Sitting of 22 March 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP C).
Mr. STEVENSON Mr. STEVENSON reported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned until Friday, at Twelve of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
London Gas Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Gas Light and Coke, South Metropolitan and Commercial Gas Companies Bill. Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Sale of Bread (London) Bill. Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  HOUSE LETTING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against; from Falkirk; and Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Petition from Aylesbury, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NORTH SEA INCIDENT.
  Copy presented, of Reports thereon by the Commissioners appointed by the Board of Trade, with covering Memorandum by Sir Francis Hopwood, K.C.B., C.M.G., Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY CLOTHING FACTORY.
  Annual Account presented, of the Royal Army Clothing Factory for the year 1903–4, with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No.91.]
  NATIONAL GALLERY, ETC. (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Eleventh Annual Report to the Secretary for Scotland by the Commissioners and Trustees of the Board of Manufactures in Scotland, being for the year ending 30th September, 1904, [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Irish Land Commission (Account). Copy of Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General upon the Account of the Irish Land Commission for the year ended 31st March, 1904 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 92.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Reports on Erosion of Sea Cliffs around British Coast.
  MR. MARKS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether reports are periodically made to the Admiralty by the coastguards as to the erosion of the sea cliffs around the British coast, and as to the removal of shingle and other material from the beaches; and whether any, and if any what, action is taken upon such reports.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The coastguard officers report to the Association for the Advancement of Science observations of coast changes; and to the Board of Trade the removal of shingle and other material from the beaches; but no periodical reports are made as to erosion of sea cliffs around the British coast.

  Head Post Offices in Derbyshire.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can give the names and populations of the towns in the county of Derby which are classed as head post offices, excluding the county borough of Derby;

  779
  and state how many of these towns exceed in population the borough of Ilkeston, which is classed as a railway sub-office.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Some towns with head offices in Derbyshire and many elsewhere have a smaller population than Ilkeston; but this is not a reason for giving Ilkeston a head office, since the population of a town is not the principal consideration in determining whether a head post office should be placed there. I do not think, therefore, that any useful purpose would be served by giving the detailed information for which the hon. Member asks.

  Motor Speed Limit in London Parks.
  SIR CHARLES CAYZER: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the regulations providing for a speed limit of ten miles per hour for motor-cars proceeding through the London parks have been ratified by Parliament; and, if so, whether he will issue instructions (the limit of speed outside the parks being twenty miles per hour) to warn drivers by means of a large placard or danger signal to slow down to the regulation speed on entering the parks.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The Answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative; the rules under which the regulation limiting the speed of cars to ten miles per hour is made having been duly laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament. A notice has been posted at the entrances to the parks warning motorists of the limit of speed.

  Terms of Purchase on the Wolseley Estate, Cloneygowan (King's County).
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the Wolseley Estate, Cloneygowan, King's County, offered to purchase their holdings at nineteen years purchase for first-term and non-judicial rents, and twenty-one and a-half years purchase for second-term rents; that this offer was accepted at the sale of the estate in the Land Judge's Court on the 27th of October last; and
  780
  that when about to sign the final agreements some of the tenants were called upon to agree to terms in excess of the Land Judge's Court's decision by from one year's to two years purchase; and, if so, whether he will take steps to secure that the decision of the Court shall be binding on the vendors.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Land Judge, when approving of the sale to the tenants, directed that certain sums should be paid by them in respect of arrears of rent, and indicated that application should be made to the Land Commission to increase the advances accordingly. The Land Commission are prepared to increase the advances to the required, extent if the tenants make the necessary application.

  Manufacture of Rifles and Bayonets— Discharges at Government Factories.
  COLONEL BOWLES: To ask the Financial Secretary to-the War Office what sum of the £325,000 devoted to rifles and bayonets in the Estimates it is proposed to expend at the Enfield Factory; and why is the Estimate for rifles and bayonets £6,000 in excess of the amount spent last year, when so many men have received notice of discharge at Enfield and Sparkbrook.
  (Answered by Mr. Bromley Davenport.) The amount available for rifles and bayonets next year is £443,000, as compared with £606,000 for the current year. In both years additions to the amounts shown in Estimates have to be made for orders from India, the Navy, and the Colonies. It is not possible to state at present what orders will be allocated to Enfield.

  The Land Tax.
  MR. MORRELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state on what basis was the land tax fixed on agricultural land in 1798, and what amount it was calculated to bring in per acre to the revenue then; how much land tax has been redeemed since that time, in what sum has the National Debt or other Government stock been reduced thereby, and what does this redemption money

  781
  represent as paid per acre for the agricultural land redeemed; what amount does the land tax bring in now; and what does this represent per acre of unredeemed agricultural land.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) For the year 1798 the sum of £2,037,627 was directed to be raised by a land tax to be charged upon (1) Personal estate; (2) Salaries of public officers, etc.,and (3) Houses, lands, and all other hereditaments. The total amount obtained from houses, lands, and other hereditaments for that year was £1,905,077. The amount of land tax payable by each parish or place for the year 1798 in respect of houses, lands, and other hereditaments therein, became fixed by the Act of that year as the amount to be paid by such parish or place annually in perpetuity in respect of the houses, lands, and other hereditaments therein (which were directed to be assessed by a pound rate), subject, however, to redemption. The total amount redeemed up to the 31st March, 1904, was £934,523; and resulting from such redemption the National Debt has been reduced by about £33,000,000. The amount unredeemed is £970,554; but, under the provisions of the Finance Acts of 1896 and 1898, about £230,000 thereof is remitted annually, so that the amount brought in by this tax is now about £740,000. It is not possible to give any details of the amounts charged or redeemed in respect of agricultural land alone, as the tax is not confined to agricultural land, but is charged upon all hereditaments, and contributed by each parish as a whole.

  Extra Cost Involved by Meeting of Congested Districts Board in London.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a meeting of the Congested Districts Board, under, the chairmanship of Sir Antony MacDonnell and including the Roman Catholic Bishop of Raphoe and the Rev. Denis O'Hara and five other gentlemen, was held at the Irish Office, London, on the 15th instant; whether, seeing that every one of the gentlemen present is ordinarily resident in Ireland, he will say for what reason or to suit whose convenience
  782
  was this meeting held in London; and what is the extra cost involved thereby.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It has been the Board's practice for many years to hold in London the meeting at which their annual estimates are discussed and prepared, the object being that the Chief Secretary may be able to preside without interruption to his Parliamentary duties. I was unavoidably prevented from attending the recent meeting. The extra cost involved was about £50.

  Supply of Seed Oats for the Belmullet Union.
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Belmullet District Council have repeatedly impressed on the Local Government Board the necessity of supplying seed oats in that union; and whether, in view of the almost total failure of the crop in Belmullet Union last year, he will urge the Local Government Board to reconsider their decision with a view to granting the request of the Belmullet Council.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Two resolutions of the Belmullet guardians to the effect mentioned have been received by the Local Government Board. The Board are satisfied that no necessity exists for including seed oats in the seed supply operations of this year.

  Seed Potatoes for Belmullet Union— Repayment of Cost.
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will take into consideration the resolution recently passed by the Belmullet District Council asking that the repayment of the cost of seed potatoes issued this year may be collected in four instalments instead of two as formerly.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The two instalments of the seed supply loan in this case will not be collected until after 1st April, 1906, and 1st April, 1907 respectively. Inasmuch as the rates to be struck in each year are collectable in

  783
  two moieties, the repayment for the seed will practically be made in four instalments.

  Supervisors at Belmullet and Binghams- town—Case of Messrs. Munnelly and Gaughan.
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the grounds on which Mr. Michael Munnelly and Michael Gaughan were relieved of their positions as local supervisors of the parish committee works under the Congested Districts Board in the parishes of Belmullet and Binghamstown, county Mayo; and why their work was transferred to an official already in the Board's service.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The persons named were not relieved of their positions as supervisors. The Board objected to their appointment as such in the first instance, in the case of Mr. Munnelly because he was a district councillor and therefore ineligible, and in the case of Mr. Gaughan because an officer of the Board was available for the work. Mr. Munnelly has since resigned his district councillorship, and both he and Mr. Gaughan have been appointed supervisors.

  Gun Licences in Ireland—Case of Mr. Michael Munnelly.
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state any reason why Mr. Michael Munnelly, rural district councillor, of Carramore, Bangor, Erris (Belmullet Union), has been refused a licence to carry a gun.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The question of the issue of an arms licence is one for the consideration of the resident magistrate, who is the licensing officer of the district. It would be contrary to the invariable practice to state the reasons which actuated the licensing officer in declining, in the exercise of his discretion, to grant a licence in any particular case.

  Winchelsea and Rye Military Road— Suggested Transfer to Local Authorities.
  DR. HUTCHINSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he
  784
  can see his way to putting the military road between Winchelsea and Rye in proper repair and handing it over to the local authority so as to get rid of the tollgate, which is a hindrance to trade and communication between the two towns.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The whole question is at present under consideration.

  Income-Tax Systems in British Colonies and Foreign Countries.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Return relating to systems of graduated and differentiated income-tax in British Colonies, ordered on 11th August, 1904, will be presented before the Budget discussions begin; and whether this Return can be published simultaneously with the similar information relating to foreign countries which the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs undertook, on 10th August, 1904, that the Foreign Office would endeavour to obtain.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) Replies to the circular despatch asking for these Returns have been received from some of the Colonies, but several of the more important, including Canada, New Zealand, and some of the Australian States, have not yet answered. I am consequently unable to say when these Returns will be ready, but I am telegraphing to ask that they may be sent to me as soon as possible. I fear that there is no probability of their reaching me in time to be published with the Foreign Office Returns

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Cost of the British Infantryman.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the cost of the infantry soldier quartered in England in the items of pay, clothing, rifles, accoutrements, ammunition, and rifle ranges; and also the total additional cost per man of barracks, rations, barrack services, churches, schools, workshops, medical attendance, married quarter, and all

  785
  establishments necessitated by our present system.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the Questions addressed to the War Department to-day. The pay, clothing, arms, and accoutrements for an infantry soldier at home represent a money value of £40 3s. The other items referred to in the Question amount to about £28. No separate figures are available for infantry as regards this part of the Question.

  1st Scottish Horse—Overpayments to Officers and Men.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to certain statements made by the Comptroller - General in regard to the 1st Regiment of Scottish Horse, according to which it would appear that overpayments have been made to the officers and men of the regiment; and whether it is intended to take any steps to recover these amounts.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Every effort was made to effect any possible recoveries before the loss was written off. The officer acting as Corps Paymaster, who was responsible for the loss, was deprived of his war gratuity, but, in view of his inexperience, it was held that no further penalty should be inflicted.
  MR LABOUCHERE:Does the hon. Gentleman not know that a very large sum was lost, and does he think that a sufficient penalty?
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Not so very large, Sir. I think about £180.

  South African War—Jam Contract Scandal.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Comptroller - General that he requested the War Office to tell him what were the terms of certain contracts in regard to jam for the troops in
  786
  South Africa, and to his further statement that to the inquiries which were addressed to the War Office on April 26th, 1904, he had, up to the present, received no reply; why there was this delay in replying; and whether he will communicate to the House what were the terms of these contracts.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is open to convey an impression which I am sure is not intended. It is true that a final reply is only now being sent, but intimations that the question was receiving consideration were sent to him. I regret the long delay, which was mainly due to the necessity of correspondence with South Africa, and with the representatives of the Colonies concerned.

  Royal Yeomanry Expenditure in South Africa.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has observed the statement in the Report of the Comptroller - General, recently laid upon the Table of the House, in regard to the Royal Yeomanry embodied during the late South African War, that out of the total sum granted, £1,265,000, it appears that for more than one-third (£460,000) no details or vouchers were produced; and, if so, will he explain why this money was paid by the War Office without vouchers or details, and whether this is the usual practice of that office in regard to such payments.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Will the hon. Member kindly refer to the reply which my right hon. friend gave yesterday† to a Question put on this subject by the hon. Member for North Camberwell.

  Cost of South African Irregular Forces— Deficiency of Vouchers.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has noticed the statements of the Comptroller - General in his Report, recently laid upon the Table of the House, that the deficiency on the final pay list of the Rhodesian Regiment was £7,096 19s. 6d., and will he say
  † See page 636.

  787
  whether this regiment formed part of the forces raised by the British South Africa Company; that the deficiency on the accounts of a Cape Colony Volunteer corps employed during the war was £1,475 12s., and the deficiency on the accounts of the South Africa Mounted Irregular Corps depots £3,050 6s. 9d.; and, if so, whether he can explain how these sums came to be paid by the War Office, and if any steps have been, or are being, taken for their repayment; whether his attention has been called to the statement that the expenditure by the British South Africa Company in respect of stores and for the equipment of the Rhodesian Field Force imperfectly vouched was £36,575; and, if so, will he say what was the amount imperfectly vouched; why it was paid without vouchers; what is the total amount paid to the South Africa Company in regard to war expenditure; and how much of this was not vouched for, or full details submitted to the War Office.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The three corps first mentioned in the Question were raised or called out for Imperial purposes and were paid from Army funds. Any deficiencies in their accounts which were attributed to war exigencies were therefore borne by Army funds. Every effort has been made to recover the monies due, which were, generally speaking, overpayments to men. The Rhodesian Regiment did not form part of the forces raised by the British South Africa Company. The greater part of the deficiency in this case arose through the loss of the pay lists of one of the squadrons covering a period of six months. In the case of Marshall's Horse, the Cape Volunteer corps mentioned, the officer acting as paymaster was dismissed the service for neglect of duty. As regards the last part of the Question affecting the British South Africa Company, all payments to the company were duly vouched. The documents missing were such as were required to trace the disposal of the stores after they were received. The total expenditure was £1,681,818. Store vouchers were lacking to account for the subsequent disposal of stores to the value of £76,444.

  Enfield and Sparkbrook Factories— Discharge of Men
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the practicability of allotting the orders for small arms in such a way as will enable the workmen employed at Sparkbrook and Enfield Government factories to work three-quarter time, thus preventing the necessity of discharging so many men, and keeping the machinery of the nation in use.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: After the discharge of the 500 men now under notice, it has been arranged to work three-quarter time until it can be ascertained whether any further orders can be given to the small arms factories, but, short time can only be justified as a temporary measure when there is a prospect of being able to resume full work in a reasonable time.

  Illustrated Dress Regulations.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what has been the expense of the printing and publishing of a large illustrated volume of dress regulations issued by the War Office; how many copies of this work have been printed; to whom are the copies to be presented; are they for sale or distributed gratuitously; who is the author of this work; at whose discretion was it compiled; and under what War Office Estimate will it be included.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The cost of the book was £642. Seven thousand copies were printed. Copies have been distributed gratuitously to the various units and offices of the Army. Officers and others desiring copies obtain them by purchase. The book was compiled under the direction and in the office of the Quartermaster-General. The cost is borne by Stationery Office Votes.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Can we have copies of this precious literature in the tea and smoking rooms?
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I will put a copy in the tea-room if the hon. Member likes?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Yes, please.

  Grants to Rifle Clubs.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when it is proposed to make a grant to rifle clubs as foreshadowed in his speech last session; and what will be the amount of such grant.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: It is not possible to give any grant to rifle clubs at present, nor am I in a position to state when it is probable that financial considerations will admit of such a grant being made.
  MAJOR SEELY: May I point out that a grant was definitely promised, and many rifle clubs find it very difficult to make both ends meet.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I do not quite admit that the promise was definite.

  Militia Officers.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the difficulty in obtaining officers for the Militia owing to the state of uncertainty as to the future of that force, he can state when it is proposed to make a definite announcement on the subject.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: With regard to the organisation of the Militia I have nothing at present to add to the proposals already set forth in the Memorandum on the Estimates for 1905–06. I am not, however, aware that there is any increased deficiency in the numbers of Militia officers due to the reason alleged in the Question.

  Transvaal War Contribution Agreement.
  *MR. MCCRAE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it was a condition of the agreement with the guarantors of the £30,000,000 Transvaal Loan that any premium resulting from the issue of the loan should be paid over to the Transvaal Government.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): The undertaking
  790
  of the guarantors extends only to the first instalment of £10,000,000. With this exception the Answer is yes.
  *MR. McCRAE: Was it not a condition that any premium on the whole £30,000,000 should go to the Transvaal Government?
  MR. LYTTELTON: I must ask for notice of that.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that Answer quite consistent with his speech the other night?
  MR. LYTTELTON: It is a correction, but not a very important one.

  Indian Mineral Wealth.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the recently published review, by the Director of the Geological Survey of India, of the last six years progress in the development of Indian mineral wealth; whether he is aware that the annual production of minerals during this period is valued at less than £5,000,000; and whether the Government of India propose taking practical steps in the immediate future to secure the further development of Indian industries.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guild-ford): I have seen the Report. The Report brings out the fact that, though the average value for the six years is under £5,000,000, there has been a steady progress in production, representing an increase of 44 per cent, in the period. There is reason to hope that this progress will continue. The development of mineral and other industries in India will have the attention of the newly created Department of Commerce and Industry.

  The Budget.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state on what day the Budget will be introduced.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): I propose to introduce the Budget during the week beginning with Monday, April 10th, and probably on that day.

  Scottish Universities.
  MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the recent increase of grants to University colleges in England and Wales, it is proposed to augment the provision made for the Scottish Universities.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this. Only one Scottish University college, that at Dundee, has hitherto participated in this grant, and in agreeing to increase the grant in response to representations made to me by the University Colleges I said I would invoke the services of a Committee to advise me with regard to its distribution. Accordingly the Treasury appointed a Committee, consisting of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Haddingtonshire, Sir F. Mowatt, Mr. Cripps, M.P., and Dr. Woods, who in advising as to the allocation of the increased grant said—"We agree with all previous Committees in regarding the inclusion of University College, Dundee, as anomalous, as the college is now part of a Scottish University which is provided for under a separate statutory grant." It is not proposed, therefore, to give this college any share of the additional grant. Up to the present time, notwithstanding the Reports of various Committees, it has received its own grant of £1,000.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The present grant to Dundee College will be maintained.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot commit myself to that in view of the opinion of a Committee that the grant is anomalous. The matter is being considered.
  MR. CHARLES DOUGLASpointed out that his question was whether, in view
  792
  of the increased grants to the University colleges in England and Wales, the provision made for the Scottish Universities would be increased.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINreplied in the negative, and said he regarded the increase to English University colleges as the first equivalent grant to England for grants which had long been enjoyed by Scotland.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: And is there to be any augmentation of any sort or kind of the grant for higher education in Ireland?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My
  answer to that is that this is an equivalent grant for England alone.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Equivalent for what?
  *MR. SPEAKER: This Question does not relate to Ireland, and of any further inquiry in that direction notice must be given in the ordinary way.
  MR. LOUGH: Is there any precedent for promising a grant of this kind without first obtaining the approval of Parliament?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. Sir, an exact precedent.
  MR. CLANCY: Is any subvention made out of local rates in aid of these colleges?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In certain cases contributions from the rates are made by the local authorities to the Universities of which the colleges form part, but I must ask for notice of the Question whether there is any direct subsidy from the rates.

  Income-Tax Assessments.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can say what proportion of the total number of persons assessed to income-tax had paid their tax before the 1st of March in 1904 and in 1905.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am advised that the figures in question

  793
  could not be obtained without immense labour extending over a long period and at considerable expense (as the collectors would have to be paid extra for making out the Return). I may remind the hon. Member that a Return has already been ordered on the Motion of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, which will give the percentage of the charges collected before the 1st of March in 1904 and 1905, and this, I hope, will be sufficient.
  MR. WHITLEY: When may we hope for that Return?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It asks for the figures up to March 1st in the present year, and I hope it will not be very much longer before it is presented to the House, but I cannot fix a day.

  Pay of Postal Servants.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will issue his proposed scheme of improved scales of pay for the postal service at least two weeks before the discussion on the Post Office Estimates is taken, that time may be given for the consideration by the staff of his proposals.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): I hope to announce the new scales of pay in the course of a few days, probably on Monday or Tuesday. As the next two weeks are already allocated, it is clear the matter cannot be debated for some time.

  Conventual Laundries.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the names and localities of all conventual laundries in the United Kingdom, the number, names, and localities of those under Government inspection, together with the number of times they have been inspected for the past five years.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERSDOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): All I can do is to lay on the Table of the, House the list referred to in the Answer
  794
  given to the hon. Member on Thursday last,†with an explanatory note. This I shall be happy to do.

  Vaccination Exemption Certificates.
  MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that magistrates throughout the country place different constructions on the term "conscientious objection," as defined in the Vaccination Act, 1898, cases having recently occurred in which a man who has been granted a certificate of exemption for one child his been refused a certificate for another, although he has, in each instance, raised precisely the same conscientious objection to vaccination, will he state when he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House the Circular issued by the Home Office calling attention to the remarks made by the Lord Chief Justice relative to the principle on which the Act ought to be administered; and will he consider the expediency of so amending the Act as to remove the difficulty experienced by magistrates.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: If the hon. Member will move for this Circular in the form of a Return I shall be happy to grant it. The question of legislation on the subject of vaccination is one for the President of the Local Government Board.

  Metropolitan Police Clothing Contract.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state for how many years the contract for the supply of clothing to the sergeants and constables of the Metropolitan Police Force has been held by the present contractors; the prices paid for tunics, great coats, serge jackets, and trousers; and since what time tenders for these articles have not been invited from other firms.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The present clothing contract was made in September, 1890. It is a "running" contract, and contains provision for reviewing from time to time the prices of the articles supplied. I do not think it would be
  † See page 193

  795
  in the public interest that I should state those prices. No other firms have been invited to tender since 1890.

  Electrification of Railways.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that the North Eastern Railway Company adopted the system of electric traction last March on their own responsibility and without obtaining specific statutory powers, involving preliminary inspection on behalf of the Board of Trade, and that, although only thirty-three miles of the line is at the present time thus worked, as many as twenty-eight accidents have occurred through contact with the electrically charged rail, five fatal, will he take steps to warn other railway companies that they should obtain specific statutory powers before adopting this system of traction.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars): No, Sir, As I explained to the hon. Member in my reply of March 14th,† the Board of Trade are not able to take the steps suggested. With regard to the figures given by the hon. Member, I should perhaps explain that, while twenty-eight accidents have occurred from the use of electrical power on the railway in question, seven of these were not due to actual contact with the live rail.
  MR. WEIR: Then I take it that any railway company is entitled to adopt a system of electric traction on its own responsibility, without first obtaining statutory powers.
  MR. BONAR LAW: The hon. Member is, I think, under a misconception. We have considered the question from a legal point of view, but I am not prepared to say that they have not such powers.

  Boy Apprentices in the Mercantile Navy.
  SIR ROBERT ROPNER:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will state the number of
  †See (4) Debates cxlii., 1378.
  796
  boys who have been, up to now, apprenticed to the sea in the mercantile navy, under the scheme initiated by the right hon. Member for Croydon when President of the Board of Trade.
  MR. BONAR LAW: The number of boy sailors enrolled up to the 18th instant under the scheme referred to by my hon. friend was 4,373.

  Foreigners in the British Mercantile Marine.
  MR. MARKS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can state whether he has any official information showing that the increase in the number of foreigners in the British mercantile marine is due, in a large measure, to shipowners drawing up the articles of agreement between themselves and their crews in such a way as to provide that the final port of discharge shall be a port on the Continent; and that the reason for this practice is that the wages payable at Continental ports are lower than those paid at British ports; and, if so, whether he will take steps to put some check on the discharge of seamen on British ships at ports on the Continent.
  MR. BONAR LAW: The increase in the number of foreigners employed in our mercantile marine is due to a variety of causes, and I have no official information showing that the cause indicated by the hon. Member is the chief one. The Board of Trade have no power to prevent or check the practice of discharging crews at foreign ports.
  MR. CROOKS: May I ask whether the accommodation, or cubic space, for foreign seamen differs from that provided for British sailors?
  MR. BONAR LAW: I must ask for notice of that Question.

  Nelson's Widows Pension Scheme.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he is aware that the Official Receiver, in his report on the Nelson's Widows Pension Scheme, has stated that, in his opinion, fraud has been committed in the company's business; and whether he has

  797
  taken, or intends to take, steps to put the Public Prosecutor in motion with reference to this case.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): This case is still under investigation by the Official Receiver and the Court, and I am not at present in a position to express an opinion upon it.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will you give a guarantee that the rule in Whitaker Wright's case will not be adopted here?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  St. James's Park.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when he proposes to repair the asphalted roadway of the bridge in St. James's Park and the paths leading thereto, to which his attention was drawn last summer.
  LORD BALCARRES: Some repairs were done last autumn; but nothing short of complete renewal will be satisfactory, at a cost of ome hundreds of pounds. It has not been found possible to make provision for the whole cost this year; but it is hoped that some portion may be undertaken in the autumn, the rest being deferred until 1906–7.

  Statue of Queen Victoria for Westminster Hall.
  SIR BENJAMIN STONE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if it is contemplated placing a statue of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria in Westminster Hall.
  LORD BALCARRES: This matter has been under consideration. There are difficulties in regard to it which can be more conveniently stated verbally than in an Answer in the House; and the First Commissioner would be happy to explain the circumstances personally to my hon. friend.

  Training of Boys from the Scottish Con- gested Districts at the Liscard Institute, Liverpool.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate, whether the invitation of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland to provide for the maintenance of twenty boys from the congested districts to be trained in seamanship at Liscard Institution, Liverpool, has been responded to; and, if so, will he state from what parishes applications have been received, and the number from each parish.
  THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): Up to the present no applications have been received. The Lews Local Committee, however, represent that sufficient time has not yet been given for due consideration of this scheme.

  Training of Girls from the Scottish Con- gested Districts as Domestic Servants.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state the conditions under which the Congested Districts Board for Scotland undertake to place girls from congested districts in the institution under the control of the Aberdeen Educational Trust for training in domestic service, and the number so placed.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: In answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question I may refer him to a letter from the Under-Secretary for Scotland to Major Matheson, chairman of the Lews (Balfour) Committee, a copy of which has been sent him. Twenty-one applications, including twelve from the Lews, have been received, but the Congested Districts Board do not get possession of the Home till Whit-Sunday.

  Belfast Valuation Appeals.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Kilkenny, I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland is he aware that in the revision lists sent to the City Council of Belfast on March 1st by the Commissioner of Valuation for the present year there do not appear on the lists showing his decisions those cases of appeals in which he made no alteration; and, a those apellants have the right of further

  799
  appeal to quarter sessions, will he see that these cases are added to the lists before the 28th inst., the last day for appealing further.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): The Belfast Valuation Roll, which is amended by the revision lists issued on March 1st, contains every rateable valuation in that city. But to prevent any question as to right of appeal, the Commissioner will issue the supplemental lists asked for before the end of the week.

  Cahirciveen Technical School.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the committee of the Kerry County Council have repeatedly during the past five years recommended a grant of £80 to the Technical School, Presentation Convent, Cahirciveen; and can he state for what reason the Department of Agriculture has refused To sanction this grant.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): The Department declined to sanction a grant for the equipment of a hosiery industry in this institution because they were of opinion that the capitation grant of £2 per head, payable under the county council scheme of technical instruction, would afford adequate aid.

  Department of Agriculture—Catholic Clerks.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what has been the loss in official income from all sources to the Catholic clerks lately transferred from the veternary branch to the fisheries branch of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland.
  MR. WALTER LONG: One clerk only was transferred, and there was no loss of official income in his case.

  Dublin Public Institutions—Wages of Attendants.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland
  800
  can he state when the terms of settled wages already granted to the staffs of the South Kensington and Edinburgh Museums will be granted to the attendants of the Science and Art and National History Museums, the School of Art, and Royal College of Science in Dublin.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The matter is under consideration, and will, it is expected, be dealt with in the course of the present year.

  Roads (Kerry) Landing Stage.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he state whether the alterations of the landing facilities at Roads, county Kerry, have been satisfactorily carried out by the Congested Districts Board; and, if not, can he state when the works will be completed.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Progress has been made with these works, but it is not expected that they will be completed until the summer.

  O'Donnell Estate, Erris, County Mayo.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the O'Donnell property in Erris, county Mayo, has been purchased by the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, how many years purchase have been paid for it; and, if the property has not yet been purchased, will the Board, in any future negotiations they may have with the owner or with the solicitors to the mortgagees, with a view to purchase, have regard to the price paid for the adjoining estate, the O'Reilly Digby Estate, now in the hands of the Board.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir, this property has not been purchased by the Board.

  Coyne Estate, Erris, County Mayo.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the Coyne Estate in Erris, county Mayo, has been purchased by the Congested Districts Board or by the Estates Commissioners; and, if not, whether negotiations for its purchase are proceeding

  801
  between either of these two bodies and the owner.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Answer to both of these inquiries is in the negative.

  Island of Inniskea.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any negotiations are proceeding between the Congested Districts Board and Mr. E. C. Walsh for the purchase of the Island of Inniskea, the property of that gentleman; and, if so, whether the Board will consent to buy unless the mainland portion of the property is included in the sale.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Board have purchased the Inishkea Islands, but not the mainland portion of the estate.

  Somers Estate, Ballycowan.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the agent for the Somers Estate at Bally-cowan, near Tullamore, who is also agent for the adjacent Bury Estate, has refused the proposal of the Somers Estate tenants to sell direct to the Estates Commissioners, and has threatened them, failing their compliance with his own proposals, to sell a portion of the Somers Estate to another person for whom he is also agent; and, if so, will he say what action he will take in the matter.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No originating application in respect of this estate has been received by the Estates Commissioners, who have no information as to the allegations contained in the Question. No action on my part is called for.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a planter named Owen, who, for the past sixteen years, has occupied two evicted farms on the Somers Estate at Ballycowan, near Tullamore, under special police protection alleged to be necessary and costing the King's County at least £3,000, has been allowed to purchase these farms under the Land
  802
  Purchase Act of 1903, although the tenants on the estate made it a condition of negotiation for purchase that the evicted tenants of the farms held by Owen should be restored; and, if so, will he state what steps he proposes to take.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Proceedings for the sale of the King's County portion of this estate have not yet been initiated before the Estates Commissioners. The cost of Mr. Owen's protection, of the amount of which I have no information, has been defrayed from moneys voted by Parliament, and has entailed no charge on the ratepayers.

  Vaccination of Public Servants.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that candidates for the public service are not allowed to take up appointments unless they have been vaccinated; and, seeing that this regulation penalises candidates who have a conscientious objection to vaccination, will he so amend the regulations as to make it competent for such persons to secure their appointments under a certificate of exemption granted under the Conscience Clause of
  The Vaccination Act, 1898.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I think the hon. Gentleman must be under some misapprehension. I never heard that any objection felt by candidates to being vaccinated themselves would constitute conscientious objection. The conscientious objection is to the vaccination of their children.

  The Colonial Conference and Fiscal Reform.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of his declaration as to the impossibility of placing a permanent protective and preferential duty upon foodstuffs, he will communicate this determination to the various Colonial Premiers prior to convening the proposed Colonial Conference.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My desire is that the Conference should be a free conference and there should be no declaration on this subject on either side before the Conference is convened.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury on what date it is intended to issue the invitations to the Colonial Conference in 1906, and, as a supplementary Question, whether the taxation of imported raw material will be excluded from the reference.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No date has been fixed for the issue of the invitations.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Can the hon. Gentleman not answer the supplementary Question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Evidently, until the date has been fixed, it would be quite premature to mention the terms of reference.

  Establishment of a British Consulate at Baku.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the amount of British capital invested in Baku and the district of which it is the commercial centre, the Government will, for the protection and promotion of British interests, establish a British Consulate at that place.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This matter has been considered by the Government, but so far no satisfactory arrangement has been come to with Russia.

  Importation of Manufactured Goods— Effect on Staple Industries.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the attention of the Government has been called to the importation for consumption last year of upwards of £110,000,000 worth of articles wholly or mainly manufactured in foreign countries, and to the fact that one-half of these imports consisted of finished articles, giving no employment to British
  804
  artisans, and if, in devising schemes for the relief of the distress prevailing from want of employment, His Majesty's Government will consider the influence of this foreign competition with the staple industries of the masses of the people.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the figures of the importation of manufactured and partly manufactured goods is somewhere over £100,000,000 a year. So much for that part of my hon. friend's Question. As to the Question which deals with the whole problem of protection or non-protection, I think my hon. and gallant friend will agree with me that I can hardly deal with it in answer to a Question across the floor of the House.

  Registration of Nurses.
  DR. HUTCHINSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is his intention to reappoint the Select Committee to inquire into the question of Registration of Nurses.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the Committee will be reappointed in a few days.

  Government Factories.
  MR. BENN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Cabinet have now had for some time under their consideration certain of the most pressing difficulties connected with the manufacture by Government Departments, and in particular the relation which such manufactures have to the cost of living and the concentration of population in the metropolitan area, he will extend the consideration and inquiry to like difficulties which exist in regard to Government workers in dockyard centres.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not deny that possibly the subject to which the hon. Gentleman refers might be submitted to a Committee; but I think the particular Committee to which he refers had better deal with the rather difficult and complicated problems already submitted to them, and until they have done that I should hardly like to give any specific pledge as to their next labours.

  Law Officers' Remuneration.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that for the last three years the salaries and fees of the Law Officers of the Crown, which amounted in that period to nearly £100,000, have been voted by the House without discussion; and whether he will take any steps to secure that in the present year these salaries and fees will be subjected to Parliamentary criticism.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the hon. Member's figures are not correct, and that the total should not be £100,000, but somewhere about £75,000, for the three years. I have no objection to this Vote coming up for discussion if the House so desires. Whether it would not exclude the discussion of more important Votes it is not for me to determine, but for the Opposition and those who usually advise me on the manner in which the Votes should be distributed.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman had no objection last year, but he deliberately guillotined that Vote.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR; When the hon. Member says I deliberately guillotined that Vote, I suppose he means that it was, as a matter of fact, closured at the end of the allotted days.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I charge him with having prevented discussion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, then, the charge is incorrect.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I adhere to it.

  Company Law.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury why has not the legislation, which he promised on the 19th February, 1903, would be introduced as soon as possible, for an amendment in the law, providing adequate remedies for the frauds disclosed in the case of Whitaker Wright and the Globe Finance Company, been introduced; and what explanation, if any, has he to give with respect to his failure to perform his
  806
  promise to the House of Commons more than two years ago to take steps for the carrying into effect of this legislation to amend the law.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed as to the facts. In accordance with the pledge to which he refers, a Bill was introduced last year. It was opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Government are anxious to proceed with it this year, and my hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General has got the measure prepared and is quite ready to proceed with it.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make this a Government measure? The right hon. Gentleman gave a distinct pledge that he would make the law conform to a broad view of commercial morality.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman. It was a Government Bill last year. It will be a Government Bill this year. What more does he want?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I want it passed, and not obstructed by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if an opportunity will be given to discuss the Army Clothing Vote?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That does not rest with me. It is a question whether under the Order recently passed the Votes can be rearranged. If they can, the Government have no objection to giving effect to the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman.

  SHIPOWNERS' NEGLIGENCE (REMEDIES) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Law, etc.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No.93.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No.93.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, 30th June, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure:—Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Bonar Law; and had appointed in substitution, Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas and Mr. Solicitor-General.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  ISLE OF THANET LICENSING BILL.
  "To transfer to the Cinque Ports Justices of the Thanet Division of Dover, in respect of the district in which they have jurisdiction, the powers in licensing matters now exercised in respect of that district by the Justices of Dover," presented by Mr. Marks; supported by Mr. Griffith Boscawen, Sir Horatio Davies, Mr. Henniker Heaton, and Mr. Tuff; to be read a second time upon Monday, 10th April, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]
  CLOSING OF LICENSED PREMISES (ST. PATRICK' DAY) (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To enforce the closing of Licensed Premises on St. Patrick's Day in Ireland," presented by Mr. O'Mara; supported by Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Boland, Mr. O'Shaughnessy, Mr. J. F. X. O'Brien, and Mr. Flynn; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]
  PUBLIC ROADS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the repair and maintenance of Public Roads in Ireland," presented by Mr. O'Dowd; supported by Mr. Clancy, Mr. Conor O'Kelly, Mr. Patrick Aloysius McHugh, and Mr. Cullinan; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]
  SUPPLY [20TH MARCH]
  Resolution reported.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DE- PARTMENTS ESTIMATES 1905–6 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  "That a sum, not exceeding £21,500,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, viz.:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.
  CLASS III.

  £

  Ireland:—

  Land Commission

  70,000

  CLASS II.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  Colonial Office

  25,000

  Local Government Board

  86,000

  CLASS I.

  Royal Palaces

  26,000

  Osborne

  7,000

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  43,000

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  25,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  33,000

  Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

  15,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  54,000

  Revenue Buildings

  200,000

  Public Buildings, Great Britain

  180,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  90,000

  Harbours under the Board of Trade

  8,000

  Peterhead Harbour

  10,000

  Rates on Government Property

  260,000

  Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  110,000

  Railways, Ireland

  35,000

  CLASS II.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  House of Lords Offices

  7,000

  House of Commons Offices

  15,000

  £

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  40,000

  Home Office

  66,000

  Foreign Office

  25,000

  Privy Council Office, etc.

  3,000

  Board of Trade

  85,000

  Mercantile Marine Services

  30,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  3

  Board of Agriculture and Fisheries

  55,000

  Charity Commission

  15,000

  Civil Service Commission

  17,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  25,000

  Friendly Societies Registry

  3,000

  Lunacy Commission

  5,000

  Mint (including Coinage)

  5

  National Debt Office

  6,000

  Public Record Office

  10,000

  Public Works Loan Commission

  5

  Registrar-General's Office

  17,000

  Stationery and Printing

  330,000

  Woods, Forests, etc., Office of

  8,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  30,000

  Secret Service

  40,000

  Scotland:—

  Secretary for Scotland, Office of

  25,000

  Fishery Board

  5,000

  Lunacy Commission

  3,000

  Registrar-General's Office

  2,000

  Local Government Board

  5,000

  Ireland:—

  Lord-Lieutenant's Household

  2,000

  Chief Secretary for Ireland

  12,000

  Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction

  80,000

  Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

  1,000

  Local Government Board

  27,000

  Public Record Office

  2,000

  Public Works Office

  17,000

  Registrar-General's Office

  5,000

  Valuation and Boundary Survey

  6,000

  CLASS III.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  Law Charges

  40,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  28,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature

  140,000

  £

  Land Registry

  18,000

  County Courts

  2,000

  Police, England and Wales

  13,000

  Prisons, England and the Colonies

  350,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  130,000

  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  12,000

  Scotland:—

  Law Charges and Courts of Law

  30,000

  Register House, Edinburgh

  15,000

  Crofters' Commission, Scotland

  2,000

  Prisons, Scotland

  37,000

  Ireland:—

  Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  32,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature, and other Legal Departments

  43,000

  County Court Officers, etc.,

  45,000

  Dublin Metropolitan Police

  60,000

  Royal Irish Constabulary

  600,000

  Prisons, Ireland

  54,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  55,000

  Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  3,500

  CLASS IV.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  Board of Education

  7,000,000

  British Museum

  70,000

  National Gallery

  10,000

  National Portrait Gallery

  3,000

  Wallace Collection

  3,000

  Scientific Investigation, etc., United Kingdom

  24,000

  Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

  60,000

  Scotland:—

  Public Education

  770,000

  National Gallery

  5,000

  Ireland:—

  Public Education

  760,000

  Endowed Schools Commissioners

  400

  National Gallery

  2,500

  Queen's Colleges

  2,500

  CLASS V.

  £

  Diplomatic and Consular Services

  250,000

  Colonial Services

  595,000

  Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable

  35,000

  Cyprus (Grant in Aid)

  15,000

  CLASS VI.

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  300,000

  Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, etc.

  1,500

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances

  1,000

  Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

  17,000

  Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiences

  CLASS VII.

  Temporary Commissions

  20,000

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  14,587

  Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

  Ireland Development Grant

  100,000

  Visit of Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales to India

  Total for Civil Services £14,070,000

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  Customs

  350,000

  Inland Revenue

  830,000

  Post Office

  3,800,000

  Post Office Packet Service

  250,000

  Post Office Telegraphs

  2,200,000

  Total for Revenue Departments

  £7,430,000

  Grand Total

  £21,500,000

  Resolution read a second time.
  MAJOR SEELY MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight) rose to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000, in order to call attention to a matter I which would enable the Colonial Secretary to more fully explain the state of affairs in regard to the £30,000,000 Transvaal loan. As he understood it—although he had not seen the paragraph himself—the Colonial Secretary had communicated to the newspapers a correction of what he
  812
  had told the House in regard to what would take place in the event of the loan being issued at a premium. His statement was that the guarantors, who were in that case the large mining houses, would, so far as the first loan of £10,000,000 was concerned, reap the benefit of the added premium. But he (the speaker) understood that the correction sent out by the right hon. Gentleman was that the advantage would be reaped not by the guarantors but by the Transvaal Treasury. Quite apart from that, he wished the Colonial Secretary to fully inform the House what the facts were, for it was only just to the mining houses of the Transvaal that it should be fully understood that they did not make the bargain in order to put money into their own pockets. He would, however, ask whether this arrangement applied to the £10,000,000 only, or to the whole of the £30,000,000. He was sure that on that point the House would be glad to get information.
  Again, he proposed to ask the Colonial Secretary's attention to a statement made—inaccurately made, he thought—that this loan had nothing to do with the question of the working of the mines of the Transvaal, whether by Asiatic labour or by any other means. The right hon. Gentleman said in the course of discussion the other night that the latter question was not germane to the subject. [Mr. LYTTELTON dissented.] He would like to point out that in the course of the discussion reference was made on the Opposition side of the House—by way of interruption, he believed—to the question of Chinese labour, and the right hon. Gentleman said, with the approval of hon. Members on his own side of the House, that that question was not very germane to the discussion. He would like to point out, however, that it was very germane to the discussion, because at the time when the financial arrangements were being made it was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that the resources of the country as they were, did not enable it to provide more than £30,000,000, and what was more interesting was that last session the Colonial Secretary, when speaking on the matter of the amount of labour employed in the

  813
  mines, said that quite apart from any other aspect of the labour question, it would obviously be most unwise and imprudent for the House to rob the mineowners of the opportunity of fulfilling the obligations laid upon them. Perhaps, as the matter was one of considerable importance, he ought to read the words of the right hon. Gentleman when he was referring to the £35,000,000 loan, and was pointing out that the £30,000,000 loan was part of the whole transaction. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "Can you as a matter of economic prudence and policy, having laid this great burden on the community, deny them, if they put proper restrictions and precautions upon it, the opportunity of discharging the obligations you have laid upon them?"
  He thought it was a fair inference to say that the House was induced to a great extent, having disposed in its mind of any moral question in regard to Chinese labour, to sanction it because it would enable the Transvaal Government to fulfil the obligations which it had undertaken. He thought it would probably be more in accordance with precedent if our Government were to suggest to the Transvaal Government that they could not have it both ways, that if they were to say to this House, "If you enable us to develop our mining industry it will make it more certain that we shall pay you this £30,000,000 war contribution—if you do as we wish," the Government on its part should point out that there was a peculiar obligation on the Transvaal Government to go forward with the loan whenever they could, and that the question could not be dismissed in the phrase that the subject of labour was not germane to the issue. As he held, it was most especially germane, because having given the mineowners certain opportunities which were admittedly denied to any other section of the community engaged in mining or other industries in any part of the British Empire, and having given them those opportunities in the belief that, as a consequence, this large sum of £30,000,000 would be forthcoming, we should now say, "If you cannot pay the £30,000,000, and we would be the last to urge you to do that which you cannot afford and which may cripple your country, we do say
  814
  that there must be an end to this peculiar arrangement, foreign to every British principle and utterly unknown to any other British colony." If, in fact, they were to say that there must be an end in regard to the importation of that particular kind of labour, that would seem to be a reasonable position to take up. He believed that persons outside the House would consider it most disastrous if the, mining industry, having given these promises, and having to a certain extent on the basis of these promises obtained special concessions, now refused to carry out their pledges. It was no part of his duty to find fault with the mining industry in South Africa. They had differed as to the wisdom of the course that had been pursued, but if the Colonial Secretary could give to the House some indication that he was prepared to take further action in this matter he was sure the country would be greatly relieved. The public, or rather many of them, felt that they had been deceived—that they had been befooled. Was it, then, not possible to take the step he had suggested, and to do something to make it plain to the people of this country that the Government would no longer be befooled by one section, however powerful, of the community in South Africa.
  As to whether the loan should be pressed for or not, he would not venture to express any opinion, and if there were no question of special privileges concerned, he agreed it would be most unwise to press for the loan which in the heat of the moment was promised under the influence of the eloquence of a most remarkable man. But, under the peculiar circumstances of the grant of these extraordinary privileges, so very contrary to the wishes and aspirations of the people, he did hold that the guarantors should be pressed for reasons why the loan should not be issued. It was stated that it could not possibly be issued until certain legislative action had been taken, and it had been further suggested that it would be impossible to pass proposals for it through the present Legislative Council or through the body to be set up under representative government. Again, it was suggested by many persons in the

  815
  Transvaal that those who gave the guarantee for the loan were not properly authorised to do so, and that under a system of full responsible government it was not probable that they would obtain a favourable vote on the matter. If that were the case it was just as well that it should be made known. He had stated that, in his humble judgment, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, they ought to press for the loan, and that it was the duty of the Government to do that; but, at any rate, whether they pressed for it or not, it would be as well to know what was likely to happen and what the Government were going to do. Members on the Opposition side of the House had vehemently protested again and again against the special privileges given to a particular class in the, Transvaal, the class which had guaranteed the loan and which, to a great extent, dominated the Legislative Assembly. They had protested, and would continue to protest, but their protests up to the present having failed he thought they were entitled to know whether those who had been given such privileges would be urged to fulfil their obligations.
  *MR. MCCRAE*MR. MCCRAE (Edinburgh, E.) rose to second the reduction of the Vote. He invited the Colonial Secretary to take the opportunity of further extending the statement which he made to the House on Monday night. In the letter which the right hon. Gentleman had written to The Times that morning he said that he omitted to state an important fact. But that was not the grievance which they had against the right hon. Gentleman. It was not only that he had omitted to state an important fact, but that he had founded his argument on the contrary view. He (the speaker) himself tried to interpose at the time, and to point out that the right hon. Gentleman was unintentionally, no doubt, misleading the House, but he could not get a hearing, and he, therefore, wished now to urge that the House was entitled to an explanation and a refraction from the right hon. Gentleman. In regard to the premiums on the Transvaal Loan, if the right hon. Gentleman would turn to pages 1 and 2 of the Blue-book he would find that the stipulations which the
  816
  guarantors made did not refer only to the first instalment of £10,000,000 which they had guaranteed, but referred to the whole loan of £30,000,000. Evidently the position was that the I guarantors, being interested in South Africa, found that if the £30,000,000 loan were issued at a premium, that premium would go to the Home Government, and the Home Government would get a certain amount in excess of the £30,000,000. They felt that that would not be right, and they, therefore, stipulated that whatever premiums were received should go, not to the Home Government, but into the Transvaal Treasury. If the right hon. Gentleman would read the Minute of Agreement, which evidently he had not yet done, he would find that that was the case.
  There were one or two other matters he wished to bring under the notice of the House. The late Colonial Secretary always prided himself upon being a business man. In making that arrangement he made one loan contingent on the other, and although a sinking fund was provided for the £35,000,000 loan it was stipulated in the agreement that no sinking fund should be provided for the £30,000,000 loan. Now, surely that was not a proceeding which a business man would approve, and the Government itself found later on that it was an arrangement which it could not confirm, for the present Colonial Secretary wrote to the guarantors pointing out that it was necessary that a sinking fund should be established, and asking them to agree to such a course. Those words might be found on page 149 of Cd. 1895, No. 85. The mineowners, very properly from their point of view, said that before they would consent to any further extension of the conditions of their guarantee they must know the time and terms on which the issue of the loan would be made. That was in January, 1904, and, so far as he could gather, no further negotiations had since taken place between the Colonial Secretary and the guarantors. Another interesting feature was that in the same letter from the Colonial Office to Messrs. Wernher Beit and Co. it was stated the necessary provisions for raising the loan were embodied in a draft Ordinance, which

  817
  was forwarded some time before to the Government of the Transvaal, and which would be submitted in due course to the Legislative Council of that Colony. That was in December, 1903, and he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why that Ordinance had not been submitted to the Legislative Council. That was a delay for which no explanation whatever had been given, and he had not the slightest doubt that, although they had no record of it, there must have been some correspondence between the Colonial Office and the High Commissioner in regard to the issue of the first instalment of £10,000,000, and in regard to getting the consent of the Legislative Council to the loan. He would like to ask why that information was withheld from the House of Commons. He held that the House was entitled to know exactly how the matter stood.
  He was bound to admit that the guarantors had behaved very well in this matter, and he thought the blame rested more with the Colonial Office than with them. They had no doubt taken the opportunity on one or two occasions of trying to minimise the conditions on which they consented to guarantee the loan. For instance, they endeavoured to secure power to decide the date of its issue, and they did thereby try to whittle down their responsibility. The Colonial Office, however, would not agree to that, but Lord Milner, on the 16th February, stated that if the loan was issued at less than four per cent. the guarantee would fall to the ground. That was perfectly fair. Still, the more that one looked at the agreement the more one felt that it was not worth the paper upon which it was written. For the sake of the Transvaal, the mine-owners would not be asked to incur any responsibility on their guarantee; but, on the other hand, if the loan were a success the rate of interest would be reduced. He believed that the first instalment of £10,000,000 could be floated just now at a lower rate of interest than four per cent., and if that were so then the guarantee of the mine owners fell to the ground. But he was not complaining
  818
  of that. What he was complaining of was that a definite arrangement was made whereby Parliament consented to the guaranteed loan of £35,000,000 on a condition which was now being departed from. The loan was being hung up, and the longer the delay the less likely it became that we should get any money. He hoped the Colonial Office would frankly place before the House of Commons the position in which this matter now stood, and if that were done they, on their part, would be willing, while they ought not to concede one job or tittle of what they were entitled to, to take a reasonable view and endeavour to meet the present position in the Transvaal. He therefore urged the Colonial Secretary to take that opportunity of giving the House a full and frank statement.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out '£21,500,000' and insert '£21,499,000'"—(Major Seely)—"instead thereof."
  Question proposed, "That '£21,500,000' stand part of the Resolution."
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he listened with some astonishment, and he confessed with considerable regret, to the speech of the Colonial Secretary the other night. The whole of the Government policy in South Africa had been a failure, and the right hon. Gentleman had made one of the greatest confessions of failure he had ever listened to. In May, 1903, the late Colonial Secretary, in speaking of the arrangement of the loan, said, "It is a final arrangement. After three years we shall hear no more about it." But on Monday last the present Colonial Secretary informed the House that there was an excellent chance of our obtaining the £30,000,000, because there had been a discovery of diamonds in the Transvaal. Therefore, we were to speculate for our £30,000,000 on receiving something from the diamond mines. What an excellent prospect for the British taxpayer! He was sure no one wished to press the right hon. Gentleman in the direction of saying that the loan should be issued at a time which was unfavourable for the

  819
  purpose, because, if that were done, there would be a loss to the Transvaal in future years; but what he thought had been made clear was that, practically, this guarantee was not only waste paper, but that it could not by any possibility have ever thrown any liability of any sort on those who gave it. And this was the great diplomatic triumph about which they had heard so much! These capitalists were going, they were told by the right hon. Gentleman, to make a great sacrifice for their country; and now it appeared that the right hon. Gentleman was altogether mistaken.
  What were the reasons advanced for not issuing the loan? One was that the war had left great devastation in the Transvaal, another was that the taxation was very heavy, and thirdly, it was urged that the process of development might be delayed if the loan was at once issued. But he would point out to the Colonial Secretary that every one of the arguments and objections he urged the other night as reasons for not issuing the loan were present at the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham made this arrangement. Indeed, they were present in far greater force then than they were at the present moment, for the whole financial condition of the Transvaal had very much improved since this bargain was struck. In the matter of labour, for instance, the natives had returned to the mines in greater number, as was expected would be the case under improved conditions of working. Put the blame where they liked, there was no getting away from the fact that there had been a breach of faith somewhere. This was, he repeated, one of those deplorable failures which had marked the policy and action of His Majesty's Government in South Africa before, during, and since the war. The more this was discussed the better, and he hoped the Colonial Secretary would take into consideration what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol the other night, viz., that in any arrangement or negotiation with regard to the future government of the Transvaal this claim should not be lost sight of. That was the only way in which this breach of faith could, in any sense, be condoned.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELpointed out that every year the payment of the loan was delayed, the taxpayers of this country were suffering to the extent of £1,000,000. If this £30,000,000 were paid our National Debt would be reduced by that amount, and the interest upon it would be decreased to the extent of about a million a year. He did not complain of the Transvaal mine-owners as guarantors, but he complained of them as taxpayers. If the mineowners, on the one hand, guaranteed to underwrite £10,000,000 as the first instalment of the loan, and to bear the loss, if there should be any, in the issue of the loan, and if, on the other hand, they stipulated, and the Government agreed, that the loan should not be issued unless the market was favourable, it was no guarantee at all. It was as taxpayers of the Transvaal that they had the right to complain of the mineowners, for it was as taxpayers that the mineowners would have to bear the burden of the charge for this sum. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be unfair to lay on the people of the Transvaal, a small population, so enormous a dead-weight as this loan of £30,000,000 would be in addition to the £35,000,000 already charged on them. In the first place, that ought to have been considered before the pledge was given. In the second place, he would point out that the £35,000,000 already charged on the Transvaal was by no means all dead-weight, because a great deal of it had been used in the purchase of the railways, which brought in revenue. It was not a debt in the sense in which our National Debt was a burden round the necks of the taxpayers. He would point out, also, that in the case of the Transvaal it was not fair merely to take into account the number of the population without taking into account the immense mineral wealth which lay buried in the earth there. The circumstances now were different from what they were when the pledge was given, but the difference in every way was in favour of the Transvaal. In the first place, no one, at that time, had the slightest idea that the Premier Diamond Mine would yield £450,000 a year to the Transvaal, and if the mineowners could give the pledge at a time

  821
  when it was not yielding anything, surely there was all the more reason now for the pledge to be fulfilled. At that time the Chinese labour question had not come prominently forward, and it was since then that there had been an enormous increase in the labour force of the Transvaal, both in Chinese and Kaffirs. The right hon. Gentleman said, a year ago, that if we wanted to have our £30,000,000 we must give them Chinese labour. We bad given them Chinese labour, and now they refused to fulfil the pledge. Now the right hon. Gentleman would have them believe that the Transvaal was only to be charged for the £30,000,000 loan if it involved no increased taxation in the Transvaal. Was that so?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): I think the terms are that no increase should be made on the 10 per cent. tax on the mines.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Surely there are other sources of taxation. You have the taxation now from the Premier Diamond Mine. Are we to understand that we are to receive no portion of the loan of £30,000,000 until there is a normal surplus in the Transvaal of £1,000,000 a year?
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I do not like to make a general pledge, in advance, of that nature, but as a general rule you do not issue a loan unless there is a sufficient surplus revenue to provide for it.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Then what is the value of the resolution passed and the pledge given that the £30,000,000 loan should be raised and the interest charged on the revenues of the Transvaal?
  *MR. LYTTELTON: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Premier Diamond Mine will be of such value, of course there is considerable revenue to be anticipated; but the hon. Gentleman is aware of the somewhat speculative character of diamonds.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Have the Government taken any steps to make this debt of honour a first charge?
  MR. LYTTELTON: It is not usual to take security for a debt of honour.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he only hoped that the faith of His Majesty's Government would be justified by the result. At the present time they had a definite refusal of those who composed the Legislative Council of the Transvaal—not a definite expression of refusal, but the Government had reason to understand that if they introduced this measure it would be met with considerable opposition in the Legislative Council and would not be passed without the use of the official vote. The right hon. Gentleman said that was so. Apart from the official vote it was the mining interest that dominated that Council. They had a majority in it. Therefore, the House must clearly understand that the mineowners themselves refused to permit any further increase in the taxation of the Transvaal in order to carry out a definite obligation to this House, for which they had not only got Chinese labour, but also secured the guarantee of a loan of £35,000,000 for the development of the colony.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he was anxious that they should not live in a fool's paradise in regard to this payment from the Transvaal. He believed we had not the slightest chance of getting the £30,000,000 or any part of it. He quite sympathised with the view of his hon. friend that they should make those who were responsible for the war, namely the mineowners, pay some part of the cost of the war. That was a feeling which was not confined to his side of the House. He had heard it expressed strongly by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and if there was any means of making them do it he would rejoice to adopt those means, believing that the money was being properly exacted from them. The Colonial Secretary pointed out with perfect truth the other evening that there was really—these were not his words, but in substance it came to this—no risk taken by the mineowners at all

  823
  when they underwrote the loan. There was no real guarantee. If there had been a guarantee it was practically of no value. It involved no risk to the guarantors, because it was a guarantee of a loan at 4 per cent. behind which, as the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the House, the honour of this country was committed. The idea of these, people having given themselves up to feelings of generosity when they underwrote a loan at 4 per cent. which was practically guaranteed by this country was absurd. There was in point of fact from the beginning no risk on their part. The proposal was brought forward in a speech of extraordinary eloquence by the then Colonial Secretary in, he thought, May, 1903, in which he painted an extraordinary picture. If the right hon. Gentleman had not been above suspicion at that time, he should have thought the speech was made for the purpose of bulling on the Stock Exchange. It was one of the most powerful speeches he had ever heard in the House. This promise of £30,000,000 was part of the inducement held out to the House, in the most conspicuous terms by the late Colonial Secretary, to consent to give a guarantee for the sum of £35,000,000. They gave the guarantee and they were befooled in giving it. That was the first use made of the promise. He was not saying that it was done disingenuously. He believed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was a creature of impulse. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman in his own mind believed that this was an El Dorado. The £30,000,000 was a perfectly worthless asset.
  The second use made of the promise was when they were asked to assent to the Chinese Labour Ordinance. Those interested said, "We are under this guarantee, which everyone says is an onerous guarantee. Are we not to have Chinese labour to earn money to enable us to discharge our obligations." His object now was to prevent a third use being made of the promise. This House and the country had endorsed the war and on them must rest the responsibility. He was not going to talk of the rights or the wrongs of it now, but do not let the people of this country imagine that they were going
  824
  to get this £30,000,000. They would get nothing, and the Colonial Secretary had shown plainly that it was impossible to get it. Why? There were difficulties in the way of putting taxes on the land. The country had been described by Lord Milner in more than one despatch as having been reduced largely to the condition of a wilderness. All the agricultural stock had been destroyed, and nearly all the houses had been burned. How could we expect to get much, even if we were at liberty to put taxes on them? What was the other resource? The other resource was to tax the profits earned by the mines. Why could we not do that? Because that admirable man of business the late Colonial Secretary when he made this bargain that we were to guarantee the £35,000,000 loan, and that we were to get the £30,000,000 contribution, made a third bargain, and it was that there was not to be more than a 10 per cent. tax on the profits of the mines. We were absolutely prevented by that bargain so long as it was operative—he was glad to say that it was possible it might not be long operative—from getting any part of this £30,000,000. The resources were all dried up by the arrangement which the late Colonial Secretary went out to make. When he came back his friends boasted of it as one of the greatest achievements of his magnetic influence. The people of the Transvaal completely got the best of the late Colonial Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman went out there, no doubt, full of compassion, pity, and kindliness towards the people of that country, and with strong Imperial ideas. They were looking after business, and the men of business got the better of the patriot on this occasion. The final reason why we need not indulge the vain hope that we were going to get this money was that the country could not afford to pay it. The Colonial Secretary told them with perfect truth that the market would not permit of this loan being placed at par. The reason it was not done last year was because the market was not suitable. Very well, that objection had disappeared. The market was now suitable. The Colonial Secretary, in substance, had told them—he believed perfectly rightly—that the country could not bear the burden of

  825
  this taxation. That was the plain English of it; and the whole scheme put before the House two years ago, when they were induced by a Parliamentary bargain—if it was a Parliamentary bargain—to guarantee a loan of £35,000,000 on the footing that they were to receive a contribution from the Transvaal of £30,000,000—was a scheme based on air, worth nothing, was a delusion from beginning to end, and was now a delusion.
  He agreed in substance and in spirit with his hon. friends in their arguments, but he could not agree with their conclusions when they pressed on the Government and on the Transvaal for payment of this loan. If it were true, or anything like true, that the Transvaal could not bear that extra burden of £30,000,000, how unworthy it would be for this great country, in the few months or weeks that still remained while there were no representative institutions in the Transvaal, to fix on it liabilities which it could not bear? He thought the Colonial Secretary was perfectly right; but he believed the House of Commons had the strongest reason to resent the manner in which they had been hoodwinked in this whole transaction. Had they not been more credulous than they should have been two or three years ago, they would never have been deceived by this vain and hopeless story.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I cannot say that I complain of the discussion, though I fear that I can do little but repeat the arguments I used a day or two ago. I think it is possible and natural that hon. Members should feel warmly upon this matter if they do not have a perfectly clear conception of the facts. I endeavoured the other day to place before the House all the facts of this case. I really think the House saw what the situation truly was as the result of my statement. It is perfectly true that, on the day of the Colonial Vote, the Colonial Secretary has to be ready to deal with a great multitude of topics, and in the comparatively short discussion, from the Marshall Islands to Ceylon, and from Ceylon to the Constitution of the Transvaal it is perfectly true that I made one slip which I put right at the first moment. I made a
  826
  slip which I was bound to put right in the interests of the mineowners to whom I had done an injustice. I represented erroneously to the House that they might make a profit out of this transaction. This was a slip, or at any rate an incomplete statement, because the underwriters had offered that any premium should go to the Transvaal Government. I was bound to make that clear.
  MAJOR SEELY: On the whole £30,000,000?
  *MR. LYTTELTON: My reading of the bargain is that they can only prescribe the destination of the premium in the first £10,000,000; on the subsequent £20,000,000 the Transvaal Government would have the right to keep any premium that might arise. While I say, I regret them, I do not complain of these discussions. We have paid £250,000,000 of money, and we have sacrificed God knows how many lives. Yes, I will not go back upon it, but everybody who hears me knows it is true that it was with the assent of the vast majority of the people of this country, and of hon. Members of this House, that we made that tremendous sacrifice. We have done it in order to preserve the British Empire in South Africa, and in order to give to our fellow-subjects in the Transvaal equality with the Boers. I do not wish to speak in the slightest way harshly in the matter, but I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries Burghs was one of the few who differed from that policy, and who had the manhood to say so.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERwas understood to say "disgraceful," with reference to some interruption from the Opposite side of the House.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I rise to a point of order. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order, order!"]
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The hon. Member for Oldham is perfectly in order. The hon. Member for Gravesend has said "disgraceful." He had no right to use such a word.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I heard neither the interruption nor the comment. If the word "disgraceful" was used it ought not to have been used, and it ought to be withdrawn.
  MR. CHURCHILL: On a point of order the hon. Member for Gravesend did in fact use the word "disgraceful," and that word is very much resented on this side of the House.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: It is quite true I used the word, but I did not wish to use the word offensively. I am afraid I meant to say it to myself rather than aloud to the House; and at the same time I wish to withdraw the expression.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I was pointing out that this country had made immense sacrifices of men and treasure in order to acquire this colony and in order to preserve our ascendancy in South Africa. I venture to say, with a strong sense of responsibility, that in the action the Government are now taking in forbearing to force through a nominated Assembly an acceptance of a voluntary contribution made by the Transvaal towards the cost of the war within three years of it, we are acting, as we believe, in the highest interest, both of this country and of that country; and I believe that the hon. Member for Dumfries really agrees with me. I am perfectly certain any person who thinks of this matter at all would regard it as absolutely deplorable that, after this tremendous sacrifice, we should jeopardise its fruits for the sake of accelerating a few years the issue of this loan. I think, really, I have the assent of the House in that statement. Let us understand where we are. If I have the agreement of many Members to that proposition, do not let us jeopardise, for the sake of money, the good feeling which exists between ourselves and the Transvaal.
  Well, now, I say to take, as the hon. Member for Cleveland says we should, a security for a debt of honour is, in my mind, a very un-English proceeding. I do not think when somebody makes you an offer voluntarily, [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no!"], offers a voluntary contribution, it would be very worthy to take security. But if this is too
  828
  nice or refined a way of looking at it, I wish to put this to the House. Do they think it likely that issuing this loan at the present moment and forcing it through a nominated Assembly, will make it more or less likely that we should obtain the £20,000,000 subsequent to the £10,000,000. I venture to say that it would imperil, and naturally imperil, that £20,000,000. [MINISTERIAL Cheers.] And more than that. Would it be a right thing to do, when you are setting up a representative Assembly on a low franchise, such as roughly obtains in most Colonies, and when that Assembly would be in being in a few months. Does this House and hon. Gentlemen opposite think it would be right to go to a nominated Assembly—which is only of course representative so far as it could be made so, and even by the use of the official vote, or by the use of strong pressure upon nominated members—and say, "Give us this" when the bargain was for a willing and voluntary contribution. Surely hon. Members must see that that would be precisely to break those conditions made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and which hon. Gentlemen have never read; it would be to enforce by the act of a superior Power on the Legislature the performance of this undertaking, and it would be to do it in such a way as, I say, would arrest the due progress and the development of the country; and in the last place it could not be done without departing from all precedent. I defy any financial expert of experience to draw up the prospectus of such a loan without departing from all precedent, unless it were being raised upon a surplus revenue.
  That is the state of things which exists at this moment. The figures show about an equilibrium; there is an estimated deficit of, I think, £120,000 in June. Therefore, you have a situation in which at present there is only equilibrium between revenue and expenditure in the Transvaal, putting it at the highest. You have the treaty obligation not to put a tax upon land, and you have the right hon. Member for West Birmingham's obligation not to tax the mines beyond 10 per cent. Yes, I have got to treat

  829
  with facts as I find them. I do not intend, nor do hon. Gentlemen opposite, I believe, intend, though the words "breach of faith" have been used, to break the conditions which my predecessor made, and which he stated in the most specific and lucid terms to the House. I know the hon. Member for Dumfries is a fair-minded man, and I would point out to him that it is grossly unfair to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham to read part of his speech and not read the rest, which is really germane to this matter. It is grossly unfair to him, and ought not to be done. I do not mean the whole of the speech, but all that part which treats with this particular bargain, and the conditions under which it was made. It was unfair to my right hon. friend to say that the guarantee of £35,000,000 was conditional upon the loan of £30,000,000, without stating the terms upon which the £30,000,000 were promised. To summarise those terms, they were that the £30,000,000 should be voluntarily and willingly given, that it should not involve taxation beyond 10 per cent. upon the mines, and should not arrest or unduly impede the development of the country. I say, and I really cannot see any answer to it, that if I take all these three conditions, for the present Government to bring forward this war contribution at this present moment would be a breach of all three of the conditions which the promisers of that £30,000,000 attached to that undertaking. How in the world can hon. Members opposite ask the Government at the present moment to begin the treatment of this most difficult and delicate subject by breaking the conditions which were solemnly made by the late Colonial Secretary. [Oh!] Were these conditions not made?
  MR. LOUGH: The right hon. Gentleman's bargain was what they were willing to give then, and they willingly made it then, and the right hon. Gentleman has no right to speak of willingness now two years afterwards.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman; but supposing for the sake of argument he was right, does he think it would be right to break
  830
  even two conditions instead of three? Does he think we are entitled to do that? Whatever his view is, I do not think we are. But far above that, or at any rate an argument equally strong is that we are giving representative government with the assent, I believe, of everybody here. Will it be right to exact this from a moribund nominated Assembly when next year there is going to be a representative Assembly which can take on this debt of honour and which can ratify it and give it legislative sanction?
  MR. CHURCHILL: They will not do so.
  MR. LYTTELTON: So an hon. Member says.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I say so.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: The hon. Member for Oldham thinks his fellow-subjects in the Transvaal are not to be believed. I deeply regret that anybody should hold that view, but if that is the hon. Member's opinion I shall not attempt to dislodge it from his mind. He is entitled to hold it. I deeply regret it should be publicly stated in this discussion. I most profoundly regret it and I appeal to the hon. Member to look at this matter for a moment from a higher standpoint than Party, which I know he is very capable of doing. Does he think it is likely to draw closer the ties between that colony and ourselves that they should be first asked by some Members opposite to take upon themselves this enormous obligation at this present time, and then that some other Members of the Opposition should say—if you give them, in conformity with your policy in every other colony, a few months or years in order that their own representatives may take upon themselves that obligation—"We do not believe a word of anything they say. We would not trust the representatives of the people there. We think they are unworthy of belief, and we deliberately say here on the floor of the House and in public, although the Motherland has made these tremendous sacrifices for the Empire, and among others for them, that they in the future will not be, willing to pay a single shilling towards the cost of the great sacrifices which have been

  831
  made." I should be sorry to think so ill of my fellow-subjects. I do not think that this is the way that a great Empire can be kept together or any Government carried on. You must give some credit to people's good faith and good intentions. What evidence have any hon. Gentlemen who have spoken of any breach of faith whatever.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: There is the evidence of this very matter.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that is not correct. There is another term which is contained in the shorthand notes of the proceedings that the loan should not be issued at a time when it was unfavourable. It was agreed by everybody last year—it was never challenged in this House—that the moment was extremely unfavourable. Everybody knows that in January, 1904, everything was down to the very abyss in the City. No one contended that the loan could be issued then. Those who guaranteed this £10,000,000 were perfectly willing it should be issued, but the burden of that would not have fallen upon them but upon the taxpayers of the Transvaal. Hon. Members must have it one way or the other; these charges of breach of faith ought not to be bandied about in this light way. How can it be shown that the guarantors have broken faith? We did not attempt to issue it in 1904. They are perfectly willing we should issue it in 1905, but from reasons of high policy we abstain from doing that which we are competent to do, because it would be a breach of the conditions of the bargain, and because we think it expedient and more likely to result in the fulfilment to the full of this voluntary undertaking that we should postpone the issue of the £30,000,000 until the representative Government has met and taken upon itself the arrangement necessary to discharge the matter. We may be right or we may be wrong upon the matter, but there is a vast deal to be said in favour of the view we have placed before the House. Surely hon. Members do not desire to bleed the
  832
  Transvaal to death. We assure them that as far as the present evidence of the wealth of the country goes the conditions point to a substantial surplus next year; a surplus sufficient to pay the interest upon the first instalment of £10,000,000. If that is so, and I think it is, surely we have a tremendously strong case upon which to go to the Transvaal representative Government and say, "Here is a state of things in which we fairly can ask you to redeem the promise you have made. You have the £350,000, which is the advantage of our guarantee of, the £35,000,000 loan; you have a sufficient surplus in your coffers to serve the first £10,000,000 of the instalment. Surely, we can ask you now voluntarily to take upon yourselves the discharge of the first instalment of what is a debt of honour?" Are we more likely to get it by that way, and if we treat them in a fair and reasonable spirit, or are we more likely to get it if we enforce the £10,000,000 immediately on a nominated Assembly, and in breach of the conditions under which it was made?
  MAJOR SEELY: In moving this Motion I never made any charge of breach of faith. I asked for specific information, which I believe the right hon. Gentleman possesses, as to whether the Transvaal Legislature admitted the liability for this £30,000,000, seeing that he admits we cannot get it without an Act passed by them. Has he any information whether they admit it or whether the new body is likely to admit it?
  MR. MARKHAM: Will the new representative Government be entirely elected or partly nominated? If the nominated members are in favour of this loan and the rest are not, how will we then stand?
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I do not think I am very regular in replying to that question; but I think I may say this much—that other than the Executive Government all the members will be elected. With reference to the Question put by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight I think he will see it is impossible to answer it. He asks

  833
  whether the Legislative Assembly, not yet in being, but to be elected, will admit this obligation or not. It really depends upon the belief you have in the people of the Transvaal who elect that body, as to whether you believe they will give you a reasonable redemption of this pledge.
  MAJOR SEELY: What about the present one? Will the present one accept the liability?
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I think it would produce a most grievous effect if this House were, under this condition of things, to ask that Legislature, which, of course, is non-elective, to take upon itself this obligation; and I do not think we can make that request.
  MAJOR SEELY: Then they do not admit the liability?
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I cannot say that. I do not think the nominated Assembly would have any greater power or authority at the present moment, when they are under sentence of extinction, to bind the people than those who promised the contribution. I trust the House appreciates that the policy of abstention from issuing the loan is not pursued without a great sense of responsibility, and a most profound desire to obtain for the taxpayers of this country the full amount of the £30,000,000. The real fact is that we believe the taxpayers of this country will have a far better and greater chance of obtaining the full sum of £30,000,000 if this House will be patient for a few months and allow the representative system to come in and the revenues of the country to recover themselves than if we were at this moment to endeavour to enforce with a high hand this obligation, which is only one of a quasi-legal kind. I do most earnestly desire to deplore the language which was used by the hon. Member for Dumfries that this was no real guarantee by these financial houses. Do let us in this House endeavour to do justice to people if we can. These gentlemen have publicly underwritten this £10,000,000. They have allowed the £35,000,000 to precede their obligation and to rank as a prior lien upon the assets of the Transvaal. They gave
  834
  this guarantee in 1903, six months after the termination of the war; and at any time when the market conditions were favourable in England they could be called on to find the £10,000,000. A time might have been selected when it would have been very difficult to induce the public to come in; but these gentlemen have never repudiated this bargain in any form. They have always held that they are bound by it, and as persons of great weight in the financial affairs of the Transvaal, as the owners of the mines, they must be the persons primarily affected. Therefore it is very unjust to say that they did not undertake a serious obligation.
  SIR ROBERT REID: I believe it was the late Chancellor of the Exchequer who said in this House that it was a moral obligation. What I said was that under those circumstances it was no imputation on these gentlemen to say that there was no real financial risk.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I have admitted that after the first two years there was no very great risk. But the hon. and learned Member said that this was no real guarantee, and was not worth the paper it was written on. That is absolutely incorrect. No financial house is worth anything unless its credit is good; and how is it possible to contend that when people of financial weight take upon themselves an obligation they can resile from it without grievous loss of credit?
  SIR ROBERT REID: I assure you I never said that.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I used the word in connection with the condition that the loan should not be issued unless the market conditions were favourable.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I venture to think the hon. Member is absolutely wrong. It is a question of fact when the market conditions are favourable. They are favourable now. The hon. Gentleman admits that. Who can say when the loan was guaranteed that the market conditions were not favourable?
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is no risk to the guarantors.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: The hon. Member does not think a promise is of the slightest value unless it can be sued on in a Court of Law.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Oh, no!
  *MR. LYTTELTON: Then I do not understand it. If it be the fact that the promise could be broken when all the conditions are favourable for its performance, then the hon. Member would be right. But I contend that it could not be broken without grievous loss of credit; and I say that there has been no attempt to resile from the bargain. The anticipation is that from the Premier Mine next year there will be sufficient profit to serve the first instalment of the war contribution; and I founded on this fact a reasonable expectation that with this surplus provision will be made for the issue of the first £10,000,000. My argument is that, not only for considerations far higher than monetary considerations we should do very ill if we, for the sake of accelerating the discharge of this obligagation, were to alienate the taxpayers of the Transvaal, but that from the merely business point of view we should do ill by jeopardising the issue of the next £20,000,000.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for West Bristol that security should be taken on the Premier Mine and other mining royalties?
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I have dealt with that suggestion. This was, in effect, a voluntary debt—a debt of honour which is not enforceable by law. I may be wrong; but I think we should do better not to treat a debt of honour as if it were a thing to be secured. Does the House know what the facts are with I regard to the debts of the self-governing Colonies to this country? The population of the self-governing Colonies is about 12,000,000, and their debt is £400,000,000, borrowed almost entirely in this country; and there has not been default in a single shilling of the interest. Hon. Members wish to take security for a debt of honour from them. That is not the view of His Majesty's Government. It is of no
  836
  use to give one's own confident anticipations; but I say deliberately for myself and for the Government that, in the first place, we think we shall better keep the affections of the people of the colony, and are more likely to recover in due time the full amount of this contribution, if we exercise some forbearance, and if we leave it to their good will and sense of honour to take upon themselves this obligation. We believe it is the right course and the one more likely to produce relief to the pockets of the taxpayers of this country; and, above all, we believe that it will not tend in any degree to jeopardise the harmony and good relations of the two countries for which the Motherland has sacrificed so much.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The right hon. Gentleman urges that we should not be in a hurry to place on the Transvaal a burden of £30,000,000 which it is not in a position to bear, and which therefore must cause a certain amount of hardship and distress. No one urges that that should be done. But when the right hon. Gentleman reproaches us with feeling warmly, and says that we should not feel warmly if we had a precise conception of the facts, we must point out that it is just because our conception of the facts is clearer than his. The right hon. Gentleman has no conception of the facts on which this loan of £35,000,000 was guaranteed by us. The right hon. Gentleman says that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, in getting the assent of the House to that guarantee, though he mentioned the promise of the £30,000,000 loan, stated at the same time that the payment must depend on three conditions; and because it was to depend on three conditions the right hon. Gentleman says the House has no right to feel aggrieved if the conditions have not been fulfilled. But the whole point of the speech made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was that those conditions were then present. The impression produced on the House at the time was exactly that represented by the right hon. Member for West Bristol the other day.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: Will the right hon. Baronet read the passage in the speech

  837
  of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The right hon. Member for West Bristol summed up the impression produced on the House in this way. He said that the tone of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was rather one of apology for not having exacted the promise of a larger sum than £30,000,000; but that he urged the House to be content with £30,000,000 and no more, because it was "a bird in the hand." That is the interpretation of that speech given by one of the oldest and most experienced Members of the House when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): No; he was not Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Then he was, perhaps, in a more impartial position; and he was certainly a not less old or experienced Member of the House. The right hon. Member for West Bristol is certainly as qualified as any one to sum up the impression produced on the House by a debate; and if the impression which the right hon. Gentleman has described was produced, what is the good of quibbling about conditions? The fact remains that when the House was induced to guarantee a loan of £35,000,000 by mystic representations of what the Transvaal might do in return, the persuasion was founded, not on judgment, but on impulse. Till the Colonial Secretary realises how the House has been deluded in the past by this impulsiveness and want of judgment, how can we have any confidence in his anticipations about the future? What we feel warmly about is not what is taking place now, but the way in which the House has been misled about the whole transaction. But I will say a word about the future. The Colonial Secretary has admitted that the reason why we have not got the £30,000,000 is that the country could not afford it, and that the prospect of obtaining the money is founded on the possibilities of a mine not yet developed. I
  838
  really think, after the disappointments of the past, it would be better to leave these off-chances out of account. Let us at any rate not be deluded about the future, whatever may have happened in the past. The Government might have done something in the past to make the chances better than they have become. They have let slip any chance of getting any public recognition of the obligation with regard to this sum of £30,000,000. They say that they cannot do it now because the present form of government is to be modified. But two years ago we were told that the form of government which was not then modified was going to register this obligation. On July 27th, 1903, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham used these words—
  "I do not entertain the slightest doubt that the Legislative Chamber of the Transvaal will pass the Bill. The only reason that they have not yet done so is that communications have been passing as to the exact form of the Ordinance."
  If that had been done, at any rate, it would have been a public recognition of the obligation, though it might have been one which you would say would not be binding in the same way as if made by a representative and responsible Government, Still it would have been the only form of public recognition available. That opportunity was neglected, and now we are told that we cannot have a recognition because the present form of government is to be modified. Thus we have no recognition except the guarantee of private individuals. There is no question of the honour or the good faith of the private individuals, but the matter about which there is a question is how far they were ever held to be entitled to lay an obligation on the whole of the Transvaal. The Colonial Secretary said it was a debt of honour. I should like to know how far it is understood in the colonies that those gentlemen who gave the guarantee were entitled to pledge the colonies. Do not let us get into any dispute with the colonies about a debt of honour. If they had had representative and responsible government, and that Government had undertaken this obligation, it would have been a debt of honour and we

  839
  should have had no hesitation in charging it upon them; but now we must go cautiously in the matter.
  As to the chance of getting the £30,000,000 in the future, I should like to know, when the Government change the Constitution of the Transvaal, whether they are going to make any conditions in the sense in which the right hon. Member for West Bristol last night indicated might be done with regard to the £30,000,000. I am not very anxious that they should make any condition. If they are going to give representative government—a kind of intermediate stage which can be given without responsible government—what they will be giving will be so little worth while that they had better not complicate it with any transaction about the £30,000,000. But if they are going further and are going to give representative and responsible government, then I think the question will arise whether, in giving it, anything should be said about the loan of £30,000,000. On that matter I would speak with caution with regard to the future. If it should be the case that the Transvaal is unable from poverty to undertake the additional burden of £30,000,000, I should not urge that the gift of representative and responsible government should be handicapped with a condition of that kind, and for this reason, that I should like when the Constitution of the Transvaal changes at all, to see a clean and living job made of it. When we give representative and responsible government let us start under the best possible conditions, and, above all, with good will between them and us.
  More than ever do I regret the way in which this question of the£30,000,000 was introduced by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham so optimistically, because time shows that it is more and more in danger of becoming a source of friction between us and the Transvaal. At the present moment it is not important, but when you come to the subject of responsible government it will be important. I therefore put forward one practical suggestion. If when you give responsible government to the Transvaal it is still unable to incur the extra burden of the £30,000,000 loan, you might
  840
  represent that our part in the transaction, which this House regards as a complete transaction, was fulfilled by the raising of the £35,000,000 guaranteed by us. We might point out that we have fulfilled to the letter our part of the bargain by guaranteeing this sum, that the Transvaal has had the benefit of the money, that it has benefited to the extent of £350,000 a year compared with what its position would have been had it raised the money without the credit of this country. If the repayment of the £30,000,000 is to remain in abeyance the time may come when the prospects of the Transvaal improve, and when we might raise the point whether they could not make some extra contribution comparable to the annual benefits they have received by the use of our credit, and which would year by year hasten the repayment of the £35,000,000 loan already granted. I put that suggestion forward because I see in the debates and in the feeling of the House, which is inevitable after what has passed, a danger in the future, though not at the present moment, of this subject causing friction between ourselves and the Transvaal Government; and I am exceedingly anxious that when we come to the point of granting responsible government to the Transvaal the concession should not be handicapped by any friction or lack of good will at the start.
  *MR. CHURCHILLagreed with the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries that in regard to this repayment we should not take up any exacting or ungenerous attitude, or seek to prejudice the early days of a colony recovering from the devastation of a great war. That feeling was general on both sides of the House, and the Colonial Secretary would not attempt to suggest that that point of view was overlooked by those who criticised the proceedings of the Administration. In the words of the right hon. Gentleman, they did not wish "to jeopardise for the sake of money the good feeling which prevails between the different parts of the Empire." That argument did not find favour on the other side of the House last year, when a proposal was made with regard to coloured labour which was much resented by the Australian Colonies and

  841
  other parts of the Empire. But the Opposition considered the argument valid then, and they thought it valid now. Certainly this question ought not to be approached with any idea of revenge, or of punishing any particular class of persons in South Africa for their share in the war, or for the opinions they had expressed. There was no room for revenge in politics. Possibly there was no room for gratitude, but there was certainly no room for revenge. We should look forward to the future, and not attempt to mete out abstract justice to any particular class of persons for what they had or had not done in the past. What had to be considered was not what the mineowners had promised, but what we thought it right to require. We had not to consider the guarantees of the mineowners in particular, as they had no real authority to commit to immense liabilities a Government not then called into being. They made a promise which was binding upon themselves under certain circumstances, and he had never heard any statement on their part that they wished to evade their responsibility. But there was a bargain, described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, who spoke with immense authority on this subject, as a matter of faith and honour which, if broken, would constitute a breach of faith with the House of Commons and the taxpayers of the country. He was certain the Colonial Secretary did not underrate the gravity of the situation, but he would read one extract from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in which the bargain was commended to the House. It was true that the House might be misled by isolated extracts, but it would be seen that this one could fairly be taken apart from the context. The words of the right hon. Gentleman were—
  "But the whole arrangement must be treated together; and I might almost say that the support of the Committee to the loan of £35,000,000 which is now under consideration is indeed conditional upon the contribution of £30,000,000 to which I hare referred."
  We had pledged our credit for the £35,000,000, but whether the other part of the bargain would be carried out was extremely doubtful. He saw little prospect
  842
  of our securing the £30,000,000 promised as a complementary and indissoluble part of the bargain to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham invited the House to assent. But could we now take any security? We did not want to do an unhandsome or grabbing thing, and after such a vast expenditure of money and of life it would be egregious folly to prejudice all hope of a permanent settlement for the sake of £20,000,000 or £30,000,000. But he had heard no answer to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, who asked why a security should not now be taken on the mining royalties of the Premier Mine for the repayment of, at any rate, a portion of this money. There might be good reasons against such a course, but they had not been stated. When this agreement was put forward, the House of Commons were seized of the general circumstances prevailing in
  South Africa and allowance was made for them, but a new factor had now come in. He remembered being present at the action of Diamond Hill, but little did they think, when they lay down that night, of the fabulous wealth concealed below the bivouac of the Army. The Premier Mine had come, so to speak, as a gift from Heaven to the colony; why, then, should we not take some security with regard to this windfall as to some portion of the guarantee for the repayment of the money for which, on every moral ground there was a liability on the part of the Transvaal towards this country.
  These South African gentlemen were a very powerful organisation. There was no getting over that fact. They had tremendous influence in the Press and in society; they used very effective arguments, and they had means of bringing those arguments to bear on all sorts of occasions and in all sorts of ways. During the last four years there had been various controversies between the Imperial Government and the Johannesburg gentlemen, and in every one of those controversies the Johannesburg influence had prevailed, the Imperial Government having been defeated in the end. Lord Milner had been the principal advocate; he had no other friends in South Africa, and he naturally

  843
  had to fall back on those who backed him. That was one reason why he had always thought it was a great pity that the Government had left, to make the peace, the man who made the war—and he would say the same with regard to the new appointment which had been made. In every one of those disputes, whether it was the question of coloured labour, or of the treatment of Indian subjects in the Transvaal, or of the loan raised on the credit of this country, or of the repayment to be made, the gentlemen in South Africa had succeeded in putting such pressure, through the Colonial Office, upon His Majesty's Government that the arguments which commended themselves to the good sense of the House had been defeated and swept away. He asked the House to consider that in all these three conferences they had been defeated by this powerful organisation, which was going to be used in the Press, in the House of Commons, and on all the platforms, to prove that all those who drew attention to this bargain were animated by sordid and unpatriotic motives. If they did not take effective security for this money before setting up a local native government, they might be perfectly certain that they would never get the money at all. The Colonial Secretary said he hoped that no one would impugn the honour of a Government yet unborn, but they ought to look at things as they really were. It was no use deluding themselves by golden visions. If representative government were granted, did they imagine that any candidate appealing to the electors would declare that he was in favour of the payment of £30,000,000 to the people of the British Islands? What conceivable man, asking either for Boer, Afrikander, or Johannesburg votes, would have a chance of being elected under such circumstances? They must look at facts. He did not say they would be doing a dishonourable action, but he would like to ask what continuity of identity was there between the Government they were going to call into existence and the gentlemen who met the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham round the table at that conference? They did not recognise any debt of honour. They ought to take the security which
  844
  was necessary, and if they did not do so they would never get a farthing of the money upon the promise of which they were induced to guarantee a loan of £35,000,000.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid that previous speakers had spoken as if the British public were a set of capricious and avaricious people who had taken advantage of a voluntary offer to contribute towards the war. This was an extremely mean view, when they recalled the circumstances that led to the war. The question he wished to refer to was upon whom the responsibility for paying this contribution should fall. Those gentlemen, who were liable to guarantee this £30,000,000, had given assurances which history had falsified in every particular. False reports were sent to this country and newspapers were corruptly influenced in the Transvaal to misrepresent the actual state of affairs, and to induce this country to take the step of bluffing which led to the war. No more disgraceful episode ever occurred than the methods adopted by the mineowners to force on this war; and they, having succeeded by forged letters and all sorts of corruption, were now told that it was disgraceful, on our part, to suggest the slightest doubt that they did not intend to pay a debt of honour. He did not regard this as a debt of honour or a voluntary gift, for that was entirely a misrepresentation of the actual facts. Really the Transvaal ought to pay the entire cost of the war, £250,000,000, and because this country was letting them off to the extent of £220,000,000, and asking them only to pay £30,000,000, sordid and avaricious motives were being ascribed to us. Why was a different principle applied in the case of a colonial war to that which was applied in the case of an Indian war. Whenever there was a war in India, although it was not waged by the Indian people, but by Englishmen sent out there to rule India, every farthing was charged upon India. This was so in the case of the military operations connected with the Tirah, Chitral, and Tibet campaigns. These wars were charged upon India, although the income of the average Indian subject might be counted in shillings per annum, and yet

  845
  these mineowners, it was said, would be ruined it they were called upon to pay only one-eighth of the cost of a war which they themselves persuaded the English Government, by misrepresentations, to undertake. To him it seemed a piece of impudence for the mineowners to come whining to the House and suggesting that they ought not to make any contribution to the war at all. The right hon. Member opposite placed much reliance upon the fact that the Transvaal Government was a nominated Assembly; but a nominated Assembly was not a representative Assembly, and possessed no power or mandate to do anything which the mineowners objected to.
  The right hon. Gentleman said it was a monstrous thing to impose this burden upon the Transvaal, because the war was commenced with the assent of the people of this country. He denied that that was the case, for their assent was never asked for, and the only question placed before the country was whether, having commenced the war, the Government should carry it through. The assent of the people to the nefarious steps taken in the Transvaal, by which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and Lord Milner, were gulled into bluffing the Transvaal, had never been approved of by the people to this day. The country was quite willing that the war should be carried through, but not a single hon. Member opposite would venture to go to his constituency and risk his return upon convincing the people of the justice of the South African War. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] The right hon. Gentleman had spoken about the importance of keeping the affections of the people of the Transvaal. On the Opposition Benches they had been as energetic as any persons in the world in endeavouring to retain the affections of the people of the Transvaal, but by the people they did not mean the mineowners, but the inhabitants of the country at large. As regarded the mineowners of Johannesburg he did not care one straw about alienating their affections, and he only regretted that their affections were not alienated five years ago, for then they would have saved this country £250,000,000. Was the right hon. Gentleman opposite really
  846
  afraid of alienating their affections by imposing upon them this liability? Why was he not afraid of alienating the affections of the British taxpayer? Let him look at the record of recent by-elections and he would see what the British taxpayers thought of the war. The danger, to-day, was the far more serious one of alienating the affections of the British taxpayer rather than the affections of the Transvaal mineowners. He quite agreed with the statement that, if the Transvaal could not pay, then we should have to pay the money ourselves. He was quite prepared to recognise that fact. He did not see, however, what was the use of talking about people not being able to pay when they owned property which was paying dividends at the rate of from 300 to 4,000 per cent per annum. If all the dividends above the working expenses of the mines had been exhausted, he would have been quite willing that every farthing of this promised contribution for war expenditure should fall on the British taxpayers. Until that happened, however, nobody would say that the Transvaal mineowners should not pay the £30,000,000 which had been promised.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid that when the late Colonial Secretary went to South Africa there were agreements made other than those mentioned by the Colonial Secretary to-day. The first agreement made with the mineowners was in respect of dynamite. For a good many years there had been a great agitation going on in South Africa with reference to the action of the late Government of the Transvaal in regard to dynamite. It was one of the causes of the late war. After the visit of the late Colonial Secretary to South Africa the mineowners said they were willing to put up a dynamite factory in South Africa. They asked the late Colonial Secretary whether he would give a preferential tariff to enable them the better to compete with the manufacturers in this country, of whom there were many, who in the past had sent large quantities of dynamite to South Africa. He had been asked to mention this matter by the dynamite manufacturers, because the coast duty of 1d. per pound, which was imposed for the benefit of the De Beers Company,

  847
  had completely closed South Africa as a market for them. The owners of the local factory which was put up in Cape Town reaped immense benefit in consequence of the imposition of the tax imposed on dynamite imported from Europe. In a book recently published it was stated on the authority of Mr. Eckstein that previous to the war the cost of dynamite entailed on the mines a charge of no less than £500,000 on account of the excessive charges which the mineowners had to pay in the time of President Kruger's Government. What had happened? When the late Colonial Secretary was in South Africa he came to an agreement with the mineowners by which they were to pay a tax of not over 10 per cent. In that way the mineowners had gained £340,000 on the profits tax and £500,000 on dynamite alone. They had also an immense advantage in railway rates as compared with the pre-war period. It was stated in Sir Percy Fitzpatrick's book, "The Transvaal from Within," that these charges made by the Netherland Railways were so excessive as to represent £1,000,000 sterling a year. While the mineowners obtained these advantages as the result of the war, they had given us nothing.
  Another serious matter arose in connection with the discovery of the Premier Mine. The Colonial Secretary had during the past year ratified an agreement with the mineowners giving to them not what they were entitled to under the old law of 1898, namely, one-eighth, but four-tenths of the mine. The right hon. Gentleman now told the House that the Government were going to receive £500,000 a year of profits. He said that that was a bad bargain in every sense of the word, because the total number of white miners working the Premier Mine only amounted to the wretched number of 200 or 300. The Premier Diamond Mine consisted of 4,000 claims, and before the amalgamation of the De Beers Mines there were 40,000 white men in Kimberley alone on the fields. All these mines could have been worked by white labour. The washing alone did not exceed 2s. per ton. and the amount derived from a ton of soil treated came to something like 20s. When he
  848
  brought the matter before the House the answer he got was that it was necessary that the Government should create a monopoly in diamonds, because if that was not done the price of diamonds would fall to such an extent that diamond mining would become unremunerative. That was a very curious argument for the Government to set up, especially when the price of diamonds was maintained at 50s. a carat by the De Beers Company. He knew the influence that caused the Government to say that the price must be maintained. It was because of the influence which the De Beers Company brought to bear on Lord Milner. If the Premier Mine had been thrown open there would have been an immense white population working on those fields to-day instead of the wretched 200 or 300, and they would have brought up the political equilibrium in the Transvaal which to-day was in great danger. As to the question of security for the loan, he would say that, being a pro-Boer, he knew from his Boer friends that they were going to repudiate the loan and have nothing to do with it. He had stated during and since the war that he did not see how the future Transvaal Government could be bound by a body of alien German-Jews and a cosmopolitan crowd of financiers, who had entered into an agreement with the late Colonial Secretary. They had no right to bind the people of the Transvaal, and the Boers, who were the majority of the population, would not be bound. Unless we took security before granting the Transvaal what the Colonial Secretary called representative government we had not the remotest chance of getting a farthing.
  The Transvaal had great resources, and he had no hesitation in predicting that there would be a large surplus if economy was shown in the administration of the country; and if our Government did not got back from the Transvaal at least £30,000,000 of the war expenditure they would deserve very little consideration from the country. He hoped, however, that the Government would be out of office before this matter came to be dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman had all these difficulties to face. All the odium fell upon the present Colonial Secretary, while the late Colonial

  849
  Secretary escaped; therefore he was truly sorry for him. As one holding strong views about South Africa, he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not possible for him to give careful consideration to the opinion and advice which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol tendered a night or two ago. Unless the Government got that security, what they would get from the Transvaal was not worth a farthing. That, really, should be self-evident to the Colonial Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman must know well the fact that the majority in a future representative Assembly in the Transvaal would oppose any contribution towards the war expenses.
  There was another point. He had been asked by some influential Boers in South Africa to urge, in that House, the justice of granting full responsible government to the Transvaal. Those Boers had accepted the British flag; they had loyally carried out their part of the contract. [MINISTERIAL cries of Oh, oh!"] Let hon. Gentlemen opposite say in what particular they had not carried out their bargain. They were now British subjects, under the British flag, even if they had gallantly fought in defence of their own country. What would be the result if these people were denied the rights of citizenship, and a form of government set up which was not representative of the people but dominated by the capitalist influence in South Africa? He believed he was right in stating that the Boer population in South Africa would have nothing to do with a form of government which was not a fully responsible government; that they would rather have no form of representative government at all, and that the present system should be retained. If the Transvaal was settled why not give the people of the country responsible government? The Boers were the majority of the voting element at present, and besides them there were Germans and people of other nationalities from all parts of the world. Moreover, there was a large body of dissatisfied Britishers who had thrown in their lot with the Boers. If that was the case, what would the future be if a full measure of responsible government
  850
  were not granted? He would therefore implore the Government, after all the mistakes they had committed, to give to the people of the Transvaal a Constitution which a free people could accept as satisfactory.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary did great honour to his heart; but he took too generous a view of human nature. He absolutely told the House that it was far better to have a debt of honour than a good security. If the right hon. Gentleman himself told him that he owed him £100, he knew that the right hon. Gentleman would pay him and he might not perhaps go to the Colonial Office and ask security. But these cosmopolitan financiers of South Africa had not the same high sense of honour as the right hon. Gentleman. When they came to dealing with those cosmopolitan gentlemen on a matter of £30,000,000 and a question of security for it, as a matter of business he would not take their honour, even if they swore to it. He liked security. The right hon. Gentleman asked the House to regard those men as the noblest of patriots, and said that they had incurred great risks in underwriting this loan. He defied any hon. Gentleman on either side of the House who understood City business to say that these men incurred one sixpence of risk. Let these gentlemen be taken at the general valuation of this House, was it likely that they were going to incur a great monetary risk without getting a quid pro quo. Their quid pro quo was that they got a guarantee, or promise that they should not have to pay more than 10 per cent, on the profits of their mines. That was an enormous advantage. It was as if some one said "Let me get an arrangement so that if you do something that produces absolutely nothing, I will promise you never to increase, the income-tax." The House should not run away with the idea that those contractors for the loan were actuated by a patriotic spirit. They did not incur the risk of loss or of gain except in this, that part of the bargain was that this country was to guarantee the loan to the Transvaal of £35,000,000. A large amount of that

  851
  money, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, was to be spent in the development of the Transvaal; and everybody knew that it was a very great advantage to people who had mines to have a railway close to their mines. Part of the development was to make railways running up to their mines. It was a matter of pure business that they should undertake an obligation in regard to the floating of this £10,000,000 loan; and it was uncommon good business for them.
  He always thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite had many excellent qualities, but that their memories were defective. At the time the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham came bank to this country from South Africa he said that our claim for £30,000,000 from the Transvaal was too little, but that the payment of that £30,000,000 was a certainty. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham believed that at the time, but he was entirely under a delusion. And what was the result? It was that this country guaranteed the loan of £35,000,000 on the distinct understanding that we were to have that £30,000,000. Whether we should get it he did not know. At any rate, the payment of it had been put off two years; and the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary now said that it might be something like another five or six years before we got it. Some might make it seven years, but let them call it five. Who was paying the interest on this now? Why, the taxpayers of this country were. They had already paid £2,000,000 or more; and in five years more they should have paid £7,000,000, whereas they had a bargain, a distinct understanding, that they should be relieved of that. They wanted the bird in the bush as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol said. [Cries of "Bird in the hand."] He was wrong in talking of a bird in the bush. Why, it was a bone in the mouth of a tiger wandering about the middle of South Africa. Several hon. Gentlemen had praised the speech of the right hon. Gentleman because it was an effort of tardy repentance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol when he was Chancellor of
  852
  the Exchequer was always looked upon as a hard-headed man of business; and the House did not push the matter very far because they were under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion, as their representative in the Government, that they had got security that they would get he money. And now the right hon. Gentleman blamed them, and told them that they ought to have been more careful. He held that the right hon. Gentleman was more in fault for not seeing that good security for the money was obtained. The right hon. Gentleman urged the plea that this demand should be put off until the Transvaal had received what he was pleased to call representative government. He himself quite admitted that there was a certain point in that; but it was only on the supposition that the Transvaal was to receive real self government within a few months. They knew, however, that that would not be the case; and it would be monstrous to ask the new Government, which did not represent the country or our own ideas of self government, to tax the people for this purpose.
  He believed it was nonsense to say that the Transvaal could not pay. The Transvaal could pay perfectly well. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the amount per head of the population; but when most of the money went into the pockets of a few thousands the amount per head must be small. But the gentlemen who had made millions and millions out of the country could pay. The poorest of the people in this country were taxed on their tea and sugar in order to save the shoulders of these millionaires. The right hon. Gentleman spoke a great deal about the Premier Mine. He spoke rather as if he were promoting the company. Let this country get that mine as a security. Let us say to the representative Government, "You are men of honour; we all trust you in England; but besides trusting you we should like a little security such as the Premier Mine; allow us to earmark that so that the profit may go towards the payment of the interest on the loan." That would be a very reasonable offer. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was not fair to his predecessor, who he was sorry to read was indisposed. He made the most

  853
  serious accusation against his predecessor in office than he himself had ever heard. The right hon. Gentleman said he never admired the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham more than when he entered into this arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham did not, at any rate, run away from his opinions like other people; and as an honest man of business he would probably say that perhaps he had made a mistake, and that he regretted it. But, according to the right hon. Gentleman, this arrangement was the most admirable thing the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham ever did in his life. He considered that that was an insult to the right hon. Gentleman. He himself was not an indiscriminating admirer of his; but he would admit that the right hon. Gentleman did better things, especially when he sat on that side of the House. Was it proper to say of an able and intelligent man that the best thing he did in his life was to let himself be fooled for £30,000,000 sterling. If the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary could get £5,000,000 for the liability he would advise him to accept it.
  MR. SCHWANNsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had promised him an Answer to the Questions he submitted yesterday with reference to Ceylon. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would answer now.
  *MR. EMMOTTsaid the Colonial Secretary had taken credit for forbearing to force through a nominated Assembly in the Transvaal the issue of the first part of the £30,000,000 loan. He agreed with him in that. It would have been making a grievous and calamitous mistake. The first issue would have caused friction and the remainder of the loan would not have been issued. What he wanted to point out, however, was that if the Colonial Secretary ever meant to get any money he must either force it through the present Legislative Council or else he would not get it all. It was important that the Government should make up its mind whether they were going to have
  854
  the cash and bear the discredit in the Transvaal of forcing it through or whether they were going to magnanimously give up any claim they might have? He must confess that, in this matter, he did not agree with some of his friends on his side of the House. He believed it was impossible to get this money unless it was forced through the Legislative Council. In the first place the Colonial Secretary was bound by the pledges of his predecessor. He could not raise the income-tax on mining profits to more than ten per cent., and, in the second place, the late Colonial Secretary promised that nothing should be done to hinder the development of the Transvaal. He believed he was right in saying there was urgent need in the Transvaal for more money, for more roads, for the extension of railways, for schools, for technical education, and for a great reform in the state of the prisons, which were in a most shocking condition. If there were a surplus it was already mortgaged in anticipation for these various objects in such a way as to prevent the issue of a loan. The third condition laid down was that it could only be regarded as a debt if it was accepted voluntarily by the people of the Transvaal. What was this so-called debt of honour. It appeared to consist of a particular resolution passed by fourteen capitalists, and certain other capitalist representatives, on a certain day, when the late Colonial Secretary met them. They agreed to the principle of the issue of a loan of £30,000,000, but they, and they alone, agreed. The great bulk of the people of the Transvaal had never been consulted about it.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: The Miners' Association of the Transvaal are parties to it.
  *MR. EMMOTTsaid he was perhaps, underrating the number of people who agreed. At any rate, he was correct in saying that the great bulk of the population were left outside the agreement. It had been said by the right hon. Gentleman that the agreement should not be put into force until representative government was introduced. But when there was representative government what possible chance was there of the representative Government agreeing to the

  855
  payment of £30,000,000? It had been pointed out by his colleague the Member for Oldham that it would be impossible for anyone seeking election to the representative Assembly in the mining or agricultural districts of the Transvaal to issue an election address in which he would say he was in favour of so and so and he was willing to give £30,000,000 towards the cost of the war, a war that had devastated the very country which was now being asked to pay this money. It would be impossible to get this money, and he did not believe, from the point of view of this country, that it would be wise for them to try to get it. They must look at the matter on broad and statesmanlike grounds. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer the Member for West Bristol suggested something like a bargain being made when representative government was given to the Transvaal. But it would be undesirable to make any bargain with the kind of representative Assembly the Government proposed to constitute. If they were going to have responsible government for the Transvaal it might be possible to make a bond, but not with such a half-and-half Assembly as they proposed to put up. But he went further. Even if any bargain were made with any Assembly it would give rise to everlasting friction. It would be an unusual thing to do with a country which was annexed. It was a wrong system altogether to annex a country and then ask it to pay an indemnity. No indemnity was ever asked from Alsace-Lorraine when they were annexed by Germany. If a country were annexed the Government of that country should not subsequently be asked for an indemnity. Even though he might be in a minority, he was glad to have an opportunity of putting his views before the House, for he felt very strongly on the matter. It might be asked if he meant that we were to spend so much money and lose so many lives and get nothing back. He thought they might reasonably ask for the £350,000 a year which the British guarantee had enabled the Transvaal to save on the first loan, but he did not think the Transvaal should be asked to pay it as an indemnity for the war. It might be asked for as a contribution to the Navy. He fully admitted that the average man in this country
  856
  desired to get something out of the mine-owners, but he believed sound and statesmanlike policy should shrink from such a course. After all, who dared say in that place, on whichever side he sat, that we went to war for the sake of the mine-owners of the Transvaal? We did not go to war for them, but in the first place because the Queen's dominions were invaded, and in the second place because of the enormous importance of South Africa to the Empire. If the Government meant to do what he thought an unwise thing, levy part of the loan, they must do it now. But they should give up the idea that they would get it, or even ought to get it from a representative Government in the Transvaal.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that it would be most unstatesmanlike to enforce anything on the Transvaal Government at the present time, whatever might be the convenience to this country. This had always appeared to him an unusual and highly complicated arrangement, and whatever view we might take about it, it referred to past conduct and did not help to get us out of our present difficulty. The real practical point was that we could not get this amount without imposing on the Transvaal, against the will of the people, a heavy financial burden. He believed if the arrangement originally made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was allowed to stand, and if the attitude of the Colonial Secretary was adopted and we said that this was a debt of honour which we hoped, as soon as representative government was established, would be met by the Transvaal, that would be a miscalculation, and the net result would be to considerably diminish the chances of repayment. He felt from the financial point of view it would have been much better if hon. Gentlemen opposite had left unsaid a good deal of that which they had expressed with regard to the good faith and honour of the Transvaal in this matter. The real point was: Was this country justified in guaranteeing the loan of £35,000,000, and it appeared to him that the hypothecation of revenue as a guarantee of repayment was sound and adequate. He did not think there was

  857
  any chance of recourse being had to our financial resources. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol on a previous occasion, in an interesting speech, appeared to adopt the view that we should take somewhat strong measures, lay hands on the Premier Mine, and make the source of revenue accruing from that mine our chance of repayment He differed from the advice given by the right hon. Gentleman. Any attempt that we made to use the revenue coming from that mine on account of our distrust of the new form of Government in the Transvaal, would be regarded as an act of suspicion by the citizens of the Transvaal and would very much diminish our chance of obtaining payment of the £30,000,000. He urged the Government not to take advice from any quarter which might lead them to take such action as might be construed as distrustful of the new Government's intention to fulfil its obligations.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he wanted, if he might, to congratulate the hon. Member for Carnarvon, Eifion, whose rising was received by the exodus of hon. Members from the House, on the way, after five years of misrepresentation, abuse, and calumny, in which his views on South Africa and the war in South Africa had been justified. He also desired to say how much better it would have been had the House accepted the view of the hon. Member and that put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. Although this country had been guilty of a mean action in entering upon an unwarrantable and dishonourable war at the instance of, not the mineowners directly, but as a consequence of the Jameson Raid, without which there would have been no war at all, that was no reason why this country should at this moment follow up that mean action by another, and it would be mean indeed for us who were responsible for breaking up homes, for destroying crops, and bringing misery and destitution where rough comfort prevailed, to ask the people of the Transvaal to undertake the obligation of paying out of their slender and impoverished resources £30,000,000 which the mine-owners did promise, though it would not, in his opinion, be a breach of faith on their part if they did not pay it. He
  858
  held the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, who had made the most clear and cautious speech he had ever heard on the South African problem. We could not enforce payment of this £30,000,000, nor could we put it on the Transvaal, save as a debt of honour.
  He was surprised at the Colonial Secretary being so sensitive of criticism with regard to the mineowners. The right hon. Gentleman had no right to defend them in the way he had done. He had no doubt that if the mineowners, who were now using the opportunity to shuffle out of their obligations, were brought before a jury at the Old Bailey they would be kept to their promise and, failing that, would go for a term of hard labour for having treated this country in the way they had. They were too strong for the late Colonial Secretary, and the present Colonial Secretary would have to exercise tremendous pressure if he was to succeed. Every promise they had made they had evaded. One of the conditions of our getting the £30,000,000 was that they should have facilities for developing the country. Chinese labour was the first facility! But how differently the Colonial Office treated the demands of the mineowners as compared with Mr. Kruger, who, when asked to allow Asiatic labour, declined on the ground that South Africa was a white man's country, especially so far as open work or work in the Premier Mine was concerned. When the mine-owners said that unless such labour were permitted the mines could not be properly worked, Mr. Kruger simply said what the Colonial Office ought to have said—that if they would not work the mines in the interests of South Africa the Government would. He wished there had been a man of Mr. Kruger's character, strength of mind, and determination at the Colonial Office during the last few years; there would not then have been an expenditure of £250,000,000 on the war, a request for £30,000,000 from the mineowners, or the imposition of the degradation of Chinese labour upon South Africa and the British race. There was also the question of cheap dynamite. That had been given them, but they had no idea of giving any quid pro quo— which, by the way, they pronounced

  859
  quids pro quo. Although they had secured so many advantages they now boggled over paying their share of the cost of the war.
  But the point he wished to urge was as to the Government having a greater lien or security on the Premier Mine. He warned the Colonial Secretary that unless he secured for the British people, or for the people of the Transvaal and South Africa generally, the major share of the interest in the Premier Mine before the Legislative Council was elected, the mineowners would so gerrymander the vote, as they did in regard to Chinese labour, that every man elected would support the proposal to sell the Transvaal share in the Premier Mine to companies such as were now engaged in corrupting the constituencies with that very object. To allow this valuable asset to slip from the hands of the Transvaal people would be a crime which many would afterwards regret. He appealed to the Colonial Secretary not to part with this revenue of £400,000
  a year from the Premier Mine, and, before the Legislative Council was elected, so to control the distribution of the money as to render impossible its sale for £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 to a syndicate now in course of formation. Unless the threatened gerrymandering was prevented it would lead to one of the most disastrous blunders and crimes even in the history of South Africa. The Government had not been wise before the event. Their lack of patience and temper, their insufficient knowledge and intelligence before the war, practically placed South Africa in the hands of a gang of unscrupulous mineowners, who reminded him of Dr. Johnson's words that "patriotism was always the last refuge of the scoundrel." The country had had a sample of their handiwork; we had lost life, property, credit, and prestige, and events might eventually prove that we had lost a continent. He begged the Government not to facilitate that loss of a continent, but to give Lord Selborne such instructions that he would sit on the necks of these cosmopolitan financiers who had played ducks and drakes with our honour and credit in South Africa. It should not be forgotten that circumstances
  860
  had changed. The men who flew to the guns five years ago to save England from losing South Africa did not feel that way now. The rich men in South Africa now took the view that, unless the Government carefully guided affairs through the stormy period of the next few years we should witness the best of the Britons and the whole of the Boers linked up by a common aim and destiny against the mineowners who had betrayed the Government's trust and treated Boer and Briton in an unjust and scandalous way, and when that day came not 20,000, nor even 100,000, soldiers would be sufficient to hold South Africa. He, therefore, begged the Government to be warned in time by a pro-Boer who had had his windows smashed, and who, if Lord Selborne required help, would be glad to put them on the right track.
  MR. YOXALLsaid a great deal had been urged as to the need of consideration for the mineowners, on the one side, and for the Boers on the other, but he wished to say a word about the need of consideration for the poor taxpayer of this country. He calculated that the non-payment of this £30,000,000 meant a loss of about 17s. per head of the population of this country, or about four guineas to the head of a family. That was a small matter to Members of the House, but to men with wages of 24s. a week it was a very serious consideration, especially when it was remembered that for the last five years these poor taxpayers had been paying, directly or indirectly, higher prices for almost everything they had to buy. He therefore refused to assent to the view that mineowners or Boers should be considered before these taxpayers, of whom he represented some 15,000. Of course, he deprecated the taking of any step which would place upon the Boer population of the Transvaal an unfair burden. The farming and pastoral Boers had no hand in bringing about the war; and to call upon them to pay this money would be both unfair and unwise. According to the Colonial Secretary, this money was to be regarded as a debt of honour. But the mineowners who guaranteed it were perfectly able

  861
  to pay it now, and if they refused to recognise it as a debt of honour now, they were not likely to recognise it later on. He submitted that it was perfectly possible to devise means for securing to this country the payment of the £30,000,000 without inflicting any unfair tax on the Boer population. Measures might be adopted with regard to the mines which would bring in sufficient revenue to liquidate gradually this debt of honour. There were large tracts of metalliferous country held by mineowners at nominal rentals, and to which they had no legal claim. Why should they not pay a fair rent for those lands? And what about the mining royalties? Instead of reproducing the system which obtained in this country, the Government might have commenced de novo, and have insisted that all mines should belong to the State, that the revenue from them should go to the State, and that if the working of the mines was let out to corporations or
  individuals a proper royalty should be paid to the State. Such royalties would produce a revenue which would soon liquidate this so-called debt of honour. He did not wish to go back on the miserable past, but it was significant that man after man, Colonial Secretary after Colonial Secretary, should appear to be caught in the net of these South African mineowners and to dance like puppets at their bidding. The Colonial Secretary never rose in his place without saying something in defence of the mineowners, very little for the Boers, and nothing at all for the taxpayers of this country. In the name of his constituents and the people of this country, he claimed that the Government ought to do everything in its power to see that the obligation of the mineowners in South Africa was properly carried out.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that, representing a great industrial community numbering nearly 250,000 souls, he claimed that they ought to insist upon the payment in full of the millions of money which this country had advanced to the mineowners of South Africa. He did not suppose there was any hon. Member of this House who would have the heart to go to the distressed, starving, ruined, heart-broken agriculturists of the Transvaal in order to tax
  862
  them further with regard to the devastating war which this country had levied upon them. If there had been no goldfields in South Africa there would have been no war. Professor Lecky, in anticipating the events in South Africa, said there was a strong vein of gold running through all the negotiations. When they were voting those millions for the supplies of the Army in the field, it was repeatedly stated that the cost would be repaid, not from the agricultural industry, but from the vast and almost inexhaustible wealth of the gold and diamond mines. From that bargain they ought not to budge one inch, and they should hold the mineowners to it, and make them repay in full every penny which they had guaranteed to pay. The Colonial Secretary worked himself into a state of uncontrollable excitement and indignation because they were not willing to worship at the feet of these men who had pledged their word of honour. The Colonial Secretary was a lawyer of considerable eminence as well as a politician, and he was inclined to believe that it would have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had made a plain confession instead of leading them along this fool's paradise still further than they had gone. If he had declared that his Government did enter into a certain business transaction in which they had been absolutely worsted, and advanced millions without an atom of security; and if he had admitted that it would depend upon the moral obligation of those who borrowed whether they repaid or not, then they would have cheered the Colonial Secretary and looked upon him as a man of courage and determination. But the right hon. Gentleman rode off upon another issue, and he wanted them to accept without a doubt the word of honour of a band of men who were mostly foreigners, and who had no sympathy with the people of this country.
  Those men were holding hundreds of millions of valuable assets in British colonies which had been won by British money and British soldiers. He could conceive only one business way of dealing with them, and if he could have his way he would exercise the

  863
  authority of Parliament to extract from this endless wealth which the mines gave a repayment at least of the money advanced after the war was ended. This money had to be paid by the British taxpayers generally, who had no direct means of organising themselves to influence the Government to insist upon the reclamation of this money. What would have taken place if this £30,000,000 had been owed to a few City of London financiers, and the people owing it had been the inhabitants of some small South American Republic. They all knew what would have happened. Not long ago when there was something interesting to the financiers of this country and of Germany we joined forces with Germany and sent a demand over the seas in the form of ships belonging to the British Navy to enforce the debt of some private persons. He was aware that they could not send ships to the Transvaal, but they could send other authority equally effective. He did not think he was extreme in saying that whilst the wealth was there, and the debt was owing, the British Government ought to see that every farthing of the debt was paid in full to the British taxpayers. Why should his poor constituents have now to pay poor rates to keep the men who had been maimed and ruined for life in the South African War, who were now within the walls of the workhouses being maintained out of the rates which were being paid by people almost as poor as themselves. These vast sums of money were advanced to facilitate the working of the mines in order that profits might be made for the shareholders. Surely this was an occasion where they should use no rose-water methods, but where it should be clearly understood that now, or some time in the near future, this money must be repaid in an honourable and straightforward manner, or else means must be adopted to secure it.
  The Colonial Secretary said they could not force it through the Legislative Council now, and they must wait until there was a proper constitutional authority created in Johannesburg in order that they might take up this liability. Could the Colonial Secretary give them his word of honour that when this popularly elected Assembly
  864
  met they would acknowledge the obligation agreed to at a public meeting of mineowners and their nominees? He would not give them his word of honour nor a word of hope or encouragement that he believed that this liability would be taken up and acknowledged by the newly constituted authority in Johannesburg. Nothing of the kind. There would be a Parliament elected in this country he hoped before many years were over, although the present Government was very much like the Mad Mullah, always in hot water, but they never would dissolve. Such a new Parliament would not be called upon to redeem pledges given by a dozen men in the City of London, and neither would this public authority feel itself called upon to honour an engagement, entered into by private persons who were clamouring not for the welfare of the country but for increased profits out of their own mines. Some of his hon, friends had discussed this matter in a tone that would lead people to think that they would willingly give up this £30,000,000, but he for one was not going to budge one inch of the ground in the direction of giving away one farthing of that £30,000,000 if he could help it, so long as there was any wealth in the mines of the Transvaal, and means of making the mineowners liquidate their honourable engagements. He hoped that any South African authorities who read this debate would not be lead astray by any admissions or suggestions of that kind, because he believed that the next Parliament, when elected, would insist upon a full, ample, and exhaustive return of the money which had been spent in the interests of the mineowners and in their interests alone. They had a right to insist upon the return of those vast sums of money which had been taken out of the pockets of the British taxpayer.
  MR. HEMPHILLsaid he felt bound as an Irish Member to express the hope that under no circumstances would any portion of this £30,000,000 of debt be remitted. What fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham after his visit to South Africa induced the House to give the guarantee of the Imperial Exchequer for the £35,000,000

  865
  loan, and the consideration held out to the House was that the people of the Transvaal, and especially the owners of the mines, would contribute £30,000,000 so as to make together £65,000,000 for the setting up of the colony. Ireland stood in a peculiar position, because the Childers' Commission some years ago showed that it was overtaxed to the extent of between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000. Why should Ireland stand aside and allow this £30,000,000 to be, as it were, given as a present to this South African colony? It was no concern of the people of Ireland that the principal burden might fall upon the South African mineowners. They were very well able to bear it. They indulged in every luxury, and they were in the enjoyment of great wealth. The people of Ireland were the worst clothed, the worst fed, and the poorest in Europe, and they were overtaxed to the extent he had mentioned. On what principle of justice and natural equity could it be said that this great sum should be remitted to South Africa while Ireland
  complained in vain of its over-taxation? Within the last day or two, when the Irish land question was under discussion, it was stated from the Treasury bench that one of the difficulties in carrying out the Land Act of 1903 was the Exchequer difficulty. While there were contracts for the purchase of land to the extent of about £25,000,000, an amount likely to be doubled in a short time, the property could not be transferred because the Exchequer could not see its way to advance more than £5,000,000 a year. Was that argument to be used against the carrying out of this beneficent measure, while at the same time the Ministry was to assent to remit £30,000,000 really to the mineowners and capitalists of South Africa? He made no apology for entering his protest against remitting that sum while the argument was advanced that the Land Act must be blocked for want of money.
  Question put.
  House divided:—Ayes, 256; Noes, 196. (Division List, No. 77).

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Butcher, John George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Glasgow)

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw.

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'cr)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Finch, Rt Hn. George H.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A(Worc.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Chapman, Edward

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Forster, Henry William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gardner, Ernest

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

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

  Garfit, William

  Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredrk.

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'm'ts

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Davenport, William Bromley,

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bill, Charles

  Denny, Colonel

  Green, Walford D(Wednesbury

  Bingham, Lord

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Bond, Edward

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Gretton, John

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Hain, Edward

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Brassey, Albert

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dyke, Rt, Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hamilton, Rt Hn LordG(Midd'x

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Maxwell, RtHn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords. N. W.

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Helder, Augustus

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Smith, H. C. (North'mbTyneside

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Smith, RtHn. J. Parker(Lanarks

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Horner, Frederick William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Spear, John Ward

  Hoult, Joseph

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stock, James Henry

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Myers, William Henry

  Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Peel, Hn. W. Robert Wellesley

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Kennaway, RtHn. Sir John H.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Tuff, Charles

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Percy, Earl

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn.Col.W.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Turnour, Viscount

  Kerr, John

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Vincent. Col. SirC.E.H.(Sheffield

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monmouth)

  Purvis, Robert

  Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E.(Taunton)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks.NR

  Randles, John S.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Lee, Arthur H(Hants., Fareham

  Rankin, Sir James

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton and Lyne

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Renwick, George

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H. (Yorks

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

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wylie, Alexander

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Viscount Valentia.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Allen, Charles P.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Cremer, William Randal

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Burns, John

  Crombie, John William

  Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry

  Buxton Sydney Charles

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Caldwell James

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cameron, Robert

  Delany, William

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Bell, Richard

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Benn, John Williams

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Boland, John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Duffy, William J.

  Brigg, John

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Dunn, Sir William

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ellice, Capt E. C. (SAndrw's Bghs

  868

  869

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Emmott, Alfred

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Roche, John

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Levy, Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rose, Charles Day

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lloyd-George, David

  Runciman, Walter

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N.E.)

  Lundon, W.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheehy, David

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Shipman, Dr. John G

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Slack, John Bamford

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mitchell, Ed. (Fermanagh, N.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Grant, Corrie

  Mooney, John J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E (Berwick)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Moss, Samuel

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R.(Northants

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Murphy, John

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hammond, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Harrington, Timothy

  Norman, Henry

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ure, Alexander

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Wallace, Robert

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  O'Dowd, John

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Malley, William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Johnson, John

  O'Mara, James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Partington, Oswald

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Perks, Robert William

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk,Mid

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Priestley, Arthur

  Wood, James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Rea, Russell

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Labouchere, Henry

  Reddy, M.

  Young, Samuel

  Lambert George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Lamont, Norman

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Langley, Batty

  Rickett, J. Compton

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Major

  Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Seely and Mr. M'Crae.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbigh s.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid as a sum of money for the Board of Education was included in the Vote he desired to ask a Question with reference to the physical condition of the children of the working classes in the schools, and particularly as regarded lack of food in many cases. On September 2nd, 1903, the Board of Education appointed what was called the Physical Deterioration Committee of which Mr. Almeric W. FitzRoy
  870
  was Chairman. The Committee sat for days and examined sixty-eight witnesses, including Dr. Eichholz, Colonel Lamb of the Salvation Army, Mr. C. S. Loch, Mr. Charles Booth, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University. The Report of that Committee was one of the most important of State documents which the House had ever had before it. It dealt with the whole condition of the working classes and with the physical condition of children. On this Vote, however, he must confine his remarks to the recommendations regarding children. He complained

  871
  that so long a time should have been allowed to elapse without anything practical having emerged. The Report recommended that a survey should be made year by year of the children in the schools so that reliable data might be obtained as to the effect of school life on the physique of the nation, and also better physical training generally. It urged the systematic medical inspection of children in the poorer schools as regarded eyes, teeth, and ears, and made two proposals for legislation, one for the prohibition of cigarette smoking by small boys, and another with regard to the provision of food for children who attended school, and who were suffering permanently from mal-nutrition.
  Nothing more cynical had ever come under his notice than the disregard shown by the Board of Education for this vitally important question of the physical condition of working-class children, particularly in the matter of food. He was himself formerly a teacher in an extremely poor school in Bristol. He had under his care about 300 working-class boys. About thirty of them did not go home at all during the dinner hour because there was nothing to go home to; and about sixty brought to school a paper parcel containing a rough crust of bread and perhaps a raw onion, or some bread and margarine, or similar food. These two figures accounted for nearly one-third of the boys, and the case was typical of all slum areas in our big cities at the present time. He well remembered seeing two brothers, with the hoar frost on the playground still white at mid-day, sharing between them a cold turnip for their mid-day meal. They could not build Empire on that kind of thing. Yet it could be ended to a great extent by the administrative action of the Board of Education. The witnesses spoke most pathetically of this lack of food. The master of the Victory Place School at Walworth in his evidence stated that the boys were not in a fit condition to receive instruction. He added that he sent to a baker's for all the driest crusts he had in his shop, and the boys ate them ravenously, though they did not know he was observing them. Miss Deverell, an inspectress under the Board of Education, stated the master of one school informed her that the children
  872
  got most of their meals by meeting workmen's trains and begging scraps from the men.
  What was going to be done about this? This thing could not be permitted to continue any longer. There was abundant evidence, including the testimony of Dr. Eichholz, as to the lamentable lack of proper food ascertained among the school children of the poorer districts, including the adjoining district of Lambeth. The whole question centred round feeding. There was, first of all, the want of food, then the irregularity of the food, and, thirdly, its unsuitability. These were the determining causes of the degeneracy of the children. Where was the raw material for the Army and Navy to come from if that state of things continued. The breakfast of these children was bread and margarine, and their dinner was only what could be obtained at a fried fish shop for a penny. Within a gunshot of the Guildhall, the master of the school reported that several boys came without breakfast, and the mother of one boy came in the afternoon to the school with scraps of bread. He himself had seen the miserable condition of many of the puny little scraps of humanity upon whose weak shoulders the burden of the Empire would ultimately rest. No child in this country ought to be hungry. The great bulk of parents cheerfully made unknown sacrifices to provide for their children, but they must attend to the child in any case before pursuing the neglectful parent. He was not asking that they should in any way undermine parental responsibility. In all the great Continental cities they were attending to this question, and in Paris they had a coupon system whereby 8,000,000 meals were provided at a cost of £70,000, of which the parents paid about £20,000 by way of coupons, £15,000 came from voluntary contributions, and there was only £45,000 as a public charge. In London such a system could not possibly cost more than a halfpenny in the pound, and that extra halfpenny would ensure that much of 1s. 2d. rate was not, as at present, wasted where it was most wanted. The rate at present was 14d. in the pound, but the expenditure was altogether wasted where it was most needed because of the physical condition of the children, and

  873
  what the Londoner had to ask himself was whether he would go on paying this 14d. with the assured knowledge that the whole of it was wasted where it was most needed, or make it 14½d. with the assured knowledge that he would have a beneficent result from the whole of the expenditure. This was not a scheme for undermining parental responsibility at all; it was a scheme for developing parental responsibility, and for securing to the children who would ultimately be the stewards of this Empire what every child now had in all Continental cities, viz., one square meal a day.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that this was a matter not for the Board of Education only, but for the whole Government. Before the Report of the Physical Deterioration Committee, there was the Report of the Royal Commission on Physical Training in Scotland, which revealed with regard to Scotland matters quite as serious as those brought to light by the later Report with regard to the whole of the United Kingdom. The question concerned the Home Office, the Local Government Board, the Board of Education, the Irish Office, and the Scotch Office. All those Departments ought to have read and studied this Report, and its entire neglect by the Government had filled him with consternation. The Board of Education appeared to be the only Department which had moved in the matter; they had drawn up a syllabus of instruction in domestic economy, and appointed another Committee to make further inquiries. The time for inquiry was past; the time for action had come; and it was most discreditable to our powers of administration and legislation that after so exhaustive an inquiry into so important a subject the Departments concerned had not yet declared what recommendation they intended to adopt and why they refused others. He reminded the Secretary to the Board of Education that Dr. Eichholz's evidence was given in November, 1903, that his investigations were conducted by order of the Board of Education for the purpose of giving evidence before this Committee, and that no doubt had ever been thrown upon Dr. Eichholz's accuracy or competence.
  874
  The Report of the Committee was made in July, and it was not until March that it occurred to the Board of Education that further inquiry was necessary. He hoped before the session was over positive declarations would be made by the various Departments concerned as to what steps they intended to take to carry out the recommendations of the Committee or to deal with the great evil which that Report had shown to exist. For his part he promised—and he hoped the hon. Member for Camberwell would join him—that on every possible occasion he would bring the matter before the House—on Scotch Estimates, Irish Estimates, and the Scotch Education Bill. The Government would not get rid of him until they took the matter up seriously and treated the interests of these children as they would the interests of any powerful body of constituents whose votes they were anxious to secure.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.)said that as he was at the head of the Local Government Board at the time this Report was issued he might be allowed to say a word. The view taken by the Local Government Board was that there was a great deal in the Report which could not be dealt with without legislation, and that what could be done by administration would require careful examination not only by the Department, but also by their medical advisers. He did not remember anything in the Report with which his Department could have dealt with effectively immediately. After all, they had nothing to do with children in school. The Local Government Board were concerned with matters affecting the general health of the people, and they could not accept any charge that they had neglected that duty in any particular.
  SIR JOHN GORSTreferred to the recommendation that the Local Government Board should make regulations as to the supply of milk.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that one of the last things he did before leaving

  875
  the Local Government Board was to obtain the sanction of the Treasury to an additional staff to carry on certain work in connection with the Adulteration of Food Acts, so as to be able to keep local authorities up to the mark in that respect. One of the everyday duties of the Board was to receive reports from local authorities and to ascertain what they were doing. During the last few years there had been a remarkable improvement in the activity of local authorities with regard to impurities in milk and other articles of food, and in order that the Board might do the work thrust upon thorn by the last Adulteration of Food (Amendment) Act they had increased their staff so that the work might be thoroughly supervised and properly done. Therefore, he did not think that the charge of incompletely could be levelled against that Department, and certainly if anything could be done to improve the administration the House could rest assured that it would be done.
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University)said that the Board of Education was powerless to provide for the feeding of children in the elementary schools. When the Board was charged with being slack in carrying out the recommendations of this Committee he must remind the House that the Report was issued only last July, and that throughout the autumn he had been inquiring of persons with a practical acquaintance of the life of the poor as to how this question—which became the more difficult the nearer it was approached—could be dealt with. It was not a new question. The children had not lapsed into this underfed condition in the last two or three years, and he had in vain searched the Department for any record of the interest taken in it by the right hon. Member for Cambridge University during all the years he was in office.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid that in 1899, in introducing the Education Estimates, he told the House that most of the money was being wasted because the children
  876
  in the schools were not in a fit condition to be instructed.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that he was glad that after four years of official life the right hon. Gentleman had paid attention to the subject. Some part of the Committee's recommendations concerned the Poor Law administration. If children came to school in a starved condition, urely the managers could bring the parents of those children under the operation of the Poor Law or the law directed against cruelty to and neglect of children. But the ev l lay deeper than the coming to school occasionally of underfed children. They ought to get to know exactly what were the conditions as to the children who daily attended school. The evidence was uncertain. The London School Board placed the number of children attending school who were hungry at 10,000 in one year, by Dr. Eichholz it was calculated at 60,000, and later at 122,000. They desired to know what was the precise extent and nature of the evil complained of. It was a question of the physical condition of children varying very much in character. There were the children who had been ill-fed or ill-cared for from infancy, and who were so backward in development, as to require a different course of study. Then there were the cases in which children were occasionally left without food because of illness or want of employment of the parents. These cases needed different treatment. He was told that where meals were supplied on the school premises the immediate result was that the parents relied wholly on charitable effort. This administration of meals ought to be conducted with the greatest care. To take away from the parents the duty of supplying meals for their children, and to break up family life by inducing the children to have their meals regularly at school, might have disastrous results socially. What it was necessary to get at was the extent of the evil and the proper remedy. Neither was known at present. It was not fair to attack the Department for negligence in a matter of such pathetic importance when the essential facts were not known and when a false step might have such serious consequences.

  877
  And it being half-past Seven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, put that Question.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 241; Noes, 183. (Division List No. 78.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Arrol, Sir William

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

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

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ(Man'r

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hon.Sir H.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Finlay, Sir R. B.(Inv'rn'ss B'ghs

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Balcarres, Lord

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Banbury, Sir Fredk. George

  Forster, Henry William

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Garfit, William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredkr.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gordon, Hn J. E (Elgin & Nairn)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Maxwell, RtHn. SirH.E.(Wigt'n

  Bigwood, James

  Gorst, Rt Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

  Bill, Charles

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Fredk. G.

  Bingham, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Milvain, Thomas

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.

  Bond, Edward

  Green, WalfordD(Wednesbury)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Bowles, Lt.-Col.H.F. (Middles'x

  Gretton, John

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Brassey, Albert

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mount, William Arthur

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Hain, Edward

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Butcher, John George

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Myers, William Henry

  Campbell, Rt. Hn.J.A.(Glasgow

  Hamilton, Rt Hn. Lord G(Mid'x

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'ry

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Peel, Hn. Wm Robert, Wellesley

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J.A(Wore.

  Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords.N.W

  Percy, Earl

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Helder, Augustus

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Chapman, Edward

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Horner, Frederick William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Purvis, Robert

  Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

  Hunt, Rowland

  Randles, John S.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo.T.(Denbigh)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn. Col. W.

  Renwick, George

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Kerr, John

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Denny, Colonel

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Dorington, Rt. Hon.Sir John E.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Round, Rt. Hon, James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lawson, JohnGrant(YorksN.R

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Lee, ArthurH. (Hants. Fareham

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton-und-Lyne

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Tuff, Charles

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Turnour, Viscount

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Smith, H. C. (North'mbTynes'd

  Vincent,Col.SirC.E.H.(Sheffield

  Wortley, Rt Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Spear, John Ward

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Wylie, Alexander

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Stock, James Henry

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  TELLERS FOB THE AYES—Sir

  Stroyan, John

  Welby, Lt-Col. A. C.E.(Taunton)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

  Viscount Valentia.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

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

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Griffiths, Ellis J.

  Norman, Henry

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hammond, John

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

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hardie,J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

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

  Bell, Richard

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Benn, John Williams

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Boland, John

  Hayter, Rt, Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.

  Brigg, John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Dowd, John

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

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

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Malley, William

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Mara, James

  Burns, John

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Caldwell, James

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Partington, Oswald

  Cameron, Robert

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Johnson, John

  Perks Robert William

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Rea, Russell

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Reddy, M.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan,W.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kitson, Sir James

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Lambert, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Crombie, John William

  Langley, Batty

  Roberts, John H (Denbighs.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Delany, William

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roche, John

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Rose, Charles Day

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Runciman, Walter

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Levy, Maurice

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lloyd-George, David

  Seely, Maj.J.E.B.(Isle of Wight

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lundon, W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sheehy, David

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Crae, George

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Kean, John

  Slack, John Bamford

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mitchell, Ed. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R.(Northants

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Moss, Samuel

  Sullivan, Donal

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Murphy, John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Grant, Corrie

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  880

  881

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Wood, James

  Tomkinson, James

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Woodhouse, SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd

  Ure, Alexander

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Young, Samuel

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Wallace, Robert

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  William M'Arthur.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

EVENING SITTING.

  PROTECTIONIST PROPOSALS.
  *MR. AINSWORTHsaid that the substance of the Motion he had the honour to move was taken from the speech of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham at Glasgow in October, 1903. In that speech the late Colonial Secretary advocated a preferential tariff arrangement with the Colonies, with a tax on food and a 10 per cent. duty on imported manufactured goods. The first branch of the Motion had been dealt with a short time ago by his hon. friend the Member for Oldham. The Colonial Secretary in his reply objected to the form of the Resolution and said—
  "Let us get out of a bewildering and endless maze into the safer region of a concrete proposition."
  He now proposed to deal with the second branch of the subject, in regard to which no fault could be found, as the wording of the Resolution was sufficiently concrete, and in doing so he would like to call attention to certain statements which had been made in regard to it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in his speech at Glasgow said—
  "Now a moderate duty on all manufactured goods, not exceeding 10 per cent. on the average, but varying according to the amount of labour in these goods—that is to say, putting the higher rate on the finished manufactures upon which most labour would be employed in this country, and the lower duty on goods in which very little or less labour has been employed—a duty, I say, averaging 10 per cent., would give to the Exchequer at least £9,000,000 a year."
  Whilst the Prime Minister at Edinburgh during the previous autumn said—
  "A protective policy, as I understand it, is a policy which aims at supporting or creating home industries by raising home prices…. The means by which it attains that object is by the manipulation of a fiscal system to raise
  882
  home prices. If the home prices are not raised the industry is not encouraged."
  And later at Manchester—the "sheet of notepaper" speech, said—
  "Fourth and last—I do not desire to raise home prices for the purpose of aiding home production."
  The point he was anxious to enforce was that the country had noted a distinct difference of opinion between the views of the Prime Minister and those of the late Colonial Secretary. The late Colonial Secretary expected that one of the results of his policy would be to raise home prices for imported articles. The objects of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham were admirable, as all would agree, his desire being to increase labour and wages at home and leave a large surplus in the Exchequer. He, however, submitted that the end did not justify the means. If, as the right hon. Gentleman expected, a duty of 10 per cent. excluded foreign competition, the home market could not have the same supply in proportion to the demand, and prices must therefore rise. If the foreigner was only partly excluded by the import duty, the prices would rise in proportion to the extent of the exclusion; and the Birmingham policy suggested that he would pay the whole of the 10 per cent. rather than be excluded at all. Was there any hon. Member who believed that this would be the case? But it was said that this was an academic question, and that no action was to be taken to further the fiscal policy during the lifetime of this Parliament. It might be an academic question to the Government and their supporters; but it was neither an academic question in the country nor for the future of the Conservative Party. The Conservative candidate for Bute in his recent election address said he was a supporter of the policy of the Prime Minister—
  "Who had declared that policy in unmistakable terms."

  883
  That statement had highly delighted the electors because Scotch constituencies had been trying to find out what that policy was. Unfortunately for this Gentleman, however, the Scotch electors had a habit of heckling, and at one of the meetings he was asked whether he was a subscriber to the Tariff League, to which he replied—
  ' I am; and I am a supporter of Mr. Chamberlain."
  The result of that election was known, and yet it was said that the seat was lost to the Unionists owing to the misrepresentations of Liberal speakers. He was sorry, having regard to the number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who had supported the right hon. Member for Birmingham at the various meetings he had addressed, that there was not a larger Unionist attendance that evening. The Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who presided at a meeting at Tynemouth in October, 1903, said—
  "Mr. Chamberlain had gone to plough a furrow of his own, but it was not a 'lonely furrow.' For all his objects Mr. Chamberlain carried with him the hearty approval of his colleagues in the Government he had left."
  He was, however, pleased to see the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield, "amid the faithless faithful only he," in his place. The action of the Prime Minister with regard to this Motion had been the old Indian policy of masterly inactivity, but he (Mr. Ainsworth) thought the result of the division that evening would be to place the Prime Minister in a more independent position than he had been for long. They were all of opinion that the policy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was played out, and the Prime Minister had scored all round. He begged to move.
  MR. RICHARD CAVENDISHin rising to second the Resolution, said he should like to express the regret which they all felt at the enforced absence of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and the hope that they might soon again have the pleasure of hearing him take part in these fiscal debates. He also expressed gratitude to the Prime Minister for allowing this Motion to be discussed and voted upon without any official hindrance on the part of the Government. He felt
  884
  he could speak for those Unionists below the gangway who had remained true to the principles of free trade when he said they were deeply grateful to the Government for allowing the question, for the first time since this controversy began, to be decided on the merits. Speaking for himself, he believed the Government would have been well advised if they had adopted this course from the outset. It would have been not only better for the Unionist Party, but more in accordance with the traditions and dignity of the House. Objection had been taken to this Motion that it raised an abstract or academic question, but that, as had been shown, was not the case. Taking the situation as it existed to-day, he could conceive of many interesting abstract Resolutions. They might have a Motion as to whether discretion was the better part of valour. They might have a Motion as to whether when one is suffering defeat it is better to stand up to the foe to the end or to take the defeat lying down. Or they might have a Motion—Is moral courage a political virtue? All these subjects would, he was sure, cause very interesting debates, though they might not "enable Members upon whose assiduity the existence of the Government depends to enjoy those social functions for which the new rules of procedure were specially intended to provide opportunities."
  The Motion before the House dealt with the proposals of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and had nothing whatever to do with any other proposals, least of all had it anything to do with the fiscal changes that were in contemplation by the Government. He was thankful that it did not fall to his task to explain what the fiscal proposals of the Government were, but, whatever they might be, he felt certain they contained nothing in the nature of a general tariff on manufactured or semi-manufactured articles. That being so, he hoped to see most of the members of the Government and their supporters go into the lobby in support of this Motion. The first and primary duty of the supporters of tariff reform was to show that these changes were urgent and necessary. During the last year and a half they had told the people that our

  885
  trade would be destroyed; that if something was not done speedily disastrous consequences would ensue. Most gloomy prophecies were made, but it was a notorious fact that not one of those dismal prophecies had been realised. On the contrarye, very one had been falsified, and instead of the trade and commerce of the country getting worse and worse it had risen to a higher and ever higher level. That fact needed no statistics to support it, but out of respect to the consistency and courage of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield, who he understood was going to move an Amendment, he would make one quotation which he obtained from the Engineering Supplement of The Times that morning. It was dated "Sheffield, March 17th."
  "This is the company meeting season in Sheffield. Just at present the big firms and the investing public are thinking more of dividends than of engineering schemes. Within a short period all the important limited liability companies will be holding their annual meetings and all of them seem to be able to meet their shareholders with pleasure and confidence…. All the firms speak hopefully of a revival in trade. With the new year there came a brightening of the outlook, with an increase of orders all round."
  He did not base his opposition to the Glasgow programme of colonial preference upon the fact that trade was good. Assuming for the sake of argument that trade was bad, and likely to become worse, the placing of duties upon manufactured or semi-manufactured articles was the very worst thing that could be proposed. As most of those articles played very important parts in the commerce and industries of England, any duties placed upon them would handicap our manufacturers in the competition which they had to encounter, and so far had encountered successfully, in the neutral markets.
  It was almost unnecessary to say more in objecting to a scheme of tariffs such as that suggested. In his opinion tariffs would be bad not merely for trade itself but disastrous to the future conduct of business in this House, and that was a thing which he did not think any tariff reformer had seriously taken into consideration. We had fortunately in this country been singularly free from certain features which characterised the Legislatures of other countries,
  886
  and he was convinced that if we once departed from the wholesome system which we now enjoyed we should not be able to prevent such a state of things He objected to tariffs also on the ground that they would lead to the creation of large trusts and monopolies such as were to be found in Continental countries and in the United States of America. We were at this moment almost free from such monopolies and trusts, and he thought it would be the worst day for us when we set up tariffs which would enable them to be brought about. As a Member for a Lancashire constituency he protested as strongly as he possibly could against any scheme of tariffs for this country. The staple industry of Lancashire was flourishing now, and that was due to the free-trade principles of the country. He defied the ingenuity of the most skilful tariff reformer to frame a tariff of import duties which could be of the slightest benefit to the cotton trade of Manchester, and equally he defied them to draw up any list of duties on articles which would not inevitably do that trade considerable harm. He had the greatest pleasure in seconding the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the imposition of a general duty on all manufactured goods imported from Abroad not exceeding 10 per cent. on the average and varying according to the amount of labour in these goods would be injurious to the commercial interests of the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Ainsworth.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): The House are probably acquainted, through the ordinary channels of information, with the course which the Government propose to adopt, and which they propose to advise those who act with them to adopt, in regard to this Motion. Our view is that for reasons which I shall state presently, it is not desirable that this should be made in any sense an occasion upon which the Government Whips should be put on. More than that, we think it would not be desirable, either on this occasion or on next Tuesday or Wednesday, or

  887
  on the Tuesday or Wednesday of the week following, as long as hon. Gentlemen opposite desire to carry on among themselves this interesting discussion, that we should take any part in it ourselves, or advise those who act with us to follow any other course. I observe that that announcement has met with some displeasure on the other side. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no!"] I am glad that for once on a tariff reform question we should all be of one mind. Such a thing has not come within my experience before; but for once it appears that the course which His Majesty's Government have determined to pursue on this occasion is one that commends itself to all sections of the House. Perhaps the House will allow me, however, as it is possible that this universal approval may have different grounds among different sections, to explain the reasons upon which we base the policy that I have just announced to the House. [OPPOSITION cries of "What Policy?"] Use your own name; I never quarrel with a name. This policy is based upon two quite different sets of considerations—one relating to private Members' Resolutions as a whole; the other relating to the special Resolution now before us dealing with a subject upon which the House has already been engaged, and, as I gather from the Order-book, is likely to be engaged at intervals for some time to come.
  Now, with regard to private Members' Resolutions, I associate myself with what I gather is the opinion of my hon. friend who has just made an interesting speech, namely, that, as far as possible, it is desirable that private Members' Resolutions should not be dealt with on Party lines, and that the Government Whips should not be asked to tell in the division. That has always been my view. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh," and What about the previous Question?"] That has always been my view, and I think, so far as I can judge from many years close observation of the procedure of the House of Commons, that is also a view which is coming more and more to be the Government view, from whatever side of the House the Government may happen to be drawn. Of course it is true that there are some cases in which it is difficult, and other cases in which it is impossible,
  888
  for the Government to avoid giving a guidance to the House emphasised by all the machinery of Party display. But I think those occasions should be made as few as possible. I was interrupted just now by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and asked how and why, if these are my general views, I could consent to have the Government Whips put on about a fortnight ago in connection with a Resolution on the fiscal question moved by the hon. Member for Oldham. As anybody will see who refers to the speech which I made on that occasion, the reason why I felt it desirable to act otherwise with respect to that Motion was that I thought, and still think, this House ought not to set the example of passing a Resolution which would prevent the Colonial Conference from being free. I think it would be unfortunate, so far as this House is concerned, but mainly so far as the Colonies are concerned, that we should set an example, which the Colonies might only be too ready to follow, of embodying our special views in a formal Resolution, and thereby hamper those who are to take part in that free conference, which I believe to be the only way of finding a final solution of this question, if, as I believe, a solution is possible. That was the reason for making a great Parliamentary effort to deal in that spirit with a Resolution which would have had the effect I have indicated. But that particular question is settled, so far as this session is concerned. I do not mean the whole fiscal controversy, but the particular question of the Colonial Conference. Upon that occasion all the Party formalities were employed. The Opposition Whips acted; the Government Whips acted. There was a good, honest, straightforward Party fight upon it, and we were victorious. I regretted, even then, to have to put on the Government tellers, though I think the occasion was sufficient to justify it.
  The point is one that has not been brought prominently before the House for some time, because Governments for many years past have been in the habit of robbing private Members of almost all their opportunities of bringing forward these abstract Resolutions. Until the new rules of procedure came into force these opportunities were

  889
  few and far between. I hope the example which I have endeavoured to set in this respect will be followed by my successors, and that private Members will be allowed to retain the privilege—often a valuable privilege, often not wisely or well used—on two evenings of the week before Easter, and one evening between Easter and Whitsuntide, of bringing forward Resolutions in what terms they please, free from unnecessary limitations. But do not let the House make any mistake upon this point. If it becomes, as I think it will increasingly become, the practice to allow the House on these occasions to act without the ordinary machinery of Party management, the inevitable result will be, and must be, that the conclusions at which the House arrives on these occasions will be treated as very interesting expressions of opinion, but expressions of opinion which do not govern policy. I do not believe that that can be avoided. I think it is much more dignified to state beforehand that that will be the case than to do what hon. Gentlemen opposite have been obliged to do—to put on the Government Whips and have all the Party machinery set to work to guide the House into a particular channel, and being completely defeated on that matter, to say good-bye, to use a vulgar phrase, and to treat with complete indifference the decision arrived at.
  A case has been quoted in the Government of Mr. Gladstone which began in 1868, when the Government was defeated in 1872 by a majority of 100 on the question of local taxation. Nothing happened. They did not resign, but left the thing alone. The thing Mr. Gladstone was required to do by the House of Commons was a very formidable business. It involved nothing less than a great legislative measure dealing with local taxation. I think the Government was justified in treating with indifference the Resolution of the House, because the House had not the ordering of Government business. The Government might have thought it their duty to resign, but they did not take account of the Resolution. But there is a much more interesting case at a later date to which I have seen no reference in public, and that is the example set by hon. Gentlemen opposite in Mr. Gladstone's Government which began in 1892. The
  890
  particular case I am now referring to was a private Member's Resolution on the form of Indian examination, which was carried against the Government, and against the Government tellers, on a certain Friday night. To carry out the mandate of the House of Commons required no legislation. It could have been done by the Secretary of State for India by a stroke of the pen. But, rightly enough, as I think, he did not do it. That Government neither resigned nor did it obey the House of Commons. It left the matter alone. I certainly am the last person ever to criticise its action or inaction, in the matter. I believe there was a great national interest at stake, and I think the Secretary for India would have been criminally foolish to take account of the vote of the House, even though it was passed in a formal manner against the Government Whips, as it was passed. Though I do not blame right hon. Gentlemen nor Mr. Gladstone for having ignored the deliberate verdict of the House, I do think it would have been better to have allowed the House to act on that occasion without the formality of Government tellers; because certainly it is a stiffer thing to ignore the House of Commons when you have done your best with the machinery at your disposal to get it to take one course, and when through obstinacy, which may show firmness or may show stupidity, it insists on taking another, I think it would have been better if the Government of that day had done their best to carry out what I admit cannot be a universal policy—that of allowing the House on these particular occasions to take its own course unrestricted by the ordinary Party methods. These are general observations as to the views which I have always held, although I may not always have been able to carry them out, and which my successors will more and more desire to carry out, and in doing so they will have my support.
  I leave these general considerations as to the way of treating private Members' Motions, and I come to the particular Motion of to-night. What I have to say about the Motion is that the policy which I recommend my hon. friends to adopt, the House will understand I equally recommend them to adopt with regard

  891
  to every other Motion on the fiscal question. I will with all respect give my reasons for that advice. The House knows, because I have stated it more than once in the House and the country, that I have regretted from the very beginning of this controversy that it should have been necessary to treat as a matter of immediate Party difference a subject which from the nature of the case cannot be dealt with by the existing Parliament. That is my view, and the majority of the present Parliament take that view. I have always thought it unfortunate that both the House and the country should have been asked to take up this matter. I daresay some Gentlemen sitting on these benches have felt that that advice could not be followed; that the public interest in this question in some of its aspects was too keen and could not be kept out, as I think it ought to have been kept out, of the day-to-day controversies of Party. I know I do not carry general support with me on this subject. I believe, therefore, the precedent set on this occasion is one which will be followed in future on other subjects; and no doubt we shall be as anxious, when in Opposition, to know what views various members of the future Government held upon Home Rule, and whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose wholly agrees in every respect with the future Labour member of the Cabinet with which he is to be associated; whether they touch politics, the actual politics of the session, or even the politics of Party. I do not think this new plan is a good one, but, of course, if it is adopted by one side it can be adopted by the other. I venture to hazard a prophecy that, on the whole, from a mere narrow Party point of view it will be more a gain than a loss.
  I should like to know exactly, and the House would like to know, what the motive is that, animates the hon. Gentlemen who framed the Resolution with which we are now called upon to deal. It is quite certain, of course, that their main object was not to influence the House of Commons because this House of Commons would have nothing to do with carrying out this policy one way or the other. It is altogether apart from the duties which are thrown upon it. Therefore, it wholly differs from an
  892
  ordinary Resolution intended to influence the House or intended to modify the course of the Government and the policy, the present, actual, living policy of the country. That cannot be the object, because, whatever the result of the debate, no effect of this kind can be produced. If it is not to influence the House of Commons, is it to contribute to our knowledge of the fiscal question? I do not know whether the two Gentlemen who have spoken, and who have made, if I may say so, speeches in excellent taste, conceive themselves to be adding much to the knowledge which we already possess, or to the arguments which have from time to time been advanced either by scientific economists in the study or Party politicians on the platform. If they did suppose themselves to be making additional contributions, I think it must have been because their knowledge of the literature of the subject was imperfect, or because they felt that by the charms of their own eloquence they were adding to our knowledge. [Cries of "Oh."] Is that a reasonable interruption? I do not think that anything I said could be construed into an offensive observation. Certainly no offence was meant. I do not at all underrate the House of Commons as an arena for discussing economic questions, but I do not think it is in discussing abstract economic questions that it shines. They are complicated and not easy to deal with in the ordinary rough and tumble of deba e, and we have had a considerable amount of discussion upon them already. An ngenious friend of mine made a calculation, which I believe to be under the mark rather than over it, that no less than 1,100 columns of Hansard have been spoken on the fiscal question between the beginning of last session and the present moment. Eleven hundred columns is a good deal for us to have added to the priceless treasure of Parliamentary debate upon one subject in one session and a month more.
  I do not think that this constant effort by the House of Commons to discuss this question can lead to any fruitful results. Do I stand alone in that view? Am I the only person who thinks so? [An HON. MEMBER: No.] Is there only one person who thinks it has been discussed enough? No, because I remember

  893
  that in the course of the debate on the King's Speech a formal Amendment, a formal vote of censure, was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife; and from his speech it would be seen that he thought the Government ought to dissolve, because this question had been discussed enough.
  MR. ASQUITH: In the country, not in the House of Commons.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the right hon. Gentleman, had he had time to reflect, would not have made that interruption. Is he seriously going to draw the distinction which he has now indicated to us? [OPPOSITION cries of "Yes."] Very well; what must it; mean? It must mean that either Members of this House are not cognisant of what is said in the country, or that the country is not cognisant of what is said in this House. Allow me respectfully to say that it is absurd to attempt to distinguish in this respect between a sufficiency of discussion in this House and in the country. The discussion has been a public one, whether in the House or in the country; and if it is sufficient in the country it might well be sufficient in this House.
  Well, Sir, if that argument were not sufficient, may I bring one other to the consideration of the House? On what principle do private Members draw the Resolutions that they submit for discussion within these walls? I am making no criticism of hon. Gentlemen opposite as distinguished from hon. friends of mine on this side of the House; but does any private Member in drawing a Resolution, on a subject which is matter of Party controversy, draw it in order to get a perfectly plain and unmistakable issue embracing the whole subject before the House, or does he draw it in order to embarrass his opponents? According to my observation—I make no criticism of the Member—it is always done, in these matters, to embarrass his opponents. And why should it not be so? It is quite right. We meet here, no doubt, to further national business, but we also meet here to fight out our Parliamentary differences; and we cannot ask a private Member to be so above the influence of
  894
  that Party atmosphere in which he lives and moves and has his being as deliberately to set to work to make the issue he raises as convenient, as clear, and as unambiguous as possible, in order that a decision may be taken upon it. He does nothing of the kind, and you will never get him to do anything of the kind. I do not blame him for it; but if that be true—and every one who knows anything of Parliamentary custom knows it is true—do not let us flatter ourselves that these private Members' Resolutions are simply dictated by an appetite for knowledge to be obtained by the free exchange of arguments across the floor of the House. Nothing of the kind. That really brings me to what is the last observation that I need make to the House. The hon. Gentleman has been successful in the ballot, and in moving this Resolution was, I understood from his speech—I may be wrong—rather acting with others for our temporary embarrassment by a Resolution which was provided for the purpose.
  MR. AINSWORTH: If the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to know how the Resolution was drawn, and who were consulted, I can easily tell him.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no doubt the names are estimable, and I have no complaint to make against the hon. Gentleman and his procedure. But why was it done? Was it done in order again to discuss a question which, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fifeshire says, has been discussed adequately out of doors? Not at all. Of course, it was done to embarrass the Government, an admirable and laudable object from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They set a trap. They were quite right to set a trap. We do not propose to fall into it, and we are quite right not to fall into it.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Why should it embarrass you?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That being so, surely it is quite plain that hon. Gentlemen opposite would like us to treat every Resolution on every conceivable phase of this often-discussed question, on every Tuesday and Wednesday, as a vote of

  895
  censure. We do not propose to treat it as a vote of censure. We do not think that it is consonant with Parliamentary tradition. We do not think it is a precedent that either could, or would, or ought to be followed by any Government which may succeed us, and in these circumstances we do not propose to follow it ourselves. The truth is, Sir, we have had our Party discussions upon the only matter which is relevant to the existing and present issue, the issue whether or not a Resolution should be passed hampering the freedom of the Conference. That fight has taken place. So far as I am concerned I shall not think it necessary to take part in any discussion raised in this way on the fiscal question in future, and if my voice has any weight with those of my friends who habitually act with me, I would advise them both to imitate my reticence of speech, and if they please—and I hope they will please—my absence from the division.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Mr. Speaker, Sir, we have had a most amusing, interesting, characteristic speech from the right hon. Gentleman. He has asked for what purpose this Resolution has been put upon the Paper by my hon. friend, which is not a usual Question to address to any hon. Member of the House. He has come to the conclusion that it has been put down on purpose to embarrass the Government. But if we had an honest Government, with honest opinions which they had the courage to declare, there would be no need for a Resolution such as this. There would be no embarrassment to the Government. Why does the right hon. Gentleman call it embarrassment? [Interruptions.] There is no embarrassment at all in a Resolution which is a simple expression of opinion. [An HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL benches: Ambiguous.] Ambiguous! The right hon. Gentleman is a master of ambiguity, for he has spoken thirty-five minutes and the House is exactly as well informed now as to his opinion upon the Resolution as it was when he rose. Why, the right hon. Gentleman says that private Members' Motions are to be treated as a mode of amusing the House and the country by a display of oratorical and dialectical powers. [MINISTERIALcries of "No, no.!"]
  896
  Well, he practically said so, but that the Government, of course, was not expected to take part in such childish amusement; their business was to settle for the country what its policy should be, and to enforce that policy when they came to a conclusion as to what it should be. Going back to past times the right hon. Gentleman was able to pick out two occasions when Mr. Gladstone disregarded a private Member's Motion, carried against him and against his Whips in the House of Commons. Well, I am fortunate enough to have survived both these Motions. I have the advantage of the Prime Minister in having been present on both occasions. The first was a Motion brought forward by a respected Conservative Member, and to the general amazement it was supported by a great defection of the Whig Party against Mr. Gladstone's Government. The subject had never been before the country, it was a complete novelty when it was introduced into Parliament, and there was no reason to believe that the mass of the people were interested in the subject or had made up their minds upon it. There was no reason, therefore, why the Government should treat it—I will not say not treat it with respect, but no reason why they should treat it as an order of the House of Commons or through the House of Commons a demand from the country, which we were bound to obey. The other case was a case of certain Indian competitive examinations. It was carried in a House almost empty on a Wednesday afternoon by a majority of eight against the Government; and this the right hon. Gentleman said was a result upon which the Government might have been expected to revolutionise its system of examinations.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot agree.
  *SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is a case, at all events, upon which he justifies his attitude towards a private Member's Motion. In passing let me say that I repudiate altogether his view of private Members' Motions and his duty to the House of Commons. He almost apologised to-night for intervening in what he described as an interesting conversation. Why, Sir, it is on the

  897
  House of Commons, on the support of the House of Commons, that the right hon. Gentleman depends for the position he occupies. Let him prove to us to-Light that he has the support of the House of Commons, and let us hear from him first of all a plain statement of his own opinion on this subject. If this is a mere academic question now, it was something very different on previous occasions. Was not a fiscal Motion to be expected to occur when the whole country was agitated by a great propaganda in favour of new ideas on fiscal matters? And when such questions arise is not the House of Commons entitled to have its voice heard? We are told it is a mere academic discussion now; but if it is so now, why was it a critical emergency on previous occasions? The right hon. Gentleman has referred to a fortnight ago, and justified his resort to the previous Question. Well, but that was not the first occasion; we had occasion after occasion last session. There was the celebrated occasion of the Wharton Amendment, and all those attempts of the House of Commons to elicit what we are entitled to know have through all these months been met by devices, by evasions, by sophistications to stave off a clear expression of opinion by the House. The House of Commons has been treated as if it were a sort of "Hall of Mystery." We have not had debates, but something more like séances. The moment the fiscal question came on the lights were turned down, we heard the crack of the whip, but we saw very little, and the question was, so far as we could judge, which particular wing of the Party opposite would hypnotise the other. But we cannot deal with the matter in this bantering, facetious strain; it is too serious.
  For two years we have seen the Government quartered on the country, notwithstanding the persistent and continuous indications of the country's indignation against them and repudiation of them. They have engaged themselves even—in the way they treated repeated attempts to get at the truth of the matter—they have engaged themselves in the task of degrading the House of Commons, while outside they have been proclaiming, or some have, whom they did not venture
  898
  to contradict, the ruin of British trade, peril to the British Empire, and the probable disloyalty of our fellow-subjects. They have been evading and shuffling, treating concealment as the highest duty of statecraft, and yet, after all, they have deceived no one, neither the country, nor the House of Commons, nor the Opposition, or even themselves. They have pursued concealment as the only means of maintaining themselves in office. Sir, we are now told that the matter is of little importance, that the efforts of private Members to obtain a verdict of the House of Commons are more child's play, and should be disregarded. All these matchless exhibitions of Parliamentary effrontery were merely intended for our entertainment, and above all to enable us to admire the magnetic personality of one man as set against the dialectical ability of another. That is not the sort of work that the House of Commons should be set to.
  We have passed through three stages of this fiscal question in the Parliamentary world. The first stage was when we were told that there was to be a grand inquiry, that until that inquiry was completed our duty was to hold our tongues. Discussion was suppressed. That was the stage of what I would call the closed door. Then we came to a further stage when discussion was reluctantly admitted, but on the condition that on no account should it come to a decisive or clear test, that on no account should there be a conclusion arrived at. Non-committal discussion was to be allowed, some sort of Amendment was to be moved which would neutralise the effect of the whole discussion. Something in the meanwhile was being submitted to the country as a collective policy, which we have had great difficulty in understanding. The treasure was hidden in earthen vessels which were deposited in various parts of the island. There was a pamphlet in Downing Street; there was a speech at Sheffield; then there was another speech at Edinburgh; there was a narrow escape of a third speech at Southampton which the Russian fleet prevented. And that, I think, we may call the stage of the previous Question. But

  899
  now we have come to a further stage. Those were the stages of the shut door and of the side door. We are now at the stage of the back door. Now all restraint has been removed, perfect freedom prevails on the other side of the House, not only of discussion and decision, but of presence or absence. Those who have exhausted every wile of concealment, every trench that could be dug, every finesse, every trick by which a little advantage in defence might be obtained, strike their camp, abandon their policy and their pretences, and leave their bewildered followers to take part in a general sauve qui peut. I observe that most of the tariff reformers are away. We are inclined to rub our eyes. Is not this Nelson's year? Where are the sons of Empire? I should have expected that they would have come here either to bury Cæsar or to praise him. There is one, indeed, I observe, who is faithful, ever faithful, the hon. Member for Central Sheffield, who is the real patentee of these fiscal theories. We cannot but drop a tear over the absence of the others.
  And here, Sir, I would call the attention of the House to a thing even more grave than what I have been referring to. To-night we are dealing with a part of this question which is especially associated with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He has plainly put forward his policy. There is no fog or mist about it. What is controlled by my hon. friend's Resolution is an essential part of his policy. As I understand it, he wishes two things. He wishes to give to his country the abounding prosperity which he finds a high protective tariff has secured for other countries, and, in the second place, he wishes by a stroke of his magic wand—and it will require to be a magic wand to do it—at once to raise a large revenue by the taxation of foreign manufactures, and to increase
  employment at home by excluding those manufactures from our markets. That is the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. That is serious enough. But what of next week's Motion? We must regard the conduct of hon. Members opposite
  900
  to-night in the light of what has been promised for next week's Motion? Next week the Motion is to be an assertion contrary to the peculiar and individual policy of the right hon. Gentleman—the policy, if we can understand it, of the Government, upon which they are going to take the sense of the country at the general election. And yet to that policy also the same process is to be applied—precisely the same treatment. Are we then to understand that the Government have absolutely renounced all policy of their own? They have ceased to attempt to control the votes of their followers. They dare not impose their will upon them, as is shown to-night. And yet this is the policy for which the Government was reconstructed—not the latest reconstruction, but an important reconstruction which still leaves its traces amongst them—and, although they may belittle the policy that is at stake to-night, they cannot surely repudiate their own policy. It is a poor thing, but their own. I say that, on the eve of a general election, coming nearer to us as the days go on and as events occur, the Government are found not to be able to face a decision of the House of Commons. That is the plain English of the tactics of to-night. It is not even the previous Question that is moved. I say let them take, late as it is, the only course that is open to men of courage, honesty, and honour. Let them get rid of this House of Commons, which they can no longer control or trust, and let them appeal to the country and see what the country will say.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he would endeavour to confine his remarks wholly and solely to the terms of the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Argyllshire. That Motion declared that—
  "The imposition of a general duty on all manufactured goods imported from abroad not exceeding 10 per cent. on the average, and varying according to the amount of labour in these goods, would be injurious to the commercial interests of the United Kingdom."
  He thought every hon. Member who had listened to the debate would agree with him when he said that neither the mover nor the seconder of this Motion had shown that a 10 per cent, duty on manufactured

  901
  goods would be injurious to the commercial interests of this country. He had nothing to complain of in the tone of speeches of the mover and seconder of this Motion, and he thanked them for their courteous reference to himself. Having for the last twenty years by speeches and Motions in this House, and before he was a candidate for Parliament, advocated the putting of a duty upon manufactured goods which competed with the products of this country, he could not possibly, with the smallest consistency, allow the Resolution of the hon. Member for Argyllshire to pass without some few words of challenge. He would endeavour to be as brief in his remarks as possible, but it would be necessary for him to rely upon the indulgence of the House. He represented, and had represented for the last twenty years, a manufacturing constituency, and he could not venture again to go amongst his constituents if upon this occasion he failed to advocate a policy which they had loyally supported for so many years.
  In the Amendment of which he had given notice he stated, "That this House looks with grave concern at the continuous increase, since the adoption of the free import system without reciprocity, in competing manufactured goods offered for sale in the markets of the United Kingdom." Had there been this continuous increase? In a Blue-book which was laid on the. Table of the House only a few days ago it was stated that in 1860 the importations of foreign manufactured goods was £15,000,000. It rose continually, until in 1903, when, according to the Blue-book, there was a total import of these goods of over £101,000,000. There could be no doubt that this importation had displaced a considerable amount of artisan labour in this country. This was the proposition to which he desired to call the attention of the House. This was entirely a question for the working classes and not a question for the capitalists, who could easily transfer their capital from one country to another where they could obtain the most remunerative return. But working men could do nothing of the kind, for they could not transfer their labour so readily. At the present time the working men of this country found it extremely difficult
  902
  to support themselves and their wives and children, and they were quite unable to put anything on one side for a rainy day.
  According to the Return to which he had referred the importation of articles wholly or mainly manufactured was divisible into three classes. First of all there was the class of articles completely manufactured and ready for consumption in the United Kingdom, and requiring no labour in this country to place them on the market. The importation of this class of goods was increasing very rapidly indeed. In the year 1860 they amounted to £7,000,000, but in 1903 the total was £53,000,000, or seven and a-half times as much as they were in 1860. The second class referred to articles manufactured but requiring to pass through some process of adaptation before consumption in this country, thus affording a little employment to the British artisan. Of this second class, in 1860 £7,000,000 were imported, and, in 1903 £43,000,000, or six times as much as in 1860. The third class consisted of articles partly manufactured, thus giving partial employment to the British artisan. Of this third class, in 1860 over £5,000,000 worth were imported, whilst in 1903 the total was £19,000,000, or three and three-quarter times as much as in 1860. The most rapid growth had, therefore, been in the importation of fully finished goods ready for consumption, and giving no employment to British artisans, and the least in the category of partly manufactured goods.
  He wished to argue this matter as representing his own constituency, who had felt the pinch very severely in recent years. Here they had £100,000,000 of foreign goods displacing home labour, which were allowed to come here in a preferential manner. They were, in the first place, absolutely free from the trade union regulations which prevailed in this country. They also enjoyed immunity from British factory legislation and from British rates and taxes, and had the advantage often of preferential through railway rates. Hon. Members had avoided the question of the uncertainty of labour in the home

  903
  market and of the distress which prevailed. [Opposition cries of "Divide."] He hoped hon. Members would give him a fair hearing; he had nothing personally to gain by the fulfilment of these ideas, which he had advocated ever since he had entered the House. In an article in the Nineteenth Century the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil stated that in 1903 the sum paid to those out of employment, distinct from strikes, by 100 of the principal trade unions amounted to £504,021, and the total for twelve years was £4,200,000. Therefore, it was clear that the trade unions were placed at a considerable disadvantage in respect of this enormously increasing importation of foreign manufactured goods competing with the home market, in which the trades unionists here ought to have a preferential right of employment. With regard to our factory legislation, he agreed that it was the best in the world, and the operatives were protected against many abuses which prevailed in other countries, but all these foreign goods were received without the slightest inquiry as to the conditions under which they were produced. Therefore, not only was this unfair as regarded wages, hours of labour, and conditions which trade unionists imposed in this country, but it was also unfair because these goods were placed upon the market upon terms and conditions against which the manufacturers of this country could not possibly compete.
  He was surprised that the hon. Member opposite had not even mentioned the question of the uncertainty of labour or the great distress which existed at the present time. The whole object of the policy of those who thought with him was to increase employment in this country. It was impossible to represent a great constituency like Sheffield without being impressed with the enormous amount of distress and suffering which existed amongst the artisan class, and a great deal of this distress arose from the uncertainty of employment of home labour. The January number of the Labour Gazette of the Board of Trade showed how workmen's wages had diminished in the years 1902–4. In every district of London there was want of employment.
  904
  He should like to hear the views of the hon. Member for Battersea.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: All the trade unions are against you and all the Labour Members of this House.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) was not against him, and had on a former occasion divided the House with him on this subject. The Labour Gazette showed that there had been exceptional distress during the winter, and exceptional measures had had to be taken to meet it. Did this state of affairs exist in any other country? [OPPOSITION cries of "Germany,"
  "France," and "Austria."] In what town? [An HON. MEMBER: "All of them," and laughter.] He perceived that hon. Gentlemen would not give him a fair chance. According to a book written by the Member for Aberdeen the total number of persons returned as paupers in the whole of America in 1880 was 88,000, or one to every 565 of the population. In this country the number of persons dependent entirely upon Poor Law relief was over 400,000. If hon. Members opposite had any sympathy with the unemployed—["Oh, oh!"]— how did they show it? Did they show any desire to give the unemployed work? The mover of this Resolution said the whole object of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, for whom he had no authority to speak, was to give employment to the masses of the people. There could be no doubt that the importation of a large quantity of foreign manufactured goods deprived the people of this country of legitimate employment, and it was only right that some toll should be placed on them. The present state of things also led to the emigration of our most desirable young men. Why were so many workmen emigrating and going to foreign countries if the maintenance of our system of free imports was such a desirable and beneficial system? [Cries of "Divide, divide."] There was evidently a great desire on the part of hon. Members opposite to speak, and he would not detain them very long. He could not thank them either for a patient or courteous hearing, but he

  905
  would like to ask them what was their remedy for the want of employment?
  He should have been more interested in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition if he had spoken in some measure to the Resolution of the hon. Member for Argyllshire. He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in a speech he made on November 5th last, declared that the development of the home trade amongst our own people would be the greatest benefit that could possibly happen. Perhaps on some other occasion the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House how he proposed to develop home trade. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] He noticed that the hon. Member for Woolwich had already taken his seat upon the Treasury bench, and he wished to extend to him Ins hearty congratulations. [Cries of "Time."] He hoped the hon. Member would have an opportunity of telling the House how he proposed to put into practice the views he held in regard to a remedy for the want of employment. The hon. Member for Carnarvon was in his place, and he would like to hear what that hon. Member, who had stated that they wanted something better than the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, had to place before them in the interests of the unemployed and the masses of the people. He hoped the hon. Member would let the House hear what he proposed in the interests of the unemployed, better than the propositions which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid he had listened with interest to the speech of his hon. and gallant friend, who was well qualified to speak to the House on a subject in which he had taken an interest for so many years. He would submit to his judgment one general answer to the interesting line of argument he pursued. The hon. and gallant Member had fallen into the error of believing that there was a certain limited demand for commodities; that if that demand was filled up by foreign labour then there was nothing left for English labour to do. The mistake was that there was no such thing as a limited
  906
  demand for commodities. The demand for commodities depended upon the purchasing power of the public. If, therefore, they brought in from abroad cheap commodities, that cheapness was the difference between the price of those commodities and what similar commodities would cost if made at home. That difference was a clear gain to the purchasing power of the public, and was, therefore, in the interest of employment and labour. He could not accept the position the hon. and gallant Member laid down that the legal regulations affecting labour in foreign countries were in every case so much less drastic than they were in this country. In Germany, which was the most formidable of our competitors, the contrary was the case. The German laws protected or interfered with the perfect freedom of contract between employer and labour more considerably in reality than did our laws at home. Therefore he was not able to agree with the economic argument which the hon. and gallant Member put forward. But he did very heartily respect him for being there to maintain the view which he held so sincerely. He had taken a reasonable, straightforward, and courageous course. They heard of a mission; he was quite sure his hon. and gallant friend's method was the only way by which people ever made any converts. They could not persuade people to believe they were in the right if they did not take reasonable and rational opportunities of pleading their case, even though the occasion might be one in which they were exposed to an answer.
  At an earlier period of the evening they listened to a very interesting speech from the Prime Minister, with most of which he was in hearty agreement He did not at all agree with the Leader of the Opposition in the reply he made upon the question how the Government ought to treat abstract Resolutions. What the Prime Minister said was most wise, and he only regretted it had not been more often acted upon in the past. There was no sort of reason why the Government should interfere as a Government with a great number of questions which came before this House. They had heard in recent discussions that

  907
  the House of Commons was going down in reputation, and he thought it was true. He believed the fundamental cause of that was the unnecessary intrusion of Party discipline and Party spirit into every branch of their discussions, and it was only by relaxing Party discipline that they would bring back the House of Commons to its former reputation and efficiency. He was, therefore, very glad the Government had taken the wise course they had to-night, and allowed the question to be presented to the House without interfering on grounds of Party loyalty. He could not follow the suggestion his right hon. friend made, that it was desirable not to take part in the debate, or, if there was a division, in the division, because in his view this was one of the very gravest questions which could be raised before Parliament, or which had been raised in their time. He did not know that he thought anything in the world so dangerous to this country, unless it were Home Rule, which Parliament could possibly debate, as the adoption of a general system of protection. He was convinced that not only was it an entirely quack remedy for whatever industrial or commercial difficulties we suffered from, and would have in consequence all the injurious effects that quack remedies invariably had of leading people to trust to those remedies rather than to their own exertions, but it would corrupt public life, divide classes, and bring into our country, as it had into so many others, that element of class antipathy, that conception of the poor man that the law was not fair as between the rich and the poor, but was an organised system by which those who could pull the strings were enabled to bring more wealth into their own pockets and more resources to indulge their luxury. It was because he thought this a matter of the very gravest importance that he was not able, as he would naturally wish, to assent to the suggestion which fell from the Treasury bench and take no part in the discussion.
  He could not help feeling they had reached a point of no ordinary interest in the progress of this discussion. This was not an academic question. It probably would have been a question which could have been so treated had the Prime Minister and his colleagues been allowed
  908
  to manage it in their own way. But they had not been allowed to do so. Nearly two years ago the Tariff Reform League, led by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, took the matter out of the hands of the Prime Minister and his colleagues, managed the agitation in their own way, and made it perfectly clear that they regarded the present as the period of decision; they made it clear in many ways, but especially by attacks upon the seats of those who were not able to agree with them. Those attacks began about fifteen months ago, and from that moment it became clear, from the methods of advocacy adopted, that now was the time for decision, that it was not an educational campaign to instruct the public mind on the fiscal question, but a deliberate design first to capture the Conservative Party, to pack it, and then, when the whole process of deliberation and decision had been done beforehand, to submit, for the sake of constitutional form, a tariff to the House of Commons, which would be pledged to the last item to pass it verbatim et literatim. That was the design of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham and the Tariff Reform League, and it was the miscarriage of that design they were celebrating that night. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham was absent from a cause with which they all sympathised, and he made no comment on it except to express regret and to hope that he would soon be with them again. But there were other members of his Party, only less distinguished, who might some of them have been present. He missed the spacious form of his right hon. friend the Member for Sleaford.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: He has a meeting in his constituency.
  LORD HUGH CECILregretted that his right hon. friend's sense of public duty led him to consider that meeting more important than the maintenance of his opinion in the House of Commons. But other advocates of the cause were absent or silent on the present occasion, and in order that there might be no mistake about the motive of their absence they held a meeting and decided that they should treat the debate "with contempt."

  909
  How odd that was for if they had been in a majority instead of a minority they would have felt no occasion for increasing that not very amiable quality of contempt; they would have regarded it as an opportunity to save a decaying Empire and dying industries, to rally to the flag of Imperialism at the rate of 2s. a quarter on wheat, and to vindicate once again the principle of legitimate protection of industries which would add to the burdens of no class, bring a vast revenue to the State, while excluding from competition all goods upon which it was proposed to levy that revenue. He thought that members of the Tariff Reform League, or the Members who represented the views of the league in this House, might have shown this diffidence of public and Parliamentary action a little sooner, and might even now show it more consistently and completely. He carried his mind back to eighteen months ago, when the Cabinet was broken up because of disagreement on the subject. A little more temperateness of management and a little more disposition to put off this question to a calmer hour, and there might have been no Ministerial crisis arid none of the dislocation in the Party which followed.
  Twelve months ago there was another meeting of Members of the league, and very different was their mood. Then they sent an imperious message to the Treasury Bench requiring that a certain Amendment put down at the wish and with the concurrence of Government should not be proceeded with. Sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas, said the right hon. Member for Sleaford in those days, and fortunately he had not a meeting in his constituency on that occasion. He gave his orders, and in those days it was for the Tariff Reform League to give orders, and Unionist free-traders were accused of disloyalty to the Government. Now things were changed. For some time past the retreat from Moscow had been going on. That night witnessed the passage of the Beresina, and his hon. and gallant friend figured, as he was able to do, in the character of Marshal Ney. But those retreating forces, so diffident of argument in Parliament, were continuing their attacks on their free-trade colleagues,
  910
  uniting as it seemed in a very unusual manner a singular intolerance of disagreement of opinion with a singular lack of courage in maintaining their own opinions. They had a bigotry with all the narrowness and vindictiveness, but none of the courage generally associated with that quality. He confessed that he thought it was a little hard that opinions should be judged to be so sacred as to justify the driving out of Members of Parliament and should not be sufficiently sacred to be defended on the floor of the House of Commons, There was no doubt that hon. Members would say, if one could get them in a candid moment, that they believed what they were doing was good tactics. He thought this view showed that these hon. Members understood tactics as little as they understood economics. Of course, it was not in the power of any system of tactics to make those in a small minority exert the influence that belonged to a majority. On other questions in this House he had been in a very small minority. On Church and education questions it had been his fortune repeatedly to divide with very small parties indeed; but he was quite sure that if the school of opinion to which he belonged had exerted any influence at all it was because they did not shrink from maintaining their own opinions and because they were not so absorbed by a sense of their own dignity and such an exaggerated idea of self-respect that they were afraid of being found in a small minority in the division lobby. Did tariff reformers really suppose that after to-night they were going to get the public in the constituencies outside to take them very seriously? Did they suppose that the electorate was going to rally to those who would not rally to their own cause? Did they suppose that the example of flight as set by their leaders was to be a source of courage and heroism in the rank and file? No, the House had seen to-night a great landmark in the history of this controversy. They now knew how hollow were those pretences about a dying Empire and the dying industries of which he had spoken. The fidelity of Canada—this was part of one scheme; it all fitted together—which needed to be shored up, a dying industry in every town—for the right

  911
  hon. Member for West Birmingham wherever he went always found something amiss—all these things were now left to "get on with their dying." After to-night tariff reform would pass from being a heresy into being a laughingstock. The country was not dying; its industries were not dying; it held its own throughout the world, and it flourished. The only thing that was dying was the protectionist movement, which had been revived and galvanised into life by the genius of one individual and by a system of advertisement and organisation which he thought had been without a parallel in the history of political agitation. The moment they had succeeded in bringing the matter to a test—and it had taken a long time—the moment they had got the Government to leave the House to act as it pleased they were not even to be put to the trouble of fighting it out; the tariff reformers had fled at the very sound of their opponents' guns.
  It was true that the Tariff Reform League might succeed in driving three, four, six, or twenty of those with whom they disagreed out of Parliament; but that prospect did not depress him at the moment. The loss of Parliamentary seats was one of the ordinary incidents in political controversy, and it mattered little. But that evening's experience was, he thought, almost unique. During the last eighteen months they had had a contest within the Unionist Party on this great issue. He was so grateful to the Government for what they had done on the present occasion that he did not wish to say a word of recrimination, but certainly in the earlier stages of the controversy the Government did not assume that proper attitude of neutrality which they had now adopted. There had been so to speak a cold wind in that quarter; only a small number of Members who sat on the Government side had felt themselves able to take an active part in the controversy; some of their friends had crossed the floor and now supported the other side; others had withdrawn on other grounds. But some supporters of the Government had persisted and now they had prevailed. Sooner than he had any reason to anticipate, they had made
  912
  it clear that the Conservative Party was not a protectionist Party and that it had not been captured by the Tariff Reform League; that it was, as it always had been, a Party indulgent and comprehensive, allowing all sorts of varieties of opinion, and was in its settled policy still an adherent to the principle of free trade. He was glad that this was so. He hoped that his hon. friends would join in freeing the Party as soon as possible from the evil reputation which the action of the Tariff Reform League had brought upon it. They had gone a long way on the road that evening, and he looked forward to better things still in the future. He looked forward to the day when the Party of which they were so proud would again enjoy that position which two years ago it enjoyed of being the most trusted and respected Party in the State. He looked forward to the building up of that edifice which in a reckless moment had been cast to the ground, and to the storing again of that treasure which, with a mad expenditure, had been cast into the sea. If it were so, what did it matter if a few of them here and there suffered abuse or exclusion from Parliament? They had contended for a cause which they were certain was the cause of the good of the Empire, and to-day they had before them the promise of an early and a certain victory.
  MR. CROMBIEpointed out that the terms of the Resolution were the ipsissima
  verba of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and, therefore, when the Prime Minister complained of it as being embarrassing, he could only condole with the right hon. Gentleman in having so embarrassing an ally as the late Colonial Secretary. What were the circumstances? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had gone round the country declaring that British trade was in a most parlous state, that sugar and silk had gone, that wool and iron were threatened, and that cotton would go, but that fortunately he and his friends had found a cure. As to that cure there was a difference of opinion, the hon. Member for Central Sheffield believing that it would remove the difficulties connected with British trade, while others,

  913
  who were manufacturers themselves, were old-fashioned enough to believe that a tariff would simply ruin the home trade. But whatever their differences of opinion as to the cure, all were agreed as to the importance of the question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had said—
  "What is at stake is the welfare of the masses of the population…. To them it is a question of life and death."
  This was a question of life and death, but where was the Member for West Birmingham? They were sorry to hear that he was laid aside by illness. It must indeed be a calamity to be laid aside on so important an occasion. But the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have deserted the House of Commons. Where was he a fortnight ago, when the hon. Member for Oldham moved his Resolution? Somebody was in his place, wearing his clothes, and having all his external appearance, but it was a mere attentuated form. The real Member for West Birmingham was the missionary of Empire, the saviour of British trade, the great magnetic personality, the man who took nothing lying down; whereas he who was present a fortnight ago was an attenuated John Chilcote, with shattered nerves and ruined constitution, who cringed under the narcotics administered by the Prime Minister. To-night tariff reformers had been freed from their bonds; for the first time they were allowed to exercise liberty of conscience, and what were they going to do? They were going to run away! Was there ever so strange a change within two short years? Less than two years ago, at a great dinner-party at the Hotel Cecil, 122 Members of Parliament swore fealty to the cause of tariff reform. Where was that Party now? There was only one survivor—the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Sheffield. The hon. and gallant Member was in a strange position. For many years he occupied
  914
  all alone the desert island of protection But one day he was invaded by an army of statesmen and important personages, led by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. For two years they had hustled him in his own place, but this morning he had awakened to find they were all gone, and that he was again in sole possession of his desert island. Where were these hon. Gentlemen? Where was the hon. Member for Glasgow who so brilliantly represented the Board of Trade? As recently as Friday last, speaking in the country, he devoted the whole of his speech to tariff reform, and declared that in the iron trade alone £6,000,000 of wages had been lost to the workmen of this country. To-night it was only an academic question! Where was the Colonial Secretary, who they all knew was under the magnetic influence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham? Only two days ago he declared that that "magnetic influence" had worked a miracle, in that it had actually persuaded the magnates of the Transvaal to accept £35,000,000 of the money of this country without giving anything in return.
  They all expected that the Prime Minister upon a question of life or death like this would have told the House his views. The right hon. Gentleman said that 1,100 columns of Hansard had been spoken upon the fiscal question, but he challenged the Prime Minister's followers to show him a single sentence which would give the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman upon the policy of the Member for West Birmingham. Why should the Prime Minister hide his opinion? Why did he refuse to tell them his opinion upon a matter of life or death? They all knew the reason why. It was because the right hon. Gentleman knew to express his opinion upon that question would be a matter of life or death with the Government. The Prime Minister lived by concealment. His relations with his

  915
  followers were like those of Cupid to Psyche. Cupid was condemned to woo Psyche in the dark. He lived in constant trepidation lest one night she should strike a match and see his real features. The Prime Minister had done all he could to make the darkness thick. He had shut the shutters of the closure, and drawn the curtains of the previous question. But to-night the fatal moment had come; the match was struck, and like Cupid he had run away. The action he had taken upon this Resolution was more than a defeat for the tariff reformers, it was a rout, and they could never hold up their heads again.
  MR. SPEAKERwas proceeding to put the Question from the Chair when
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYseated and wearing his hat, and speaking amid cries of "Order" from the Opposition, said,—May I ask, Sir, whether, as the "Noes" appear to be in a very small minority, in order to save the House the trouble of a division, those who object to the Motion might not be called on to rise in their places?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am not in a position to form an opinion as to the numbers, I cannot adopt that suggestion.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 2. (Division List, No. 79.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N E.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Ambrose, Robert

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Asquith, Rt.Hon. Herbert Henry

  Churchill Winston Spencer

  Gorst, Rt Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Grant, Corrie

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

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

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cremer, William Randal

  Griffith, Ellis, J.

  Beach, Rt.Hn.Sir Michael Hicks

  Crombie, John William

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

  Crooks, William

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Hain, Edward

  Bell, Richard

  Delany, William

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Benn, John Williams

  Denny, Colonel

  Hamilton, RtHn.LordG(Midd'x

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hammond, John

  Blake, Edward

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

  Boland, John

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Harrington, Timothy

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Harwood, George

  Brigg, John

  Duffy, William J.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Duncan, Hastings

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Ellice, CaptEC(S. Andrw's Bghs)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon Charles H.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Emmott, Alfred

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

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Evans, Sir Francis H.Maidstone

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Burns, John

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Burt, Thomas

  Fenwick, Charles

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Caldwell, James

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Cameron, Robert

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Johnson, John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

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

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

  Smith, H. C. (North'mbTyneside

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

  O'Dowd, John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Kitson, Sir James

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Spear, John Ward

  Labouchere, Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Spencer, Rt. Hn.C.R.(Northants

  Lambert, George

  O'Mara, James

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Lamont, Norman

  Partington, Oswald

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Langley, Batty

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Sullivan, Donal

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Taylor, Theodore, C. (Radcliffe

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Perks, Robert William

  Tennant, Harold John

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthvr

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Price, Robert John

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lloyd-George

  Priestley, Arthur

  Tomkinson, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Rea, Russell

  Toulmin, George

  Lundon, W.

  Reckett, Harold James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Reddy, M.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Wallace, Robert

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Richards,Thomas(W.Monm'th)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  M'Crae, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wason, Eugene, Clackmannan

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Malcolm, Ian

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E(Notts.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Robson, William Snowdon

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Roche, John

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Montagu, Hon.J.Soott(Hants.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Mooney, John J.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kayc

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Morley,Rt.Hn.John (Montrose)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Whittaker, ThomasPalmer

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Runciman, Walter

  Williams, Osmond, (Merioneth)

  Moss, Samuel

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wills, ArthurWalters(N. Dorset

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Wilson, Fred.W.(Norfolk,Mid.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wilson, John(Durham, Mid)

  Murphy, John

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Wilson, John(Falkirk)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Shackleton, David James

  Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Wood, James

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Shaw-Stewart,SirH.(Renfrew)

  Woodhouse, SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd

  Norman, Henry

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Young, Samuel

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sheehy, David

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Shipman Dr. John G.

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

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Slack, John Bamford

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  William M'Arthur.

  NOES.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Levy and Mr. Charles Allen.

  VIVISECTION.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY) in moving the Motion which stood in his name, said the reason he wished to advance for exempting dogs from operations for the purpose of vivisection was that dogs, of all animals, were the most sensitive, and felt pain in a more acute manner than any other animals. It seemed a little ungrateful that they
  918
  should select for this purpose the animal which was, without doubt their best friend, and inflict upon it the most cruel operations that could possibly be performed. If it was necessary to perform these operations in the interests of science, for goodness sake let them take some other animal which was not so sensitive to pain. The most ardent advocate of vivisection admitted that the dog was an animal which was very

  919
  sensitive, and trusted in human nature. He felt very keenly upon this question As he had been fortunate enough to get an opportunity of ventilating his views he would like to divide the House upon his Motion, and he appealed to hon. Members on both sides of the House to support him. He begged to move.
  MR. CHANNING) seconded.
  Motion made and Question proposed—"That, in the opinion of this House no operations for the purposes of Vivisection should be performed on dogs."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE, Ayrshire, N.) thought this Resolution ought not to pass without a word or two from him. When the hon. Baronet the Member for Peck-ham spoke the result was generally a majority upon the side he represented. He should be very sorry if upon an occasion like this, after such a brief discussion, the House came to a decision upon a matter of so much importance. He thought the House would agree with him that a question like this, which had been the subject of inquiry for many years, and which had been legislated upon, should not be affected by a chance vote in the House of Commons after such a brief discussion. With reference to what had been said about dogs and their qualities no one in the House would deny the truth of those statements. Those who had kept dogs knew that in many of their qualities they surpassed human beings. [Cries of "Divide, divide."]
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.) rose in his place, and claimed to move. "That the Question be now put; but
  920
  Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question:—
  MR. COCHRANEsaid what he was endeavouring to point out to the House was that in regard to his sympathy for dogs he entirely agreed with the hon. Baronet who had moved this Resolution. There were, however, many other questions involved. They had got to consider much wider interests.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: You are talking against time.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid that, although there was only a few moments remaining for debate, he could not allow this Motion to pass without saying a few words upon it. Legislation had already been passed upon this subject——
  And, it being midnight, the debate stood adjourned.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made; and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington) said it had been arranged that to-morrow, on Report of Supply, they would take first the Army Supplementary Vote (Somaliland), and then Votes A and 1 of the Navy, and Reports of Civil Service Supplementary Estimates.
  MR. WHITLEY (Halifax): May I ask the right hon Baronet if he has any information to give to the House with respect o the health of the Tariff Reform league.
  Adjourned at four minutes after Twelve o'clock.