks were being built, whether they were to be permanent barracks, and what the distribution of the forces in South Africa was to be.
  He was not surprised that the Committee did not take very much interest in the discussion of these Estimates. They were illusory and provisional, and lie thought they ought not to have been presented to the House at all. In view of everything that the Secretary of State, himself, and the Prime Minister had said, the Government ought to have asked for a Vote on account, and postponed the Estimates. The whole question of the Army was in a

  641
  state of solution, at all events as far as the mind of the Government was concerned. The Prime Minister had tried the temper of the Committee very highly in recent years. He had given them quite a different idea to-day of what we wanted the Army for from that which he gave a few years ago. Some Members of the House last year and on previous occasions very strongly opposed the Army reform scheme of the present Secretary of State for India, but the Prime Minister defended that scheme. He resented the attacks upon it, and repelled them with indignation; and now this afternoon he stood up and spoke in favour of the Report of a Committee which blew to atoms the scheme of the Secretary of State for India. He seemed to think that the House should accept that change of attitude on his part as the most natural thing in the world after all the indignation he had shown in defending his right hon. friend's scheme. He thought much better of the Report of the Committee than of anything which had appeared in the way of Army reform yet, but it was a little bitter that they should have had to fight so hard before the Government reached this state of things. After fighting for an expensive, wasteful, and impossible scheme, the Government had at last blundered on to something which seemed to have, at any rate, possibilities of retrenchment and efficiency. He would express no opinion upon the details of the Report, but it had done this service—it had entirely disposed of the wasteful and expensive scheme of the Secretary of State for India. It had, at any rate, cleared the ground. It had, indeed, left the Estimates. They were still there because the Government could not make up their minds as to how far they would adopt the Report in particulars; and that was why he thought it would have been fairer to the Committee if the Government had admitted that the Estimates they presented or the Votes they asked for were to be as provisional as the state of their opinion in regard to the Report. But he did not wish to discourage the Government in any way from regarding that Report favourably. They were in a very tentative state of mind in regard to it, but it had cleared the ground. The Secretary for War in the winter made a
  642
  very interesting and courageous speech, in which he said that we had not yet settled what we wanted our Army for, and also that we might by spending the same amount of money that we spent now get a much better Army than at the present time, or by spending even less get an Army quite as effective as the present one. He was one of those who believed that they must have a reform of the system before getting that efficiency, and he recognised that this Committee had approached the subject with great breadth of mind and with great vigour and grasp. While reserving his opinion upon details, he did hope that the Government were not going to be paralysed by difficulties in the Cabinet, and that, whatever passing difficulties there might be in the Cabinet which might prevent them from digesting and adopting what they thought good in the Report of the Committee and disclosing their mind to the House, they would in a short time as completely forget those difficulties as the Prime Minister had apparently forgotten the fact that he defended with such vigour and affection the very scheme of Army reform which had been so completely condemned by the Committee.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he should like to have a clearer explanation of the statement of the Prime Minister, in which he said that the expenditure on the Army depended on the requirements of the Empire. That was to say that if the Empire were to go on increasing, the Army should be correspondingly increased. Everyone must, however, realise that there was a limit to the purse of the nation, and that there should be some consideration for what the nation could afford to pay. That fact ought not to be left out of consideration altogether, otherwise it would be a case of the old story of the frog and the bull. He hoped the Government in considering any new scheme would remember the strained circumstances of the moment. They could not go on at the rate at winch they were at present going, and unless there were some great reduction in the expenditure, the Army in the future would be so reduced as to be useless, which would be a great danger to the country. He trusted that the Government would take

  643
  care that the spirit of economy was not left altogether out of consideration in this matter.
  CAPTAIN JESSELdid not think the right hon. Gentleman was justified in the attack he had made on the Prime Minister who, he said, had warmly defended the scheme of the Secretary of State for India when it was before the House and had no less warmly advocated that of the Secretary of State for War now. When it was borne in mind that since the scheme of the Secretary of State for India the War Commission had published its Report and the Defence Committee had been put upon a proper footing the change in the mind of his right hon. friend was easily accounted for. The War Commission stated that that Army, which had hitherto been run on peace principles, would now have to be run on war principles, and when his right hon. friend came to realise the enormous difference in the principles before laid down and those laid down by the War Commission, the reason would be easily understood for his change of opinion. He thought the Secretary of State for India had been somewhat hardly used in this matter because, although his scheme had been condemned, it must be admitted he was the first Secretary of State for War who tried to do something in the direction of decentralisation. His scheme was by no means perfect, there were many mistakes in it, but it did involve decentralisation. The House was twitted with having taken too much time in getting Mr. Speaker out of the Chair in the discussion of small details, but the time had now come when the House had resolved itself into a Committee for discussing these details in the interest of the Army itself. The first question he would ask was whether there would be in the future any development of the policy of trying to pet soldiers from the Colonies to serve in the British Army? Would recruiting officers be established in South Africa, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere, and attempts made to get our fellow subjects to become part and parcel of the Imperial Army. It was a matter of great regret to him that something was not done to attract the Colonials to the Army. The Maltese might also be induced by liberal terms to
  644
  garrison different places in India and the I Mediterranean, and so far as Australia was concerned, it, had always seemed to him that it would be a very good thing if it I were possible to get an Australian regiment to India, as it would show the natives of that dependency that there were other British forces available besides those coming from the United Kingdom. It was only a question of pay after all, and that matter could no doubt be got over by arrangement, especially when it was remembered that British soldiers in India drew double the pay they received at home.
  He should also be glad to know what was to be the future policy with regard to the building of barracks. When at Shorncliffe recently, he noticed that since he was stationed there a large amount of land had been purchased by Government for manœuvring purposes and that barracks were now being built upon it, the result of which was that a large portion of the land was lost for the purposes of manœuvres. This seemed to him to be a great mistake, and the same thing, he understood, was taking place on Salisbury Plain. He also desired to draw attention to the non-observance of the pledge given by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland with regard to the cavalry regiments, that men joining cavalry regiments should have the privilege of serving permanently in the regiment they joined. In no force was the esprit de corps so great as in the cavalry regiments, and a distinct pledge was given that 200 men in such regiment should form a permanent portion of it. He did not believe that any of the men enlisting in cavalry regiments were informed of this privilege that they could enlist permanently in a particular regiment, and he thought some steps should be taken to carry out the spirit of the pledge that had been given. He would also like to know whether any decision had been arrived at on the vexed question of armaments, and particularly with regard to the abolition of the lance as a weapon of war. One high cavalry authority was greatly in favour of its retention, but, on the other hand, they were told by a high officer who had served principally in Highland regiments that the lance was an absolutely useless weapon, that at present it was neither one thing

  645
  nor the other. The orders were that it was to be used for ceremonial purposes, but the men were to have no real instruction in its use. It was a great pity a proper decision could not be arrived at. If the lance was to be retained only as a pretty toy the sooner it was done away with the better. If, on the other hand, the advice of cavalry officers was taken, the lance should be placed in its proper position. A question of considerable importance to those affected by it was that of the proper supply of regulation books for the use of officers. It was exceedingly difficult for any officer to obtain the proper books. From time to time they were out of print, and men going up for examination were obliged in many cases to pay exorbitant sums for books which they could not otherwise obtain. He hoped that steps would be taken to keep the supply of the regulations and of the necessary books up to date. While fully appreciating the difficulties of the position in which the Secretary of State had been placed, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would persevere in the course he had marked out, and that he would do his best to secure the adoption of the Reconstruction Committee's Report almost in its entirety. There were some parts of the Report with which he did not agree, but he hoped that its vital principles would be put into practice, and that the reception the public generally had accorded to the Report would be an encouragement to the right hon. Gentleman to persevere in the path upon which he had started.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that, before moving the reduction of the Vote by 10,000 men, he desired to refer to a matter which had already figured in the discussion. The position had doubtless been changed by the speech of the Prime Minister, who had declared that the Government did not bind themselves to approve of Part II. of the Report in whole or in part, and that he did not agree with many of the criticisms in that section of the Report. That was a reassuring statement, because there were many far-reaching proposals of the Committee which ought not to be adopted without very careful consideration of their probable effect upon the finances of the country. In a single sentence Lord
  646
  Esher and his colleagues proposed to abolish the Accountant-General's Department, la the judgment of financial authorities, the accounting at headquarters, so far as the saving of money and the promotion of efficiency woe concerned, was better in the Army than in the Navy, and it had been the aim of the Admiralty to work up to the level of the War Office. Another important announcement was that at a later period of the session a further statement would be made on Army policy. One could not fail to recognise that in view of the rapidity with which the Report had been produced and substantial parts adopted, it was impossible at present for a full or well considered decision upon many important matters to be announced. The second Army statement would therefore be anticipated with great interest. In moving the reduction of the Vote by 10,000 men, he was acting largely on economical grounds. He was one of those who, when it was less popular so to do than now, had advocated economy in Army and Navy expenditure, and ho remembered a Treasury official saying five or six years ago that economy had a future but no present. He hoped they were now in sight of that "future," and that steps would be taken in the direction of economy. It was certainly necessary that all who desired economy should take every opportunity of urging their views upon the House. He did not agree with the Prime Minister that the first object of our military organisation should be to have a large highly-trained military force available for purposes of aggression or military expeditions abroad. Our Army ought to be primarily for purposes of home defence. He was entirely in sympathy with the view that the proposed permanent garrison in South Africa was far too large. No less than 72,000 men were serving in the Colonies and Egypt, or almost as many British soldiers as in the normal garrison in India, and representing a rise of about 20 per cent. during the last six or seven years. That rise had taken place, not merely in Africa, but in other colonial and foreign stations. With regard to South Africa, this was the third estimate in the course of the year as to the number of men the authorities responsible considered necessary. In last March the

  647
  permanent garrison was put at 15,000; in July the estimate was increased to 30,000; it was now said that 21,000 would be necessary. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that this figure was in accordance with the report of Lord Milner and the authorities at the Cape. That was doubtless the ground on which the figure was put into the Estimates, but it did not justify the statement in the Secretary of State's memorandum that it was lo be looked upon as a permanent garrison, to be maintained presumably out of Imperial funds. In addition to this heavy charge, £2,000,000 had already been spent, and we were committed to an expenditure of a further £1,000,000 in the erection of permanent barracks in South Africa. Where were those barracks to be—in Cape Colony, or in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony? And where were the troops to be stationed?
  He advocated this reduction upon another ground. On page 4 of the Estimates there was a table explaining Vote A. as regarded the number proposed. The last column stated that 10,000 men were required for Somaliland. He took it that those men were included in the total of 227,000 men. Therefore they were being asked for a total of 10,000 men for Somaliland, and yet not a single penny was being asked in these Estimates for the payment of those troops. That made these Estimates not only provisional and interim, but also inaccurate. Here they were being asked to vote a certain number of men and the Government were not asking for the money to pay them. The Secretary of State for War admitted in his memorandum that lie did not ask for the money for these men, for he stated that he had deliberately omitted any Estimate for Somaliland. He did not consider that was any explanation at all, and it was no reason for breaking, if not the law, at least the practice of Parliament in the past. The hon. Member for Islington asked if the Government had any money for next year for this campaign, and the right hon. Gentleman replied "No." After the 31st of March there would be no money available for the payment of those troops. What chance was there of the war really coming to an end before the 31st of March next? As far as he could see, the omens were the other way. A
  648
  telegram, dated 4th March, stated that the Mullah had been informed that only his death or capture would put an end to the operations. That did not look like reconciliation and it did not appear as if the British authorities were making any serious attempt to induce the Mullah and his forces to surrender. Another telegram, dated the 6th of March, stated that—
  "The season's operations were expected to be over by the middle or end of April; that the transport was practically worn out and the hard work done by the Indian troops was beginning to tell upon them."
  Therefore the most favourable opinion was that the campaign would not end until the end of April and up to that time no money was being asked for. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he might move for an additional Estimate in the future, but it was clear that if the renewal of the campaign was necessary in the ensuing season it would be a very costly one, because the transport was now worn out. He had not followed the details of this campaign, but he welcomed one of the statements of the Secretary of State for War in which he said that if an opportunity could be given, consistent with the safety of those dependent upon this country, to bring about peace he would avail himself of that opportunity. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was his justification for the extremely unusual course he had pursued in regard to these Estimates? The cardinal principle laid down by Sir Erskine May was that the Estimates should contain the total expenditure for the year and the Votes for all the services for which money was wanted. They were not asking the Government to put down an enormous sum for Somaliland, because they knew it was an uncertain charge, but he did not think it was treating the country fairly to present Estimates which contained no provision for the expeditionary force in Somaliland, and did not put in any sum of money to meet the expenses of that force. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to investigate the matter, and, meanwhile, he begged to move a reduction of the Vote by 10,000 men.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 217,000, be maintained for the said Service."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid the Secretary of State for War had complained that afternoon of the Opposition raising a great number of subjects which he thought ought to be discussed on the specific Votes. If the right hon. Gentleman would carry his memory back to the time when he was a private Member he would remember that a great many Votes involving large quantities of ammunition and stores were hurried through without any discussion at all. The only time they were free to discuss every subject was upon the Motion that Mr. Speaker should leave the Chair. That was his legitimate excuse for the Opposition raising small points which he agreed would be more appropriately discussed on the specific Votes. He had ventured to point out to the right hon. Gentleman certain details in regard to the men upon which he thought, it was possible for him to make certain reductions. His hon. friend had now proposed to reduce the forces by 10,000 men. The Prime Minister had made two specific statements which were of the greatest possible importance. In one of them he told the Committee that he supported the Secretary of State for India's scheme last year because he had not got the full information which he now possessed, and then he went on to say that the possible invasion of this country by a foreign force was, according to the information now at his disposal, not to be considered as a serious or probable contingency. If that information was correct, then the Committee ought to have fuller information in support of so serious a statement, for it was one which must affect the number of troops to be kept in this country. If no foreign invasion of this country was possible or probable they could afford to dispense with a large number of the Regular troops which, up to the present, it had been their custom to maintain in this country. If the Army had simply to supply drafts for India and the Colonies and sufficient men for an expeditionary force, that would enable the Government to reduce the total to a number very much nearer 40,000 or 50,000 men. For that general reason he should support the reduction. About twelve months ago the Secretary of State for India told them that this war in Somaliland would last some four or
  650
  five months, and that it would cost about £500,000 or £600,000, but they knew now that both the duration of the war and its cost had been sadly under-rated. There had been an entire misconception of the resisting powers of the enemy of the number of troops required to bring the campaign to an end, and the difficulties of the country in which they were operating. The total of £1,900,000, returned as the cost of the expedition, was misleading. What was the position of affairs in Somaliland when the campaign began? The Mullah was in the Italian territory. AT a cost of many officers and men they had driven him into territory where he was safely ensconced, and where it would be impossible to follow him as soon as the rains broke. After 500 or 600 men had been killed, troops bad been brought practically from all parts of the world. They were now employing 8,000 men, at a cost of £120,000 a month. The Government, which had made no provision for the future, were not very sure what they had been doing in the past. The non-success of their operations had within the last week induced a new man to come forward and to set up on his own account. Were the Government going to organise a fresh, expedition against him, and was that to be as costly as the present? The Italians had begun to do something, and they were organising a force to check the onward progress of these two Mullahs combined. The Secretary of State for War took a very optimistic view of what was going to happen. He said—
  "In my opinion the situation in Somaliland is more favourable than it has been for many months past."
  What was the position? Troops, transports, and money were exhausted, and the right hon. Gentleman called that a more favourable situation. The House had been too long accustomed to favourable anticipation of this campaign, but they had never before had experience of a campaign in progress for which no money was asked. The Secretary of State for War knew that the cost of this campaign was so great that it must have raised difficulties in connection with the coming Budget, and it was in anticipation of financial disaster

  651
  that no doubt this Vote was postponed at the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the Secretary of State were to put down the cost of the expedition he would probably state it ac £500,000 or £600,000.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the reason why an Estimate had not been put down for the expedition was that they were absolutely unable to form any anticipation of the course of events at present. It was a great mistake to suppose that it was the practice to estimate the cost of a campaign at all, and so far from the course adopted being contrary to precedent there was only one occasion on which a war had been carried on by means of Estimates at all.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: This is a war in operation.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the Estimate put down last year was perfectly speculative. No one could foresee the course of any war, and for the purpose of the House of Commons they might as well put down £100,000 or £1,000,000. The Government believed that in a short time it would be possible to make an approximate estimate of what the cost of the war would be. He would remind hon. Members that it was not a question of keeping up all those men after the war ceased. As soon as the war came to a close, the greater number of them would become chargeable on the Indian Exchequer. He was told that he had been too optimistic. On Monday he stated what was perfectly true, that he regarded the situation as more satisfactory than it had been for a long time past. The period when we could conduct this campaign in the same way as we were now conducting it was practically drawing to a close, and we would see in a short time whether the operations were likely to be successful or not. The Government would then be able to review the whole chances of the campaign and the expenditure. He admitted that the House of Commons was entitled to information, and if be had thought it was in the power of anyone at the War Office to
  652
  form an adequate estimate in regard to the campaign for the coming year, he should have supplied the figure, though it would no doubt have exposed him to as much criticism as the omission of which the hon. Member complained. He felt that he had done no injustice to the House of Commons, and therefore he did not accept any censure.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid it would be more convenient to discuss the reduction on all grounds, and not on a single item.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  And it being half-past Seven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER left the Chair till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  FISCAL POLICY.
  MR. PIRIEsaid there was no uncertainty as to the duty which called upon him and which would call on any Member sitting on that side of the House placed in similar circumstances to himself, to move this Motion, nor was there any uncertainty of the supreme importance of the Motion which he now brought before the House. His object in moving it was twofold; in the first place he wished to tranquillise the public mind, disorganised and disturbed as it had been by an agitation which had now been going on for many months, and in the second place he desired to extract from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a personal explanation with regard to his action during the winter and the position he had taken up in respect of this agitation. He regarded it as a happy omen that a meeting of the representatives of the largest commercial centre of the world had that afternoon, not half a mile from the House, passed a resolution in absolute sympathy with the Motion he was now bringing forward. It might be said by Gentlemen on the Government Benches that, inasmuch as the whole question had been debated not many weeks ago on an Amendment

  653
  to the Address, this debate was useless, but his reply to that was that the debate on the King's Speech was a vote of censure and did not touch the question lie now raised, and that the clear discussion which he wished to initiate could not be raised in any other manner than that which he took to-night. The hon. Member then referred to speeches made by various members of the Government at different times, and said the only conclusion which could be drawn from them was that the Government were pledged by those statements not to introduce protection or colonial preference even after an appeal to the country, and secondly, that the Government was absolutely hostile to the policy known as the Birmingham policy. That ought to carry conviction to the mind of the country that the Government policy was a direct result of conferences that had taken place in the Cabinet and that it was the united decision arrived at.
  Now, if there was one member more than another of the Cabinet upon whom such a decision should be binding, the House would agree that that member was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but what had been the conduct of the right hon. Gentlemen during the winter? On 3rd November, at Aberdeen, he made the first speech after his assumption of office, and on the 4th he was present at a large meeting addressed by the late Colonial Secretary. Everyone could sympathise with the feeling of filial duty which led the right hon. Gentleman to go there, but the right hon. Gentleman at that meeting said that he was present to show his appreciation for the courage with which the senior Member for Birmingham had advocated his great policy in all its branches. That meant out and out protection. The time had now come for the right hon. Gentleman to choose between filial and Imperial duty. The right hon. Gentleman in the next month, December, spoke in a similar sense at Halifax, and again in January asked whether it was wise to ignore all questions of interest and trust entirely to sentiment as the only bond of union between ourselves and the Colonies. A clear indication of the advocacy of colonial preference by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be found in the letter addressed by him
  654
  to the noble Lord the candidate for South Birmingham. What was the policy of the noble Lord? He favoured colonial preference with its consequent taxation of food, and was therefore opposed to the avowed policy of the Government or opposed to what was this morning the avowed policy of the Government. If the policy of the noble Lord the Member for South Birmingham were to be carried out it would be directly antagonistic to the Amendment which had appeared upon the Paper that morning. What was the country and the House to think of the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He (Mr. Pirie) would not be wrong if he laid down as the standard of political morality the standard followed by those free-traders who left the Government because they were not protectionists. Ministers were divided as individuals, and even the Departments of the Ministers were divided among themselves upon this question. The President of the Board of Trade was a retaliator, his subordinate the Secretary to the Board of Trade was an out-and-out protectionist. That hon. Gentleman at Glasgow, on 15th December, said—
  "In view of the attitude of a section of the Unionist Party, a very insignificant section he believed."—
  The hon. Member must have been alluding to Members, he was certainly not alluding to intellect—
  "It was the clear duty of everyone who differed from their views to say so unmistakably. He did so. He sympathised with Mr. Chamberlain's proposal; not only so, but he really believed that a trade preference would be the direct result of any change of our fiscal policy—"
  a trade preference which had been alluded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; a policy which had been denounced by every member of the Cabinet and which was tabooed by the Amendment which had appeared on the Paper that morning but had not been allowed to remain. He did not go too far when he said the situation was an intolerable one, degrading to the dignity of the country—free-traders at 3.30 in the afternoon and protectionists at night. Had the Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Benches no opinions of their own? The President of the Local Government Hoard, speaking at Bristol in January,

  655
  after stating his acceptance of the policy of the Prime Minister, said he should always believe that the policy which Mr. Chamberlain had been advancing with such marvellous ability and such wonderful success would have to be adopted by the people of this country, if they were going to save the position, for themselves, and that he would stand at the next election distinctly on the platform of fiscal reform. Very different words were now used in this House, and the Shakespearean quotation was very apt—Now the lion "roars you as gently as any sucking dove." This struck at the very root of our Parliamentary institution. The Government at the present moment were led by manœuvres and tactics instead of by principles, and the interests of the country were made subservient to the individual interests of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench. He had listened with great attention and at times with great advantage to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister ever since he (Mr. Pirie) had been a Member of the House, and up to very lately he had listened to the right hon. Gentleman with a great deal of admiration because of the references he always made to the great traditions of the country and this House, and the one ray of sunshine that illuminated the lamentable episode of the last few months was that hon. Members could go back to the glorious traditions of this House and not find a parallel to what had taken place during this unhappy period.
  His Motion condemned protection. The free-traders believed that on free trade depended the purity of public life, and the purity of public life was one of the greatest assets which this great country possessed. Its greatness had been due to free trade, and those who believed in free trade aspired to expand its principles and widen its scope, because they believed that the more its scope were widened the greater would be the blessings for the commerce of this country, I which had done more for the peace of this world and for the welfare of mankind, perhaps, than even the efforts of the individual Gentlemen now seated on the Treasury Bench. The free-traders would fight for the purity and the maintenance
  656
  of the credit of this country with the same fervour as in the past mankind fought for religion. It was in those circumstances he begged to move the Motion standing in his name.
  *MR. AUSTIN TAYLORseconded the Motion. He would not, he said, disguise from the House that he would have preferred that the reference to His Majesty's Ministers in the Motion had been omitted. He felt that it would have been better if the House could have had before it the simple broad issue between a preferential and protective policy on the one hand and the principle of free trade on the other. Though he made that reservation, he felt bound to state that the words alluding to the language of certain Ministers were true in fact, and were not put in merely as a tag upon which to hang the Motion. It was the utterance of certain Ministers which had caused much of the confusion and trouble which had fallen upon the public mind. He was struck by the observation of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in the debate on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose to the Address, that to his surprise all the criticism was levelled at the policy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and that so little criticism was directed at the policy of the Government, whatever it might be, a point upon which even now he (Mr. Taylor) would hesitate to dogmatise. He had heard that expression of opinion with surprise, because he should have thought it obvious, not only to the Chief Secretary, but to every Minister, that the attention both of the House of Commons and of the country was riveted, not upon the policy of the Gentlemen who sat upon the Treasury Bench, but upon the more hustling, full-blooded, and intelligible policy which had emanated from Birmingham. What was exciting the interest of the country was neither the policy of the Government nor the changes in that policy, but the attitude which the Government was prepared to assume towards the much more virile policy which had emanated from the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. In the memorable speech delivered by the President of the Board of Trade, he

  657
  alluded to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham's policy in very significant language. He said—
  "Mr. Chamberlain has given a somewhat detailed account of his proposals, and a detailed account of a proposal to an eager Opposition is like a pot of honey to flies in summer. You have only to look at the treatment which Mr. Chamberlain's scheme has received in order to judge of the wisdom of the premature disclosure of details."
  What he complained of was that the Government in their official capacity had studied too much what was known as the doctrine of economy. They had officially not disclosed enough of their policy to satisfy them, while in their private capacity they had disclosed a great deal too much. The difference between the official voice and the pious opinion was strongly marked in the utterances from the Ministerial Bench, and, curiously enough, the pious opinion of the Minister was often more audible and aggressive than the official voice with which he spoke. That was infinitely more true of the speeches delivered with greater freedom outside that Chamber. In particular he would refer to what fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Halifax on the 11th December as to the possibility of better relations with the Colonies, when the right hon. Gentleman said it was in the yet further development of the Government's commercial policy that would be found the best means to that end, and he asked those whom he was then addressing to co-operate in that development. The free-traders on that side of the House had a right to ask from the Government an explicit statement officially as to whether they were, or were not, opposed to the protective and preferential programme enunciated from Birmingham. When they asked for finality from the Government, they were confronted with a formula. "Liberty to negotiate" and "fiscal reform" were useful phrases, which might carry a meaning of one kind or another, according as the future exigencies of the situation might develop. Until some clearer indication had been given to the House and to the country of what those formulae meant, he, at any rate, reserved his adhesion to them. In the present temper of public opinion, what was really required was an explicit
  658
  statement, and not a formula, as to whether the Government were, or were not, officially opposed to the programme which had emanated from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. It could not be said for a moment that the attitude adopted by the Government had been either for the comfort of the Unionist free-traders, or for the benefit, as a whole, of the Party of which the Prime Minister was the head. He appreciated fully the difficulties which his right hon. friend had to face, and would be the last to deny what he believed to be the lofty motives by which he had been actuated in taking the course he had. But, none the less, it had been disastrous to the Party, and, certainly to the cause which free traders had at heart, it had been of the most disappointing character. It was the custom in China—though he would speak with diffidence with the Colonial Secretary present—if a Chinaman had a grievance against an opponent, not to cut the throat of his opponent, but to cut his own upon his opponent's doorstep. He hoped, as a Party, they would not adopt Chinese ideas in Party warfare.
  The Motion before the House referred to preferential and protective proposals, and condemned them in emphatic language. He associated himself fully with that, and was prepared, with other Members sitting on those Benches, to offer those proposals the most solid and lasting opposition which it was in his power, politically, to do. The British Empire was a maritime Empire, although, during the recent debates on the fiscal question, that was a point of view apparently sometimes ignored. It was impossible to exaggerate the peculiar economic conditions of this country, which differentiated it altogether from countries like Germany, the United States, or Russia. Our great lines of communication with those colonies, of which we were so proud, were by sea, and only by control of the seas could we hope to hold that Empire together. Any proposals which, by their protective character, would add either to the cost of building, storing, or repairing our ships, must prove in the long run detrimental to the best interests of an Empire which depended upon shipping for its actual cohesion. It was a significant fact that

  659
  the cost of victualling a ship in America was at least 10 per cent. above the cost in English ports. Was it not a significant fact that, in a small island densely populated, producing little of sustenance for itself, we should find this state of things as compared with a continent like America, furnished with boundless resources, and able, so far as stores were concerned, to undertake to compete with all the world? And if that were true of stores, was it not true in other directions? They were congratulating themselves in that House the other day on the purchase of two battleships intended for the Republic of Chili. How was it that we were able to build battleships for all the world, and how was it that we were able to keep the cost of construction in this country infinitely less than in protected countries? It was because of our free-trade system. "What had enabled us to get together all the materials for that construction far more cheaply than even the other countries that produced them? He had listened with intellectual pleasure to the speech which the Secretary to the Board of Trade had delivered on this question, and when that hon. Gentleman was speaking of the steel trade he had felt inclined to put this question to him—How was it that in America, where the steel industry was stimulated by every artificial aid of tariff and trust, they had to pay for ship plates £8 a ton, as against £5 10s. in this country? How was it that, as a result, the shipbuilding industry of America had utterly failed either to keep pace with that of other countries, or still less to compete with the enormous building facilities of this country? Germany was often held out as a model of shipbuilding, and yet it was a fact that we added to our mercantile marine, between 1880 and 1900, 2,700,000 tons of shipping, more than the whole German fleet as it existed to-day, and this after allowing for all the advantages that Germany had had, and allowing for the materials for shipbuilding being free and not subject to duty. These considerations, which affected our world-wide interests as no considerations affecting only our internal industries possibly could, had not received in the course of recent discussions the amount of attention to which they were entitled, and until a far stronger case had been
  660
  made out of injury to our internal trade, it would be a suicidal act to adopt a policy which would increase the cost of stores, or building ships, to the jeopardy of our trade and our Empire.
  The right hon. Member for West Birmingham, in the fiscal campaign to which he had brought matchless eloquence and tireless energy, had appealed to much that was high and enduring in English character, and to certain other elements in that character which, though equally enduring, were not quite so lofty. He had made an appeal on the grounds of commercial advantage, Imperial unity, and economic revenue. From whom had the right hon. Gentleman got a response? Who were the "active citizens" who were furnishing the fighting powers for the campaign? He thought it one of the most serious features of the situation that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had called into being forces which he himself could not control, forces which, legitimately enough, when the opportunity was offered for prosecuting and benefiting their own trades, had naturally enough set themselves in motion to obtain all the benefits that might be possible from what the right hon. Gentleman called "a scientific tariff." He felt that in this matter what had to be faced was a conflict of ideals. The ex-Colonial Secretary, if he was not mistaken, bade his countrymen turn their backs upon the England they had known—that England whose principles of commercial freedom, though they might not have conquered or converted the world, had permeated large portions of it with a salutary and a beneficent influence. He was confident that by adhering to the principles of commercial freedom, as opposed to those of monopoly and privilege, there was no risk of sacrificing the unity of the British Empire or of jeopardising, what was still more important, the ultimate cohesion of the Anglo-Saxon race. For these reasons he with a clear conscience seconded the Motion, and he hoped the House would endorse it as an emphatic condemnation of the policy of preference and protection.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House, noting the continued agitation in favour of preferential and protective tariffs, which is encouraged by the

  661
  language used by certain of His Majesty's Ministers, deems it necessary to express its condemnation of any such policy."—(Mr. Pirie.)
  MR. CRIPPSsaid that the Motion seemed to condemn the policy of preferential and so-called protective tariffs, and he hoped it would not be adopted by the House. He was strongly in favour of preferential tariffs, and he believed that the term "protective tariffs" was not used in its right sense either by the mover or seconder of the Resolution. Now, as regarded preferential tariffs, he did not think that the main question was an economic one at all. There was no greater question at the present time in our politics than the future union of this great Empire as between its various parts—the Colonies on the one side and the mother country on the other. The large amount of support which was undoubtedly given to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was due to his having, on this colonial question, rightly interpreted the feeling of this country and of the Empire. They ought not to go off on any side issue. The true question was whether it was desirable to take further steps to promote the permanent solidarity of our great Colonial Empire, and upon this point—he saw the First Lord of the Treasury present, and he had heard his Sheffield speech—there was no difference whatever, so far as he could understand, and as regarded a main principle, between the Prime Minister and the right hon. gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. [An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION Benches: That is what we say.] What he meant when he made that statement was that both these right hon. Gentlemen had said that if there was to be a permanent solidarity of our great Colonial Empire it ought to be based on some form of commercial union. The difference was this, and he thought they could well appreciate it, at any rate on that side of the House, that although there was no difference in principle on that point, it was well open to difference of opinion as to whether it could be best pressed forward under one condition or another. He begged humbly to agree with the standpoint that in a great policy
  662
  of this kind, which went to the root of the Imperial position in the future, that we ought to have what the Prime Minister called the heart and conscience of the people with us. He believed that as the people of this country realised that it was no petty question of an economic character that was involved, but this great question of our whole Imperial position in the future, they would in their heart and conscience agree with the Prime Minister and the right hon. gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and that we would carry through what, to his mind, was more important than any other political question at the present day, the foundation of our great Colonial Empire permanently on a solid and constructed basis. He did not look at this question of preferential tariffs himself on any other basis. He did not discuss whether the sum to be sacrificed by the people of this country in that behalf was great or small; but if the people believed that we ought to have commercial union with the Colonies the first step towards that union must be in the nature of preferential tariffs, and that the people would not be slow to make the sacrifices demanded of them for that purpose. He went beyond that point. Any measure of commercial union could not, of course, be fully developed in the first instance. He looked on any question of preference as the first step only to a higher ideal, which was that, in the future, we might have a great free trade Empire; that we might have not only free trade between the mother country and the various colonies, but free trade between all the component parts of the Empire. A great free trade Empire of that sort would be in an economic position to hold its own either against the United States or Germany, or any combination of protective nations. He wanted to know whether, at the outset, all possibility of any advance in a great policy of that kind was to be stopped because of a mere side issue—that the people of this country, however great the prospective advantages might be, were so selfish that they would make no sacrifice for it. He did not believe that of tie people of this country, and he did not believe that of the great Lancashire constituency which he had the honour to represent. When they realised that fact these small aide issues would be disregarded and the

  663
  policy of the Unionist Party would be to hand down this great Empire upon a permanent, constructive, and solid basis.
  It was customary in debates upon this question to speak as though there was a contest going on between free trade and protection, but he joined issue with that contention, for they had not got free trade. They could not have free trade without free exchange, and that meant freedom in the two countries and not free imports in one country only. With regard to the real economic question, it was an extremely difficult subject, which could not be approached by merely general assertions. It could only be faced by a great industrial community, and it was no use having an insurance after your house had been burned down. When they had a free import country surrounded by countries with high tariffs, they had a new economic condition which was never dealt with by Cobden or any other free-trader, and what they had to do now was to see in reference to that new economic condition what was the true economic remedy. Did anyone deny that a free import country was placed at a disadvantage by having her natural markets taken away from her by the imposition of high tariffs? He would put this question to so-called free-traders opposite. Would any hon. Gentleman opposite say that conditions of that kind were in accord with what Mr. Cobden or any other economist would call free trade? If they had a high-tariff country with its own home market, and if they allowed that country free access into our neutral market, then they gave them an unfair advantage which could never exist under free trade. If they could not bring about free exchange then they intended to insist that the conditions should be those of fair exchange. What was meant by fair exchange? No doubt they would have to have artificial provisions, but only in order to equalise the disadvantages which a free import country was under if it had to compete with a high prohibitive tariff. Beyond that he did not think anybody wanted to go. He did not call that a protective tariff, but simply a defensive tariff, in order that our manufacturers should have the same advantages as our foreign competitors.
  664
  He noticed that questions had bean put to the Government asking whether these defensive measures were likely to be permanent or temporary. How could the Government answer questions of that kind, because, whether they would be temporary or not did not depend upon this country, but on the Governments of foreign countries, who were putting on these high tariffs. If retaliation was effective and brought about either free exchange or fair exchange it would have accomplished its purpose. If, on the other hand, foreign countries would not change their high tariffs, it was not for the people in this country to criticise the economic conditions of foreign countries. If foreign countries maintained those high tariffs which they thought were to their advantage, on the other hand, the defensive measures of this country must be maintained until the fair conditions of trade for which this country were asking were conceded. Could anything be more insane, in seeking free or fair exchange, than to say that we would withdraw these defensive tariffs although this country did not get the benefits for which they were put on? A policy of that kind would be suicidal as regarded a great constructive commercial policy. He had no sympathy with that reactionary Party who refused to realise these new conditions, who spoke as though free trade existed when they knew it did not exist, and who suggested that they were taking some new aggressive step in our commercial policy, whereas they were doing nothing more then adopting a defensive attitude to protect our commercial interests against attacks made upon them purposely and intentionally by certain foreign countries in the shape of high protective tariffs. As long as he took any part in political life he would never assent to an injury of that kind being done to our great commercial interests without demanding of any Government that might be in power that they should find some effective remedy.
  The support given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was not, in his opinion, as regarded the details of any scheme he had brought forward, because this question was much

  665
  too serious to decide upon any one suggestion. They wanted the whole matter threshed out. The commercial community of this country realised fully that they were suffering at the present time under a serious disadvantage and it was that disadvantage they were seeking to remedy. Something had been said about Imperial and economic topics. But was it really suggested by any responsible person in this House that if measures of this kind were necessary to protect the trade of this country the morality of this country was so low that it could not adopt them without poisoning the purity of commercial and political life? That was an indictment against the morality of the whole nation. He did not believe, if they wanted to apply effective remedies, that they would have to sweep them on one side because their morality was too low, but what he pleaded for was that as regarded preferential tariffs the leading idea was not economic but Imperial, and he held that there would be a closer relationship with the Colonies under the policy initiated by that great Colonial Minister (Mr. Chamberlain). As regarded the economic position, he hoped they would not be frightened by those bogeys of free trade and protection. Let them see what the real evil was and recognise the true economic difficulty, and ask the Government to provide a remedy by declaring that if they could not have free trade at least they must have fair trade.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid the speech just delivered curiously illustrated the Prime Minister's declaration at Sheffield that he meant to lead, and it contradicted every principle laid down by members of the Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman who bad just sat down said that if he considered colonial preference was desirable he should support it, and he said that amid the cheers of the great body of hon. Members opposite. But in the debate on the Address the Home Secretary said that preference was not a part of the Government policy at all. The hon. and learned Member advocated protection, but called it fair trade. He might point out that they had known it for years under that name, but whatever name he gave it meant putting taxes upon goods which came into this country.
  666
  They called that protection, but the hon. and learned Member called it fair trade, and yet the Home Secretary on behalf of the Government denounced protection, and now the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, amid the cheers of his own side, had declared himself in favour of fair trade. Did the Prime Minister really mean to lead? Was he going to adopt in this House the same policy as was adopted in the Cabinet? Had he got two Amendments, and if one did not serve had he got another in his pocket? [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] He was speaking within the knowledge of the House [MINISTERIAL interruptions]—the House knew that there was an Amendment on the Paper on behalf of the Government dealing with protection and preference. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet described that as "a put-up job," and instantly the job was put down. But that was not all. Another Amendment was circulated contradictory of the first Amendment, but as both the first and the second Amendments had been withdrawn he expected that before long insular notes would shortly be considered as no longer being before the public. He preferred a clear, downright statement such as had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. They understood what was meant by free trade or free imports, because they had had it for sixty years, and they understood protection, because it would be the protection which they had sixty years ago. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"] Did anyone understand the policy which was going to offer nothing to a great commercial nation but a series of wars of retaliation? That policy had been brought forward for the purpose of keeping the Party together. If that object had been attained by the Prime Minister there would have been something to be said for his policy, but both inside this House and in the country they had seen that far from bringing the Party together, on the contrary it had been disastrous to the Conservative and Unionist Party. Surely the Party opposite ought to declare definitely whether they were in favour of free trade or preference and protection. The Home Secretary in the debate on this Address said it had been recognised that men holding different views on this question might be in the same Cabinet

  667
  It was true that men holding different views on any question might be in the same Cabinet, but they should not be defending different views. When they had an issue of this sort upon which every by-election had been fought, it was not only unseemly but contrary to every tradition that the Government should speak with two voices. What were they to say of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had been going up and down the country putting forward protection and preference, and declaring his sympathy with the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in all its branches? If the plea for latitude of opinion was a good one, why did the late Colonial Secretary resign? Surely the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was just as much bound as the late Colonial Secretary, if he wished to advocate a policy of preference, and he was just as much bound as the late Colonial Secretary to give up his office in the Government. But this was not the pious opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for he had gone about the country advocating this policy with all the zeal of a new convert. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken every opportunity in his official capacity to push forward his views on this subject, and a striking instance occurred only last week. A well-known association wrote asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make certain changes in the regulations dealing with tea, and immediately the right hon. Gentleman seized the opportunity to promote his fiscal propaganda, and he replied that he could not under the present fiscal system give a preferential duty in favour of Indian tea. The association wrote back stating that they never asked about the fiscal system, and did not want preferential duties, and all they wanted was that the Government should set up a standard for teas coming into this country such as had been adopted in other countries. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman used his official position to promote his own views.
  But there was a far more serious danger if the right hon. Gentleman remained a member of the Government and was allowed to advocate those views unrestrained by a vote of this House. As
  668
  they all knew the sole control over the spending departments of this country was in the Treasury, and so long as the Government of the country was dependent upon a majority of this House they were quite sure that when they introduced Estimates they would be carried. But behind the Government stood the Treasury, and every Estimate of every other Department had to be passed and approved by the Treasury before it came to this House. Suppose they had as Chancellor of the Exchequer a right hon. Gentleman who had no interest in economy. Let them suppose that that Chancellor of the Exchequer had discovered a means by which taxes were no longer a burden, but were to be made an instrument for promoting national prosperity. Suppose a few extra taxes were imposed, and a depression in trade was caused that would be given as one more illustration of the decline of British trade. Holding such views the right hon. Gentleman could not have the same interest in economy as his predecessor in that office, who knew that if he allowed any expenditure to be incurred he would have to introduce taxes which would fall upon the people of this country. He looked upon the freedom of the Treasury from any taint of protection as necessary to the real interests of this country. When they remembered what the Chancellor of the Exchequer believed; when they remembered that the right hon. Gentleman thought they were at a critical time of their history, and at the parting of the ways; when they bore in mind that the right hon. Gentleman thought the British Empire was in danger of dissolution, and that he had discovered a means of increasing wages, and making employment more constant, hon. Gentlemen opposite must agree that that would be a dominant motive with him, and that in his conduct of the finances of this country he was bound to do everything he could to bring about a policy which he thought was essential. There was only one test possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer under the circumstances, and that was a vote of the House of Commons. The House was being asked in the interests of the good Government of the country, and of our Colonies, to throw over the policy of free trade. Only the other day they had an illustration of the bad effect on the Colonies of the present vacillation between two policies, for the

  669
  Governor-General of the Australian Commonwealth made a speech in which he welcomed colonial preference. Now we were deluding the Colonies in regard to that. The Prime Minister did not mean to give them colonial preference. The Home Secretary had declared in that House, on behalf of the Government, that the policy of the Government was not protection, that the policy of preference was not included in the policy of the Government, and that "if an appeal were made to the electors and a majority were returned in favour of the Government's policy, that would not entitle us to go further and carry out a policy of preference." In face of that declaration he was justified in saying that when the Ministers went up and down the country advocating preference they were deluding the Colonies. They were raising hopes which they could not fulfil; if they did fulfil them their only course would be to resign.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid that after the speech of the hon. Member for Stratford it was impossible for him to remain silent. This Motion condemned the Government, because individual members of it had from time to time, and not very recently, advocated the policy of the Member for West Birmingham. That policy was very attractive at the first start; it appealed to the Imperial instincts of the country; it appealed to their desire to weld their great Empire together, and, as such, many of them thought that it deserved the fullest consideration at the hands of the people. But the difficulty of carrying out that policy had shown very clearly that it was not a policy to be adopted without hesitation and consideration, and he heartily supported the Prime Minister when he said that this policy of preferential tariffs and taxation of food could not be carried without carrying with it the heart and conscience of this country. It certainly had not done that yet. He was satisfied that the Government had adopted the right policy. It could not be denied that some liberty must be allowed to individual Members. They had plenty of evidence of that on the other side in connection with the question of Home Rule. Liberty must be allowed, but he hoped it would not be given to too great an extent. Nothing had happened which
  670
  justified a Motion condemning the policy of the Government. He hoped that that policy would be reaffirmed and reiterated by the Prime Minister that night, and that the right hon. Gentlemen would show that the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was not the policy of the Government, and that it would not be so even after the next General Election.
  *MR. ASQUITH: There are few more edifying spectacles than that of a man who, having fallen into temptation, has been rescued before he has taken the fatal step. I confess I never anticipated that the right hon. Member who has just sat down would have afforded us that spectacle. I congratulate him most heartily that he, more wary than others, drew back his foot before it was plunged into the morass. My right hon. friend, I think, is mistaken in his estimate of this Motion as being in its nature a vote of censure on the Government. [Cries of "What is it?"] We shall know presently. What is the object which my hon. friend had in view when he put forward this Motion? As I understand, it was this. It is a very simple—I think a very patriotic—one. It is that, in view of the ambiguities which have hitherto surrounded the declarations and the attitude of His Majesty's Ministers in relation to this question, it is the duty of the House of Commons, unless and until, upon the highest authority, those ambiguities shall be cleared away, to express in the most emphatic terms its resolute hostility to the policy of protection and of preferential taxes on food. It is idle to say that that policy is not before the country. The speech of my hon. and learned friend the Member for Stretford showed clearly that the policy is still alive. It is quite true that the noisy propaganda of the autumn has for a time subsided into silence. [Cries of "No."] Well, we heard very little of it during the debate on the Address. There has been a set-back, a momentary lull. But I venture to submit to the House that it would be the most short-sighted folly to assume that, because the common-sense of the British people has so signally and so significantly repelled this first assault, therefore the attack

  671
  is not going to be renewed. The movement secured the avowed, and so far as I know, the unrecanted, support of a considerable number of hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite. [Some MINISTERIAL cheers.] They are not so vocal as I expected. It had, and I am not sure that it has not still, the sincere, if less articulate, sympathy of a considerable number of others. And what is more important, it has received, as has been abundantly proved to-night by the citations from speeches that have been made during the course of the autumn and the winter, the open patronage of not a few of the Gentlemen who sit on the Treasury Bench. My right hon. friend who has just sat down said, in a deprecatory and apologetic way, that these speeches where not recent ones. Perhaps not; but though not recent, unless the House takes the opportunity of recording its sense of the situation, they may, before we are much older, be renewed. And I think that, if proof were needed of the necessity for this Motion, we could not find a more significant one than the mysterious disappearance of the Amendment which was on the Paper. Why has that Amendment been withdrawn? Let me invite the House to remember its terms. The Amendment would have invited the House to apprpve—
  "The explicit declarations of His Majesty's Ministers that their policy of fiscal reform does not include either a general system of protection or preference based on the taxation of food."
  Why has that gone? I will tell the House the only theory I can advance for its premature end. It is that it was found that you could not count on a majority of the Party opposite expressing their satisfaction that the policy of the Government is not a protective policy. If that is so, surely no declaration could be more opportune, or of more imperative necessity, than that which the Motion of my hon. friend asks the House to make to-night.
  I want to ask the House to look at this matter in view both of the avowed and the unavowed policy of His Majesty's Government. What is the avowed policy? I do not know, and I do not believe that anybody in this House, unless it be the Prime Minister, does know. We are certainly no clearer
  672
  upon that point than we were at the beginning of the session. It is quite true that we debated it for six nights. We missed the Prime Minister very much. I am sure, however, that the Prime Minister, as the head of a rejuvenated Government, would have been the last to say, as the excessive modesty of some of his colleagues prompted them to say, that the debate should not have taken place in his absence.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: Hear, hear!
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not know whether the Prime Minister has heard what went on while he was away. If he had been here I can assure him he would have witnessed from that Bench the most magnificent display of argumentative impartiality which has ever been presented by a united Cabinet to an admiring House. On alternate nights we had proclaimed alternative doctrines. Protectionist succeeded free-trader and free-trader succeeded protectionist. It was a triumph of stage management. And then the whole thing culminated—I am still informing the Prime Minister—in aluminous speech from the Home Secretary, the gist of which was, as far as I understood it, that the Government, while opposed for the present to the taxation of food, would welcome the support of those who were not so opposed, provided always that they were on sufficiently good terms with their local associations. The policy—I am speaking now of the avowed, the official policy—of the Government has been described in different phrases—freedom of negotiation, power of retaliation, sometimes in the still vaguer, more indefinite, but more concise phrase, fiscal reform. There is only one point, I must tell the Prime Minister, on which all his colleagues were agreed: that they could not define any one of these terms in his absence. Let me take the last and the most concise of these phrases, fiscal reform, which I think is a term which has been used not infrequently by the right hon. Gentleman himself. Fiscal reform, in the view of the Prime Minister, I should judge, is not a milk-and-water affair. In his speech at Sheffield he told us that in his view it involved a fundamental reversal of

  673
  the fiscal canons and traditions which had governed the policy of this country for sixty years. The Prime Minister is a master of language. We all know that terms like those would have been grossly exaggerated and inappropriate to describe a mere power or practice of applying to Parliament ad hoc for its sanction for particular measures of reprisals against some country or countries which had outraged fairness in relation to our trade. That a suggestion of that kind exhausted the Prime Minister's idea is sufficiently disposed of by two facts. The first is that such a power already exists, and the second is that only in the very year in which the Prime Minister was speaking, without any appeal to the country or mandate from the electors, the Government had in the Sugar Convention Bill obtained opportunity to exercise that power in its most drastic form. Therefore, if any intelligible meaning is to be attached to the language of the Prime Minister, I have always felt—and I hope that he will tell us to-night whether this is so or not—that it meant that we were to entrust the Executive with the power of putting on a general tariff, to be put on or taken off at its discretion in regard to the countries against whom we were supposed to have a grievance. I wish to put this point to the House. Is that tariff or that power, whichever it is to be, to be used in the case of countries which supply us with food and raw material? Is it only to be used against countries which supply us with manufactured goods? If that is so, I need not point out, what has been abundantly demonstrated before, that it can be of no possible use as an effective instrument of retaliation or protection against the two markets of the world, the United States and Russia, in which the wall of tariffs has been erected most extravagantly high. Therefore, I say, before I pass from this part of the subject, apart from all constitutional objections, either retaliation in the Prime Minister's sense must extend to food and raw materials, or it must be an ineffective weapon in the cases in which; it would be most obviously needed.
  But I want to come to the policy which the Government does not avow, the policy which is not included in the official programme, the policy to which in moments of pressure, as the other night
  674
  when the Home Secretary was speaking, they have declared that they are going to offer a provisional resistance. I do not care very much what are the present limitations of the avowed policy. To think that the people of this country are going to vote blindfold in favour of a sketchy and nebulous plan of so-called retaliation without asking themselves what is to be the next step, in what direction they are being led, what is to be the next stage of the journey, is, I think, to entertain a very complete and most unwarranted contempt for their intelligence. It is of importance, therefore, to see in what spirit and with what ulterior purposes this policy of retaliation is put forward. Now I am not going to say anything, because it is not strictly relevant to the Motion, about the unhappy and unexampled controversy that has arisen as to what took place between old colleagues and friends at and immediately after the Cabinet of September. [Cries of "Oh."] I say I am not going to say anything about it. But there is one thing which is unchallenged, and that is that the Prime Minister himself produced both at the Cabinet in August and at the Cabinet in September, in addition to the pamphlet which we have all read—I must be very careful in the use of words—a written thing—which I suppose I may without prejudice call a document.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
  *MR. ASQUITH: Well, perhaps it was printed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I presented no document.
  *MR. ASQUITH: It was stated by the noble Lord the Member for Ealing, and it was not denied by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the noble Lord made the statement, which I do not think he did, I do deny it.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I am sorry, but I did not quite catch what my right hon. friend denied that I said.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry. My noble friend and I had no controversy about this. The right hon. Gentleman alleged that at the Cabinet meeting in August, and again in September, I brought forward a printed document. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, a written document."] Well, if anybody knew my objection to writing they would not say a written document. But I brought forward no document in September. [Cries of "In August."] Or in August.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I am very sorry to come into controversy with my right hon. friend, and I can assure him that it is my last wish, and it is most painful to me. [Some MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] I say it is most painful to me. What I asserted was that there were two documents under our consideration at the Cabinet at the end of the session, and I understood, and so did other of my right hon. friends, that those documents were both under our consideration at the Cabinet in September.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, that is a mistake.
  *MR. ASQUITH: But really what difference does it make?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear.
  *MR. ASQUITH: If one was produced in August, there it was. At any rate, it was not withdrawn.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But it was not there.
  *MR. ASQUITH: Well, but it was there in August.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
  *MR. ASQUITH: Well, I will not call it a pamphlet, because I believe a pamphlet is a thing which is sold and circulated, nor will I call it—for I have never seen it—a tractate in favour of protection, because the right hon. Gentleman has told us that neither in nor out of the Cabinet has he ever advocated protection.
  MR. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
  *MR. ASQUITH: Still I would observe, and would ask the House to observe, that people, even endowed with the rarest dialectical gifts, are sometimes either unable or unwilling to realise the logical consequences of their own reasoning. At any rate, I take of it the description given by the noble Lord, which is that it was a memorandum putting forward proposals which included preferential tariffs and the taxation of food. That is a description which the House will observe has never been denied. What is it that aroused the indignation of the Prime Minister when he spoke in January and here again the other night? Not that description of the document. What aroused his indignation was that Lord Rosebery and others should have said that he had put before the Cabinet two contradictory policies. Very well, what follows? It follows that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, there is nothing contradictory or inconsistent with the policy of the Government, whatever that policy may be—what it is is accurately known only to Heaven and the Prime Minister himself—but there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, between the policy of the Government and the policy which does include preferential taxation of food. If that is so, who can say that the House of Commons is wasting its time, or performing a task of supererogation when it asks the majority to affirm that they are not in favour of any such policy? But we are not left in this matter—all important particularly after the declarations made by his colleagues in his absenge—without some further guidance as to what are the views of the Prime Minister. We have got the published correspondence with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, supplemented and illuminated by the right hon. Gentleman's speech at Sheffield. Hackneyed as the subject is, the House will pardon me if I read one or two passages. ["Oh."] They will see in a moment it is very much ad rem. The Member for West Birmingham, in his letter of 9th September, says this—
  "I suggest you should limit the present policy of the Government to the assertion of our freedom in the case of commercial relations with foreign countries."

  677
  Observe "the present policy of the Government." What does the Prime Minister reply?
  "As to taxation upon food, I am convinced with you that public opinion is not yet ripe for such an arrangement."
  Not ripe! And the right hon. Gentleman adds—I think a most significant addition—
  "The reasons may easily be found in past political battles and present political misrepresentations."
  Then he proceeds—and I ask the particular attention of the House to these words, because "fiscal reform," as we all know, is the official name of the Government policy—
  "This branch of fiscal reform is not at present within the limits of practical polities."
  I think in substance he repeated the same thing at Sheffield. What does that come to? Surely it comes to this—that in the opinion of the Prime Minister in a complete scheme of fiscal reform preferential taxation of food would be included. If he opposes it, he opposes it not on grounds of principle, not on grounds of conviction. His opposition to it rests upon, is confined to, and is limited by, the immaturity of public opinion. And to what does the right hon. Gentleman attribute that lamentable unripeness of the opinion of the nation? To rational or irrational causes? In the main the causes are, in his view, both irrational and removable. They are due to prejudice, to ignorance, and to misrepresentation. What was his attitude to the Member for West Birmingham when they parted company for what they apparently both hoped was to be a very brief separation? His attitude was this. If you return empty-handed, as I am afraid you will, I shall be able to say, "I told you so." If, on the other hand, you return bringing your sheaves with you, I shall be able to say, "My heart was always with you; let us now proceed to share the spoils." That is what is called, in these days, giving a lead to one's Party. It may succeed—so far I do not think it has been a brilliant success—in keeping a Party together in this House; but I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman may label and limit his official programme as much as he pleases, but he cannot label and he cannot limit the
  678
  issue which will be submitted to the country at the next election. The country when they come to be appealed to will set very little store by the niceties and obscurities of retaliation. They will discriminate—so far as I can foresee, that will be the sole ground on which, in this matter, they will discriminate—between those who in intention and in conviction are protectionist and those who in intention and conviction are free-traders. The right hon. Gentleman, as I have said, spoke with regret, or apparent regret, of the unripeness of public opinion. I want to ask him one concluding question. Does he still feel that regret at the unripeness of public opinion? Does he desire to see it ripen? Will he help it to ripen? Will he encourage or discourage in this propaganda the colleagues who surround him and are jointly responsible with him for the government of the Empire? There are questions that we are entitled to ask. They are questions which I think the right hon. Gentleman is bound to answer; and according as he answers them in one sense or the other, so will he, and so will the Government, be judged by the nation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Motion as it appears on the Paper has reference rather to the expressed opinions of my colleagues than to any opinions that I have made myself responsible for ["Oh."] Well, I will withdraw that phrase, and say the Motion on the Paper referred to my colleagues and not to myself. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman referred to myself and not to my colleagues; and I do not in the least quarrel with the change of venue. I should have been perfectly ready to answer for my colleagues had they been personally attacked by the principal critic of the Government; I am perfectly ready to answer for myself, as the attack has been transferred from them to the head of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman asked me in the early part of his speech whether I adhered to the view that the fiscal programme of the Government involved a fundamental change in the policy pursued in this country for the last two generations. In my opinion it does involve that. The right hon. Gentleman has said with absolute truth, and speaking as a lawyer—that is

  679
  no reproach to him—that there is no possibility of contradicting the proposition which he laid down—namely, that the Government have the power to propose in this House before a general election everything that they or their successors have the power to propose in the House after a general election. No one denies that. As a legal proposition it is incontrovertible; but I entirely differ from the right hon. Gentleman when he says to-night, as he has said on previous occasions, that it would be within the limits of constitutional propriety, as distinguished from constitutional law, to suggest to the House of Commons that we should adopt, as I hope after the next general election the Government of this country will be able to adopt, a policy dealing with what is called retaliation and a policy dealing with what is called "dumping." It is perfectly true that as far as "dumping" is concerned the sugar bounties which we have recently dealt with may be regarded as an example of that unhappy practice; but the sugar bounties have always been treated as a separate item in financial reform. I presume it is unnecessary to remind the House that while Mr. Gladstone never dealt with the general question of "dumping" in any of his speeches—because when he had to deal with questions of finance these modern developments had not occurred—he did make a distinct announcement on the subject of the sugar duties, and they had always been treated separately from the general problem of "dumping," with which I admit in abstract political economy and pure logic they are rigidly connected.
  As regards retaliation, it has not since the Cobden era, certainly not for two generations, been regarded as competent for a Foreign Minister of this country to go to those with whom he is negotiating in foreign countries and to say to them, "If you impose such and such a duty on British goods I shall suggest to my Government that such and such consequences as regards your trade shall follow." I hope after the next general election it will be competent to take that course, and that for the first time within living memory it will be possible for a British negotiator to meet
  680
  on equal terms, so far as commerce is concerned, those with whom he has to negotiate. Therefore it is that I regard as—should the word be a legal evasion or would it be lacking in politeness?—simply a technicality of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends when they ask, "Why do you want to have a general election to give this power?" We want this general election because it is a great and fundamental change. [OPPOSITION cheers and cries of "When?"] I gather from these cheers that those who support the right hon. Gentleman entirely agree. Then the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to put a, series of questions to me about protection, and he seemed to suppose that I was properly to be described as a protectionist because I hold, as I believe every sound economist in this country for fifty years has held, that there are economic and other considerations which incidentally may justify a duty being put on which has some protective effects. I cannot believe that any hon. Member opposite denies that. Within the last three weeks right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have made two great attacks on the Government—one in connection with fiscal reform, and the other in connection with the introduction of Oriental labour [OPPOSITION cries of "Chinese labour"] that is Oriental labour. They may be perfectly right in objecting to the introduction of Oriental labour [renewed cries of "Chinese labour"]—well, Chinese labour—into South Africa; but, as I know they have all been ardently studying the principles of political economy during the last six months, they must be perfectly well aware that their policy, however moral and however expedient, was contrary to the traditions of free trade. ["Oh, oh!"] Free trade, as any economist opposite will allow, and every student of Cobden will ardently preach, means that capital and labour throughout the world should be allowed to distribute themselves in the manner which conduces to the greatest result.
  MR. TENNANT: How about the compound and indentured labour?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman asks, why the compound and why the indenture?

  681
  Those are lamentable interferences with free trade, but they are much less interferences than the policy which the hon. Gentleman proposes, which is that labour should not be allowed to go into Africa at all. And all that the hon. Gentleman has proved by his interruption, and he has proved it conclusively, is that there is one point in connection with fiscal reform on which both sides are ardently agreed—namely, that there are causes which justify a departure from free-trade doctrine, and that there are issues even greater than producing in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest, and giving the consumer the best possible terms for his money. I am glad to think that on a subject on which we have disputed so much both sides of the House are agreed. [Cheers and cries of "No."]
  MAJOR SEELY: Man is not a chattel.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Man is not a chattel. My hon. friend will know, if he has carried out to the full, as I am sure he has, his study of the question of economic production, that political economy does not deal only with chattels but also with the labour which produces chattels. Now, Sir, when we come from the criticism which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has passed upon my words to the principle underlying the Motion, and the speeches of the mover and seconder, it appears to me that there is a profound confusion of ideas. It is perfectly true that every Government and every Party, so far as it is a coherent Party, must agree that for the practical work it has to do it must have a policy. [OPPOSITION cheers, and an HON. MEMBER:
  682
  Declare it.] It must have a policy, and, no doubt, it must declare it. But what is not the fact, and what the House must remember has never been admitted to be the fact, is that there should be some absolute agreement as to the principles underlying that policy, and as to the theories on which it is to be defended. We are not theologians starting a religion. We are practical men on both sides. Well, on that side they are practical men who agree as to the general lines of the policy to be carried out for the benefit of the country whose interest we all, whatever our opinions, desire conscientiously to serve, and it is perfectly childish to support this new theory, that not only is the Government to be agreed as to what it proposes the House and the country should accept, but that it is to be agreed as to the exact reasons why that policy is to be adopted and is to go far beyond that policy and see what developments it may conceivably be capable of. That has never been suggested, I believe, in the whole history of the government of this country before, and I do not believe that anything will he gained by us on this side, and I am sure that everything will be lost by gentlemen on the other side, if they try to get any such doctrine accepted as sound constitutional doctrine for this country.
  I quite understand why some of my hon. friends on this side who are ready loyally and fully to accept what has been called the Sheffield programme are never the less anxious lest in time to come there should be developments of fiscal policy with which they differ. I quite understand their position. No doubt every departure from a rigid laisser faire attitude is open to danger. I am the last person to deny that. There was a time in the history of

  683
  this country when all thinkers who conceived themselves to represent the true intellect of the country accepted the laisser faire theory, not merely as regards fiscal reform, but as regards the whole field of legislative action by this House. With Mr. Cobden himself the free-trade doctrine was merely a fragment of the general laisser faire theory. In every other department of legislation we have abandoned the rigid laisser faire doctrine. I think we have rightly abandoned it. But I do not deny, and I never have denied, that in so doing we run some danger, and that there is an attractive simplicity about the abstract theory that the State should do nothing, but a real danger in the opposite doctrine that the State should do everything, which may well give pause to those who take account of any new departure. Therefore, when my hon. friends say, "We agree with the departure from laisser faire which you suggested in your Sheffield speech, but we fear that many who support you would go further than we are prepared to go." really sympathise. But with the exception I understand their point of view. But let them remember that after all the remedy for that danger is not a rigid adherence to a doctrinaire policy which has became antiquated, impossible, obsolete, and absurd, but a common sense the hon. Member for Waterford. Six control as to the extent to which you are going to depart from that rigid policy. I, therefore, would point out to my hon. friends who feel, as I feel, that a departure is not without its dangers, that the true course for any man interested in the subject to pursue is to do his best to keep any change within reasonable limits, to get all the advantages you can from the elasticity which I hope will be given to the Government of this country, and to
  684
  see that that elasticity is never abused. Then there are others who appear to think that a Resolution of the kind may do something, as it were, to petrify public opinion, and to keep our policy within the exact limits which public opinion now desires to impose upon it. No Resolution of the House, frame it as you will, is going to control in the future the movements of public opinion in this country. It will neither hasten the development of that opinion nor delay it. Supposing Mr. Gladstone in June, 1885, had proposed a Resolution committing this House and the country, as far as this House could commit the country, to a non-Home Rule policy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose would have voted against it. [Cries of "No" and laughter.] Certainly, the genuine Party loyalty of the right hon. Gentleman and his genuine agreement with the general policy of Mr. Gladstone might have induced him to vote for a Motion with which he did not really sympathise. But with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman a Motion by Mr. Gladstone in 1885 against Home Rule would have been carried unanimously, with the exception also of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who now follow the hon. Member for Waterford. Six months passed and the whole scene was changed. [A LIBERAL MEMBER: The franchise was changed.] Yes, that may possibly have been the reason. But, at all events, the whole scene changed, and Mr. Gladstone, who had not mentioned Home Rule until after the general election, came in with a Home Rule Government. I only mention that familiar historic instance in order to show the futility of a Resolution of the House in committing either a Party or

  685
  the country. And let none of my hon. friends on this side of the House, who are nervously anxious lest in some remote future the Sheffield programme should be exceeded, suppose that they will then necessarily find these Gentlemen (pointing to the Liberal Benches) on their side. Three months was enough to convert them to Home Rule. [An HON. MEMBER: The constituencies?] What has it got to do with the constituencies—three months was enough to convert the individuals. That was Home Rule. I really do not know that so much as twelve weeks will be required under favourable circumstances to convert them to protection.
  Then there is only one other cause of anxiety which I think can possibly assail my hon. friends on this side of the House with regard to the declarations of the Government. I can hardly imagine it, but it is just possible to suppose that they think those declarations not sufficiently explicit. [OPPOSITION laughter.] Well, I confess I should have thought that they had been as precise as language could make them. What I have told the country to the best of my ability— I have had no opportunity of telling the House as yet—but what I have told the country is, reckoned broadly, on the face of public documents of my own. I have told them that the policy I recommend is a policy which will enable the Government to deal, as far as retaliation can deal, with hostile tariffs, and to deal, as far as fiscal arrangements can deal, with the great evil of dumping. I have also told them, as the right hon. Gentleman has truly reminded the House, that I do not think public opinion is in a position to accept any propositions with regard to taxation of food, or fiscal union with
  686
  the Colonies so far as that depends on taxation of food. Well, I cannot imagine anything being put with greater precision or with greater clearness. But let me say—and I do not think it has been sufficiently understood—that in going so far I and my friends have gone much further in the direction of taking the House and the country into their confidence than has ever happened with any Government in the history of this country. Consider the absurdity of the cross-examination which hon. Gentlemen opposite have thought themselves justified in subjecting my right hon. friends to, on this Bench, during six day's debate. Of course the Government may be cross-examined as to the policy which it is proposing to the country; of course we may be cross-examined as to our legislation, as to the foreign policy at the moment, as to our action either in the Colonies or abroad, as to our Army policy, or any of the other matters with which from day to day the Government is expected to deal. But never in the whole history of this country before has it ever been supposed that a Government is to be cross-examined, not as to its policy now, but as to the policy which it would pursue were it to be returned after the next general election. We may not be in after the next general election [OPPOSITION cheers]; I almost think I have heard declarations from very high authorities on the Front Bench opposite that in their view the current of public opinion was running so strongly against us that we should certainly not be in after the next general election. Then, I suppose they will be in—hon. Gentleman opposite—well, then, let us cross-examine them. We, at all events upon this and upon other subjects,

  687
  have explicity declared what our policy is [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"]; have they declared their policy upon any subject, I do not wish to put it too highly, but upon any subject? Are they agreed on the fiscal question? I understand the Member for Waterford, an ardent supporter [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Of both sides.]—an ardent supporter when it comes to turning us out—I understand he has explicitly declared himself to be sympathetic with doctrines which I cannot accept, but doctrines of rather advanced protection. Is there agreement, even, as to how we are to treat the Colonies, to protect the Colonies which are being attacked because they favour us in their fiscal system?
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was very angry with me because I, in all good faith, but perhaps mistakenly, took a version of his views as expressed, or implied last session which he thought was inaccurate or a misrepresentation of his real position. But what is the real position of the Opposition, of the people who are going to be in power after the next general election? Do they think the protection of our Colonies, like the questions connected with Chinese labour, are sufficiently important to enable them to break through the rigid doctrines of free trade, or do they not—a very interesting question, but one of which we have no solution. Some of my right hon. and hon. friends on this side of the House are strongly in favour of the policy of the Sugar Convention. That has been systematically voted against by the legitimate Opposition. [An HON. MEMBER: And others.] Yes, because even the anti-fiscal reformers on this side are not quite agreed. There is a difference of
  688
  opinion on that matter. There are many other subjects connected with fiscal reform on which I see no symptoms of that happy concordat which I should have expected among people who spend their whole time reproaching us with our differences of opinion. After all I think that fiscal reform is a very important subject, but it is not the only important subject; and I should really like to know whether any body, supposing the next Administration which I see before me were subjected to the cross-examination which, for reasons unknown to me, they think legitimate with regard to us—I should very much like to know whether they are all agreed on the subject of religious education; are they all agreed upon their Imperial policy, are they all agreed upon their domestic policy? Are the Labour Members, for example, who, I understand, accept generally the views passed at the annual meeting of the Trades Union Congress, in full accord with the gentlemen who will have to legislate after the next election upon questions of property in this country? Finally, are they agreed upon Home Rule? I was given, just before I came into the House, a very interesting question and answer which passed between the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and one of his constituents in East Fife. I am not going to discuss Home Rule, but I am discussing the principles of Party unity and agreement, and on that question this is quite relevant. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be interested in this. Mr. Garvie, a constituent, asked this question—
  "Should the Liberal Party be returned to power, will Mr. Asquith support Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in introducing a Home Rule Bill for Ireland?"

  689
  Mr. Asquith replied:—
  "I have already expressed my views on that, subject. That is purely an academic question, which is of no practical or political urgency."
  Now, surely the position—I am assuming the results of the next general election to be what they are supposed—of witness and cross-examiner should be reversed. Surely we ought to ask these Gentlemen opposite, whom we see arrayed in their enormous and admirable variety of opinions, to come forward one by one and tell us what they think, not merely on fiscal reform, but on the great questions with which the next Parliament will have to deal. Observe this, I do not ask—I think as I have explained to the House it would be ludicrous to ask —that there should be similarity of theory underlying all the practical opinions expressed. I do not ask that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife and the hon. Gentleman who leads the Irish Party should be agreed as to their motives and reasons for any policy which they are going to pursue in common. What I do ask is that if they are going to belong to the same Party they should tell what their policy is.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: No.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They should tell us the policy which they propose to pursue. [An HON. MEMBER: They have not joint Cabinet responsibility.] The utmost variety of abstract opinions may be allowed, but we must have some common policy which is to be carried out. Now, Sir, I think I have indicated the general principles on which the House should come to a Resolution to-night. We, at all events, on this
  690
  Bench have done what no previous Government has ever been asked to do and certainly what no previous Government has ever done. We have stated, in other words, what it is we intend to propose at the next general election. [An HON. MEMBER: What is it?] Well, I have already stated it once in language which will match, I think, in lucidity and explicitness anything uttered on that side of the House. What, then, are we asked to decide to-night? There are, no doubt, Members on this side of the House, What, then, are we asked to decide to-night? There are no doubt, Members on this side of the House, a few, who, though among us, are not of us.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.): Put them in gaol.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And if my diagnosis of their object is accurate, there is nothing they wish so much as to aid in the operation of substituting Gentlemen opposite for us in the government of the country. No appeal I can make to them is likely to have much effect; but the great body of Gentlemen on this side of the House I believe are prepared frankly to accept, whatever their opinions may be on other questions, what has been called the Sheffield programme. That programme I have, on my responsibility as, for the moment, the Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party, put forward. That is the programme which, if I had to write an election address tomorrow, I should lay before the country so far as fiscal reform is concerned. I would ask those hon. Members, that great body of friends of mine, who do agree with that policy whether they think it desirable or expedient, because at some future period they may have to resist other propositions of which

  691
  they disapprove—whether it is either wise or statesmanlike to throw in their lot with those from whom, even on the fiscal question, they differ so widely, and with whom, in spite of the immense variety of opinions from which they have to choose, they probably could not find any subject on which they agreed. I cannot believe that that is either a wise or a statesmanlike course. We have declared, not merely on the fiscal question, but on other questions, the policy we propose to the country. We have made no concealment of it. We have stated it in the clearest terms. Can any man who regards himself as a supporter of the Unionist Government give a vote against that Government if he agrees with the declared Sheffield policy, which is now in question? I cannot believe that that is so. I cannot believe that any Gentleman will take that course.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Oh, no!
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: How in the struggle for existence between the two Parties can the Party which is always dwelling upon its insignificant differences successfully compete with the Party which is always endeavouring to conceal its fundamental differences? No doubt, historically, hon. Gentlemen opposite are accustomed profoundly to differ in principle and theory, but not to act practically together. They have been so inoculated by the microbe of dissension that they bear it with tolerable equanimity. Let us, whose differences are relatively absolutely microscopic, learn something from them. We have not much to learn from them, but that, I think, we may learn. If we look on
  692
  that Bench and see that from the Gentlemen there is to be selected, if not the next, at all events in no distant future, a Government agreed upon a policy, knowing what are the essential differences dividing man from man surely we have that practical knowledge of public affairs and that common sense which will enable us, as long as we are agreed upon a practical policy, not to split on speculative and future difficulties which may never arise, and not to abandon a certain and present unity because at some future and unknown epoch we may find ourselves in opposite Lobbies. For these reasons I trust that every Member of the Unionist Party who agrees with the policy which I put forward in my responsible capacity at Sheffield as the one which is to be advocated at the next general election will find it in his power to vote against the Motion proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman this evening.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid the speech of the Prime Minister was one of brilliant ability marked by all the humour with which he knew so well how to delight the House, but he thought his right hon. friend had misconceived the purpose of the Motion and the great gravity of the issue, both personally and politically, for a great number of hon. Members. The Motion was not directed against the policy of the Government, but against the policy developed by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. When the Prime Minister treated the Motion as a vote of censure on the Government he was reading into it more than it would bear. There was one phrase which did seem to reflect on

  693
  Ministers, and if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to leave the division as an open question he would move to omit that phrase. Throughout his speech the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked the fundamental fact that the great question before the country was not the policy of the Government, but the policy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. When the right hon. Gentleman described his policy as one of retaliation it was necessary to ask for the definition of terms all along the line; and yet the right hon. Gentleman suggested that for the sake of a policy so indefinite they should be willing to support him in rejecting a Motion which did not condemn his policy, but did condemn the policy of protection. His right hon. friend said it was absurd to be so nervous, and that the Sheffield policy was the only policy that would be pressed; but surely he was aware that Members of his own Party were being driven out of candidatures, not because they would not assent to the policy of the Government, but because they would not assent to the policy of the Member for West Birmingham? If it were because they would not assent to the Government policy it would be hard enough, unless that policy were defined in all its terms; but it was much harder when it was not that policy, but a policy as to which the Government had not taken a definite attitude. Suppose a majority returned to support the policy of the Member for West Birmingham, would the Prime Minister support or would he oppose it? That was not an academical, it was a practical question. All over the country candidates were selected according to their pledges for or against that policy;
  694
  he admitted that the country had taken a turn that made the situation safer; but they had a right to know whether his right hon. friend would support that policy. Without a word from his right hon. friend it would be their duty to support this Motion, a Motion directed definitely to the rejection of that policy. It was a Motion in favour of free trade and against protection. His right hon. friend spoke of "those who are among us, but not of us." Did his right hon. friend apply that term to him?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, no, emphatically, no. I may differ from my noble friend on some questions, but emphatically I say I do not include him among those I mentioned. I say he is of us.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid it could not have escaped his right hon. friend's ears that many of his supporters did not agree with him. He differed from the policy of the Member for West Birmingham and also from the policy of driving out of the Party Members who had been treated in a manner which was not encouraging to loyal co-operation in the ranks of the Party. He was accepted by his right hon. friend as a Conservative, and believing with his whole heart that in Conservatism lay the true future of the country, he was most anxious to preserve it from contamination by protection, which would degrade its character and ruin all chance of it being the National Party of the future as in the past. Within the Party he wished to fight the battle and save it from that danger that threatened it and the ruin that would overwhelm it, and for that reason he would vote for

  695
  this Motion and for every Motion that was emphatically in favour of the principle of free trade.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid everybody admitted the absolute sincerity of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich. He hoped that he would be credited with equal sincerity when he referred to a single sentence near the close of the speech of his right hon. friend the Prime Minister, lest it might afterwards be said that by their silence they gave it their consent. The Prime Minister said, if he were to write an address to his constituents to-morrow it would be written in the sense of the policy laid down at
  Sheffield. He believed that all on this side of the House agreed with that policy, or nearly all, so far as it went. But he should be misleading his right hon. friend, and misleading many others, if he were not to say that if he had to write an election address it would be of a some-what different character, going a great deal further than the Prime Minister, and he had the best reason in the world for knowing that he would be expressing the opinions of a very large number of Members of the Party.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 289. (Division List No. 46.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork N E.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldom

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dalzier, James Henry

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Allen, Charles P.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Grant, Corrie

  Ambrose, Robert

  Davies M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Delany, William

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Denny, Colonel

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Devlin Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Hain, Edward

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Dewar, John A (Inverness-sh.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G (Midd'x

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hammond, John

  Bell, Richard

  Dilke, lit. Hon. Sir Charles

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon Sir William

  Black, Alexander William

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Blake, Edward

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Harwood, George

  Boland, John

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Brigg, John

  Dunn, Sir William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Edwards, Frank

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Elibank, Master of

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Ellice Capt E C (S. Andrew's Bghs

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hobhouse Rt. Hn H Somerse'tE

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hope, John Deans (File West)

  Burns, John

  Evans Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Caldwell, James

  Eve, Harry, Trelawney

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Cameron, Robert

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jones, David Brynmor Swansea

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

  Field, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Kilbride, Denis

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Cremer, William Randal

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Crombie, John William

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lambert, George

  Crooks, William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Laugley, Batty

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N,

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Malley, William

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington

  O'Mara, James

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C R (Northants

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  O'Shaugnessy, P. J.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Leng, Sir John

  Parrott, William

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Levy, Maurice

  Partington, Oswald

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lloyd-George, David

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Sullivan, Donal

  Lough, Thomas

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Lundon, W.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Perks, Robert William

  Tennant, Harold John

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Price, Robert John

  Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Priestley, Arthur

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

  M'Crae, George

  Rae, Russell

  Tomkinson, James

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Toulmin, George

  M'Kean, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Rigg, Richard

  Wallace, Robert

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Ritchie Rt. Hon (has. Thomson

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds S

  Mansfield, Horace Randall

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Moonoy, John J.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Roche, John

  Wason, John Catheart Orkney

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Weir, James Galloway

  Morley Rt. Hon John (Montrose

  Rose, Charles Day

  White, George Norfolk

  Murphy, John

  Runciman, Walter

  White, Luke York, E. R.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Russell, T. W.

  Whiteley, George York, W. R.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Whitley, J. H. Halifax

  Noland, Joseph (Louth, South

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Norman, Henry

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Williams, Osmond Merioneth

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Seely Maj J E B. (Isle of Wight)

  Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Nussey, Thomas Willians

  Shackleton, David James

  Woodhouse Sir J T. Huddersf'd

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

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  O'Brien Kendal (Tipporary Mid

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Young, Samuel

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Yoxall, James Henry

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

  Sheehy, David

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  O'Doherty, William

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

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

  Slack, John Bamford

  O'Dowd, John

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Boscawen, Arthur Grithth.

  Colomb Sir John Charles Ready

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  And, Sir John

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Allhusen Augustus Henry Eden

  Bowles Lt.-Col H E (Middlesex

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Brassey, Albert

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Arnold-Fortser Rt. Hn Hugh O.

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savil

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bull, William James

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Oust, Henry John C.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon Sir H

  Butcher, John George

  Dalrymple, Sir Cnarles

  Bagot, Capt Josceline Fitz Roy

  Campbell, J H. M (Dublin Univ

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Bailey, James Walworth

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Davies Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cavendish, V C W. (Derbyshire

  Dewar Sir T R (Tower Hamlets

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cecil, Evelyn (Ashton Manor

  Dimsdale Rt. Hon Sir Joseph C

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. S. Manch'r

  Chamberlain Rt. Hn J A (Worc.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Balfour, Capt C. B. Hornsey

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Dixon-Hartland Sir Fred Dixon

  Balfour Rt. Hn Gerald W Leeds

  Chapman, Edward

  Dorington Rt. Hon. Sir John E

  Balfour, Kennoth R. Christch.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Doughty, George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Clare, Octavius, Leigu

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Banes, Major George Edward

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Barry, Sir Francis T. Windsor

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cochrane, Hon Thos. H. A. E,

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Bathurst Hon Allen Benjamin

  Coddington, Sir William

  Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart

  Beach Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Egerton, Hon, A. de Tatton

  Bigwood, James

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  698

  699

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Fergusson Rt. Hon Sir J (Manc'r

  Lawson John Grant) Yorks N R

  Renwick, George

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Ridley, Hon M W. (Stalybridge

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Leverson-Gower, Frederick N S.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Robinson, Brooke

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. H.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Forster, Henry William

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Royds, Clement Molyncux

  Foster, Philip S. Warwick S. W.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lucas, Col Francis (Lowestoft)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Sadier, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Garfit, William

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Samuel Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Gordon, Hn J E (Elgin & Nairn

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Maconochie, A. W

  Saunderson Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

  Gordon Maj Evans. (Tr'H'mlets

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Gore, Hn G R C Ormsby- (Salop

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Malcolm, Ian

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Greene, W. Raymond. (Cambs.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W. F.

  Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

  Gronfell, William Henry

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

  Stanley, Edward Jas (Somerset

  Gretton, John

  Maxwell W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J M'Taggart

  Hall, Edward Marshal

  Middlemore John Throgmorton

  Stock, James Henry

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Milner, Rt. Hon Sir Frederick G

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stroyan, John

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hardy Laurence (Kent, Ashf'ord

  Molesworth, Sir Louis

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Montagu, C. (Huntingdon)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn J G. (Oxf'd Univ

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Moore, William

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Morgan David J (Walthamstow

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tuff, Charles

  Heath, James (Staffords N. W.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Valentia, Viscount

  Holder, Augustus

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Vincent Col Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

  Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Myers, William Henry

  Welby, Sir Charles G E (Notts.)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Hope, J F (Sheffield Rrightside

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Horner, Frederick William

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Whitmore Charles Algernon

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Hozier Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Pease Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Willoughby, de Eresby Lord

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Percy, Earl

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Wilson A. Stanley (York E R.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W H. (York's)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E R. (Bath)

  Kennaway, Kt Hon Sir John H.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wolff, Gustav, Wilhelm

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbighs

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Konyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wrightson Sir Thomas

  Kerr, John

  Purvis, Robert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Keswick, William

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wyudham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Kimber, Henry

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Randles, John S.

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

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Rankin, Sir James

  Law, Andrew Ronar(Glasgow)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.