Sitting of 27 February 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  SUBSTITUTED BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the following Bill, introduced pursuant to the provisions of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, and which the Chairman of Ways and Means had directed to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with, viz.:—Clyde Navigation (Reconstitution) Bill.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Clay Cross Railway (Abandonment) Bill; Croydon Gas Bill; Dublin, Wicklow, and
  1294
  Wexford Railway Bill; Sunderland and South Shields Water Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners or Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 63 has been complied with, viz.:—Aylesbury Gas Bill; Dublin United Tramways Bill; Hitchin and District Gas Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—Liverpool Corporation Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Aberdare Tramways Bill; Accrington Corporation Bill; Accrington District Gas and Water Board Bill; Acton Sewage Bill; Birmingham Corporation Bill; Holton Corporation Bill; Bootle Corporation Bill; Colne Corporation Bill; Croydon Corporation Bill; Dublin Corporation (Superannuation) Bill; Halifax Corporation Bill; Ilfracombe Harbour and Improvement Bill; Liverpool Corporation Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  London Building Acts (Amendment) Bill; London County Council (General Powers) Bill; London County Council (Tramways) Bill. To be read a second time to-morrow.
  London Gas Bill; Loughborough Corporation Bill; North Sussex Gas Bill; Sale of Bread (London) Bill; Skegness Water Bill; Stockport Corporation Bill; Swansea Corporation Bill. Read a second time, and committed.

  HIGHLAND RA1LWAY BILL.
  "To extend the time for the completion of certain railways authorised by The Highland Railway (Additional Powers) Act, 1897; to enable the Highland Railway Company to provide and work steam and other vessels between Inverness and Fort Augustus; and to subscribe to the funds of Steamship Companies; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
  Copy presented, of Estimates for Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending 31st March, 1906, together with a Copy of the Memorandum by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury relating thereto [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 64.]
  PUBLIC REVENUE (INTERCEPTION).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 21st February; Mr. Gibson Bowles]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 58.]
  NATIONAL DEBT.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 21st February; Mr. Gibson Bowles]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 59.]
  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 21st February; Mr. Gibson Bowles]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 60.]

  ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES) (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT).
  Appropriation Account presented, of the sums granted by Parliament for the expense of the Ordnance Factories, the cost of the productions of which have been charged to the Army, Navy, and Indian and Colonial Governments, etc., and the Statement of the Surpluses and Deficits upon the Grants for the year
  1296
  ended 31st March, 1904, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 61.]

  RUSSIA (No. 3, 1905).
  Copy presented, of Despatch from the British Agent forwarding the Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on the North Sea Incident [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN.
  Copy presented, of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Aberdeen for 1903–4 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 62.]
  UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Accounts of the University of Aberdeen for the year ending 15th September, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table; and to be printed. [No. 63.]
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Bridlington Piers and Harbour. Copy of Abstract of the General Annual Account for the year ending 26th July, 1904 [by Act].
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND) (INSPECTORS AND AUDITORS).
  Return ordered, "up to the 31st day of December, 1904, showing the number of (1) Inspectors, temporary and permanent, and (2) Auditors, appointed by the Local Government Board for Ireland from the 31st day of March, 1899, to that date, setting forth, in addition, the date of each appointment and the previous calling of each appointee."—(Mr. J. P. Farrell.)
  WINES IMPORTED.
  Return ordered, "showing the quantity of Wines, at the various degrees of strength, which were imported into the United Kingdom in 1904 from Spain, Portugal, Madeira, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Australasia, and other countries (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 115, of Session 1904)."— (Mr. Gibbs.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Government of Ireland—Suggested Royal Commission.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will consider the advisability of recommending the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider and report on the existing system of the government of Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I do not think anything would be gained by the appointment of a Royal Commission such as that which the hon. Member proposes.

  System of Accounts of National Ex- penditure—Suggested Royal Commission.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of recommending the appointment of a small Royal Commission to consider the present system of the Accounts of National Expenditure, and the desirability of making changes therein.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) It seems to me on consideration that the best course would be for the Public Accounts Committee, who are appointed by Parliament to deal with public-accounts, to suggest changes in our existing system. Any such recommendation would have the most respectful consideration of His Majesty's Government, and could probably be dealt with without any further consideration by a specially appointed Commission. It may be worth noting that the principal change in our system of keeping public accounts during the last twenty years was made on the initiative of the Public Accounts Committee.

  Missions in Bahr-el-Ghazal.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a recent appeal by Lord Cromer for the establishment of missions in the Bahr-el-Ghazal; and whether, seeing that this territory is leased to Belgium, His Majesty's Govern-
  1298
  ment has sanctioned Lord Cromer's intervention in the internal affairs of this territory.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Bahr el Ghazal is a province of the Soudan.

  Somaliland Field Force.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War what force is there at present in Somaliland; and whether he has any official information to the effect that the Mullah is again active near Obbia.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The troops quartered in the Protectorate are:—

  Companies.

  Fighting Men.

  33rd Punjaub Infantry

  8

  750

  6th King's African Rifles

  5

  500

  Total

  13

  1,250

  The reply to the last paragraph is in the negative.

  Shipping and Seamen's Act, 1903 (New Zealand).
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can lay upon the Table of the House the reasons why the Royal Assent was withheld from the Shipping and Seamen's Act, 1903, New Zealand.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The Act referred to by the hon. Member is an Act of great complexity, involving questions not only of detail but of constitutional principle. It has received the most careful consideration of the Departments of Government concerned, and this has necessarily involved considerable delay. I hope to be able very shortly to advise His Majesty to assent to the Act, and to lay Papers which will indicate the difficulties attendant on this matter.

  German Treatment of British Shipping Trading with the Marshall Islands.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of the Australian

  1299
  Commonwealth have made a strong protest to the Home Government with regard to the unequal treatment by Germany of certain British shipping trading with the Marshall Islands now controlled by Germany; and, seeing that recently the ss. "Ysabal," trading between Sydney and the Islands, was charged a licence fee equal to £2,700 per annum, further increased on a subsequent voyage to £5,475 per annum, as against £100 per annum made to Germans or any nationality in the adjoining British groups, he will state whether such charges are an infringement of the most-favoured-nation clause; and whether any retaliatory action is contemplated.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The subject referred to in the hon. Member's Question is now being discussed with the German Government.

  Self-Government for the Transvaal.
  MASTER OF ELIBANK: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in connection with the representative institutions which he proposes establishing in the Transvaal, he has considered the working of the Barbadoes Constitution, with its wholly elective lower assembly, in contrast with that of other Crown Colonies, where there are composite councils consisting of nominated and elected members; and whether he is able to make any statement as to the form of Crown Colony Government he has in contemplation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have not failed to consider, among others, the form of Constitution which exists in Barbadoes. I am not able at present to make any statement, as to the form of Government contemplated for the Transvaal.

  Cost of Defences of Halifax and Esquimault—Repayment by Canada.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the defences of Halifax and Esquimault, and all expenditure connected therewith, are to be taken over on July 1st by the Dominion Government and British forces withdrawn; and whether any arrangement has been arrived at for the repay-
  1300
  ment by Canada of any portion of the money spent by us in these places on works of a permanent character.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The Government of the Dominion of Canada last month offered to assume the responsibility of garrisoning Halifax and Esquimault with troops levied and paid under the authority of the Canadian Parliament. His Majesty's Government have gratefully accepted this patriotic offer, but no precise date has at present been fixed for this arrangement to come into operation. His Majesty's Government do not propose to ask the Government of Canada to repay any portion of the money spent by this country on permanent measures of defence at Halifax and Esquimault.

  Decline of Native Population in Uganda.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the native population of Uganda has declined from 5,000,000 in 1878 to under 2,000,000; and whether he has any official information showing to what extent this loss of life has been the outcome of feuds.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) There are no statistics at the disposal of His Majesty's Government to prove to what extent the native population of Uganda has increased or decreased since 1878.

  Auxiliary Motor Power for Fishing Boats—Result of Inquiry.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Lord-Advocate if he is now in a position to state the result of the inquiry (instituted by the Secretary for Scotland) on the application of auxiliary motor power to fishing boats.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The Secretary for Scotland expects shortly to receive the Report of the inquiry referred to by the hon. Member, which shall receive his prompt attention.

  Rebuilding of Grimsay Sea Dykes.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: To ask the Lord-Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether the Congested Districts Board have received

  1301
  a petition from crofters and others resident in the Island of Grimsay, North Uist, urging that a grant may be made in aid of the rebuilding of the Grimsay sea dykes; and if so, whether, seeing that these dykes are necessary as a protection to the crofters' stock daring high tides and to secure the safety of children passing to and from school, the Board will give the petition their favourable consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) I am informed that a petition on the subject referred to by the hon. Member has been received by the Board, and that on September 9th, 1903, a reply was sent stating that the Board would consider an application supported by specific information as to the nature and cost of the work, and by a satisfactory guarantee for future maintenance. A further application has lately been received through the hon. Member, which, however, does not meet the foregoing requirements.

  Accounts of the General Lighthouse Fund
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the accounts for the General Lighthouse Fund for the year ending March 31st, 1904, will be laid upon the Table of the House: and whether any steps can be taken to expedite the publication of these accounts.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) These accounts were laid upon the Table of the House on the first day of the session, and were in the hands of Members on the 22nd instant.

  Number of Boys Enrolled in the Royal Naval Reserve.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of boys who have now been enrolled under the reduced lights dues clause of the Merchant Shipping Mercantile Marine Fund Act of 1898, and what number are expected to have been enrolled by March 31st next, the date on which the section of that Act ceases to be in force; whether he can also state what steps are contem-
  1302
  plated at the date at which the Act expires.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Up to the 24th instant, 4,326 boys had been enrolled in the Royal Naval Reserve, under Section 6 of The Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act, 1898. If the average rate of enrolment is maintained about seventy-four additional enrolments will have taken place by March 31st next. As at present advised I do not propose to take any action on the expiration of the provisions of the section of the Act to which the right hon. Member refers.

  Railway Companies and the Humane Cattle Car.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the patent humane cattle car, which was examined by the Board of Trade official and passed, was in use for some time, until the Railway Conference agreed to forbid its use; and, if so, whether he will cause an inquiry into the refusal of the railway companies to allow the use of this car.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar Question on June 14th List year. I am unable to add to the Answer then given.

  The Donegal Railway System.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the Donegal Railway system has been acquired by the Great Northern Railway Company (Ireland) and the Midland Railway Company (England), and that these companies have offered to relieve the guaranteeing districts of the tax at present payable by them on the Glenties and Killybegs Railways, the Treasury will hand over the railways to the company, and forego any claim they may have in respect thereof.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The Donegal Railway system has not yet been acquired by the two companies referred to, although they are promoting a Bill for that purpose. The charge on
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxvi., 19.

  1303
  the county has been insignificant in comparison with the benefit derived from the railways, and I can hold out no prospect that the Treasury will forego its claims in respect of these lines, practically the whole cost of which was defrayed by Government.

  Elementary Education—Church Attendance.
  MR, FREDERICK WILSON: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, having regard to the answer given by him to a recent deputation, he proposes in future to permit local managers of elementary schools to send children to church, and to count such attendance at church as attendance at school.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) I know of no answer given by me which could warrant such a conclusion. The Board have never regarded attendance of children at church as attendance at school, and do not so regard it unless the school attendance authority are prepared to do so under their by-laws.

  Revenue from Solicitors' Certificate Duty.
  MR. WHITLEY THOMSON; To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the total amount received last year by the Government from Solicitors' Certificate Duty.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The total amount of duty received during the financial year 1903–4 in respect of solicitors' and conveyancers' certificates was as follows:—England, £110,070 10s.;Scotland, £21,291; Ireland, £10,441 10s.; total £141,803.

  Vernacular Education of Children on Indian Tea Plantations.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWN-AGGREE: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received a report from the Government of India (as promised on March 19th, 1904) in regard to the provision of adequate facilities for the vernacular education of the children employed or resident upon plantations in Assam and other planting districts in
  1304
  India; and, if so, will he state the purport of that report.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I received in September last an interim reply from the Government of India, which shows that the subject is receiving attention. The report generally confirms what I understood to be the case, and stated in my reply to my hon. friend on March 18th last,† that the classes employed to labour on tea gardens do not display much desire for education for their children in any part of India; but it is hoped that it may be found possible to offer some special encouragement to induce them to do so, and the matter will not be overlooked. I shall receive further reports in due course.

  Irish Poor Law Commission.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Poor Law Commission has as yet completed its labours; and whether, considering that the question of amalgamation and the alteration of boundaries in certain of the unions in the North-West of Ireland, and particularly in the counties of Donegal and Londonderry, has given rise to uncertainty, he will request the Commissioners to issue an interim Report with reference to this question.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I refer to my reply to the Question put to me on the 23rd instant†by my hon. friend the Member for South Belfast. The Commissioners do not propose to issue an interim Report. They consider, and in my opinion very properly, that it would be open to objection to deal with the matter except as a whole.

  Agricultural Instructors in County Donegal.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture have reconsidered their position with reference to the Donegal County Agricultural Committee as to the refusal of the Department to sanction the appointment of residents of the county of
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxii., 54.
  † See page 1079.

  1305
  Donegal under the agricultural and technical scheme for the county to positions therein; and whether, on account of portions of the county containing inhabitants who are Gaelic speakers, steps will be taken by the Department to cancel the rule in so far as others, not natives of the county of Donegal, would not understand the Gaelic dialect in that county and their services thereby would be useless.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The rule made by the Department not to sanction in future the appointment of a person as instructor in any county of which he or she is a native, or in which he or she resides, affects all the agricultural schemes, and applies to every county in Ireland. The Department does not propose to modify this regulation in the case of Donegal. Experience has shown it to be necessary in the interests of the schemes and of the committees administering them. The regulation has worked well in other counties.

  Closing of Police Station at Kildalkey, County Meath.
  MR. SHEEHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police in the barrack at Kildalkey, county Meath, are to be dispersed, and the station closed; and whether he can state the number of prosecutions in the district, and say whether it compares favourably with other districts in the neighbourhood.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It has been decided to disestablish this police station. The number of offences specially reported from the sub-district in the past three years was one, and the number of minor offences recorded in the same period was 161. There are four other police stations within a radius of six miles from Kildalkey.

  Carrickfergus Land Arbitration Award.
  COLONEL McCALMONT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when the arbitrator will issue his award in regard to lands in the neighbourhood of Carrickfergus, Section E, acquired by the Belfast Water Commissioners, his final draft award having been duly considered in August last.
  1306
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Part I. of the final award was lodged by the arbitrator on 15th December, 1904. He states that Parts II. and III. are in the printers' hands, and that he expects to issue one portion early next week and the other in the ensuing week. The award in Section E will then be complete.

  Appointment of Manager of Lislea (No. 1) National School.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that a resident clergyman is not available for appointment as manager of the Lislea (No. 1) National School (county Armagh), the National Education Commissioners will accede to the expressed wishes of the parents of the children attending the school, and appoint a resident layman to the office of manager.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed by the Commissioners that it is their practice in cases such as this to recognise the clerical successor of the former manager when a vacancy occurs. The school was recently visited by the Board's senior inspector, who reports that it is being conducted satisfactorily under the present temporary manager, the Rev. Mr. Simpson.

  Grazing Lands at Mile Hill, Ballinrobe.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a shopkeeper, named Martin May, who is a shopkeeper in Ballinrobe, county Mayo, in 1900 took a grazing farm at Mile Hill, near that town, part of which he set for conacre last year; and, if so, whether the Estates Commissioners have power to give a grant of money to this man to purchase the farm in view of the fact that there are many congested townlands in the vicinity.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board or the Estates Commissioners will consider the advisability of purchasing a grazing farm situate at Mile Hill, near Ballinrobe, county Mayo, now held by a shopkeeper named May, residing in Ballinrobe, with a view to creating some

  1307
  new holdings for persons in that district who have no land.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) So far as can be ascertained no application has been made either to the Commissioners or the Board for the purchase of the lands in question.

  The Erne Estate.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a grazier named Daly, who resides at Ballinrobe, and holds several thousand acres of grazing lands in Mayo and Meath counties, holds a grazing farm on the estate of Lord Erne at Loughmask, and that he has recently ploughed some of the land and got a fair rent fixed with a view to coming under the Land Act of 1903: and, if so, whether the Estates Commissioners will refuse to give a grant to this man for the purchase of the farm held by him on the Erne Estate, whenever negotiations between the landlord and tenants are carried through.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No application for the sale of the estate of Lord Erne has been lodged with the Commissioners, who are not, therefore, in a position to make any statement on the matters alleged in the Question.

  Irish Technical Education Grants.
  MR. SHEEHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Department of Science and Art holds £58,629 belonging to Irish technical education; whether the grants payable for local science and art instruction is for proficiency in studies, ascertained by examination, or for attendances at instruction, as given under regulations; whether these regulations can only be found in the Science and Art Directory, as modified by Circular 2, Form S 46; and, if so, will he state where copies of the Science and Art Directory can be obtained; has the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, which has the control of the grant for technical instruction in Ireland, a copy of the directory; or, if not, has the Department drafted its own regulations governing the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The reply to the first inquiry is in the negative. The grants payable for local science
  1308
  and art instruction are based upon attendance and upon efficiency, as determined by inspection, supplemented by examination in the advanced stages of the syllabuses. Students in the honours stages are paid for on the results of examinations alone. The regulations are those of the Science and Art Directory of the Board of Education, South Kensington, for 1901, as amended by Circular 2 and Form S 46 issued by the Department. Copies of the directory for 1901 are not now obtainable from the publishers, but an excerpt containing all information required by school managers is issued by the Department and may be obtained on application. The Department has copies of the directory in question.

  Local Authorities Accounts—County Council of North Tipperary and Local Government Board.
  ME. P. J. O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has seen the correspondence which passed between the County Council of North Tipperary and the Local Government Board with reference to The Public Bodies Accounts Order, 1904, and the resolutions of the council subsequently passed thereon; and whether, in consideration of the facts therein set forth, and the protest of the council against the expense and complications involved by this new Order, he will see his way to have the question of this Order reconsidered.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Yes, Sir; I have seen the correspondence and resolutions referred to. The council appears to be under a misapprehension as to the changes made by the Order, and the Board has directed its attention to the fact that nearly all the forms objected to are practically the same as those which have been in operation for the past six years.

  Extra Police Tax in North Tipperary.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the resolution of the North Tipperary County Council, at their meeting on the 15th instant, in reference to the sum of £115 15s. 11d. amount of extra police tax, to the effect that the sum be struck out

  1309
  of the estimate submitted by the secretary, and that the levying of a rate to meet this amount be adjourned to give the council an opportunity of having the legality of slid tax considered owing to the fact that the first demand for a sum of £728 18s. 9d. made on the council was afterwards found to be illegal; and, if so, will he say under what powers this demand is made; and, further, in face of the crimeless condition of North Tipperary, he will consider the necessity for any extra police there.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I have seen the resolution. The claim made upon the county council in respect to the sum of £115 15s. 11d. was for the expenses of extra police drafted into certain districts of the county on ordinary detachment duty from other counties. Such charges have not been and will not be remitted. The reasons for the decision of the Government to withdraw charges amounting to £633 2s. 10d. have already been fully explained by me in this House, I refer to my replies to Questions addressed to me on this subject by my hon. friend the Member for Mid Armagh on the 24th† and 28th† March and 18th§

  County.

  Union or District.

  Estate.

  Number of Dwellings recommended.

  Wexford

  Gorey

  W. C. Moore.

  2

  Tipperary

  Tipperary (No. 1)

  Major P. J. Waldron

  1

  Cork

  Mallow

  Eliza Hardy and others

  1

  Tyrone

  Omagh

  King Houston

  1

  Wexford

  Wexford

  W. J. O'Neill

  2

  Cork

  Kanturk

  Reverend J. Sullivan

  1

  King's

  Roscrea (No. 2)

  W. H. Jackson

  3

  Down

  Newry (No. 1)

  Captain H. V. Brooke

  1

  Kildare

  Edenderry (No. 2>)

  George P. A. Colley

  5

  Cork

  Cork

  H. Hitchmough

  2

  Kildare

  Athy (No. 1)

  Duke of Leinster (Athy)

  2

  Kildare

  Naas (No. 1)

  Duke of Leinster (Naas)

  2

  Wexford

  Enniscorthy

  George Wilson

  2

  Londonderry

  Londonderry (No. 1)

  Lord Macnaghten

  2

  Londonderry

  Limavady

  Helen M. Cather

  2

  Wicklow

  Rathdrum

  Earl of Carysfort

  2

  Tyrone

  Strabane (No. 1)

  W. H. M. Sinclair

  5

  Total

  36

  The representations are engaging the consideration of the local authorities.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxii., 610.
  § See (4) Debates, cxxxii., 364
  April, 1904. I may add that the county council having declined to make payment of the sum of £115 15s. 11d., the amount was deducted in March, 1904, from moneys payable to the council out of the Local Taxation Account, in pursuance of Section 80 (2) of The Local Government Act, 1898. There are no extra police at present in this county.

  Purchase of Irish Estates—Accommoda- tion of Labourers.
  MR. CULLINAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Land Commission in the purchase of estates have in any cases put in operation Clause 96 of the Land Purchase Act of 1903 which enabled them to make provision for the accommodation of labourers on said estates; if so, whether he will give the number and names of the estates and the number of labourers for whom accommodation has been provided or recommended.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Representations have been made to the district councils concerned in the case of sixteen estates referred to in the appended Return:—
  †See (4) Debates, cxxxii., 823

  Purchase of South African Railways.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the purchase of the South African Railways under the Loan Act has been completed; and, if not, what railways remain still unpurchased, and what is their estimated cost.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) Particulars of the services to be charged to Head II. of the Schedule to the Loan Act will be found on page 36 of Cd. 1552. Repayment to His Majesty's Government for rolling stock has been made, and the debt of the South African Railways to the Military Authorities has been settled. Payments in respect of the Orange River Colony Railway and Pretoria-Pietersburg Railway have been completed, with the possible exception of a sum of about £170,000 in the latter case, which is the subject of litigation in the Transvaal. The sum of £9,325,070 has been expended in the purchase of shares and debentures of the Netherlands South African Railway Company. A final estimate of expenditure is not yet possible, but I do not anticipate that the original estimate will be exceeded.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Discharges from Naval Establishments.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the number of men, skilled and unskilled, discharged from the various naval establishments since November 1st to date, and the reason for throwing out of employment during the winter months so many.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Wood-bridge): The numbers of men discharged from the various Naval Establishments since November 1st to date are: Skilled, 759; unskilled, 536; total 1,295; 32 per cent, of these discharges were on reduction; 26 per cent, on account of age limit or physical unfitness; 16 per cent, at their own request; and the remainder on completion of the temporary duties for which they were specially entered, or for misconduct or inefficiency.

  Flogging in the Navy.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiraly whether the punishments of birching and caning and other summary punishments inflicted on boys in the Royal Navy in 1903, the year for which term is the last Return, amounting to 9,553 punishments awarded summarily and seven punishments awarded after trial by Courts-martial, include the punishments of birching and caning and other summary punishments on the 4,293 boys and youths in the twelve naval training ships, including the 100 boys and youths temporarily embarked in other ships; and if the punishments inflicted on these boys and youths are not included in the Return what is the reason of the omission, and will any Return of these punishments be presented.
  MR PRETYMAN: The punishments awarded to boys as shown in the Return for 1903 include the training service punishments. The number 4,293 refers to the boys and youths now borne, and not to those borne in 1903.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will not the Government consider the propriety of abolishing this disgraceful punishment?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Self-Government for the Transvaal.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now give the House an assurance that an opportunity will be afforded it of discussing the proposals for conferring local self-government upon the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies before those proposal become operative.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD or THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): The House will most undoubtedly have an opportunity of discussing the question of the Constitution of the Transvaal before that Constitution becomes operative; but I do not think they ought to have an opportunity, and it is not in accordance with precedent that they should have an opportunity, of discussing the Letters

  1313
  Patent until the Letters Patent are issued. The process is this. Letters Patent will be issued, and they will contain among other things the appointment of a Royal Commission to deal with questions of details—very important details, but still details—of the scheme in South Africa, and the scheme cannot become in the full sense operative, the Transvaal cannot enjoy the constitutional powers given to it, until an Order in Council is passed by which the recommendations of the Commission are assented to or varied, as the case may be. As soon as the Letters Patent are issued they will be laid on the Table of the House with Papers; and I shall take the first convenient opportunity—I canot say what the necessities of Supply may be, but subject to the necessities of Supply—I shall take the first convenient opportunity of putting the Colonial Secretary's Vote down as first Order on Wednesday.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the Letters Patent contain the general scheme of the new Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, the broad principles on which it is based.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Will the House have an opportunity of determining whether procedure by Letters Patent is the best means of procedure?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, that rests with the Executive Government.
  MR. BRYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he prefers the method of dealing by Letters Patent rather than the method of dealing by legislation, which has frequently been employed? There are many instances in which the House has had opportunities given to it of discussing the matter before it takes shape.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The most recent precedents are those which the Government propose to follow in this instance. There are precedents, as the right hon. Gentleman truly observes, in a different sense, the most recent, I believe, being more than half a century old.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: There was the Australian Commonwealth Bill in 1901.
  MR, A. J. BALFOUR: That is a different matter. But, in any case, I think the procedure which we propose to adopt is strictly in accordance with precedent, and is the most convenient. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman will devote his able and ingenious mind to thinking why it is the most convenient the answer will readily occur to him.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Cleveland Division of Yorkshire, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that representative institutions in Canada, New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, Western Australia, and Tasmania were established by the authority of Acts of Parliament of the years 1791, 1842, and 1850, he will, by adopting the same process in the establishment of representative institutions in the Transvaal, enable Parliament to exercise the same authority.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have answered this Question.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay Papers showing cases in which these grants have been made by statutory enactment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it worth while laying Papers, but if a Question is put down the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary will give the information asked for.

  Bengal-Local Option.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Bengal Excise Bill has been referred to the Government of India for instructions as to certain clauses dealing with the procedure to be adopted to ascertain the existence of local opinion in regard to the opening of liquor shops; whether he will state whether there is any conflict of opinion between the Government of India and the local government upon the question of principle involved in these clauses;

  1315
  and when he will be in a position to state the views of the Government of India upon the subject.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. So far as the principle is concerned that the law should fix, as far as possible, a definite procedure for ascertaining local opinion, there is, I believe, no conflict of opinion between the two Governments. I cannot conveniently make any statement as to the views of the Government of India until an amended Bill shall have been introduced into the Bengal Legislative Council. I have ascertained from the Viceroy that he has not yet received the; reply of the local government to the letter of the Government of India on the subject of the procedure provisions of the Bill.

  Uganda.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state approximately the number of natives in Uganda whose country has come under the domination of His Majesty the King of the Belgians, and also the extent of the country; and whether any steps have been taken, or are under consideration, for the protection of these people and of the English and Catholic missions.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): No part of Uganda has come under the domination of the King of the Belgians.

  North Sea Fisheries Outrage—Finding of the International Commission.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have received any information as to the finding of the International Commission which was appointed to investigate the responsibility for the deaths of the fishermen in the North Sea last autumn; and, in that case, will he inform the House of its nature and terms.
  EARL PERCY: The findings of the Commission will be laid this afternoon.

  Cost of Lighting Foreign Coasts.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the cost of lighting any foreign coasts or harbours is defrayed by Great Britain; if so, what department or body incurs this expenditure; what is the total sum expended on foreign lighthouses by this country; and what are the various places where these lights are.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): The lighthouse on Cape Spartel, Morocco, is the only one answering my hon. friend's description. That light is maintained by means of contributions from twelve Powers, of whom Great Britain is one (in accordance with a Convention entered into in 1885), the management being in the hands of an International Commission. The share of this country, which last year amounted to 1,500 fcs., is, in accordance with Section 2 (3) of the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act, 1898, paid out of the General Lighthouse Fund, which is administered by the Board of Trade.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the fund by which this lighting is maintained provided solely by British shipping?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In part. There are also contributions from the Lighthouse Fund and other sources.

  Committee on Physical Deterioration— Home Office Action.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps His Majesty's Government are taking to carry out any of the recommendations of the Committee on Physical Deterioration which relate to matters within the jurisdiction of his Department.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I fear I cannot undertake to answer in detail as to those of the Committee's.

  1317
  proposals in which my Department is concerned. Some of these proposals appear to be put forward as suggestions for further consideration rather than as definite recommendations, and I could not take steps to give effect to them without first collecting more information than has been obtained by the Committee. Perhaps I may be allowed to say, briefly, that the Committee's recommendations, several of which are engaging my attention, will not be lost sight of. The important subject of defective children, to which the Committee refer in recommendation No. 53, is now under the consideration of a Royal Commission.
  SIR JOHN GORST: Can the right hon. Gentleman place a Return on the Table of the House showing what steps have been already taken?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall be happy to confer with him as to what he asks.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Is it still the view of the Home Office that it can do nothing with regard to the recommendation in favour of prohibiting cigarette smoking among small children?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That hardly arises out of the Question.

  Local Government Board and Physical Deterioration.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what steps His Majesty's Government are taking to carry out any of the recommendations of the Committee on Physical Deterioration which relate to matters within the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): The recommendations made by the Committee are very numerous, and so far as they relate to matters within the province of my Department, effect could not be given to many of them without legislation. A Committee, which I have appointed after consultation with my right hon. friend
  1318
  the Home Secretary, is inquiring into one important matter referred to by the Committee, viz., vagrancy, and I am giving consideration to the other subjects referred to in the Report so far as I am concerned with them.
  SIR JOHN GORST: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering among many other things the question of making regulations as to the milk supply in towns?
  MR. WALTER LONG: As my right hon. friend knows, that is an extremely difficult and involved question, and I do not think I could answer it "Yes" or "No." The whole matter is under consideration; and the application of rules would be extremely difficulty not applying to my own Department alone.

  The Education Department and the Physical Deterioration Report
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education what steps His Majesty's Government are taking to carry out any of the recommendations of the Committee on Physical Deterioration which relate to masters within the jurisdiction of the Board of Education.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): The recommendations which would appear to fall within the existing administrative powers of the Board of Education are recommendations 17, 18, 20, 37. The Board have had under their consideration for some time the subjects of these recommendations, and have taken, and are taking, steps which they hope may be of some practical utility on the lines indicated in the Report. They are also taking steps, so far as legislation is not involved, to give some effect to recommendation 35.

  Pay of Provincial Night-Messengers—The Bradford Report.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the result of his inquiry as regards the rate of pay of the provincial night-messengers; and whether these men will receive an increase of pay commensurate with the

  1319
  established rural postmen at all offices where their pay is at present computed according to the minimum payable to such established postmen.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): I am considering the rate of pay of the adult telegraph messengers at provincial offices; and if I find that any change is necessary, I will announce it when I am able to state to the House my decision as regards other classes.
  MR. NANNETTI: May I ask the noble Lord when we may expect a statement with reference to the whole question?
  LORD STANLEY: On the Estimates.
  MR. NANNETTI: Shall we have the noble Lord's statement beforehand?
  LORD STANLEY: I shall issue my Memorandum beforehand, but the debate will take place on the Estimates, which is the usual time for discussing an increase of wages.
  MR. NANNETTI: In view of the feeling aroused all over the country with reference to the Bradford Report, will the noble Lord use his influence with the Prime Minister to get a day for the discussion?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir.

  Workhouse Accounts.
  MR. BRIGHT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he proposes to issue an Order to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Workhouse Accounts of 1903, with a view to the simplification of keeping these accounts.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have dealt with some of the matters referred to in the Report of the Committee, but with regard to the forms of account I am not at present in a position to issue an Order on the subject. I have recently received some observations from the Association of Poor Law Unions on the recommendations of the Committee, and some important
  1320
  suggestions with regard to the books and forms which should be prescribed. The representations of the Association are now under consideration.

  Canadian Cattle Industry.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether the expression of opinion coming from Canada in favour of the repeal of restrictions upon the importation of Canadian store cattle is to be taken as the opinion of the farmers, or if it is only the opinion of shareholders in large cattle ranches throughout America and of certain shipping interests.
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: The Canadian Government informs us that Canadian feeling and opinion are still in favour of the repeal of the existing statutory restrictions on the importation of live animals from the Dominion into Great Britain. The Board, of course, accept the assurance the given, and they cannot associate themselves with the suggestion made in the latter part of the Question of the hon. Member.

  Dogs Bill.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, E.): I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether they intend to introduce this I session the Bill of last year to amend the law relating to the injury to live stock by dogs at any early date, with the object of it being passed into law.
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: The answer is in the affirmative. I hope to bring it in at an early date.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Do the Government intend to press it forward?
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: Yes, Sir, that is the intention in bringing in the Bill early in the session.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: And pass it?
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: I hope so.

  Sanitation in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty): I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate, in view of the insanitary condition of many parishes in the Island of Lewis, and the frequent closing of the public schools in consequence of epidemics of fever and other contagious diseases, will arrangements be made for the medical inspector, or one of the inspecting officers of the Local Government Board for Scotland to visit the island in order that a report as to the best mode of dealing with the in sanitary conditions may be secured and considered.
  THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): The Local Government Board are prepared to entertain the suggestion made by the hon. Member, and will endeavour to arrange for a report to be prepared by one of their staff so soon as his other duties permit.

  Railway Rates for Fish
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether it has yet been found possible to secure a reduction in the through rates charged for the carriage of fish from the North of Scotland to the southern markets.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the negative. The Secretary for Scotland would be glad to see a reduction in the cost of the carriage of fish, but the North of Scotland does not labour under any peculiar disadvantage in this matter.

  Renfrew School Teacher and Vaccination.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that the Scottish Education Department recently declined to allow the Renfrew Landward School Board to engage Laura Agnes Hood as a pupil teacher on the ground that she had not been successfully vaccinated; will he explain why this veto was imposed, especially having regard to the fact that the Code of Regulations issued by the Department does not indicate that successful vaccination is a necessary condition of appointment; and will he state why a pupil teacher who has had small pox is not accepted as eligible for appointment unless successfully vaccinated.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: It is the fact that the Department declined to recognise the girl named in the Question as a pupil teacher on the ground that she had not been vaccinated. The rule on which this decision was based is a general one, imposed in the interests of the health of the children. As regards the last part of the Question, no case of the kind referred to has as yet called for the Department's decision.

  Highland Crofting Counties—Medical Officers of Health.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether the Local Government Board have yet considered the expediency of increasing the number of medical officers of health for the Highland Crofting Counties and re-arranging the area under their respective control.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The Local Government Board has long advocated the appointment of a separate medical officer for the Islands pertaining to the counties of Inverness and Ross, and have reason to believe that the proposal is favourably regarded by the county councils concerned. The views of the Local Government Board regarding the Poor Law Medical Relief in the Highlands and Islands at large are fully set forth in the Report of the Board's Departmental Committee issued a year ago, to which I would refer the hon. Member.

  Western Highlands Fisheries.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state the precise nature of any arrangements made by the Congested Districts Board for the conveyance of fish by steamer from the Western Highland fishing stations to Kyle, and the proposed rates.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The Congested Districts Board have made arrangements with Messrs. Couper, of Helmsdale, by which they undertake to run a steamer from Ullapool and intervening ports to Kyle three times a week for the conveyance of lobsters and fish at the rate of 6d. a cwt., on a guarantee from the Board of a minimum cargo per month of 280 tons.

  Lochbroom Fishing Industry—Suggested Motor-Car Service.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate, in view of recent improvements in weight carrying motor-cars, will he consider the expediency of placing a motor-car on the road between Ullapool aid Garve for the purpose of assisting the fishing industry in the Lochbroom district, as authorised under Section 4, Sub-section (e), of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The Secretary for Scotland has received no application in the direction suggested by the hon. Member. He will perceive by my Answer to the previous Question that the Congested Districts Board have already taken steps experimentally to facilitate transit by sea from Ullapool to the railway terminus.

  Longford—Charge for Extra Police.
  MR. J. P. FAERELL (Longford, N.): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he will state the grounds upon which it was decided to stop the sum of £5 odd out of the agricultural grant to county Longford in respect of charges for extra police in Longford in October, 1902; whether he is aware that no requisition for extra police had been made on this occasion; and, if so, will he say why, although such requisition had not been made, the extra police were drafted in.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): The county council declined to make payment of this sum, which was due to the Crown under the authority of the Constabulary Acts. The amount was accordingly deducted from moneys payable to the county council out of the Local Taxation Account, in pursuance of Section 80, Sub-section 2, of the Local Government Act, 1898. The extra force was requisitioned by the county inspector in the ordinary manner and was approved by Government.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the district inspector denies requisitioning the police, as they were not required.
  MR. ATKINSON: The contrary is, I believe, the fact. He says he did.

  Drumlish Cattle Rescue Case.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of alleged rescue of cattle in the police district of Drumlish, which is to come before the assizes at Longford on March 3rd; and whether, before ordering a prosecution by the Crown in this case, he will call for a report as to the circumstances under which the seizure took place, and inquire as to whether or not the bailiff produced any warrant or authority to seize which led the persons accused to think their cattle were being stolen.
  MR. ATKINSON: The depositions in these cases, in my opinion, disclose a prima facie case against the accused. I have no power or right to decide upon the validity of any defence they may desire to set up. I have, therefore, directed the prosecution to be proceeded with. If the rights of the accused have been invaded, of course they are entitled to redress against the parties liable. The seizures were made by the Sub-Sheriff, in person.
  MR. J.P. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Sub-Sheriff was not on the ground at all?
  MR. ATKINSON: I am aware of exactly the contrary.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Then I may inform the right hon. Gentleman that he is totally misinformed.

  Larkhill School-County Sligo.
  MR. O'DOWD (Sligo, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what provision is made for the education of Catholic children in the district of Larkhill, situate near Callooney, county Sligo; whether he is aware that the patron and teacher of the local national school there are Protestants, although 75 per cent. of the children attending are Catholics; and, if so, will he say whether it is the wish of the Commissioners of National Education that where the majority of the children attending a particular school are of one religious denomination the manager of that school should be of the

  1325
  same denomination; and, if so, whether inquiries will be made with the view of having the grievances complained of in this case redressed.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The school at Larkhill is under Protestant management and the teacher is a Protestant. Thirty-four pupils were on the rolls on December 31st last, of whom twenty-one were Protestants and thirteen Catholics. There are two other schools about two miles distant, both under Catholic management.

  Dombsy Estate, Athenry.
  MR. DUFFY (Galway. S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that negotiations have been commenced for the purchase of the Dombsy Estate, near Athenry, and are concluded; and, if so, whether, seeing that mostly all the holdings on the property are uneconomic, will he advise the Estates Commissioners to refuse to sanction the sale until such time as the untenanted lands of the neighbourhood are made available for the enlargement of the small holdings.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This property has not, yet been brought before the Commissioners. In any case they will discharge their duties in accordance with the provisions of the law, and I cannot undertake to advise them as suggested in the Question.

  Gloves Grazing Farm.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board recently purchased a large grazing farm at Gloves, near Athenry; and, if so, whether, seeing that the attention of the Congested Districts Board his been repeatedly drawn to the condition of a number of poor tenants who reside on the bog at Gloves, and that a memorial had been forwarded by them to the Congested Districts Board requesting that the untenanted lands recently purchased should be divided amongst them, it is the intention of the Board to dispose of these lands amongst the poor farmers living in the district.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that the lands at Gloves occupied by the tenants in question have not been purchased by the Board, and that these lands are not in a congested district. The Board intend to provide for the tenants on the lands which they purchased and to utilise the remainder for purposes of migration from a congested district. Congestion outside scheduled districts can be dealt with by the Estates Commissioners.

  Evicted Tenants in County Galway.
  MR. ROCHE (Galway, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of applications received by the Estates Commissioners from the evicted tenants on the estate of Mrs. Lewis, Ballinagar, county Galway, and how many have been reinstated either in their old homes or new ones under the Land Act of 1903.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Twenty-two, none of whom have been reinstated. Their, applications are at present with the inspectors and will be considered in the event of untenanted land in the district becoming available.

  Clanricarde Estate Evicted Tenants.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of applications from evicted tenants on the Clanricarde Estate, the number that have been reinstated under the Land Act of 1903, how many to their old homes, and also how many have been provided with new ones on the estate.
  MR. WYNDHAM: 122, of whom two have been reinstated in new holdings on an adjoining estate. The Commissioners are unable to say whether any of the remainder have been restored to their former or new holdings on the Clanricarde Estate, which has not been brought before them in any way.

  Sligo Local Authorities Accounts.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, before the issue of the new Public, Bodies Order, 1904, and the Union Accounts Order. 1904, the county council and other public bodies in Sligo

  1327
  were consulted: and, if so, whether he will give the names of the bodies so consulted and the views expressed by them in regard to these Orders.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The County Council and Sligo Urban District Council were consulted. The secretary to the county council suggested that an additional form should be embodied in the Order. The Local Government Board was unable to agree to the suggestion, but considers it may be issued, separately, for voluntary adoption by the councils, and this will be done. The urban council expressed no opinion on the Order prior to its issue. The Union Accounts Order made no alterations in the existing system and was not communicated to boards of guardians.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in most of these cases the reply of the Official Receiver represents the official view and not the county council at all?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware of that.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Well, it is so.

  Sir Antony MacDonnell.
  MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether His Majesty's Government invited or received from Sir Antony MacDonnell any explanation or defence of his action before characterising it as indefensible.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir, the Answer is in the affirmative; and the representations made by Sir Antony MacDonnell, before the Cabinet arrived at any decision, led us to decide that, while his conduct was not open to any imputation of disloyalty, it was impossible for the Government to defend assistance given to the formulation of views to which we are opposed.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Were these representations from Sir Antony MacDonnell in writing?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Have they been reduced to writing since?
  MR. WYNDHAM: A good many communications have passed between Sir Antony MacDonnell and myself, and all his representations have been laid by me before the Cabinet.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I understand in writing. Then I have to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will produce these documents.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.

  Higher Education in Ireland.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any legislation to give effect to the proposal for dealing with higher education in Ireland contained in the correspondence between the Chief Secretary for Ireland and Sir Antony MacDonnell.
  MR. A. J BALFOUR: In answer to the hon. Gentleman I have to say that the Government certainly do not propose to introduce any legislation on this subject. I have frequently explained to the House, and among others to my hon. friend, that this is not a subject on which the Government are agreed.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Was the Chief Secretary authorised by the Cabinet to use the words in the correspondence with Sir Antony MacDonnell "I make" and "you accept?"
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must give notice of that Question.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: If it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce legislation on this question, what is the particular function in connection with higher education in Ireland which Sir Antony MacDonnell is to perform?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman must have given imperfect attention to the many statements and speeches I have made on the subject.

  1329
  Four days ago I explained to the House that in my judgment neither this Government nor any succeeding Government could make this a Government question. If it is to be dealt with it must be dealt with by other means.

  The Irish Devolution Scheme.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim. S.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can inform the House whether the Lord-Lieutenant in his conversations with Sir Antony MacDonnell expressed approval or disapproval of the devolution scheme as proposed by Sir Antony MacDonnell.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to the proposal to invest a statutory body in Ireland with power to deal with Hills other than Private Bills, I understand the Lord-Lieutenant has expressed an unhesitating disapproval.
  MR. LONSDALE: Did Sir Antony MacDonnell inform his superior officer, the Chief Secretary, that Lord Dudley had expressed disapproval of the devolution scheme?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware of it.
  MR. LONSDALE: Was it not his duty to do so?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Mountmellick Bog.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the extensive bog comprising 1,489 acres, owned by Mrs. Adair, and situate near Mountmellick, Queen's County, is offered for sale by private tender; and, in view of the fact that this bog is the sole source upon which the inhabitants of Mountmellick, Rosenallis, and surrounding districts have to rely for fuel, and as the owner has already sold the other portion of the estate to the tenants, under the Land Purchase Acts some ten years ago, he will state whether the Estates Commissioners are prepared to take steps to purchase this bog and use it for t he accommodation of the localities named.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There are no proceedings pending before the Commissioners with respect to this bog. I see no necessity for suggesting to them any special course in regard to it. I think they are quite competent to deal with these matters?
  MR. DELANY: But will not the right, hon. Gentleman communicate with them?
  MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. Member thinks I ought to draw their attention to the fact that this bargain is a favourable one I will do so.

  Siskin Evicted Tenant.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application from an evicted tenant named Mr. Patrick O'Brien, of Siskin, Cadamstown, King's County; and, if so, if any, and what, steps have been taken in connection with the application by the Commissioners; and whether any steps can be taken for dealing with his case in connection with the sale of the adjoining estate of Captain Caulfield Ffrench, on which there is a large amount of untenanted land and large grazing farms.
  MR. WYNDHAM: An application for reinstatement has been received from this evicted tenant, whose former holding is stated to be in the occupation of a new tenant. No proceedings for the sale of the estate of Captain Ffrench have yet been instituted before the Estates Commissioners.

  Seizures for Rent in King's County.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the police assisted in several seizures for rent recently on the property of Lord Ash-brook and other landlords in the King's County; and, if so, will he say what necessity existed for the expenditure of public money in connection with proceedings that were carried out for the purpose of forcing tenants into purchasing their holdings at prices they considered too high.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The police rendered no such assistance. They attended on the requisition of the sheriff, as they were by law bound to do, to protect his bailiff in the execution of Writs of the Superior Court. No expense to the public was incurred.

  Admiral Singleton's Estate.
  ME. SHEEHY (Meath, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have sanctioned the sale to the tenants of Admiral Singleton's property; whether he is aware that an evicted tenant, Owen Kirk, has lodged with the Commissioners a claim to be reinstated, by purchase, on the farm in Admiral Singleton's estate from which he was evicted; and that the Commissioners have notified Mr. Kirk that the farm from which he was evicted does not appear to form portion of the estate; and, if so, will he state what are the grounds on which the Commissioners founded that statement: and what steps, if any, have the Commissioners taken to have Mr. Kirk reinstated.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Commisioners have not yet sanctioned advances to the tenants on this estate. The question whether Kirk's former holding is comprised in the estate, about which there appeared to be some doubt, will be investigated by the inspector.

  Evicted Tenants in County Armagh.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants evicted from the Sir J. Strong, H. B. Armstrong, and Hassart Estates, county Armagh, have lodged applications for reinstatement with the Estates Commissioners; and whether, in view of the fact that these lands are at present in the hands of the landlords, he will see that they are purchased by the Estates Commissioners for the purpose of resettling the evicted tenants thereon.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Application for reinstatement has been received from one evicted tenant only, whose holding is on the Armstrong estate. No application has yet been made to the Commissioners
  1332
  for the sale of either of the estates mentioned.

  Report on Knitting and Hosiery in Limerick School.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the name of Miss E. Anderson does not appear in the Return presented by order of this House, dated August 13th, 1903, showing the names of and certain information concerning the officials employed by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland, as an inspector of the Department; and will he now supply in her case the information that Return might have given, namely, her previous employment and her qualifications, if any, to act as inspector of hosiery and knitting; is he aware that a recent report of that inspector on the work of a knitting and hosiers' class at Limerick has been contradicted as to the quality of the work by five business men in that city, three of them buyers for large firms, and all of them purchasers of the goods made in the class in question; and will he say whether the Department rely on that inspector's reports as to the condition and progress of the knitting and hosiery industry in Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Return in question was a Return of permanent officials. Miss Anderson is not a permanent officer and her name was not, therefore, included in the Return. She was appointed Inspectress in August, 1900. Her previous employment was that of a principal Art Mistress of the Crawford School of Art, Cork. She holds the Art Master's Certificate of the English Board of Education, also many medals, and has had considerable experience in teaching design for lace and needlework. The Department is satisfied as to the fairness of her report to which reference is made in the Question.
  MR. JOYCE: As the principal firms in Limerick are buying from this school they know how the work is done.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no further information.
  MR. JOYCE: Then I will right hon. Gentleman some.

  Kinvarra Harbour
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain the cause of delay in commencing the repairs to Kinvarra Harbour; whether he is aware that the County Council of Galway agreed to vote £800 towards the expenses of this work on condition that a grant of £1,100 under the Marine Works Act be made by the Treasury, the balance required for the extension of the pier to be provided as follows: £200 by the Congested Districts Board, £200 by the County Council of Galway, £1,100 by the Department of Agriculture; and, if so, whether, with a view to relieving the distress prevailing on the west coast of Ireland and in the district of Kinvarra by providing employment for the poor working population and to carrying out a useful public work, he will at once direct, that the Board of Works will take the necessary steps to initiate these works.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Plans of the proposed works were communicated to the county council by the Board of Works on December 22nd, with a request for an early reply. The council has not yet signified its approval of the plans.

  Land Purchase Advances.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the amount advanced under the Land Purchase Act of 1903 in each of the four provinces of Ireland up to December 3lst, 1904, distinguishing between the amount for tenanted and untenanted land respectively; and whether he can state the average number of years purchase for non-judicial first-term and second-term rents.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This information cannot conveniently be given in the form of a reply to a Question. A Return will be laid on the Table in the course of a few days which will contain full information respecting the operations of the Commissioners to the date mentioned.

  Killadysert Union Account.
  MR.SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
  1334
  Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Auditor has surcharged three members of the Killadysert Union £6 18s. 2d., being for medical and surgical appliances; and that the guardians surcharged appealed to the Local Government Board; and, if so, will he say whether the surcharge has been sustained by the Local Government Board; and what are the grounds for the surcharge.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are correctly stated. The grounds for the surcharge, which was upheld by the Local Government Board, were that the amount surcharged represented the cost of medical and surgical appliances supplied over and above the reasonable wants of the medical officer, and that the payment was excessive and exorbitant.

  Arterial Drainage, Ireland.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any intimation has been given on behalf of the Government that it is intended to provide money for the drainage of lands adjoining the River Bann; and, if so, whether the Government intend at the same time to provide money for the drainage of lands adjoining the Rivers Barrow, Suck, Owenmore, and Shannon.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The proposals of the Government with respect to the provision of funds for the drainage of the Bann have been publicly announced. I have no further statement to make in the matter at present. The reply to the second inquiry is in the negative.

  Appointment to Office of Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury by whom is the appointment to the office of Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland made; is it held under Letters Patent or otherwise; and what is the nature of its tenure.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The appointment is made by the Crown by Letters Patent.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it not Practically made by the Lord-Lieutenant Secretary to the by Letters Patent?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite admit I have made no independent research, but I am informed that the matter is as I have stated.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is not the appointment made by the Lord-Lieutenant as representing the Crown?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should imagine it is made by the Crown and not by the Lord-Lieutenant.

  Painting Work at Viceregal Lodge, Dublin.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that labouring men have been employed at painting work at the Viceregal Lodge, Dublin, under the Board of Works; that remonstrances have been directed on behalf of the regular painters, employers and employed, claiming that the work done by these labouring men belongs to the painting trade; and, if so, whether, seeing that the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland define painting work contary to expert judgment, and in view of the replies received from the Department concerned, he will represent to the Board of Works the desirability of securing competent workmen to perform tradesmen's work in this trade in accordance with the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): After careful investigation I have satisfied myself that the painting work at the Viceregal Lodge, to which the hon. Member refers, is of the roughest description, not requiring or properly assignable to skilled workmen. Any work involving skilled labour is always reserved for duly qualified men.
  MR. NANNETTI: Seeing that the workmen claim this to be the work of regular painters, will the right hon. Gentleman take the expert opinion of the Master Painters on the subject?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHasked for notice of the Question.

  Piltown Postal Arrangements.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kilkenny): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General
  1336
  whether he is aware that frequent complaints have been made of delays, at times of five days, in delivering the Kilkenny Moderator newspaper at Piltown and district, which is distant only twenty-one miles from Kilkenny, where the paper is published and posted can he explain why these delays occur; and will he see that the Moderator is delivered in the ordinary course of post in future.
  LORD STANLEY: The inquiries as regards the delay in the delivery of the Kilkenny Moderator at Piltown are not yet complete, but I hope to be in a position to communicate the result to the hon. Member shortly.

  Aghnacliffe Telegraphic Arrangements.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to end the proposed telegraph service to Dring at that station or to continue same to Aghnacliffe Post Office, a short distance further, where there is a creamery, schools, chapels, and several business premises in need of telegraphic facilities.
  LORD STANLEY: There are proposals for extending the telegraph to Dring under guarantee, and also to Cloonagh, which is in the same neighbourhood; and I should be prepared to make an extension, under guarantee, to Aghnacliffe. But I am bound to say that there is nothing like sufficient telegraph business in the neighbourhood to support all three offices, and that the calls upon the guarantors would therefore be heavy. Perhaps in the circumstances the hon. Member may be able to use his influence to induce the three places to combine in an application for one telegraph office, or at most two, to serve the whole neighbourhood.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: If a number of private individuals combine to give the guarantee will that suffice?
  LORD STANLEY: Certainly, Sir, it can be done under a guarantee.

  Irish-Speaking Postmasters.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, having regard to the fact that knowledge of the Welsh

  1337
  language is considered an essential qualification for postal appointments in Welsh-speaking districts in Wales, if he will state why a similar practice in respect to the Irish language is not followed in Irish-speaking districts in Ireland; and whether, seeing that it is the practice in Welsh-speaking districts in Wales to display all postal notices in both Welsh and English languages, he will explain why a similar practice is not, followed in Ireland.
  LORD STANLEY: The practice followed in certain districts of Wales is not followed in Ireland because the circumstances are not similar. But I can promise if any candidate with the advantage of a knowledge of the Irish language applies for a vacant postmastership I shall be glad to favourably consider his case.

  Deportation of Paupers to Ireland.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will explain why paupers continue to be deported to Ireland from English cities and unions, contrary to the legislation passed by this House to stop same; and whether, in these cases, proper inquiries are made so as to ensure that no fraud is committed by such persons in order to secure a cheap passage to Ireland.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I presume that the legislation to which the hon. Member refers is the Poor Removal Act, 1900. I have not received complaints of the deportation of persons to Ireland in contravention of that Act, but if any such complaints are brought to my notice I will make inquiry with regard to them.

  Turkish Import Duties.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, have His Majesty's Government received any request from the Turkish Government to agree to an increase of the Turkish import duties from 8 to 11 per cent. ad valorem; and, if so, what reply has been made thereto; and, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government hold that, before applying any increase of the Turkish Customs to other purposes than the Turkish debt, it would be
  1338
  necessary previously to modify the terms of Article VIII. of this decree of December 8th, 1881, ceding to the service of the Turkish debt any surplus arising from a modification of the Customs tarift, and also to obtain the consent of the Council of the Ottoman Public Debt, representing the bondholders, can he inform the House whether any, and if so, what steps are proposed to be taken to obtain the consent of that Council before applying any surplus arising from an increase in the Turkish tariff either to reforms in Macedonia or to any other purpose than the service of the Turkish debt.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. No reply has yet been returned to the request. The decree of December 8th, 1881, has, in pursurance of an arrangement with the Turkish Government and the bondholders, been modified by the supplementary decree of September 1st, l903. Article 3 of this Later decree confirms the assignment to the creditors of any surplus which may arise in the Customs receipts from an increase in the Customs duties, either in consequence of a revision of the treaties of commerce or otherwise, and Article 8 of the same decree provides that, if the receipts of the Ottoman Public Debt exceed £12, 157, 375, 75 per cent. of the surplus shall be repaid to the Turkish Government and the remaining 25 per cent. shall be applied to redemption of the debt. I have no reason to suppose that any alteration of this arrangement is in contemplation.

  Government Manufactories near London.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn to the tendency to concentrate the manufacture of warlike and other materials in and around London; and whether the Council of Defence will consider the desirability of doing something towards the decentralisation of Government manufacture, in view of the continually increasing difficulty of housing accommodation at reasonable rental and the consequential enhanced difficulty and cost of labour.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the Council of Defence is the proper body to deal with the important subject referred to. The Government have for some time been considering it, and are framing a Committee who they hope will deal in a useful manner with the problems raised.

  Blocking Motions—Transvaal Constitution.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for West Perthshire whether he has asked the Government to give him facilities for the discussion of a Motion, which has been placed on the Notice Paper in his name, calling attention to the proposed establishment of a new form of government in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, and to the action of His Majesty's Government and of the Colonial Executives in connection therewith; and, if he has asked for these facilities, what reply has been made to his request; and whether, in the interests of free discussion in the House of Commons, he will remove this notice from the Notice Paper.
  MR. JOHN STROYAN: I thank the hon. Member for having sent me private notice of his Question. The Answer to Question No. 1 is in the negative. The answer to Question No. 2 is therefore obvious. The answer to Question No. 3 is that the time has not arrived for a decision.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to a notice of Motion on the Notice, Paper, standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Perthshire, on the subject of the proposed Constitutions of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, and, if so, will he give a day for its discussion; and, if not, whether he will request him to remove that Notice from the Paper.
  On the same subject the following Question appeared—
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the Notice of Motion, standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Perthshire, to
  1340
  call attention to the proposed establishment of a new form of government in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, and to the action of His Majesty's Government and of the Colonial Executives in connection therewith; and to move a Resolution; and whether he will undertake to give a day for the discussion of this Motion before the proposals for conferring local self-government upon the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies become operative.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot make the request, nor is it necessary that I should do so. As early as Supply will permit I propose to put down the Vote of the Secretary for the Colonies.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he proposes to take any steps to extricate the House from the position in which it has found itself during the last session or two of being prevented discussing a matter of general interest and urgent importance by the system which has grown up and developed of what are termed blocking Notices.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have explained the views of the Government more than once on this subject. I am sorry to say I have not fulfilled an undertaking which I made at the end of last session that I would put down on the Paper a proposed Amendment to the Standing Orders embodying the views which I have expressed to the House. My view is that it is impossible to deal with the question of blocking Notices, as they are called, without considering many other questions, including the use made of powers to adjourn the House. But I feel that it is a hardship on such occasions as the adjournment for the holidays that a blocking Notice should prevent the discussion of any question which the House desires to deal with. I shall hasten to put down an Amendment to the Standing Orders carrying out that view.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be good enough to frame his Motion in such a way that we can discuss the whole matter raised in my Question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I think that "would defeat the very end I have in view. Part of my object is to give hon. Gentlemen, if they desire it, an opportunity, on the adjournment for the Easter or Whitsuntide recess, of discussing questions which they might otherwise be debarred from touching. If that is accepted sub silentio they will have those opportunities; but if I provoke discussion by putting down such a Resolution as the hon. Gentleman desires, it is evident that we should not have an opportunity to discuss that until August, and in August we might have other things more pressing.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will not deal in his Motion with the abuse complained of in regard to important Motions for adjournment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not say these questions are not of importance. On the contrary, they are of great importance, but evidently they will take up a great deal of the time of the House. They are most difficult and delicate matters. All I should aspire to would be the relatively humble function of trying to frame an Amendment of our Standing Orders which should be uncontroversial in its character.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In the meantime will the Government allow the House to remain in the same condition, tied and bound by this regulation, as it was last year? Will they do nothing to relieve the House from the scandal of being prevented by the action of a single Member, with or without the complicity of the Government, from having any discussion upon urgent questions?
  SIR GEORGE HARTLEY: Was it not so under the last Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman's sense of the wrongs under which he suffers has become more acute since he sat on this bench. I do propose to do something to mitigate the evils which the right hon. Gentleman complains of because I pro-
  1342
  pose to put on the Paper a limited Amendment, the purport of which I have already described. If the right hon. Gentleman will let me get that through without discussion he will have done something practical towards realising his idea.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: When will the Motion be put down?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This week, certainly.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the end of last session he did his best to limit discussion on the adjournment to half a day?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is debating the matter.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked Mr. Speaker whether the practice precluding the raising of discussion on a Motion for Adjournment on any matter on which a notice of Motion had been given was founded, not on any Resolution of the House of Commons or on any Standing Order, but on the rulings of successive Speakers.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has read me the result of his studies, and he asks me whether I agree or disagree with him. I am not called upon to answer Questions of that sort.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLreplied that he would bring the question up as a matter of privilege, and, therefore, moved that the notice of Motion placed on the Order Book by the hon. Member for West Perthshire, with reference to the proposed Constitution of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies constituted a breach of the privileges of the House, inasmuch as it was set down with a view to avoiding discussion of the question, and was an abuse and perversion of a rule of Parliamentary practice established nor for the obstruction of discussion, but for giving it facilities, and that the said Notice be removed from the Order Book.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had an opportunity of reading his Motion, which is probably what he wanted. There is no question of privilege at all.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will you hear me one minute?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Resolution raises no question of privilege, and as it does not do so, the hon. Member is not in order in moving it.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The hon. Member said he put the notice down because this was not the time for discussing it.
  MR. STROYAN: I said nothing of the kind.

  Preferential Trading.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division of Kent, I beg to ask the Junior Member for Oldham whether he can state the terms of the Resolution on Preferential Trading with the Colonies of which he has given notice for Wednesday, March 8th.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL (Old-ham): I hope to put the exact wording of the Resolution on the Order Paper before the end of the week. For the information and convenience of the hon. Member I may say that it is my present intention to move in the following terms: "That, in the opinion of this House, the permanent unity of the British Empire will not be secured by a system of preferential duties involving taxation of food." The hon. Member may be assured that these terms will not be altered unless circumstances should arise which would appear to render alteration desirable.
  It being now five minutes to three o'clock, twelve starred Questions addressed to the Secretaries of State for War and the Colonies were not put.

  Magisterial Jurisdiction in Ireland.
  CAPTAIN DONELANsaid he had given private notice of a Question of an urgent character relating
  1344
  to a matter of public importance, and although the time set apart under the Rules of the House for addressing Questions to Ministers had expired he claimed the right under the Standing Orders to put it.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will read his Question I will decide.
  CAPTAIN DONELANsaid he wished to ask the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been called to the proceedings at the Riverstown Petty Sessions on Friday last; was he aware that Mr. Wright, the Crown Solicitor, advised the police not to act on any warrant issued by the majority of the Bench, whether the Crown Solicitor had any authority to give such advice, and by whose instructions District-Inspector Wade refused to execute the warrant. He urged that this Question came under the Standing Order.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am not in a position to judge very accurately as to the importance of the Question and whether any harm can be done by waiting, so I will allow it to be put.
  MR. ATKINSON: As I am more conversant with the facts I will reply.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: My Question is addressed to the Chief Secretary.
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes, but the prosecution is under my charge and I am more conversant with the facts, therefore I propose to reply. A number of men were brought up before this Bench of Magistrates on an application that they should be returned for trial for riot. The magistrates from time to time adjourned the case, and eventually application had to be made to the King's Bench for a mandamus to compel them to proceed to adjudicate and to either return the accused for trial or to acquit them. The mandamus was granted, and on the same day the magistrates assembled in obedience to the mandamus addressed to them, and, instead of obeying it, three of them took upon themselves to exercise jurisdiction over the men and to convict them of an offence with which they were not charged, an

  1345
  usurpation of authority which was absolutely illegal, an act done without any warrant or jurisdiction, and without absolutely any defence; in fact, these magistrates not only exercised a jurisdiction which they had not, but one of which they were expressly deprived by statute. The police, under the direction of the authorities, refused to execute the warrants, which were both illegal and improper, and which, had they been executed, would have subjected both the magistrates and the police to an action for false imprisonment.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I be permitted to point out most respectfully that the Attorney-General has not answered one of the Questions I put? I ask whether he was aware that Mr. Wright, the Crown Solicitor, advised the police not to act on any warrant issued by the majority of the Bench; had he authority to do so, and by whose instructions did Inspector Wade refuse to execute the warrant?
  MR. ATKINSON: I think I have answered all the Questions. Mr. Wright represented me in the conduct of the prosecution, and communicated with me as to what had been done. He properly stated on the spot that the warrants about to be issued were altogether illegal. The Chief Secretary was communicated with through me, and I advised him that it was absolutely proper that the police, under the circumstances, should refuse to execute warrants which were entirely illegal.

NEW BILLS.
  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, relating to land in the parishes of Erith and Barking." presented by Mr. Cochrane; supported by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1897) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the provisions of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, as to the application of the fund constituted by the Act; and for other purposes," presented by Mr. Ainsworth; supported by Mr. John Dewar, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. Weir, and Mr. Harmsworth; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]
  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Acts relating to Crofter Holdings in Scotland," presented by Mr. Ainsworth; supported by Mr. John Dewar, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. Weir, and Mr. Harmsworth; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 7th March, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]
  SCHOOL BOARD ELECTORATE (SCOT- LAND) BILL.
  "To admit to the School Board Electorate of Scotland persons entitled to vote for the county council election," presented by Mr. Weir; supported by Mr. Leveson-Gower, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. John Dewar, Sir Arthur Bignold, Mr. Harmsworth and Mr. Caldwell; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]
  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT' BILL.
  "To amend the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886," presented by Mr. Weir; supported by Mr. John Dewar, Mr. Leveson-Gower, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Sir Arthur Bignold, Mr. Harmsworth, Mr. Ainsworth, and Mr. Caldwell; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]
  OSBORNE ESTATE ACT (1902) AMEND- MENT BILL.
  "To amend the Osborne Estate Act, 1902, with respect to the purposes to which Osborne House may be devoted," presented by Mr. Victor Cavendish; supported by Lord Balcarres; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

  SMALL HOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the tenure of Small Holdings in Scotland,"

  1347
  presented by Mr. Black; supported by Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Crombie. Mr. Weir, Mr. John Dewar, Mr. Eugene Wason, and Mr. Ainsworth; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 22nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

  KINGS SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Main Question [14th February], "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth—
  "Most Gracious Sovereign,
  "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Mount.)
  Question again proposed.
  MR. STEVENSON (Suffolk, Eye)said he rose for the purpose of moving the Amendment to the Address standing in his name on the Paper, and, as within the last few days there had been some modification in its terms, he would read out the actual wording, which was as follows—
  "But humbly represent to Your Majesty that, in view of the prevalent insecurity of life and property in many provinces of the Ottoman Empire, the inadequacy of the measures hitherto adopted, and the incontrovertible obligations incurred by this country and the other signatories of the Treaty of Berlin, the time has arrived when further steps should be taken for the purpose of placing the execution of reforms in those provinces in the hands of a governor or governors, or other officers, responsible to the Powers."
  The place and space devoted to the subject of the Near East in the King's Speech bore testimony, he said, to its importance at the present time, and he did not think enough had yet been said, either in debate in that House or in another place, with regard to the actual steps which were being taken by Great Britain and the other Signatory Powers respecting the condition of affairs in that part of the world. It must be borne in mind, in dealing with these disturbed
  1348
  provinces of the Ottoman Empire, that they were referring to what was purely and specifically a foreign country, but one in regard to which they and other Powers were bound by most solemn treaty obligations. He would refer to two parts of the Ottoman Empire, the European part and the Asiatic part. In the European part he had more especially to deal with the vilayets which were grouped under Macedonia, while as to Asiatic Turkey he would draw their attention to certain provinces in which the records showed that a deplorable condition of things still continued to exist. They had, during the last year, had a certain amount of information given to them in the shape of Blue-books and White-books with regard to the condition of affairs in European Turkey. But that information only brought them down to August last year, and they knew very little as to what had occurred since that time. He did not think that the official publications which they had received threw very much light on the progress which had been achieved, and he might be allowed, perhaps, briefly to recall to the House the successive stages by which the present condition of affairs had been brought about.
  It would be remembered that a certain scheme of reforms was put forward in the year 1902 by Austro-Hungary and Russia, with the concurrence of certain other Powers, but without any particular sanction attached. In the year 1903, a conference took place between the Emperor-King of Austro-Hungary and the Emperor of Russia, and in consequence of that conference more drastic proposals were brought forward, including the introduction of a mixed gendarmerie The greater part of the official publications of last year was concerned with the manner in which attempts were made to carry that recommendation into force, and it was remarkable how at every stage the proposals put forward by the Powers were baulked and blocked by the diplomacy of the Porte and by the action of the Sultan. One of the first and most important steps was the appointment of the officers who were to constitute the gendarmerie. The Porte refused to allow more than twenty-five foreign officers in all to serve, and imposed restrictions regarding their work which practically confined it to the reorganisation of that

  1349
  body, and made a very considerable difference in the way in which the duties of the gendarmerie were to be carried out. It was obvious that their presence in the country without power could be of little service, and various diplomatic representations were consequently made in the course of the year for the purpose of securing that the number of foreign officers should be increased, and their powers augmented. It was very difficult to ascertain what the result had been. They were told at a period subsequent to the publication of the last White-book that an increase had been permitted by the Turkish Government in the number of foreign officers from twenty-five to forty-eight. But then that increase was accompanied by a, condition that the officers should merely be employed for the purpose of reorganisation, and should not have the power of commanding. What he repeated, could be the value of their presence under such circumstances? He had a question to put to the Undersecretary. In the Austro-Hungarian Memorandum of August it was mentioned that thirty-eight foreign officers were to command at that time, whereas in other despatches twenty-five was the number given. At that time only five British officers were employed in a particular district, and the proportion of British officers was not what it ought to have been. He would be glad to know whether any increase had been made in the number since, and also whether the negotiations which had taken place gave any reasonable hope that the powers of the foreign officers would be augmented simultaneously with the increase in their number. They found that the officers met at Salonika and decided to apportion the district among themselves. The British officers, apparently at the request of the other Powers, were selected for the district of Drama, which was the quietest of all and where their presence was least needed. It was absolutely incomprehensible why these arrangements were made, and it appeared to him it was a question of putting round men into square holes. Could the Under-Secretary explain the reason for this apportionment?
  Again, they found that on March 19th, the Powers made a distinct complaint that General de Giorgis and the officers connected with him had inadequate powers.
  1350
  but the Porte insisted on all effective command being retained in Turkish hands, and the negotiations culminated in nothing except a small increase in the number of officers. Matters were no doubt facilitated, for in the month of April an arrangement was arrived at between Turkey and Bulgaria—without the knowledge of the Powers, though they were advised of it immediately afterwards—which had a reassuring and quieting effect. But, again, they came across the same monotonous record of outrage and misgovernment, the same monotonous record of complaint by one nationality against another. The scheme was one under which protection was to be given against the raids of the Albanians. What, however, was the exact scope of that arrangement? Again, in Turkey Paper No. 1, 1904, page 11, it was explained that it was the intention of the Powers to apply these reforms not only to three particular vilayets comprised in Macedonia, but also to others. He could, however, not trace the exact authority for that statement. But undoubtedly complaints had come that very important districts in the, Monastir territory by Thessaly had been left out of the gendarmerie arrangement. It was further complained that the vilayet of Adrianople also had received no benefit from it whatever. It would be remembered that at the close of last session Lord Lansdowne mentioned that vilayet as one to which the reforms should apply, and they had other authorities in support of it, notably that of the Grand Vizier. In point of principle no objection was made to the application of the scheme of reform to the vilayet of Adrianople, and surely there could be no objection to the establishment of the reorganised gendarmerie there, for it would undoubtedly have the effect of securing greater quietness and peace. The greater part of the official publications were filled with unfortunate records of murderous outrages committed by one portion of the population against another. It was not necessary for him to go into them in detail. It was sufficient to say that they pointed to the incapacity and ineptitude of the Turkish Government to deal with the condition of affairs, and they showed that Hilmi Pasha, the Turkish Inspector-General, appeared to be trying to take

  1351
  advantage of the unfortunate differences prevailing among the Christian populations in order to make a settlement more difficult. He should think that in no part of the world, probably, were there such great differences of opinion between the various nationalities as in Macedonia. In one part the Greek element preponderated and in another the Bulgarian element, while the central part was the meeting and fighting ground of all the nationalities. Those described as Turks in Macedonia were not Ottoman Turks, but were of Greek or Albanian origin. They had proof that the Bulgarians themselves had been subjected at the hands of Turkish officials and of Turkish troops—sometimes Regular and sometimes Irregular—to most severe sufferings, and further south the Greeks who constituted the professional and trading classes had suffered from both the Turkish and the Bulgarian side. It was not always correct to attribute to the Bulgarians the sufferings undergone by the Greeks, for in some cases Turks had gone about disguised as Bulgarian revolutionists.
  Great Britain was bound by certain bonds of obligation to the people there, whatever their nationality or creed, and it was not for us to abandon that right, which was conferred by treaty, nor to abdicate it in favour of two only out of the six signatory Powers. What was desired was that there should be a restoration of peace and security in that country, that lives and property should be safe, whether from the Turks or other people, and it was their duty to take a more resolute attitude in order to bring about a better condition of affairs. Lord Lansdowne had from the first refused to commit himself absolutely to the scheme. He only accepted it conditionally, for if they turned to Turkey No. 2, 1903, page 1, they found that he made use of the following words—
  "His Majesty's Government desire in particular to have it understood that their provisional acceptance of the scheme will not, in the event of its disappointing the expectations of its framers and proving inadequate as a remedy, be regarded by His Majesty's Government as precluding them from putting forward or supporting, either during the tenure of office of the Inspector-General or at any future time, alternative proposals with the same object."
  At a later stage, on September 29th, Lord Lansdowne wrote in the follow-
  1352
  ing terms to Sir F. Plunkett, our Ambassador—
  "In our view no scheme is likely to produce satisfactory results which depends for its execution upon a Mussulman Governor entirely subservient to the Turkish Government and completely independent of foreign control. We suggest for consideration two alternatives: (a) Appointment of a Christian Governor unconnected with the Balkan Peninsula or with the Powers signatory of the Treaty of Berlin, or (b) Retention of a Mussulman Governor assisted by European Assessors."
  It might be said that the second clause was the one in force. But the scheme had to be judged by its results, and any impartial person was compelled to come to the conclusion that the present scheme had proved abortive, and that resort should be had to the alternative suggested by Lord Lansdowne. The great difficulty was that although an official not directly responsible to the Sultan might be appointed, and although the Grand Vizier at the Porte might give assurances to the European Powers that such and such a mode of administration should be carried out, there might come from the Palace secret injunctions setting aside the orders from the Porte, with the result that the governor would in reality be amenable to all those Palace influences which had worked so much harm in the past. It was therefore essential that the governor should not be an Ottoman subject, and that he should be responsible to the Powers themselves, although there would be no objection to the nominal sovereignty of the Sultan being recognised, provided such recognition did not enable the Sultan to interfere with the effective administration of the law. The British Government ought to take the initiative in bringing Lord Lansdowne's alternative again before the Powers. It was not known whether a proposal had been actually made, but Lord Lansdowne had hinted in another place that the British Government were prepared with an alternative proposal. Soon afterwards it was stated that Austria-Hungary and Russia had a proposal of their own to make, which from the short summaries in the Press appeared to deal merely with the question of finance. The matter was now further complicated by the fact that the Turkish Government had put forward a proposal also dealing with finance. In these circumstances he desired to ask

  1353
  whether the proposal of the Turkish Government was identical with that of Austria-Hungary and Russia, and whether the latter was an alternative to the proposal of the British Government. If the British Government were not making any proposal of their own, it was surely time they did so. Finance was doubtless a very important element, but, after all, it was one that had to be thought of after the establishment of effective and definite European control. The first essentials were to secure adequate control over the gendarmerie, adequate powers to the gendarmerie, and adequate judicial control. He hoped the Under-Secretary of State would be able to indicate the nature of the proposal, if any, now being made by the British Government.
  It was not desirable on either public or moral grounds that the settlement of this question should be left exclusively to the two Eastern Empires. While recognising the fitness of Austria-Hungary owing to her experience in Bosnia and Herzegovina, people interested in Macedonia would be more reassured if they knew that Austria-Hungary had not merely the passive, but the active co-operation of the Western Powers. They desired to see Great Britain, Italy, and France, taking a more active part in the pacification of Macedonia, both because of their interest in the question and for the sake of the suffering and persecuted population. Lord Lansdowne's alternative proposal commended itself not merely as a corollary, but as a necessary preliminary to any effective introduction of European supervision. On this point there was little difference of opinion in principle among either the Powers or the population chiefly affected. The Greek Government had stated that they had no objection to the appointment of several governors, chosen according to the nationalities in the various districts. There was no important difference in principle between the appointment of one governor and the appointment of several governors; in fact, with several governors there would be greater power of supervision in the localities to which they were appointed. Various precedents—Samos, Crete, Thessaly, and others—might be invoked in favor of such a course. There were districts bordering on Greece and Bulgaria which also required attention, and especially the vilayet of
  1354
  Adrianople, in regard to which there should be no difficulty in introducing further schemes of gendarmerie, seeing that the Sultan and Grand Vizier had pronounced themselves in favour of such scheme.
  The knowledge of the House concerning Asiatic Turkey had been brought down to the middle of August last. In the early part of 1904 there had arisen in some of the highland districts of Armenia a very unfortunate condition of affairs, all the more ominous because in the same locality as the disturbances of 1894. The series of massacres extending over 1894–5–6 originated on a comparatively small scale in Sassun, and there was a serious apprehension lest ' the disturbances there last year should spread to other districts. Fortunately, matters were now somewhat quieter, but the misgovernment and oppression were continuing, and unless they were removed would afford an excuse for further disorders, and then, the fanaticism of the Turks being once aroused, there would be no limit to the ensuing cruelties. He earnestly hoped that the Foreign Office would keep a watchful eye on that part of Armenia, and, not resting content with the reports they received, valuable though they were, would make every possible effort to introduce the system of mixed gendarmerie, which had been introduced in embryo in Macedonia. It might be said that the disturbances originated in the action of certain revolutionists. No doubt revolutionists were at work, but their number was very small and their action insignificant in comparison with the unrest induced by the actual condition of affairs in the districts. Captain Tyrrel had written that the root of the evil was the misgovernment, and Sir Nicholas O'Conor, in an interview with the Vizier, expressed the view that there would be no great improvement in the condition of affairs as long as the present radical vice of gross misgovernment continued to render the life of every Armenian unendurable. Not only did Sir Nicholas O'Conor use those words, but he also approached the Sultan himself, and this was greatly to the credit of our Ambassador. On June 25th, 1904, Sir Nicholas O'Conor said that the Sultan had given the most positive

  1355
  orders to prevent outrages and massacres. But this would be useless unless it was followed up by endeavouring to enforce some scheme of reforms, and securing the application of those reforms by means of some authority which was able to carry them into effect. The introduction of the mixed gendarmerie had not had the effect which was anticipated, but that was no reason why something of a similar character should not be attempted in Armenia, where the problem was simpler, and where there was not such a divergence of race and creed as in Macedonia. It was difficult to see why something effective could not be done to introduce a more peaceful state of things in that part of the Turkish Empire. He hoped the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs would give them some assurance that effective steps were being initiated by this country with a view to the introduction of practical reforms in Macedonia under the guidance of some governor or governors independent of the Sultan and responsible to the Powers. He trusted that a watchful eye would be kept on Armenian occurrences, and an early opportunity be taken of endeavouring to improve the existing state of things by introducing the mixed gendarmerie under some officer directly responsible to the Powers.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid that after the exhaustive explanation given by his hon. friend opposite, who had made this subject so peculiarly his own, he did not feel that it would be necessary for him to go into the details of the negotiations and proposals which had been going on in reference to Macedonia. He wished, however, to claim on behalf of hon. Members on the Ministerial side an equal interest with hon. Members opposite to secure reforms; and an equal determination to see that our statesmen recognised the great obligations of England and the other Powers in this matter, and the strong sense of the international danger that was caused by these disturbances. They were not there, however, to censure the Government, but to support and encourage them in the course they had adopted. He gave full credit for, the desire which was expressed by his noble friend last year
  1356
  that the Government were anxious to obtain a real and permanent amelioration of the European provinces of Turkey, and that it would be their constant endeavour to bring about this state of things. No doubt his noble friend at that time thought this object would be best attained by placing these reforms in the hands of Austria and Russia, as they were what were called the interested Powers. But how were they interested? Simply in keeping things as they were, and taking care that their own special material interests were preserved and not endangered. But could they say that those two countries were really interested in the welfare of those populations which they were discussing? They were told in the King's Speech that there had been some amelioration of the disturbed districts, but he noticed in The Times of February 11th an article in which the reform scheme was described as a dead letter, and pointing out the danger of an uprising before long unless some further steps were taken. He was glad that up to the present that apprehension had not proved to be well founded, but how long the danger would be averted under the present state of things he did not know. From the reports which had recently been published it would appear that life and property were less secure in those provinces than they were before the troubles of 1900. If those reports were true, it was clear that the time had come to carry out what Lord Lansdowne had declared to be necessary, namely, to secure the application of reforms of a more thorough-going character than any which had hitherto been attempted.
  It had been said that the British Government had pressed for a reform which would have the desired effect, namely, the appointment of a Governor responsible to the Powers, but they had not yet received any official corroboration of the statement. Then there was the Austro-Russian scheme, which was largely of a financial character, but which had not been approved generally by the Powers. Then there was the proposal of the Porte in regard to the Customs duty, and perhaps that was the most hopeful sign of the

  1357
  times. If the Porto was really anxious in this direction, it would be more ready to listen to the demand of the Powers to obtain that security. It was encouraging to hear from the Secretary for Foreign Affairs that there was practically unanimity amongst the Powers as to the necessity of adopting thorough-going reforms. From what they had heard up to the present this did not appear to amount to much more than a pious opinion which, when translated into practice, was found to be impossible. The Powers had their own interests to promote, and, much as they desired these reforms to be brought about, unless they took advantage of the present opportunity they would find the task very difficult. They were satisfied that Lord Lansdowne had this matter most thoroughly at heart, and they were very thankful for what he had done in regard to foreign affairs generally. He thought the interests of this country were quite safe in his hands, and they wished to assure him that he would have from the people of England hearty appreciation and support in going forward with his policy. He earnestly hoped that they might look forward to satisfactory changes in that region.
  Amendment proposed—
  "At the end of the Question, to add the words, 'but humbly represent to Your Majesty that, in view of the prevalent insecurity of life and property in many provinces of the Ottoman Empire, the inadequacy of the measures hitherto adopted, and the incontrovertible obligations incurred by this country and the other signatories of the Treaty of Berlin, the time has arrived when further steps should be taken for the purpose of placing the execution of reforms in those provinces in the hands of a governor or governors, or other officers, responsible to the Powers.'''—(Mr. Stevenson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid he desired to cordially re-echo the statement of the previous speaker that they were not there that afternoon to find fault with or to criticise the Government so much as to encourage them to go on in the course which, on the whole, the Papers presented to the House last year and more recently, pointed to, namely, that so far as the action of the Powers of Europe made it
  1358
  possible, they were desirous of advancing in the direction of bringing pressure to bear on the Government of the Sultan to introduce better administration throughout his dominions, but more particularly in those provinces to which his hon. friend the Member for Eye had alluded in his able and interesting speech. Undoubtedly it did not require to be a member of His Majesty's Government to realise in their fullest extent the extreme difficulties of this question. Those who now sat on the Opposition side of the House had in former years to deal with it. They had been told quite truly that they had tried their hand at it, and the fact that after an interval of twenty-five years they were again discussing much the same facts and adducing much the same evidence was in itself a proof that they were not successful in carrying out a remedy. Just as hon. Members on the Opposition side were anxious to concede that they recognised the difficulties of His Majesty's Government so he felt equally, convinced that the members of the Government would feel that it was not owing to any laches on the part of those who had to deal with the question twenty-five years ago that the position with regard to this question was still unsatisfactory. At the same time those who under all circumstances had adhered to the good cause which was taken up a great number of years ago could not help occasionally feeling some disappointment.
  How had that feeling arisen? In the first place they must acknowledge that the skill and perseverance of the Turkish Government in resisting every project of reform had most undoubtedly filled even some of those who had been most prominent in former days with a certain feeling of disappointment, at times amounting almost to despair. In addition to that there was another, and he was inclined to think less justifiable, reason for the want of public interest in this question now as compared with what it was twenty-five years ago, just before the Turkish War. A most unfortunate and he, thought, a most unjustifiable feeling occasionally made itself felt, even in the public Press, that after all there was not much choice in these regions between the Turkish and the Christian populations. It was asked by those who fully admitted the bad administration of the Turkish Government

  1359
  whether, after all, the Christians would do any better. ["Hear, hear!"] He heard a "Hear, hear" from an hon. Member on the other side of the House, There was a very simple answer to that question. He was convinced that nobody who knew what the regions which were now independent States in the Balkan Peninsula were when they were under the direct government of the Porte could possibly hesitate for a moment to say that the improvement in those countries was not only remarkable but phenomenal. He asked any hon. Member who thought that the Government was throwing away, as it were, diplomatic powder and shot in attempting to reform Macedonia, to read what a distinguished French traveller who had recently been travelling in those regions had published in an article recently. He had given a picture of the country as it was when under the direct government of the Porte fifty years ago and as it was now. That article gave the very strongest and most convincing evidence that the first step to secure good government in those regions was to diminish the power of the Porte to interfere in the direct administration. He had himself at an interval of about ten years, visited Bulgaria. He saw it in 1871 when, before the last war, it was under the direct government of the Porte. It had been under the administration for several years of Midhat Pasha, who undoubtedly suffered for his virtues, because there was not the smallest doubt that he was foully done to death in a dungeon in Asia as a punishment for the independent line he had taken. He revisited the country in 1880, from which time they might date the practical independence of Bulgaria. The country, from having been a quasi-Oriental country, had become a rising and flourishing little State. It had done that in the face of intrigues and opposition such as might have broken the heart of any European statesman, and might have been enough to have made those men—who were called without previous experience, many of them from being village schoolmasters and the holders of such humble posts to be administrators of the country—throw up the sponge. That had
  1360
  not been so at all, and the country, directly it was saved from the incubus of Turkish government, had taken its place in the ranks of practically independent European nations. Those who sneered at the idea of our Government exerting itself to secure reforms in Macedonia were not able to substantiate the justice of their position because the facts were against them. There was no reason whatever to suppose that in the vilayets enumerated by his hon. friend, which for want of a better name he called Macedonia, there were men less able, less patriotic, and less competent than those who had come forward and taken their places in the administration which was introduced in Eastern Roumania after the war.
  As to the atrocities, he thought the speech of the noble Lord a year ago dwelt rather too much on the horrors that were going on in Macedonia. He said with perfect truth that these atrocities, which they all agreed were terrible, were carried on by all parties, and that they to a certain extent put the advocates of reform out of Court. Did not the occurrence of the atrocities indicate that there was a subtle cause behind them? Were they to suppose that the atrocities caused bad government? Was it not far more reasonable to say that bad government caused the atrocities? The fact that the Government of the Sultan, even acting with a high hand, was unable to put down the atrocities was in itself an argument which put the Sultan out of Court. A country might either be governed by representative institutions, which implied trust in the people, or by a strong despotism which put down disorder no matter by whom committed. The Sultan did not give representative institutions, nor did he put down disorder with a strong hand. Therefore, we were in a state of things where it might fairly be said that the only limitation to the rights of His Majesty's Government to proceed against the Sultan as being a defaulter in the matter of good government was the condition of Europe. And here, at once, he wished to say, what he was sure everyone on both sides of the House recognised, that however bad the government of the Sultan, it was no use for His Majesty's Government to

  1361
  plunge headlong into action—to attempt to act alone unless they were perfectly sure that they were acting as the mandatories of the Powers of Europe. There was one occasion in 1881 when the Government of the time decided to take exceedingly strong action against the, Porte. That was at the time when the question of the Montenegrin and Greek frontiers and those questions of reform in Macedonia had all come to a head. His Majesty's Government decided, under certain circumstances, to send a British Fleet to a Turkish port and take possession of the port and the Customs. As soon as the Porte heard of this intended pressure the Sultan climbed down. That was why the Macedonian and Greek frontiers were settled without a breach of the peace. Thus, although His Majesty's Government were prepared to act alone, they were in a position to send a British Fleet to Smyrna because they had the support of the European Concert. He was not for one moment suggesting that the Government ought to take any strong steps at all unless they were sure that those steps would be taken as the mandatories of Europe. Whether that could be, depended upon facts which they, on that side of the House, could not know, and on which they therefore could not express an opinion. Whether the Government could secure in any strong step the support, goodwill, and consent of such Powers as France, Italy, Germany, Austria, and Russia, which latter were at present in the background, depended upon what could only be known within the Foreign Office, and as to which he was not pressing his noble friend to make any premature statement to the House. But whenever that moment came—and come sooner or later it would—there was at least this consolation, that whenever strong action had been taken in the past the result had been good, and where failure had followed it had invariably been where the greatest anxiety had been shown to spare the feelings of the Sultan.
  Reforms in European Turkey, or attempted reforms, fell into two classes—first, those which Europe had at different times imposed on the Sultan; and second, those which they had accompanied by some declara-
  1362
  tion like that in the famous Treaty of Paris which ended the Crimean War, that although those reforms were imposed upon the Sultan by United Europe they had no intention of interfering with the sovereign rights of the Sultan over the inhabitants of his own dominions. The invariable result of such declarations had been to reduce to an absolute nullity the execution of the reforms which the Sultan had accepted. There was the famous Article in the Treaty of Berlin under which a European Commission was to assemble. He had the honour to be the English member of that Commission, and he wrote from Vienna a despatch to Lord Granville, more or less as a protection to himself and his colleagues, in which he showed that the essentially weak point in the Commission was that under Article 23 of the Treaty of Berlin the Commission was only called in to advise. It had no power to order or dictate, much less to enforce. They were also, by the terms of the 23rd Article of the Treaty of Berlin, especially when read with the history of the whole of that Treaty, debarred from even proposing the one thing which they were all agreed was the thing most worth proposing, viz., that there should be in the appointment of the Governor of these provinces not only that element of permanence of tenure, without which these appointments would be absolutely at the, mercy of the Palace clique, but that there should be some element of supervision by the Powers of Europe, either through the Ambassadors or by some special means of control, in order to carry out the reforms which the Sultan had promised to make. Therefore, all the Commission were able to do was to draw up a scheme, which he was glad to think, though for the time it proved abortive, remained to this day, a scheme which was accepted by the people of those regions, and remained their title deed to the right which they ought to possess to better government, to reforms, and to good administration. Article 23 might have slumbered and slept, but he would remind the House that it existed, and that until it was superseded by some better and stronger provision—and he was the first to wish that that might be so—it should be taken for all that it was worth. He thought that no one of them

  1363
  ought to let that Article go or to underrate the importance of its provisions, still more when he urged that supervision by the Powers was of the very essence of the matter. He was glad to be able to feel that he had behind him the weight of the greatest authority who ever spoke to an English audience or to European diplomacy—he meant the late Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. There was a delusion which he was glad to have the opportunity, in justice to the memory of that illustrious man, to be able to strike a blow at. It had become apparently an idea that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was a thick-and-thin defender of the Turkish Empire and of the abuses which exist there. Nothing could be more unjust to the memory of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. Living, as that nobleman did for the greater part of his career, in the early part of last century in Constantinople, he believed—and why not?—that it was possible to reform the Turkish Empire. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was judging from the facts as known to him and According to the lights of that time. But although Lord Stratford de Redcliffe did all he could to save the Turkish Empire from ruin, he never ceased to urge on Lord Clarendon, Lord Palmerston, and Lord Russell, and on the Goverments of Europe, to whom he spoke with such authority—the necessity for those ordinary reforms in the Turkish Empire which he was ceaselessly advocating. But he urged that it would be useless to promulgate all these reforms and embody them in the most elaborate provisions in the organic statutes of the Turkish realm unless the Powers undertook to set up some supervisory authority in order to see that the Sultan carried out the reforms. In Dean Stanley's Life of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe it was stated that when Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was leaving Constantinople, under great discouragement, he embodied in a letter to Lord Clarendon a protessagainst the Treaty of 1856 for not having provided, as he wanted it to do, an adequate means of forcing the Sultan to carry out She reform of European Turkey which he had undertaken to do. This was what Lord Stratford de Redcliffe said in that letter of March 19th, 1856—and it was as
  1364
  true to-day as when he wrote it; indeed, it was truer—
  "It is believed that the porte will never of its own accord carry the provisions of the firman seriously into effect. Might not this hazard be avoided by a separate agreement among the Christian parties to the negotiation, regulating the work and occasions of interference, so that any such eventual act on their part should be concerted previously in common, and strictly limited to the necessities of the case."
  He believed it had been largely owing to the lack of European pressure and to a change in the policy of the French Emperor, who wanted an early termination of the Crimean War, that that great idea of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was not carried into effect. Well, they had seen his prophecy fulfilled, and the practical failure of Article 23 of the Treaty of Berlin. On the other hand, they had seen that in those provinces which had been entirely taken away from Turkey, or left only under the nominal suzerainty of the Sultan, exactly the opposite—prosperity, tranquility, progress, and reform. Then they had seen Crete emerging from confusion, and although still under the nominal suzerainty of the Sultan, gradually improving. Eastern Roumelia was also rapidly arriving at a considerable pitch of prosperity. Why therefore, should there be any doubt that if these same principles were applied to Macedonia tranquility would be restored also in that country, and law and order maintained. Then, in time, a Constitution would come and popular principles could be embodied in it.
  He admitted that the difficulties in Macedonia, to which his hon. friend alluded, were very great. He himself had to face those difficulties in 1880. They had not grown less since. His hon. friend the Member for Exeter rendered him most valuable assistance at the time he was in office. One of the difficulties was the position of Salonika. It was necessarily the centre and capital of the country. Around it there was a large population of that peculiar class of Turk which originally migrated into Europe. He believed they were the firs Turks who invaded Europe. But more remote from the town was the great mass of the Macedonian population, and among them the most terrible jealousies existed. That

  1365
  pointed to the necessity of a governor with a strong hand, and with an adequate force which should be able to prevent those people from cutting one another's throats. The efforts of Europe were being thwarted as regarded every scheme of reform or improvement. The Sultan would consent to any number of proposed Constitutions. He would accept any scheme, and propose to carry it out next day; but the position would remain exactly where it was before. At present they were told that the Sultan was willing to agree to gendarmeri and financial control. He rather trembled the other day when he read some of the statements about financial control; because he was afraid that the Sultan might borrow a trick from debates in that House and propose co-ordination. Then they would be told that this policy would be pursued in the neighbouring countries. That would be a very characteristic scheme on the part of the Sultan. The sort of man required to keep this class of people in order was a strong administrator—Sir Antony MacDonnell, for instance, of whom they had recently heard so much. If Sir Antony MacDonnell were sent to Macedonia, the Irish and the Macedonian questions would be settled at one stroke. An agreement had been arrived at in October of the year before last, but it was only at the end of May that a general of gendarmerie arrived at Salonika; and he was immediately met with all the trouble, difficulty, and delay that the Sultan could invent. He was not inclined to think that the general had said the last word on the government of Macedonia. Macedonia would hive to be detached from the practical government of Constantinople; arid eventually would probably be united to some of the other neighbouring States, or become a small principality of its own. He could assure his noble friend that he quite realised the difficulty of the position of the Government. The very fact that at this moment Russia was passing through a great crisis, and that Austro-Hungary was passing through a greater constitutional crisis than, usual, were not reasons which facilitated the position of the Government, as it might appear almost an unfriendly act that at such a moment British diplomacy should appear to desire to take advantage of the diffi-
  1366
  culties of those countries. On the other hand, the weakness of some of those Powers imposed greater responsibility on the British Government than otherwise would be the case. He could assure the Government, that there was no desire on tint side to minimise the difficulties under which they suffered. The Motion, if adopted, would not cause the resignation of the Government; and he only desired to show that they were all united in endeavouring to force good government, administration, and reform on the Sultan of Turkey.
  MR. BONDsaid he would ask the House to bear with him while he recounted some of the reasons which produced in Macedonia that inflammable condition at present existing. The reasons were not far to seek. It was a deplorable fact that Macedonia was under the sway of the Turk, and that her population was mixed—the majority being Christian. When those two circumstances came together the Christians invariably found themselves degraded, humiliated, overtaxed, and oppressed. There were besides that, unhappy animosities, racial and religious which found expression between the different constituent elements of Macedonia, and there were also the ambitions of Macedonia's neighbours with regard to the part, they were to play in the consummation, which must sooner or later be arrived at, when Macedonia would either become an independent State or be absorbed by one, or parcelled out among several, of the States by which she was surrounded. Under these conditions one did not wonder that the State of Macedonia was so unhappy. Where was redress to be looked for? The Greeks on one side, the Bulgarians on the other, the Servians, and the Roumanians were all pushing their claims of aggrandisement in the different districts of Macedonia. Of the great Powers, two at least might be counted absolutely disinterested—ourselves and France. Italy was also a disinterested Power, though she might have some aspirations towards Albania. Albania was, however, out of the question at present, because she was not affected by the consideration before the House. There remained two Powers directly interested—Austria and Russia. Austria was interested because the house

  1367
  of her next-door neighbour was on fire, and Russia was interested as the patron of greater Bulgaria. That country had never ceased to secure advantages and push them in the region where a large body of the people belonged to the Greek Church. It would be thought that Germany had no distinct interest in the settlement of the question, but there were not wanting those who suggested that among the dreams of the German Chancellory was one that the port of Salonika might some day become of considerable use to Germany and her ambitions in the East. The only Powers claiming to be absolutely disinterested were England, France, and Italy, and he could not help thinking there might be a disposition on the part of these Powers to co-operate closely for the purpose of producing a better state of things than now prevailed. They all recognised that Lord Lansdowne was bound to walk warily in this maze of conflict, this medley of conflicting ambitions, interests, and jealousies between races, religious sects, and nationalities. He did not complain if the wheels of his Lordship's chariot moved slowly. He wanted to assure Lord Lansdowne that among those who took an interest in this matter there was great sympathy with the efforts that were being made, and that he might rely upon it that in the course he was taking he had the encouragement which came from knowledge. He only rose for the purpose of stating that from the Government side of the House a real interest was taken in the question, and that they were disposed to lend all the aid they could to the projects and plans of the Government.
  MR. HUGH LAWsaid that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated in the House of Lords that he deplored as much as Lord Spencer the condition of things that prevailed in many parts of Macedonia, and that he was as deeply convinced as Lord Spencer could be that the condition of things would not be improved unless they could secure the application of reforms of a much more thorough-going character than any which had yet been attempted. Therefore, the condition of affairs in Macedonia was not satisfactory to Lord Lansdowne. He would not ask the
  1368
  House to follow him into the details of the whittling away of the Mürzsteg scheme. It was stated in the Russian Note of August 3rd that thirty-eight officers were travelling through the country, watching events with expert eyes and exercising influence and control. But the rest of the Blue-book gave the lie direct to that statement, because in all the reports from Consuls and from visitors to the country facts were recorded which were in absolute contradiction to the roseate picture which was painted of life in Macedonia under the Austro-Russian regime. He was also informed that even the Turkish beys in the country districts, who had no means of making their views heard officially, would welcome with open arms any real European control, because they were weary of the long continued uncertainty and unrest and because they believed that that control could only be just and effective if it were disinterested. Unfortunately a new factor had been introduced during the last few weeks, as the Porte had once again commenced quartering small bodies of troops in the villages of Macedonia. The Turkish Government could not be blamed for taking whatever military steps seemed necessary against external invasion or internal revolt, but one could not help asking what had always been the result of such quartering of troops. It was not contended that the Turks were irredeemable scoundrels, they were doubtless very much like everybody else, but the history of other countries showed that small bodies of troops could not be quartered in villages, among a subject population for whom they were taught to feel supreme contempt, without many untoward events. The same kind of thing in Ireland a hundred years ago produced the same kind of outrages as were now occurring in Macedonia. No Englishmen would now wish to justify the methods of dragooning practised in Wex-ford in 1798, but by their inaction they were making themselves responsible for their recurrence in Macedonia today, where, according to The Times correspondent, the same old troubles were again cropping up. The telegrams in The Times revealed a condition of affairs which reflected small credit upon the dealings of the great Powers with Macedonia. Nobody

  1369
  dreamt of denying the difficulties of the problem, but it was the province of statesmen to deal with difficult and complicated questions. If, as there was reason to fear, there was much inflammable material in Macedonia which lit any moment, might be set in a blaze, the conflagration would not be put out by sermons on the duty of Christian charity, and the wickedness of different sects in carrying on internecine war.
  With regard to the Austro-Russian scheme, would the noble Lord say whether the vilayet of Adrianople was included, whether any provision was made for the appointment of European judicial inspector as recommended by Colonel Fairholme, and whether the scheme was identical with, or went beyond, the proposals of a financial character connected with the Ottoman Bank, which had not so far been very favourably received. A long continuance of tranquility could not be counted on in these countries; at any moment an accident might precipitate troubles during which the application of any real reform would be impossible. It was becoming fashionable to sneer at the idea that Great Britain had any real responsibility for the administration of the dominions of the Porte, but he submitted that every village burnt in the troubles of 1903 would have been saved had the Treaty of San Stefano remained in force. The ruined hearths and charred root-trees in Macedonia, the hundreds of homeless wanderers, the women who had been driven mad by their treatment at the hands of Turkish soldiers—all these miseries lay at the door of Great Britain. It was utterly impossible to shake off the responsibility for what had happened; the only course consonant with the national honour was to face that responsibility and frankly discharge it.
  MR. MOONafter deprecating the introduction of any Party element into the debate, said he desired to refer to the insecurity of life and property which normally existed under the Turkish system of government and was aggravated in consequence of the internecine strifes of Christians. He would support his contention by one or two references to the Blue-book.
  1370
  In June, in the French section, there was an attack made by a Bulgarian band who horribly mutilated an Orthodox Notable and burned his house in which his, children and wife were sleeping. This was confirmed by Colonel Verand, head of the French gendarmerie. After quoting instances of other atrocities the hon. Member said that in pamphlets circulated probably to other hon. Members as well as to himself it was shown that between 1897 and February, 1903, the outrages committed by Bulgarian bands on Greeks in Macedonia numbered 202 murders and twenty-seven attempted murders. The crimes against Macedonian Greeks instigated by the Bulgarian Committees from February, 1903, to November, 1904, showed that no fewer than 290 outrages, resulting in 259 deaths, had occurred in that brief period. He wished to mention that the documents from which he quoted these figures were anonymous, but he thought it was just as well to bring them before the House so that hon. Members might have a chance of denying them. The pamphlet went on to state that—
  "The particulars in each case have been verified, and no outrage is included which has not been directly and unquestionably traced to Bulgarian insurrectionists."
  That was the state of affairs showing how a new form of insecurity of life and property was added to that, already due to the oppression of the Turks. He wished to cite the authority of the able and impartial correspondent of The Times as Sofia, who said in a telegram dated January 6th—
  "it is true that in the Austrian section Albanian ferocity shows no diminution, and assassination is rife, while Servian and Bulgarian bands pursue their internecine warfare unconscious of the amenities exchanged between King Peter and Prince Ferdinand. But the state of the affairs in the Uskub section finds a parallel throughout all Macedonia, except in the Drama district, whore different conditions prevail."
  Whether this state of things was due to a misconstruction of the Mürzsteg programme it was impossible to decide, but he might cite "Odysseus" for the view that the inhabitants of that part of Europe had been constantly engaged in internecine contests and murders of every kind. Clause 3 of that programme contained the following provision—
  "As soon as some pacification of the country is seen to have been effected, to demand

  1371
  of the Ottoman Government a modification of the territorial boundaries of the administrative units, with a view to a more regular grouping of the different nationalities."
  There was some ground for believing that these rival sects were seeking to establish themselves over as wide an area as possible with a view to future eventualities.
  And now as to the inadequacy of the reforms alleged in the Amendment. They had indeed such crumbs of comfort as were mentioned by the Secretary of State in his speech in another place on the occasion of the opening of Parliament. Further, when he was in Macedonia in the autumn it appeared to him that, the experiment which had been introduced into some thirty villages of permitting them to collect their own tithe was one which promised exceedingly well. He wished to take his opportunity of asking the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he could throw any light upon this point. No mention was made of it in the Speech from the Throne, and therefore he felt a little apprehensive as to the final success of the experiment. As to the gendarmerie the satisfactory working of that system was clearly shown in the last Blue-book by Colonel Fairholme, who stated that there was no doubt that the presence of British officers had produced good results. There had been many complaints of delay in the practical application of this useful system in other "secteurs" of Macedonia, though there had been nothing but praise in regard to the conduct of Colonel Fairholme and the other British officers in the, Drama sphere. The careful consideration which General de Giorgis was devoting to the question of the gendarmerie would be acknowledged by those who had seen the statement dated May 11th, which was printed in the last Blue-book. The would recognise his admirable idea in potting rid in the gendarmerie of men of worthless character and physique, and putting in their place men who were better qualified for the service. It was his aim also to get rid of illiterate officers, of whom there were a great number. Two schools had been established—one for officers, and one for the gendarmerie. He (the hon. Member) had visited the school for the privates, and
  1372
  he was able to state that those in attendance had made wonderful progress, not only in book learning so that they could make reports to their superior officers bat in smartness of appearances. He thought the true view with regard to the gendarmerie, however successful it might, be, was indicated in the speech of Lord Lansdowne in another place on the opening day of the session. The noble Lord said—
  "But, after all, the reorganisation of the gendarmerie is a measure which is ancillary to other reforms rather than itself a reform of an administrative character."
  Many of the reforms might be very good in themselves, but unless there was a strong Executive at their back satisfactory results could not be expected. That was why he thought the position conferred on Hilmi Pasha was almost impossible for a Turkish subject satisfactorily to occupy. No one would quarrel with the powers conferred on him during the period of his office, but what was to happen to a man like Hilmi Pasha, however able and conscientious, at the close of his term of office. He was a Turkish official who wanted to continue his career after the expiration of his term, and if he took a line, which tended to put his fellow-religionists in an inferior position and which prevented the Christians from ruining each other by internecine quarrels, could he be sure that his action would commend itself to the Sultan? The alternative suggested by Lord Lansdowne that a Turkish official should be appointed Inspector-General with two European Assessors was a priori unlikely to succeed, and had in fact broken down. The Turkish system had really never produced a satisfactory governing class. He would quote in favour of his contention what was said by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs in February last year—
  "It has always been the opinion of the Government that what is required in the Turkish provinces is not political change so much, as thorough administrative re-organisation. Turkey does not possess the class of men who have the requisite expert knowledge and experience to carry out such a task as that, and for her to come to Europe for trained assistance involves no more derogation of her sovereign, rights than is already involved in the admission of European management in the case of the Ottoman Bank and the control of the Ottoman Debt, or in the re-organisation by Europeans of the Turkish Army."

  1373
  In supporting the Amendment in so far as it asked for a European governor not responsible to the Porte, he did not think they should be taking a step which would necessarily and immediately be prejudicial to the Sultan. That governor should not be a member of one of the Balkan States, nor should he be a member of one of the great Powers. No doubt the Turks themselves felt the unsatisfactory conditions under which they lived. English travellers in Turkey constantly heard how desirous many of them were to have an English protectorate. He agreed with the noble Lord the Member for the Cricklade Division of Wiltshire that one of the great Indian officials would be an ideal governor for that part of the world, but he would be content to place the work in the hands of men from the smaller European States like Switzerland, Holland and Belgium, which, he thought, might produce a sufficient number of men able, not only to keep the Turks from oppressing the Christians, but the Christians from mutilating and killing each other in the way they had been doing.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,)said the debate had bee interesting by reason of the very intimate acquaintance many of the speakers had with the problems and actual conditions of the country under discussion. Technically speaking, they were discussing a vote of censure on the Government, but he had not caught any nose of censure or even of criticism. Most of the speeches seemed rather a judicious mixture of congratulation and condolence. Apart from that technical aspect of the matter, and the somewhat ambiguous wording, particularly of the last paragraph of the Amendment, he had no desire to take exception to us general character. The hon. Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk expressed a legitimate curiosity as to any recent developments in the Near Hast. A Blue-book was published last autumn which brought up the narrative of events to a very recent period, and he did not think it was possible for him to add very much to the information therein contained. There were two respects only in which things might be said to have moved.
  1374
  One was in regard to the repatriation of the refugees. As early as last November, the great majority of the refugees, 20,000 out of 25,000 had been already repatriated, and as this country had no Consul in the Adrianople vilayet our Military Attachéat Constantinople was deputed to go to the frontier and watch the proceedings. Those who had studied the report of the Consul would admit that the local officials were animated by good intentions, and that the Turkish Government had spent a certain amount of money in the rebuilding of houses. There did not seem to have been any general occupation, in their absence, of the villages and homes of the refugees by the Mohammedan population. The Turkish Government objected to the repatriation of the full number of refugees, he understood, mainly on the ground that no lists had been furnished to them with the names of the applicants, and they had reason to believe that some of them were not concerned in the recent disturbances and did not, therefore, come within the category of the persons who were intended to profit by the amnesty, but emigrated from Maces donia at least five years ago. His Majesty'-Government supported the representations made by the Bulgarian Government, although, of course, they expressed their recognition of the right of the Turkish Government to take all reasonable precautions for the good behaviour of those who might be repatriated. He was glad to say that the objections of the Turkish Government had now been withdrawn in consequence of the Bulgarian Government having furnished the lists for which they asked. The Government had decided that the time had come for re-establishing the Consulate at Adrianople, which was temporarily closed by Lord Rosebery at the time when time Consulate at Konia, was first established.
  The only other new fact he need refer to was that the Turkish Government had at last consented to the increase in the number of European gendarmerie officers asked for by the Powers. The Turkish Government objected to it in the first instance partly on the ground that they did not

  1375
  think any increase in the number of European officers in the country was at that moment necessary, and partly because of the additional cost it would entail on the Turkish Exchequer. Neither of these pleas could be entertained by the Powers. They understood that the£250,000 which had been allotted to the expenses of the organisation of the gendarmerie by the Turkish Government last year were intended, and were in fact amply sufficient, to cover all the expenses incidental to the organisation of the force. As to the question of necessity: the Powers could not admit the competence of anyone to judge whether the number of officers was adequate or not except General Georgis and the Adjoints who acted under him. The consent of the Turkish Government to the addition of twenty-three officers brought up the total number of officers to forty-eight, or within twelve of the figure originally contemplated by the framers of the Mürzsteg programme.
  He came to the Amendment itself. He conceived that it was an invitation to the Government to say whether they were satisfied with the progress which had already been made, or whether, on the contrary, they were prepared to condemn the scheme as a failure, and put forward propositions of their own. Well, the Government were not prepared to take either of these two courses. The Government were certainly not satisfied with the progress hitherto made. It had neither been so rapid nor so far-reaching as they had hoped. The only substantial progress hitherto made had been in connection with the gendarmerie scheme. The larger problems of administrative, judicial, and financial reform had as yet hardly been touched. It was true that a beginning had been made with the reformed system of collecting the tithes, which did away with one of the gravest abuses of the old system under which tithes were farmed out to the highest bidder. The Government believed that, on the whole, the experiment, which had been tried in a few villages, had been a complete success, and its further extension had been, he thought, only impeded by the technical difficulty that many of the tithes of the vilayet were already mortgaged to the Council of the Ottoman
  1376
  Debt, and any change in the system of collection might interfere with the value of the security. The more important question of financial administration, the control of the annual budgets, the supervision of expenditure and the insistence on the payment of regular salaries to officials and droops had for the present remained practically in abeyance. But he did not think that it was fair to say that they had been overlooked. They had, on the contrary, formed the subject of careful and minute investigation by the civil Agents, and the Austrian and Russian Governments had already drawn up and submitted to the Porte a scheme of financial reform about which it would be-premature for him to express an opinion now because that scheme still awaited examination by the Powers, and the advice and criticism of His Majesty's Government had been welcomed by the two Governments which put the scheme forward. He thought that it would be evident to anyone acquainted with the internal condition of Turkey that; no scheme would be satisfactory which aimed merely at re-organising the existing financial administration, and did not take into account the heavy burden of military expenditure which now depleted the resources otherwise available for administrative reform. On the other hand, it was equally obvious that the present internal condition of Macedonia, and the considerable military preparations made by the neighbouring Powers would not render the task of persuading the Turkish Government that the army now maintained in Macedonia was excessive an easy one. The Government were not satisfied with the progress which had been made, but that was a very different thing from saying that the scheme was a failure, and separating ourselves from the other Powers in their attempt to put it into complete execution. The Mürzsteg scheme of reforms had been only one year in operation. It took at least three years to reorganise the gendarmerie in Crete, and hon. Members opposite, who were so fond of describing Turkish administration as an Augean stable of corruption, should be the last persons to complain if the process of cleansing was not completed in a single day.

  1377
  He also wished to enter a caveat against the idea that the Mürzsteg scheme should be considered a failure because it did nor do something which it was not intended to do. Some hon. Members thought that no improvement was possible unless the, provinces were severed From Turkish rule. That was not the view of the authors of the Mürzsteg programme. The object of the Mürzsteg programme was to maintain the status quo and to give the Turkish Administration that amount of European assistance and control necessary if the reforms promised by the Sultan beforehand were to be of any real and permanent value. It was true that the Turkish Government had not welcomed the assistance and advice of the European Powers. He did not know that any one ever expected that they would. The task of changing long established and familiar traditions was never an easy one, even with Western nations. It was certainly no easier in the case of Oriental nations when the change was pressed upon them by foreign advice or dictation; and, little as he desired to excuse the attitude of the Turkish Government, he thought that people in this country sometimes ascribed to sheer malevolence on the part of an Oriental Government what was due. In fact, to an obstinate and no doubt very irritating conservatism. Although the Turks had, undoubtedly, obstructed the progress of the reform scheme, that obstruction must be admitted to have been mainly passive in its character. In spite of the grave depletion of the revenue, they had spent a considerable amount of money in rebuilding the houses in the destitute villages. They had brought back 25,000 men who had been in active revolt against their Government in a province not so far removed from the capital itself. They had accepted the whole machinery and personnel in connection with the civil administration and gendarmerie which was pressed upon them as necessary by the European Powers and since they had accepted these officers it could not be said that they had actively interfered with the performance of their duties. He did not admit that the reform scheme was a failure; and he observed that, the mover of the Amendment had not brought forward any argument to show that it was a failure
  1378
  except the strange argument that the Armenians were, eager to obtain the benefits of that, scheme for themselves. There was a tendency to ascribe the responsibility for the tardy execution of the reform scheme not merely to the Turks themselves, but to the two Powers, Austria and Russia, who had accepted the chief responsibility for carrying out this programme, and the Civil Agents of those Powers had been selected as the special objects of animadversion. He did not think it was fair, having pledged ourselves to support the work which Austria and Russia had taken in hand—the two Powers who were themselves bearing the burden and heat of the day—to criticise the work of their agents without taking into consideration the difficulties which they had had to encounter and the character of their mandate. What, after all, was the definition of their duties laid down in the Mürzsteg programme? They were to bring any cast of outrage to the notice of Hilmi Pasha and to communicate to him the recommendations of the Ambassadors. Nobody would say they had not fulfilled that part of their task at any rate. What was the report of out Consul on the subject?
  The programme set before themselves by the Civil Audits on their arrival at Monastir, was firstly to ascertain the material needs of the population with a view to the repatriation of the refugees and reconstruction of the villages destroyed in last year's events: secondly, to effect an improvement in the method of collecting the tithes; and thirdly, and most important of all, to reorganise the financial system as an indispensable preliminary to reform in any other direction. The execution of the first part of the above programme has entailed upon the Civil Agents the necessity of visiting and personally inspecting some fifty ruined villages, in districts lying as far apart as Malissia in the vicinity of Dibra to the north and Castoria to the south of the vilayet and as many of these journeys, owing to the impossibility of the roads, presented more than ordinary difficulty, it can hardly be laid to the charge of the former that this part of their task was carried out in a perfunctory manner. Moreover, the direct nature of the contact entered into with the population by the, Civil Agents is further shown by the fact that no less than 1,000 petitions were received by the latter from the villagers, all of which met with due attention, while 500 were given practical effect to Most of the disputes between the peasants and the beys were satisfactorily arranged by the Civil Agents, with the aid of Hilmi Pashi, without the necessity of recourse to the tribunals, and this, I may remark, was

  1379
  regarded as a particularly encouraging symptom for the future pacification of the country."
  It could not be said that they had placed too narrow an interpretation on the responsibilities which were assigned to them under the Mürzsteg programme, seeing that they had interpreted those responsibilities as justifying them in drawing up a scheme for the financial reorganisation of their districts. Hon. Members seemed to be surprised because the Civil Agents had not thrown on the table a cut-and-dried scheme of reform long ago. He thought that in the history both of the Balkan Peninsula and of Armenia there had been too much of paper reform schemes. They knew exactly what they led to, and he was not inclined to blame the Civil Agents because they had thought it desirable first of all to try and acquaint themselves by personal travel and investigation with the circumstances of the country and the needs of the people, and had left the framing of academic solutions to armchair politicians at home.
  In the case of the gendarmerie he thought, at all events, they might claim that they had obtained a very conspicuous measure of success. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for the Eye Division we had appointed another officer to the Drama district, but as regards the latitude of the powers which belonged to the officers there had been no change, nor did be think that any was required. Colonel Fairholme reported long ago that he had not had any complaint to make of obstruction on the part of the Turkish authorities in his district, nor did he complain in any way of the powers conceded to him by the Turkish Government. On the contrary, he said that his authority was as great as if he had been in actual command, and that in point of fact his utility was greater, because his attention was not necessarily monopolised with small and trifling details. He had also since reported that the local authorities had offered no objection to British officers attending trials or carrying out a periodical inspection of the local prisons. Coming to the training of the gendarmerie in the reorganisation schools at Salonika and elsewhere, everybody was agreed in praising the appearance and discipline of the recruits recently
  1380
  turned out; and if he was told that he results of the reorganisation, though satisfactory in the British sphere, had been far less so in the areas assigned to She other Powers, he would ask the House to remember certain facts which supplied at all events a partial explanation. Apart from the lack of funds, which of course affected equally all the provinces of Macedonia, the area assigned to Great Britain was far smaller than those assigned to the other Powers, and, therefore, naturally the means at our disposal were more commensurate with the work we had to do. The only remedy for this was an increase of officers, and he ought to mention that in addition to the officers representing the Powers there were a certain number of other European officers, Belgians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who had been employed by the Turkish Government in various parts of the country, which were not included in the purview of the Mürzsteg scheme. There was another reason which explained the want of success in the other spheres, and that was that, those spheres contained what the British sphere did not, a very large element of the disaffected Bulgarian population. He did not think it possible for anybody who approached this question with an impartial mind to come to any of her conclusion than that the main responsibility for the slow progress of the reform scheme had been, and was at this moment, the action of the revolutionary committees. It was they who necessitated the upkeep of this vast army in Macedonia, which was draining away funds which they should like to see applied to administrative reforms, and it was they also who were delaying the pacification of the country, which the Mürzsteg scheme declared to be the necessary preliminary to the introduction of administrative and judicial reform. The noble Lord had charged him with having said that because the Christian peoples committed atrocities, that absolved the Turkish Government from the charge of maladministration.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEsaid he did not put it quite so strongly as that. He thought the noble Lord had

  1381
  dwelt with undue emphasis on the fact that there were faults on both sides, and that there was more to be said in favour of the Turkish Government than was admitted.
  EARL PERCYdid not really think the question of atrocities committed by the Christian population had anything to do with the responsibility of the Turkish Government. The Turkish Government, of course was responsible for the government of their country, and so long as there was not good government so long was the Turkish Government to blame. But he did not think that it was true to say that the atrocities committed by the Christian population were caused by the misgovernment of the Turks. It was a remarkable fact that while there were a great number of Christian races in Turkey, both European and Asiatic, the number of disaffected Christian races was comparatively small. He denied the right of the revolutionary committees to be regarded in this country as the representatives and advocates of the Christian population in Turkey. What was the state of affairs in Armenia? Stories were told lost year of atrocities committed by the Kurds, and the usual charges were made, without the slightest investigation, against the Turkish Government. Two of our Consuls were instructed to enquire into the truth of these charges. They reported that there was a definite policy on the part of the revolutionary committees to provoke massacres by the Turks in order Io arouse the attention of Europe, and that with regard to the villages which had been burned there was good reason to believe that they had been burned by the villagers themselves. They said that the charge of massacre could not be substantiated, that there was no evidence of participation by the Kurds, and that the orders of the authorities were undoubtedly against it. One of the Consuls, Captain Tyrrell, made a personal investigation on the spot. His Majesty's Government had been pressing the Turkish Government to afford relief in money to the distressed villages.
  "There is no doubt," said Captain Tyrrell, "that the villagers were told by the revolutionary committees in the summer to accept nothing from the Turkish Government, and not
  1382
  to admit that anything had been done for them, to deceive the Consuls, and, in short, to make the worst of everything."
  The result was that one village refused the money. In another village the villagers complained to him that they could not eat the wheat which had been given to them; that they did not think wheat was fit for human sustenance, and they wanted millet. Then when he suggested to the Turkish authorities that millet should be given to them, as it was cheaper than wheat, the people made a great outcry and demanded wheat. In another of these villages the people begged Captain Tyrrell to give them money instead of grain or any other form of relief, as they could buy food from the neighbouring Kurdish villages much cheaper. Finally, Captain Tyrrell reported that he found among the people a tendency to regard it as a duty on the part of foreign Governments to provide for them. The same state of things existed in Macedonia, where there had been a succession of sickening outrages perpetrated by the bands, not on the Turks only, but on one another and on the population which refused to join the agitation. And these were the people who were referred to in speeches on the platforms of this country as deserving creatures, whose faults were the result of Turkish rule and whose only aspiration was to be relieved from Turkish misgovernment and corruption. Ever since the European Powers had taken the reform scheme in hand the Christians had been occupied in cutting each other's throats, and their one idea seemed to be to prove to Europe that however much they disliked the Turks they disliked each other infinitely more. There was no Christian race in Macedonia who, if they were offered relief from Turkish government in exchange for that, say, of Austria or Russia, would not reject the proposal with scorn. He did not adduce these facts in order to absolve the Turkish Government from their responsibility. Undoubtedly a great responsibility rested upon the Government of Turkey for the condition of their country. But he did say that it was not fair to the Turkish Government to ascribe the conduct of those quarrelling Christian races within their territory to their misgovernment.

  1383
  It was necessary for the House to realise what was the aim of these revolutionary committees. The great bulk of the Christian people of Turkey did not sympathise with those whose object was to force the unhappy peasants into insurrection in the belief that Europe might be relied upon to come to their assistance. The only way to defeat this policy of the revolutionary committees was to show quite clearly that we did not intend to have our hands forced by such measures; that the Powers were determined to continue to act in concert, and to carry out, the scheme of reform to which they had pledged themselves in their own time and in their own way. But it was difficult to convey that impression so long as speeches were made in this country—the only speeches quoted in the journals of the Near East—which denounced the reform scheme from its inception as a sham, which made groundless insinuations of jealousies between the Powers and put forward proposals, such as that for a Christian governor, which, good or bad, were not at the moment within the bounds of practical politics.
  Hon. Members opposite were entitled to hold that the proper solution of the Macedonian question was to be found in the appointment of a Christian governor. But he doubted whether it would be very easy to find a gentleman unconnected with the Balkan States willing to undertake the government of these quarrelling races, or to persuade Sir Antony MacDonnell to accept the position, as had been suggested by the noble Lord the Member for the Cricklade Division. But, even if the appointment of a Christian governor were practicable, that solution had never been adopted in any case remotely analogous to that of Macedonia without necessitating beforehand military occupation by a European Power. In any case no one was entitled to say that the appointment of a Christian governor was the ideal solution, or the only solution in the minds of His Majesty's Government. They had never said anything of the kind. What His Majesty's Government had done, before the Mürzsteg scheme was proposed, was to point out that it was idle to insist on the mere acceptance of paper reforms without providing some machinery of
  1384
  control, and Lord Lansdowne suggested it might be found in the appointment either of a Christian governor or of agents of the two mandatory Powers. It was the second alternative that had been accepted by Austria and Russia; but His Majesty's Government had never expressed a preference for one solution more than the other.
  In conclusion, he would only add that whatever our views might be as to what was the proper remedy to be applied to Turkish misgovernment, it was most important that we should concentrate our efforts on remedies that were practicable. This was not a Party question. But what would happen if speakers in this country—whether inside or outside the House—were to give the impression to the people out there that if there were an insurrection to-morrow, supposing another Party to be in power, they would be prepared to give their countenance and support to the movement? Either they would have to embark this country on a crusade in which she had no interest of her own to serve, or else they would have to leave to their fate people whom, by their speeches, they had encouraged to desperate courses. It was for that reason that he thought it vital that we should disillusionise the leaders of the revolutionary movement abroad of the idea, that any Government in this country, no matter from what side it was drawn, would lend them any encouragement or support if they precipitated matters and deliberately and intentionally made impossible the execution of the reform scheme which the European Powers had undertaken to carry out. At all events, as far as His Majesty's Government was concerned, he did not think it could be too clearly understood that we had never pledged ourselves to embark on an isolated policy in a matter in which this country had no primary interest—and surely we had enough on our hands already—and a matter, moreover, in which we acknowledged no special responsibility. ["Oh!"] That we had responsibilities and obligations with regard to the government of the peoples of the Balkan States we did not deny; but they were obligations and responsibilities incurred by all the signatories of the Treaty of Berlin, they did not devolve upon us any more

  1385
  urgently than on any of the other signatories, they were obligations to collective and not to isolated action, and anybody who pressed us to take isolated action appealed to us, not on the grounds of that treaty, but on something else. What was the something else? It might be said that it was on the ground of simple humanity. He did not know, if considerations of humanity stood alone, that there was any particular reason why we should interfere with the internal government of Turkey in Europe any more than in that of Persia, Afghanistan, or any other of the Governments of the East, whose integrity or independence we had thought it right to assert, and maintain because it suited the interest of this country to do so, and because we believed it conduced to the maintenance of the peace of the world. We did not accept any special responsibility apart from the other Powers, in this matter; and, although we were willing and anxious to do all that we could m the way of giving our consistent support to the efforts of Austria and Russia, Powers which in virtue of their proximity, racial connection, and knowledge of the circumstances, were better fitted to advise on details of administration there than we were, and although we were ready to suggest amendments and improvements in their scheme of reforms where we thought it was capable of amendment or improvement, we were certainly not willing to insist on an ideal policy, which we had no means of pressing to a successful conclusion, and which might involve us in liabilities the extent and magnitude of which we could not foresee.
  MR. BRYCEexpressed his regret at the tone of the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, which, he said, surprised him the more when he contrasted it with the entirely different tone in which these questions were discussed in another place by the noble Lord's official superior. From he very beginning of this melancholy question, both in his speeches in the Upper House and in his despatches, Lord Lansdowne had expressed a cordial and hearty sympathy with the sufferings of the Christian population, severely censured the conduct of the Turkish
  1386
  Government, and stated his earnest desire that the whole power and influence of this country should be exerted in the endeavour to bring the Turkish Government to a sense of its duty, to spur the other Powers into doing their duty, and to secure a better condition of affairs for these unhappy people. There had been nothing of that kind in the speech just delivered. He had never listened to the noble Lord with more disappointment, and he could not understand how, with the knowledge he possessed, both from his official position and from the journeys he had made in many provinces of Turkey, the noble Lord could use the language he had just used about the Turkish Government.
  EARL PERCYsaid he was not aware that he had used a single word in extenuation of the Turkish Government.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he would endeavour to explain the impression the speech had made upon him. The noble Lord began by stating some facts which they were very glad to hear. The first was that an improvement had been effected in the vilayet of Adrianople by repatriation. The noble Lord's account did not tally with the accounts he had received, according to which not one half of the people had been repatriated, but possibly the noble Lord was more correctly informed. He had also stated that he was not satisfied with the progress of the Mürzsteg programme. As far as he (the speaker) could gather, the progress of the Mürzsteg programme had been little or nothing; the powers were not sufficient to enable much to be done. The noble Lord also said he was not entirely satisfied with the gendarmerie, though he endeavoured to give certain explanations, and seemed disposed to say that the condition of things was better in consequence of the gendarmerie. But what he (the speaker) had heard, was that the condition of things was not better. The test of the success of the scheme was to be found in the condition of the country, Was the country any quieter? Were life and property any safer? Were the raids made by the different populations one upon another repressed by the Turkish Government? Was there any prospect of content? Was there reason to believe that

  1387
  the revolutionary party were expecting something better? Were they hoping with some confidence for an improvement in the condition of affairs? The noble Lord had not ventured to suggest that any one of these things had happened; in fact, he could not deny that all those questions must be answered in the negative. The noble Lord would not deny that all the schools were closed, that the churches were practically closed, that the Turkish soldiery were quartered upon the people, that they were eating up everything the people possessed, and that, the people were flying to the mountains because they might as well live there as endeavour to inhabit the ruined villages. The noble Lord did not deny that that was so.
  EARL PERCY: I did not deny it, because I have not the facts before me. But I have no reason to think it is true.
  MR. BRYCEsaid it had been stated by previous speakers in the debate, but the noble Lord did not say anything to show that the condition of things was better than hon. Members had made it out to be. The reason the revolutionary bands continued was that they had no ground to expect that things were going to be any better. He would not venture to? say when the new outbreak would come; it might be in the spring, or in the autumn, or a year hence; but every impartial account received from Macedonia indicated that the revolutionary movement was stayed only by want of money. As soon as they got more money and more rifles, and as soon as the Bulgarian Government was supposed to be more ready for the action it was believed it contemplated, a renewal of the rising and of all the terrors which existed in that country a few years ago might be looked for.
  AN HON. MEMBERasked whence the revolutionary bands were getting their money.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he did not know, but he believed they were getting it very slowly, and that was the reason they were not rising. The noble Lord also stated that the Mürzsteg programme
  1388
  ought not to be blamed, because it was never intended to effect a complete reform.
  EARL PERCY: No, I did not.
  MR. BRYCEsaid the words of the noble Lord were that it was intended to protract the status quo. But the status quo was the very thing of which complaint was made, for what did the status quo mean? The noble Lord said that the Turks did not welcome these reforms. Conservatism might be good or bad, and the noble Lord might think they were showing an obstinate conservatism in their adherence to certain fiscal principles, but the value of conservatism depended upon what they were going to conserve. Conservatism of the Turk took the form of brigandage, extortion and massacre, and this was why they believed there would be no permanent improvement while they tried those petty or insignificant remedies of putting in a Civil Agent here and gendarmerie there without any real authority to deal with the evils existing. These gendarmerie were merely confined to drilling and instructing recruits. They had no power to arrest a single criminal or to receive complaints or organise expeditions to seize bands of brigands.
  EARL PERCY: They may receive petitions relating to gendarmerie.
  MR. BRYCE: But they do not take any action upon petitions relating to breaches of the law and violence of justice.
  EARL PERCY: Yes, relating to gendarmerie.
  MR. BRYCE: But what use is it to have gendarmerie officers if they are not able to redress the very grievances which drive people to insurrection.
  EARL PERCY: We have received no complaints as to the limitation of the powers of any gendarmerie.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he was told that the gendarmerie officers had no power to receive petitions with regard to the grievances from which the people were suffering; and he believed there was

  1389
  foundation for that statement. Proceeding, the hon. Member declared that it was perfectly clear that the British area of gendarmerie was a small and quiet are, where there was no considerable difficulty. He asked why this was so, whether it was not possible for the British officers to do more useful work, suggesting that, if there was to be an increase, officers might be sent to the vilayet of Adrianople, where they would have ample scope for endeavouring to restore order and secure proper administration. The noble Lord dwelt very much upon the outrages perpetrated by the Christians. That was no doubt a lamentable fact, but he did not mention that the Turks took no steps to stop it. They had allowed raids of Bulgarians upon Greeks and Greeks upon Bulgarians, and had actually fomented and encouraged these attacks of two Christian races upon one another, because they acted upon the maxim, ''Divide your enemy."
  The noble Lord referred to Armenia. He (Mr. Bryce) did not deny that disturbances there had resulted from the action of revolutionary bands and that the action was taken in the hope of drawing the attention of European Powers, but he was not aware that anyone in England had ever given the slightest encouragement to the revolutionists. He, personally, had never lost an opportunity of pointing out that they were committing a great offence and doing themselves a bad service, bringing nothing but suffering and misery to their people. But these revolutionary movements sprang from the intolerable sufferings these people had to endure. Challenged by the noble Lord, the hon. Member said he did venture to say that the case of Armenia was worse, because there they had been baulked of certain reforms promised by the Treaty of Berlin. An Article in the Treaty held out the hope of reform and gave reason to believe that the Powers would secure some improvement. It was because of that tint they thought the revolutionary movement would have the effect of attracting the attention of the Powers, and it was for that reason that they had embarked upon this movement. The noble Lord had cast some scorn on the idea of appointing a European governor. He spoke as if it
  1390
  was an impossible suggestion. He was surprised that the noble Lord should hold the language he did with reference to the appointment of a European Governor, because it was a proposal which emanated from his own chief, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It was not the passing idea of some whimsical humanitarian or crank on either side of the House. It was the suggestion of Lord Lansdowne, and made because he knew that no on her solution would be sufficient, It was clear to any one Who read Lord Lansdowne's despatch of September 29th, 1903, that the Secretary of State's preference was for the scheme of a European Governor. He confessed he wished that Lord Lansdowne had confined himself to that scheme; but the Secréary of State could never have contemplated that his other alternative would have been so much weakened and whittled away as it was by the Mürzsteg programme, which had turned out to be entirely ineffective, because it had given very little power to the Assessors, and very little power to the gendarmerie. The noble Lord had asked whether they were in favour of the gendarmerie system being applied to Armenia. He himself would ra her have it applied to Armenia than nothing. Hon. Members on the other side of the House were not in favour of it. [An HON. MEMBER: Yes, certainly.] He understood that the noble Lord had poured some little contempt on the proposal that the gendarmerie scheme should be applied to Armenia. If it was impossible, as he presumed it was from the language of the noble Lord and from the language held by His Majesty's Government, to have a European Governor for the Armenian provinces because Russia would not help them, then a gendarmerie, even with limited powers, would be better than nothing. He had always pleaded for more Consuls. Let them have some people inside Armenia who could see what was going on and who could do something, however little it might be, to remove the evils the people were suffering from.
  He confessed he left this subject that day with a great sense of disappointment and regret. They were always ready to allow for a certain amount of official optimism, and, of course, they did not expect

  1391
  the noble Lord to indulge in such strong condemnation of the Turkish Government as private Members did. But he would ask any one in that House whether the Turkish Government, when they read the speech of the noble Lord, would not see in it a palliation of their sins, would not find in it an encouragement for their obstinacy, and would not recongnise a very marked difference between the language which he had held and the language of menace which they were accustomed to hear from the Secretary of State? He deeply regretted that the noble Lord should go so far to nullify the effect of Lord Lansdowne's despatches as he did in the language which he held in that House. They were quite aware of the great political difficulties with which the question was surrounded. They had never pressed the Government for any positive declaration of the course they would take in eventualities which were not yet disclosed. They had pressed them not to allow what appeared to be the almost exclusive action of Russia and Austria, because they considered that England, France, and Italy were no less entitled to deal with this matter. They regretted that the two Powers which had shown so little earnestness and zeal in the matter should have been allowed to have it practically at their own disposal. But they knew how many difficulties there were and how easy it was to make a mistake it was hard to retrieve. They knew that the difficulties we now suffered from were the results of the fatal mistake which Britain made at the time of the Crimean War, and repeated, with less excuse, when she substituted the Treaty of Berlin for the Treaty of San Stefano. They did not agree that, there was no special responsibility on the British Government. They thought there was a very heavy responsibility upon those who put back Macedonia under the dominion of the Turks; and they earnestly hoped that, in spite of what the noble Lord had said, the sentiments which Lord Lansdowne had repeatedly declared would continue to animate him, that he would endeavour to carry at any rate the other two great Western Powers who were perfectly disinterested along with him in representing to all the Powers the necessity
  1392
  for far more vigorous and strenuous action than any yet taken, that he would not acquiesce in the Mürzsteg programme, that he would see that the question was urgent and that the delay of a few months might mean a recrudescence of massacre in these provinces, and that he would do all he possibly could to exert all the influence this country was entitled to exert in order to secure that there should be some settlement of these provinces not dependent on the good will of the Sultan, but under the control of European Powers.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD of THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have listened very carefully to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who has criticised my noble friend, and criticised him very unjustly, as I think; but I am at a loss even now to discover in what substantial and important respect the policy which the right hon. Gentleman advocates differs from the policy which His Majesty's Government are pursuing. The right hon. Gentleman thinks many mistakes have been made in the past. He thinks that the Crimean War was a mistake, and he thinks that the Treaty of Berlin was a mistake.
  MR. BRYCE: I did not say it was a mistake. I said it was a mistake to put Macedonia back under the rule of the Turks.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's brief historical survey that he appeared to think that, the proper reforming authority in the Balkan Peninsula was the Russian Empire. I cannot agree with that proposition. I have always dissented from it, and I dissent from it now,
  MR. BRYCE: I never made it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quite unable to agree with the right hon. Gentleman's view of the action of the British Government of the time of the Crimean War, and of the action of the Conservative Government in 1878. Then I ask myself, What is it that the right hon. Gentleman desires the Government to do which they are not doing?
  MR. BRYCE: I am not complaining of Lord Lansdowne. Nobody has complained of Lord Lansdowne. I said I hoped Lord Lansdowne would persevere in the policy he has frequently outlined, and that the more energy is desirable because the circumstances have become intolerable.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I admit I got up under a misapprehension. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was supporting an Amendment directed against the policy of His Majesty's Government; but I find he is ardently supporting His Majesty's Government. Therefore I presume that the right hon. Gentleman agrees wholly with the policy of Lord Lansdowne.
  MR. BRYCE: I did not say I agreed wholly with it. The right hon. Gentleman has not heard the whole of this debate, and does not understand that the debate has not been directed at all against Lord Lansdowne's policy. We do not agree with it on all points, but we think on the whole it is a policy which we can heartily support.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am glad of that. The right hon. Gentleman simply has a quarrel with my noble friend near me, who, he thinks, does not represent Lord Lansdowne. He is quite mistaken in that particular. My noble friend never for one instant suggested that the policy of a Christian governor in Macedonia would be a bad policy. On the contrary, he considers that it would be a very excellent policy. What he did suggest was that it was a policy very difficult to carry out. Anybody who knows anything of the question, and especially the right hon. Gentleman, who has made a continuous and ardent study of it, knows that the difficulties of carrying out the reforms you would like to carry out are enormous. They are enormous for three separate reasons. There is first the difficulty of dealing with the Turks, with their well-known unwillingness to do what I think it is their plain duty and manifest advantage to do. Then there is the difficulty of dealing with the Christian populations, who, even before the Turks came to Europe at all, back to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were torn by mutual
  1394
  divisions, stained by mutual crimes, and whose division was responsible for the Turk ever being in Europe at all, and has been responsible for his staying over since. The third difficulty, I will not say is greater, but it is almost as great. It is the difficulty of working through so cumbrous a machine as the European Concert. Nobody doubts that the European Concert is a cumbrous machine, that it is excessively difficult to get the Great Powers to work earnestly and harmoniously for any common end, and that when some of them have divergent interests, or conceive that they have divergent interests, the task becomes almost impossible. Are we, then, to sever ourselves from the European Concert? Are we, because we think a particular reform might be better, that if we were left to ourselves we might devise some scheme more appropriate to the situation and more thoroughgoing—are we, therefore, to separate ourselves from the European Concert? Is that what any responsible statesman on either side of the House or on that side of the House would suggest? I am sure my right hon. friend would not suggest it. He may criticise the imperfections of the machinery of the European Concert as if we were responsible for it but when directly questioned I am confident that he, like every other rational man, would admit that, cumbrous as it is, unsatisfactory as are its results, slow as is its working, everything would be worse, the results would be poorer,incomparable misfortunes might overwhelm the Eastern world, and might involve even the Western Powers, supposing we were to separate ourselves from the European Concert and take separate action in these provinces. Is it conceivable that against the will of Russia, and against the will of Austria, when the other Powers at the best are luke warm, we could either morally or materially carry on any great scheme of reform? The thing is not possible as far as I am concerned—I would never consent to such action on the part of this country. I heard a laugh when my noble friend said we had sufficient responsibilities on our shoulders without taking that new responsibility. It is no laughing matter. The burdens which this country has already to bear are sufficiently great; and this Government, at all events, is not going

  1395
  to add to them by an insane policy of philanthropic adventure in the Near East. And I venture to say their successors, when they come nearer the fence and contemplate the perils that he on the other side of it, will swerve aside with a greater rapidity than perhaps at this moment they are aware of. Therefore let it not go forth to any part of the world that, because we think that in certain particulars the schemes of the Powers are imperfect, we are going to separate ourselves from them and advance our own scheme by the strength of our own right hand. That would be no service to the Christian populations; it would be the greatest disservice we could do to the cause of European peace and all that is bound up with the cause of European peace. Therefore I venture to think that speeches like that which the right hon. Gentleman has delivered, though they be, as I have just learned, in the interests of the Government, if they raise any hopes in any part of the world that a change of Administration would produce a change of policy in relation to these unfortunate I populations—speeches like that, though not intended to be mischievous, will be mischievous indeed. I do not think I need pursue that theme. The particular ground and policy on which we base our action are not shaken, and cannot be shaken, by any mere detailed accounts of the harrowing horrors which undoubtedly take place both in Eastern Europe and in Armenia; you cannot, base a policy upon considerations like these taken alone. If your policy is to endure, and if it is to be fruitful of good, you must consider not merely what it is you would desire to do, but what means you have of doing it, and how those means can be adjusted to the desired end. The right hon. Gentleman tried in vain to make the House believe there is any difference of opinion between my noble friend on this bench and my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. They have dealt with the same subject in the same spirit and in the same manner, and they have recommended an identical policy. That policy is so solidly based on ascertained facts that no Party mutations in this country will directly change the course that we have determined to pursue.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid it was now practically three years since the Government had committed this country to the Sugar Convention, and sufficient time had elapsed to enable the House to appreciate the advantages or otherwise arising from the step the Government then took. In the Amendment he had placed upon the Paper he had expressed in no uncertain terms the evil confluence's that had arisen from the agreement to which His Majesty's Government had been accessory. In putting their cast-before the House three years ago the Government had said they were not actuated in taking this step by cosmopolitan benevolence, but by their concern for British interests and the national welfare generally; that if British interests were not involved they would not have lifted a hand to assist continental sugar-growing and bounty-giving countries in relieving themselves from a burden which they had already found intolerable. The Government declared too, that in fact the abolition of bounties would be such a notable advance in the direction of free trade that British trade would benefit through channels the course of which it was not possible to trace out exactly beforehand. The House heard once more of the hard case of the British refiners and the West Indian planters and it was said that only through the abolition of the bounties could those industries survive, It was, perhaps, a little unfortunate for the Government that Messrs. Tate about this time turned their business into a limited company, and issued a prospectus in which they boasted of an unbroken record of increasing prosperity for forty-five years during which they ''had competed successfully with both British and Foreign sugar, notwithstanding the advantage possessed by the latter in the bounties given," a statement luminously illustrated by the fact that in that year, when sugar fell lower than ever before—in 1891, supposed to be a deadly year for sugar refiners—they realised a handsome profit of £200,000. There was some inconsistency in the declaration made by the Government of having British interests

  1397
  at heart, because in the same breath they declared that even if the interests of the consumers and users of sugar suffered, they would still be justified in continuing to work for the object they had in view, but that their fears were groundless; that in the long run neither the sugar consumers or other sugar interests would suffer by abolition, but that they would be protected from the danger of a still greater rise in prices which was likely to fall upon them if the abolition of the sugar bounties did not take place.
  The Government had said the abolition of the bounties would bring to an end all violent fluctuations; that the violent fluctuations in the previous twenty years were quite unnatural; that they had been caused by the bounties, which encouraged over production, and that unless bounties were abolished sugar would be much higher in the future. With the bounties gone everything was to fall into a will ordered groove, sugar-making and selling were, to become humdrum vocations, that to the cost price of production, which the Government knew all about and had worked out with nice, precision, was to be added a mere working profit, and that that was to constitute the normal and natural price of sugar in the future. The House was assured that in the next ten years the average price of sugar would not exceed 10s. a cwt., and the probability was that it would be considerably less. That was the case of the Government. In contrast to that the Opposition contended that, however great the evil of bounties might be, especially to those countries which gave them, we ought to consider the question in its entirety as to how it affected British interests, that we objected to the smaller interests of special industries being promoted at the expense of the whole community. It was urged that if the Government pursued this policy the consumers would have to submit to a tax of some millions sterling a year in order to put money into the pockets of the West Indian planters and a few sugar refiners in the United Kingdom. That to deliberately raise the price of a commodity in order to benefit a particular interest was rank protection. We also said that the Convention would destroy the independence of our commerce, which up to that point had
  1398
  enjoyed open ports, unrestricted markets, and the privileges of buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest—and that in joining this Convention we should not only be injuring our commerce but should be handing over the control and direction of a great trade to a foreign syndicate in which our voice would only count as one to ten. That had been one of the most serious developments of this Convention. Every step the Convention had taken had been in the direction of shutting out, sugar from all parts of the world from this country, and it was becoming abundantly clear that the object of the Convention was to make sugar at home dearer, and that was the object of the Government also, so as to benefit that select, coterie of planters and refiners who had manipulated in their own interests the successful agitation.
  In addition to making sugar dearer to the consumer, the Convention had brought about a great advance in the price of a raw material, and strangely enough, whilst doing all this injury to the sugar-using industries and consumers at home, it had actually relieved the foreigners and given them cheap sugar. Whereas the Continental consumer had had the price of his sugar reduced by 50 per cent., we, in this country, had had the price of ours increased by 100 per cent. Finally, the Opposition said that this was at best but a bad transaction; that it taxed us to the extent of some millions in order to give relief to the West Indies, especially as there was evidence to shew that cane sugar could be grown at £6 a ton and sold at a profit at very little over that price. Those were the two sides of the argument put forward at the time this Convention was under discussion, and every argument of the Opposition had come true. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite now contender that the rise in the price of sugar had been brought about by the drought which had occurred on the Continent this last year. That argument had been used by every hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite, and with the exception of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade very little, if any, attempt had been made to prove it. That hon. Gentleman made a speech to his constituents in Glasgow, argued his case

  1399
  very fairly and made several good points which it was only fair should be answered if it were possible to answer them. The first point the hon. Gentleman made was, if the Convention was responsible for the rise in the price of sugar, the rise would naturally take place the moment it became certain that the Convention would come into operation, and then by a series of carefully manipulated figures dealing with the average price of sugar three years before and after the Convention, he demonstrated to his own satisfaction that nothing of the kind had happened, but, that sugar had been actually cheaper by 1s. per cwt. since the Convention.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Main Question [14th February], "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
  "Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Mount.)
  Question again proposed.
  MR. KEARLEY (continuing his speech)said he would now trace the record of prices from the signing of the Convention in March, 1902, as he preferred to deal with facts rather than the ingenious figures of the hon. Member, which showed that the hon. Gentleman had only a very superficial knowledge of the subject upon which he argued. Had his knowledge been more profound the hon. Gentleman would have been aware that prior to the Budget of 1902 there broke out in this country and
  1400
  upon the Continent a huge gamble in sugar in the anticipation of there being an increase in the duty. Every body who had any interest in sugar participated in the speculation and filled themselves up with duty-paid sugar. When the Budget was introduced, and it became known that there was no addition to the duty the market became stagnant, and some of the speculators had to make forced realisations of their stock. That was the reason for the fall in sugar at that time and so overloaded was the market that in July prices sagged away until they reached under 6s., the lowest ever recorded. He (Mr. Kearley) would prove that statement. The total imports of sugar that year—1902—were 1,578,000 tons, and more than half, viz., 785,000 was shipped to this country in the four months preceding the Budget, and nobody could deny that that was the cause of the fall in the market. But later in the year these large stocks of duty-paid sugar had gone into consumption, and in October sugar had risen 40 per cent, above the price it was when the Convention was signed. Another point made by the hon. Gentleman was that when the Convention actually came into force—in September, 1903—prices did not rise, but fell; therefore, he argued, how could it be said that the later rise was due to the Convention? The reason sugar did not rise immediately after the Convention came into force was that when the Continental countries realised that the bounties were to be swept away they intimated to the sugar refiners that all sugar declared for shipment, whether shipped or not, would have the benefit of the bounty, with the result that every ton of sugar was declared and huge stocks accumulated, in all the Continental ports awaiting shipment. These overshadowed this market and had a depressing influence. The average weekly stocks in Hamburg alone were some hundreds of thousands of tons in excess of any other corresponding period. But by April of last year those stocks had been shipped and consumed, and then for the first time the full effect of the Convention was felt. The market began to rise in April, and in the following May sugar was 60 per cent. higher than it was at the lowest point, soon after the Convention was signed. There

  1401
  as no mention or even a whisper at that time of the shortness of the crop, the seed was hardly in the ground and had certainly not begun to germinate, yet we had this rise. In all those commodities where there was a great market, the question of what stock there was on hand had a tremendous effect upon the course or tendency of prices. Yet this advance took place when there was a visible supply of 2,500,000 tons. Three years previously, when there was the same amount of visible supplies, and when there was no Convention, the price of sugar fell to the lowest point on record, but in May with the Convention sugar rose 60 per cent, and the visible supplies were as large as ever before. That was a matter which he would have to ask the Government to explain. He should like to know whether the drought which had not then occurred was responsible for this increase in the price. It was only in August that rumours of shortage began to be circulated, and it was not until October that it was actually known that there was a serious deficit of 1,100,000 tons in the crop. He did not argue that such a huge deficit would not have any effect on prices; so serious a deficit at any time would have made itself felt, but the point was would the effect have been anything so serious had we maintained our commercial independence, free to buy from whence we chose and with our Ports open to all? We had sacrificed that, and instead of being able to take our sugar from whence we chose, we had to take it from a syndicate of countries by whom we were ruled in this matter, and in the discussions with whom our voice counted only as one in ten.
  The deficit in the beet sugar crop was 1,100,000 tons, but at the same time there was an increase in cane of 400,000 tons, so that the actual deficit in the sugar crop was only about 700,000 tons. This would occasion a rise of 1s. or 2s. at any time, but the Convention was solely responsible for two things which immensely aggravated the situation, In the first place, since the Convention had been signed the consumption of sugar on the Continent had increased by 840,000 tons. Had it not been for the Convention that sugar would have been available for us, but owing to its
  1402
  policy the Convention had given the continental peoples cheap sugar, with the result that they had eaten 840,000 tons of practically our sugar. In the second place, we had shut out by the Convention 1,000,000 tons of sugar from Russia. Russia had always been the second largest beet sugar producer on the Continent, so that there would have to be added to the actual deficit the effect of practically 2,000,000 tons being no longer available or visible for our market. These were made up of the 840,000 tons consumed by the Continental peoples, the Russian crop, and the Argentine crop of 130,000 tons; and if the Convention had had its way it would soon shut out every other crop, because it was only at the eleventh hour that Lord Lansdowne had entered his protest against the supply of a further seventeen other countries being ruled out among which were the Brazil crop of 190,000, tons the Hayti crop of 45,000, the Philippine crop of 120,000, so that the House would see the point to which we were approaching if we allowed the Convention to have its way. Under these circumstances, it was clear and beyond question that the normal condition of things would not in itself have warranted the market going up in the way it had done. The Continental speculators had had an eye upon the situation all the time; they saw that there was a favourable opportunity, and they initiated a highly profitable boom in sugar at our expense and the whole of that speculation which enhanced the price suddenly, and if they liked, unduly, must be attributed to the Sugar Convention. The shortage of beet would have caused a rise of some kind, no doubt a shilling or two shillings a cwt., but sugar had risen 150 percent., and all this fictitious rise was the handiwork of the Convention of Brussels.
  He had endeavoured up to this point to set forth the effect of the Convention on beet sugar, and he would now turn to see what had been the effect on cane sugar, because it was really in the interests of cane sugar that this Convention had been entered into. The House remembered the tale of the terribly sad conditions in the West Indies. The Government had stated that the sugar of Germany and Austria was gradually driving that of all other competitors out

  1403
  of Europe. That was not the fact, because they had only to refer to the increased crop of France in order to see that it was not correct, but that was the case of the Government; but there was the other great point that the effect of the low price of beet sugar, which was sold below the cost of production in Europe, was having such an effect on the cultivation of cane that they were beginning to leave off producing it. The case of the Government was that the Convention would extend the area of production. They now claimed that so far as cane sugar was concerned, thanks to the Convention, the crop was 400,000 tons greater. Not one single ton of that increase was to be attributed to the action of the Convention. It had taken place in countries over which the Convention had no influence, in countries which were essential, under American influence, where their sugar was mainly consumed. The argument of the Government all through had been that the Convention would benefit the West Indies. How much had the West Indies contributed to the increased cane production? Not a single pound. As a matter of fact, since the Convention had come into force the production of the West Indies had declined and was continuing to decline. Those countries which produced the increased cane crops had America for a market. The Philippine production had increased by 40,000 tons, Louisiana by 124,000 tons, Puerto Rico by 25,000 tons, and Cuba by 160,000 tons. Not one of these was a country for which the Government legislated. The Government legislated for the West Indies, and in these alone of all the cane-producing countries of the world was there a decline. Java was another country which had increased its production, and had already discovered a way by which they could produce cane sugar at £6 a ton and sell it at a profit at very little over that amount, while the West Indies had never been able to produce it at less than £8 a ton. Java had steadily increased her sugar production, which had gone up in the last ten years by over 500,000 tons.
  In 1904 the West Indies were estimated to produce 221,000 tons, whereas in 1903 they produced 249,000 tons; in 1902, 239,000 tons; and in 1901, 258,000 tons;
  1404
  so that there was a continuous decrease. The returns from Java showed that cane sugar could be produced to pay a handsome profit at a low price, provided proper appliances were used. The cause of the decline in the West Indies was economical. The estates had been divided and sub-divided to such an extent that it was impossible to carry on a large system of manufacture unless the methods were altogether changed. Sugar production in Java had been brought to a fine art, and the figures of the increase were so important and had such a bearing on this question that he, would quote them to the House. In 1894 the total Java crop was 530,000 tons, and every year there had been an increase until for the present year it was estimated to produce 1,086,000 tons. That was an instance of a country where, working with the best methods, they were able to increase their crop and make a handsome profit, although at a far lower price than the West Indies had ever been asked to accept. The prevailing idea at the time of the Convention, and one fostered by the arguments of the Government, was that the production of cane sugar the world over was dwindling, the alleged reason being that beet production was carried on at such a price, owing to the bounty system, that it really did not pay to persevere with cane. But what were the real facts? The production of cane sugar the world over during the last twenty years had more than doubled, and in the last five years it had increased by over 1,000,000 tons, while in the last five years the production of beet had decreased by 1,000,000 tons.
  Then as to the effect of the Convention on the sugar-using industries, which throughout the controversy had been treated by the Government as of little account, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade had stated that he had no sympathy with them, because they were crying out before they were hurt.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): I said I had no sympathy with their agitation; I never said I had no sympathy with the busnesses.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that that was too nice a distinction to appreciate. What was the agitation for but to save their industries?
  MR. BONAR LAW: They were agitating for protection.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he had forgotten for the moment that according to the Prime Minister this Convention contained the pure gospel of free trade, and that they on that side of the House did not know what free trade was. What would be the use of the industries crying out after they were hurt? But the hon. Gentleman went on to say that he did not believe they ever would be hurt. Did he believe that now, seeing that the trades employed 12,000 fewer men than before the Convention, and that at the busiest time of the year, during the Christmas season, when the sugar-using industries were most actively employed, 50,000 men were working short time?
  MR. BONAR LAWasked whether the same circumstance never occurred during the bounty period.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he should say distinctly not, as the increase in these sugar-using industries had arisen in consequence of sugar being cheap and of there being no interference with our getting supplies from all parts of the world. Until recently these trades employed 120,000 men, and had an invested capital of£12,000,000, whereas in their most flourishing days the refineries, for whom the interests of the British consumers as a whole had been sacrificed, employed only 5,000 men, while the number now employed was only 3,000. The reason for the decline and fall of the old refineries, who made bad sugar by indifferent methods, was not the bounty system or Continental competition at all; it was the competition of up-to-date sugar refiners like Tate and Lyle, who were now putting on the market twice the amount of sugar the refineries produced thirty years ago, and were able to do it with 2,000 fewer men. The effect of the Convention on the sugar-using industries had been disastrous. Whereas formerly they were supreme not only in neutral but also in
  1406
  protected markets, they were now being excluded because the sugar-producing countries were manufacturing confectionery themselves. Holland and Germany were running up jam factories, and even Austria was sending confectionery to this country. It was entirely due to the Convention, which deprived the British manufacturer of the boon of cheap sugar and conferred it on the foreigner, that the Continental manufacturers were now beginning to invade our own market in all directions.
  He desired to refer to the misleading figures given by the President of the Board of Trade as to the importations of Russian sugar into this country. The right hon. Gentleman declared that in 1901 the total amount exported from Russia was 126,000 tons, of which only 700 tons came to the United Kingdom, and that in 1902 only 1,000 tons came to this country.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I said they were the figures given by the Russian Government, and so they were.
  MR. KEARLEYwas sure the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to convey that he had wilfully misled the House, but he was in this dilemma: either he had made statements by which he wished to mislead the House—which of course was not the fact—or he had put forward statements the accuracy of which he had not taken pains to investigate. Did the right hon. Gentleman wish to own up?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: When I come to speak in my turn I shall be quite prepared to give my explanation of the circumstance. Meanwhile I am quite prepared to admit that there was a certain amount of sugar coming from Germany of which I was not aware.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that that was only part of the case. What he was now arguing was that the Convention was obtained under false pretences, that the House was misled by not being put in possession of all the facts, and that if the attempt were made a fresh the Convention would not get even a Second

  1407
  Reading. From inquiries which he had made he found that the total amount of Russian sugar, refined and raw, sold by five brokers of Mincing Lane, was in 1902, 36,050 tons, and in 1901, 21,500 tons, and that one firm alone, Messrs Meyer Fr. Sohn, sold no less than 11,000 tons in 1901, and 16,000 tons in 1902. He had also ascertained from the British Vice-Consul at Danzig that the exports of Russian sugar from that port to the United Kingdom were 7,483 tons in 1901, and 9,748 tons in 1902.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINasked whether those quantities were included in the 21,500 and the 36,050 tons previously mentioned.
  MR. KEARLEYwas not certain, but probably they were. But in any case there were 21,500 tons and 36,050 tons of Russian sugar known to be sold on the London market by these five brokers alone, as against the 700 tons and the 1,000 tons stated by the President of the Board of Trade.
  He would only say, in conclusion, that this policy was believed to be a first instalment of the greater protection revival of which the country had heard so much, and about which it had formed such a decided view. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was proclaimed by his friends to be its author, and he was entitled to the full credit for the results of his handiwork. Those results had been disastrous to the British consumer and manufacturer. The Convention had conferred cheap sugar on our Continental rivals and dear sugar on the home consumer; it had halved the price to the consumer abroad, and doubled the price to the consumer at home. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech on the Second Reading of the Convention Bill said—
  "I wish I could address an audience of working men. I would appeal to their pockets and their interest, and say, 'What have you done? You have destroyed a trade which might have given employment to goodness knows how many people, and you have allowed trades one after another to be thrown away, or handed over to our competitors.""
  Why had not the right hon. Gentleman gratified his wish and addressed a meeting of working men on the Sugar Conven-
  1408
  tion? Was it because he was afraid that they might ask: "What have you done?" He begged to move.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERin seconding, said he wished to deal with the broader aspect of the Convention in its relation to our present free-trade system. After nearly a century the bounty system had been found by the Continental nations to be intolerable. It was based on the same false principle that lay at the root of every protectionist measure. The bounty system was protection in its most concentrated and direct form. The artificial stimulus given to beet cultivation had resulted in such over-production that it had had to be exported at one-fourth of its actual cost, with the result that we in this country had not only had sugar for domestic purposes at one-half the price prevailing in other countries, but had become the greatest sugar-manufacturing nation in the world, and had actually been able to re-export sugar to the very countries from which we originally received the raw material. That was the condition of affairs when the Government precipitated the abolition of bounties by joining the Sugar Convention. He did not believe the foreign countries would ever have come to a simultaneous decision if Great Britain had not joined the Convention. What would be the effect? To treble the price of sugar in the United Kingdom, while the price in foreign countries had been reduced by one-half. This result had been clearly pointed out by the mover of this Amendment. In other words, the inhabitants of the United, Kingdom had been compelled to bear the cost of abolishing bounties, instead of the inhabitants of the bounty-paying countries bearing the cost themselves. Therefore the whole loss and hardship of the reversal of the bounty system had been borne by this country, which was the one country that was in no way responsible for the system. Supposing it had been proposed that a fund should be formed for compensating growers of beet and manufacturers of beet sugar in order that by degrees they should reduce their bounties, and supposing it had been suggested that the British Government should subscribe a certain sum to that fund, he ventured to say

  1409
  that such a proposal would have been scouted as too preposterous for consideration. If a proposal of that kind had been seriously made by a Minister in the House of Commons it would have been defeated upon a division by an overwhelming majority. And yet it was absolutely certain, in the light of recent events, that this would have been a far more practical and economical operation than that which the Government actually compelled the House to adopt in the Sugar Convention.
  What had happened? For the first time in fifty years there was a falling-off in the consumption of sugar in the United Kingdom and the Board of Trade Returns showed a falling off of 3 per cent. That was an alarming sign. It not only meant a considerable reduction in the consumption of sugar but a reduction amongst all the sugar-using industries. They were told that this was due to shortage in the crop on the Continent of Europe, and that this was the reason for the rise of price in England. He ventured to say that that could not be seriously contended. If it were true that there was a shortage on the Continent, it was a remarkable fact that sugar in France and Germany was half to-day what it was, and that the consumption of those countries had doubled. It was not natural causes that had brought this catastrophe, but the violent interference with trade by the Government, who had no idea of the forces they were dealing with, and the result they were going to bring about. What had been the result in broad figures? He did not pretend to uphold the bounty system, for it was obvious that that system must have come to an end sooner or later; but it was no business of ours to hasten its abolition; and had we abstained, it would probably have taken twenty or thirty years for foreign countries to escape that incubus which they had themselves created. That would have given time for our sugar manufacturers to adapt themselves to the gradual diminution of supply of beet sugar, and it would also have given time for the sugar-cane growing countries to meet the demand created by the cessation of the beet sugar manufacture. But the Government decided suddenly to effect a change which but for them must have been
  1410
  very gradual, and which they were now compelled to admit inflicts grave hardship on the consumer, and serious and increasing loss on many thriving sugar industries.
  What was the motive put forward at the time by the then Colonial Secretary? It was the generally acknowledged desire of the Secretary for the Colonies to benefit the sugar planters of the West Indies. In short it came to this, that it was a colossal measure of retaliation for the purpose of obtaining an infinitesimal amount of preference. He challenged the Government to show any benefit which had been afforded to the West Indies or any other portion of the Empire proportionate to the sacrifice which the United Kingdom had been compelled to undergo. Those responsible for the project had ignored the economic necessity attending the transfer of a gigantic trade from one source of supply to another. Sugar was the fourth greatest of our imports of food. How could the West Indies under the most favourable circumstances expect to provide anything approaching the quantity of sugar required for the British consumers and the manufacturers of this country? Where was the capital to come from? It could only come from England; and the money market was not favourable to invest millions in the West Indies on so precarious an undertaking. How did they know that there was the necessary enterprise in the West Indies? The most energetic colonists there had already turned to other pursuits, such as coffee, cocoa, spices, and it was hardly to be expected that they would retrace their steps to the precarious pursuit of sugar growing. But assuming they were desirous, where was the labour to come from? Were they to have another Chinese Ordinance for the West Indies? He thought the Government had better get off with the old love before they came on with the new. It was really a matter of the cold calculation of supply and demand, because neither the West Indies nor all the cane-sugar producing parts of the Empire could supply us with half the sugar we required within a reasonable time. Natal was confronted with labour difficulties, and Mauritius already produced to its full capacity. In Queensland

  1411
  the labour law made it a negligible quantity as a sugar-exporting country. Was not this an object-lesson of retaliation and preference in full working, and showing how results differed from anticipations?
  The Government supported the abolition of bounties on the pretence that it was a great measure of free trade, but why they should go out of their way to reform foreign countries in the direction of free trade, whilst they advocated precisely the same measures for industries in this country he could not understand. The Prime Minister the other day was good enough to tell them during the fiscal debate, with a wave of the hand, that none of them understood, what free trade meant. Some of them had been trying to study the fiscal question during the last two years, and although they knew more about economics than they did before, many of them were just as much in the dark as regarded certain aspects of this question as they were at the commencement. He supposed that the most proper interpretation of free trade would be a trade free from Government interference in which the trader would make his own bargain in a market which suited him best, and in which he bought his goods at the cheapest price. If that was a fair interpretation of free trade then the Sugar Convention was not a particularly successful method of enforcing that doctrine, for it shut the trader out of the cheapest market, and forced him to pay £8,500,000 more than he would have had to pay if left to himself. This £8,500,000 in the past had been the penalty which foreign countries had paid for their system of protection attended as it was with the certain consequences of cartels, trusts, and combinations. The Convention relieved the delinquent countries of this penalty, and now dumped that burden on the unfortunate British consumer. That was an expensive form of education for this country, and it was a disastrous method of arriving at free trade. Free trade, like charity, should begin at home. The best way to teach foreign countries to leave the bad paths of protection and direct them into the paths of free trade was to tell them to come over to England and see our great sugar industries which were prospering
  1412
  through their folly and ignorance. No Sir, foreign countries must work out their own redemption, and that was the only way in which they could be expected to adopt the system which for many generations this country had enjoyed the benefit of.
  There was only one consoling feature in this unfortunte business, and it was that it was the most convincing example which could possibly be furnished of the injurious results of the Government policy of retaliation and the Birmingham policy of colonial preference. Nothing could have happened more opportunely to assist in the destruction of both of these mischievous proposals. His position in this Parliament was necessarily one of detachment, and he could and intended to vote on questions according to their merits. What a pity more hon. Members were unable to take the same course. Were other Members equally independdent, this Convention would receive the large measure of condemnation it deserved, and many who now would vote silently in its favour would vote, like he intended to, for the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed.
  "At the end of the Question, to add the words. "But we humbly represent to Your Majesty that Your Majesty's Government in committing the country to the policy of the Brussels Sugar Convention have inflicted heavy losses upon trade, diminished employment of labour, enormously increased the cost of a necessary food to consumers, without any compensatory I advantage; and we humbly submit to your Majesty that these evil results call for an immediate remedy; and that the Convention should be denounced at the earliest possible moment.""—(Mr. Kearley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added.
  SIR WALTER PALMERsaid that upon this occasion he again could not agree with the Amendment which had been brought forward and supported so very lucidly by the hon. Member for Devonport. The hon. Member had stated in most explicit terms the nature of his grievance, and he hoped to show, in a very few minutes, that the Convention, whatever the views of the hon. Member might be with regard to particular trades, was not the whole question, and

  1413
  that he had omitted that part which might have been included, and which had been the real grievance. He was afraid that the mover of the Amendment was not altogether in favour of free trade if they accepted the older definition, namely, that free trade meant "an interchange of commodities at their natural prices." What was the alternative if they reverted to the state of things before the Convention? They would, of course, be having sugar under the system of bounties, and that was he presumed, what the hon. Member wished. The Amendment denounced the Convention as having been the cause of heavy losses in trade, and as having increased the cost of the food of the people. The hon. Member had argued that the cost of sugar had been rendered higher in consequence of the Sugar Convention. He confessed that he could not follow the arguments of the hon. Member in that respect, and he was afraid that he had failed to convince him that the Sugar Convention had, in any way, tended to make the price of sugar higher than it was before. [OPPOSITION Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laughed, but he wished to put before them this consideration. Did the line of prices since September, 1903, justify this suspicion? The hon. Member was continually talking about the price of sugar having been 6s. per cwt., but was it fair to take one particular fall in price, the result of a very heavy crop in that particular year? They all knew very well that the price in September, 1903, was about 8s. 5d. per cwt., and it fell in the following February to 7s. l0½d., whilst in April of last year it was 8s. 7d., or about the same as it was at the time the Convention came into operation.
  MR. KEARLEY: What was it in May?
  SIR WALTER PALMERsaid they all knew that April was about the time when people began to form their estimate of the growing crops. The hon. Member had given them a great many figures with regard to stocks on the Continent, but he wished to ask him one question upon this point. If the estimate of the crop on the Continent had been normal at that particular time would there have been any
  1414
  rise in the price of 8s. 7d.? The hon. Member had said nothing as to what the price would have been had the crops remained normal. Had crops remained normal, and the price had not been raised, it would have been impossible to argue that the Sugar Convention had in any way increased the price of sugar.
  He would take another consideration which the hon. Member had dwelt upon, namely, had the disturbing effect of last year's deficiency caused as great a loss to the country as would have been the case without the Convention? Last year's deficiency, as the hon. Member had told them, sent up the price in December to nearly 6s., and 7s. in the middle of January, or in other words, we paid £2,250,000 more for the sugar bought in this country.
  MR. KEARLEY: The price of sugar to the consumer has risen to just double what it was before the Convention. It was l½d. per 1b. before the Convention and it is now 3d. per 1b. That represented a sum of over £8,000,000.
  SIR WALTER PALMER: I prefer to take the figures given in the Blue-book.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: You are quite right.
  SIR WALTER PALMERsaid that if they paid only £2,250,000 more for sugar, what became of the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition that the Sugar Convention had cost this country over £8,000,000 a year? If the Leader of the Opposition spoke upon this question he would like him to show how he made out that this country had been charged £8,000,000 a year by the Convention.
  There was another consideration he wished to point out. Was the rise in price last year less or more than during similar years when bounties and cartels existed? According to the estimate of the hon. Member for Devonport the deficiency last year was 750,000 tons of sugar. That was a fact generally known, but the hon. Member did not state that the deficiency in the production of beet sugar was the worst which had been known for the last forty years, and it was this that

  1415
  had caused the rise in price of 6s. and 7s. per cwt. Let them now compare this variation in price with the variations of other years. In the year 1888–9 sugar rose from 13s. 2d. to 27s., which was more than double the rise which took place last year. That rise, he need scarcely point out, was due to the deficiencies in the crops, mostly in the West Indies, which also affected the United States supply, and led to a great deal of speculation and a very great rise in prices. He would take another rise in price which occurred in 1892–3, for in that year the price rose from 12s. 9d. to 18s. 9d. The variation in that crop was vastly less than was the case last year. If the crop last year was the worst they had experienced for forty years, if it was worse than in 1892–3, why had the price not now gone up very much more than it had done? The reason why the price had gone up only 6s. was because the systems of cartels and bounties abroad had been abolished. Take the year 1893–4 when the price fell from 18s. 9d. to 8s. 3d., or a fall of 10s. 6d. per cwt. That was entirely due to over-production in the previous year. He wished to ask the hon. Member if he thought these extraordinary fluctuations were good for trade; at any rate those interested in the trade did not think so. The average price for last year worked out at about 12s. 3d. per cwt. for refined sugar, and that was an increase of 1s. 4¼d. on the previous year. But even then the average price paid in 1904 was less than in any year before 1901. In fact previous to the years of the sugar duty, sugar had always cost more than it had since without the sugar duty.
  He thought the hon. Member for Devonport had very much failed in his argument respecting the sugar industries of this country. The dead-weight upon those industries had been the sugar tax, and he would give the House figures to prove this. The Treasury Returns showed that the yield from the sugar tax for 1901–2 was £6,399,000; in 1902–3 it was £4,478,000; and in 1903–4 the amount was £5,725,000. He would next take the Board of Trade figures. In 1901 the importation of sugar was just over 33,000,000 cwts.; in 1902 it was 31,451,000 cwts.; in 1903, 31,134,000;
  1416
  and last year it was 32,294,000 cwts. What he was contending was that there had been a falling-off in the importation of sugar owing to the sugar tax. He would next take the quantity of sugar consumed per head of the population. In the year 1901 the percentage per head of the population was 88·9 1bs.; in 1902, 83·9 1bs.; 1903, 82·2 1bs.; and for last year he had not been able to get the figures. There was one fact which he particularly wished the hon. Member for Devonport to notice, and it was that the duty imposed upon sugar had raised the price nearly to what it was ten years ago. The average price for the five years 1890–1894 was 16s. 9d.; for the seven years 1895–1901,12s. 6d.; and for the four years 1901–1904, 11s.5d., but, adding the amount of the sugar duty, this became 15s. 7d. Therefore the cost of sugar to the buyer had come back to what it was nearly ten years ago. He entirely disagreed with the expression of opinion made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the deputation which recently waited upon him. The right hon. Gentleman said that the tax on sugar was only sensible because of particular circumstances which had occurred last year. He entirely disagreed with that statement, for the sugar tax had raised the average price of sugar during the time it had been imposed more than 3s. beyond the average which had existed during the previous seven years. The mover of the Amendment, in stating that the Convention had inflicted heavy loss on trade, had diminished employment, and so on, was entirely beyond the mark. The hon. Member had failed to show that the Convention had really affected the price of sugar, and he omitted altogether to keep in view the fact that the rise had really been caused by the sugar tax. In support of this he ventured to quote the statement made by Messrs. Icke and Sharp, Limited, who said—
  "As regards our own firm, we have been unable, since the tax of 1900, to pay any dividend to the ordinary shareholders, and is it to be wondered at, considering that the tax has been the means of reducing our turnover by over £50,000 a year?"
  It was a little extraordinary that the hon. Member should come forward, as he had done again and again, asking for the abolition of the Convention on these

  1417
  grounds. Of course it was useless to refer him to the well-known opinions of the authorities on his own side—Mr. Gladstone and Lord Farrer. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, speaking in 1899, said that bounties were only another form of protective duty. The late Sir William Harcourt had also expressed a similar view, and the Trades Union Congress had twice done so. The depressed state of the various trades using sugar had not been due to the Convention, but he believed, nevertheless, that the working of the Convention and the abolition of the cartels had prevented the excessive rise in price which had happened on previous occasions, and had probably saved the country a very large amount of money. That, at all events, was his opinion. He believed that the abolition of bounties would in a short time be recognised as an enormous benefit to this country and the Colonies. Might he give one parallel? This year in the United States there was an enormous deficiency in the wheat crop, and he believed England had received very little wheat from the United States. But we had received enormous supplies from India and other places, and the consequence was that the price of wheat had been very little interfered with. The hon. Member opposite deprecated the encouragement of the cane industries, though this year, owing to a deficiency in the beet harvest, prices were sent up comparatively high because of that deficiency, and because we were not yet able to get our supplies from the cane producers. The hon. Member referred to the large increase in production which had taken place in different parts of the world. He himself had been to Java, though not to the West Indies. Java, he believed, was cultivated entirely by Chinese coolies. It had been mentioned that in Cuba there had been an increase of 1,000,000 tons within a certain time. There had been in Cuba an increased production from 485,000 tons in 1882 to 1,250,000 tons at the present tune, owing to the encouragement given by the United States. He believed that the situation alluded to in the Amendment was due not to the Convention but to the deficiency in the crop together with the
  1418
  sugar tax, which was not before them that night. The depressed state of the trade of this country was also a matter which should be taken into consideration. He looked forward to better times when the finances of the country would be regulated in another way. He hoped the House would not be led astray by the statements which had been made by the mover of the Amendment.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was glad to be able to follow the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, because he represented a constituency which was largely interested in sugar industries. In Dundee there was a large number of people whose wages were small, and many of these were women who were self-supporting. In the immediate neighbourhood of the city there was a great fruit-growing industry which served the sugar-using industry. His constituency, therefore, was hit three times over by the Convention. The poor, who were the consumers, were hit, the confectioners who manufactured the sugar into confectionery, were hit, and the fruit growers in the neighbouring districts were also hit. The head of the greatest confectionery business in Dundee informed him that the price of sugar had risen 100 per cent. The authority of Sir A. Jones, however, was good enough for him, because he stated that—
  "It is to Mr. Chamberlain we owe it that sugar has risen from £6 to £16 per ton."
  That statement, he admitted, did not appear in the revised report; if it had been suppressed by the author he was only following the distinguished example of another who had spoken on fiscal matters. In connection with the effects of this sugar policy in general, he regarded the case of the working people as by far the most serious, and he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that they could scarcely consider the Sugar Convention alone in this debate. The sugar policy of the Government was divided into two branches—the part which imposed a tax and the part which dealt with the sugar bounty question in the Convention. He condemned them both, and regarded them both as diseases acting concurrently. He agreed with the hon. Member for

  1419
  Salisbury in condemning the sugar tax. They could not separate the two branches of the Government's sugar policy, because if the effect of the Convention was to impose a burden on the people, however small, it was an aggravation of the burden caused by the sugar tax. He read the other day in a Board of Trade Blue-book that the average wage of an Irish agricultural labourer was something between 10s. 6d. and 11s. a week. If the sugar tax and the Sugar Convention had the effect of increasing the price of sugar in the least degree, then he said, no matter how low the degree, that a wage of 10s. 6d. was one that could bear no diminutions, and to take from a man who was earning that wage the smallest scintilla of a farthing was not a change that could be defended.
  The hon. Member for Salisbury condemned the sugar tax and praised the Convention. He found that was very common with protectionists. One hon. Member had candidly given the reason. The reason was simply this, the whole of the proceeds of the sugar tax, hardly as it bore on the poor, went into the Exchequer, and not a farthing went into private pockets. In the case of the burden laid on the people by the Convention not a farthing of it went to the Exchequer, but the whole of it went into private pockets. Part of it went to the agricultural interest, because it was the West Indian equivalent of the English agricultural dole, part of it went to a small branch of the sugar trade in this country, and the rest, and by far the greater proportion, went to the consumer in foreign countries. There was a very useful institution connected with the Press which, he was told, supplied leading articles free gratis and for nothing to country newspapers. One of these denounced the tax and praised the Convention. The writer of the article asked what good the tax did, seeing that it all went to the British Exchequer. That was the real reason why gentlemen of the fiscal persuasion, like the hon. Member for Salisbury, made the discrimination which they did. He himself condemned bounties as much as any one. But here was a bounty paid by a foreign Government for the export of
  1420
  raw material which was not produced in this country at all, and that kind of protection he was prepared to take lying down. He should lie on his back, open his mouth, and ask for more. But what he desired particularly to draw attention to was the case of sugar products. He recollected the astonishment and dismay which spread over the House when it was stated, on behalf of the Government, during the discussion of the Bill of 1903, that bounty-fed sugar was to be excluded but bounty-fed sugar worked into products was to be admitted. It was pointed out that if that were allowed British confectioners would be exposed to unfair competition from foreign manufacturers, who would be able to procure bounty-fed sugar. The Prime Minister then said that the Government did not believe that there would be any chocolates or similar products made from bounty-fed sugar imported into this country, but if that did occur it would be the duty of the Government to stop it by legislation. In other words, they would increase the burden on the poor. Did the Government still hold to their belief that these products did not and would not come in?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid they did and would come in. He himself believed that imports of that sort had increased and were increasing, but it was now clear that the Government took an opposite view; and he presumed, therefore, that the legislation projected, under certain circumstances, by the Prime Minister two years ago would not be brought in to stop this particular import. He took it there was no intention to do so this session at any rate?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he would now refer to sugar products coming from countries which were not parties to the Convention. They were told that British confectioners would have the benefit of the limitation of the surtax proposed in the Convention. What had been the history of this question? Here it was in a report by Sir Henry Bergne—
  "A vote was then taken on the question, Whether the contracting States had the right

  1421
  to levy on sugared products a surtax higher than that fixed by Article III. of the Convention. The result was: eight votes in the affirmative; one vote in the negative (Great Britain); two abstentions (France and Italy). The further question was then raised whether contracting States were bound to penalise sugared products containing bountied sugar; and after a debate in which various views were expressed, it was decided to postpone any settlement of the question until sufficient time had elapsed to enable the Commission to perceive whether the existing laws of the various contracting States in regard to this matter gave rise to difficulties in practice."
  That was the result so far of failing to have a recognition of the principle that the limitation of the surtax fixed by Article III, of the Convention was to apply to sugared products as well as to sugar. At another sitting of the Convention Sir Henry Bergne drew attention to the decision of the Commission that the limitation of the surtax stipulated by Article III, of the Convention was not Applicable to sugared products and submitted the following question—
  "The question arises whether by Article I Contracting States have power to levy a surtax on sugared products sufficiently high to give rise to a bounty.
  "Article I of the Convention is as follows:—
  "The High Contracting Parties engage to suppress, from the date of the coming into force of the present Convention, the direct and indirect bounties by which the production or exportation of sugar may profit, and not to establish bounties of such a kind during the whole continuance of the said Convention. For the application of this provision, sugar-sweetened products, such as preserves, chocolates, biscuits, condensed milk, and all other analogous products containing, in a notable proportion, artificially incorporated sugar, are assimilated to sugar.
  ""The preceding paragraph applies to all advantages derived directly or indirectly, by the several categories of producers, from State fiscal legislation, and in particular to …
  ""(/.) Advantages derived from any surtax in excess of the rate fixed by Article III."
  "Sir H. Bergne is convinced that the Commission will decide this question in a negative sense.
  "It is necessary to settle this question definitely before it is possible usefully to approach the question of the application of the penal clause to sugared products, and the British delegate has been instructed by his Government to ask that the matter be put to the vote."
  "Great hesitation was manifested in giving a direct reply to this question without further explanation, and as none of the delegates were prepared at the moment to make any statement, the discussion. …"
  1422
  What was the end of it all? In the last White Paper which had been published they found that Sir Henry Bergne offered a compromise, and that the following declaration was agreed upon by nine votes to two—
  "Should one of the Contracting Parties believe itself to be able to prove the existence of an appreciable bounty on sugared products, arising from an excessive surtax, it shall have the right to submit this proof to the Commission which, if the facts are found to be correct shall give its opinion as to the measures to be taken to put a stop to bounties of the kind in question."
  The Commission was to express a pious opinion!
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Not necessarily.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid it would have no executive power.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is assumed.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid this was not one of the things that were obligatory on the Commission, and any executive action in the matter would be ultra vires. Here was how Sir Henry Bergne reported this very important fact that all those countries would be barred out by this foreign tribunal sitting in Brussels—
  "Rates of countervailing duties were fixed as being applicable to the following States: Bolivia, etc;"
  and he added:—
  "No appreciable amount of sugar from any of these countries appeared to be now imported into the United Kingdom."
  How much sugar did these countries, produce? He believed it to be very much more than people imagined; it must be something very considerable. Sir Henry Bergne merely reported, however, that these countervailing duties had been fixed for these countries. That was on October 26th. What happened? Six weeks after, on December 2nd, the Foreign Office suddenly woke up, and a telegraphic despatch was sent by Lord Lansdowne to Sir Constantine Phipps to this effect:—
  "You should hand in to-day without fail to the Belgium Government a Note appealing under Article VII. of the Sugar Convention against

  1423
  the decision arrived at by the Commission at the recent sittings as regards all the countries named except Brazil."
  To appeal against the exclusion of these seventeen States! Sir Henry Bergne reported the fact of their exclusion, and seemed to justify it, but the House was entitled to know whether he voted for or against their exclusion; to know what our delegate did when this important matter was under discussion. If he voted against their exclusion, why did he not say so; if he voted for it, why did he not tell his Government? Surely unless this was a mere farce——
  MR. LOUGH: Oh! it is a farce.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: But it was a tragedy as well. Unless this was a mere farce they in that House were at least entitled to know what our delegate did when this important question was under discussion. If Sir H. Bergne voted for the exclusion of these countries, as he was entitled to assume he did from the slight reference to it in his own report which suggested, as an excuse for it, that very little sugar came here from those countries, what position was this great country in whose Foreign Minister appealed against the decision of his own subordinate officer? The Secretary of State called it an appeal, but it was not an appeal at all. It was something in the nature of a re-hearing, and a re-hearing before the same judges. And what was the reason given for this appeal? The report was still more mysterious in regard to that. Here was what Lord Lansdowne said in another dispatch—
  "The appeal lodged by His Majesty's Government only covers the case of countries in which they are in a position to offer positive evidence that no export bounty does in fact exist."
  Had the Government evidence? Of course they had. Did Sir H. Bergne have it when the question was before the Commission? Did he lay it before the Commission? If he had it, and did not lay it before the Commission, then he did not do his duty. All these were mysteries that wanted clearing up. Now he thought this thing, this Convention, had once been
  1424
  called a "working model of Protection" He pitied the industries, and he pitied the dignity and honour of this country, if proceedings like this, which had become applicable to one great trade, should be extended to all other trades.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is quite true, Sir, as one of the preceding speakers has said, that I take a very great interest in this matter. But I cannot admit the soft impeachment of the hon. Member for Plymouth that I was the author of the Convention which he has so strenuously condemned. That honour, as I think it, must be given to my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade and to my right hon. friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Member for Bristol, both of whom were really, in the first place, responsible for the measure. But that I concurred in the measure and that I am glad to accept any responsibility in connection with it is absolutely true; and I am perfectly ready to defend the measure against all comers even in an assembly of working men, if I could find an assembly interested in the subject. [OPPOSITION ironical cries of "Hear, hear"] It will be evident to hon. Gentleman opposite that even in a public meeting you cannot deal with all subjects at the same time; and when I attend a public meeting with a special object, I am generally inclined to confine myself as far as possible to the object for which I have undertaken to speak. I think, therefore, the reproach of the hon. Member for Devonport that I did not reply to the interruption of a single gentleman in a meeting consisting of 6,000 people, and did not divert myself from the object of the meeting to a long discussion on a perfectly separate subject, is, on reflection, I think he will feel, quite unnecessary. I can hardly believe that he would be quite so discursive as he suggests that I should have been.
  MR. KEARLEY: That was not my point. I referred to a fervid passage in a speech delivered in this House more than two years ago, in which the right hon. Gentleman said he would like to address an audience of working men on the sugar question. I wanted to know

  1425
  why the right hon. Gentleman has never gratified that desire.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I repeat the statement that when anything of importance turns upon this question, and if I am invited by working men, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to address them. Meanwhile I have matters to deal with that seem to me to be of greater importance.
  I am anxious to deal to-night with the general aspects of this question. Before I do so I will touch upon one or two observations of the speakers who have preceded me that would not otherwise have come into my general argument. I need not dwell long on the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, to which we have just listened, although I admit it has for me a particular and special interest, because, although during the whole time that we have been colleagues in the House of Commons I have never found a single subject upon which I did not profoundly disagree with him, and I have never observed in him a train of sentiment with which I have the slightest sympathy, to-night in one observation which he made I really felt inclined partially to agree with him. The hon. Gentleman said that he could not separate the question of the sugar tax from the question of the Convention. But with great determination and courage he proclaimed that he was opposed to both. He is one of those hon. Gentlemen whose rôle it is to be "agin the Government." Consequently, I am not at all surprised that on this occasion he was against two things which the Government have done. But where I felt a certain inclination to join him was in his statement that he did not approve of the sugar tax. I admit I do not approve of the sugar tax. I regard it at the present time as a necessary means of raising revenue. But if the hon. Gentleman will suggest any satisfactory alternative to the sugar tax—I am almost afraid to say it, but I think I might find myself in the same lobby with him. He will remember that I have proposed an alternative scheme. He will, no doubt, recollect that I have felt that a tax like the sugar tax, which comes, every penny of it, out of the pockets of the working men, might be advantageously abolished in favour of
  1426
  a tax which, in my opinion, comes in part out of the pocket of the foreigner. As to the rest of the speech of the hon. Member, it appeared to me to deal with the details of a discussion which took place before the Convention was agreed to.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I did not say a word about the discussion before the Convention was agreed to; I was referring to the discussion by the Commission.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He quoted Sir Henry Bergne and other members of the Commission. However, I do not think that any one will feel that the technical point which he raised regarding the discussion of the Commission was very important, or bore any particular relevancy to the discussion in which we are engaged. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were very attentive during the speech of the hon. Gentleman, were more fortunate than myself if they really understood its bearing upon this discussion.
  Now Sir, I come to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport, and I will deal with it in my general argument. There was one point at which, I admit, I did not quite understand what he said. The hon. Member said that by the Convention we had deprived our own in market of cheap sugar and had presented it to Austria.
  MR. KEARLEY: I never made any such statement. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. I cannot make those words fit in with any of my statements.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I took down the hon. Member's words. He said that we were depriving our market of cheap sugar and presenting it to Austria—[Mr. KEARLEY dissented]—and then followed the statement that the hon. Member had somewhere or other met an Austrian confectioner.
  MR. KEARLEY: If I made such a statement it was by a slip of the tongue. I had no intention of making any such statement. I did say that, as a result

  1427
  of the Convention, we had deprived the users of sugar in this country of an advantage and had conferred an enormous benefit on the users of sugar on the Continent by making the article cheap there.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is exactly what I said, except that I used the word Austria and the hon. Member applies his statement to the whole of the Continent. And it certainly does so apply if it applies at all. But I deny the statement. I say that at the present time sugar is as cheap in this country as in any country on the Continent. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] There is not a single country in which sugar is before and since the Convention cheaper row than in England.
  MR. KEARLEY: What is the relative position before and since the Convention?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I will come to that a little later, but bear this in mind: what the hon. Gentleman is claiming is that we should have an unnatural price of sugar. And he calls himself a freetrader! Then the hon. Member for the Chippenham Division of Wiltshire, from his great knowledge of colonial affairs, declared that this Convention had given no advantage whatever to the West Indies. [Cries of "No" and "Yes."] I assert that he said so. Let the hon. Member deny it if he can. I quote from the hon. Gentleman's words, that this Convention had given to the West Indies no benefit. Now, what I have to say to that is that the hon. Gentleman is entirely and utterly mistaken. I was not going to deal with the West Indies. The question to-night is whether this country has been injured. But as it is charged that the Convention has done no good to the West Indies, I venture to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is not a single person connected with the West Indies who will agree with his statement—whether he be a Tory, a
  1428
  Liberal Unionist, a Radical, or an independent person, as the hon. Gentleman calls himself—something like Mahomet's coffin, between heaven and the other place. None of these people connected with the West Indies will justify the statement the hon. Member has made; and if he wants an illustration I will refer him to the Radical candidate for Buteshire, Mr. Lamont, who is. I believe, connected with the West Indies, and who told his constituents—[An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION Benches: Hear, hear! They will be]—in a speech only the other day that no greater boon had ever been conferred on the West Indies than this Convention.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I never argued that the existing cane producers had not profited. I tried to point out that there had been no increase or extension of cane production in the West Indies as the result of the Convention.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: From that statement also I am obliged to dissent. But it must, be remembered that after-such a great change as the abolition of the sugar bounties represents you must wait a little time to see a natural effect.
  Well, now, what is it that we are discussing to-night? We are discussing a phenomenon which is a perfectly common phenomenon—namely, a very great and sudden rise in an article of general consumption. It is a thing which is continually happening in every trade which depends in any way upon a production which itself is subject to variations of climate. Now to most the rise in the price of sugar would appear to be a matter very much to be regretted, but at the same time not to be at all a subject for Parliamentary discussion. It is happening every day. It is happening in all sorts of trades. Why, just think for a moment of our own experience. Last year, was it not, a tremendous rise in the

  1429
  price of cotton took place—a matter of infinitely more importance than the rise in the price of sugar, a matter paralysing the whole of the vast trade of the biggest industry we have, except the industry of agriculture. Was there any kind of Party, what you may call political, discussion during the whole course of the dearth of cotton? It was due to the same cause as the rise in the price of sugar. It was dues to the diminution of the crop in America, and to the natural consequences of such a diminution, the attempts of monopolists to control the crop. Well, I do not take that alone. I heard some fear of something of the kind now—I am not really informed on the subject—but again and again a failure in the crop of potatoes in Ireland has been infinitely more serious. That has not touched merely the question of a slight rise in price of a necessary of life; It has been the question of the existence of a people. But there, again, has anybody ever charged, has even the most bitter opponent charged the Government with having, by artificial means, caused a catastrophe which was due to the act of God? Those are big things, but there has recently been, from the same cause as that affecting the price of sugar, a drought—there has been an enormous increase of 400 per cent. in the price of onions. I wonder whether anyone who knows anything about English or Irish affairs is going to speak with contempt of a thing which is really a matter of serious importance to a vast number of poor people. There again, does any one say—[An HON. MEMBER: "Pickles"; and cries of "Order."] Well, Sir, that may be offensive, but it has nothing to do with the argument. There again, I ask, has any one read a debate in this House on an increase in the price of onions? I
  1430
  will take another thing in which the rise is less; I will take the rise in the price of corn. It is well known to every one that in the last year the price of wheat has risen by 3s. a quarter. Why, good heavens! we are told that the skies will fall if a duty of 2s. is put on it, and here by purely natural causes there is a rise of 5s., and no one lifts a hand or speaks a word in reference to it. I say in all these cases—and I might quote many others—the matter is treated as regrettable, no doubt, but as due to causes which are beyond human control. But now from causes which I shall show to be the same, there is a rise in the price of sugar, and the Opposition no longer attribute it to these ordinary and natural causes, but to the indescribable malignity of the men who sit there. "the worst Government that the world has ever known," and they say it is due entirely to their infamous, nefarious action. [An HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL Benches: Stupid.] "Who fills the butchers' shops with big blue flies?"—The Government. Now, Sir, really it is all very well, but I do not believe in the long run that that is good political strategy. This attack upon the Government is sup ported, or attempted to be supported, by the grossest mis-statements and exaggerations. I will not say hon. Gentlemen, but their supporters, have in defence of this ridiculous proposition gone almost as far in the way of reckless mis-statement as they have done in the case of Chinese labour. Now, Sir, I have always a great belief in the common sense of my countrymen. I believe in it, and I show it. I think sometimes hon. Gentlemen opposite may believe in it, but they do not show it. But I am certain that in the long run this grotesque exaggeration does harm to the cause which employs it.

  1431
  We are told, for instance, by no less a person than the Leader of the Opposition that this thing is going to cost the country £8,000,000 a year. It is ridiculous. The difference in the cost of sugar between 1903 and 1904 was, as stated by the hon. Member for Salisbury, who knows something about this matter, a little over £2,000,000. Then comes the hon. Member for Devonport. He cannot deny that that is the cost, but he says that when you come to the consumer it is £8,000,000. I really am unable to accept his statement, but if it be correct what are we to say of the middlemen? This increase in price amounting to something like £2,000,000 was almost entirely confined to the last months of the year. Up to the last months of 1904 there was practically no rise at all, and yet this Convention which has had this fatal effect had been in operation twelve months. The fact that it was coming into operation was known before, and really therefore the trade had had a period for preparation much longer than twelve months. The Convention brought practically no rise. ["Oh!"] Out of the rise of which I have spoken—out of the £2,000,000, more or less, I do not know the exact amount, and I suppose nobody can give it—£1,900,000 belongs to the later months of the year. And mark this—that rise was coincident with the reports which were coming in from the Continent that there would be a short crop; and it increased just as it became certain that these reports, which were only rumours in the first instance, were being confirmed day by day, and that the results would be even -worse than had been in the first instance anticipated. That is significant. That suggests—and I am going to prove it—that
  1432
  the rise in the price of sugar is due to the natural cause of the loss of production owing to the drought, and had nothing whatever to do with the Convention.
  Then let us go to another point. We are told that this rise—for the moment I leave out of sight to what it is due—has ruined great trades in the country—jam and confectionery—and thrown out of employment numbers of people. It is very difficult to follow the argument. I take jam. Here is a curious fact. At the end of 1904 the wholesale price of jam was lower than it was before the Convention. ["No."] I do not attempt to explain it. That seems to me to be inconsistent with the argument that the Convention has ruined the jam trade. If, after the Convention, and even after the rise, jam manufacturers are able to sell their jam at a lower price than they did long before the Convention came into operation, for the life of me I do not see how the Convention is answerable for the ruin of the jam trade. Now take sugar. No doubt the experience of different firms is different, but this is undoubted, that well-managed firms have during recent years made gigantic profits. On the other side of the House it is a constant part of their argument, brought in on every occasion, that we ought to disregard any representations which come to us from South Africa, from the people who are really assuring the prosperity of South Africa because the dividends are so large there. But the dividends of the confectionery manufacturers here, have gone up 37½ per cent. I have not heard of anything like that on the Rand. I do not grudge them their profits, and I think that the explanation of them lies in the condition of the trade itself. You

  1433
  never find profits of that kind permanent. You find them in a trade in which there is fluctuation, and in fact a fluctuating trade could not go on unless it had very good times to make amends for the very bad times. If you carry the illustration out, you will find that in the coal trade, when there is a boom in the industry, the colliery owners are all making large profits, and then there comes a series of years in which they find it difficult to make both ends meet and keep the mines open. If that is the case, why should not the sugar people have made preparation? They know that their trade has been—it is not now—has been, ever since it existed as a trade, subject to great and violent fluctuation. Why did not they make preparation out of the good years for the bad years which were certain to come? Why are they ruined the moment a bad year comes? If the coal owners behaved that way there would not be a coal-mine open at the present time in England. Let us see what these confectioners could have done. Only last May—only a few months ago—they could have bought sugar at 9s. 6d. a cwt., or 88 per cent. less than now. That is something more than a moderate price, for it is a price at which it is hardly possible that sugar can be produced in any country without a loss. They could have bought sugar then at 9s. 6d. per cwt., and that price is 11d. lower than in 1900, 6d. lower than in 1899, and in 1899 you had not even heard of the Sugar Convention. They could actually have bought a few months ago lower than the price at the time when the bounties were in full force, and when sugar was considered to be at a starvation price. They did not do it. It is not for me to criticise the action of
  1434
  private firms; but I think, at all events, the point wants explanation before we accept as true the statement that the jam trade and the confectionery trade have been absolutely ruined because they have had one or two months of excessively high prices.
  Another point I want to emphasise is this. The conditions are not new. To hear the hon. Member for Devonport one would suppose there had never been fluctuations in the sugar trade before, but nothing is more contrary to the fact. The sugar trade has been one continuous series of fluctuations of price; but it must be borne in mind that the disturbance has always been temporary, as it will be now. Trade has gone on and prospered because people engaged in the trade have, in times when high prices were threatening, taken care to buy something in advance. We shall all admit that a trade with fluctuations of this kind is rather to be pitied. I think all of us in trade would rather have a business which gave security for a moderate return, that a business which at one time gave us a very large profit and at another time involved us in a very considerable loss. Therefore, our object should be, if we want to benefit the sugar, jam, and confectionery trade, to reduce the amount and the number of these fluctuations and to secure more regularity. Surely that is a desirable thing to do. The fluctuation we are considering now is not an exceptional circumstance. This particular fluctuation is no more due than any of the previous fluctuations went to the Convention. The fluctuations in the sugar trade in the past have been due to the bounties, and by removing them we have removed the great cause

  1435
  of fluctuation, and we may hope in the future the sugar trade will be more regular. It is too early to expect that by a stroke of the pen or the movement of a wand you can immediately make this great change; but we shall do it if we have patience, and we believe it will have this effect before very long. The old traders in sugar, as well as in everything else, did not desire these fluctuations. They wished to avoid them, and they did not approve of the bounties. The modern confectioners, the clients of the hon. Member for Devonport——
  MR. KEARLEY: Not my clients, but your constituents!
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN:—seem to have changed. I think they do desire bounties. Now let us see what that means. This is an entire reversion of any argument we have ever had in this House. Here are people who want bounties and who are free-traders. Why do they want bounties? There is only one reason, and that is because bounties have in the past from time to time given them sugar at a lower price than it could possibly be made at anywhere. Two years ago sugar was at 6s. and something—I forget exactly—per cwt. Does any hon. Member believe, does the hon. Member for Devonport believe, that sugar under the most favourable circumstances in any country could possibly be made at that price? It is absolutely impossible. Every cwt. sold at that price is sold at a direct loss to the producer. That is an unnatural price. It is an artificial and temporary price; but they want it because when sugar is at this unnatural price they make large profits. I want to remind you
  1436
  of this—if this great trade depends on unnatural prices and on the gigantic and unnatural profits which are made at times when sugar is sold, as under the bounty system, below cost price, then according to the doctrine of free trade it has no right to exist. According to every doctrine of free trade no trade under these conditions has a right to exist. I have spoken of fluctuations. In 1887 there was one of them. What did sugar come to then when there was no Convention? It went up from 11s. to 28s. 3d. a rise, therefore, of 17s. 3d. in a single year. The confectioners approached the Government and said that the trade was paralysed, which was perfectly true. One of the greatest of them complained of this violent fluctuation, pointed out its consequences, and asked for a remedy. What was the remedy the confectioners asked for? They asked that the bounties should be abolished. They said that that was the only true remedy—that until you got rid of the bounties you would never have regularity in the trade. It is quite true, absolutely true. It has been proved by the Convention, and yet the Convention, as I have said, has not had time to show what it can do; but already, although it has only been in existence twelve months, and it takes time to bring new machinery into operation, 400,000 tons of cane sugar was added last year to the world's production. Even that made an enormous difference. Some people seem to me to be in the most absolute ignorance of business principles. I will lay down a business principle. Let us see how many will deny it. I say that in these questions of alternation of prices the amount of difference in the production is altogether disproportionate to the amount of rise and fall which is caused by that difference. If there are buyers

  1437
  for 1,000 tons and there are 1,100 tons to sell the goods will be cheap, although there is only 100 tons surplus; and if there are buyers for 1,000 tons and only a product of 900 to sell goods will be much dearer. The 400,000 tons of cane sugar has prevented the rise in price; great as it is, from being infinitely greater. What is wanted in order to change the state of things which we all deplore is a greater area of production. What is wanted also is a greater variety in the sources of production. The tendency of the bounties was to make the world's supply dependent on the beet—to give the beet a monopoly, and the beet was all subject to the same conditions. If there was any unfavourable climatic condition it affected the whole crop; and the monopolists had the matter almost in their own hands. But the tendency, since the abolition, is to increase the supply of cane, for you have two supplies under different conditions, and you are not liable to the same fluctuations.
  I fear I am getting to the end of my time, and I revert to the argument of the hon. Member—that the Convention is responsible for the increase of price because we have prohibited sugar from Russia and the Argentine. Now, I do not like prohibition. I prefer retaliation. You owe prohibition to my right hon. friend the Member for Bristol, who would be admitted by everybody to be a true free-trader, and you owe it to free-trade influence; and as I was indebted to the initiative of my right hon. friend for a reform which I believed was a very great advantage, I respected his view, although I do not agree with prohibition. When the time comes for reconsidering the Convention, if the hon. Member objects to prohibition I shall be with him
  1438
  in a strenuous endeavour to substitute retaliation. That by the way. The influence of the Russian and Argentine import is infinitesimal. I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman attacked my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade on an absolutely trumpery difference, and made a point which, to people not acquainted with the figures, might seem a good one, because of imperfect information—not surprising, in the circumstances of the case, and in view of the difficulty of obtaining true statistics of which we have had large experience. I do not profess any infallibility, and I do not grant any infallibility to you, but having had occasion lately to deal with statistics much more than at any previous period of my life, I have found—indeed, I have stated in public in reference to the Board of Trade Returns—how extremely difficult it is in the complicated circumstances of trade to obtain reliable statistics. My right hon. friend admits the error the hon. Gentleman referred to. The error is absolutely insignificant in comparison with the whole amount in question. Let us see what it is. During the last five years the imports into Great Britain of Russian sugar have been 3,000 tons a year, and from Argentina 25,000 tons, 28,000 tons altogether. Now, what does the hon. Gentleman say with his extra information? He said that in 1901 the importation from Russia was 21,000 tons, and I say the average has been 3,000.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he mentioned the result of his inquiries from five brokers.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, I am not going to deal with imaginary figures. In 1902 the amount was 36,000, and I

  1439
  take the two 57,000, as compared with what I suppose is the average, 6,000. Now, what is the consumption of Great Britain? 1,600,000 tons. What, then, does it matter whether the total is 36,000 or 3,000 a year, either of the amounts are absolutely insignificant in the total consumption? It is really unworthy of the hon. Member to introduce a little petty correction of that kind. In the same way with Argentina. It cannot be a large amount. The Russians know what they export, and the amount is 160,000 tons to all countries, and Argentina exports 30,000 tons. In these circumstances it is ridiculous to suppose that there has been any considerable increase in price owing to the stopping of these imports. The real fact is, it makes not the slightest difference, for what they would have sent to us has been went to the Mediterranean, setting free German sugar for importation into this country.
  But I must conclude. Not a word would have been said about this matter if the Opposition had not thought they could make political capital out of it. They thought they could mix it up with the fiscal controversy. But it is absolutely irrelevant to that controversy—it has no more to do with it than the Goodwin Sands have to do with Tenterden Steeple. If anything, the Convention is an obstacle to my policy, as it prevents me from giving a preference—I speak as if I had the power—the Convention prevents the giving of any preference in regard to sugar; and I hope that may be altered when the Convention is revised, for I think it would be a wise thing to give a moderate preference to our Colonies to stimulate the production of cane sugar. Why, the Convention is a free-trade in-
  1440
  stitution; it aims at what Cobden desired to secure, that commodities should find markets at their natural prices. Applied to sugar it means that we do not want sugar made artificially cheap; we want it at its natural price. Bounties have been declared to be protection by every free trader until within the last year or two. They were so described by Mr. Gladstone, by Sir William Harcourt, by Lord Farrer, by Lord Avebury—who is the last of these great free-traders living. They have described the system as the worst form of protection. The hon. Member for Chippenham said the right course for us would be to allow bounties to gradually extinguish themselves and not to hasten the process, but what an opinion for a free-trader. No man who called himself a free-trader in the past ever ventured to make a suggestion of that kind. For forty years every Liberal Government has denounced bounties and declared an earnest desire to remove them. During the same period Chambers of Commerce have again and again voted unanimously for a penal clause to remove bounties, and trade unions have done the same thing. I may call attention to the fact that my hon. friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) introduced a deputation on the subject, declaring opposition to bounties because, he said, the deputation were free-traders. Because we have succeeded where Liberal Governments have failed these free-traders—new free-traders—turn round on their policy and denounce ours.
  And, it being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.
  Adjourned at one minute after Twelve o'clock.

George Rodney Lord Bishop of Wake-field was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Duke of Brandon (D. Hamilton) sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House. That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Clyde Navigation (Reconstitution).
And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—South Lancashire Tramways [H. L.]; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Water and Gas [H. L.]; Metropolitan Railway [H. L.]; Medway and Thames Canal [H. L.]; Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Extension of Time) [H. L.]; Oldham and Saddleworth District Tramways [H. L.]; Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation [H. L.]; Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads [H. L.]; Central Electric Supply [H. L.].
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [H. L.]; Charing Cross and Strand Electricity Supply Corporation Bill [H. L.]; City of London Electric Lighting Company Bill [H. L.]. Read 2a, and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Cordoba and Rosario Railway Bill [H. L.]. Read 2a, and committed.
East Cowes Gas Bill [H. L.]. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Entre Rios Railways Bill [H. L.]; Gos-port and Fareham Tramways Bill [H. L.]. Read 2a, and committed.
Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District) Bill [H. L.]; Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Various Powers) Bill [H. L.]; North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [H. L.]; Truro Water Bill [H. L.]. Read 2a, and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
West Cumberland Electric Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [H. L.]. Read 2a, and committed.
Workington Harbour and Dock Bill [H. L.]. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  RUSSIA. No. 3 (1905) NORTH SEA INCIDENT (INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY).
  Despatch from the British Agent forwarding the Report of the Commissioners.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
  Annual report on the state of the finances of the University of Aberdeen, under the provisions of Section 30 of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, for the year 1903–1904.
  Annual statistical report by the University Court of the University of Aberdeen, to the Secretary for Scotland, under the provisions of Section 30 of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, for the year 1903–1904.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BRIDLINGTON PIERS AND HARBOUR.
  Abstract of the general annual account for the year ended 26th July, 1904. Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  INEBRIATES.
  Petition for amendment of law respecting; of Manchester, Salford, and District Temperance Union; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILLS.
  SALE OF INTOXICANTS TO CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law in relation to the sale of intoxicating liquors to children. Was presented by the Lord Dunboyne; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday the 7th of March next. (No. 16.)
  NEWCASTLE CHAPTER (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make further provisions for the foundation of a dean and chapter of Newcastle, and for other purposes connected therewith. Was presented by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next. (No. 17.)

  THE LATE EARL OF MORLEY.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, a very short time ago we were referring in this House, in terms of deep regret, to the fact that Lord Morley, owing to the aggravation of his illness, had found it necessary to resign the office of Chairman of Committees, and both from this bench and from the bench opposite testimony was borne to the respect and affection with which we regarded him, and to the gratitude which he had earned by the manner in which, for many years, he had discharged the duties of Chairman of Committees. My Lords, we can add little to what was then said. I may, perhaps, say that I thought it my duty to send Lord Morley a full report of the conversation which then took place, and four days ago I received from him a letter expressing the deep satisfaction it had given him to read the words which had been used by myself, and, he added, especially those which had fallen from the noble Earl opposite, the Leader of the
  1276
  Opposition. He said that, having nothing but the life of an invalid to look forward to, these marks of the confidence and the goodwill of his friends were one of the few consolations that were left to him. Alas, my Lords, we now know that Lord Morley's illness has terminated more rapidly that anyone could have supposed. It is a melancholy satisfaction to know that his end was peaceful and painless. I am sure that on both sides of the House we shall feel that we have lost one of the most beloved and respected of our Members, and that we shall desire to offer to those who are mourning him the assurance of our deep and heartfelt sympathy.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I rise to add a few words to those of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, and to say how entirely I agree with all that he has said in reference to the sad news that we so suddenly and unexpectedly read in the newspapers to-day. We had no idea that Lord Morley's end was so near when we were speaking of him the other day. I can only repeat how deep our grief is at the loss of so able a Member of this House and so true a friend. I, too, received a long letter from Lord Morley, dated the 24th instant, expressing his satisfaction at what was said concerning him, and how grateful he was for the kindness of the references to himself. I am glad that the noble Marquess has expressed, I will not say the feelings of noble Lords on the opposite side, but the feelings of the whole House, in this matter, and I most heartily join with him in all that he has said.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I cannot forbear from associating myself entirely with all that has been said by both the noble Marquess and the noble Earl. I have been associated with Lord Morley officially for many years, and I cannot but bear my testimony to his invariable kindness and courtesy, and I feel that we have lost not only a most admirable and efficient administrator, but also a dear friend.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: My Lords, I do not know whether the ordinary traditions on such an occasion

  1277
  allow me to intervene, but I should like to add one or two words to what has fallen from those occupying the leading places in your Lordships' House with regard to Lord Morley. My reason for doing so is this. In the old days at the University Lord Morley and I were side by side, and, carrying back my thoughts to that time, I cannot help remarking how the uprightness, conscientiousness, and dutifulness which marked then the young beginner were fulfilled in his whole career, and in what we saw of him in this House.

  SOUTH AFRICA (LABOUR IN THE MINES).
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I rise, in accordance with the notice standing in my name on the Paper, to move for a Return of the number of white men employed in the erection and preparation of Chinese compounds in the Rand; and to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how long the employment of these men will last, whether any provision for their further employment has been made, and whether they are included in the list of those employed in and about the Rand mines; and also, having regard to statements that have appeared in the public Press, to ask whether rock-drilling by white labour is being superseded by the employment of coloured labour, and, if so, how far this change can proceed without infringing the provisions of the labour Ordinance against the employment of Chinese labour in skilled work.
  In submitting this Motion I desire to say a few words to guide the noble Duke in the reply which he will make. In the first place, I am happy to be able to congratulate the noble Duke and His Majesty's Government on the increased sanitation in the mines and the consequent diminishe death rate, and I can assure the noble Duke that my object, and my only object, in moving this Motion is to elicit information that will guide public opinion in expressing an informed view with regard to the merits or otherwise of the Chinese Ordinance. I have not the slightest intention of raising any further discussion on this Ordinance, which was debated pretty fully in both Houses of Parliament last year. The noble
  1278
  Duke will no doubt have observed that I omitted all matters of Party contention from my notice of Motion. I do not, for instance, say a word about the wife and children question, nor do I say anything about the limitations in the number of Chinese. The Secretary of State for the Colonies in another place has given answer on these two subjects, and I am afraid it is not probable that the noble Duke will be able to add anything material to those answers. Therefore, I have not troubled him in the matter, but it may very possibly be that either on this occasion or on some future occasion noble Lords behind me may raise this question, and may even wish to take the opinion of your Lordships upon it. No doubt it is the case that part of the information which I desire was asked for only very recently in the House of Commons; but, my Lords, it appears to me that the answers given to these interrogations in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State were not very full and not very satisfactory, and I hope and believe that the noble Duke will give me fuller and more satisfactory replies.
  Without going into the merits of it, the Government case with regard to the importation of Chinese labour is very largely based, and properly so, upon their contention that white labour, at all events skilled white labour, whatever may be the case with unskilled white labour, will be, and has been, rather increased than otherwise by the importation of Chinese. If that is, as it clearly is, the contention of the Government, surely it is very important to know how many white labourers, particularly white skilled labourers, are now employed in the construction and maintenance of the Chinese compounds. The Secretary of State has merely told us in general terms that some white labour is so employed. He does not give us the number. I want the number, and I want to know what has been done to secure that these men, when their temporary employment is finished, have something else to do. With regard to rock-drilling, it seems to be the intention of the mineowners to do away as far as possible, if not absolutely, with skilled labour in this work, for we have it on the

  1279
  authority of Mr. Gillam, himself the chairman of the Van Ryn Mine, that when the Chinaman has been taught how to drive hand-drills, machine-drills will be absolutely superseded, and that view was also taken by Mr. Albu on January 18th last. The Secretary of State, too, acknowledges that the proportion of white men to black or coloured men has been steadily decreasing and is likely to still further decrease in the future. What is taking place with regard to rock-drilling raises the question—the vital question to white workmen in South Africa—of the demarcation between skilled and unskilled labour.
  The question of overseers was debated last year to some extent in the House of Commons, and opinion runs extremely high in the Transvaal with regard to yellow and black labour ousting white labour, especially skilled white labour. With regard to overseers, very intemperate language has been used in the Transvaal, language which I do not in the least defend, but I will quote one specimen of it in order that your Lordships may realise how strong the feeling is in this matter. The president of the Miners Association expressed his opinion on the question in the following words, which were quoted by Mr. Malcolm, M. P., who is very much in favour of Chinese labour—
  "With regard to the introduction of Chinese, they were now informed that they were bringing overseers with them, but if such a state of things took place after the public statements made by Lord Milner and Sir George Farrar, they could write those gentlemen down as being the greatest and most arrant liars of the day."
  I hope that language is exceptional, but it at all events shows very strong and high feeling in the matter. When the Secretary of State is asked any question with regard to this line of demarcation between skilled and unskilled labour, and when he is asked whether any particular operation is skilled or unskilled labour he always shelters himself behind the plea that it is not for him to say whether or not certain work is unskilled labour, and that the skilled labourers on the Rand are perfectly capable of taking their own part in the matter. It seems to me rather doubtful whether the employment of these overseers is not an infringement of the Ordinance. At all events, Chinese overseers are there, and
  1280
  the skilled labourers have not been able to prevent their importation.
  It is perfectly certain that the unskilled labourers are quite helpless, and it is equally certain that the Rand mineowners intend they shall remain perfectly helpless. The skilled labourer stands in a somewhat stronger position, but I very much doubt whether he is able to hold his own against the enormous influence wielded by the mineowners. I should like to ask the noble Lord opposite, Lord Harris, whether he, believes that in the event of any skilled labourer or any combination of skilled labourers taking steps to get the mineowners fined £500 for a breach of the Ordinance, that skilled labourer or that combination would ever get another job on the Rand. I very much doubt it. Surely, while the Transvaal remains a Crown colony, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to see that the Ordinance is properly enforced. He cannot shelter himself behind the plea that the white men can look after themselves. Your Lordships may, perhaps, have thought that I ought to have left it to Members of the House of Commons, to ask these questions, and not troubled your Lordships with the matter. I have ventured to put these questions in this House because there is in the House of Commons an atmosphere of reticence over the Treasury Bench which it is extremely difficult to penetrate. That atmosphere of reticence has not permeated this House; on the contrary, we find it not in the least difficult to get from noble Lords on the front bench opposite the frankest possible declarations. I trust, therefore, that the noble Duke the Under-Secretary may be not only willing but anxious to give me every information that it is in his power to obtain.
  Moved, "That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty for a Return of the number of white men employed in the erection and preparation of Chinese compounds in the Rand."—(Lord Monkswell.)
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARL-BOROUGH): My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord who has just spoken that it is our wish, so far as lies in our power, to give him all the information he

  1281
  desires with regard to the, number of Chinese employed in South Africa, and the manner in which they are treated. I do not know that the attitude of the occupants of the Treasury Bench in the House of Commons has been very reticent upon this matter of Chinese labour. I read with great care the debate in another place the other night, and it seemed to me that the Secretary of State gave all the information that was at his disposal; and, further, I think he disposed altogether of the objections and criticisms of the Members of the Party to which the noble Lord opposite belongs. I will not, however, discuss what took place in the other House. It would be improper to do so. But I fear I cannot add very much to the information which the Secretary of State has already given in regard to the particular questions which the noble Lord has put to me to-day.
  The noble Lord wishes to know the number of white men employed on the Rand to-day in erecting and looking after the compounds. At present we have no official information as to the exact number of men employed there, but the Secretary of State is perfectly willing that a communication shall be sent to Lord Milner asking him to furnish us with a Return, and I can assure the noble Lord that as soon as we receive it he will have full access to it. He is perfectly right in assuming that the white men engaged on the compounds are included in the gross total. The noble Lord went on to ask whether we could give any information as to how long the employment of these men will last. I confess I think that is a remarkable question, to put to us. After all, no employment is of a permanent character. The humblest man in this country cannot tell how long his employment will last, and what applies to the humblest individual applies equally to those who are in more important positions. In fact, noble Lords opposite have reminded us on more than one occasion that the employment of those who are now responsible for the government of this country may terminate at no distant date. Since, therefore, all employment is of a transitory, and not of a permanent character, I do not see how the noble Lord can expect us to be able to tell him how long
  1282
  these men will be employed on the compounds. All I can say is that their employment will depend largely on the future development of the country. If the country is prosperous, as we believe it will be, and if the mining industry develops as it has done, there is every chance that these men will participate in the further development and secure continuous employment.
  Then the noble Lord asked whether any further employment has been arranged for these men. In this country, with all the great resources and all the wealth at the disposal of the State, we yet see a great number of people who are unemployed, who cannot be guaranteed employment permanently; and how much more likely is that to obtain in the case of a country like the Transvaal, which has only lately got over a severe war, the finances of which have only lately been placed on a sound and proper footing, and in which the mining industry itself is hardly re-established. The questions which the noble Lord has put to me are simple in themselves, and, in a way, are almost insignificant, but I think underlying them is a desire to raise the question of the employment of whites in the mines in South Africa. The noble Lord who moved the Motion now before the House and noble Lords opposite have always held that the importation of Chinese labour into South Africa would probably curtail the employment of white men. They know now from the statistics that have been published that their contention was not altogether well founded. Accordingly they seem anxious to shift their ground. They admit, I understand, that white labour has increased in consequence of the augmentation of unskilled labour, but they say that it is only of a temporary character, and that these men are only employed in the building of the compounds and in keeping them in order.
  I think the best proof in a matter of this sort is to refer to the figures, and I think the figures conclusively show that the direct result of the increase of unskilled labour has been enormously to increase the number of white men employed in the mines. In May last, before the arrival of the Chinese, there were, in round figures, 77,000 Kaffirs

  1283
  and 13,000 white men employed in the mines. Since then there has been an increase every month in the number of Kaffirs and white men employed. In January last there were 27,000 Chinese in the mines, very nearly 90,000 Kaffirs, or an increase of 13,000 since May last—your Lordships will notice that the introduction of Chinese has led to the supplementing, and not the superseding, of Kaffir labour—and 15,500 white men. I do not think the noble Lord opposite can maintain that all these 2,500 additional white men are employed in completing and maintaining the compounds in which the Chinese live. I think it is reasonable to assume that a large proportion of them are undoubtedly employed in industries in the mines. The noble Lord said that the Secretary of State had admitted in another place that the ratio of white men to coloured had decreased. I do not know where the noble Lord found that statement. My recollection is that the Secretary of State said that whereas before the war the ratio was 119 white men to 1,000 black, to-day it was 143 to 1,000.
  LORD MONKSWELL: The Secretary of State said it was perfectly true that the proportion of white to coloured labour was now 143 to 1,000, but it had been as large as 200 to 1,000, and was gradually going down. He said the reason why there was such a large amount of white labour employed soon after the war was that there was then no importation of Chinese labour. Less white labour is employed now than then.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I think the real point is that very often, in order to get a proper complement of men, a great number of white men were employed on a mine in starting it, as a sort of nucleus, and sufficient unskilled labour had to be added afterwards. When that condition obtained, undoubtedly the ratio of white men to coloured was higher than the normal ratio. I would revert for a moment to my statement that there are 2,500 more white men employed now than in May last. These men, it is estimated, earn at least £1 a day, and if you multiply that number by 365 you arrive at a total of over £900,000 being paid in wages to
  1284
  white men in excess of what was paid previous to the importation of Chinese. I think that must be a matter for congratulation as helping to promote the prosperity of the white population in South Africa. The noble Lord went on to discuss the question of rock-drilling and hand-drilling. As I understand, in machine-drilling one skilled man works two machine-drills and employs two coloured men on each drill—in other words, one skilled man employs four unskilled labourers. The noble Lord is under the impression that machine-drills are going to be superseded by hand-drills. I have always been under the impression that hand-drilling was more expensive than machine-drilling.
  LORD MONKSWELL: Not with Chinese labour.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I am afraid I am not competent to discuss the matter with my noble friend. Perhaps Lord Harris can throw some light on the subject. I should certainly have thought that a machine-drill, run by a skilled man, was more economical than a hand-drill run by unskilled labour. We have received no information of any sort which would support the belief of the noble Lord that in the matter of rock-drilling skilled labour is to be superseded by unskilled labour; there is not a vestige of evidence of an official kind, so far as I am aware, which would support his statement. I would remind the noble Lord that the Ordinance defines unskilled labour as labour usually performed by persons belonging to the aboriginal races or tribes in South Africa, and in the schedule there are forty or fifty employments which they must not undertake, and rock-drilling is especially included. It must be remembered, moreover, that there is a severe penalty—a penalty of £500—for any infringement of the rules of the Ordinance. There is a large and vigilant white population in South Africa who would be extremely irritated if by any process the mineowners managed to supersede white men by Kaffirs and Chinese, and there is ample provision in the Ordinance by which the white population can protect themselves. The noble Lord knows that a superintendent or inspector may at any time enter the

  1285
  premises of the mines, and, if there are any complaints, either by the unskilled labourers or the white men, it is his duty to report those complaints, which are then laid before the magistrate of the district. Therefore, if the noble Lord's contention is correct, there is every machinery under the terms of the Ordinance for the infliction of a penalty upon those who in any way violate its terms.
  The noble Lord regretted that we did not express our opinions more definitely as to whether or not certain terms of the Ordinance had been broken. I have always understood that the powers of the Executive and of the legal tribunals in this country were totally distinct. When once the Executive have passed and sanctioned a law, it is the duty of the Judges and magistrates to interpret that law in the way they think right and proper; and if that is so in this country it is equally so in South Africa. If anybody breaks the terms of the Ordinance it is not for us in this country to express an opinion upon it. An expression of opinion by the noble Lord, or, indeed, by a member of His Majesty's Government, would not in any way influence the decision of the Judge or the magistrate on the spot. Therefore, I do not think the noble Lord can reasonably ask me to state whether I think that any terms of the Ordinance have in any way been infringed. That is a matter entirely for the magistrate in South Africa to decide. Let me say, in, conclusion, that, so far as we are aware, none of the terms of the Ordinance have been infringed. We know that the number of whites has largely increased owing to the importation of unskilled labourers, and, so far as we are aware, there has been no attempt to oust the white man from his work and to put in his place Kaffirs or Chinese.
  LORD HARRIS: My Lords, when I sat in a more prominent place on the front Government Bench I was accustomed to have questions shot at me, and I was prepared to answer them, but now that I occupy a more modest seat on the back benches it is certainly embarrassing to have questions put to me from both front benches—questions not merely on highly technical matters con-
  1286
  nected with mining, but on purely hypothetical points. The noble Lord opposite asked me what chances workmen would have of future employment if they took part in an agitation for the conviction of their employers for having allowed coloured men to do work which they are forbidden to do under the Ordinance. I am afraid I cannot answer a conundrum of that kind. My impression is that the working men in South Africa are just as independent and just as capable of combination as the working men in England. I do not know of any difference. Possibly they may be even more independent in the freer atmosphere of a colony than in a country so hidebound as England. I can assure the noble Lord of this, that their trade union is very careful of their interests, and in practical working there would be no necessity whatever for a skilled workman to expose himself to any risks of the kind.
  The introduction of Chinese is governed by law, and it is the business of the Government to see that the law is obeyed. They have the right to send inspectors into the mines to ascertain that the law is being complied with, and I imagine that an inspector would report a company who were allowing coloured men to do work forbidden by law. So far as I understand, the Chinese are not doing any work that the Kaffir did not do before in connection with rock-drilling. My impression is that there is not at this moment in the market any such thing as a hand-drill; that is to say, a drill that can be worked by one man. Possibly there is something coming forward which may be worked more economically; it has not yet been proved, but I believe it is under experiment now. At present the bulk of the work is done by the large drills, on which several coloured labourers and a white overseer work. I cannot help thinking that there has been some mis understanding about the term "overseer." I should have thought that, as regards the work underground, "ganger" would have been the more correct term to use for the man who supervises the placing of the drill in the stope, the direction of the point and things of that kind.

  1287
  The overseers who are being imported with the Chinese are men who can speak Chinese and English, and it is absolutely necessary, not only to have men of that capacity, but to have men of extremely good character who are capable of making clear to the Chinese what is wanted of them, and of explaining away any difficulties that may present themselves as regards the conditions of life in the compounds, the conditions of work, and everything connected with this new undertaking of theirs. Speaking from personal experience, I can assure the noble Lord that the greatest care is being taken to select the very best men that are prepared to engage themselves for this work of overseers in the compounds. These overseers have to go underground as well. I can mention one thing which may, perhaps, reassure the noble Lord opposite as to the possibility of Chinamen being put to work that they are not entitled to do under the Ordinance. Quite recently I asked a colleague of mine who has returned from the Transvaal whether the Chinamen were allowed to do any gardening in the neighbourhood of the compounds, and my friend replied—
  "Oh dear, no. There is such an amount of suspicion as to Chinamen doing work which is not allowed under the Ordinance that they are not permitted to do any gardening for themselves."
  Perhaps I may be allowed to say one word as to the drop in proportion. The drop, in proportion as the number of coloured labourers increases on the mines, is absolutely certain to increase to a certain degree. The noble Duke spoke of new mines. There are very few new mines starting. The bulk of the new stamps that have been dropped belong to old mines which were worked before the war, but to which possibly new stamps have been added since the war. As further manual labour was forthcoming an additional number of stamps could be dropped. But it is essential, whatever the number of labourers, that they should not drop below a certain proportion of white skilled labour. In many cases, where there were only a few stamps being dropped, the proportion of white to coloured labour was perhaps one to five, but that was largely in excess of what
  1288
  is necessary when the full number of stamps are dropped, and it is inevitable that the proportion will go from one to five to one to eight, nine, or ten, or perhaps even more, according to the peculiarities of the different mines.
  I will give your Lordships a practical illustration of what I mean from one particular mine with which I am conversant—the Simmer and Jack Mine, which has the largest number of stamps of any mine on the Rand. To put up the compounds for the Chinese, which cost £40,000, seventy white working men were engaged. In May last the number of white working men employed was 400, while the number of coloured men was something over 2,000. In November, when the compounds had been finished, and any white men in excess of what the mine actually required to work it would have gone, the number of white working men was 575, an increase of nearly 50 per cent., while the number of coloured men, including Chinese, had increased to 5,000. So that, although the proportion of white working men had decreased—that is to say, there were more coloured labourers compared with white men—the number of white men employed had gone up by 50 per cent., and the increase in wages to white men on that mine alone was £3,000 a month.
  If the noble Duke is going to ask Lord Milner to answer the conundrum of how long the men who have been employed on the compounds are going to be employed in the future, he might also ask him what, I think, is a more practical question—namely, how many white men employed in South Africa can attribute their employment to the introduction of Chinese? I think Lord Milner would reply that it is a very large number indeed. That is proved by the fact that at a meeting with regard to railways, Lord Milner pointed out that whereas in November last there had been no hope of increasing the length of the railways in South Africa, suddenly something had occurred to create confidence in South Africa, the money was forthcoming, and they were prepared to make a considerable addition to the mileage in that country. What was it that had given confidence? Why, the knowledge that the

  1289
  one industry in South Africa was going to be allowed to continue and make progress. I must apologise for having occupied the time of your Lordships at such length. I only ventured to rise because I was appealed to, and I conclude by assuring your Lordships that, so far as I know, it is, and has been proved to be, the object of the mineowners, those who manage the mines, to make this introduction of indentured Asiatic labour a thorough success so far as the livelihood of the men themselves is concerned, and, speaking from what I know, I can say that our object is to abide most strictly by the terms of the Ordinance.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, when the noble Duke opposite seemed to complain of the character of the questions asked by my noble friend behind me, I do not think that he was quite so just as we generally find him to those who sit on this side of the House, because it seems to me nothing could be more natural than that my noble friend Lord Monkswell should have asked the Questions on the Paper. Those persons, whether in or out of Parliament, who are such strong supporters of the employment of Chinese labour in South Africa in the conditions in which it is now there employed, have of late been very frequently led to say—I think rather a triumphant expression of the kind fell from the Prime Minister not very long ago—that so far from the employment of Chinese labourers having produced a falling-off in the employment of white men, since Chinese labour was introduced the number of white men employed has increased, and statistics have been laid before Parliament to bear that out.
  Now, the first question asked by my noble friend was an extremely natural one. It was, what kind of employment is included in that Return? We all know that compounds have had to be built and arrangements made for the accommodation of the Chinese. The construction of these compounds and buildings would naturally give employment to a considerable number of white labourers, but that does not in the least degree prove that the permanent employment of white labour in the mines in South Africa has been in-
  1290
  creased by the introduction of Chinese. Of course, the building of these compounds is a temporary business. It may have given, and I daresay has given, a considerable amount of employment at the time, because they had to be put up very rapidly, but it does not in the smallest degree follow, because there has been an increase of white labour for a time in this temporary work, that therefore when that temporary work is finished it will be found that white labour has been permanently increased. Even taking the statistics as they stand and making no deduction for those who are temporarily employed, I take it that the increase of white labour, whatever it has been, has been nothing like in proportion to the increase of Chinese or Kaffir labour. When the noble Duke said it was quite impossible to say how long men might be kept on in their employment I think he misunderstood the object of my noble friend's question on that point. My noble friend did not want to know how long John Smith or James Jones would be kept in the service of any particular employer in South Africa. He wanted to know if the noble Duke could tell him how long the special and temporary work of the erection of these buildings was likely to take.
  I was a little surprised to find how small was the information which appears to be in the possession of His Majesty's Government with respect to the details of this matter. Now, whatever may be thought of this question, it is one of importance. It is a question which has greatly interested, I may say excited, the feelings of many persons in this country, and I venture to say that it is a question on which the Secretary of State for the Colonies might, with great advantage, keep himself adequately informed, so that when questions are asked here or elsewhere it may be possible to reply to them without delay. The noble Duke took exception to what was said by my noble friend behind me in respect to the duty of the Executive in regard to any infringement of the Ordinance by the employment of Chinese labour in forbidden trades. The noble Duke seemed to think that my noble friend was asking that the Executive should in some way or other trench upon the duties of Judges or

  1291
  magistrates. I take it nothing was further from the intention of my noble friend. There is a law, and it may be easily part of the duty of the Executive to prosecute if they think that law is being infringed. There is in South Africa an officer whose business it is, I suppose, to see that the law is properly obeyed, and I do think it is the duty of the Executive Government in South Africa, and if they fail, of the Executive Government here, who are, South Africa being a Crown colony, entirely responsible for what goes on in that country—it is their duty carefully to see that the Ordinance which they themselves passed is carried out.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I have only a few words to say in reply, for the noble Marquess who has just sat down has been kind enough to take a great deal of that duty off my hands. I would observe, with regard to the somewhat optimistic utterances of the noble Duke as to the future of white labour, that what we contend is that although at present there may be, and is, a considerable amount of white labour employed on the Rand, still the tendency is for that labour to decrease after a certain time. We have heard with regard to other matters that it is the tendency we must look to. Well, in South Africa it is not so much to what is happening to-day, but to the tendency that we must look. We find the chairman of one of the biggest mines on the Rand stating that they are going to replace the machine-drill by the hand-drill. The noble Duke is not particularly well posted as to the difference between the two, but it has been asserted over and over again in the Press that the difference is that in working the machine-drill you must employ very skilled white labour, whilst unskilled labour can work the hand-drill. I think the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Onslow) said in a debate last year that persons who work a machine-drill get £32 a month. Now, it is the intention of the mineowners to get rid of these men to whom they pay £32 a month, and to substitute what is technically unskilled yellow labour. It is perfectly clear under the Ordinance that Chinamen may work a hand-drill but not a machine-drill, and
  1292
  the mineowners say they will have the machine-drill done away with and the hand-drill substituted. I was very sorry to hear the statement made by Lord Harris that these wretched Chinamen are not even allowed to work in their own gardens. It seems to me that that is a terribly servile condition of labour.
  LORD HARRIS: It is according to the Ordinance.
  LORD MONKSWELL: What, that they may not work in their own gardens?
  LORD HARRIS: They may not be gardeners.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I do not understand that a man is necessarily a gardener because he works in his own garden. I hope the Secretary of State will take notice of what the noble Lord has said, and that the wretched Chinaman will have one servile condition the less imposed upon him. The question of the overseers is one which I think might very well engage the attention of the Secretary of State. These men, it seems, are highly skilled men—who speak two languages—Chinese and English. They are not English, but Chinese, and it does appear to me——
  LORD HARRIS: The men I refer to are not Chinese. They may not be Englishmen, but they are certainly not Chinese.
  LORD MONKSWELL: It seems to me that this is a case very much on the border line of the Ordinance, and I should have thought it desirable to take a test case on that matter. On the question of proportion, I understand that the proportion of white men to Kaffirs is one to seven or eight, but that the proportion of white men to Chinamen is about one to forty.
  LORD HARRIS: I think the proportion will be found to be precisely the same, whether Kaffirs or Chinese.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I am glad to get that information from the noble Lord, but it is contrary to what has appeared in the public Press. One objection taken to

  1293
  the employment of Chinese, who are so much better workmen than the Kaffirs, is that forty Chinamen can be looked after by one white man, whereas one white man cannot look after more than eight or ten Kaffirs. As the noble Duke has promised that a communication shall be forwarded to Lord Milner asking for the information for which I have moved, I am perfectly willing to accept that, and I withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.