Sitting of 28 March 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the Borough of Brighton, in the room of Gerald Walter Erskine Loder, Esquire, Commissioner for executing the Office of Treasurer of the Exchequer of Great Britain and Lord High Treasurer of Ireland.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Bill; Walker and Wallsend Union Gas Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Clay Cross Railway (Abandonment) Bill; Morley Corporation Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill. Read a second time, and committed

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee—

1. "That, in the case of the Worcestershire County Council (Bridges), Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for a Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."

2. "That, in the case of the Malvern Water, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

3. "That, in the case of the Cork Junction Railways Bill, the Standing Order 66 ought to be dispensed with,
1352
provided that the names of such of the Companies mentioned in Clause 60 of the Bill as have not in the meantime held meetings approving the Bill under the said Standing Order be struck out of the said Clause 60, and that proof be given to the Committee on the Bill that such of the said Companies whose names are not struck out of the said Clause have approved the Bill in the manner prescribed by the said Standing Order 66. That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

Resolutions agreed to.
Cork Junction Railways Bill. Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
Bill ordered to be read a second time.
Acton Sewage Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
House-letting (Scotland) Bill. Second Reading deferred from Tuesday next till Friday, 7th April.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend and define the borrowing powers of the Urban District Council of Tralee, in the county of Kerry; and to enable them to borrow additional moneys; and for other purposes." [Tralee Urban District Council Bill [Lords].]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Metropolitan District Railway Company; and for other purposes." [Metropolitan District Railway Bill [Lords].]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Company to create and issue additional preference shares; and for other purposes." [Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [Lords].]
Tralee Urban District Council Bill Lords]; Metropolitan District Railway

1353
Bill [Lords]; Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING ACTS.
  Petition from Bath, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Rothesay, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Bournemouth; and Leicester; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAY) BILL.
  Petition from Rubery, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petition from Bethnal Green, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND) (INSPECTORS AND AUDITORS).
  Return [presented 27th March] to be printed. [No. 100.]
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented, of General Abstract of Marriages, Births, and Deaths registered in England and Wales in the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (NAVY VOTES).
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 25th March, 1905, authorising the temporary application of Surpluses on certain Navy Votes for the year 1904–5 to meet Excesses on other Navy Votes for the same year [pursuant to Resolution of the House of 4th March, 1879]; to lie
  1354
  upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 101.]

  NAVAL WORKS ACTS, 1895, 1896, 1897, 1899, 1901, AND 1903.
  Account presented, showing the amount of Money issued out of the Consolidated Fund; the mode in which it was provided; the amount and nature of the Securities created in respect thereof; the amount of the surplus of Income above Expenditure for the financial year ended 31st March, 1896, and the amount of Money expended in pursuance of the Acts during the year ended the 31st March, 1904; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 102.]
  BIRTHS, DEATHS, MARRIAGES, AND VACCINATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of the Fiftieth Annual Report on the Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland for 1904, and Fortieth Annual Report on Vaccination [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Crofters' Commission for the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of General Annual Return of the British Army for the year ending 30th September, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 27th March; Mr. Bonar Law]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 103.]
  INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LABOUR.
  Address for "Return showing the terms of the following resolutions embodied in the Final Protocol of the International conference on Labour in Factories and Mines, held at Berlin in 1890, namely, Section I. 1 (a), 1 (b), Section III. 1 to 7, Section IV. 1 to 5, Section V. 1 to 5; and the degree to which the recommendations in each of the said resolutions are now carried out in each of the countries represented at that conference."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
  MINES (FATAL ACCIDENTS).
  Address for "Return for each year from 1895 and for each inspection district of the number of Fatal Accidents, under each of the headings, Haulage, Machinery, and Sundries, in the Mining Statistics, which occurred to persons employed below ground in Mines to which the Coal Mines Regulation Acts apply, distinguishing the following age groups: 12 to 14, 14 to 16, 16 to 18, 18 to 20, and above 20."—(Mr. Fenwick.)
  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY OF BERKS)
  Return ordered, "comprising (1) the Reports made to the Charity Commissioners in the result of an Inquiry held in every parish wholly or partly within the county of Berks into Endowments, subject to the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1894, and appropriated in whole or in part for the benefit of that county, or of any part thereof, together with the Reports on those Endowments of the Commissioners for inquiring concerning Charities, 1818 to 1837; (2) a Digest showing, in the case of each such parish, whether any, and, if any, what such Endowments are recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners in the parish; and (3) an Index, alphabetically arranged, of names and places mentioned in the Reports."—(Mr. Griffith Boscawen.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Unemployed Half-pay Colonels with Staff College Certificates.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of colonels on half-pay unemployed holding Staff College certificates.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold Forster.) The number of full colonels on half-pay unemployed holding Staff College certificates is twenty-nine.

  Contractors Struck off Government List and reinstated during South African War.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can give the
  1356
  names of the firms previously struck off the list of Government contractors which were restored to that list during the period of the late South African War.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Three firms previously struck off the War Office headquarters list of contractors were restored to that list during the South African War. But seeing that their work was satisfactory, I am reluctant to do them possible injury by stating their names in public. I will give them to the hon. and gallant Member privately, if he so desires.

  Cost of Barracks built under the Army Corps Scheme.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War what has been the total cost of the barracks built under the Army Corps scheme on Salisbury Plain and in other districts; whether those barracks will be utilised under the present scheme; and, if not, whether building operations have been suspended.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that any barracks on Salisbury Plain or in other districts were built with special reference to the Army Corps scheme. Owing to the large increase in the artillery and infantry during the last few years it has been necessary to provide considerable additional accommodation. All these barracks will be required, though some of them may be reappropriated to units other than those for which they were originally intended. There has been no suspension of building.

  Naval Lands (Volunteers) Bill.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Naval Lands (Volunteers) Bill before the Easter recess; whether, seeing that it is a measure that will save expense to the Volunteer force, it is the intention of the Government to pass it through its various stages without undue delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) It is hoped to take the Second Reading of

  1357
  this Bill before the Easter recess, but this must depend on the condition of business in the House. It is intended to pass the Bill through all its stages with as little delay as possible.

  Board of Trade Shipping Regulations— Reappointment of Select Committee.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he can yet state when the Select Committee on Board of Trade Shipping Regulations will be reappointed.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Committee will, I hope, be appointed very soon.

  Cruelty to Animals—Shipping of Old Horses to the Continent.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that renewed complaints have been made to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and to kindred societies in Rotterdam and Antwerp, as to the condition in which old horses are shipped from the eastern ports of this country, and particularly from Goole and Grimsby; and if he will instruct the inspector of the Board of Agriculture to fulfil to the letter the Orders in Council and the instructions of his predecessors with a view to reducing to a minimum the sufferings of these animals on the voyage, and the prevention of the export of animals afflicted with actual disease.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) I have not received recently any communication from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on this subject, but my attention has been called to the letters respecting it which have appeared in the Field newspaper during the last few weeks. It is the duty of our inspectors, in pursuance of their instructions, to keep the Orders governing the exportation of horses continuously in view, and to take every possible means of securing their efficient enforcement by the local authorities. I do not think there is any failure of duty on their part in this respect. I may perhaps be allowed to express my entire
  1358
  sympathy with the hon. Member in his desire that the evils of the trade in question should be reduced to the lowest possible point.

  Resale of Old Chains from the Dockyards to the Admiralty.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the importation into the Staffordshire chain making district from the dockyards of quantities of chain, in such lengths as permit of their being easily joined together and resold; if so, will he say if such a practice is a contravention of an existing Admiralty order; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have the order enforced.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The hon. Member apparently refers to the unserviceable chain sold at dockyard auctions. This matter was thoroughly investigated in 1894, and orders were then issued that the end links and parts of all chain sold were to be stamped about every six feet, and the stay pins knocked out. There is no reason for assuming that these instructions are not being properly carried out by the dockyard officers. It is a practical impossibility for old chain of this nature to be resold to the Admiralty, as the iron of which chain cables and rigging are made is inspected, and the chain itself is made under inspection.

  Premiums for Carrying Boy Sailors.
  SIR CHARLES CAYZER: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he can state the amount which was paid to ship-owners in the shape of a reduction of the lighthouse dues for 4,373 apprentices carried by them under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon since 1898; and what was the average yearly payment per head per boy.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I am not able to state the amount paid with respect to the 4,373 apprentices carried under Mr. Ritchie's boy sailors scheme up to the 18th instant, as no payments

  1359
  have yet been made for boys employed during the year 1904–5. The amount paid from 1898 to the end of the year 1903–4 was £13,653. It is not possible to give the average yearly payment per head per boy.

  Prices of Sugar in Great Britain and Switzerland.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINS: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will state the comparative prices of sugar in this country and in Switzerland in December, 1903, June,

  German Granulated Sugar.

  British Granulated sugar.

  London. Per cwt.

  Berne. Per cwt.

  London. Per cwt.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  Beginning of December, 1903

  11

  1

  11

  2

  12

  4

  Beginning June, 1904

  12

  3

  13

  0

  13

  7

  Beginning September, 1904

  13

  2

  14

  5

  14

  9

  Beginning December 1904,

  16

  5

  17

  8

  17

  10

  Regulations under Section 85 of Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889.
  MR. MAXWELL: To ask the Lord-Advocate how many applications have been made to the Education Department for approval of regulations made in terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, Section 85; in how many cases these regulations have been approved; and what is the amount of the funds dealt with by these regulations.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) In 166 cases regulations under Section 85 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, were approved by the Scotch Education Department, whilst in 238 cases no regulations were deemed necessary. From the character of the provisions of the schemes affected by the Act, it is impossible to state the amount of the funds dealt with by the regulations which were approved.
  1940, September, 1904, and December, 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) There are difficulties in quoting comparable figures, especially as there appear to be no public quotations of sugar prices in Switzerland. I give below the approximate average wholesale prices (exclusive of duty) of German white granulated sugar in London and Berne at the dates named, and also the price of British refined granulated sugar in London at the same dates:—

  Education (Scotland) Fund.
  MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether he can state the amounts to be paid into the Education (Scotland) Fund from the several sources prescribed in the Education (Scotland) Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) There are certain balances, referred to in Section 31 (3) of the Bill in the hands of the Department, which amount at the present time to about £230,000 in all. These will constitute the nucleus of the special fund referred to in Section 32; and, subject to the sources of revenue being productive in the same degree as at present, the annual payments to the general fund after its establishment might be expected to be, approximately, as follows:—Under Section 31 (1) (A) (about) £69,000; under Section 31 (1) (B) (about) £60,000; under Section 31 (2) (A) £60,000; under Section 31 (2) (B) (about)

  1361
  £37,000; under Section 31 (2) (C) £60,000; under Section 31 (2) (D) (about) £223,000; in all (about) £509,000 annually.

  Memorandum on Egyptian Budget—Issue as a Parliamentary Paper.
  MASTER OF ELIBANK: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, looking to the value and interest of the information contained in the Memorandum on the Egyptian Budget of the Financial Adviser to the Egyptian Government, he will in future issue it as a Parliamentary Paper.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) It seems doubtful whether the demand for the publication is sufficient to justify the expense of its issue as a Parliamentary Paper, especially in view of the fact that the Memorandum is published in the Egyptian official journal, and can therefore be easily obtained.

  The House of Commons Tea Room.
  MR. PARTINGTON: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, with a view to providing more accommodation for Members of this House, he will consider the advisability of having tea served in the large dining-room so that the present tea-room could be used as a newspaper and writing room.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The First Commissioner is quite ready to consider the matter; but he doubts very much whether such an arrangement would be convenient for all Members of the House. The First Commissioner, moreover, hesitates to recommend an alteration of this character without receiving from Members some general assent to the proposal.

  Delivery of Registered Letters—Case of Mr. W. Josling.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a letter sent by registered post from the Ilford Post Office on February 17th last, and addressed to Mr. W. Josling, Senior, Clarke's Farm, Walter Belchamp, near
  1362
  Sudbury, was allowed to be intercepted by Mr. W. Josling, Junior, of Fisher's Farm, Walter Belchamp, who destroyed it without its reaching the addressee; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter as regards punishment and redress.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am aware of the case mentioned. The registered letter was delivered to the addressee's representative. The addressee, who was ill in bed at the time, states that he approves the action taken with regard to it. I do not, therefore, feel called upon to take any further steps.

  Accidents caused by Motor-Cars and Motor-Cycles.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant a Return of the number and nature of the casualties caused by motor-cars and motor-cycles from June 1st, 1904, to March 1st, 1905, in continuation of the Return granted last session.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I shall be happy to furnish the hon. Member with these figures for the Metropolitan police district, as I did last year.† As I then explained, I have no means of obtaining them for the whole country.

  Privilege Leave and Furlough for Officers of the Indian Army.
  MASTER OF ELIBANK: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the regulations now in force in regard to privilege leave and furlough for officers of the Indian Army.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The regulations now in force were published in an Indian Army Order, dated 1st February, 1904. Under that Order officers of the Indian Army, and officers of the Indian medical service in military employ, are permitted to combine privilege leave with furlough provided that the total absence from duty on any one occasion does not exceed eight months, and that such combined leave is taken between February 15th
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxvi., 141.

  1363
  and November 15th. In certain cases this restriction as to dates may be waived.

  Science Training of Irish National School Teachers.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that only 500 teachers of national schools in Ireland have passed through a full course of elementary science instruction; that less than 5,000 teachers have attended the organisers' classes and have been trained on the work for the junior standards only, and that over 8,000 teachers have got no training whatever; and will he explain why, in view of these facts, six of the science organisers have received notice that their services will not be required after March 31st; and will he say what arrangements have been made for the training of the teachers who have not as yet had an opportunity of attending a course of science instruction; and will he call for the reports of the Head Organiser of Science Instruction and of the inspectors and be guided by their expert opinions in deciding as to whether or not the services of the science organisers at present employed should be retained.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I beg to refer to the Answers which I gave to similar Questions put by the hon. Member for West Cavan yesterday†. I do not propose to call for the reports mentioned in the concluding inquiry. The consideration of these reports is for the Commissioners.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Water Supply to His Majesty's Ships at Malta.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether His Majesty's ships at Malta were formerly supplied with drinking water from the Valetta town reservoir via the naval tank at Corradino, and are not now so supplied; and, if so, when was the change made, and why.
  † See page 1205.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Wood-bridge): No alteration has been made in the method of supplying His Majesty's ships with water for several years past. The water is obtained from the aqueduct mains belonging to the Civil Government, supplemented by the rainfall on the Admiralty catchment areas which partially feed the Corradino tank.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, during the year 1904, there were many cases of typhoid in His Majesty's ships resorting to Malta Harbour.
  *MR. PRETYMAN: During the year 1904, forty-six cases of enteric (typhoid) fever were admitted into Malta Hospital.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many cases of typhoid occurred during 1904 in His Majesty's ships "Venerable," "Montagu," and "Arrogant," respectively; and how many cases ended fatally.
  *MR. PRETYMAN: In H.M.S. "Venerable" there were seventeen cases of typhoid fever, four ending fatally; in H.M.S. "Montagu," six cases and one death; in H.M.S. "Arrogant," four cases and one death. As these Questions and Answers might be liable to cause misapprehension, I think it desirable to add that the outbreaks of typhoid in these ships were not due to the Malta water supply. The disease was contracted during the visits of the ships to other Mediterranean ports.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: Then it is not correct that the supply from Valetta ceased in 1893?
  *MR. PRETYMAN: No, Sir.
  DR. HUTCHINSON: What precautions have been taken to prevent this occurring again?
  *MR. PRETYMAN: I have said the outbreak did not arise from the water supply
  DR. HUTCHINSON: But it was due to some water supply.

  The Admiralty and Internal Combustion Engines.
  MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been directed to the high speed attained by boats fitted with internal combustion engines; if experiments are being conducted by the Admiralty to prove the value of boats so fitted for naval purposes; and if he can state the nature and results of such experiments.
  *MR. PRETYMAN: The reply to the first and second parts of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. With regard to the latter part, the experiments are not sufficiently advanced to enable a decision to be arrived at as to the general suitability of this type of engine for naval purposes.
  MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that foreign Governments are taking up this question seriously?
  *MR. PRETYMAN: Yes, Sir.

  Welsh Steam Coal Supplies.
  MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the diminution of the supply of Welsh steam coal, the Board of Admiralty are taking any, and, if so, what steps to find a suitable substitute for coal for use in the Royal Navy.
  *MR. PRETYMAN: The Report of the Coal Commission indicates no such diminution in the available supply of Welsh steam coal as to necessitate the use of any substitute. Experiments are, however, being conducted with oil fuel.
  MR. COGHILL: Are the Board of Admiralty taking any steps to have a duty placed on the export of this steam coal?
  *MR. PRETYMAN: No, Sir.

  Shipbuilding by the Great Powers.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many battleships have been laid down in Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia in the period
  1366
  1900–4 inclusive, up to the autumn of 1904, when the present Navy Estimates were framed; what battleships had been sanctioned but not laid down in the four countries when the present Navy Estimates were framed; have any additional programmes for building battleships been brought forward or sanctioned in France, Germany, or Russia beyond what were under consideration when the Navy Estimates were framed; and, if so, what are those programmes.
  *MR. PRETYMAN: The number of battleships laid down in the period 1900–4 inclusive in Great Britain was thirteen; France, six; Germany, ten; Russia, six. The number sanctioned but not laid down, in November, 1904, was—Great Britain, two; France, nil; Russia, three; Germany, two each year 1905 to 1909 inclusive, one each year 1910 to 1912 and 1914 to 1916, and two each year in 1913 and 1917. No additional programmes for battleships have been brought forward since November, 1904, by France or Germany. A large new Russian shipbuilding programme is known to be under consideration, probably extending over a series of years, but the extent or date of commencement is not known.

  Highland Regiments.
  MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to group other Highland regiments, besides the Highland Light Infantry, with Lowland regiments, to divest them of the kilt, and to quarter them in depots in the Lowlands of Scotland.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): No, Sir.

  Highland Light Infantry Headquarters.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state for what reason the Highland Light Infantry is grouped with Lowland regiments, and quartered at Hamilton in the Lowlands of Scotland instead of in the Highlands.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Hamilton has been selected as the best headquarters

  1367
  for the group of Lowland regiments. The Highland Light Infantry have been at Hamilton since 1881. There would not, therefore, appear to be any sound reason for removing them from Hamilton.
  MR. WEIR: Are there no places in the Highlands where the headquarters could be situated?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Very few.

  Belfast Army Forage Contracts.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in September last, on the military authorities in Belfast inviting tenders for the supply of forage for all the military stations in the Belfast district, including Belfast, Dundalk, Athlone, and Belturbet, these contracts were, in each ease, given to one Belfast company, Cullen, Allen, and Co., at prices for hay, oats, and straw from 20 to 33 percent. higher than various traders, who had each of them at different times discharged forage contracts with satisfaction, had tendered for the contracts thus entailing loss of public money, and that Cullen, Allen, and Co. handed the contracts for Belfast thus obtained to one of the local traders who had tendered himself unsuccessfully, and have allowed him even higher prices than the prices at which he tendered to the military authorities, at the same time obtaining for themselves about 25 percent. profit, and have likewise farmed out the other contracts to local traders; if so, will he say what explanation, if any, have the War Office authorities to give of these contracts, which are still in existence; and whether there will be an immediate investigation into the circumstances under which these contracts were made.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: These contracts were, as usual, made by the General Officer Commanding, and were duly reported to and approved by the War Office. Messrs. Cullen, Allen, and Co. state that they did not sub-let any of the contracts, and that the business at Belfast is conducted by their own staff.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Did this firm's tender exceed the other tenders
  1368
  by from 20 to 33 percent., and if so, why was this preference given?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I must ask for notice of any further Question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But will there be an investigation, or will the right hon. Gentleman's connection with the city prevent that?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Life of Field Guns.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the average life of a field gun is about 2,000 rounds, he can state what number of guns now with our batteries are practically useless owing to the rifling having become defective; and whether it is proposed to issue these guns to the Volunteers as soon as the batteries have been re-armed with new quick-firing guns.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTEE: There are no guns now with the batteries which are useless owing to the rifling having become defective. All field guns are examined after every 150 rounds, and when the rifling is worn to such an extent as to render the guns unserviceable they are condemned. As regards the Volunteers no guns would be issued to them except such as are in a serviceable condition.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: May I ask the number of years represented by 2,000 rounds?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot answer that Question. It all depends on circumstances.

  Reserve of Guns and Ammunition.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what was the reserve of field guns and the supply of reserve gun ammunition at the close of the year 1899, and what supply of each we have at the present moment; also what percentage of the number of guns actually with our batteries is considered adequate for the reserve; and when, according to existing arrangements, the reserve will be complete.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: As I have already informed the hon. Member, I am not prepared to publish information concerning the state of our reserves. As regards the information for the close of the year 1899, I would refer him to a Minute of Sir H. Brackenbury on this subject, dated December 15th, 1899, which will be found in Appendix E. to the Report of the Royal Commission on the South African War (page 278).
  CAPTAIN NORTON: But can the right hon. Gentleman not say what percentage of the number of guns actually with the batteries is considered adequate for the reserve? And when will the reserve be complete?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The reserve of the guns is being manufactured with the service guns. I think it will be admitted that a proper standard is maintained.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Will the reserve be complete in three years.
  [The Answer was inaudible.]

  Berehaven Defences.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what meaning is to be attributed to the phrase naval ports on page 18 of his Memorandum; what is the present condition of that portion of the defences of Berehaven which has hitherto been supervised by the Royal Engineers afloat; whether it has been handed over to the Navy; and whether the units of Militia garrison artillery intended for the defence of Berehaven on mobilisation are among those for which recruiting has been stopped on the ground that the retention of the units is under consideration.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The phrase naval ports as used in the Memorandum on Army Estimates is merely intended to express those more important ports used by His Majesty's Ships where the Navy were prepared to take over the submarine mines and their appliances. As regards Berehaven, the portion of the defences which has hitherto been
  1370
  supervised by the Royal Engineers afloat is now being prepared for transfer to the Navy. The reply to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

  Volunteer Rifle Ranges.
  *COLONEL LEGGE (St. George's, Hanover Square): On behalf of the hon. Member for Deptford, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many new rifle ranges for Volunteers have become available during the years 1902, 1903, and 1904, respectively.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The numbers are as follow:—In 1902–3, 43; 1903–4, 52; 1904–5, 33.

  Gibraltar—Inspection by Foreigners.
  MR. MAJENDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what regulations and restrictions exist as to showing the Fortress of Gibraltar to distinguished foreigners who visit the Rock.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Will my hon. friend kindly refer to the King's Regulations, Appendix V., where he will find full instructions with regard to admission to the national defences? Within those instructions the General Officer Commanding concerned has full powers of discretion.

  Promotion of Second Lieutenants.
  COLONEL LONG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether second lieutenants in the Royal Engineers are being promoted on much shorter service than second lieutenants in the infantry; and whether he can do anything to equalise the promotion in the two services.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The average rate of promotion of second lieutenants in the Royal Engineers for the year 1904 was only two months more rapid than that in regiments of Infantry of the Line, which was two years nine and a-half months. The normal rate in the Royal Engineers is three years, but his was reduced to two years seven and three-quarter months in 1904 by the fact that the reduction of service for promotion to captain from eleven to

  1371
  nine years caused vacancies in the lieutenants' ranks. This acceleration is merely temporary.

  Essex Rifle Ranges.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether land at Aveley, Essex, has been acquired for ranges at from £100 in one case, to £170 per acre in the other; and will he say why land in Essex, which usually sells for £10 to £15 per acre, was not bought for the War Office.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The selection of a site for extensive ranges for the use of Metropolitan Volunteer Corps has proved a matter of great difficulty, and while no doubt land can be procured in Essex at the prices mentioned, it has not been found possible to obtain large tracts suitable for the purpose or within easy access of London so cheaply as my hon. and gallant friend supposes. The prices paid were determined by arbitration, and the figures given in the Question are approximately correct.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: I hope the next time the right hon. Gentleman wants to buy land he will inform me. There are many who will be glad to accommodate him.

  Middleburg Electors' Register—Soldiers as Voters.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the soldiers in camp at Middleburg are being placed on the register of electors in that district of Cape Colony; and whether it is the usual practice for soldiers to thus take part in the political affairs of self-governing colonies in which they may be temporarily resident for garrison, duty.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): I understand that British soldiers in Middleburg are being placed on the register of electors. They are registered as voters according to the laws of a self-governing colony with which in this matter I have no right and no desire to interfere.

  German Railway to Lake Tchad—British Railway in Northern Nigeria.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an Act has been passed by the Reichstag of the German Empire for the construction of a railway through the Cameroons to Lake Tchad; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to construct a light railway from the Niger to Zaria in order to develop the cotton-growing industry and the general trade of Northern Nigeria, and with a view to the continuation of such a railway to Kano and ultimately to the Lake Tchad region.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have no information as to the German railway beyond the statement which appeared in the Press on the 24th instant, to the effect that His Imperial Majesty had signed a Bill for the construction of a railway from the Cameroons to Lake Chad, and that a sum equivalent to £650,000 was required for the first 100 miles. A survey for a railway from the Niger to Zaria was completed last year, but no decision to construct such a railway has yet been taken.

  Indian Police Force Reorganisation.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if a scheme of reorganisation of the police force in India as an armed force has been adopted; and, if so, will he state whether this is the result of a recommendation by the Police Commission or by the military authorities; also what number of men are to be so armed, and whether they will have to undergo any special training; and what is the estimate of the additional cost of such reorganisation; and further, whether his sanction has been given to the scheme, and if he will lay upon the Table of the House all Papers and correspondence between himself and the Government of India bearing on this subject.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): No new principle affecting the training of the police force in India in the use of arms has been adopted in

  1373
  the reorganisation of the force; but principles laid down in 1860 and 1889 have now been reaffirmed as a result of the inquiries made by the Commission. The military authorities have of course been consulted. The exact additional cost of the reorganisation has not yet been reported to me. I hope shortly to receive from the Government of India Papers which will include a full summary of the decisions arrived at after correspondence. I propose to lay this summary with the Report on the Table.

  British East Africa—Zionist Settlement.
  MR. PEEL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a concession of, or option over, a tract of land in British East Africa has been granted to the Zionists; if so, what is the position and the acreage of the concession or option; what are the terms and conditions of the arrangement with the Zionists; who are their representatives; and whether, in view of the present policy of the Department, he will refuse to grant large concessions or options of land in East Africa to a private community or association.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY, Kensington, S.): No further step has yet been taken in regard to the allotment of land to the Zionists. We are awaiting the Report of the Commission which is now on its way home, and, as I stated last year, the correspondence will be laid before a final decision is arrived at.

  Russia and Contraband of War.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he proposes to issue further correspondence on the subject of contraband of war, in view of the fact that the recent Parliamentary Paper (Russia No. 1,1905) contains no correspondence subsequent to October, 1904; if any modification of the attitude of the Russian Government on the subject has been notified; and, if not, whether His Majesty's Government is continuing to make representations on the subject.
  EARL PERCY: The correspondence which has taken place since October relates only to the claims presented by His Majesty's Government. No ground of complaint against the action of the Russian naval authorities has arisen subsequent to the issue by the Russian Government of the supplementary instructions referred to on page 26 of the correspondence already laid.

  Russian Fleet off Madagascar.
  MR. MAJENDIE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information about the duration of the stay of the Russian Fleet in the territorial waters of Madagascar.
  EARL PERCY: The Answer is in the negative.

  Canadian Government's Age Guarantee for Whisky.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet received a full report from the Colonial Office as to the practice of the Canadian Government in granting certificates, on the payment of a small stamp duty, to distillers and merchants endorsing the age guarantee affixed by such traders to pot-still whiskies bottled in bond, as the Excise officers know by the official books the exact time such whiskies have been in Government custody; and, if so, whether, in the interest of the trade, the public health, and increase of the revenue, he will instruct the Excise authorities to adopt a similar practice in these countries.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): No, Sir. I have not yet received the report which I have asked for from Canada.

  Outstanding Exchequer Bills.
  MR. PURVIS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total of Exchequer Bills outstanding at the present time.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think, as I said yesterday† in answer to the
  † See page 1179.

  1375
  hon. Member for North Manchester, that statements relating to the Unfunded Debt which are issued at different dates cause great inconvenience and are apt to mislead. I will therefore ask the hon. Member to await the delivery of the Budget Statement. If the details I then give respecting the National Debt are insufficient, I shall be happy to supplement them.

  Promotion by Seniority in the Civil Service.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state why the usual practice of recognising seniority in the case of preferments in the Civil Service has been departed from recently in the case of an appointment to a checking allowance in the Statistical Department, Custom House, in which an assistant clerk was preferred over the heads of nineteen of his colleagues, against nearly all of whom no charge of official incom-petency had been made; and whether he will see that due regard is, in future, accorded to the traditional claims of seniority.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): Checking allowances are assigned to those officers who, in the opinion of the Board of Customs, are the most competent for the work to be performed. It was in accordance with this principle that the appointment referred to was made.

  The Underground Cable to the North.
  SIR ANDREW AGNEW: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what progress has been made up to the present time with the underground cable to Edinburgh and Glasgow on the Scottish side of the border; what further progress he proposes to make during the present year; and when he expects that the work will be completed.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): With the exception of a small section where there has been some difficulty owing to differences with the road authorities—now fortunately settled—the line of
  1376
  underground pipes is complete to Glasgow. The cable will be drawn in along the whole of that line during the year 1905–6. I shall not be in a position to extend the underground line to Edinburgh at present, but there will be little chance of serious interruption of communication with that city when Carlisle and Glasgow, which have a number of independent lines to Edinburgh, are both on the main underground system.

  City of London and the Licensing Compensation Fund.
  MR. BENN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as the City of London is only calling up, under the Licensing Act, 1904, one-fourth of the possible compensation fund, he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to enable the City to collect the whole fund provided by law, and devote it to the extinction of liquor licences in the county of London.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): No, Sir, I do not see how it would be justifiable under the Licensing Act, 1904, to impose charges on the licences in one jurisdiction for the purpose of extinguishing licences in another jurisdiction.

  Valuation for Compensation Purposes of Licensed Premises.
  MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any statistics are being collected where by the value for compensation purposes of licensed premises may be determined, calculated as if the licence were subject to the same conditions of renewal as were applicable immediately before the passing of the Licensing Act of 1904.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: So far as I am aware, the Answer is in the negative.

  Metropolitan Police;
  MR. FISON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of Metropolitan police, including pensioners, available for immediate duty; and how many assaults were committed against policemen in London during 1903 and 1904.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The strength of the Metropolitan Police Force is 16,877. Pensioners are not liable for any duty. During the year 1903, 2,683 assaults were committed against Metropolitan policemen, while the number so committed during 1904 was 2,749.

  Royal Commission on London Locomotion.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I bag to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department if the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the means of locomotion and transport in London has completed its deliberations, and when its Report is to be issued.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I regret that I cannot at present add anything to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Christchurch on March 21st,† viz., that the Committee are now engaged in preparing their Report and I cannot say when it will be presented.

  Approaches to Parliament Buildings.
  MR. FORDE RIDLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can see his way to make representations to the local authorities to avoid, as far as possible, extensive road repairing at the approaches to the Houses of Parliament during the session.
  *Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I have communicated with the London County Council and the Westminster City Council upon this matter, and I am assured that all repairs to the approaches to the Houses of Parliament shall, as far as possible, be performed out of session. The work which is at present being executed is stated to be necessary for the public safety.

  London Police and Alien Languages.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether members of the Metropolitan Police Force who are acquainted with the Judish-Deutsch and other foreign tongues will be placed in a more favourable position when eligible for promotion
  † See page 650.
  1378
  than members of the force who are only acquainted with their native tongue.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The question of promotion in the Metropolitan Police Force is one which must be left entirely to the discretion of the Commissioner, who may be trusted to consider in every case the qualifications and disqualifications of those concerned.

  Cultivation of Sugar Beet in England.
  MR. BRIGHT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether there have been any experiments in the cultivation of sugar beet in England; if so, what have been the results of such experiments; whether they have been such as to cause the Board of Agriculture to form an opinion as to whether the cultivation of sugar beet can be profitably undertaken in this country.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. AILWYN FELLOWES, Huntingdonshire, Ramsey): Several experiments in the cultivation of sugar beet have been carried out in this country, and, so far as they go, it would appear that the yield compares favourably, both as to quality and quantity, with that obtained in Germany. The information in our possession as to the commercial results of the cultivation of sugar beet is much too meagre to enable me to say that its growth could be profitably undertaken here, but we will keep the matter in view and issue from time to time such information respecting it as may be available and likely to be of service to farmers.
  MR. BRIGHT: Are the experiments being continued?
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: Yes, Dr. Stein and several landowners in this country and in Ireland are continuing to cultivate sugar beet.

  Weather Forecasts for Farmers.
  MR. SPEAR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he proposes to issue during the present year the daily meteorological reports for the guidance of farmers.
  *MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: As my hon. friend may be aware, arrangements were made in 1893 and 1894 for the experimental exhibition at telegraph stations in certain parts of the country of the daily weather forecasts issued by the Meteorological Council during the hay and corn harvests. It was found, however, that the areas to which the forecasts apply were too wide to allow of anything like close accuracy in any particular locality, and the experiment was therefore abandoned. The Meteorological Council recently established a special service of afternoon forecasts during the summer months for the benefit of agriculturists, and they will telegraph these forecasts each day to any persons who will pay the cost of the telegrams. I may add that the expense of the arrangement suggested by my hon. friend is considerable, and I am afraid that there is no prospect of my obtaining the necessary funds for the purpose unless a very strong case for the proposed service can be made out.
  GENERAL LAURIE: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever studied the methods by which meteorological notices are distributed in Canada and the States by placing them on trains, so that the farmers in the districts through which the trains run may know what weather to expect?
  *MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: I will make some inquiry as to that.

  Board of Trade Shipping Regulations— Select Committee.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he can yet state when the Select Committee on Board of Trade Shipping Regulations will be re appointed.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars): The Committee will, I hope, be appointed very soon.

  Underfed School Children—Johanna Street School.
  MR. FORDE RIDLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education
  1380
  whether the Lambeth Board of Guardians have made inquiries into the cases of ill-fed children in the Johanna Street School.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): I understand that inquiries have been made, but I have no official information on the subject.

  St. Joseph's School, Nymphsfield.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that, in the months of May and June, 1904, notices were given for the provision of two new public elementary schools in the village of Nymphsfield, under Section 8 of the Act of 1902; that the county education authority issued the notice in May to take a transfer of an existing Church of England school with twenty-two scholars, and that the managers of St. Joseph's Catholic School, with fifty scholars, issued the notice in June; that St. Joseph's School had been certified efficient for more than three years, and had been conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870; that appeals, were lodged against both proposals; and can he state why the Board of Education decided that the school with twenty-two children was necessary, and that the school with fifty children was not necessary.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I may point out to the hon. Member that of the fifty children attending the St. Joseph's School, twenty are Roman Catholic children from other parts of England who are temporarily boarded out in Nymphsfield, seventeen are Protestants, while only thirteen are indigenous Roman Catholics. The Board considered that, in view of the fact that the large majority of the children living in Nymphsfield are Protestants, a Catholic school would not best meet the requirements of the place. It is clear that only one school is required.

  Press Marks for the Members' Libraries.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First

  1381
  Commissioner of Works, if arrangements can be made to place legible letters indicating rooms and numbers on book-cases and shelves, commonly called press marks, in the Members' Libraries.
  LORD BALCARRES: This matter is receiving attention.

  Ventilation of the House of Commons.
  SIR ERNEST FLOWER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if it is proposed to carry out certain suggestions made by Dr. M. H. Gordon in his recent Report on Ventilation in the House of Commons; and if these recommendations are in any way incompatible with, or superseded by, the scheme of ventilation now in use.
  LORD BALCARRES: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative; the recommendations are intended to improve the system now in use and are not incompatible with it.

  Scottish Medical Officers of Health.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state the names of the six counties in Scotland where the medical officers of health engage in general or consultative practice; and will arrangements be made for such officer to give their whole time to the duties of their office when fresh appointments are made.
  *THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): The names of the counties are Bute, Forfar, Haddington, Orkney, Zetland, Ross and Cromarty. Since 1901 it has been a necessary condition of participation in the Sanitary Officers' Grant that a county medical officer shall not engage in general private practice.

  New Scottish Fishery Board Cruiser— The "Freya."
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate, in view of the fact that, shortly after the assembling of the present Parliament, the then Secretary for Scotland stated, in reply to a memorial from Scottish Members, that in order to purchase an additional Fishery Board cruiser he proposed to save moneys
  1382
  out of funds at his disposal for fishery purposes, have any such funds accumulated; and, if so, to what extent.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: Funds were accumulated in the manner indicated by Lord Balfour of Burleigh and a new cruiser, the "Freya," was built and launched last year.

  Protection of Scottish Fisheries.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate, in view of the fact that the sum of £15,000, placed at the disposal of the Fishery Board for Scotland in terms of Section 2 (3) of The Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1898, for marine superintendence, is stated to be wholly absorbed, will he state from what source he proposes to obtain funds for the purchase of an additional cruiser required for the protection of the interests of the line fishermen from the depredations of illegal trawlers.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The Secretary for Scotland does not propose to purchase an additional cruiser, as the funds at the disposal of the Fishery Board will not at present admit both of purchase and maintenance of another vessel.

  Extraordinary Traffic on Roads.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared to introduce a Bill assimilating the law in Ireland with that of England in reference to extraordinary traffic on roads, as dealt with in The Highways and Locomotive (Amendment) Act, 1878, The Locomotive Act, 1898, and The Locomotive Act, 1861.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): I am unable to give any undertaking to introduce legislation on this subject in the present session.
  *MR. CATHCART WASON: Before the law is altered, will inquiry be made as to the state of the roads?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am not sure that an inquiry is necessary. The Question asks if I am prepared to assimilate

  1383
  the law in the two countries. As to the necessity of that there can be no dispute.
  *MR. CATHCART WASON: But the right hon. Gentleman has altered the law in England.
  MR. WALTERNo, Sir. We are discussing total different things. The Question refers not to motor-cars but to the power of local authorities to make special charges upon the users of heavy engines on their roads.
  *MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He has altered the law in England and Scotland.

  Irish Education Board—New Rules.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Commissioners of National Education has been drawn to the fact that the new rule with reference to the instruction of children under eight years of age will deprive many assistant male teachers of their positions, and by reducing the average attendance will render insecure the position of others; that it will also result in many cases in reducing the grade of principal teachers of small schools and in debarring them from future increments; and whether, in view of the objections to the rule on the part of the managers, the teachers, and the general public, and of the inconvenience which it will cause, he will have the rule suspended until fuller inquiries will have been made.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now say, in the event of proposed new Rule 127 (b) being put into force by the Commission of National Education, how many assistant national teachers will be thrown out of employment; what amount will be saved to the Treasury by the depression in grade which a number of principal teachers must undergo; and what has been the practice heretofore adopted by the Commission in regard to vested rights of teachers when a new rule affecting average school attendance has been put into force.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners are unable to anticipate the effect of this rule. I have already stated that the Commissioners will, on application of the manager, specially consider any case in which the enforcement of the rule would lead to the loss of an assistant teacher. The Commissioners, when modifying their rules, always endeavour to safeguard what may be regarded as the vested rights of teacher. It is not intended to put the new rule into operation for some time.
  MR. FLYNN: What is the saving to the Treasury, and what is the effect of the rule on the interests of the teachers?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot say what the saving to the Treasury is, but the Commissioners have safeguarded the interests of the teachers.

  Charge against a Borrisnoe Emergency Man.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that on the night of 3rd October last an emergency man named Denis Connolly, of Borrisnoe, was caught in the act of stealing cabbage from the haggart of Daniel Greed residing near the same place; that he was accompanied by Constables Neary and Buckley; that Constable Buckley subsequently asked the Greeds to say nothing about the occurrence, and, on being refused, threatened them; that, a few days later, Head Constable Fallon came to the Greeds, and under the pretext of an investigation obtained from Cornelius Greed a statement of the facts; and that the magistrates at the trial, where Connolly pleaded guilty, expressed their opinions that these constables should have been brought forward as witnesses, and for their production adjourned the trial for a fortnight; and, if so, will he say what order was subsequently made in the case of Connolly, were the constables produced at trial, was any investigation held, and where are those constables stationed at present; and will he take steps to hold an investigation into all the facts of the case.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have not had sufficient time to examine the papers in this case, which only came before me to-day. Perhaps the hon. Member will defer the Question till Thursday.

  Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what promotion in grade was given to those national teachers trained in 1899 and 1900 who were classed first of second on entering the training college, and who passed the examination in 1900; and whether all the teachers so classed on entering were thus promoted.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Every case was dealt with on its merits. In some cases the teacher was promoted in grade; in others he received the equivalent of one or more increments of good service salary without any promotion in grade.

  Mountmellick Petty Sessions Clerk.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Sergeant Fitzsimons, Mountmellick, acted on last Court day as petty sessions clerk; and whether, in view of the fact that Fitzsimons was prosecutor in several cases at the same sessions, he will state who is responsible for the appointment and whether it is to continue.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The clerk of petty sessions having been suspended from duty, the custody of the petty sessions books was handed over to Sergeant Fitzsimons under the authority of the 6th Section of the Petty Sessions Act; and the magistrates requested the sergeant to act temporarily as clerk, pending the reinstatement of the clerk or the appointment of a new one. Sergeant Fitzsimons was prosecutor in one case at the last petty sessions. He is not exempt from his ordinary duties whilst in custody of the petty sessions records and acting as clerk.
  MR. DELANY: Why was the clerk suspended?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have no information as to that.

  Heathfield Estate, Sligo.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the purchase arrangements of the Heathfield Estate, situate near Collooney, county Sligo, have yet been sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, will he say whether these arrangements include the enlargement of uneconomic holdings by the addition of a portion of the waste land on the estate from which the tenants or their predecessors were evicted.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners cannot identify this estate. If the hon. Member will furnish me with the name of the owner I will have further inquiries made.

  Timahoe Evicted Tenant.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Thomas M'Cormack, Timahoe, Queen's County, an evicted tenant, has been informed by the Estates Commissioners that should they acquire untenanted lands in the Queen's County his application for reinstatement will be considered; and whether, in view of the fact that M'Cormack has already informed the Commissioners that he is willing to take a firm of equal value in any other district, he will state what course the Commissioners propose taking in the matter.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners will consider the application of Mr. M'Cormack should a suitable opportunity occur.

  Irish Names and Addresses on Carts.
  MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, pending a decision as to the legality of placing the owner's name and address in Irish on carts, he will direct that no more prosecutions shall be instituted by the police in cases similar to that of Nial MacBride, of Dunfanaghy, county Donegal.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Answer to this Question is in the negative.
  MR. FLAVIN: How is an owner of a cart who lives in an Irish-speaking district going to identify his cart if his name appears on it in English only?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Gore-Booth Estate, County Sligo.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Gore-Booth Estate, on which the town of Ballymote, county Sligo, is situate, has recently been sold under the Land Act of 1903, and that the majority of the town tenants are also tenants on the agricultural portion of the estate already sold; and whether, seeing that the purchase arrangements have not been yet completed, and that the vendor is anxious to have the town included in the sale, and is willing to leave the settlement of the price to the Estates Commissioners, this matter will be reconsidered with the view of having the town included in the general terms of purchase.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Estates Commissioners are prepared to make advances for the purchase of holdings which are in the main agricultural or pastoral, but, as my right hon. and learned friend has already informed the hon. Member, the Land Purchase Acts do not contemplate advances on the resale of houses in villages or towns. The matter is one for the decision of the Estates Commissioners, subject to review by Mr. Justice Meredith.

  English Appointments to Irish Postmasterships.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General under what circumstances he recently appointed three English officials to vacant Irish postmasterships; what applications did he receive from members of the Irish service for these posts; can he say what special qualifications the three selected officials had over their Irish colleagues; and whether he will give three corresponding positions in England to members of the Irish service.
  LORD STANLEY: Appointments to postmasterships, whether in England, Ireland, Scotland, or Wales, are open to all Post Office officials throughout the United Kingdom. In making these appointments I take no account of the nationality of the candidates, and I select for each appointment the candidate who, in my opinion, is the best qualified to fill it.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are these English importations good Unionists?
  LORD STANLEY: I hope so.
  MR. NANNETTI: Were there no Irish candidates competent to fill these positions? Are these posts to be reserved exclusively for Englishmen?
  LORD STANLEY: There may have been Irish candidates, but they were not so well qualified as the English ones.

  Unpaid Post Office Learners in Ireland.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that, in face of the statement made by the Bradford Committee that they understood that the system of unpaid learners had been abolished, there are still unpaid learners in many offices in Ireland; and will he take steps to have this system abolished forthwith.
  LORD STANLEY: The matter referred to by the hon. Member is under consideration.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can say, in view of the rule of his Department stating that no learners can be kept in the service for over two years without appointments, what arrangements does he intend to make to place upon the establishment in Ireland those learners who have already over two years service.
  LORD STANLEY: There is no rule to the effect suggested by the hon. Member. I am now considering what steps can be taken to improve the position of learners of long service who have not been appointed, and the Memorandum I am about to issue will show what is being

  1389
  done temporarily until a definite scheme has been arrived at.

  Portrush Harbour.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any, and, if so, what representations have been made to him with regard to Portrush Harbour, county Antrim; and what reply he has given.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: No representations have reached either the Board of Works or me.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Oh, wait a minute. Did not the hon. Gentleman receive a deputation headed by the hon. Member for North Antrim on this very subject? Has he forgotten it altogether?
  [The reply was inaudible.]

  Home and Imperial Defence.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the responsibility for the adequacy of numbers and composition of land forces for Home and Imperial defence rests with the Imperial Defence Committee, in their advice to the Department of the War Office, or with the Secretary of State for War, as head of that Department; if with the latter, why the authoritativeness of the Memorandum furnished by the War Office to the Royal Commission on the Militia and Volunteers, setting forth the numbers required for Home defence, was withdrawn two months after that Memorandum was furnished.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): In reply to my hon. and gallant friend, I have to say that the responsibility rests with the Cabinet, whom it is the duty of the Defence Committee to advise.
  COLONEL WELBY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the Question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As my hon. and gallant friend will see, the latter part of his Question is hypothetical and turns
  1390
  upon an affirmative Answer to the second part of the Question, which affirmative Answer I have not given.
  COLONEL WELBY: The Question as to authoritativeness has relation to a fact.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly, that is so.

  Scotch Education Bill.
  SIR CHARLES RENSHAW: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can fix a day before Easter for the Second Reading of the Scotch Education Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope it will be before Easter, but I cannot yet fix a day.

NEW BILLS.
  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To make temporary provision for the supply of seed potatoes to occupiers and cultivators of land, and for other purposes relating to the Relief of Distress in Ireland," presented by Mr. Walter Long; supported by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend The Infant Life Protection Act, 1897," presented by Mr. Spear; supported by Mr. Duke, Mr. Schwann, Mr. Hogg, Mr. Melville, Sir John Kennaway, Mr. Mildmay, Mr. Charles Allen, Sir James Fergusson, and Mr. Runciman; to be read a second time upon Thursday, April 6th, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend The Local Government Act, 1888," presented by Mr. Spear; supported by Mr. Duke, Mr. Herbert Robertson, and Mr. Mildmay; to be read a second time upon Thursday, April 6th, and to be printed. [Bill 129.]

  FALSE STATEMENTS (COMPANIES) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to False Statements with respect to the Financial

  1391
  Position of Companies or other bodies," presented by Mr. Attorney-General; supported by the Lord-Advocate, Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, and Mr. Solicitor-General; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

  SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
  "To amend the Law with regard to the Sale of Butter," presented by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes; supported by Mr. Gerald Balfour and Mr. Attorney-General; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

  TRADE MARKS BILL.
  Ordered, That the Committee on the Trade Marks Bill do consist of Mr. Blake, Mr. Butcher, Mr. Cripps, Mr. Eve, Mr. Fison, Mr. Fletcher Moulton, Sir Walter Palmer, Sir Charles Renshaw, and Mr. Tillett,
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the Quorum.—(Mr. Fletcher Moulton.)

  PUBLIC TRUSTEE AND EXECUTOR [EXPENSES].
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider of authorising the charge on the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be required to make good liabilities arising out of the default of the Public Trustee or his officers appointed under any Act of the present session to provide for the appointment of a Public Trustee and Executor, and of authorising the payment, out of Moneys provided by Parliament, of the salaries and other expenses payable in pursuance of such Act (King's Recommendation signified), to-morrow."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. WHITLEYasked for some explanation of the Motion.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire. E.)said the House was probably aware that this Bill had already
  1392
  passed its Second Reading. It was a private Member's Bill authorising the appointment of a Public Trustee, and great progress had been made with it in the Grand Committee, but further progress was delayed for the consideration of the money clause. He believed that the Bill would not ultimately involve any charge on the public funds, and indeed it might prove a source of revenue, but it was necessary to authorise the money clause: hence this Motion. Although he was making it in his capacity as a Minister of the Crown, he had no intention or desire to make the Bill a Government measure; but as hon. Members on both sides were anxious to pass it the Government considered that they should not be prevented by a mere technicality.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  MR. McKENNAmoved to insert, after "granted," the words "or proposed to be granted." He said he would not press the Amendment if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to give them satisfactory assurances concerning the point raised on the previous day—namely, that in consequence of the way in which this Bill had been drafted he would be bound to act illegally.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I think the Amendment unnecessary and therefore out of order.
  MR. McKENNA: Do I understand you rule it out of order?
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  MR. McKENNA: Then I must argue——
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, there can be no argument. I hold it is out of order because it is outside the scope of the Resolution on which the Bill is founded.
  MR. McKENNA: On the point——
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There can be no discussion or argument on it.
  MR. McKENNA,as a point of order, asked leave to draw the attention of the Chairman to a precedent for his present Motion in the year 1902. On August 8th in that year, on the Appropriation Bill, an Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for West Islington to Clause 3 to insert the words "£20,000,000 at any one time," and that was certainly not in the terms of the Resolution on which that Bill was founded. It was allowed to be proposed, and he could quote precedent after precedent of similar Amendments having been moved.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That seems to me to be quite a different case. I adhere to my ruling.
  MR. McKENNAsaid he would be perfectly satisfied if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give him the assurance he had asked for.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.)rose to reply, but
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I still adhere to my ruling, and there is no Question before the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he thought he would now be in order in answering the hon. Member. The point of the hon. Member opposite—which he raised on the previous day—was that the words of the Act of 1891, which were intended to extend the legal power of the Treasury, had, in fact, a limiting effect, and that they prevented the Treasury from legally employing money voted, as on the present occasion under Vote 1 of the Navy, on the feeding of the Navy
  1394
  until such time as the Victualling Vote had passed through the Committee and been reported. That was not the case. The illegality the hon. Member feared did not arise, because Section 15 of the Exchequer and Audit Department Act, 1866, provided that the issues for Army and Navy services should be made under the general heads of "Army" and "Navy" respectively. The issue was made for the Army and not for any specific Vote, and no illegality arose in applying it to any particular service of the Army Estimates.
  MR. McKENNAsaid he would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that his construction of Section 15 was not accurate, and he would refer him to Clause 4 of the Appropriation Act of last year, in which an express provision was introduced in order to enable the Comptroller and Auditor-General to sanction payments in respect of the Army which had not been specifically appropriated. Such a provision would have been entirely unnecessary if the view now stated by the right hon. Gentlemen was correct. As a matter of fact, as no money had been voted for the Army and as only Vote 1 for the Navy had been voted, the right hon. Gentleman could not legally do more than use the money of Vote 1 for the Navy and could not use any money at all for the Army. The words in the Act on which he relied were—
  "Every sum issued in pursuance of this Act shall be applied towards making good the Supply so granted at the time of such issue."
  These words clearly limited and defined the powers of the Treasury, and they were in an Act subsequent to the Act on which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to rely. All he desired the right hon. Gentleman to do was to introduce words in the present Consolidated Fund Bill instead of in the Appropriation Bill in August, legalising at once that which he was now illegally doing.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)suggested that the words "granted at the time of issue" were sufficient to cover any subsequent Votes, and that was all the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted, as he was going to get Vote A and Vote 1 of the Army as soon as

  1395
  possible. But if there was a doubt about this matter, the doubt should be resolved not by a Committee of the House, but by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who had been appointed by the House in order to see that every legal formality was fully complied with before he sanctioned the issue of one sovereign or even of one halfpenny out of the Consolidated Fund.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid that, by the admission of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, it was quite unprecedented to have a Consolidated Fund Bill which did not include any sums voted for the Army specifically.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he never made any admission of the kind. What he stated yesterday was that, so far as he was aware, Army Supply had never been in this condition before. He had since had further inquiry made; and as a result he found that Navy Supply had been in exactly the same position before, and that in 1883, when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power, not merely had there been no Navy Vote, but no Civil Service Vote either.
  MAJOR SEELYpointed out that the Public Accounts and Charges Act, on which they relied, was passed subsequently to 1883. He submitted that it was a direct violation of that Act, and that it was highly unconstitutional to use money which had been voted for the Navy for other purposes of the Army than those for which it had been specifically voted for the Navy. For the first time since the Public Accounts and Charges Act was passed, they had no money voted for the Army in the Consolidated Fund Bill, and the House should take cognisance of that fact, seeing how the principle of the control of the House was involved.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 2 added to the Bill.
  Clause 3:—
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESmoved to insert the following proviso—
  "And the Treasury shall repay the moneys so borrowed, with interest not exceeding 5 per
  1396
  centum per annum, out of the growing produce of the Consolidated Fund at a period not later than the next succeeding quarter to that in which the said moneys were borrowed."
  If these words were inserted it would restore the Act to its original shape. The form of this Bill had suffered an important change at the hands of no less a person than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Before 1902 the Treasury had power only to borrow the money for three months. When, in 1902, in a moment of inattention he thought, the House permitted the Treasury to borrow for twelve months, it thereby quadrupled their borrowing power in point of time, and so added to the Unfunded Debt. He maintained that that added to their Unfunded Debt. It was true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there was no more borrowing power, but there was only power to borrow for a longer time. That was, however, the whole point. Was it advisable that the power given in 1902 allowing the Treasury to borrow for a whole year instead of for three months only should be continued. He submitted that this was a time when the Treasury's power to borrow should be contracted in the most jealous way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, when he made the Motion in 1902, said the borrowing powers had hitherto been exercised on the I.O.U. of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But now the money was obtained on Treasury Bills, and the power formerly exercised of borrowing on the personal I.O.U. of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been quadrupled. He thought that that was very unfortunate. They had seen their debt increasing, and any powers given to Ministers in regard to money matters ought now to be more carefully watched and more jealously circumscribed than at any previous period of history. Already their Funded and Unfunded Debt and contingent liabilities had reached a total far beyond the dreams of any of their ancestors, and for that reason he earnestly begged the Committee to assist him in restricting the powers of the Treasury. His Amendment would restore the Act to its original form, and if it were carried he would have to move to leave out Sub-sections 2 and 3 as a consequential Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In Clause 3, after the word 'powers,' to insert the words 'and the Treasury shall repay the money so borrowed, with interest not exceeding 5 per centum per annum out of the growing produce of the Consolidated Fund at a period not later than the next succeeding quarter to that in which the said moneys were borrowed.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  Question propased, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the gravamen of the hon. Gentleman's contention that the Treasury's borrowing powers were, by the words introduced into the Act of 1902 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, quadrupled in point of time, might hold good if the whole transaction were as the hon. Gentleman had stated it. But the old practice was for the Treasury to borrow in the first three months of the year as much as was needed to finance the Exchequer during that period. Having paid off that sum, the Treasury then re borrowed it, together with an additional amount to finance them during the second quarter, and in the third quarter they reborrowed the amount they had borrowed in the first and second quarters, plus the further money they required. It would be seen, therefore, that the only difference of practice inaugurated in 1902 was that in the first quarter the Treasury were allowed to borrow there and then what they required for the year, instead of renewing their borrowings three times in the course of the year. It was, moreover, more economical for the country that they should be enabled to borrow on Treasury Bills in the market instead of being confined to borrowing for this purpose from the Bank of England. He hoped the Committee would consent to pass the clause in its present form. The only circumstances which, so far as he could make it out, would ever enable them to dispense with this power would be a reduction of the income-tax by 4d. or 6d. and that was a prospect which he did not think they were likely to realise in the near future.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked was he to understand the submission of the right hon. Gentleman to
  1398
  be that there were certain financial advantages in making the loan for the longer period?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was so, and whatever Bills were issued for this purpose must be paid within the financial year. The real object of the proviso was to enable the Treasury to finance itself against the first nine months of the year, when the revenue was thin, and in anticipation of the great bulk of the income-tax, out of which the bills were paid, coming in in the last quarter.
  *MR. McCRAEhoped that the Motion would not be pressed. It was quite wrong to suppose that the practice under discussion increased the borrowing powers of the Government by sixpence.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I never said it did.
  *MR. McCRAEsaid the hon. Gentleman suggested that it increased the floating debt, but it did not even do that. It provided the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the power of borrowing on better terms by giving him greater freedem.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsuggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in one part of his speech gave away the other part. But although he held that there was substance in his Amendment he would not, by pressing it to a division, stand between the House and the more important business set down for that evening. He would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment, to be read the third time upon Thursday next.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.);

  1399
  An hon. Member on the other side of the House, in the course of the debate some days ago, said that there was an indisposition on the part of the War Office to discuss Army questions. I can assure the hon. Member who entertains that opinion that that indisposition does not extend to myself. There is no Member of the House who is more anxious that all questions connected with the Army should be discussed, and worthily discussed, than I am, and consequently I welcome the opportunity which this debate affords me. I have presented to the House a Memorandum which sets out at considerable length what has been done and what has been attempted by the War Office during the past year, and I think it would be tedious, and I do not think it would be profitable, if I were merely to make a review of that document at the present time. I prefer rather to devote myself to a more general survey of Army questions. I have no commission to give advice or to make suggestions to the House of Commons; but I do venture to think the discussions which have taken place with regard to Army matters have not been altogether profitable, and have not been an evidence that the House has realised how complex and how important this Army problem really is. I have heard once or twice in the course of debate an aspiration with which I cordially sympathise, that Army discussions might be outside the lines of Party differences. How far that ideal is from being realised only those can understand who have been present, as I have been compelled to be present, during the whole of the debates on Army matters in the present session. I have no hesitation in saying that a great part of those debates was devoted to matters which, though they were of relative importance, were absolutely unimportant compared with the great issues that are at stake. I do not deny for a moment that there are hon. Members from whom I may differ who do occasionally come into contact with the realities of the situation; who do recall the fact that we are dependent for our national existence to a large extent upon the well-being of our Army and its maintenance in a condition which fits it for war. But these were rare intervals in the debate, which otherwise was composed almost entirely of mere details, of
  1400
  innuendoes and small matters of Party difference which had practically no reference whatever to the real question of the Army. I hope I may be successful in the remarks I desire to address to the House to-day in redeeming myself, at any rate, from the error which I have ventured to criticise.
  I will ask hon. Members to bear with me while I speak about Army questions, as a whole, and to tolerate my failure to reply to those many matters of detail and Party differences which have so much occupied the House hitherto.
  The position, I do not hesitate to say, is peculiar. I believe that owing to causes for which I am not responsible, and which I would have avoided if I could, we are in the presence of the precise state of things which hon. Gentlemen opposite desired should be created. I was criticised last session for endeavouring to hasten the accomplishment of certain changes which I thought desirable without taking the House fully into confidence. I maintained then and I maintain now, that it is not only within the competence but it is the duty of the War Office to proceed with the reorganisation of the Army as part of its ordinary functions, and nothing that I did or sought to do was in my opinion ultra vires at the time I sought to do it. But, as I have already told the House, it has been necessary to arrest progress in more than one important particular. I have explained why it is that owing to the large number of short-service men in the Army we have had to make a pause and to hold our hand with regard to the full accomplishment of the scheme which I had the honour to lay before the House last year. I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite have any ground for complaint, because one effect of this delay, voluntary or involuntary, has been to give them the opportunity which I am glad enough to give them of discussing every proposal that I have laid before the House.
  Now I have been criticised on more than one ground. In the first place because I have gone too fast, and in the second place because I have gone too slow. I should like to recall to the House some of the relevant dates in this matter. This is the first set of Estimates that I have had the honour of presenting to the House which

  1401
  I have had anything to do with the framing of. It was scarcely seven months from this day that I laid before the House the proposals for which I desired its consideration; and any hon. Gentleman who supposes that great changes are to be made in the organisation of the Army or great reductions in the cost of the Army within seven months is greatly mistaken. I ask any hon. Member acquainted with the working of a large business whether, considering the character and magnitude of Army matters, the number of individual interests concerned and the gigantic sums involved, he really believes within a period of seven short months a great task of that kind can be undertaken and completed.
  I have been blamed, and I suppose I shall be blamed, for not fulfilling a promise which I never made. I have presented to the House Estimates which no doubt represent a formidable sum of money. I have been told that I ought to redeem the promise that I would propose this year great reductions in the Army Estimates. I ask the House to judge between me and those who make that accusation. This is what I said when I spoke on this subject as late as July last year—
  "I shall be asked what about economy? I am not going to pledge myself to positive figures, but I will say that next year the economy will be very little indeed. You cannot deal with a great Army, in which every man is serving on an engagement, as if it was composed of men taken on by the day. You will have to meet your engagements. Practically the only way of economising to a large extent next year would be by stopping the manufacture of the new gun, or by stopping recruiting. Those are not expedients to which, I think, any one desires us to resort, but I do think that we ought to aim at reducing the expenditure next year, so as not to have any serious excess upon the Estimates of this year. But it is my ambition to lay the foundation for a scheme which will enable my successors to effect progressive economies in Army expenditure, and that I believe I can do."
  I do hope if hon. Members feel inclined to repeat that accusation they will bear in mind those words. I have redeemed absolutely the pledge I gave. I believe that what has been done during the last year will make it easier for my successors to make progressive economies in the expenditure, of the Army. I did not pledge myself to effect
  1402
  any large economy now. Hon. Members must not suppose that when a Minister makes a statement of that kind he makes it without reference to the figures. These figures were known to me en bloc and in detail, and when I made that statement I knew the probabilities and the certainties of the expenditure of this year, and it was a simple business calculation with regard to expenditure on the Army. It is not true that I promised largo economies this year, but it is true that I expressed my belief that these economies could be effected, and it is true that I have made it easy for my successors, if they will follow the steps which I have indicated, to effect these economies in the future.
  Now, I have been asked a great many questions in this House, and I am going for once to turn the tables and ask a few myself. We have heard this burning cry, this demand for economy on both sides of the House. It is a demand with which I entirely sympathise, and I shall consider that I have done something in my present office if I have made it easier for that demand to be fulfilled. I want the House to understand exactly their responsibility in this matter. If you are going to reduce Army expenditure you must reduce those things that cause the expenditure. The Army is composed of various sections. We have the Regular Army, the Militia, and the Volunteers. We have a large aggregation of units, and we have a large aggregation of individuals. I want to know on which of these particular items it is that the House has made up its mind that we shall effect these large reductions. [Mr. GUEST: "The Regular Army."] I do not know whether that is the opinion of every hon. Member opposite, it is not my opinion, but I take that interruption as a warning to those who understand the functions of the Regular Army that there is a section of this House which demands large reductions in the Regular Army.
  I am going to press this matter a little home; but before I do so I should like to make an explanation with regard to the line I have adopted. I have been accused of a burning desire for change for the sake of

  1403
  change. That is not the case; but is there any hon. Member in this House who will say change is not required, that great changes are not needed? I was for three years serving at the Admiralty. During that time I saw every single institution connected with the Navy changed. I saw a change in the personnel, and I saw a change in the matériel. I saw a change in the position and relative rank of the officers. I saw a change in the distribution of the Fleet, and I saw a change in the whole scheme of naval education. I saw a change in every branch of the Navy either initiated or completed during the time I served at the Admiralty. Why were those changes effected? Because circumstances had changed and things were bound to change with the circumstances. If any one will rise and tell me that the circumstances affecting the Army have not changed as completely as the circumstances affecting the Navy I shall be astonished, and will ask him where he got his information? I am no seeker after change for the sake of change, but things have changed, and the Army has to conform itself to the change which has taken place. What is the change?
  In the first place there has been the enormous change which is illustrated by the expenditure upon the Navy. An hon. Member of this House not very long ago interrupted me and said when I mentioned the Navy that we were engaged in an Army debate. I said then, and I say now, that the interruption was typical of the absolute failure to comprehend the whole of our military problem. We have been adding million after million to our naval expenditure. Are all these millions wasted? Are they thrown away? If it be true, as we are told by representatives of the Admiralty, that the Navy is in a position such as it has never occupied before—that it is now not only our first line of defence, but our guarantee for the possession of our own islands—is that to make no difference to a system which has grown up avowedly and confessedly on the basis of defending these islands by an armed land force against an invasion? Is that to make no difference? Is this view some invention of my own imagination? No, Sir; that is the deliberate conclusion of the Government, advised by a
  1404
  body which has been called into, I believe a useful existence during the last eighteen months, and which I regret was not called into existence much longer ago—the Committee of Defence. The Prime Minister has already on more than one occasion given expression to his own views of the situation; and he has simply echoed what is, so far as I can ascertain, the view of every single naval and military authority of any competence whatever upon this question of invasion. He has said that the question of the invasion of these islands in such force as to inflict a fatal blow or threaten our independence is impossible. In that he speaks with the undivided and absolute authority of the Committee of Defence, and I want to know who is the hon. Member who is going to question it? Who is the hon. Member who is going to lay down his own authority and say, not that the present Government is wrong, but that the naval and military authorities, who, I believe, are unanimous on this subject, are wrong with regard to this question of invasion? I have seen this matter stated in various ways. I have seen it stated that, provided our Navy is efficient, the greatest anticipation we can form in the way of the landing of a hostile army would be a force of 5,000. I should be deceiving the House if I said that represented the extreme naval view. The extreme naval view is that the crew of a dinghy could not land in this country in the face of the Navy.
  Well, I am going to press this matter a little further. I am going to ask hon. Members to follow out my reasoning to its logical conclusion. Is it true or untrue that this country, if the Navy be efficient, is open to an invasion in force? Because if it is, it has a very remarkable consequence. If it is open to an invasion in force, what have you to do? You will have to do what every other great country in the world which is exposed to a similar threat has had to do. You will not have to indulge in soldiering which, however excellent, is mere voluntary soldiering; to a certain extent amateur soldiering. You will have to submit to the hard conditions other countries have had to submit to. You will have to submit to conscription. You will have to put your whole trained population into the line of battle to

  1405
  resist the attack of the best-trained troops in Europe. That is the logical and certain consequence of accepting the theory that an invasion in force of this country is a possibility.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL: What do you mean by an invasion in force?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have already given my definition of what I consider would be the maximum conceivable force that could be landed in this country, but I would say any force which might reasonably be expected to attack a great country of this kind. I will deal with that again; but I say, if you accept the view that an invasion is possible, we are not playing the game of looking the facts in the face; we are trifling with the facts. We are not exempt from the dangers and difficulties which beset other nations; we have to face under these circumstances the same peril that Continental nations have to face; and we must face it in the same way—we must adopt the same means to combat it. No one in this House proposes that or has ever suggested it. There is no Member in this House who does not know perfectly well that that is not our real danger. Suppose we eliminate for the moment that item from our consideration. Either the Navy is or is not able to defend us. If it is able to defend us, there will be and can be no invasion of this country. If it is not able to defend us, what is, again, the logical and certain consequence of accepting that proposition? The Navy ex hypothesi is unable to defend us. You might have the whole population of this country armed—man, woman, and child, from Johno'Groat's to Land's End. You might have them drilled like the Macedonian Phalanx, and ready and anxious for war; but they would not prevail. If the hostile Power were sufficiently strong at sea to land 100,000 men in this country it would not be necessary for it to land the crew of a single barge. The invading Power would command the whole of the avenues of the sea. It would close the Thames and Southampton Water, the Mersey and the Humber, and within six days this country would be at their feet. No, Sir, we must think clearly upon this matter; we must
  1406
  recognise that one or other of these hypotheses is true, and we must act accordingly.
  We have done something to test this. We have had an object-lesson. I think it is very strange we have not had one before. During last year we had a landing in force on the coast of England. I wish sometimes hon. Members who discuss these matters from a purely Army point of view would try to realise them from a naval point of view also. I wish they had been with me and seen, off Clacton beach, eight ships of war and a number of transports trying to land 13,000 men—which they did in two days—and embarking them again in four days. I wish they had tried to picture, as I did, what would have happened one hour after dark, with the Medway flotilla of destroyers fifteen miles in one direction and the Harwich flotilla of destroyers fifteen miles in another—with these great men-of-war and transports swinging at anchor. I do not think I misinterpret the belief of any single officer, naval or military, who has thought of this question when I say that there would not be a single one of those ships at anchor or upon the sea next morning. Either this is true or it is not. I ask the House to accept the conclusion one way or the other. Both conclusions cannot be right. If we are really open to an invasion in force by a great Continental army we must prepare for it. If we believe we are right in expending this enormous sum upon the Navy, I think we may consider the Prime Minister is right and that we are relieved, at any I rate, from the contemplation of that particular danger.
  I said that other things had changed, but I have not enumerated all the things which in my opinion have changed. We have had it laid down by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government that the principal duty of the British Army is to fight the battles of this country across the sea. Across the sea can have but one meaning I hope—it can only mean fighting in those parts of the world where we have our own frontiers to defend against any possible threat—because I hope and think we may eliminate the idea that we are going to enter into competition with the great military nations of

  1407
  the world in Continental warfare. If that be so—if it be true that our problem is to find an Army which is to fight on our own frontiers in the event of war—are we or are we not going the right way about to furnish that Army? Is there any change in the threat which we have to contemplate? No one will doubt there have been very great changes. There have been changes which have made our situation more dangerous. There have been changes which, have made our situation, for the time at any rate, less dangerous. But to suppose there has not been change, and that there has not been need for a closer and more perfect organisation for our transmarine force, is absurd. We have demands made from India for a definite supply of troops, and it is on those demands the War Office has been working, and that the War Office ought to work. We have to supply a certain number of troops for the defence of India in time of war, and unless we supply them we are in this dilemma; either we must deny that these demands are legitimate, or we must admit that we ourselves fail in one of the primary duties which fall upon the War Office. We are, I believe, successfully endeavouring to fulfil these demands. But I do want the House of Commons to understand that in order to fulfil them there must be, so long as these demands hold good, great demands on the Regular Army of this country. And I would point out that these great demands must be the demands of war, not the demands of peace. That seems a truism, but it is not altogether a truism. We are the only country in the world which has to keep up in peace time a great Army on a war footing. We keep up, at the present time, an Army, larger than the standing army of many other countries, entirely outside our own shores, in peace time. In order to do that we must have a certain nucleus of Regular troops at home in order to furnish a body which will enable us to establish a circulation between the troops at home and the troops abroad. But when the troops at home and abroad have been furnished, there is undoubtedly a certain portion of the Regular Army which for peace purposes may be regarded as redundant. You may, I am convinced,
  1408
  supply your purposes with a smaller fully-organised Army than you now have.
  But for war purposes the Army is not nearly adequate for the purposes of that demand. How are we to reconcile these two demands? My view is that the logic of the situation is inexoiable. If we are really to meet this demand at all, upon any sound basis, we must look at these facts. We must limit our Army which is kept on a war footing in peace time to the needs of our own peace requirements. We must have something, in addition to that Army, which will enable us to expand with great rapidity and certainty in order to fulfil the much larger demand of war when war comes. Have we any example of how that end may be achieved? I think we have. We have just seen great changes made in the Navy. We have seen the Navy concentrating its materiel and personnel; we have seen those ships which are inefficient and useless for war laid up and put on the scrap heap; we have seen those ships which are required for training purposes in time of peace fully manned and equipped; and we have seen those ships which are not required in time of peace, but which "will be required in time of war, laid up with a sufficient organisation to enable them to go to sea in time of war, and with a nucleus crew which can rapidly be angmen ed. That seems to me a correct analogy which we ought to follow with regard to our Army. That is the principle of the change I propose, and that I believe is the principle upon which any Government must proceed if they are going to provide for the needs of the Regular Army abroad, and to achieve some economy in our Army Estimates.
  Now I will venture to ask the House of Commons one or two Questions to which, no doubt, I shall receive various and varied replies. I may be right, or I may be wrong, in my appreciation of the line which should guide this or any other Government; but my view is this. We want an Army adequate and adapted to our needs, and we do not want anything in excess of our needs. We want reduced cost by getting rid of what is redundant. Now, if we are all agreed upon that, as I think we are, I will ask

  1409
  hon. Members, in the discussion that will follow my remarks, to apply that doctrine and test to all the remarks they make, and to ask themselves whether what they advocate—whether it be in regard to the Regular Army, or the Auxiliary Forces, whether it be horse, foot, or artillery, materiel or personnel—to ask themselves if what they advocate is required to meet our needs, and if it is not wanted do they acquiesce in our being committed to the expense. If they do not, then a great deal of the lecturing I have heard, and a great deal of sound economical doctrine falls to the ground. If you are not ready to try all Army matters by the test of their value in time of war, then you are trifling with the subject, and your advocacy of economy may be set aside.
  If, then, it is desirable to effect reductions in the Estimates, I may be asked how are the reductions to be made? Are we to cut down Line battalions?
  MR. GUEST: Hear, hear!
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. Member for Plymouth says "Yes," and I think I do not misinterpret the hon. Member for Oldham when I include him among those who say "Yes."
  MR. CHURCHILL: Hear, hear.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: He drew a picture the other day, or he sketched a plan of what he conceived to be the proper policy in the interests of economy. He said, I think, "Get rid of the regimental colours, sell the regimental plate, break up the battalions."
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was explaining that there necessarily would be a reduction of units, and the right hon. Gentleman himself was disposed to take away some twelve battalions.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, the hon. Member must allow me to say I am not inventing a fiction.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was representing the difficulty of carrying the right hon. Gentleman's scheme into effect, that he would have to disband battalions, in
  1410
  which case the colours might be got rid of, and so on.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I accept the explanation, and with the more readiness because I am going to say something as to which we shall not widely differ. The second paragraph of the hon. Member's remarks is not a correct description of what I said or desire. It is true I told the House of Commons that I was willing that fourteen of the most recently-formed battalions, which had no great traditions, no great past, should be reduced, but on what conditions? On the conditions that they should be replaced at once by nineteen battalions having Regular officers and all the traditions of military service. It is not an accurate representation of what I said to suggest that I desired to reduce battalions. But what I was going to say is this. The hon. Member for Oldham is perfectly right as to the logical consequence of a reduction of Line battalions. That it would give immediate relief, and allow a saving no one can deny; yet I will venture to say that no more disastrous or more uneconomical policy could be pursued. Why? Because the moment you go to war you have to confront a situation such as we recently had in South Africa, you have to look around for officers. You take off fourteen Line battalions and at a stroke you cut off 400 Regular officers from the Army. Men you can get when the country is threatened; but to take the course suggested would be to fly in the face of the experience of every country in Europe. I venture to say the course I suggest is a wiser one. If we are bent on economy, we should reduce those battalions of the Line which are not immediately necessary for our purpose in time of peace to such an establishment in regard to men and pay as will give us economy in recruiting, as will enable us to form a large and growing reserve, which will enable us to effect real economy in peace time consistent with efficiency and the power of expansion in time of war. I am sure it would be folly to break up whit we have already got in pursuit of an economy that would not be realised.
  I have been, and no doubt I shall be, asked to speak about the

  1411
  Militia. Hon. Members know very well, for I have never concealed it, that I take a view which is not acceptable to the whole of the House in regard to the Militia. I know very well that in a matter of this kind you cannot go much in advance of public sentiment. I know that no War Minister, even the most powerful, and certainly not the present War Minister, can hope to effect such changes as I contemplate unless he has the full sentiment of the country with him. That sentiment is not always as enlightened as it might be. Happily this country has been free during its history from the lessons of real war. We have never seen an invader on our shores; we have never gone through the bitter experiences of some other countries. And the result is that we take what I may call an amateur view of military matters, a view we should not take if we had had to bear the heavy burdens which have been laid on some nations who know what war really means.
  Be that as it may, I accept, as the House is aware, what I believe is the feeling of the time in regard to the Militia. We have taken a full Vote for the Militia in the Estimates for the coming year, and we have introduced a Bill, which I hope the House will pass, to enable us to utilise the Militia in time of war. I recognise the readiness with which the Militia came forward and the good service they did during the late war, and I believe they would do the same thing again should occasion arise. But we must not deceive ourselves. One man in circumstances in which you can depend upon him may be more valuable for purposes of war organisation than ten men whom you may or may not obtain. The only object of creating the force is that it may be available for fighting purposes abroad. We propose that the Militia should be organised and dealt with as such a force capable of taking part in a campaign; and, accepting it as axiomatic that our Army is almost entirely for oversea service, it follows in logical sequence that the Militia to be an effective part of the Army should be available for service oversea. Therefore, I hope the Bill will pass, and I believe it is in harmony with the views of officers and men of the Militia.
  1412
  But I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that more will be required than the passing of a Bill to allow the Militia to be sent abroad in time of war. The Militia at this moment are simply an adjunct to the Line. There are 35,000 men enlisted as recruits to the Militia in a single year, and out of a force of 90,000—and this will give an idea of the filtering of men through the Militia—15,000 pass into the Line annually. The Line is dependent, I was going to say, on the Militia for its recruits, and you must therefore be careful in treatment of the Militia to have in mind the well-being of the Line. It is my hope and duty to do all in my power to make the force effective. To do that involves expenditure. There must be extended training periods. No officer will pretend that with their present training the Militia can be expected to engage with success against well-trained armies. Therefore, we must have longer training and corresponding expenditure; and I believe that, within the limits of the present Estimates, by this expenditure on their preparation the Militia may be made more capable of good service in time of war. But they can only be made available if the House will reconcile itself to what is its obvious duty and will allow the War Office to reduce those battalions of Militia which are unable to subsist with advantage to the country, and to amalgamate others which are too weak to form a proper unit according to the interpretation of modern warfare. We will do all that we can, with the consent of the House of Commons, to make the Militia force what the House of Commons has a right to demand that it should be made.
  But it must not be forgotten that we may come to a point when one of two things will happen. Either you will demand too much from the Militia, or you will give too much to the Militia. If you demand too much from the officers of a voluntary force, and if you demand too long a service out of a period of twelve months, you will at once transform the character of the Militia, and you will have something which is not a Regular force, but which is very far removed from the voluntary force which the Militia now is. Or, on the other hand, you may have this result—you may make service in the Militia more

  1413
  attractive than the service of the Line and that would be the most dangerous development of all. At the present moment, 15,000 men are passing every year out of the Militia into the Line, and all those who know, as I know, the inner side of these transactions, know very well that for every 15,000 would be added many thousands more if the physical development of the men allowed them to be passed on. If you make the Militia the more attractive avenue for recruits not only will you withdraw from the Line the 15,000 men now going into it, but you will withdraw many men who now enlist in the Line, but who, under these circumstances, will find it preferable to enter the Militia.
  We have arranged, in accordance with the desire of the House, to do what we can to improve the quality and increase the efficiency of the Militia. [An HON. MEMBER: What do you propose?] I have already told the hon. Member what we propose. It is that we should, in the first place, obtain from the House of Commons permission to utilise the Militia abroad in time of war. We shall then have to see what effect that liability has on the officers and men of the Militia. I do not think anybody here can exactly prophecy what the effect will be. We should then have to carry out the proposal I have adumbrated of reducing or amalgamating the inefficient units of Militia. We shall then have to lengthen the period of service of the Militia, and so by these measures in combination—the concentration of units, the prolongation of the period of training, and the liability for foreign service—we can produce a force which, in the opinion of those most competent to judge, will be easily available for the purposed of war.
  But we have had some lessons on this matter of late. We have had the lessons of the Japanese War; and if there is one lesson preeminent above all others, it is that quality far more than quantity is the factor which produces success in modern warfare. I am not going to stand up in this House and contend that the Militia, or any other force, will really be effective for the purposes of war unless we have in its ranks officers and men who are in
  1414
  the matter of quality, in the matter of physique, in the matter of morale, and in the matter of training, the equivalent, and more than the equivalent, of the officers and men against whom they might possibly beemployed in war.
  I come now to the proposal which I made to the House last session with regard to short-service enlistment. I have explained to the House why it is impossible at the present time to proceed with the concurrent enlistment for long and short service. I have explained that it is because it has been necessary to provide the Army with a nucleus of long-service men. Long-service recruiting must be continued for several months to come. When we have obtained that necessary nucleus it will be absolutely essential to reconsider the position. I myself have proposed, and certainly if I am responsible for this office at that time I will enforce the view, that it is necessary to provide for the purpose of making a reserve a short-service Army, enlisted on special terms. I cannot pledge the future for anyone except myself. [An HON. MEMBER: You are not speaking for the Government.] Yes, Sir, I am. What I was proposing to say was this. I was told last session that I was binding the country, pledging the country, to a change which the country might not approve. I give the House fair warning that when the time comes, if it is my duty and privilege to deal with this matter, that is the manner in which it will be dealt with. Nothing up to this moment has been done which will prejudice in any way the policy of anyone who may be called upon to deal with the subject and who may think that the method which I have proposed is not the right one. Nothing has been done, nothing has been attempted, which can or will interfere with the liberty of anyone to carry into effect, if he can, a wiser and better system. I believe—and I think I can prove to the House that the necessity which I believe to exist will prove to be a real necessity to everyone who deals with this problem, and that the moment any one finds himself face to face with the facts and figures which I have found myself face to face with, he will come to the same conclusion as I have—that you cannot on a long-service basis alone furnish a

  1415
  reserve adequate to the demands which will be made upon us in time of war; and that if you want to furnish and maintain such a reserve, as I believe we all do, you must resort to some form, of short-service enlistment.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Will the hon. Gentleman define what he means by short service and long service?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have already defined quite clearly what my view is. I have made that abundantly clear, but I do not pretend that there is any magic about two as opposed to three years. What I say at present is that this matter is an open question to anyone who deals with it. I believe, because I have calculated this matter, that the periods I have recommended are those which will most easily conduce to the economy we desire, and to the creation of that reserve which is essential. But of this I am certain, that whoever deals with the question will have to face it as I have had to face it, and will have to consider the formation of a reserve concurrently with the economy which we all desire to effect.
  I ought to say something, but at present I shall not, about the question of officers. The question of officers is being dealt with by an Amendment to be proposed by my hon. friend the Member for the Newport Division. To me it is a most important question. It is a question which has been engaging the ceaseless attention of the Army Council. It is a question on which an important and well-qualified Committee is now engaged. It is a question of importance in war time, but I prefer that I should reserve anything I have to say on it until it is brought forward by my hon. friend.
  Nor do I desire to speak at length, or again, on the question of the Volunteers. I have made perfectly clear to the House what is my view with regard to the Volunteers, and I believe my view, in spite of all that has been said of it, is that of nine-tenths of the Volunteer officers of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] Well, whether it be so or not, I have a
  1416
  very large amount of testimony to that effect, and I would say this, that, after all, this matter is not one that can be decided only by Volunteer officers. I want the officers who do not take the view I do to answer me these questions. Are they prepared to take issue with me upon this point? Are they prepared to say that the Volunteer force as it stands, man for man and officer for officer, is at the present moment necessary for the safety and welfare of the country? [Cries of "Yes."] If they are prepared to say so, are they confident that it is organised and officered and equipped in such a way as to be able to render that service? I want these two questions answered.
  MAJOR SEELY: Yes and no.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes and no! I hope we shall have a reasoned answer to these questions. It will involve a direct categorical negative to the proposition which I have advanced that the Navy is the first defence of this country. We have at the present moment in this country, apart from a Regular Army, apart from the Reserve, apart from the Royal Navy, apart from the Royal Marines, apart from all those who have served in the Army, Militia, and Volunteers, who can be relied upon to join the colours, we have no less than 360,000 men who are tied to the soil of the country in the time of war.
  MAJOR SEELY: Do you propose to abolish them?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir, I do not.
  MAJOR SEELY: Why not?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have never expressed that view. I have expressed the view which I think is logical, consistent, and coherent, that we should consent to a reduction of that force in order to increase its efficiency. I want someone to categorically affirm that the maintenance of 360,000 men in a time of peace in this island, tied to the soil by law, is necessary for the defence of the country against any danger which may be reasonably apprehended.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: There were 150,000 who went abroad the other day.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: If the hon. Member will allow me to say so, I am not misled by that observation. I have observed an interesting tendency on the part of my hon. friend to meet me half way and to admit that the Volunteers and Militia are maintained, or largely maintained, for the purpose of meeting a foreign enemy across the sea, and he has pointed out that they are most useful for that purpose. I am the last to deny the service they have rendered during this last campaign, but I ask the House of Commons whether, if that is what we are maintaining the Militia and Volunteers for, we are pursuing the right process to accomplish our ends. Is there any other business in the world in which you would follow precisely the same course? If these troops are really to go abroad in time of war, would it not be better to arrange in peace time so that they might fall into their places in war? Would not it be well to have a certain number of officers on whom we could rely in time of war to organise their train, their transport, and equipment, and to arrange for this purpose on the basis of a foreign-going Army. That goes a great deal in advance of my own recommendations at the present time, but I do recognise that if my hon. and gallant friend will meet me half way, a great deal might be done, because I am confident that there is magnificent material in the Volunteer force.
  Now, Sir, I trust that, in these discussions on the Army Estimates, we may at any rate endeavour to keep on the main lines of what is really necessary for the defence of the country. I was sorry the other day to see a departure, if I may say so, from the canon which I have ventured to suggest to the House in the parson of Lord Rosebery. He took the most melancholy view of the present position of the War Office and of the Army generally, and he raised a most mournful wail over the impossibility of ever getting anything done which his desired to see done. That is not the way in which we must approach this discussion. It is perfectly true that the Army has to labour under difficulties which the army of no other country in the world has to
  1418
  labour under. I was told the other day that there have been only three chiefs of the general staff of the German Army in 100 years. To throw in my teeth the fact that that is not precisely a parallel to our own Army is not to make my path easier. If we are really in earnest in trying to get this matter right, and in trying to get an Army suitable to our needs, do not let it end in abuse, do not let it end in merely pointing out that this man or that man is incompetent. Let it end in some concrete, positive suggestion. Let it end, if possible, in some agreement between the Parties who are responsible for the government of this country. Nothing will be gained, I am perfectly certain, by confining our discussions on Army matters to purely personal or Party disquisitions.
  I think I have a right to say that, however just these criticisms may be—I think they have been overdrawn and exaggerated. It is not given to the wisest, much less to the less wise, to do in seven months a great deal for the reorganisation of a great service. But I think I may fairly claim that the Army Council, of which I am a member, during the brief time in which it has administered the War Office has done something. We have, I believe, put the infantry in a position that is infinitely better than the position it occupied a year or two ago. We have introduced a scheme for the cavalry which, I think, is a most congenial scheme from the cavalry point of view, and is likely to promote the same efficiency of the force as in the infantry. We have also, as a result of careful inquiry, produced a scheme for the reorganisation of the garrison artillery, which, I believe, will diminish the cost and increase the efficiency of that important branch of the service. We have brought the Guards up to their full strength—they were lamentably below it. We have co-operated with the Royal Navy both in our inquiries about matters which concern both services and the execution of common duties side by side on shore and on shipboard. We have taken a step which I, at any rate, for years have hoped might be taken—we have handed over to the Navy the aquatic defences of our naval ports. That is an accomplishment which, I believe will be entirely in the interests of both services.

  1419
  We have made progress which, despite some of the criticism which has been directed against myself and the Department, is, I believe, genuine and rapid—progress with the new gun, of which the country will see proofs in a very few days. We have completed our reorganisation of the War Office and the administration of the Army at home on a basis which, I believe, will commend itself to those who have to work the system and conduct the work of that office in days to come. We have doubled the Intelligence, Department. We have put our finger on one of the blots which were disclosed by the South African War, and we have reorganised the veterinary department of the Army. We have also made substantial additions to the medical staff of the Army, and we have commenced the construction, too long delayed, of the great military medical college in London. We have made some progress with the withdrawal of battalions from the Colonies. Finally, we have placed under the guardianship of the Government of the Dominion of Canada the great Imperial fortresses which are situated in that country, and it is a great pleasure to me to be able to say that the Dominion Government has undertaken to bear the cost of that important portion of our Imperial defences.
  For the future we are introducing two Bills which I hope will meet with the favourable consideration of this House. I have already alluded to one of them—the Militia Bill. We are also introducing a Manœuvres Bill, which is of the most vital importance to the efficiency of the Army. I do not think that is a very bad record for a very few months of administration under somewhat difficult circumstances.
  I have been made the subject of attacks—it may be that most War Ministers, until the ideal Minister comes, will be made the subject of attack, but I am not greatly moved by those attacks, and I shall not be greatly moved until I find a greater consensus of opinion amongst those who attack me. I find I am dealing with at least six armies. I am dealing with the Army in India, the Indian Army, the Army at home, the Militia, the Volunteers, and the great army of those who have
  1420
  left the colours and are now entrenched in the clubs of this city. I am not sure that the last army is not the most destructive, the least patriotic, and the least helpful of all the six. But there is one circumstance which is common to all these great armies, that those who belong to them and those who take a special interest in them regard these great divisions of our national organisation as quite independent of each other. That is my difficulty. That is, I am certain, the difficulty which must confront every Minister in my position—the absolute want of comprehension on the part of some persons in this country of the essential unity of our military forces. There ought not to be any essential opposition between any of these great branches—except the last—in our Army. But there is no doubt that it exists; and it finds expression in this House. It is one of the most perplexing and one of the most disheartening features of the debates in this House that we find Member after Member getting up and speaking with great conviction, some knowledge, and a desire to do his best for the country—solely in the interests of one branch or section of a branch of the forces of this country. Unless and until there is some community of thought and action these difficulties will remain. But they are not essential difficulties. They must be got over, and until they are got over we shall not have the Army which we desire.
  I have not much more to say. I believe that in the proposals which I have made to the House and which I am perfectly ready to discuss, I have behind me the bulk of the Army, and I believe I have on my side the true interests of the nation, Let hon. Members remember that this is not a problem with which I am personally called upon to deal and from which they are exempt. My problem is their problem. It is the problem of every Ministry that will ever sit in this House. My difficulties will be their difficulties. I am not going to prophesy; that would be a far too presumptuous thing to do; but I venture to express a belief that when this problem is studied in the light of modern conditions, as I have been compelled to study it, those who are called upon to deal with it will substantially come to the same conclusion that I have come to, that

  1421
  they will be guided, as I have been guided, I trust, by one thought alone, that is, the necessity for providing an Army with one qualification, and one only—namely, fitness for war and fitness to succeed in war.
  Let us have done once for all with this demand for hurry. I may be blamed and scolded, but this is not a matter to be accomplished in seven months. I venture to say that any Party which can in seven months or fifteen months produce the same results in the right direction as we have produced will have something to congratulate themselves upon their success. The hon. Member for Oldham has said that the tide is rising that will sweep away the work that I and the Army Council, of which I am a member, have accomplished. Well, Sir, there are some things that we have constructed which no tide will sweep away. There are other things, I fully admit, which it will be within the powers of any one who succeeds me to sweep away. But I do not admit that any one who has the true welfare of the Army at heart will be very desirous of sweeping away any portion of our work, unless and until he has prepared as a substitute something which his conscience and his knowledge tell him, and his experience confirms him in believing, is certain to produce better results than that which he destroys.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think it is usual on these occasion, when a Minister makes his speech before the House goes into Supply, that we should proceed to discuss the various Amendments which are standing on the Paper, and defer to a subsequent opportunity the general criticisms and discussions which must arise on the statement of the Minister. I think that that is an excellent arrangement, and I am bound to say, as I have often found fault with other arrangements, that in the arrangement of business contemplated by the Ministry on this occasion they have contrived to give us practically the whole Government time next week for discussing this question. I am glad of the liberal interval, because I think it was M. Talleyrand who said he advised people always to distrust first impressions. I will not associate
  1422
  myself with the reasons which he gave for that advice. It was that first impressions are generally honest impressions. But the advice in itself was sound and useful. I must confess that, although the right hon. Gentleman has made a most able statement, and has explained what we always knew existed—his strong and earnest desire for the improvement of the Department over which he presides—we acknowledge that whether we agree with him in his methods or not he has not furnished us precisely with that which it was most important, in my opinion, the House of Commons and the country should have.
  The right hon. Gentleman devoted at least three-fourths of his speech to an exposition of his own opinions—of what he would do, what he contemplated doing in the future, the view that he takes of different parts of our military system. But what we want to know now, especially after what has occurred, and knowing as we do the great activity the Cabinet has shown in these matters, is the opinion, not of the right hon. Gentleman, but of the Government. It was quite a relief and pleasant change when, towards the end of his speech, he began to recount what had been done by himself and his colleagues at the War Office in certain administrative matters, and when the pronoun "we" appeared in his speech for, I think, the first time, the right hon. Gentleman turned on the unfortunate Members of this House and asked them a number of puzzling conundrums. To a certain extent he was right; but, after all, those conundrums do not take the first place. The questions that are most important are those that ought to be addressed to the Government themselves. The right hon. Gentleman said that we wanted not vague ideas, but concrete and positive suggestions. Where are the positive and concrete suggestions in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman? On the main questions—and I will take the three which have excited interest in the country—of the future of the Militia, the future of the Volunteers, and the future terms of enlistment—we have received no assurance whatever. The right hon. Gentleman has put off these three questions, but especially the last one, on to the back of the unfortunate person, whoever he may be, who is to be his successor.

  1423
  I notice the singular fact that throughout his speech he never talked of what he would be able to do in another session. It was not what he hoped, on another occasion, to be able to do when the confusion that had been undoubtedly created by the drafts for the foreign Army which had put the whole question of enlistment and recruiting in a confused condition was over, but he saddled that on his successor.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I said that if I was responsible for the conduct of this office next year I should certainly carry out the scheme I had laid before Parliament.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Are we to understand that the Government approve of the scheme of last year? That is precisely one of the things we wish to know; and I hope that, before the beginning of next week, the Government will have made up their mind, one way or the other, on that important question. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal was a home Army entirely short service, the shortest of short service, and another Army, which is of long service, to serve abroad. Have the Government accepted that proposal? I am not speaking in any captious spirit. I am merely expressing what I am sure is the feeling of all those who have followed this controversy, and I hope that next week, at least, we shall have more information and more light than we have at present on this question. The right hon. Gentleman said we must not be in a hurry in these matters—that seven months would not be enough, and that seven years might not be enough. That was not the impression he gave us a year ago. He was very much in a hurry himself. He went down to the country and told his audience not only exactly what ought to be done but what were the difficulties in his way and that he thought he could get over them. The right hon. Gentleman has this merit, that he is not lacking in confidence in himself. I say that without any intention of saying anything derogatory of the right hon. Gentleman. But he says now that we are not to be in a hurry.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted something of what I said. But I think I also said on the same occasion that this might take twenty years to accomplish.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But last year we were told that the Army was in a perilous condition and that it was a danger to the State. In what respect is it loss a danger to the State to-day than it was twelve months ago? I think the right hon. Gentleman will have to give us a little more explanation—I have no doubt he will—on these large questions next week. In the meantime, I am not disposed to enter further upon the discussion, because I think it is more in accordance with our usual practice and with the interest of the question, that we should defer further discussion until next week.
  *MR. RENWICKsaid he desired to move the Motion standing in his name with reference to the necessity for increasing the number of rifle ranges for Volunteer corps. For many years they had heard in the House and in the country of the necessity for providing further rifle ranges for Volunteers. Personally, he had known the Volunteers for forty-five years, through his father's connection with the force and also through his own; and during the whole of that period he had always heard it urged that the Volunteers had insufficient ranges for the purpose of carrying on necessary practice in shooting. The recent Report of the Royal Commission on the Militia and Volunteers also pointed out the necessity of ranges and exercise grounds being provided at the cost of the State. Was it not, therefore, time that the House seriously took up this important question, and settled it. They all knew the importance which was attached to shooting during the South African War. They were told by the most eminent military authorities that the Volunteers had performed most excellent service, to the State during that war, and had shown an example which the Regular Army might well have followed. Lord Roberts stated that his experience had impressed him that unless a man was an expert in the use of

  1425
  the rifle, both at short and long ranges, he would be of very little use in modern warfare. That was testimony which they could not afford to disregard; and it was in itself an ample excuse for calling attention to this most important question One of the reasons why it was more important now than ever before was because of the highly increased range of the modern rifle. They had heard that the Boers made excellent practice at 1,500 yards, and could hit a convoy at 1,700 yards; he believed the new short rifle was sighted at 1,500 yards; yet a recent Return showed that the great majority of the Volunteer rifle ranges were only 200, 300, and 500 yards in length. Therefore, it would be impossible to adopt Lord Roberts' advice with a rifle sighted at 1,500 yards on a 200 yards range.
  There were, he knew, increasing difficulties in getting long ranges owing to the objections of landlords and others; but if the State were in earnest these difficulties could be overcome. If a railway company required a piece of ground a mile or two in length it very soon got it, although it was generally in a most populous part of the country, whereas the most suitable places for rifle ranges were in the less densely populous parts. The Marquess of Huntly in another place recently stated that a Volunteer battalion in Northampton found a suitable range on his own property; and although he regarded it as a nuisance, he did not think it right to stand in their way. But when he went to the War Office they would only offer a third of the value. All honour to the noble Marquess for having given expression to this view. The landlords generally alleged that a range would interfere with their sporting rights. These rights might be valuable; but the safety of the country was more valuable; and he thought that patriotic landowners ought to give away a small portion of their sporting rights for the good of the State. If they refused, the House ought not to have any hesitation in compelling them to give up the necessary land. There was a typical example of the difficulties in the way of Volunteers in the case of the Northumberland Fusiliers, who had their headquarters at Newcastle-on-Tyne.
  1426
  The range at which they had to practise necessitated a railway journey of ten or eleven miles and a two mile walk afterwards. When they got to the range they usually found that owing to two regiments being encamped there it was occupied by Regular soldiers, or also by a Militia battalion. Above all, there was a right of way across the range which created a further difficulty, there being sometimes a wait of a quarter of an hour between each shot fired. It was perfectly obvious that in the face of difficulties like these it was impossible for the Volunteers to obtain that efficiency at which they aimed. If the Government desired to make the Volunteer efficient in the limited time at his disposal, the best way was to make him an efficient shot. He did not think the country agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that there was no fear of invasion; disasters might happen to warships, and in any event we should have some force on which we could fall back when the Regular Army was engaged abroad as it was in South Africa recently. If they had the opportunity, the Volunteers were anxious to qualify and become efficient, they were prepared to give their time, but they were not prepared to sacrifice all their leisure time in attending ranges where it was impossible to carry out the practice they so much desired. The Government should seriously consider this matter, and see that the powers vested in the county and borough councils to acquire land for the purpose of providing ranges were put into force, and to insist on ranges being provided in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
  He trusted the right hon. Gentleman in his endeavour to get efficiency instead of numbers would not sacrifice; he Volunteers. In the Volunteers they had men of the greatest intelligence, and when it was remembered that this magnificent force was obtained for about £1,200,000 a year, the cost of a single ironclad, it must be admitted that the country obtained a remarkably efficient force for a very little money. They must also remember that the Volunteers went to the front in time of peril in South Africa in large numbers and fought for their country

  1427
  and did their duty well. If partially trained troops had to be sent abroad in the future he would far rather see the Volunteers sent out than men such as those to whom they had to pay 5s. a day and who were sent out to South Africa in the second detachment of the Yeomanry, many of whom had no practice whatever at rifle shooting. Parsimony was not true economy, and the time to prepare for war was during peace, and one of the best means of preparing for war was to make the Volunteers efficient and to give the rifle ranges which were necessary to obtain efficient shooting. He was sorry to see that the sum of £170,000, which was given for this purpose in 1901–1902 and 1903 no longer appeared on the Estimates. Surely if it was necessary to give this sum in past years it was equally necessary to give it now, and he therefore trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter. He thought he had said enough to commend the Resolution standing in his name to the House, It was said that this country after Waterloo and the Crimea went to sleep. Do not let us commit the same error now. We had had a lesson in South Africa which we should take to heart. Let us not go to sleep on this matter, because in the future, whether we had to fight with savage, semi-savage, or civilised races, we might be satisfied that we should find them well up in shooting with modern weapons of precision. He therefore appealed to the House not to neglect the warning of Lord Roberts, and to give to the Volunteers the ranges which they now asked for.
  MR. PURVISsaid he associated himself with every word which the hon. Member who had just sat down had said. This was a question of great local and Imperial importance. There was at Peterborough a most enthusiastic battalion of Volunteers who were most anxious to do their duty, and who fought for their country in the Boer War. The position so far as they were concerned was that they could not get a shot at all unless they tramped many a weary mile to a neighbouring range. If Volunteers were of any use, then ranges were as necessary for them
  1428
  as the rifles they carried. If they were of no use, then supplying them with the rifles was an unwarrantable expenditure. He had been much surprised to hear that the Committee of Defence had come to the conclusion that an invasion of these islands was impossible. These islands had been invaded more often than any other part of the civilised world, and the Secretary of State would forgive him if he said that those who would not take lessons from history would not be very prudent in making provision for the future. He would not dwell on the invasions by the Romans, Danes, and Saxons, and early invasions, but would merely point out that, in 1066, William of Normandy invaded this country and completely changed the whole course of English history. In 1066 William of Normandy landed at Pevensey and remained there many weeks. In 1688, William of Orange invaded these islands and changed the course of English history. In 1745, England was invaded by Prince Charles Edward, and the course of history was nearly changed again. In 1797 1,400 Frenchmen were for many weeks at Fishguard in Pembrokeshire. In 1798, 12,000 Frenchmen invaded Ireland, and were there for three or four months. In fact, these islands had been invaded oftener than any other civilised country. It was no doubt true that science had made a revolution with regard to means of defence, but who would say that science had not also made a revolution with regard to means of attack and invasion by sea? He did not wish to enter into any controversy, hut it was perfectly absurd for hon. Members to talk of this country never having been invaded. There had been one revolution which could not be denied, and that was the revolution from the old battalion and automatic method of drill. Individual initiative was now the great point that had to be obtained.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid that this point, as well as the hon. Member's interesting historical review, is rather remote from the question of whether there ought to be more rifle ranges.
  MR. PURVISsaid he was about to speak of the necessity of sharp-shooting,

  1429
  which, he believed, was germane to the Motion. The time had gone by when a battalion would march up in line until they could see the whites of the enemy's eyes, then fire a volley point blank, and finish off with the bayonet. In these days individual initiative was every thing, and the Volunteers, if they were fairly dealt with, might be supposed to equal, if not to excel, the automatically drilled Regular soldiers. If individual initiative was necessary, sharp-shooting was necessary, and to attain sharp-shooting rifle ranges were required. He had pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'that' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'in order to promote and increase the efficiency of the Volunteer Force, it is necessary to provide an additional number of rifle ranges easily accessible to the members of the different corps'—instead thereof."—(Mr. Renwich.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  *SIR LEES KNOWLESasked whether the Secretary of State for War could make a statement with regard to screen ranges. Two or three years ago Lord Roberts made certain speeches in the country in which he advocated the establishment of screen ranges. In one instance Lord Robert's suggestions were adopted and a screen range was made from plans circulated by the Hythe authorities. While not desirous of pressing the right hon. Gentleman as to a matter still sub judice, he would be glad to know the view of the War Office with regard to these screen ranges. Reference had been made to long-distance shooting. In his opinion it was far more important to have for the Volunteers a large number of short-distance ranges than to have a few long-distance ranges. A range of 200 yards was quite sufficient for teaching the Volunteer recruit how to handle his rifle, to aim, and to shoot, and such ranges were extremely valuable if they could be secured near large centres of population. For instance, Salford had a population of 230,000. It was extremely desirable that for such a population there should be a near and
  1430
  handy range for the convenience of the men, to save their time and money. His own Volunteer battalion, in which there were about 1,600 men, had no range nearer than Crowden, and consequently the men could go there only on Saturdays, and in order to shoot they had to spend the whole of Saturday afternoon at the range. That was a great hardship upon the officers and men; it not only took up the whole of their Saturday afternoon, but it entailed also great expense upon the corps. If they could have a 200 yards range nearer headquarters they could make use of it on fine evenings during the week, thus saving time, and obviating very considerable expense. In this connection he thought the War Office might take into consideration the cost of travelling to and from the ranges. It would be in the interests of the Volunteers that they should have free transit to and from the place of shooting.
  With regard to screen ranges, they were constructed with a series of screens between the firing point and the target. The bullet passed through apertures, and, if properly aimed, struck the target. If the bullet went out of its course, it struck, say, on the first screen, went through the woodwork of the screen, struck a concrete screen a foot or two behind and fell down in the aperture between the concrete and the wooden screen, and so was prevented from causing injury by getting off the range. He believed the fault that had been found was that occasionally a bullet struck the ironwork at the edge of the aperture and then ricochetted. He would like to know whether the authorities at Hythe, or the right hon. Gentleman, could tell them whether the difficulty had been obviated, and whether the screen ranges were still being advocated or made. He also wished to know how many of these ranges were in existence. Since the range to which he had referred was ready for use some eighteen months ago, had had communications from several Volunteer battalions asking for information about screen ranges. He had given them the information which he had now given to the House. He did not know what the War Office had done, but he believed that several of these

  1431
  screen ranges had, in consequence of that information, been stopped. He certainly wished to support the Motion made by his hon. friend. He thought that the Volunteers, certainly as regarded shooting, deserved every encouragement. Some of the best shooting had been done by Volunteers, and though a large amount of money had been spent in years gone by on Volunteer ranges, he thought that if further money could not be expended, the War Office should, at all events, make an attempt to provide more ranges or greater conveniences for the Volunteers. The subject was one of great importance, and it was worthy of the consideration of the Committee of Defence. He would like the right hon. Gentleman to make some statement as to the views of the Hythe authorities and the War Office, not merely on Volunteer ranges in general, hut on screen ranges in particular.
  MAJOR SEELYagreed as to the great desirability of having more such ranges as had been referred to if they could be obtained, but pointed out that they were extremely expensive, especially the long ranges. The matter to which he particularly wished to call attention was an unfulfilled promise of the Secretary of State for War. It was, doubtless, very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to provide all the ranges that were really essential if the Volunteers were to be efficient, but he could easily provide assistance for those rifle clubs which enabled Volunteers to learn how to shoot. The hon. Member for Newcastle, who had pointed out that the Boers were extremely good shots at 1,500 and 2,000 yards, would be interested to know that the Boers did nearly the whole of their practice at 50,100, or, at most, 200 yards. Short-range shooting had proved both in theory and in practice to be extremely valuable in teaching men to shoot at all ranges. That being so, he submitted that these rifle clubs, of which there were fourteen in his constituency, were doing a genuine piece of national work. Last year the right hon. Gentleman promised definitely that he would give a grant to these clubs, but this year he refused to do so. Now the time had come for the money to be spent, and the amount was so small that it could not be
  1432
  refused on account of the expense, because some £30,000 or £50,000 was all that would be required. Last July the right hon. Gentleman promised to put an annual sum at the disposal of rifle clubs provided they came under the regulations in such a way as to make them a reasonably effective contribution in time of war. In consequence of that statement he asked the rifle club with which he was connected to communicate a memorandum to the right hon. Gentleman stating that they were prepared to fall in with any suggestion with which they could possibly comply. They had had a perfectly definite promise and the House had a right to ask why that promise had not been actually carried out. He trusted the Secretary for War would be able to give a satisfactory reply.
  *MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid that every member of the Volunteer force would be grateful to his hon. friend for having brought this subject under the notice of the House. It might be that there was a wide difference between the large problems put forward by the Secretary of State for War and this comparatively small detail, but if the right hon. Gentleman wished to secure that efficiency for which he had pleaded so eloquently, then he must look after details of this description. It seemed strange that he should resent the adverse criticism, not to say ridicule, which was sometimes poured upon the War Office. The public regarded the Volunteer force as a body which, if anything, must be able to shoot straight, but when they realised that a large number of battalions had no opportunities of practicing—or if they had opportunities they were so unsatisfactory that they were next to useless—it was not surprising that ridicule was poured upon the War Office. He happened to be associated with a Volunteer battalion, and the only place they had in which to practise shooting was an underground tunnel, a sort of enlarged drain-pipe about 100 yards in length. The light was so bad that it was almost impossible to see the sights on the rifles and the atmospheric conditions were positively injurious. Under these conditions they had to carry out their individual practices and collective firing. The money spent upon the

  1433
  musketry practice of this battalion would be next door to being wasted. It was absurd to imagine that they could get efficiency under such circumstances. It was not beyond the power of the War Office to secure that the great Volunteer battalions around London should be provided with ranges within reasonable distances of their homes. There were in the Volunteer force men whose lives were spent in the open air, of strong, sturdy physique, with eyes keen and nerves strong, who could be made into excellent shots if only they had proper opportunities for practice.
  They ought to be told plainly whether the Volunteer force was really wanted or not. He wished the right hon. Gentleman would say what he thought about this force. Reading between the lines, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would like to say that the Volunteers ought to be abolished, but he dare not say it. If he did not think that they should be abolished, would he say what part they were expected to fulfil and what was the efficiency he was seeking to attain? If the Secretary for War put efficiency in shooting in the forefront, then he must provide an adequate supply of rifle ranges. These men were perfectly willing to give up their time. They asked for no payment and they were willing to make the necessary sacrifices, but it was quite beyond their power to supply their own rifle ranges. When the War Office did take up this question of providing ranges they went about it in such a leisurely fashion as to excite the laughter of other men engaged in similar work. He did not know how long they would be before they got a satisfactory rifle range for the use of East End battalions, but he had been told that the Royal Engineers were likely to take twelve months providing them with a rifle range. Whilst they were waiting, battalions were going to pieces, and not only was the shooting suffering, but the Volunteer force was crumbling away because it took the heart out of both men and officers when they realised that one of their main objects could not be accomplished. Many of the officers had gone to the trouble of organising competitions, but how could they carry them out upon an underground tube of the kind he had mentioned? He
  1434
  had mixed among the Volunteers very considerably, and right and left he heard nothing but loud complaints against the War Office for not seeing that the men had the opportunity of becoming efficient. The Secretary for War had pleaded for efficiency, and he had told them that they must increase the efficiency even if they reduced the force. In his opinion the very first step they must take to accomplish this was to provide adequate rifle ranges. He thought his hon. friend had served a great public interest in bringing forward this question, and he trusted that he would persevere until they obtained a clear and precise answer as to what the War Office intended to do with the Volunteer force in this direction, thus removing what was crippling the force, namely, the feeling of uncertainty as to the future which undoubtedly existed from the commanding officer down to the youngest recruit.
  MR. FREDERICK WILSONsaid he sympathised with the remarks of the Secretary for War, and more especially with those dealing with half pay. He wished, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had relied more upon the masses than the classes. The War Secretary had spoken of the magnificent material which he had behind him, but he apparently refused to use that material and preferred the soldier who cost the country £70 to the man who cost only £7 a year. Whilst the right hon. Gentleman might raise a fine Army of seven pounders he seemed to cling to the higher priced class. Last year he raised great hopes in the minds of men who were training themselves to shoot straight, without any cost to the nation. At that time he promised to devote £50,000 a year for the purpose, and in consequence of that promise many rifle clubs made their arrangements, only now to discover that they were not to have the benefit of that money. So far from Volunteers having received any encouragement whatever from the War Office, they had had obstacles put in their way. When the war fever broke out he thought they must have a rifle club in his district and he arranged at the War Office to be supplied with rifles, for which they paid ready money. They also paid for their own ammunition, and they were enabled to

  1435
  make a number of labouring men crack shots, but so far from, the War Office giving them any encouragement they charged them with rent for the range. He had in his pocket a letter, received by the secretary of a rifle club in his district, asking what was to be done, as they had been threatened by the War Office to close the range unless the arrears of rent were paid. That was a threat held out to men who had paid for their rifles and for their own ammunition, and yet were threatened with the loss of the range if they did not pay the rent. He formed a short-range club in Norfolk, and they managed to get on without assistance until they were threatened that the Government would charge them for gun licences. He repeated that so far from receiving encouragement from the War Office they met with nothing but obstacles, and he asked the Secretary for War to give them a definite promise that, wherever possible, the rifle clubs should be allowed the use of Government ranges free of charge.
  *MR. TUFFcalled attention to the inadequate accommodation provided in the Thames and Medway district for the Volunteers and rifle corps. In May last there were 1,400 soldiers to be trained in shooting, and there was only accommodation for some 900. The ranges which were provided were very dangerous, and men had been hit in consequence. He had been informed that these ranges were closed for three days last year. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would be able to do something in the direction of providing more ranges in that district.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid there seemed to have been a misconception on the part of some speakers, who were under the impression that the Army Council was indifferent to the question of ranges. That was an entire mistake. No one who had heard this not unimportant discussion would suppose that the Volunteers alone had no fewer than 996 ranges. It must be remembered that there were forty counties in England and thirty-two counties in Scotland. That number of ranges did not seem prima facie altogether inadequate. It was inadequate in the peculiar conditions under
  1436
  which many of the town and city regiments had to conduct their rifle practice. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that natural conditions would prevail over any artificial conditions. His hon. friend the Member for West Salford had shown immense patriotic and public spirit in providing a range at his own expense for the Salford Volunteers. His work had been set aside, not owing to any want of good will on the part of the War Office, but owing to the fact that it had been proved to demonstration by high authority that the continuance of the range would be a danger to the people living in the locality. The hon. Member had asked him whether the War Office had satisfied themselves that protected ranges should not be available. His answer was in the affirmative. They had no right, in view of the report they had received, to continue these protected ranges, and if they existed they were not continued under the protection of the War Office. He was sorry that the hon. Member's work should have been thrown away. He thanked him for what he had done and for the good intention which he had displayed.
  As to the criticism of the hon. Member for West Ham, he would say that he was not able to provide ranges I for the whole of the class-firing of the Volunteers in the way suggested. It was a fact that with a rifle sighted up to 2,800 yards they could not allow people to practice shooting in such a way as to cause danger to the users of the highways. It was necessary, if the Volunteers were to fire, that they should be under restrictions; and the War Office did do what they could in this matter. Where the mountain would not come to Mahomet they had to bring Mahomet to the mountain. As hon. Members were aware, money was paid to the Volunteers for class-firing. It was desirable, he admitted, to have more ranges, but the fact was that a majority of the Volunteers were situated in great towns and it was impossible to get in the immediate neighbourhood of towns ranges which would satisfy the claims of safety. This was becoming more difficult day by day, and the War Office were finding themselves compelled to close a certain number of the existing ranges for reasons which would commend themselves to every man of common sense

  1437
  They were at present spending £200,000 on a range for the Regular Army, and in the past very large sums had been spent on Volunteer ranges. There were three things which stood in the way of providing more ranges. In the first place there was the question of money; secondly, at the present time the tendency of the House was not in the direction of additional expenditure; and, thirdly there was the law, which was not at all favourable to the State in this matter. He thought the law in relation to the purchase of land for purposes connected with the Navy and the Army was quite inadequate. He could only record his view that it was desirable that the law for these purposes should be strengthened.
  The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight had somewhat unintentionally misrepresented him in referring to the subject of rifle clubs. When on a former occasion he spoke of the possibility of grants for rifle clubs, he did so, as in regard to all grants to the Volunteers, subject to one condition, and that was that there should be a reduction of the force, which would admit of money so saved being applied to increasing the efficiency of the force. He had never made any concealment of that view.
  MAJOR SEELY: You do not propose to give anything to rifle clubs.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that if he was to effect economy by reducing the expense of the Volunteer force it was impossible to anticipate that by spending money before the reduction had taken place. No one could be more desirous than he was to see a reduction effected, because he thought the numbers were excessive. He could assure the hon. Member that he was not in the least anxious to withdraw from any pledge he had given. He had said over and over again that he did not believe the House and the country would permit him or anyone else to come down there and ask a large addition to the Army Estimates at the present time, and if they were to do what they all desired to be done not only in regard to the Volunteers but the Regulars it must be done subject to the fulfilment of the condition he had stated. Last year thirty-three ranges
  1438
  were opened, and twenty-eight were now under construction for the Volunteers and Yeomanry only.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Can you tell us how many were closed last year?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid there were twenty-six. [A laugh.] The hon. Member smiled, but the two things had really nothing to do with each other. Ranges were closed because they were compelled to close them. He entirely associated himself with what had been said by the hon. Member behind him as to the value of short ranges, and he thought that progress must be made in that direction. He believed that any man who could shoot well at a 100 yards could be trained to shoot well at 1,000. It was necessary to have behind the target between 1,200 and 2,000 yards in order to have safety.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: We can give them Sheffield armour plates.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid if his hon. friend would communicate with him in regard to any particular case he would consider it. It should be remembered that rifle clubs were not part of the organisation of the Army.
  MR. RENWICKasked to leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYcalled attention to the dearth of efficient officers in the Army and Auxiliary Forces. He did not think he need dwell on the gravity of the situation as unfolded by the latest Returns. They were quite aware, from the lessons of the South African War, and also from the lessons of the war now going on in Manchuria, of the necessity of having a full complement of officers. The tendency of modern warfare showed that it was desirable, if possible, to have more highly-trained officers who were capable of initiative. It was also of immense importance that there should be in the country, available for any emergency, a considerable reserve of officers able to

  1439
  undertake on short notice the supervision of small bodies of troops. In regard, first of all, to the Volunteers, he wished to point out that there were no less than 2,763 officers short of the number required to efficiently officer the battalions. It might be that a reduction would be made in the total number of Volunteers, and therefore, there would be a reduction in the total number of officers required. Still, under any circumstances, is certainly stood out that there was a large deficiency, which was a drawback to the efficiency of the force being properly maintained. It was not for him to speak specially for the Volunteers, but he thought it was worth consideration whether there was nothing which could be done to got rid of this extremely awkward and undesirable state of things. Could anything be done by the Department to make the service more attractive, or could certain personal or social advantages be offered them? He noticed that a body representing the Volunteers lately passed a resolution in which they attributed the insufficient supply of officers to the uncertainty of the future of the force, and as to the obligations which the service would entail. Well, the uncertainty as to the future of the force would be now set at rest, and as to obligations, it was acknowledged that these should be made as clear as possible. That was essential to good administration in every way. He thought there had been a little lack in giving Volunteer officers that full meed of gratitude they deserved for all the time and money they sacrificed. Then, when a Volunteer battalion was in camp and the officers were called upon to meet the various liabilities of camp life, they should be paid rank for rank exactly on the same footing as officers in the same branch of the regular service.
  The Militia was short of 943 officers, which meant that many of the Militia regiments must be inefficient. The chief and only remedy for that, in his opinion, was a closer and more efficient arrangement by which officers from territorial regiments could be interfused more readily than at present with the officers of the Regular regiments, or transferred from time to time from the one to the other. The Yeomanry were short of 338 officers. His own little experience of the Yeomanry made him think that it would be
  1440
  best to leave them to work out their own salvation. They were locally a very popular force, and attracted to themselves an excellent type of officer; and as long as they had at their head a commanding officer of territorial influence the regiments were extraordinarily efficient and brought to a high standard. In the Regular Army there was a deficiency of 225 officers—three in the Household Cavalry; fifty-three in the Cavalry of the Line; forty-four in the Foot Guards, 112 in the Infantry of the Line; and thirteen in the Army Service Corps.
  Was there anything in the present system which prevented the Army getting the whole number of officers required? Possibly one of the causes was the new arrangement by which young officers had to go through a two years training instead of one at Sandhurst, while the accommodation for them had not been doubled. It was said that the standard of examinations had been raised so as to allow only the number to pass that could be accommodated at Sandhurst now. If that were the reason, the accommodation should be enlarged. Another cause was alleged to be that the expense was too great. That question had bean discussed for twenty years, and a good deal had been done in the direction of relieving young officers of expense, such as in furnishing quarters and the mess rooms, and in other directions reducing the cost to young officers when they first joined. This matter should be carefully watched by the Secretary of State, and a stop put to anything like undue extravagance. Had the deficiency been caused by the conditions of service being made distasteful? In his opinion there had grown up a tendency to rather overdrive young officers. They were forced to go through too many courses of instruction and not allowed sufficient time to occupy themselves in their own legitimate pursuits. Although young officers should be encouraged to go through various courses of instruction, these should not be made into a special military treadmill. He would really recommend to the Secretary of State for War and to every commanding officer to try to arrange that every young officer, after his first probation, should

  1441
  have a legitimate amount of free leave every year. A man was always a better officer when allowed to get away for a certain fixed term in the year, to meet with his own people, and to afford him an opportunity to indulge in some legitimate sport. All that made him keener in carrying out his professional work on returning to duty.
  But there was a more serious question underlying the deficiency of officers than all that. Were we, or were we not, by our present system, making the best use of the raw material for young officers of which there was a superabundance in the country? Surely there was something wrong in a system which allowed of such a deficiency on the one hand and such a superabundance on the other. People might say that, after all, the standard of examination was not very high; but if it were the fact that we were short of young officers, and that yet there were large numbers of the best sort of young men who did not go into the Army, then it must be because the latter could not pass the examinations. Could not the conditions of these examinations be relaxed? They had seen something of that lately in the Navy. One of the ablest and cleverest things which Lord Selborne had done at the Admiralty was the rearrangement of the conditions for the entrance of cadets into the Navy. That was common sense. There ought to be two types of officer in the Army. They wanted an abundance of keen, intelligent, highly-educated officers, who were equal to advancing to the command of a regiment or a division, and to undertaking all the highly technical work which was part of the duties of an officer of very high degree. They wanted that type, and should encourage it. But, after all, the number of men who could achieve high position in the Army was limited; and they also wanted a large supply of officers who would have the faculty of making their men personally attached to them; who would act as personal commanders; but who did not intend or wish to make the Army their profession for all time, although they desired to spend eight or ten of the best years of their lives in doing their work thoroughly and efficiently. The Army should have plenty of men of that type.
  1442
  At present there were a great number of vacancies which might be filled by officers of that stamp on not too exacting conditions.
  He would suggest that the entrance to the Army should be thrown open wider on the understanding that a candidate who did not attain a certain standard should accept a commission on the distinct condition that it would only carry him up to the rank of, say, captain. They would get plenty of young men eager to accept. What would happen? There might be a period of active service; and in that case many of these officers would earn for themselves such a good name that not even the sternest reformer would think of turning them out of the Army, and would only be too glad of their services. Another percentage would gratify the ambition that would be aroused when they became British officers and would determine to satisfy the higher standard. These two large sections would qualify for further promotion, and prove themselves as useful as the officers admitted under the present system. Those who did not care to qualify to proceed beyond the rank of captain would pass out of the Army, having received a very valuable training. They would be the men who would form the reserve officers when, as during the South African War, the country would give anything for them. Surely, if there were a shortage in the Volunteers, Yeomanry, and Militia it could be supplied by the very type of officer who was perfectly willing to make himself thoroughly efficient and competent for so much service as he cared to undertake. Surely the Army should not maintain its present system when it was in its power to get any number of the officers wanted in this manner, and who could not be obtained under the present system. He would suggest to his right hon. friend and to those who ware studying this important problem that they should recognise that it would be wise, prudent, and statesmanlike to make use of those willing to come in, and who were competent and able to render the service demanded by the Army. He would not elaborate the question, but he hoped it would have the attention of his right hon. friend and

  1443
  those interested in it, and that the supply to which he had referred would be utilised in the future.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

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

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a number of Land Forces not exceeding 221,300, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906."
  *CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he wished to refer to the question which had been dealt with by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire as to the adequate supply of Army officers. He thought that neither the House nor the public realised the gravity of the situation, inasmuch as it not only affected the constant supply of officers in time of peace, but also the question of a sufficient reserve of officers in the event of war. It would be within the knowledge of the Committee that the Prime Minister had said that the only instance in which this country would be called upon to place a really large Army in the field was in the event of warlike operations on the North-West Frontier of India, and in that event it would be requisite to place an Army in the field out of all proportion to the present Army and to keep it supplied with an immense force of men. The late South African War was only a small war as compared with that which would take place for the defence of our Indian position. In the South African War they were obliged to take officers of all units, who were thoroughly unfitted to perform their duties in time of peace and still less in time of war. The question before the
  1444
  Government was whether they had taken sufficient steps to secure the needful supply of officers. The way in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that the existing deficiency should be supplied was by lowering the standard intellectually and educationally in favour of greater physical power. He challenged the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say whether officers in the British Army had ever been found deficient in physique. On the contrary, so far as physique and physical exercises were concerned, British officers were superior to officers of almost any other Army in the world. They had been found to have a lesser standard as regarded general education and intelligence. That was not his dictum. It was the statement of such distinguished soldiers as Lord Wolseley, Lord Roberts, Sir Ian Hamilton and Sir William Butler. The result was that they got into the Army during the war a number of men who under normal conditions could not have entered it. Sir William Butler drew attention to the fact that a number of the younger officers were deficient even in the rudiments of education. A number of these officers were sent out to India, and Sir Power Palmer, the Commander-in-Chief in India at that time, had to point out the great loss of time and the expense of sending these officers through the garrison classes, their education being such that they were incapable of taking advantage of the garrison classes; and he was compelled to establish a preparatory class to educate the officers up to a standard so that they might be able to take advantage of those classes. From that point of view our officers were below the standard and wanting in elementary education. Sir Power Palmer declared at a public lecture at the United Service Institution that the average English public school boy was not fit for the Indian Army.
  The Report of the Committee which sat to consider this question brought out three facts: first, that the standard of intellectuality and education of our young officers was below the mark; second, that we were hampered in our expeditions by the fact that our officers in this respect were inferior to those of any army of the world; and thirdly, that while the, greatest efforts were being made to

  1445
  improve the intellectual training of every Army of the world we were taking very little trouble indeed to do so. The evidence before the Committee brought to light the fact that keenness in their profession in young officers was out of date; that to take great interest in his profession was not correct form, and the object of the young officer was to do as little work as possible. The blame for this did not lie entirely at the door of the young men who wished to become officers. It was admitted that we had the best material and that if that material was properly trained in the first instance our officers would not be as they were at present— educationally and intellectually below the average of the officers of other nations. A good deal of the blame lay at the door of our public schools. The tendency of a public school was to prevent a boy receiving that which was necessary if he was to become a British officer, namely, a proper grounding in history and English literature and such subjects as were taught at a different class of school altogether. Speaking as an ex-officer and a University prizeman, he desired to point out that the majority of the young men who came from our public schools, where they had been perhaps for five years, came with a smattering of Latin, a slighter knowledge of Greek, and without sufficient grounding upon which to educate a British officer. At the present time the officer in the British Army compared most unfavourably with the officer in the British Navy. The officers in the latter service entered earlier, and were specially trained in those subjects which bore on their profession, but the men who were turned into the Army had not the proper groundwork to commence with, and the senior officer could not be blamed for not training young men whose education left no foundation upon which it was possible to build.
  If there was to be a constant and full supply of officers there were many ways of getting them. The first was to reduce the expenditure as regarded mess, and in the cavalry the cost of horse, uniform and equipment, but over and above that, if the right class of men were to be obtained, their calling must be made a profession. Enough pay must be given to enable the officer to live upon it. The
  1446
  officer in the Navy, after a very short time, was enabled to exist upon his pay; the officer in the Army, on the contrary, was compelled for many years to be a burden to his family. The reason that the officers of the Indian Army were in all respects superior to the officers of the British regiments was because they had adopted the Army as a profession, and after a certain number of years knew they could retire on a pension on which they could live. To obtain officers by lowering the standard of intellectuality and general education was absurd, because a largo supply of officers of the wrong sort was almost as bad as no officers at all. The true methods of obtaining a suitable supply of officers was to give a proper rate of pay, to make the calling such that some importance attached to a knowledge of the profession, to give a proper retiring allowance, and not to force men who had shown themselves to be competent officers to retire at a time of life when they were fit for further service. He begged to move a reduction of 500 men.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 220,800, all ranks, be maintained for the said Service."— (Captain Norton.)
  SIR CARNE RASCHagreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for West Newington with regard to officers' expenses, a subject which he thought was quite as important as the question of the new rifle recently brought before the House. The insufficiency of officers in the cavalry branch of the service was largely due to the unnecessary expense to which they were put, and the same remark applied to the Foot Guards. Unless the present system was altered, the Army would soon have to depend for its officers upon the class of men who had money but no brains. As the distinguished "Arthur Orton" used to say, "Some has money, and some has brains, but very few people have both," and the class with brains but without money was being worked out. The War Office must either reduce the expenses of the cavalry service or put up with officers who could not pass examinations, who were "the fools of the family," "numskulls," or "wasters;" they would have to take

  1447
  the son of the South African millionaire because he had a balance at the bank, and leave out the son of the country gentleman because he could not afford to serve in the cavalry. He did not mean to say that that obtained at present. He had a son in the cavalry, and he was certainly not a South African millionaire, but it was what would happen unless the system was altered. The Commission presided over by the present Home Secretary did a great deal in this direction. What they said was that the cavalry officers, who should be the eyes and ears of the Army, and on whom the safety of the Army and the country often depended, ought to be able to draw a good contour map, to speak one or two foreign languages, to write an intelligent letter, to shoot, and to ride. In order to get such men it was necessary to reduce the expenses of the cavalry service, and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary certainly did his best in that particular. But while expenses were reduced at home, cavalry officers in India were treated very differently. Thus, to take two cavalry regiments with the same pay in the Army List and under the same direction of the War Office; in one the officer was given his chargers, in the other one was supplied and the officer had to pay £90 for the other; in one the officers were given their full salary, and in the other the War Office made them pay for their mess.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Indian Government makes them.
  SIR CARNE RASCHreminded the right hon. Gentleman that he bad just said that he had to look after several armies, of which the Indian Army was one. Then as to the matter of dress. The extraordinary changes that were made, apparently for no other purpose than to increase expense, made it almost impossible for officers to live without some means in addition to their pay. Quite recently the War Office had altered the putties, sashes, sword-hilts, and stripes; but the most absurd Order of modern times was that an infantry officer should provide himself with a frock coat at a cost of eight guineas which could be worn only at Courts-martial. That surely was an absurdity. When the
  1448
  greatest soldier of all time marched into Berlin in 1806, the study into which he was shown was littered with patterns of caps, swords, and tunics, and Napoleon said—
  "If the Prussian army had only been taught to fight as they have been taught to dress, I should not have been here."
  The book of dress regulations for the Army was a perfect mine of information; he had never seen anything like it. Certain regiments were allowed to wear linen collars, others were not. Cavalry regiments were to have forty-two lines on their buttons, while infantry regiments bad only thirty-two. What the lines were he had not the faintest idea. Certain regiments had three buttons on their waistcoats, others had five. Boots were to be made to fit the leg—not the arm it was to be observed! Officers were on no account to go into action in brown gloves. Sword hilts had been altered again and again. In Highland regiments they were to be of iron, in the Royal Medical Corps, of gilt; in the infantry, of nickel, and in the cavalry, of steel. What on earth was the use of all these changes and absurd regulations? They took one's mind back to the days of Thackeray, who wrote about a regiment, which he called "The Queen's Own Popinjays," and held the whole thing up to ridicule and contempt, as many Members would like to do now. He would suggest that the place of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast at the War Office should be taken by the editor of the Tailor and Cutter. If they wanted to attract officers to the cavalry they must either reduce the expense or give them better pay, or else they would get an inferior class of men who could not and would not pass the examinations. He hoped hon. Members would not think that he had frivolously taken up the time of the Committee with these details and he trusted that the Secretary of State for War would give his attention to them.
  *SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he had listened with interest to the lively and somewhat caustic speech of his hon. and gallant friend opposite, and no doubt the Secretary

  1449
  of State for War would make a note as to the necessity of bringing about the reforms which had been asked for, and which, in his opinion, would be very useful. He thought less attention should be paid to details of this kind, and more attention should be given to those things which tended to make the Army a more powerful fighting machine. With regard to the Army Medical Corps he had not received anything like a satisfactory answer to the criticisms he had made and the questions he had put upon a former occasion. He rose on the present occasion in order to press for some explanation of the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave when they discussed this question before. The Secretary of State for War told them that the Army Medical Staff had been, increased by some 462 officers. He had looked with interest at the Estimates, and he found that the increase in the Army Medical staff amounted to about fifty-two altogether, and he was, therefore, unable to understand the increase which the right hon. Gentleman referred to in his speech upon that occasion. He was glad that the Army Medical Staff had been increased by the numbers given, and that more money had been taken to make that department more efficient. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would carry out the policy of his predecessors and try to make the Army Medical Department what it ought to be in order to prevent disaster, and in order that they might be able to send a strong, vigorous, and healthy Army into the field. They had not yet attained that ideal, and as he had pointed out upon a previous occasion, if they studied the methods of the Japanese—who had taken our knowledge and applied it with great precision and minuteness, and had attained a success which no other army had every attained as regarding the health of its units—they would do a good day's service to the British Army.
  He noticed that whilst the right hon. Gentleman was taking more money for the Army Medical Department for the military medical men and increasing their strength beyond the numbers of any year for years past, he was also taking more money than ever for civil medical practitioners. What was the reason for this? If they were having more Army
  1450
  medical officers why did they also want more civil practitioners? There must be some error or waste in one direction, or the other. It was claimed two or three years back that the normal amount required for the payment of civil practitioners would be about £16,500 per annum. Last year the Estimate was £36,000, and the other day they had an additional Estimate of £20,000, making for last year, with the Supplementary Estimate, an expenditure of £56,000 in one year for civil medical practitioners. That was an enormous sum, more especially when they took into consideration the fact that at the same time they had a larger Army Medical Staff than in any previous year. The hon. Gentleman who represented the War Office said the other day that the conditions in South Africa had something to do with this, for he stated that they required more of the Army Medical Staff in South Africa than had been anticipated. But surely that did not account for the fact that in every divisional command there was now almost double the sum required for civil medical practitioners. Whilst this kind of thing was going on he understood that they had Army medical officers looking after recruiting while the soldiers were being attended by civil medical practitioners who were also attending to their wives and children. There must be some disorganisation or some error in this arrangement. If they had more Army medical officers the best thing was to let them do the daily work of their profession. He believed that this was the result of a policy which had probably been forced upon the right hon. Gentleman by the Advisory Board, to the effect that he should not keep Army medical officers in small localities or towns and districts where there was little for them to do. It was considered that if they did the doctors would get rusty in their work. That might be true, but if so, how was it that in all divisional commands such as Aldershot they required more civil practitioners now than they did before, although they had a larger number of Army medical men than last year. Why was that? If they had civil medical practitioners doing certain work that Army medical officers ought to be doing, and if they were taking

  1451
  the Army medical officers from their close attention and relations with the troops, then they were doing something which was injurious to the Army. Work done for the soldiers would keep them up to their duty, and if the doctors were of the right stamp they would not get rusty, and then they would save this money which was now being spent upon civil practitioners. By putting the Army doctors to their proper duties they could save the country the £40,000 or £50,000 which was now being spent upon civil practitioners.
  If there was any scheme in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman such as he ought to have in connection with the civil practitioners, he ought to be able to build up a reserve Army Medial Corps for time of war. He ought to have some system by which civil practitioners should be attached to the Army by engaging the services of the house surgeons in the various provincial centres, thus keeping up a connecting link between civil doctors and the Army Medical Staff, so that the War Office would know where to apply for the right kind of men to do the extra work required by active service. If the Secretary of State for War had to put two Army Corps into the field he would find that he had 40 per cent, too small a number of Army medical officers for that purpose This was not a satisfactory condition of things, and it ought not to exist. He wished to have from the right hon. Gentleman some explanation as to how it was that his Estimate for civil practitioners was going up by leaps and bounds even when many more doctors had been included in the Estimates for this year. The normal Estimate a few years back was about £16,500; it was now £37,500. This increase coincided with an increase in the Army Medical Staff, which was greater this year than it had been for many years past. If the right hon. Gentlemen could give any explanation of these facts he would elucidate what, up to the present, had been to him a great mystery.
  CAPTAIN JESSELsaid the shortage of officers in the Auxiliary Forces, and even in the Army itself, was a serious matter. The whole point in connection with that shortage
  1452
  lay in the fact that the amount of pay given to officers of the Regular Army was very meagre indeed. The shortage of officers in the Volunteers and Militia was due, he believed, to the hesitation which men had in joining these forces on account of the nature of the prospects held out to them. There was no doubt that the pay of the junior officer in the Army was inadequate in the changed circumstances of the present time It was a very curious thing that there had not been any addition made to the pay of the junior officer for nearly 100 years. He would point out to the Secretary of State for War that there was no shortage whatever disclosed by the figures relating to the artillery and the engineers, the reason being that the officers in these branches of the service had special pay which made their emoluments much higher than those of the officers in the Line or the cavalry.
  A great deal had been said about the expenses of the cavalry. These expenses had been very much cut down of late years, but it was still very difficult for men to join cavalry regiments which were serving at home. He would ask the Secretary of State when giving attention to this question not to make the regulations so stringent that it would be impossible for men without means to be in a cavalry regiment at all. In the past the country had derived considerable benefit from men who joined cavalry regiments and the Guards, and gave good service until they came into their estates and left the Army. If they were going to exclude a man because he was better off than his neighbours, he thought they would cut off a supply which was beginning already largely to dwindle in regard to the cavalry. One of the reasons why they did not join now was that the conditions of service in the Army were very onerous. In the first place the work was a great deal harder than it used to be. The amount of time given for leave and recreation was a great deal less. It seemed to him that they could not have it both ways. If they expected officers to devote more time to the profession, and if they diminished the amount of leave which they had hitherto enjoyed, the natural consequence

  1453
  was that the officers would have to be better paid. Otherwise the men would find another profession. So far from any improvement having been made in their pay, there had been, on the contrary, a serious loss suffered by the officers in the mounted branch through the diminution of their allowances. Formerly the junior officers had a forage allowance for three horses. Now that was cut down to an allowance for two horses, with the result that the officer was out of pocket to the extent of no less than £20 a year. As to the old colonels on the staff, he understood that their emoluments in future were to be cut down. They were going to be paid fixed sums, and nothing was to be allowed for forage, servants, or lodgings. That was a pity. The men were disgusted, and those who had looked forward to a higher position than that of subaltern officers, seeing the emoluments taken away, were naturally giving up the profession.
  He understood there had been complaints as to the badness of the saddlery supplied to officers. He did not think saddlery of an inferior description should be supplied. There was also a complaint as to the inferior class of furniture provided for officers' quarters, and as to the charge which the War Office made for the hire of it being too large. Another point which weighed with men who joined the Army was that under existing conditions there was no security of tenure. By a stroke of the pen the conditions under which men entered the Army might be cancelled, and a new set of regulations might be introduced which would deprive them of the advantages they might have had. A man might be dismissed at a moment's notice without trial or Court-martial of any sort, and with no reason given. These conditions made many men very chary of entering the service. He would probably be taunted by the Secretary of State with being one of those who advocated economy in the abstract, but who, when it came to the practical details, asked for an increase in the Estimates. However that might be, he did not think they could have an Army of any value without professional officers, and if they had professional officers they ought to pay them
  1454
  accordingly. There were little distinctions in the various branches of the Army which were dear to the heart of the soldier. In a volunteer Army it was upon these differences that the popularity of particular regiments depended. One of the attractions which induced men to enter particular regiments was the uniform. Although all would like to see expenses reduced, it was impossible in a volunteer Army to entirely do away with an expensive dress. At the same time, in his own experience, it was not the initial expense for uniforms that was so heavy. When a man first joined he was provided with an outfit and, as a rule, that outfit would last him for many years. It was the changes made by the War Office that really made the expense. There was the old question of gold lace. In former days many of the mounted regiments had gold lace, and that had been changed to stuff; but experience had proved that the many changes in stuff were much more expensive than gold lace, but the stuff-ornamented uniforms had to be much more frequently used and did not wear so well.
  There was another point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Secretary for War. No doubt many men who joined one branch of the service found, owing to changed conditions, that they would like an exchange to another section. The case in his mind was that of an officer in the Indian Army who came into a considerable fortune and did not want to continue to reside in India. He was a good officer and well reported on, but there was no means of exchanging from the Indian Army into a regiment at home. He thought that no impediment should be put in the way of enabling officers to exchange from one branch of the service to another. Then, many officers who retired with a gratuity after a war were not allowed to rejoin afterwards. All these things affected the question of the deficiency in the number of candidates for a commission in the Army. Again, he did not think the Secretary for War had paid sufficient attention to the reserve officers. At any rate the right hon. Gentleman had not given sufficient details. Many men who had served well during the late war now belonged to no corps at all.
  MR. SOARESsaid that two years ago great scandals had arisen in connection with the provision of remounts for the mounted blanches of the service. He wanted to know what the Government were doing at the present time in regard to this matter of remounting. He undertook to say that if a war of a similar kind to that in South Africa were to break out, so far as the provision of horses was concerned, we should be in a worse position than ever in the horse-breeding districts of this country. Everybody knew that during recent years there had been a steady drain of good mares out of the country. The Government had done a little to encourage breeding by instituting prizes for remounts at local shows; but even in regard to that they seemed to have no settled convictions. He had had experience of these local shows, and thought that the plan of prizes for remounts was a very good thing; and he hoped sincerely that they would be continued. Every year there were from 500 to 700 mares of average age of eight years cast from the Army and sold—probably to run in hansom cabs or four-wheelers. He proposed that they should be sent to the market towns in the horse-breeding districts and sold to farmers on condition that they were put to thoroughbred stallions. Or they might be handed over to the Brood-Mare Society. He was quite sure that these would prove valuable means of securing good remounts. Of course the latter suggestion would involve the inspection of the books of the Brood-Mare Society, but he believed the society would not object to that.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that the scarcity of officers arose from the fact that the War Office wanted them to do more than they used to do, for the same amount of money. It was quite clear that they must be asked for more work; but the question among the younger officers was that they were being asked to do a great deal of useless work which did not improve their intelligence in any way. There was first a company course; then a battalion course; afterwards a brigade course and I a divisional course, all followed by manœuvres, each repeating the work of the previous operation; and for the
  1456
  first seven or eight months officers and men were doing the same work over and over again. It could be very easily arranged that they should not be asked to repeat routine work; and in that way a good deal of work would be taken off the shoulders of officers and men and they might learn something more useful. He entirely disagreed with the suggestion that more pay should be given at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman had got to make economies; the proposed economics were not sufficient; and if the present Estimates were not amended, there would have to be very severe amendments next year. A real reduction was necessary, and the sooner the Government recognised that the better for the Army.
  The accounts which had been presented were rather misleading. The right hon. Gentleman talked about special accounts. There was an invasion of England in which the attacking and defending forces had been paid at a cost of £250,000 Then there was the sale of stores and other windfalls, and altogether the accounts of the Secretary of State, appeared to be about £1,000,000 out. That was a very serious matter. The right hon. Gentleman had to reduce expenditure, not only because of the revenue of the country, but also in the interests of the future of the Army. He was quite sure that if the present expenditure went on there would eventually be such a large reduction as would seriously endanger the efficiency of the Army. It would be perfectly possible at present to reduce the Army by 10,000 men without reducing its efficiency; but the right hon. Gentleman only suggested a reduction in the case of the Volunteers and the Militia, which were the cheapest branches. Although the Militia were to be reduced they were to be given more training; and the number of men required would not be forthcoming unless they were paid more. The Volunteers and the Militia were valuable assets for the defence of the country; and if they were reduced to an insignificant figure there would have to be a considerably increased expenditure on Regular troops. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman had a theory that only trained troops were of any use; but the Militia consisted of men who

  1457
  could be put under military law in event of an emergency, and who would be able to take the place of the first line. Surely, in any alteration of the Army consideration should be given to things that were useful while reducing more expensive items. Take for instance the new Intelligence Department. It was a very expensive item. Every one was in favour of a good General Staff; but there was an impression—he gave it for what it was worth—that it did not do the work it had to do. There was an impression entertained in military circles, and he believed also by some people at the War Office, that the efficiency of the General Staff was not what it ought to be. The Committee ought to have a definite assurance that this matter was not a mere paper scheme like the last.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

EVENING SITTING.
  LONDON PORT AND DOCKS COMMISSION BILL [By ORDER.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 13th April (Evening Sitting).

  FISCAL RETALIATION.
  *MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid he rose to call attention to certain proposals made by the First Lord of the Treasury, and to move the Resolution, "That, in view of the declarations made by the Prime Minister this House thinks it necessary to record its condemnation of his policy of fiscal retaliation." The Prime Minister had declared that he proposed to alter fundamentally the fiscal tradition which had prevailed during the last two generations; that he desired freedom of action in order to mitigate the injury done us by hostile tariffs by the employment of the weapon of retaliation; that he wished to check the importation of foreign goods
  1458
  which, because they were bounty fed or tariff protected abroad, were sold below cost price here; that he did not desire to raise home prices for the purpose of aiding home production; that a tax upon food was not, with public opinion in the state in which we now found it, within the limits of practical politics. The Sheffield, Edinburgh, and half-sheet-of-paper programme on which apparently the Prime Minister proposed at some time or other to appeal to the country comprised, therefore, a policy of retaliation which could not be effectively carried out until food and raw material were taxed, and a Colonial Conference to consider a policy of preference, to which again effect could not be given unless food and raw materials were taxed. The proposals of the Prime Minister were, therefore absolutely inconsistent and impracticable. Having placed this policy before the country, the representatives of the people in the House of Commons bad a right to demand from the Leader of the House a Definite statement as to how he proposed to give effect to his policy, and that right could not be diminished by any attempt on the right hon. Gentleman's part to ride off on the plea that the present House of Commons would not be asked to deal with the question. They required concrete examples as to how the right hon. Gentleman would proceed to mitigate injury done by hostile tariffs. The House was entitled to know whether the Prime Minister intended to ask Parliament to confer general powers on the Executive Government, or whether the sanction of Parliament must be obtained in each case? He could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South-East Durham because that Amendment limited the condemnation of the fiscal retaliation proposals of the Prime Minister to simply so far as it was destructive of Parliamentary control over taxation. They could accept no such Amendment because they condemned the proposals of the Prime Minister and his policy of fiscal retaliation without any limitation whatsoever.
  Were the Prime Minister in his place, and he craved the indulgence of the House in the somewhat difficult position in which the right hon.

  1459
  Gentleman's absence had placed him, he would have asked him soma questions with the object of eliciting a definite statement as to the way he proposed to give practical effect to the proposals he had made. Would he begin by imposing retaliatory duties on imports from the highest protectionist countries, the United States of America and Russia, because if he did he might point out that more than eleven-twelths of the imports from America consisted of food, raw material, or partially manufactured material for further manufacture Indeed, America only sent us £10,000,000 worth of fully manufactured goods against which we exported to America not less than £15,000,000 worth of manufactured goods. Eleven-twelfths of our imports from Russia consisted of foodstuffs and raw material. We exported to Russia three times more manufactured goods than she exported to us. Would not both the United States of America and Russia, therefore, be in a position to hit us harder than we could hit them in any tariff war? How would he mitigate the injury crone by hostile tariffs and bounty systems of our own self-governing Colonies? What would he do with regard to Canada? We received from Canada £23,000,000 worth of food, raw material, and partially manufactured goods. On the £10,000,000 worth of exports we sent to the Dominion she, after allowing us thirty-three and one-third rebate, taxed them no less than twenty and a half per cent. The present tariff arrangements with Canada were in her favour to the extent of some £2,000,000 a year; in addition to that she granted to her iron and steel manufacturers bounties to the extent of 2½ millions of dollars. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham protested loudly enough against the strangling of the sugar trade of the West Indies by the sending of bounty-fed sugar to this country, but no word of protest had been heard about the strangling of the iron and steel trades of this country by this system of Canadian bounties. In addition to that the British taxpayer bore the cost of Imperial defence, and Canada enjoyed the benefit equally with ourselves at no cost to herself. In regard to New Zealand and
  1460
  Australia the hostile tariffs were higher than those of Canada.
  There were only two courses to be pursued; one was to allow absolute fiscal freedom to every part of the British Empire, and of that lie quite approved, or retaliatory tariffs must be applied to our protectionist Colonies as well as to protectionist foreign nations. The Prime Minister asked for liberty to negotiate and for something to negotiate with. Parliament had full power of negotiation already. That was shown in the case of the Sugar Convention, and they knew the result of that interference with the freedom of trade, which was an object lesson if one were needed. The Government had full power in negotiating the Anglo-French Agreement, greater power, probably, than they would ever have again; but if that were considered from the standpoint of our commercial interests it was a most disappointing agreement. Not only did the Prime Minister acquiesce in the abolition of our treaty trading rights with Madagascar, but gave valuable concessions to France in Morocco and West Africa, and in return the Government obtained no increase whatever of trading facilities in any part of the French. Empire. How would the Prime Minister prevent the dumping of foreign goods here below cost price? A uniform tariff on all imported goods would be protective and would apply to goods not sold below cost price, but if imposed on consignments sold below cost price, how would the Prime Minister detect them? Did he propose to fix a scale of prices for all articles? This would need revision, with every improvement in machinery, with every change in the rate of wages in any part of the world? That part of the scheme was totally impracticable; it was impossible to distinguish between goods which had been and which had not been dumped.
  What had been the outcome of tariff wars between other nations? Lord Monson, in his Report on Tariff Wars between certain European States, said—
  "The results of the tariff war between France and Italy seem to have been as disastrous to the two countries engaged in it as were those arising from the war between France and Switzerland."
  Then, again, they had the experience of Germany, whose negotiations of her new

  1461
  commercial treaties illustrated in a striking way the futility of the policy of seeking to break down tariff barriers by erecting them at home. Germany had negotiated seven new commercial treaties, and in only two of those treaties had she succeeded in renewing them on the old conditions. Germany had raised her tariff wall before entering into negotiations, but unfortunately for her the nations with whom she was to negotiate retaliated by raising their tariff walls, and the consequence was that in the case of five of the renewals Germany paid higher duties than she had previously to pay under the old treaties. Another investigation showed that while on 6 per cent, of her exports Germany had secured concessions on the old duties, on 46 per cent. of the exports the tariff had been increased. Were the Prime Minister present he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in his opinion the result of fiscal retaliation on the part of other nations had been such as to encourage us to embark on similar adventures. Tariff wars dislocated trade, caused widespread distress, inflamed international animosities, and left tariffs at the end much the same as they were at the beginning. Did protectionist countries using retaliation obtain more favourable terms from other protectionist countries than we did? Did not we enjoy in all markets equal terms under most-favoured-nation clauses? Was not the ability of protectionist countries to gain access to protectionist markets and great neutral markets, such as China and India, less than ours, owing to low cost of production arising from our system of free imports?
  A policy of retaliation would, in his opinion, ruin the trade of this country. In 1902 the orders for finished iron and steel in this country required not only the whole production of pig-iron in the United Kingdom as well as the stocks on hand, but the importation from other countries of 1,500,000 tons of iron and steel mainly in a partially manufactured state. The great and most serious difficulty which confronted the iron and steel industry of this country was the alarmingly limited resources of iron ore and iron stone. The 1,500,000 tons of partially manufactured iron and steel which was supplied to us was largely supplied
  1462
  at a less cost than we could produce it at, and if protectionist countries like Germany and America, through their protectionist policy, made their own people pay a higher price and enabled us to purchase here at less than cost price, and enabled our iron and steel works to be fully employed, in his opinion it would be an absolutely fatuous policy to prevent the influx of such supplies by any system of fiscal retaliation. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham had said in 1903 that the British market was to be invaded by the dumping down of millions of tons of American iron and steel, but as a fact we had imported less from, and had exported more to, America in 1904 than we had done in previous years. That was another instance of the baseless prophecies of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The shipbuilding trade depended for its prosperity on having cheap iron and steel, and it was due to our free imports that we could build ships 40 per cent, cheaper than any other nation in the world. It was on our policy of free imports that we had built up our great shipping industry, and it was owing to that that we were at the present time the carriers of more than half the trade of the world.
  Retaliatory duties would inevitably increase prices and injure the home consumer; they would reduce the quantity consumed and increase the number of unemployed. If one trade was protected, how could similar protection be denied to all other trades and to agriculture? Would agriculturists allow every trade to be protected whilst foodstuffs came in free? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, in a speech at the London Chamber of Agriculture in 1903, said with regard to the Government policy of retaliation—
  "There must be a general scheme in which agriculture as well as the manufacturing interests of the country must be considered."
  He asked the meeting to—
  "make it perfectly clear that in any changes which are to be made agriculturists expect and are determined that they shall be taken into account."
  This was the opinion of another great statesman—
  "As to the prospect of any return to protection in any shape or form, I think it is inconceivable that the agricultural interest would

  1463
  allow manufacturers to be protected while food imports went free, and I think it is equally improbable that the working classes of this country will ever again submit to the sufferings and to the miseries which were inflicted upon them by the Corn Laws in order to keep up the rents of the landlords. If that is the programme of the Tory Party, we have only, in answer to it, to recall the history of those times when protection starved the poor, and when the country was brought by it to the brink of revolution. Remember the description which was given in the verse of the Corn Law Rhymer of the sufferings endured by the people and of the burning indignation the sufferings called forth—
  'They taxed your corn, they fettered trade,
  The clouds to blood, the sun to shade,
  And every good that God had made
  They turned to bane and mockery,
  They knew no interest but their own,
  They shook the State, they shook the Throne,
  Oh, years of crime! The great and true,
  The nobly wise—now, not the few—
  Bid freedom grow where Corn Laws grew,
  And plant it for eternity.'
  That is not a retrospect which I think would be favourable to any Party or any statesman who should have the audacity to propose that we should go back to those evil times."
  Those were the words of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, spoken at the Eighty Club on April 28th, 1885. It might be said that that was ancient history. He observed, however, that the right hon. Gentleman, in the interesting correspondence between himself and Lord Salisbury, was, as usual, wrong in his dates. He made a quotation from a speech which he said was delivered by the late Lord Salisbury in 1895, but which was in reality made in 1885. The right hon. Gentleman said that Lord Salisbury approved of retaliation, but he concealed from us the kind of retaliation contemplated by Lord Salisbury, which was made clear in his speech of May 19th, 1892, when, referring to the use of the weapon of retaliation, he used these significant words—
  "We may fairly use our power over an importation which merely ministers to luxury in order to maintain our own in this great commercial battle."
  This showed that he had not the intention of placing retaliatory duties on our imports of food or on manufactured goods, but only on luxuries.
  There was no intermediate course between adhering to the present system of freedom of imports and the adoption of the policy of the right hon.
  1464
  Member for West Birmingham. Retaliation was required, but it was not the sort proposed by the Prime Minister. We needed to retaliate by the adoption of an educational system superior to that of any competing nation; by the adoption of up-to-date methods and machinery in our manufactories, by a better knowledge of chemistry, by the employment of an increased army of experienced commercial travellers, by the reorganisation of our Consular Service, and by the employment of efficient trade agents in our self-governing Colonies, where foreigners had a Consular Service, and we had no trade representatives whatever. By those measures our commercial prosperity would be genuinely increased. Our commercial salvation depended on the maintenance in its entirety of our system of free imports, which enabled manufactured goods to be produced at a low cost. As a result of the policy of free imports our exports at the present time equalled those of the United States and Germany combined, though they possessed three times our population; and by that policy we were able to retain a predominant share of the trade of the great neutral markets of India and China. The policy of the Prime Minister was ignominiously rejected at the Southampton Conference, only receiving thirteen votes, yet subsequently to that the Prime Minister, addressing a Primrose League meeting, said, referring to his political leadership, that his task would have been impossible without the loyal and affectionate support which he had never been denied. Then came the letter of the Tariff Reform League of March 14th, which described the policy of the Prime Minister as a colourless production, and as the putting of a Departmental blunderbuss against a foreign Maxim gun, and continued—
  "We should say frankly and honestly that retaliation is damned; it is hopeless, viewed from any aspect, and the sooner it is dropped the better for the Unionist Party and for all concerned."
  Then there was the situation at Greenwich, where the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham advised the starting of a tariff-reform candidate against the Government candidate. And yet the Prime Minister took

  1465
  it all "lying down." In his Sheffield speech the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I have been asked to give a lead. I think that is a reasonable request. A man who, however unworthy, is called upon to lead a Party must lead it, and so long as I am in that position I mean to lead it."
  If it was necessary to give a lead at Sheffield, how much more necessary was it on Wednesday night last, when the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was under consideration. The whole nation felt that on that occasion the Prime Minister displayed an unworthy lack of courage—["No"]—but to-night the House was confronted with a still more extraordinary political situation, when the only lead given to his followers by the Prime Minister was the recommendation to take a night out. Possibly the tariff-reformers had paired with the "half-sheet-of-notepaper" men. He hoped the Prime Minister was spending the night in meditation, and that, as a result, some beneficent influence would exorcise the evil spirit of retaliation which had possessed him too long. The House had witnessed many adroit manœuvres, subterfuges, and evasions recently on the part of the Prime Minister, but surely the climax had now been reached when he had found it needful to resort to the discreditable and un-English device of withdrawing the entire Unionist Party from the House—["No"]—to prevent its disruption. Attacked by a numerically smaller force, at the cry of "hands up!" they had capitulated bag and baggage. Was ever a great political Party placedin such a humiliating and ridiculous position? Perhaps the Prime Minister preferred to give further enlightenment to the House and the country by means of another shilling pamphlet. Whether that was so or not, his refusal to be in his place to meet and answer the criticisms levelled against the fiscal changes he himself had propounded was treating the House, of which he was the Leader, with contempt. The right hon. Gentleman had shown a lack of courage and of straightforward statesmanship, and a flagrant disregard of constitutional and Parliamentary traditions which the whole nation would deplore and resent. A blow had been struck at the dignity and efficiency of the House of Commons
  1466
  as a deliberative Assembly which would lower the whole tone of Parliamentary life. His conduct had confirmed the growing feeling that the policy of retaliation was never seriously intended, that it had been advanced, not as an honest and practicable policy for the State, but merely as an ignoble Party expedient, and it deserved the emphatic condemnation of all who had the well-being and prosperity of the country at heart. He begged to move.
  *MR. MOULTON: It would be difficult to frame a Resolution which I could feel more pleasure in seconding than the one now before the House, which, in perfectly simple and unqualified terms, denounces fiscal retaliation. I regret, for the sake of the House, that the debate is being carried on in the absence of the one Member who is responsible for agitating the country from one end to the other by the suggestion of this as the future policy of England. The withdrawal of the Government from the House on the present occasion cannot be defended. The withdrawal of last week might have been defended on the ground that the Resolution was directed against the policy of a private Member; but to-night the Motion impeaches the official policy of the Government, for which the head of the Unionist Party is certainly going to ask the support of his followers and of the country. It is the goal towards which he has represented himself as striving, and that he should think that the one place where even-handed debate is possible is the one place where it is prudent not to be present to defend that policy, shows that he realises that the triumph of last week over the fiscal policy of his—shall I say "colleague" or "rival"?—was only the prelude of what is to be the verdict of the House on his own. But to me the chief interest of the present occasion does not turn upon the conduct of the Government or its Head. It does not really matter who it is who has propounded the policy of retaliation. The whole thing is so hateful that one is almost glad to have an opportunity of publicly examining its nature and methods and of reminding the nation of the policy by which it has

  1467
  gained its greatness, and making clear to it what it is that is proposed should be substituted for it.
  I refuse to deal with the question in a purely dialectical manner, as though I were a philosopher discussing the possibilities of one system or another in imaginary realms. The question is "what is to be the fiscal policy of England?" and in answering this it is necessary to consider from what we start. What is the United Kingdom now? It is a free-trade country, enjoying the advantage of the most-favoured-nation clause throughout practically the whole world. The result is that it is a country in which the cost of production is the smallest, which has accordingly unchallenged superiority in neutral markets and is able to base this its commercial superiority on no starvation or underpayment of its working classes, but on favourable conditions of labour and the payment of wages which I believe are higher in their purchasing value than those paid in any other portion of the world.
  MR. HUNT: Then what about the 12,000,000 starving people?
  *MR. MOULTON (continuing): I submit therefore that this being the present state of affairs, we have a right to demand that, before the existing system is abandoned, the supporters of retaliation should show us "a more excellent way." What is that more excellent way? The proposal is that we should adopt as an integral, nay, as a fundamental part of our fiscal policy—retaliation. Tariff-reformers declare that the country is being ruined by hostile tariffs, and that fiscal retaliation, and it alone, can rid us of them. Let me examine for a moment the first of these propositions. Is it a fact that hostile tariffs do us so much harm? I have given considerable thought to the matter, and I doubt whether any more advantageous position is possible than that of being the one free-trade nation in a world where the great producing countries are protectionist. English manufacturers make many a bitter lament that the United States
  1468
  market is closed to them by hostile tariffs. But if the United States had taken up free trade twenty years ago, what proportion of trade in neutral markets would this country have had? The position of that great country in regard to the amount of its exports, with its genius for organising industry and production on a large scale, is pitiable as compared with the position of Great Britain, which in later years has not shown anything like the industrial genius of her transatlantic cousins. Why is it? Because the United States, having adopted the principle of inflating profits at the cost of the community by protection, is unable to compete with this country in cheapness in foreign markets. No doubt the adoption of protection by the United States has been an injury to the world in that it has cramped and fettered the production of that great country, thus making less the total amount of commodities to be divided amongst and enjoyed by the people of the world. But it has increased the fraction of the total production that Great Britain has enjoyed. It is a fallacy to think that we suffer a special and peculiar injury from the protective tariffs of the great producing nations. On the contrary, our free trade and their protection combine to enable us to produce at lower cost than our rivals, and under the working of the most-favoured-nation clause this gives us a commanding advantage over all of them in each neutral market, and over all but the home producer in each protected market. I therefore have a feeling of comparative content, in spite of the unwise laws, as I consider them, which different countries have made to prevent imports.
  So much for the alleged wrong. Now as to the suggested remedy. What is to be done under this system of retaliation? We are not talking about insolent tariffs, things of the nature of the Berlin Decrees, where a foreign Power combined fiscal policy with national insolence towards Great Britain as a nation. Questions of that kind do not belong to fiscal policy, but concern the dignity of the nation. What we are dealing with is the case of a nation which, in the exercise of its undoubted powers as a sovereign State,

  1469
  has chosen to adopt in its fiscal system an import duty on certain subjects of commerce, pointed not at this country only, but at the whole world outside its own realms. No doubt such a duty handicaps us in that market as against the home producer, but every one of our competitors, with the exception of the home producer, is similarly handicapped thereby. But, if we object to the duty, how does retaliation help us to get rid of it? Are we to put a retaliatory tax on those goods? Nonsense. Those goods, by very hypothesis, wore goods that we exported, not imported. Some other goods have, therefore, to be chosen on which to retaliate. What goods are those to be? They may, I suppose, be any goods, provided they are malevolently chosen. But when the tax is put on, against whom is it to be imposed? We cannot insult a nation by putting the tax only on goods coming from it; the tax must be imposed on all goods of that particular kind, wherever they came from, and so our great system of so-called justice would be inaugurated by punishing the innocent with the guilty, and making all nations which feed us with those particular goods bear a retaliatory tax which, even according to the theory of the Prime Minister, only one of them has merited. And who is it, after all, that we have punished? We have punished our own fellow-subjects by not allowing them to buy those goods as cheaply as they might otherwise have done, and we have not directly interfered with or hurt any foreign person. It should be noticed, too, that we have not even retaliated unless we have put on a protective tax. If the goods are goods that we cannot produce, the imposition of the retaliatory tax handicaps alike all the producers who send those goods to us, and by handicapping them alike punishes no one.
  The only way in which retaliation can be effective is that the duties imposed should be protective, that they should be in respect of goods that we can and, under those circumstances, will produce for ourselves. Free-traders who are hesitating on the edge of retaliation should therefore remember that even on the contention of its supporters retaliation can only succeed where it
  1470
  brings with it the favouritism and corruption of protection. It we tried to make our retaliation more pointed, and were mad enough to put the tax exclusively on goods coming from one nation—which had done us no wrong as compared with the rest of the world—the consequences would be far more serious. Even if it did not resent the treatment as a national insult we should incidentally lose the advantage of the most-favoured-nation clause. This would bring on us higher duties on all sorts of other things, the retaliation in respect of which would affect a larger and larger ring of nations, and we should be in an embroglio the end of which no one could foresee. No. Retaliation is impossible in a free-trade nation. It is possible only if we begin by making the nation a protectionist nation, and then proceed to bargain with one nation and another to take oft those protective duties in the hope that we shall induce them to treat us more favourably. That is the only possible method of working retaliation, and I ask the House to compare England as she now is with England as these retaliating tariff-reformers would make her. We have now the cheapest production, and we hold our markets by offering to other nations goods cheaper and better than they can be obtained from countries where prices are artificially swollen. To what should we then trust for our markets? We should have to trust to intrigue, treaties, and diplomacy, and we should no longer have the advantage of cheapness of production which has kept us so high above our rivals. And we should not use our new weapons well. As long as England retains her great qualities she will be beaten at the game of commercial diplomacy. I shall never forget a business man saying to me, in an injured tone, in reference to our rule in Egypt—
  "Sir Evelyn Baring ought never to be left there. Look here, representatives of other nations use political influence, but he will not; he leaves me to my merits."
  So long as England has that sense of fairness which prevents her using political influence in the way other countries have too often used it she will always be beaten in the attempt to get by diplomacy the advantages which at present she secures by efficiency. Moreover, the advantages gained would be distributed

  1471
  by the Government among those trades which, it had chosen to foster, and thus favouritism, corruption and every one of the other evils which free-trade Members opposite had denounced as following protection must come in with retaliation. It is idle for the Prime Minister to talk about using retaliation as a means of lowering hostile tariffs, and to say that in so doing he is not introducing protection because, if we threaten, they, like the coon in the story, will come down at once. The right hon. Gentleman has no such reputation as a dead shot, and he would find that he could not bring down Germany, France, the United States, and other protective countries by merely threatening to use his weapon, and if we once adopt protection even for the purposes of retaliation we cannot drop it again. If the Government used the weapon of retaliation, started protection, unnaturally fostered the development of trades, secured the investment of capital in those trades for national purposes and then proposed to go back to free trade, what would be the cry? The trades concerned would say, "You have used us for your national purposes; you have secured advantages for other trades by our investment of capital in the prohibited industries, and now you want to throw us over and leave us to bear our loss ourselves. "How will you meet such a claim? Is this to be the "more excellent way" for which this country is to be asked to abandon the dignified independence she now enjoys with all its glorious success in the world of commerce? Are we to engage in the perpetual struggle with other nations, using as our sole arm the vile thing protection which takes from the whole nation and puts into the pockets of the favoured few? When the question of the Prime Minister's official fiscal policy is discussed in the country I believe the answer with regard to retaliation will be as sharp and as decisive as it has been in reference to the suggestion of protection.
  Why is it that this thing, which is so impracticable, has become a matter imperatively demanding consideration? Purely because of the political exigencies of the moment. I remember that two years ago when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham made
  1472
  his celebrated protectionist speech, I had just been reading a charming Japanese book on wrestling, where I learnt for the first time that the Japanese possessed a most magnificent school of wrestlers. They were well-nigh irresistible, and for this reason: they never opposed an attack; they yielded to it, and by yielding overthrew their opponent. For two years the country has witnessed an admirable wrestling match between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, with his direct attack and strong intellectual muscles, and the far wilier antagonist who has upset him completely by yielding. No example of Jinjitsu—of "conquering by yielding" could be more perfect. We all remember how the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham propounded his present scheme of protection. At first it hardly went beyond colonial preference, then 10 per cent, duties all round to support colonial preference, then the pathetic appeal as to our dying industries, and so on. It was started at a moment when the Prime Minister had been giving forth some strong free-trade utterances and yet to the surprise of the country they found the Prime Minister agreeing and agreeing with the Member for West Birmingham in each fresh development of his protectionist policy, till at last, although he painfully parted company with him, it was only in the way in which one says good-bye to a comrade who is going to do a difficult work which home duties prevent one's doing one's self, with whom one has the deepest sympathy, and for whose success one offers up the warmest prayers. Protection had won all along the line! The Prime Minister had capitulated to the Member for West Birmingham. That was how it appeared to be at first—and certainly the attack was a strong one. It was not the first time the Member for West Birmingham had tried to get a relatively greater importance in his Party by starting new doctrines which he trusted would not be acceptable to his nominal leaders; he is a master at that game, he has met with hard knocks in it in the past, but this time, the extraordinarily rapid acceptance by the Prime Minister of all that he put forward must have made him think that he was going to have an easy

  1473
  victory. But he is on his back now! The result has convinced me that the Japanese are not only amongst the first military nations of the world, but are by far the most dangerous wrestlers. It was in the process of this wrestling bout that the suggestion of retaliation as our future fiscal policy was devised, and the more I ponder over it the more keenly do I feel how admirably it suited the position and the purposes of the Prime Minister. It has enabled the right hon. Gentleman to rule a Party composed of people holding diametrically opposed opinions. If he turns to the protectionists he can say, "What more can you want? I say retaliation must be introduced in order to stop tariffs which kill our industries. You point out that all our industries are dying, so that it is obvious that retaliation means universal protection." Then turning to free-traders he can say, "Retaliation is a thing of which we must regretfully contemplate the possibility. But I am not going to use it protectively; I will use it only where it is sure to succeed. So that protection will never be more than a threat. You as free-traders are able to judge how sure it is to succeed; if you think it will never succeed, you may be sure I shall never use it." In that way, while in form he condemns free trade, speaking of it as a fiscal policy which must be utterly reversed, he is able to treat it with the most extraordinary leniency in any and every concrete instance. He has never stated any one case in which he would use retaliation. The country has always been, and still is, left to conjure up fiscal nightmares in the hope of discovering what would induce the right hon. Gentleman to put his new system into operation. If, being an incurable lawyer, I may describe in legal phraseology his treatment of free trade, I should say that the Prime Minister has tried free trade, and found it guilty, but instead of passing sentence has bound it over to come up for sentence when called upon, which, as everyone acquainted with the effect of that legal formula knows, means that it was let off entirely.
  That is the history of the introduction of retaliation into the arena of politics. It shows the reason this question has been brought up, and I believe that when
  1474
  the political exigency which made it needful has passed away, the talk about retaliation will pass away also. But at the present moment the language of the Prime Minister with regard to free trade is minatory in the extreme, the only redeeming feature about it being that he laboriously assures us that he does it all out of love for free trade. The Prime Minister describes himself as so devoted to free trade that he would sacrifice anything for it—even free trade itself. That was the position so far as he was concerned. That, however, troubles my mind very little, but what does trouble me is the attitude of certain public men of to-day with regard to it. I am not speaking of protectionists, because they are perfectly right in welcoming retaliation. The more utterly retaliation fails in its object and the more foolish it is proved to be as an expedient for maintaining free trade, the more rapidly will it lead to what they wish to obtain, namely, protection throughout the land. Therefore I do not appeal to them. They neither understand nor sympathise with the aims or the beliefs of the free-trader, and if they are prepared to face the injustice inflicted on the home consumer by protection, I cannot say anything that would move them either on ethical or economic grounds. But it is the free-traders who dabble in retaliation about whom I feel concern. They are rarely to be found on this side of the House but many of those who have most stoutly championed free trade among the Unionist Party have gone perilously near to accepting retaliation as a compromise. I sympathise with their anxiety not to break up the Unionist Party. I accept the doctrine that at times great sacrifices are made and ought to be made to preserve the unity of the Party because Party in England means disciplined action. But the fundamental principles of a Party determine its very identity and when these are attacked or tampered with there is no place for such sacrifice. Principles of that importance ought to be avowed and lived up to every moment. I know that the Prime Minister has frowned upon those who are hearty free-traders. It is perfectly true that belief in free trade is not

  1475
  considered a mark of disloyalty to the Party opposite; it is only the honest avowal and the courageous defence of those principles of free trade that is considered disloyalty. I do not forget or undervalue all that Unionist free-traders have suffered in this way. But nevertheless they ought not to countenance those subtle devices by which the Prime Minister has succeeded in maintaining his position at little cost, in fact with nothing but the trifling sacrifice of a few of his most loyal colleagues and supporters. The evil free-traders are doing in dallying with protection is immense. I know that they guard themselves in words, but in political life conduct is more important than language. No doubt they think they are doing little harm because they thoroughly believe that the thing is impracticable. [No, no!] Yes, it is impracticable in the sense that a mountaineer would call an ascent of a mountain impracticable, not because you cannot go up that way but that you will break your neck if you do. In that sense retaliation is impracticable to a nation. But it is not impossible that a mad Prime Minister, supported by a foolish Party, might some day plunge them into retaliation, and bring upon this country all the national disaster which that policy would entail. Retaliation is impracticable as a working policy, but not impracticable as a policy which a foolish Party might attempt to carry out. By allowing this policy to be talked of as possible without expressing their dissent freetraders in the Party opposite are gradually giving strength to the idea that England may look to retaliation for its success in the future and anything that turns the British nation aside from looking solely to its own self-reliance and its own industry for its future success is an evil and a danger to the country. By allowing retaliation to be talked about in this way they are gradually sapping the independence of the British nation, and what is going to be the consequence of it? The consequence would be that they would gradually lose that which had given them their great commercial position in the past. Great Britain has shown to the nations of the world that it can get the greatest security at home by giving the widest freedom. It has shown that it can get the firmest
  1476
  consolidation of the Empire by giving the greatest independence and the most perfect self-government to its units. What I ask is that in its fiscal policy you should also cling to the great traditions of England, and trust its commercial greatness to the solid foundation of the efficiency of its service to the world. Our huge markets are open without fear or favour to those who will sell the cheapest, that is to say, to those who will require of us in return the least sacrifice. We in our turn ask only that our goods should be bought because we offer them at prices which entail the least sacrifice to the buyer. In that way this country won its position, and it will keep that position if it is content to continue in the same path and undisturbed face the difficulties that arise from the fiscal expedients of others, and not attempt to get acceptability abroad by irritating its rivals. We need have no fear of the future, so long as we thus rely solely on the efficiency of our own work, for the favour of the world will, in the long run inevitably fall to the lot of those who do it the best service.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in view of the declarations made by the Prime Minister, this House thinks it necessary to record its condemnation of his policy of Fiscal Retaliation."—(Mr. Joseph Walton.)
  MR. LAMBTON MR. LAMBTON (Durham, S.E.) moved, as an Amendment, the addition of the following words at the end of the Motion:— "in as far as it is destructive of Parliamentary control over taxation." He said that it was a great disappointment to free-traders on that side of the House that now, at last, when, after many urgent inquiries, they were being allowed to have a free discussion of this question, their enemies, or, he would say, those who differed from them, were not there to meet them. They had loudly attacked them in the country; they were very dumb to speak in that House. He would like to meet them there personally, for there were many things one would like to say to their face which one did not wish to say behind their backs. But it was their duty as free-traders to proceed in a quiet way with the propaganda of

  1477
  free trade. His noble friend the Member for Greenwich, last Wednesday, compared the collapse of the Tariff Reform Party to the; retreat from Moscow; but it would not do to forget that after the retreat from Moscow there was a battle of Waterloo. He would not say anything in disparagement of those Gentlemen, but would strictly adhere to the old saying, De mortuis nil nisi bonum. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham, speaking on the Motion of the hon. Member for Oldham, had said that the free-fooders accepted the Government policy, and he himself had thereupon interjected the remark that they did not all accept it. The right hon. Member for Birmingham replied that there were very few of them who confessed that in the country. If it were not too egotistical, he would inform the right hon. Gentleman that in June last year he had a correspondence with the Conservative Association in his constituency, and the letters were published in the newspapers. The chairman of this association asked him to explain why, on three different occasions, he had voted against the Government which he was returned to support, the three occasions alluded to being the Morley Amendment, and the Pirie and Black Motions. In regard to his vote upon the last Motion the letter from the chairman of the Conservative Association in his constituency stated—
  "It is difficult to reconcile that vote with the speech you made at Wingate on the 23rd of January last, in which you are reported to have stated as follows:— As regarded Mr. Balfour's policy he (Mr. Lambton) would support it as far as he understood it, the policy of free negotiation and of retaliation against any country treating us in an outrageous manner. He (Mr. Lambton) was quite prepared to say to Mr. Balfour—We will give up the idea that no tax is to be imposed except for revenue purposes. You may impose a tax upon foreign goods if we are outrageously treated in the countries from which they are sent, but you will have to come to the House of Commons to get it passed. If the House of Commons found that there was a good case, no doubt it would agree to such a tax. Beyond that he was not prepared to go.'"
  To that letter he replied in the following terms—
  "I have no report of my Wingate speech referred to by you, and the points you give seem substantially correctly reported; but of course they are only extracts, and do not cover my whole argument. I remember saying, that 'if Mr. Balfour's fundamental change in
  1478
  our fiscal policy only meant that we might abandon a tradition that every tax must he absolutely and pedantically for revenue alone, I had no objection, and as for negotiation End retaliation, that I believed we had the power now.' I also said that if the Sheffield policy was used to abet in any way the Birmingham policy I should vote against it."
  He thought his Amendment was an improvement upon the Resolution before the House. He had not upon this occasion come down to the House to support hon. Members opposite, but to support free trade, and he believed that the Resolution as it stood upon the Paper would hinder free trade. He could not agree with what was said by the seconder of this Resolution, for he did not believe that any hon. Member opposite would be able to go to any constituency in the country and honestly state that retaliation was an utterly impossible thing under any circumstances. What was fiscal retaliation? It was commercial war after all. They all knew the horrors of war by arms, but to tell him that in any part of England they would be able to find people ready to say that under no circumstances should this country indulge in a commercial war was, to his mind, a great mistake. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no!"] The horrors of war were great, but there were worse things than war. At the present moment they were taxed to the extent of £60,000,000 a year for the purpose of retaliation, because, after all, the Army and the Navy were nothing else but weapons of retaliation. If they were outrageously treated by some foreign country, and treated in an insulting manner, they were ready to spend any amount of money upon retaliation. Retaliation, they were told, was impossible unless it was protective. He thought retaliation might be prohibitive, but that would not be protective. He did not wish to argue in favour of retaliation, but he thought that it was impossible for any statesman to lay down the principle 'that under no circumstances would he ever be able to propose in this country that they should undertake a commercial war against a foreign nation. He agreed that if any Government did undertake it, the Prime Minister should come to the House of Commons, produce his weapon and his estimate, and show exactly how he proposed to enforce his

  1479
  policy against the foreign country concerned. No doubt retaliation would put a tax upon this country. The Prime Minister had never yet told them how he intended to work his policy of retaliation. His view on this question was that they should be told plainly in the House of Commons whether the Prime Minister intended that retaliation before being applied to receive the approval of the House, or whether it was to be a weapon left to the Executive Government of the day to use. Last year they had some sort of an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who defined the Prime Minister's policy as follows—
  "The principles of the policy are that the Government, when conducting negotiations with foreign countries, should have the power when necessary to threaten retaliation, and that when the threat is insufficient that they should have power to carry it out."
  To his mind those words conveyed the impression that the right hon. Gentleman meant that this power should be vested in the Government of the day without coming to Parliament at all. The Prime Minister had told them that the policy he recommended was one which would enable the Government to deal, as far as retaliation could deal, with hostile tariffs, and to deal, as far as fiscal arrangements could deal, with the great evil of dumping. That statement showed conclusively that the Prime Minister did not regard retaliation in the same way as he did. His Amendment simply pointed out that it might be possible at some future time that Parliament would desire to retaliate against some foreign country. He insisted that the Prime Minister should be forced either to declare that he wished powers greater than the mandate of the House of Commons, or that his policy was distinctly a protective one with which free-traders could have nothing to do. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "At the end, to add the words 'In as far as it is destructive of Parliamentary control over taxation.'"—(Mr. Lambton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the Amendment as well as the views of the hon. Member
  1480
  were entitled to the respectful consideration of free-traders, for he was one of those who had not been content merely to give lip service to the cause of free trade, for whenever there had been any Motion before the House bordering on free trade he had always given his vote for it regardless of the consequences. He regretted, however, that the Amendment had been moved, for it tended to confuse the issue. The hon. Member had dealt with a problematical state of affairs. Retaliation was war, and war was not a policy; it was the breakdown of policy. The Prime Minister had been dealing with the present state of affairs, not with what I might happen. The right hon. Gentleman said that owing to the tariffs which foreign countries levied against our goods I this country was being injured, and we I ought to have a weapon which would enable us to reduce foreign tariffs. That was a totally different state of things to that which was contemplated by the mover of this Amendment. The Prime Minister was dealing with the present I state of affairs. It was the right hon. Gentleman's policy that they were condemning, and it would be much better for the House to confine its condemnation to the fiscal policy of the Prime Minister without entering into the question of what was or was not likely to arise. But the Prime Minister declined to discuss this question in the House; so did the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. The discussion, however, was going on in the country. Fiscal reformers were circulating leaflets and making speeches; the fiscal flying squadron was still raiding the country; but they did not face their critics in the House. The Prime Minister had tried many a formula in order to secure unity; at last he had obtained one. He and his Party could not unite in a fighting policy, but they could all unite in running away. The Prime Minister had invited discussion of his views in the House and out of it, but when his opponents took up the challenge and offered discussion in the House the right hon. Gentleman said, "Discussion is a trap," and he warned his friends not to nibble at it, otherwise they would be caught. What a squalid ending to a great campaign. They all remembered with what pomp and circumstance the right hon. Gentleman the Member for

  1481
  West Birmingham started this campaign not very long ago, and how he received the blessing of the Prime Minister when he started. Wherever the right hon. Gentleman went fashion and wealth and rank rallied round him—
  "The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold,
  And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold."
  What had happened now?
  "And the tents were all silent, the banners alone,
  The lances unlifted, the trumpet unblown."
  Yes, even the trumpet was silent to night. He really condoled with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield. His affections had been trifled with in a very cruel manner, and continuing the quotation it might he said—
  "And the idols are broke in the temple of Baal."
  That was the end of this great campaign. Not merely the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, but the Prime Minister was in it. The Prime Minister made speeches about the trade of the country; he said there was great danger, he talked about the peril to our Empire, and to our industries and he also had his remedy—retaliation He observed from a letter written by Lord Salisbury that that remedy was taken out of the family medicine chest Both of the right hon. Gentlemen had abandoned the controversy after barely eighteen months discussion.
  The right hon. Member for West Birmingham once compared himself to Bismarck, who welded the German Empire together, first of all, by means of commercial unity—the man of blood and iron. What had happened to Bismarck now? He had fled from Gravelotte with his army at his heels. And there was the Prime Minister, who had been described by one of his admirers as the greatest military strategist since Wellington. What had become of Wellington to-night? He and Blucher had fled. It was true they had fled in different directions, but they had gone from the field of battle and left it entirely in the hands of the foe. What a contemptible ending to all the talk about the danger to the Empire and the method of federating it! Supposing it had been a, success instead of being a great failure,
  1482
  supposing the country had accepted it and the by-elections had gone their way, those tales of distress in our industries and about the unity of the Empire would still have been heard. But purely and simply for Party exigencies, purely and simply because the thing had proved unpopular in the country, they had abandoned the policy which eighteen months ago they regarded as essential to the industry and commerce of this country. This was a great change.
  When this question was started the Prime Minister wrote a pamphlet upon it. [An HON. MEMBER: Two.] The right hon. Gentleman published one and the other was withdrawn. He had now withdrawn the second after an eighteen months run. That pamphlet was worthy of perusal at the present moment, not from the point of view of the supporters of the Prime Minister, but from the point of view of those who criticised him. The Prime Minister had a way of imagining that all difficulties disappeared by committing his reflections on the subject to writing. That was the case with the War Office. He undertook to rearrange the whole of the tactical defence of the Empire. He wrote, but did not publish, memoranda upon the subject. There were Parliamentary difficulties in that case exactly as there were here, and the moment they appeared he contented himself with the memoranda, and thought the whole subject was solved. The right hon. Gentleman could no more deal with the commerce of this country in a pamphlet than he could defend India by memoranda on the subject of military strategy. The way the Prime Minister had treated a first-class question of this character was really a degradation of the institutions of the country. When he started the question he talked about the peril to our industries; then when he found the new policy was not acceptable to the country he said it was a bore. There were hundreds and thousands of people to whom the question of the proper system of trade and commerce for this country was a matter of food and clothing and shelter. It was not a bore to them, at my rate, but that was the way the Prime Minister had thought fit to treat it. [An

  1483
  HON. MEMBER: He never said it was a bore.] He said soin a speech delivered at Glasgow. He said the whole subject was a bore. The hon. Member who interrupted him did not even know what his leader had said on the subject.
  The Prime Minister's record on this subject was an extraordinary one. First of all he promulgated a policy upon this matter of life and death to the industries of this country, and then, having placed the policy before his Party, he ran away from it. What a leader for a Party! What a Tsar! He allowed his subjects to defy his ukases and even to fire at each other in the street; they could plot to assassinate each other round corners, they could do anything so long as they maintained him on his throne, and the House of Commons supported the Ministry. It was good enough to keep them in power and vote their salaries, but the House of Commons was not fit to express an opinion on the trade, industry, and commerce that affected their constituencies. This was treating the House of Commons with contempt. The country was taking note of the action of the Ministry in this matter. It had been the death of fiscal reform. It had brought fiscal reform into contempt. It could not have brought the Ministry into greater contempt than it was before; but this was not the way a great question ought to be treated by the Prime Minister of the country. When the Government had to decide between trade and the Empire on the one hand and a longer existence for itself on the other, the Prime Minister, with the desperate greed of a miser clutching at every extra day to add to his hoard, said, "Let trade and Empire go, and give me the extra eighteen months of power," There was a time when the Ministry which ought to be there, but which had now run away, represented all that was patriotic, all that was efficient, all that was courageous in the country, and to doubt it was almost equal to treason. What did they represent now? He knew of no greater criticism upon the democracy of this country than that it had taken seven years to discover the men who now governed it.
  *MR. HUNTsaid that they had been told that if retaliation were resorted to we should create animosities and irritate
  1484
  our rivals. Was not all commercial rivalry really the same as commercial strife? Did it make that strife less because we allowed our rivals to put their heels upon our necks? Was it not merely humbug to cry peace when there was no peace? In the fiscal debate last week those who believed in retaliation were subjected to the most fierce criticism that could be thought of from both sides of the House. They were told that they were afraid to face the question in the House of Commons, although they paraded their policy in the country. He begged to state that they were not the least afraid. They thought that they had got a good cause which was gaining ground every day in the country. It seemed to him that the reason their opponents were so desperately anxious to get the Government out was that they were afraid the country was being educated into understanding the folly of the free import system, and that their pet cries of big loaves, chained Chinamen, and dear sugar were beginning to be found out to be political humbug. Radical orators went about the country preaching the blessings of free trade which we had never had. What Mr. Cobden meant by free trade was free exchange between nations, not this one-sided absurdity which we had got at present. Go and ask any shopkeeper if it was any use being able to buy, however cheaply, if he was unable to sell. Surely this was the case with Great Britain to-day. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were apparently so thick in the head that I they could not see it. As we could not have real free trade, why should I we not take our share in regulating trade by retaliation, and getting back the power of bargaining possessed by every other nation? America had real free trade within her huge land boundaries? Why should not we get as near real free trade as possible within the limits of the British Empire, with the ocean for our highway? Other nations had used their fiscal weapons to the utmost, while ours were lying idle by our side with the greatest and best market in the world to back them. They had been called "whole-hoggers" and "little-piggers." It seemed hard that the free-fooders should not have a

  1485
  name too. Might he suggest that they might be called the tiny-winy wee-wee little piggy-wigs of all? Runtlings they called them in his part of the country. He thought when next they went to market they would have no new policy to offer for the present commercial stagnation, they would find no buyers, and be turned out into the wilderness to try and learn to look a little further than their noses.
  The free-fooders had complained bitterly of the attacks made on the Unionist free-fooders by tariff-reformers, but had not the attacks in the House and out of it made by the free-fooders been very strong and very bitter? Had not the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich invaded Shropshire during his free food advocating tour? Might it not very well be that the shock of his oratory had blown the hon. Member for Shrewsbury off the fence on to the free-food side. Were tariff-reformers not to be allowed to retaliate? They had been told that retaliation in the form of taxing those who taxed us was a quack remedy. It was very curious that the huge majority of the doctors were on the side of the quack remedy. In 1880 Mr. McKinley said "The weight of nations is overwhelmingly on one side." Which was right—the British Government or the whole of the rest of the civilised world? Did it ever strike the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House that it was possible that the free import system might be a quack policy and that the other policy might be the regular and the right cure? It had been stated that any form of protection, of which retaliation was one, would corrupt our public life, make people look after their own interests more than now, and divide classes. Did the people who employed this argument know that the chief reason why the American farmers were tumbling over the Canadian border was because the laws of Canada were strictly and fairly enforced whilst the laws of America were not? Yet Canada was a country which encouraged her own industries, protected her own workmen, and was ready to retaliate, when hit. It appeared to him, too, that even in this free-importing country that people
  1486
  took pretty good care to look after their own interests. Did not some shipbuilders strongly advocate the free importation of foreign manufactured products, because it was an advantage to them in building their ships? British industries might be ruined for all they cared, so that they could get their cheap foreign materials. The jam manufacturers wanted their sugar under the cost of production, and had no objection to the wages of their factory hands being kept down by the importation of foreign aliens. People with their money in foreign industries fought for free imports, because they were afraid that if British industries got fair play that their foreign securities would go down. The head of a great chocolate manufactory, which had protection, which was very flourishing, and gave regular work and good wages, gave not long ago a large sum to the free-import party, but we had not heard that he had petitioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the protection off his chocolate. This all seemed very human and very natural. But should we be less human and less honest if all our industries were protected from unfair competition and dumping?
  They were told that industries of this country were flourishing, holding their own, and doing well. How was it that Mr. Leonard Courtney, one of the great free-traders, bemoaned the fact that America and Germany had both passed us in two of our great industries in which not so many years ago we were ahead of both countries combined? He wept over the fact but proposed no remedy and left them to their dying. The tariff-reformers proposed a remedy and a cure. They were told that tariff reform was not only dead but had become a laughing stock. He disagreed entirely. Time was on their side, and the sound common sense of the British people. Those who had been to school knew that the boy who never retaliated when he was kicked was the one who got the most kicks of any boy in the school. Lord Lansdowne had said that the way of the nations was practically the same, and that in commercial matters we were the nation that got far the greatest number of commercial kicks. They were accused last week of taking the denunciation of

  1487
  their policy lying down for one short part of an evening. The free importing Party had taken their commercial kicks lying down for the last twenty-five years. He thought it would be remembered that last year the right hon. Member for West Bristol, the leader of the Unionist free-traders, explained in the House that we might get great commercial advantages from America by taking off a tax of 2s. a quarter from American wheat, but that this would cause great trouble in this country as we should not be able to do it on Canada's account, and that this was one, at all events, of his great reasons for sticking to one-sided free trade, but it surely showed the power of retaliation. Some eight or nine years ago the Canadians sent a deputation to Washington to ask for better terms for trade and commerce, and the Americans would have nothing to do with it; but directly after the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham delivered his first speech on tariff reform, the leaders of American commerce met together and agreed that as the right hon. Gentleman's scheme was very dangerous for American commerce they had better send as soon as possible to the Canadians and offer them the best possible terms before the patriotism of Mr. Chamberlain bound Canada to the great British Empire for ever. So that it was evident that even the threat of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was enough to make the Americans climb down and make a better offer than the Canadians had asked for in vain eight or nine years before.
  The American Press had pointed out what would be the effect if the scheme of retaliatory tariffs and colonial preference were carried out. One American paper went so far as to say that it would be worse for America than a civil war, and, according to one of their loaders, even the German Socialists held the same opinion. Even in the far off wilds of America, among the haunts of the cariboo, the moose, and the grizzly, an Englishmen and a German when they met could not keep off the tariff question. The German trader said to the Englishman, "If your Mr. Chamberlain gets his way it will kill me dead." It seemed curious that during the five
  1488
  years before Canada gave us a preference, our exports to Canada went down from 68,000,000 dollars to 29,000,000 dollars, whilst German and American exports were going up during the same time. The reason of that had been sent to him the other day by a man who had been travelling in Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa for the last two years. He said that wherever he went he was followed by German or American travellers; and if they could find out the price he had offered to supply his goods at they at once offered to do it for 5 per cent. less. The American manufacturer had a certain surplus to dispose of, and must do so at any price. His home market had paid for the surplus goods, and the proceeds or most of them were pure profit. The American travellers frankly admitted that that was true, and said that they were going to sweep the trade of the British Colonies into their hands out of the hands of the British manufacturers and merchants. Under the free imports system there were firms in England now doing a big business by importing into this country American and German dumped goods, repacking them, and sending them off again as British made; but the making of these goods did not provide any wages for the British workman. About 3,000 men had been thrown out of work within the last few months near London and at Dundee from the failure of jute mills; yet they found that eight gentlemen of the historically free-trade name of Gladstone were shareholders in mills in India and were doing well. If our industries were all doing so well, how was it that these gentlemen could not find investments at home? Was it because we had no security here, while India had a tariff and the power of retaliation? Was it a case of rats leaving a sinking ship?
  Now, he appealed to the representatives of labour; did they think that our system of free imports, was good for them? [OPPOSITION cries of "Time" and "Divide "] The Report of the United States Tariff Commission in 1882 pointed out that English markets were being swamped with dumped goods, while English capital was being removed to the Continent to be

  1489
  employed in foreign manufactures. Removing English capital to the Continent had secured a profitable home market, while England was near with widely opened ports to serve as a dumping ground to unload surplus goods made by foreign labour superintended by English skill. In this way English markets were swamped and her labour undersold. He asked the Labour Members opposite whether they were quite sure that they were doing right in refusing to consider the tariff question? Trade unionists had told him that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had been thought to be their leader and was going to do a great deal for them. The Home Rule split knocked all that on the head, and the trade union leaders had never forgiven the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, a great deal of the hostility of the trade unionists to retaliation or tariff reform was really personal hostility to the right hon. Gentleman. A number of industries and millions of capital had gone out of this country to get behind the foreign tariff walls and provide work and wages for foreign labour. One firm of thread manufacturers alone employed 12,000 men outside this country and paid foreign workmen £500,000 a year in wages. That was all because we had not got the power of retaliation. [Loud OPPOSITION cries of "Time" and "Divide."] He did not often trouble the House. It was said that import duties always made things dearer, and that the consumer always paid the tax. Now, in New Zealand there was at one time no duty on matches, and the price, when importation was free, was 4s. 9d. per gross; but when two or three manufactories were started in Wellington and a tariff of 25 per cent, was put on against imported matches the New Zealanders got their matches cheaper, and employed a great number of hands at very good wages as well. The fiscal question was an Imperial one. Some of our colonial brethren thought that the Liberal Party had gone stark staring mad, or else that they could think of absolutely nothing else except how cheaply they should get their "vittles," and how cheaply they could get their drink. Could not the representatives of labour see that under the present system of free imports and non-
  1490
  retaliation, our workmen were exposed to the competition of goods made by the black and white convict labour of America, and the sweated labour of the Continent? Could not the trade unionists see that, though they could and did protect their labour against the British employers, they were absolutely helpless against the foreign employers? If they had the black and white convicts over here with their employers, and the foreign employers with their cheap workmen, the rank and file of trade unionists would very soon stir up their leaders to do something; but because these foreign labourers and employers were across the seas and could not be seen, the trade union leaders blindly followed the policy of the man who said he would rather live under the rule of a savage South African potentate than under the tyranny of trade unionism.
  After all, the Empire belonged to the working classes just as much as to any class. Their grandsires spilt their blood to gain and keep it. Were they going to let their grandchildren say of them that, for a supposed mess of pottage, they deliberately threw away the greatest inheritance that had ever been left to any people? Did the labour representatives really think that they knew better than all the rest of the working world; or were they being led away by the Liberal Party, which turned the fiscal question into a Party question for the sake of uniting their scattered and shattered forces. What mattered it to them so that they did not have to spend the rest of their valuable lives in opposition! They were the Party of "Make-believe." They tried to make the British people believe that they knew better than all the rest of the civilised world; that Chinamen were imported into South Africa, chained together, like slaves of old; that the free import loaf was gigantic and the Chamberlain loaf barely visible; that the Sugar Convention was a device of the Government for making sugar dearer. The fact was that they would practically say almost any thing which they thought would help their reckless, feckless, divided Party to crawl on to those Government Benches for a few miserable months.
  MR. ASQUITH: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member in. the speech which he has just delivered. I could not if I would, and I would not if I could. But I think it may remain on record as the low-water mark of argumentative humiliation to which tariff reform has been reduced. This is the third occasion in the course of as many weeks in which this House, after a prolonged spell of enforced silence, has been given the opportunity of challenging the policy which goes by the name of tariff reform. We began appropriately with the proposal for colonial preferences based on the protective taxation of food, because that proposal is first in importance, inasmuch as its adoption would be most fatal in its results. We were not allowed to come to a definite decision on that occasion. But the evening was not thrown away, because it afforded to the world the unique, and, I think, unforgettable, spectacle of the evangelists and apostles of a new faith voting with one accord in favour of the previous Question. Then last week, on the invitation of one of my hon. friends, we took up the case of the 10 per cent, tariff on manufactured goods, an integral part, let the House observe, of the same scheme, because the fiscal gap created by colonial preference could only be made good out of the toll to be paid by the foreigner on commodities which were to come into the market for purposes of revenue, and to be kept out at the same time for the purposes of competition. On that occasion, a week ago, one single solitary voice of protest—a voice from Sheffield—was raised. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not any longer in his place. It was the voice of one crying from a deserted camp in favour of the policy so boldly proclaimed elsewhere. On that occasion there was not even an attempt to rally the supporters of the Government and the tariff-reformers on this question. The Prime Minister blew his bugle and the tariff-reformers of every shade and hue—from the most full-blooded to the most anæmic —took to their heels and fled.
  To-night my hon. friend has raised a third issue, distinct from those that have gone before but not less momentous, because it is the one point in the policy of what is called fiscal reform
  1492
  on which the Prime Minister, whose presence we miss, has definitely and unequivocally committed himself. The House remembers that it was described by him not less than two years ago as involving a fundamental reversal of our existing system. It is an extraordinary and unprecedented thing in the history of the House of Commons that when a challenge of that kind is made the Prime Minister should not condescend to be present. We have had in this matter a crescendo of evasion. We have had the Leader of the House and the author of the policy which is impugned by this Motion of my hon. friend putting a climax to his two previous performances and absolutely, with the whole of his colleagues, boycotting the House of Commons. This is a matter which goes far beyond the immediate issue. Everywhere else in the world but here the policy of the Prime Minister may be canvassed and criticised—in our Colonial Legislatures, upon platforms in this country, in articles in the newspapers and magazines, in letters to the Press, in pamphlets to be found on every railway bookstall. The one and only place in which, so far as the Government is concerned, free discussion of their policy is excluded is the only place in the whole country where, with the full sense of responsibility, the main combatants can meet face to face in the clash of arms. I venture to say, and I am sorry there is no one upon the Treasury Bench to hear me, but I say it not merely to the Party which sits behind the bench, but to the House of Commons in its. Corporate capacity and to the country at large, that even the Prime Minister has never gone so far in flouting the authority and impairing the dignity of this. House.
  As for the question of retaliation, the case against it has been admirably and exhaustively stated by my hon. friend who moved this Resolution. If I devote a few sentences to it, it is only out of respect to the hon. Gentleman opposite who proposed the Amendment, and whose services on behalf of free trade we on this side gladly and gratefully recognise. I venture to say to my hon. friend opposite no one alleges or has ever alleged that there may not be, under peculiar circumstances which have never yet been

  1493
  described, a conceivable instance in which, possibly, by the deliberate action of the Legislature, some, form of retaliation may not be imposed. But I have never met any concrete instance stated where these circumstances would be fulfilled. The case against retaliation is overwhelming. It may be summarised in two or three propositions. In the first place, the need for it is absolutely unproved. We get as good terms without retaliation as the most retaliatory country gets with it. In the second place, retaliation, if it is ever to become an effective weapon capable of being applied to practical uses, necessarily and inevitably involves the creation of a general tariff to be applied or to be removed at the will of the Executive of the day. That is a constitutional innovation of the gravest and most dangerous character. In the third place, experience shows, and no experience more clearly than the recent history of Germany, that a tariff put on For retaliatory purposes is always retained in the long run for the purposes of protection. The interests which grow up under the shelter of retaliatory tariffs become too strong to permit the walls to which they cling ever to be pulled down. Lastly, of all countries in the world this United Kingdom, of whose exports not less than four-fifths are manufactured goods, and of whose imports no less than nine-tenths consist of food, of raw material, and half made-up materials, stands to gain less and lose more by the adoption of the system of international reprisals. That is the unanswerable case against retaliation. At any rate, it has not been answered to-night.
  It is a significant fact that when an issue of this kind—which was declared by the Prime Minister himself in the September of 1903 to be an issue which involves a fundamental reversal of the whole fiscal policy of this country—should for the first time be raised in the House of Commons, there is not a single man upon the benches opposite, with, the negligible exception of the hon. Member for Ludlow, who is prepared to advance a word in its favour. It is very difficult to carry on debate under such conditions. We have no arguments to meet. The oracles so eloquent in the country are dumb here. I do not
  1494
  think there are even any unregenerate souls to convert. No; the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield has left the House. Under these circumstances, I feel as one sometimes has felt at the end of a choral service, when the minister mounts the pulpit for the sole purpose apparently of edifying the faithful and says: "You might as well do without a discourse and conclude at once with the Benediction." I venture to appeal to my hon. friend opposite who has moved this Amendment, important as he must admit it to be, as a strong and convinced free-trader, that this House should, if possible, have a unanimous declaration of its opinions to-night, that he might withdraw the Amendment he has proposed and allow us to take a direct and simple issue upon this policy of fiscal retaliation, which, for the reasons which my hon. friends have put forward, and which I have endeavoured to summarise, would, if it could be carried into effect—I do not believe that to be possible—be fatally injurious in its consequences to the trade of this country, would involve us in a long series of unprofitable and wasteful commercial wars, and would undo the great results which have been achieved during the period since Mr. Cobden and Sir Robert Peel began to preach the doctrines of free trade.
  MR. THORNTONsaid he did not presume to follow such an accomplished orator as the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken; but he thought the debate had been taken up with the relations between free-trade, protection, and with the question of retaliation, rather than that of negotiation concerning which no one word had been mentioned, and which was the very foundation of the Prime Minister's policy. He would ask if the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken did not believe that our markets were so valuable that under wise negotiation, followed in certain instances by retaliation, we might succeed in promoting commercial intercourse in a manner hon. Gentlemen opposite did not apparently realise. The hon. and learned Member for the Launceston Division, whose views they all respected, stated that it was impossible to start retaliation from a free-trade basis, and that it must proceed

  1495
  from the protectionist side. If that were so, his case fell to the ground. At present, however, they had only the ipse dixit of the hon. Gentleman, but it had not yet been proved that it was not possible to take the course advocated by the Prime Minister at Sheffield and begin at the other end. He believed it would be possible to start from a free-trade platform, and, by negotiation, and if necessary, by retaliation, be able to achieve great successes without infringing the principles of free trade. Who could be better able to express their thoughts on the question of negotiation than the learned Members for Fife and Launceston, who had exercised the art so ably in many suits and yet were reticent on this side of the fiscal question? They ought not to forget that this policy had been tried within the last few years when Germany attempted to put this country on a different footing to that of Canada. This country stepped in and was successful. He was a free-trader, but he wished, if possible, by negotiation and retaliation, to remove some of the tariffs which, in the opinion of some of the greatest thinkers of the day, had been injurious to this country. That was the contention of the late Lord Salisbury, and the Duke of Devonshire also contended for this principle; but he grounded himself really on the free-trade opinions of Adam Smith, who, at the end of the seventeenth century, wrote—
  "There may be good policy in retaliations of this kind, when there is a probability that they will procure the repeal of the high duties or prohibitions complained of. The recovery of a great foreign market will generally more than compensate the transitory inconveniency of paying dearer for some sorts of goods."
  He was aware that it had been determined not to fight this principle on Unionist Party lines upon the present occasion, but nevertheless it was necessary for a private Member who had strongly advocated negotiation as a means of trade defence not to shrink from expressing his views in that House. He believed that although the constituencies would strongly favour free-trade and shrink both from schemes of general protection or protective taxation of food, they would not rally around a party which; rested content with the outrageously unfair foreign tariffs which undoubtedly did exist, and threatened the
  1496
  future of our trade. He would try the effect of retaliation sooner than this, but should the remedy be found to impinge on free-trade principles, as hon. Gentlemen opposite feared, the system could be abandoned. He had faith in the expert handling of negotiation and retaliation just as a country entrusted its land and sea forces to competent generals and admirals. Thus we need not injure ourselves in the manner suggested by Opposition speakers.
  He agreed with the Prime Minister that they might trust to negotiation and, if necessary, retaliation, to bring down tariffs. He would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether, if this policy had been in operation in 1890, before the M'Kinley tariff was arranged, the United States would have imposed a duty which hampered, injured, and almost destroyed one of our industries. He alluded to the tinplate trade. He himself had met men in London who had been thrown out of employment in Monmouth and Newport as a result of that duty. Had this country at that time the power of negotiation and retaliation they would have been able to prevent all the suffering that was then caused. It was all very well to say that the recovery of this industry in new markets was all to the advantage of the free-trade system, but the same results might surely have been attained by negotiation without all this suffering. For his part he was sorry that more able exponents of the doctrine he held were not present to enforce it. They had a good case and, to use a military illustration, might have passed from their Mukden, entrenched themselves at their Tieling, and made a very good fight indeed. He was in favour of trying retaliation, but if retaliation infringed one iota on free-trade he would give it up. There existed an ample margin to retaliate upon as regarded machinery in America, and manufactured goods in Germany, and very few were the instances where negotiation could not be followed by some retaliatory action. He thanked the House for having given him so patient a hearing.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid that last Wednesday the Prime Minister advised his followers neither to speak

  1497
  nor to vote. After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division he understood the right hon. Gentleman's advice not to speak. Before referring to the speech of his hon. friend who had just spoken and whose intervention the House welcomed, he wished to state that it was a mistake to look on retaliation as a fiscal question. It was a compromise made by the Prime Minister in order to satisfy, as far as possible, all his followers in the House. His hon. friend said that retaliation could be tried on a free-trade basis; but that was an impossible theory. The moment it was put in practice they could not get back to the status quo. The worst opponents of this country were Russia, the United States, and Spain.
  *MR. THORNTON; Not Russia.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid that Russia had gone then. How were they going to retaliate against Spain or the United States. Were they going to tax iron ore from Spain or wheat and cotton from the United States? The moment retaliation was touched by cold fact there was nothing in it. The hon. Gentleman stated that if retaliation failed he would give it up. But he could not give it up because vested interests would have been created. As a matter of fact the Prime Minister had never given any actual data as to the results of the application of his doctrine. The right hon. Gentleman referred to "outrageous conduct" in general terms, but let him give a concrete instance with which it could be effectually applied. Let him give a single instance in which retaliation had succeeded and had not done more harm to the country that applied it than to the country to which it
  1498
  was applied. He regretted the absence of the Prime Minister. It was not possible to misconstrue it. The right hon. Gentleman's two assets were exhausted. One was unsettled convictions, and the other was the policy of the previous Question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had said that the open mind betrayed the empty mind. He supposed the open mind led to empty benches. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham had abandoned every leader, and he would be willing to abandon the Prime Minister. But the Prime Minister would not be abandoned. "I could not love thee, dear, so much, loved I not office more." That was the position of the Prime Minister towards the Member for West Birmingham. The fact that the Government had run away must make an impression on the country. There was a man who thought that the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill was a Bill to compel a man to marry his deceased wife's sister. The Prime Minister took a similar view of the Septennial Act. He thought it was a Bill to compel a Government to remain in office for a certain number of years. He thought the vote that was about to be given would show him that the House was against him, and later on he would find that the country was against his policy.
  MR. ELLIOTTsaid two speeches had been made that night in favour of retaliation, and both hon. Members had taken up a similar and very extraordinary position. They had referred to the fact that there were seasons of depression and unemployment in this country, and they assumed that if we had had the benefit of retaliation things would have been different. He commended to the notice of those hon.

  1499
  Members the report recently issued by the great steel trust of the United States, comparing the year 1904 with the year 1903. It showed that in the later year that great corporation had found it necessary to reduce by more than 20,000 the number of their employees, and to reduce in salaries and wages, their expenses by more than 20,000,000 dollars. And that in a country where retaliation was regarded as a principal part of commercial policy. It was useless to argue in that fashion. He had been an unwilling witness of a scene that he had never before witnessed in that House. What was almost as important as the view which the executive Government took upon this question of retaliation and the fiscal policy of the country was the view the executive Government took of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister had told them that he thought the House of Commons showed to the least advantage when it was discussing questions of political economy. He should have thought it was the business of the right hon. Gentleman to do something to raise the tone of their debates, to give the House the benefit of that knowledge and reading which he undoubtedly possessed. He observed that there was a confusion in some Members' minds between leaving open a Question on private Members' nights and the practice which on the second occasion the Government had now followed of deserting its place in the House of Commons and leaving it alone and entirely without guidance. On the old Wednesdays and Tuesday afternoons when Resolutions and Bills used to come before the House, the Government very often, and very rightly, thought it proper to leave the House to act on its own discretion. But that did not mean that the occupants of
  1500
  the Treasury Bench, the President of the Board of Trade, if it was a trade question, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it was an Exchequer question— it did not me in that the representatives of those great Departments were to turn their backs on the House altogether and leave that Assembly because it had been determined not to put on Government tellers. The view of the House of Commons and of Ministers then was that Ministers owed something to the House. Here they were to-night discussing a question of the utmost importance to the trade of the country; where was the Secretary to the Board of Trade, where was the Prime Minister? It was not that these Gentlemen had nothing to say on the subject. Why, only a few days ago the Secretary to the Board of Trade was down at Warrington supporting in a vigorous speech the policy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. He said that those right hon. Gentlemen owed it to the House of Commons to be there on an occasion of this kind. It was a fatal mistake for any Executive to suppose that the House of Commons only existed to discuss those subjects which the Executive out of its generosity chose to place before it. Anybody who had read English history must know that it had been one of the most cherished liberties of the House of Commons to discuss those topics which it wished to discuss, and that one great Sovereign after another had failed in this country because he was determined to do all that in him lay to confine the House of Commons to the discussion of those topics which he wished it to discuss.
  What was the House to do in these circumstances? He did hope that some measures would be found to show that they not only deplored the action

  1501
  of the Ministry, but that as representatives of the people and as the House of Commons of the United Kingdom they resented it. How could the House of Commons continue to give satisfaction to the people? How could it go on otherwise than shorn of its strength if it was to be treated as of no worth at all by those who were not only the executive Government of the country, but who ought to be leaders of the House of Commons itself? It was a lamentable spectacle that they had witnessed, and one which he had no doubt would greatly influence the country. The country would see, as most Members assembled there saw, that the day had come when a new House of Commons should be sent to Westminster which could represent up to date the feelings of the country on these great questions, which, in spite of the Prime Minister, were before the country, and that then, and not till then, would it be possible that some sort of settled policy could be adopted and the commercial and industrial prosperity of the United Kingdom secured.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask you, Sir, whether this will be recorded as having been passed nemine contradicente?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Yes, that appears to be the fact.
  Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That, in view of the declarations made by the Prime Minister, this House thinks it necessary
  1502
  to record its condemnation of his policy of Fiscal Retaliation.

  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  And, it being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Friday, 14th April.

  CLOSING OF LICENSED PREMISES (CHRISTMAS DAY) (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read a second time and committed for this day.

  THE NON-ATTENDANCE; OF MINISTERS.
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington),in moving the adjournment of the House, said that supposing Votes A and 7 of the Army Estimates were carried by 6.30 p.m. to-morrow night, the next order would be the non-effective Votes of the Army and Navy.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  MR. WHITLEYasked whether the guillotine rule did not

  1503
  prohibit any business not included in the guillotine rule.
  MR. SPEAKER: "No business than Supply" are the words.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he would submit that the words referred only to Supply governed by the guillotine rule.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he desired to ask whether there was anything in the health of the Prime Minister to cause anxiety to the right hon. Gentleman's friends, as the right hon. Gentleman had not been in his place to defend the policy especially associated with his name. He should be glad of an assurance that there was no reason to prevent the right hon. Gentleman attending. The Prime Minister was now never present except to propose some gagging Resolution. Had the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury been authorised to declare the intentions of the Government with regard to the Resolution which had just been passed? After the passing of such a Resolution, framed deliberately as a vote of censure, and supported by the official Opposition, did the Prime Minister consider it consonant with his public duty and personal honour to continue in his present position? The situation would raise a storm of execration and contempt in the country. [An HON. MEMBER laughed.] An hon. Member, who had been paid for his obsequious loyalty by some miserable post, laughed. Why was the hon. Member not in his place before? Anything for place! That was exactly the policy which the hon. Member's great leader set him. To keep in office for a few more weeks
  1504
  and months there was no principle which the Government was not prepared to abandon, no friend or colleague that they were not prepared to betray, and no quantity of dirt and filth that they were not prepared to eat.
  *MR. J. H. LEWISasked whether, seeing that the Government had declared their intention of paying no regard to the proceedings of the House on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings, and that a decision arrived at in the early hours of morning and evening sittings was to be ignored on the ground that it was taken by a "snap" division, the Patronage Secretary would inform the House on what days and between what hours the decision of the House of Commons was to be treated as binding upon the Government?
  MR. DALZIELasked whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would, in view of the absence of his colleagues, circulate the speech of his hon. friend.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer, seeing that the Government had been unanimously condemned. It was the worst vote of censure he had ever seen carried in the House—not a voice contradicting it. Surely it would be courteous to the House to say what the Government intended to do. He remembered a somewhat similar occasion in 1805. The then Government had some sense of honour and the moment a Resolution was carried by a majority of eight it was announced that the Government would consider its position. The

  1505
  present Government ought to state now what course it intended to pursue.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he had heard of an actress in Paris who, when hissed by her audience, remarked, "Well, I put my salary in the box." That was the position of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman was such a great family man that he had packed the Treasury Bench with his relatives.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid he hoped the rign hon. Gentleman would make some explanation. He was the only representative of the Government; he was a member of the Privy Council; and surely he would not treat the House of Commons with discourtesy. He sympathised with the Prime Minister. He did not blame him. The right hon. Gentleman was not merely a Prime Minister but a Minister who had passed his prime. He asked the Patronage Secretary to state whether the House of Commons would be in the same position to-morrow. It was very important, because the time of some hon. Gentlemen was valuable even though they were not paid official salaries.
  MR. TENNANTsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some explanation regarding the absence of the Prime Minister. He had never hoped to live to see the House of Commons flouted and treated in this manner. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office was now present. [The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME OFFICE (Mr. Cochrane, Ayrshire, N.) left the House.] He did not
  1506
  think the hon. Gentleman would show him such discourtesy, as he had never said anything disrespectful of him or his Department. He thought the Government had treated the House of Commons very disrespectfully and their action was deserving of the severest condemnation. The House of Commons was suffering all through the action of one person.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that the Chief Whip had been described as a bold man struggling with adversity—an adversity thrust upon him by the colleagues who had deserted him. The right hon. Gentleman had been forced into a position which could not be acceptable to him; especially as they knew the manner in which he performed his public duties. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to communicate a message to the Prime Minister. He had never seen a London vestry or borough council who had been called upon to discuss elementary public business flouted with contempt in the way the House of Commons had been by the Government. This kind of conduct brought discredit on Parliament, and could not continue. And the right hon. Gentleman might even go further and tell His Majesty the King that there was a Prime Minister who neglected the elementary duties of his position. It was significant that the only Minister who arrived to give furtive support to the right hon. Gentleman was one of the gentlemen responsible for looking after the criminal classes. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to note the exit of his hon. friend, and above all its rapidity. These proceedings could not continue much longer without discredit and perhaps disorder accruing from the studied flouting and contempt of the Opposition

  1507
  by the Treasury Bench last Wednesday and that evening. He urged the hon. Baronet to pluck up courage and tell the Prime Minister that he had either got to do his duty or clear out, and they would rather that the Ministry should resign than that the fine metal of an institution like the House of Commons should be blunted. The Speaker presided over the House with great dignity, but if the House was to be treated in this manner the day would come when from the Chair, as well as by the House itself, the Government would have to be reminded of its scandalous behaviour. The front Opposition Bench had treated the Ministry too leniently. He appealed to the Chief Whip to say something, if it was nothing more than a courteous "Good night." For heaven's sake let him say something.
  MR. JOHN ELLISsaid that no hon. Member who had sat in the House for a number of years could have listened to the discussion without great feeling. He did not associate himself with every word that had been uttered, but he associated himself with the spirit which had been manifested, and he earnestly hoped that the Patronage Secretary would faithfully represent to the Prime Minister the feeling which had been evinced in the House. This thing could not go on. The Prime Minister might vote them down; but a spirit was rising in the House and in the country, not perhaps adequately represented in the House, which would need their consideration. He most earnestly implored the right hon. Gentleman, speaking as one who desirous to maintain the high traditions and dignity of that Assembly, to convey
  1508
  to the Prime Minister the feeling which had been aroused.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid he wished to ask whether the Government intended to repeat the same despicable manœuvre to-morrow evening. Surely the right hon. Gentleman, if he retained any particle of respect for the Opposition, should see that this state of affairs could not continue. He knew the right hon. Gentleman was the last man who would run away from a discussion because it was inconvenient; but unfortunately he was mixed up with a Government which believed that discretion was the better part of valour. The incident, he would repeat, was a despicable manœuvre without parallel.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to reply to the Question put to him. That Question was whether the Government intended to resign or dissolve. He would answer for the right hon. Gentleman. The Government would remain in office as if nothing had occurred. They recognised the manœuvre they had recourse to was not a very honest one; but they were in a difficult position; and there was no other course for them to pursue. Last week they agreed to run away from a Motion with reference to the policy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham; this week they ran away from a Motion against the policy of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said that he was essential to the country; but why not dissolve and see the result?
  Adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

EARL OF KENMARE.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Valentine Charles, Earl of Kenmare, in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the election of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
The Lord Wynford sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
West Cumberland Electric Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with out Amendment.
Hastings Harbour Bill [H.L.]. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
Metropolitan Railway Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Hessle Gas Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Clacton Improvement Bill [H.L.]. The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 21st of February last and the 13th instant, discharged, and Bill committed.
Holy Trinity Portsea Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a,and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Brompton, Chatham, Gillingham, and Rochester Water Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC

  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS AND DEATHS, AND VACCINATION (SCOTLAND).
  Fiftieth Annual Report of the Registrar-General in Scotland of the marriages,
  1314
  births, and deaths registered for the year 1904; and Fortieth Annual Report on Vaccination.

  CROFTER HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS, 1886–87.
  Report by the Crofters' Commission, for the year ended December 31st, 1904.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3331. Netherlands (Amsterdam).

  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  General abstract of marriages, births, and deaths registered in England and Wales in the year 1904.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  Prevention of Corruption Bill [H.L.]; Married Women's Property Act (1882) Amendment Bill [H.L.]; Prize Courts Bill [H.L.]; Naval Prize Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  Whale Fisheries (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order); Amendments (Privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  THE AFFAIRS OF SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE.
  *THE EARL OF LYTTON,who had given notice "To call attention to the affairs of South-Eastern Europe, and to move for Papers," said: My Lords, the Motion which I have placed on the Order Paper this afternoon is intended to raise a discussion, and, I hope, to elicit some information, upon the state if affairs in Macedonia and the present phase of what is known as the Near Eastern question. This question, like the poor, is always with us, and I cannot help thinking that in many respects our attitude towards it is not altogether unlike our attitude towards the poor. Generally, we are all very sorry that such things should be. We regret in-finitely the unfortunate state of affairs, out on the whole we are resigned to the

  1315
  attitude that no remedy can possibly be found, and this apparent hopelessness of a solution has no doubt led, to a certain extent, to a modification of the interest of the country in the question. But, my Lords, if it be true that the interest in this department of our foreign policy is not as great to-day as it has been on other occasions, if it be true that a certain amount of apathy has settled on public opinion with regard to this part of the world, that does not reduce in any sense our obligations and our responsibilities there, and in spite of those circumstances our duty, I think, remains as clear as ever. Indeed, there is something to be thankful for in the fact that we can now discuss the whole question, review the whole position, without the pressure of sentiment, and without the disturbing influence of popular clamour.
  I fully realise the difficulties in which any Foreign Minister is placed who is called upon to deal with a matter of this kind, and the last thing I desire to do this afternoon is to raise any sort of reproach against the noble Marquess who conducts our foreign affairs, as I think all your Lordships will admit, with such conspicuous ability. I feel that if this question had been left entirely in his hands it would have been settled by now—settled, too, in a manner not less effectively, if perhaps less drastically, than a British Admiral— Admiral Noel—once settled the affairs of Crete. But I realise his difficulties. I have no desire to add to them in any way, and the only reason I have placed this Motion on the Paper is to give the noble Marquess an opportunity of making it perfectly plain that, so far as he is concerned, and so far as the Government of this country is concerned, there has been no going back upon the position we have taken up all along on this question; that there is no justification for the opinion, which I am sorry to say is held in some quarters and in other countries, that the British Government is losing heart, and really cares very little about what is happening in Macedonia. I will not ask the noble Marquess for one of those general assurances which it is so easy to give when you are pressed for them in Parliament, but I do appeal to him to state this afternoon, as clearly as his responsible position will
  1316
  allow, that the voice of this country is still being raised in the counsels of Europe in favour of peace, justice, and administrative reform.
  It is within your Lordships' recollection that when this subject was discussed last year on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Newton, a good deal was said about the mandate which had been given to Austria and Russia and the reforms which these two Powers had undertaken to carry out. A good deal of scepticism was expressed on that occasion as to the adequacy of these reforms, but the noble Marquess assured us that if, in the course of time, they should prove to be insufficient, he reserved to himself the right on a future occasion of putting forward more far-reaching proposals. Another year has gone by and we have an even better opportunity of judging the effect of the policy of the mandate. It cannot be doubted that on the whole, considering the time it has been in operation, it has failed to bring about any real amelioration of the state of affairs in Macedonia. At any rate, no one whose knowledge is derived solely from Blue-books and the public Press can point to any evidence that we are really better off to-day than we were twelve months ago, whilst the fact that these twelve months have gone by and so little has been done must in itself be an aggravation of the forces which make for unrest. It is perfectly true that some progress has been made with the reorganisation of the gendarmerie, and it is at least satisfactory to learn that the greatest zeal has been shown and the most efficient work done by that portion which is under the command of Colonel Fairholme and other British officers; but in everything else there has, I am sorry to say, been the usual delay, the usual confusion, the usual lukewarmness on the part of the Powers, and, worse than all, the usual disposition of the Turkish authorities to make use of disputes between the rival sections of Christian communities to stir up strife rather than maintain peace.
  The vilayet of Adrianople is still excluded from the sphere of reform altogether. The original Austro-Russian proposals, which we were told constituted the irreducible minimum, have

  1317
  been curtailed, and are not yet, so far as we can judge from public information, fully in operation. It is evident, therefore, that the policy of the mandate has failed either to prevent bloodshed, to restore order, or to secure reform; and in corroboration of this statement I can quote a despatch from the noble Marquess. I find in the last Blue-book available on this subject that in May of last year the noble Marquess, in answer to Count Lamsdorf, who had found fault with the noble Marquess for, as he thought, the needlessly pessimistic language which he had used, replied as follows—
  "I told his Excellency that I had been challenged to produce any evidence tending to show an actual improvement in the condition of the country, and that no one had been able to supply me with any such evidence."
  Up to the end of this Blue-book no such evidence is forthcoming. Perhaps the noble Marquess has been able to find evidence between the date on which this Blue-book ends and the present. If that is so, doubtless we shall hear it to-day; but from the period at which this Blue-book ends to the present day nothing has come to the knowledge of the public which will lead them to differ from the opinion then expressed by the noble Marquess.
  It is true that the noble Earl the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Percy, speaking in another place, denied that this Austro-Russian reform scheme could be said to have failed, but the noble Earl went on, in the very next breath, to say that the only object of that scheme of reform was to maintain the status quo. What are we to think of any scheme of reform the object of which is to maintain the status quo? I cannot conceive a greater condemnation of a scheme of reform than to say that its only object is to keep things exactly as they are, and if that was the object of the Mürzsteg scheme, then I think we can agree with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that it has abundantly succeeded in its object. There is another circumstance to which some reference must be made, which still further reduces any chance of success which this scheme may once have had. I refer to the internal condition of Russia and the events which have taken
  1318
  place in St. Petersburg and other large towns in that country during the last few months. I am quite aware that this is rather a delicate matter, and I hope I shall say nothing which can in any way offend the susceptibilities of that great Power for whose present misfortunes at home and abroad, it is impossible not to feel a certain measure of sympathy. But can anyone in all seriousness look to Russia at this moment as a champion of the oppressed, as a genuine and sincere opponent of corrupt, and tyrannical government? What weight could that country have in demanding reforms? What title could it have to protest against massacre and disorder? I cannot help thinking that any Note which Russia could submit to the Porte with regard to the internal condition of Macedonia would lay her open to a retort which is too obvious for me to put into words. While Russia is at this moment in the throes of a great domestic upheaval, Austria is occupied with a situation in Hungary, the difficulties of which are likely to increase rather than diminish with time.
  My reference to these events is not merely gratuitous, for the internal preoccupations of these two Empires must have an important bearing on this question. It is true, no doubt, to say that the chief reasons for European intervention in that part of the world are of a selfish character. Here are troubled waters in which every Power must fish lest any one should get more than its share, and since Austria and Russia are the immediate neighbours of the Turk and are, therefore, more nearly affected by the disturbances in that country, they have been told off nominally to secure reforms in the name of the other Powers, but, in fact, to keep a jealous watch over each other. But, above and beyond the question of mere interest, and apart altogether from the ambitions of any individual State, there is a cause which is common to all the Powers alike, there is a justification for intervention which is shared by every one of them, and that is the maintenance of international obligations. The rule of the Turk is altogether an anomaly in civilised Europe, and the misgovernment, followed by insurrection, which is the chronic state of affairs in most of the Turkish Provinces, is a perpetual menace

  1319
  to the peace of Europe. The result has been that from time to time the resentment of the other European Powers has found vent in protests and expostulations, which, in their turn, have been followed by verbal and even written assurance from the Sultan that real reforms will be carried out. But time goes on, and these reforms never get beyond the stage of promise, and, I think, it is true to say that this spectacle of treaties unfulfilled, of pledges broken, of protests ignored, of corruption and injustice in place of religious tolerance and equitable administration which have been so solemnly promised, is one which it is becoming increasingly difficult for Europe to regard with composure.
  To secure real reform in the Turkish dominions is the main if not the only, object of the three Western Powers, and I think I may go so far as to say that their very strength depends upon the fact that they have no other end to serve. But can Austria and Russia, who are at this moment occupied with internal complications of their own, internal complications of a very serious character, be expected to take the same interest in the internal situation in Macedonia? It is perfectly true that they are constantly referred to as the "interested Powers," and I have no doubt that they can be counted upon to show sufficient zeal to maintain their own interests, but those interests are altogether special and peculiar to themselves; and the interests which we share in common with them, the interests which all Europe has in common, are just those to which they may be counted upon to show the greatest measure of indifference. The proof of my contention is to be found in the actual history of what has taken place in the last two years. In the sphere of operations carried out by the gendarmerie, it has been the representatives of the disinterested and not of the interested Powers, who have done the most efficient work; the most far-reaching and important proposals of reform have been put forward not by the statesmen of Austria and Russia, but by the Foreign Minister of this country. Is it surprising, therefore, that under these circumstances those, in whatever country they may find themselves, who really care profoundly about the question, should be looking to the
  1320
  noble Marquess to see what is to be the next step.
  In his speech on the Address the noble Marquess told us that he had not forgotten and had not allowed other nations to Forget the statement he made in this House with regard to the further proposals which he was prepared to put forward if the present scheme should prove a failure. Now it appears from a cutting which I have here from the Standard that the noble Marquess has actually within the last few months made fresh proposals. Naturally this information is not of a very reliable kind, but it is all that I have to go upon, and I submit it, therefore, with diffidence to your Lordships. I find that according to this report, on January 11th last the noble Marquess submitted fresh proposals to the French Ambassador for the establishment of a European Commission to supervise the general administration of Macedonia. I would like to ask the noble Marquess if he can give us this afternoon any further information with regard to these proposals, if he can tell us whether they have been abandoned permanently, or whether they are only temporarily in abeyance pending the carrying out of the new financial proposals since put forward by the two Eastern Empires. The mandate which has been given to Austria and Russia ends in 1905. I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether the proposals which he made to the French Government in January are likely to supersede the policy of the mandate, and whether Great Britain will take any steps, between now and October of this year, to get representation for the other Powers of Europe, including this country.
  But since it is evident that these proposals have been abandoned for the moment, the most important consideration is the new proposal which has been put forward by Austria and Russia. This proposal was referred to by the noble Marquess in his speech on the Address as going further than anything which they had yet proposed. Here, again, we have to rely entirely on statements contained in the Press, and I find, in a quotation from The Times of†March 10th, that this proposal is intended to set up financial reform in Macedonia.

  1321
  It is abundantly clear how important the question of finance must be, because at the present time most of the taxes in the Turkish dominions are very irregularly raised and often with great oppression. The salaries of the officials are unpaid, with the result that they are obliged to pay themselves by extorting money out of the population over whom they are called to rule, and therefore the confusion, disorder, and insurrection in that part of the world is largely to be attributed to the inadequacy and the insufficiency of the financial arrangements.
  It appears now, if my information is correct, that in future the Ottoman Bank is to be set up as a sort of receiver-general and paymaster-general; that each of the three vilayets, together with the smaller districts included within their area, is to have a separate budget drawn up by its respective Vali; that these are to be submitted to and agreed to by the Ottoman Bank, by Hilmi Pasha, the Inspector-General, and by the interested Powers—and presumably by "interested" is meant Austria and Russia—and from them a common Macedonian Budget is to be prepared; that no other expenditure is to be sanctioned; that for purposes of administration the Ottoman Bank is to appoint six financial inspectors, whose salaries and expenses are to be paid by the vilayets, and that the Ottoman Bank is to issue monthly statements of accounts. These proposals have apparently been met with a counter proposal from the Turkish Government, namely, that it should raise the Customs duties from 8 to 11 per cent, ad valorem on imported goods.
  Now, my Lords, there are several very disquieting features in this new financial reform scheme. In the first place, the Ottoman Bank, which has hitherto been altogether a non-political body, is to be set up to carry out large powers of an administrative kind, and apparently, beyond the control exercised by the bank, no other control is to be established over expenditure. Then, if this new Turkish proposal is accepted, it is this country which will suffer most from the raising of the Customs duties, because at this moment Great Britain has 60 per cent, of the trade with Turkey. It is proposed
  1322
  that the additional revenue so received shall be applied for the purpose of reform, but of this we have no guarantee whatever, and it appears that Austria and Russia at this moment are cooperating with Turkey in order to maintain the status quo at our expense. One can well understand the complaint of the Turkish Government that these reforms are expensive, and that she is obliged to keep a large force in the field so long as she is threatened with hostilities either from without or from within; but I would like to point out to your Lordships that to remove that burden unconditionally would be to remove altogether the last hope of carrying out reforms. If we may judge from his speeches and from published reports, the noble Marquess has been working all along in favour of the establishment of some European control of administration generally, but to accept this latest proposal of Turkey would be to abandon that position and to enable others to gain while we ourselves are obliged to suffer. I trust that the noble Marquess will give us some information with regard to these proposals this afternoon. I cannot conceive that this country will ever be a party to carrying out such a disastrous scheme. It only shows, if my information is correct, how we are made to suffer by not being ourselves represented, and I would like to take this opportunity of urging on the noble Marquess the importance of securing for this country, in any financial scheme which is undertaken, some representation, because in finance, at any rate, if in nothing else, we have a very substantial interest.
  To obtain information on these two points has been one of the objects I have had in putting this Motion on the Paper. My other object has been to concentrate attention on the position of this country with regard to this question. We have interests, it is true, commercial, financial, and diplomatic, in that part of the world, but we have, in addition, obligations and responsibilities which we share in common with the other signatories of the Treaty of Berlin. All these are, no doubt, valid grounds for intervention in Macedonia. I do not dwell upon them because I do not feel it is incumbent upon me to make out a case for intervention. If there were not adequate reasons

  1323
  the Government would not have intervened as it has done in the past and as it is doing to-day. But I wish at the same time to concede that there are those who think that we have no grounds for intervention in that part of the world. There are some who think we have no more reason to interfere in Macedonia than we have in Persia or in Afghanistan, and though I have no doubt a good case could be made out for non-intervention, just as good a case could be made out for intervention, I wish to emphasise this point, that for intervening halfheartedly and vacillating between the two policies no case can be made out. That is a course in support of which no argument can be adduced and which must in the end damage the prestige of the country which adopts it. If we recognise these obligations, let us take whatever action is required in order to fulfil them, but let that action be firm, consistent, and straightforward. To say one day that we intend to insist upon important reforms, and then the next day to imply that all reform is impossible; to ask much and expect little; to induce the insurgents on one occasion to remain quiet by promises of action, and then subsequently to drive them into hostilities by months of inaction—all this is to court failure and to forfeit the confidence of those with whom we are trying to co-operate.
  I do not suggest that the noble Marquess has ever wavered in his personal opinions on this subject, but, unfortunately, there have been utterances in support of the Government policy in other places and on other occasions which are not altogether so reassuring. If we desire to induce France and Italy to join with us in securing reforms, we should afford them no opportunity of doubting our sincerity, and I think I may say that one of the most distressing features of this whole question is the atmosphere of distrust which always surrounds those who take part in it. I hope the noble Marquess will clear up any doubts which may exist with regard to the attitude of this country at any rate. I lay myself open, no doubt, to the question, do you then desire that this country should take
  1324
  isolated action? The Prime Minister, in another place, said—
  "Are we, because we think a particular reform might be better, because we think if we were left to ourselves we might devise some scheme more appropriate and more thoroughgoing—are we, therefore, to separate ourselves from the European Concert? "
  To that question I answer emphatically, No! But surely there is another course by which we can influence the final solution far better than by withdrawing; from the field, and that is by remaining in the field and firmly and consistently pressing our demands. It is not for "an insane policy of philanthropic adventure," as the Prime Minister called it, that I plead. It is rather that within the Concert of Europe we should be known all along to favour the real settlement of the Macedonian question on permanent lines; that we should insist unremittingly upon some form of European control of justice, administration, and finance; that we should leave no room for doubt as to our action, and that while we should co-operate heartily with other countries in securing any step in the direction we desire to go, we should not express ourselves as satisfied with anything which fell short of the ends we had in view. If without vacillation we insist firmly upon these lines, we shall secure the confidence of those with whom we are working from the first, and I doubt not we shall secure their co-operation in the end.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the affairs of South-Eastern Europe."—(The Earl of Lytton.)
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, nobody who has had sufficient patience to listen to these frequent discussions on the-subject of Macedonia, some of which have been initiated by myself and some by other unofficial persons who sit on this side of the House, can fail to have been struck by the great similarity—I might say monotony—which characterises them. A discussion on this particular subject is usually started, as I have said, by someone who sits on this side of the House. It is continued by unofficial persons; there is generally somebody on the Front Opposition_Bench who takes

  1325
  the opportunity of urging the Foreign Minister to more energetic action, and the debate invariably concludes with a statement, somewhat apologetic in its nature, by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, deprecating undue haste, urging the virtue of patience, and pleading in mitigation that he, has an exceptionally hard task to perform, in which, I am sure, everybody will concur. The monotony of our debates is characteristic of the monotony of the situation in Macedonia. In spite of Blue-books, Yellow-books, and Whithbooks, in spite of Circulars, Manifestoes, Notes—in short, in spite of all the paraphernalia of diplomacy, the broad fact remains that the condition of Macedonia is exactly what it was a year ago when I happened myself to be in that country.
  There is the same amount of unrest; there is the same insecurity; there are still the same hordes of unpaid and semi-disciplined soldiers in the country quartered on the population; there is the same danger of outbreak, weather permitting, and there are the same massacres constantly perpetrated by the rival Christian revolutionary bands. I frequently observe that when one Christian band massacres another it is described as a regrettable incident; if Mussulmans are massacred by Christians it is usually described as an act of righteous retribution; but if Christians are massacred by Turks, the incident is raised to a fullblown atrocity. Nearly everybody is agreed as to the actual condition of things in this part of the world, and difference of opinion only manifests it self when we begin to trace responsibility. Various views prevail in this country as to the degree of responsibility. There are certain eccentric persons who appear to believe that the existing state of things is partly our own fault. That is a delusion which cannot be too frequently exposed. There appear to be a number of people in this country who believe that we are under some peculair liability to the inhabitants of this part of the globe in consequence of the Treaty of Berlin. It cannot be pointed out sufficiently frequently that our liability under that treaty is precisely the same as the liability of any
  1326
  other Power. I dismiss this theory at once.
  Then there is the theory of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who entertains the view, which, at all events, does credit to his courage, that the real reason why no progress has been made is on account of the action of the revolutionary bands; and there is the third view, which is more generally entertained, that the whole fault is due to the Turkish Government itself. I am no admirer of the Turkish Government, but I always feel that that is a somewhat unreasonable attitude to take up. Let anybody ask himself what reforms really mean when you are dealing with the Turkish Government. The Turkish Government, as we all know, is quite incapable of introducing a state of things which approaches what we are pleased to call reform in this country. Reforms in Turkey really mean that the Turkish Government, as a Government, is to be obliterated, and it stands to reason that you cannot expect a Government to work whole-heartedly for its own extinction. But the Turks can always plead this in excuse. They can say, with a certain amount of truth, that if they had been left to deal with this question alone they would have put things right before long. Everybody knows how they would have done it. They would have made war upon Bulgaria; they would, presumably, by force of numbers, have crushed that country, and they would have devoted themselves to those measures of repression with which we are painfully familiar; but they may say with justice that Europe has insisted that the amelioration of the state of things in Macedonia is to be brought about, not by repression, but by administrative measures.
  As an administrative measure, let me take one example, which is supposed to be the one solitary success which has so far been the outcome of the Mürzsteg programme—I refer to the European gendarmerie. What is a force of gendarmerie for? It is organised and constituted to maintain order in time, of peace. It would be a very strong assertion to maintain that Macedonia enjoys peace at all in the usual sense of the word, and it certainly does not

  1327
  enjoy peace while the revolutionary bands are in existence. It is wrong to think, as some people do, that because a gendarmerie exists which is trained and organised according to European methods, that therefore these outrages have come to an end. Such a thing as putting an end to these revolutionary outrages is entirely beyond their power. The whole force of gendarmerie trained by Europeans does not amount to more than 3,000 or 4,000 men all told, and that is a force obviously designed to maintain order in time of peace. In support of my assertion that the gendarmerie is perfectly incapable of suppressing these outrages, I may point out that only two years ago it took something like 300,000 Turkish troops to put down insurrection in that country. So much for Turkish responsibility.
  I have put forward the three theories of responsibility which usually hold good in this country. I may take a very exceptional view, but to my mind the chief responsibility for the present condition of things does not rest with the Turks. Neither is it due to the other causes I have enumerated. It is directly due to the fact that in a moment of international aberration the task of restoring order there was entrusted to Austria and Russia. You might just as well hand over the property of an imbecile or a person of weak mind to two persons who were going to benefit by his death, and then expect that his property would be beneficially administered. I do not think that it is ever sufficiently realised in this country that it is neither the object, nor the wish, nor the interest, of either of these two Powers that order and tranquility should prevail in the Balkan Peninsula. Austria and Russia have always in the past shown themselves delighted to profit by any opportunity for aggrandising themselves at the expense of the Turks, but never in my recollection, or in the recollection of anybody else, have they shown the smallest anxiety to promote good government or amelioration of any kind in the dominions of the Sultan. I do not blame them in the least. Why should they?
  These two Powers some years ago entered into an amicable arrangement
  1328
  for the purpose of partitioning the Balkan Peninsula whenever a favourable opportunity arose. So far as we know, that agreement is still in existence, and the Mürzsteg programme is merely a prolongation of the status quo; in other words it is a prolongation of the present state of things, because that prolongation will enable them at some future date to intervene when it suits their convenience. There is a belief in this country that the Christians of Macedonia lead so miserable an existence that they would gladly welcome any change of government. I should like to point out that the case of the Christians in the Balkan Peninsula and in Macedonia itself is not only a case of oppression and misgovernment, but one of rival races who aspire, and legitimately aspire, to eventually inherit territory which now forms part of the Turkish Empire, and I will undertake to say that if anybody chose co ask any educated Greek or Bulgarian in Macedonia as to whether he would prefer to be transferred to Austrian or Russian territory, or to become a subject of one of those two Powers, he would at once say he did not desire anything of the sort. He would infinitely prefer to remain under Turkish rule.
  This may sound a somewhat startling announcement, but I will go so far as to say that I believe we may actually see Turks and Bulgarians fighting side by side against intervention by Austria; and, after all, when you come to think of it, this frame of mind is not so ridiculous as it may at first appear. We all realise that the Turkish Empire must come to an end some day. Personally, I am in no hurry to see it come to an end; but what these people argue to themselves is this, that when the Turkish Empire comes to an end, as they know it must do some day, then will be their chance. They may then become the possessors of the territory in which they have so long lived and to which they have a just claim, but if they are handed over to Russia or Austria the position will be different. They know that the moment Austria or Russia sets foot in the country, the moment that their country is so occupied, all their hopes of independent existence are at

  1329
  an end. A responsible Bulgarian official once remarked to me—
  "We have seen the Russians in the Balkan Peninsula several times already, but does any body in his senses believe that if the Russian are again found in the "Balkan Peninsula the will not remain there permanently."
  I should like to say one word with regard to a disposition which I have observed in some quarters to blame the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for not having shown greater energy. I do not think one could exaggerate the difficulty of the position which is occupied by the noble Marquess. He has, on the one side, to satisfy sentiment in this country, because there are people here who really and honestly do sympathise with the Christian races in the Near East. He has to endeavour to satisfy the sentiment of this country by urging reforms which are not only hateful to the Turks themselves, but are almost equally distasteful to Austrians and Russians, and possibly to Germans. On the other hand the noble Marquess is apparently unable to count on any substantial assistance from the Western Powers. A good deal of sympathy is shown by the Western Powers, but I cannot say that I observe any concrete evidence of action. I believe there are a certain number of private individuals, both in Italy and France, who sympathise with the views entertained by my noble friend and by those who act with him in this country, but, as a matter of fact, this is the only country, as far as I am aware, in which sentiment plays any real part in the direction of foreign policy, and I repeat that I see no evidence that the Western Powers are disposed to give any substantial assistance to the noble Marquess.
  I am afraid that the Western Powers are not likely to modify their attitude in consequence of any opinions I may personally express, but, at the same time, I venture to think that the interests of this country, the interests of France, and the interests of Italy, are not purely sentimental interests. I do not think it requires much intelligence to realise that it cannot be in our interests, or in the interests of France, and it certainly cannot be in the interests of Italy, either that Austrians or Russians should obtain
  1330
  a permanent foothold in the Balkan Peninsula, or that either of those Powers should establish themselves in the Levant. I maintain that as long as the present condition of things lasts the danger is always in existence, although I know perfectly well that the noble Marquess will not admit anything of the kind. Therefore, for my part, not for sentimental reasons but for material reasons, I venture to hope that we shall elicit a statement from the noble Marquess this afternoon that some effort is going to be made to put an end to the undue pre-dominance which is now exercised by the Governments of Austria and Russia in the Balkan Peninsula, and to recover the collective and undivided control of that situation by Europe which ought never to have been abandoned.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: My Lords, I think I should have taken leave anyhow to say a few words on this important question. But I do so the more because of the inevitable absence of the most rev. Primate, who wished me to express his regret.
  It seems to me that there are two ends, as it were, at which one might take up this subject. One is the condition of the population. The noble Lord who has just sat down has spoken of the monotony of these debates. They are monotonous, but there is more serious monotony in the sufferings of these people. This state of things continues from month to month and from year to year. We have had no attempt; this evening, and I shall make no attempt, to stir the feelings of the House by any recital of the things that have happened. Those incidents have not been given great prominence to of late in the public Press, but we know perfectly well that that does not mean that the condition of the population is other than one of real misery. We know the expedient which as been adopted for the preservation of order by the Turkish Government—that declaring martial law and of quartering Turkish soldiery upon the villagers. We learn that similar armed occupation is organised on the side of the Revolutionary Committees and that it not seldom happens that the same population are really subject to threat and counter threat. Then we get an incident like

  1331
  we had recently at Kuklish, which gives us an insight into the kind of thing which may happen.
  That is the condition under which these people actually live, but there is to be added the very painful element of apprehension. There is very little prospect of the bettering of their existence. The worsening of it by the letting loose of a war upon them is, they must feel, a very possible contingency indeed. And what, my Lords, does the diplomacy of Europe hold out to them? We are told, if I understand rightly, that we ought not to be too much disturbed on this matter because there is a scheme of financial reform in progress from which good results may be anticipated. We are told by the best students of political phenomena that the economy of a nation is the fundamental factor affecting its life. That perhaps is so. It may be that financial reform is the thing which in one sense is most needed by these unhappy provinces. But I would ask whether it is in the least likely that we can attach much hope to financial reform at this time of day, unaccompanied by other measures, and the thorough administrative reorganisation which the Under-Secretary has told us is needful. The long and short of it is that these people are living, and have every prospect of living, under what my noble friend the noble Marquess so sympathetically described as "chronic and grievous misgovernment that provokes and leads to outrage."
  I say you might take the matter up from that end, but I own I am somewhat disposed to take it up from the other end. The other end is the self-respect of this country. There are, of course, many questions on which we differ. We differ, for instance, about the primary or singular responsibility of England, and about the relation between the events of 1878 and that responsibility. I myself, I frankly own, am not convinced at all that this country has not a distinctive responsibility in this matter. But we do, I think, unitedly agree that whether we have a singular responsibility or not, we have, along with other Powers, a very special responsibility. The position of Great Britain is that of a nation which is, through its leading
  1332
  representatives, perfectly clear and perfectly determined on this matter. We have a Minister charged with this particular question whose every utterance has given, not merely by what he has said but by the way in which he has said it, the assurance that he cares about the matter and is dealing with it with statesmanlike prudence and firmness. He is the representative of the Party at present entrusted with the government of the country. If we look at the Opposition in this and the other House, we find that on this subject they would say all that the noble Marquess says and even more. We observe that they have withheld from any political action here, or even in the more controversial atmosphere of the other House, which could have the effect of showing that we were divided or of forcing the responsible Minister into words which might do anything to justify the present situation. This is the point I wish to urge on your Lordships. The attitude of the nation is clear. Yet we go on in this way year after year, counting, as it were, so far as public appearances go, for nothing, accomplishing nothing, coming no nearer to our end or so little nearer that we cannot feel any very great pleasure in it.
  I remember that it was said not very long ago, in connection with another political controversy, that there were limits to human nature. I venture to say that in this matter we seem to aim at a virtue almost above the ordinary human standard. Our self restraint is so saintly as to be almost suspicious. We submit our views to Europe; those views are ignored, snubbed, and set aside. We accept it with unfailing courtesy and patience; we do not show a flicker of resentment; our temper is unruffled. That is precisely the position which this nation occupies in regard to the Macedonian question. Considering the European situation and the knowledge that our policy is disinterested and humane, we ought to ask rather more loudly than we are asking why England should not have a part in the settlement of this matter—at least as much as Austria and Russia. We have been told that there are reasons why these two Powers were specially suited to the purpose. We have been

  1333
  told that they were so because of their proximity, because of their race, and because of their knowledge of the circumstances. As to proximity, of course we cannot deny that we are a little further off. Distance does not mean quite so much as it did in the government of the world, but distance is no doubt a factor against us. When we come to racial connection, I own I am surprised that that argument should be adduced. I suppose what is meant is the slav relationship between Russia and Bulgaria. But then how does that square with the warnings that what is needed is a power to hold the Bulgarian and Greek elements in impartial check. Is not the racial connection precisely a disabling rather than an enabling factor in the case? Would it not appear that a Power like Great Britain, which is as obviously disinterested, whatever our foreign critics may say, as a Power can well be in a matter of this kind, would be better for the purpose. And as to knowledge of the circumstances, I do not think the noble Marquess will admit that his knowledge of the circumstances is inferior to the knowledge possessed by the Foreign Ministers of Russia and Austria. I do not think we have any doubt about the sufficiency of our knowledge of the circumstances. This being the case, we ought to be united in a little more directness of treatment of this matter. We ought to treat certain points as absolutely clear. We take it as a matter of course that the Turkish Government is hopeless. We have proved that by experience. We all know that Turkish diplomacy is not really diplomacy at all in any noble or right sense of the word, but merely a network of obstruction. The noble Lord (Lord Newton) says we all know that the Turkish Empire will pass away. We know, at any rate, the way in which reform will come for these subjects and victims of its power. It will only come when some external Power, or Powers, insist that it shall come and see that it does. We want to know what we are waiting for, and when the case will be at all better or easier. Are we waiting for some horrible tornado of massacre such as from time to time stirs the heart of Europe, or are we waiting, which is more probable, for the outbreak of war between Bulgaria and Turkey, which we all regard as in every
  1334
  sense a contingency that would do harm? The only good that it could possibly do would be that it would exchange the miserable equilibrium of the present moment for something which might in the end, at great cost, bring some relief.
  Those of us who take the line which has been adopted by the noble Earl who raised this question, and which I have adopted, are very often charged with one-sided sympathy for Christian races, with casting all the reproach upon the Turk and representing that the races over which he rules are simply sheep without offence, upon which he inflicts injury; and we are told that if we really faced the facts we should find that the parties are as bad as each other, that the difference; between the Bulgarians and the Greeks constitute one of the very worst features of the situation, as undoubtedly they do, and that the atrocities committed by Bulgarians on Greeks are revolting, as undoubtedly they are. But all this is purely beside the point. We know all the facts which are thus brought against us. We know the unhappy condition of these populations. We know how they have, by centuries of misgovernment, been led to courses of violence. But that does not in the least affect our desire to see some form of solution which would bring all these elements into order. I hold in my hand a pamphlet which has been lately issued by those interested in the Greek side of the matter, which is, of course, full of proof of how entirely Greek Macedonia is, and how objectionable and cruel the Bulgarians are. But when I come to the end of this statement I cannot help being struck by finding precisely the language used on behalf of the Greeks which we have been using. I will read an extract—
  "The conflict of contending interests, with its attendant menace, must not be allowed to go on for ever, and the longer a settlement is delayed the more the dangers will increase. For humanity's sake Great Britian cannot be indifferent to the question. Human lives are at stake as long as the present condition of affairs exists. For purely national interests it would be unwise for England not to concern itself."
  Then there comes a passage which goes home to me very much. It is as follows—
  "That the British Government is alive to the importance of the question the latest Blue-book

  1335
  proves. Is the nation alert? A Government in a constitutional country is the mouthpiece of the people. No Constitutional Government will act in advance of public opinion. It is therefore necessary for the people of England to declare their opinion."
  It is to voice the feelings of some small section, at any rate, of English opinion, and to appeal to the English nation at large to speak more firmly and decidedly than it has hitherto done, that we take part in this debate.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the noble Lord on the bench behind me drew a somewhat melancholy picture of an average Macedonian debate in the House of Lords, and as far as I was able to follow him he reserved for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the duty of making the most depressing and monotonous of all the depressing and monotonous statements to which the House was compelled on such occasions to listen. The statement I am about to make may seem monotonous to your Lordships, but it shall not be entirely animated by that feeling of resignation which the noble Lord attributes to all who are concerned in this question of Macedonian policy. I cannot, to begin with, accept as accurate the noble Lord's statement that the position in the Balkan Peninsula is at this moment precisely what it was a year ago. I am far from saying it is satisfactory, but I think I shall be able to show that on some points there has been a perceptible improvement. On the other hand, it must be admitted that a condition of great unrest prevails in the country, and, although there has been no general uprising, there have been many deplorable incidents and many shocking crimes; and it is, perhaps, the saddest feature in this sad chapter of history that on these occasions the greatest sufferers are the innocent and inoffensive villagers, on whom too often the vengeance either of the Turkish soldiery or of the insurgent bands is so ruthlessly wreaked.
  In our view it is urgent that there should be some improvement in this condition of things. We entertain that feeling on the ground of humanity, and also because we believe that, while the
  1336
  condition of the Balkan Peninsula remains what it is, it constitutes a standing menace to the peace of Europe. So long as the condition of these vilavets affords a pretext for the incursion of armed insurrectionary bands, so long as the attacks of these bands afford a pretext to the Turkish Government for keeping up a vast force of ill-disciplined soldiery in Macedonia, so long as the presence of that great force affords an excuse to Bulgaria for making military preparations which cannot fail to have a disquieting effect, so long will the Macedonian question threaten the peace of Europe.
  Something has been said in this debate as to the responsibility of this country for the condition of Macedonia. I have, at any rate, never disputed that a responsibility, and a serious responsibility, rests upon this country. What I have, however, sometimes protested against has been the attempt to show that that responsibility was entirely ours, and that it was owing to sins of omission or commission on our part that the condition of Macedonia is what it is. I believe that if there is any Power which is less responsible for the condition of Macedonia than another, that Power is Great Britain. Ever since the Treaty of Berlin this country has made, I venture to say, greater efforts than any other country to obtain for the European provinces of Turkey that measure of good government which was promised to them when the Treaty of Berlin superseded the Treaty of San Stefano. The responsibility, in our opinion, is a collective responsibility, and any action which may be taken in consequence of it should be not the isolated action of any one Power, but action taken either by or on behalf of all the Powers signatory to the Treaty of Berlin.
  I listened with attention to the eloquent speech of the right rev. Prelate. He spoke with warmth, and with a certain amount of impatience of the scant measure of success which has hitherto attended our efforts. I do not quite gather from him what was the moral he drew. I do not know whether he went so far as to suggest that this country, in despair of obtaining a more prompt realisation of its wishes, should separate

  1337
  tself from the other Powers and should have recourse to isolated action. I have always been one of those who believe that, although it is conceivable that in the last resort isolated action might become inevitable, no greater misfortune could befall this country, or the European Powers, or, indeed, the suffering population of Macedonia, than that one Power should, in defiance of the wishes of the rest, take upon itself single handed the duty of redressing these evils. I would ask your Lordships to consider for a moment what the assumption of such a task would mean. Let us assume that we have formulated our demands, that we have insisted on their acceptance by the Turkish Government, that, if the Turkish Government were reluctant, we hive sent our Fleet to Constantinople, and that, finally, our proposals have been accepted without further demur. Should we in that case really be any nearer to the actual accomplishment of these reforms? You might get your reform measures accepted on paper, but the real difficulty is to get them carried out on the spot. In the circumstances I have imagined, there would be one way, and one way only, in which you could obtain the execution of the reforms on the spot, and that would be to send a British army to occupy the Macedonian provinces. I have only to ask your Lordships to consider the state of Macedonia, the magnitude of the military forces employed in that country and the adjoining countries, and then to ask you whether that is a task which any British Government, or any British Minister, could light-heartedly recommend to their country? Therefore, my Lords, we did not dissociate ourselves from the other Powers, and we gave to the two neighbouring Powers that mandate of which so much has been said.
  I understood the right rev. Prelate to ask why Russia and Austria were selected for carrying out that mandate. The right rev. Prelate suggested that they were singularly unfitted for the task, and that it might better have been placed in other hands. But does he suppose that these two Powers would have been content to stand on one side and commit the execution of reform to the hands of the other Powers?
  1338
  What was in our minds was the great difficulty of proceeding by means of the cumbrous and complicated machinery of the European Concert. We have had some experience of it in recent years, and in our view there was a better chance of obtaining what we wanted if we could arrange that two of the Powers should accept at the hands of the others the task we all desired to see accomplished
  Let me refer for a moment to the circumstances in which that mandate was given. Your Lordships will recollect that two schemes of reform were promulgated in 1903 by Russia and Austria. In the first place, there was what was known as the Vienna programme which made its appearance in the spring of 1903, and that was followed in the autumn by the later development known as the Mürzsteg scheme. In February, 1903, it was announced by the Austrian and Russian Governments that, in order to ensure the regular working of the local administration, a budget of receipts and expenditure was to be drawn up for each vilayet and that the revenues of the province, which were to be checked by the Imperial Ottoman Bank, were to be assigned, in the first place, to the requirements of the local administration, including the payment of the civil and military salaries. At the same time it was announced that there was to be an alteration in the mode of collecting the tithes, and the system of farming them out. Later in the year came the Mürzsteg programme, a supplementary scheme under which two Powers undertook to demand the reorganisation of the administrative and judicial institutions, a department in which it would be desirable to give access to the Christians of the country, and to favour the development of local autonomy, while the Powers pledged themselves to introduce without delay the reforms already included in the Vienna scheme.
  That twofold scheme seemed to us to provide, and I think it did provide, at any rate the basis of a scheme, which, if properly developed, might have been adopted with the best possible results for the Macedonian provinces. We accordingly accepted it; but we accepted it with the reservation that, if it failed to realise the anticipations of its framers, we should be at liberty to suggest other and

  1339
  more far-reaching measures. We have never lost sight of those reservations; we have constantly borne them in mind. Lord Newton in his speech also complained of us for placing ourselves in the hands of Austria and Russia, because he imputed to them sinister designs of territorial aggrandisement in the Balkan Peninsula, and suggested that it was inconceivable that Powers harbouring such designs could honestly and effectually carry out the reform of the Macedonian provinces. I think that was an unjust imputation on the part of the noble Lord and I am sorry he has made it.
  LORD NEWTON: It is what everybody believes.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am bound to say that since I have been concerned in these questions I have been unable to detect in the conduct of either of the two Governments to which the noble Lord has referred any attempt to turn the incidents which we are discussing this evening to their own selfish advantage. Whether they have or have not ideas that in the event of the breaking up of the Turkish Empire they might claim certain reversionary interests is another matter. I take it that in all parts of the world wherever you have to deal with weak Powers you will find that other Powers, generally neighbouring Powers, are under the impression that they have a reversionary interest of that kind. But the point which I wish to make is that it is not fair to impute to the Austrian and Russian Governments that they have taken advantage of the deplorable state of things in Macedonia in order to arrive at private ends of their own.
  With regard to the progress which has been made during the past year, I think it is not the case that there has been so complete a failure as the noble Lord would have us suppose. In the first place, a good deal has been done in the way of repatriation. Some months ago it was reported to us that in the whole of Macedonia 20,000 out of 25,000 refugees had been repatriated. Only the other day I received information to the effect that in the Adrianople vilayet—a district where some of the greatest hardships
  1340
  have been undergone by the people—the extended permission which the Porte had granted would cover all the Adrianople refugees still left in Bulgaria who wished to return, and that there seemed to be a fair prospect that, with a little good will on both sides, one, at least, of the causes of complaint between Bulgaria and Turkey would shortly disappear. That information is from our Charged' Affaires at Sofia. Again, there has been an experiment in the commutation of tithes, and the reports as to the thirty villages in which that experiment has been tried are of a very reassuring description. No system lends itself more to oppression of all kinds than the system of farming out tithes.
  Then we come to the question of the gendarmerie. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, poured a considerable amount of ridicule upon the gendarmerie, but I think I shall be able to show your Lordships that the reorganisation of the gendarmerie has I had already some very important and very satisfactory results. The number of gendarmerie officers has lately been increased; there are now forty-eight altogether. Then gendarmerie schools have been opened at Salonica—a school for officers and a school for recruits. Last autumn there were 250 men in training and 250 more were expected. On December 1st last the first batch of gendarmes were sworn in before the Inspector-General and the Consular representatives; and I am told that general admiration was expressed at the manner in which these ignorant, undisciplined men had been turned into smart and well-disciplined soldiers. Then it has been arranged, and I think it is a matter of some importance, that whenever domiciliary visits are made to the villagers' houses only trained gendarmes under the foreign officers should be employed. We think that that is likely to have the effect of diminishing the chance of an occurrence of many of the abuses of which so much complaint has been made.
  Besides that I have more than once said to your Lordships that to my mind one very valuable effect of the presence of these gendarmerie officers would be that we should be able to obtain what we have so rarely been able to obtain—thoroughly

  1341
  trustworthy and reliable reports as to some of the incidents which are complained of. For example, in a very bad case at a place called Kuklish we should not have had any report at all if it had not been for the presence of a Russian gendarmerie officer. From that officer a very full and complete report was obtained; and upon that report the Ambassador was able to found his representations, which I believe had a good effect, because a full inquiry has been ordered into the conduct of the troops on that occasion. But I can say more than that, because in two comparatively recent cases we have reports which show that the gendarmerie officers were actually able to do a great deal in the way of preventing the perpetration of some of those acts of oppression which figure so largely in these reports. Here is an account of an occurrence in the neighbourhood of Vodena. A small band of komitajis was surrounded, the village was attacked, and judging from past experience it would have been natural to expect that the innocent villagers would have suffered very considerably. But what actually happened was that, although a barn was set on fire, none of the village houses were burned, no non-combatants were injured, and, although perquisitions were made in fourteen houses, no looting or other excesses took place. The Consul-General adds—
  "The most interesting feature in this encounter is to be found in the fact that stringent orders bad been issued by Hilmi Pasha to avoid any repetition of the excesses of Kuklish, and that the command of the troops employed was confided to two Turkish gendarmerie, officers—a captain and a lieutenant—who had lately passed through the gendarmerie school for Chefs de Poste at Salonica. The manner in which these officer, who are the first of the reorganised gendarmerie to be placed in charge of such operations, have performed their difficult task is in striking contrast to the usual mode of procedure, and must prove a great satisfaction to the foreign officers responsible for their training, and augurs well for the future success of the force."
  I have another case relating to the village of Smol, very closely resembling that which I have just described; and I venture to suggest to your Lordships that with that evidence before us in the early days of the gendarmerie it is scarcely fair to represent the reorganisation of that force and the training which officers and
  1342
  men have undergone as being a negligible quantity.
  LORD NEWTON: May I interrupt the noble Marquess? I never said anything against the gendarmerie. I merely said that they were much too few to put down the excesses committed by the revolutionary bands. I did not express any contempt for them.
  *THE MARQUESS or LANSDOWNE: I am glad I misunderstood the noble Lord. I gathered from the general tone of his remarks that he was pouring a good deal of ridicule on the gendarmerie. I may also say that in the particular section of the country that has been put under British gendarmerie officers excellent results have been obtained. I may mention amongst other things that, owing to the influence of Colonel Fairholme and his brother officers, Turkish company officers who showed themselves obstructive have been deprived of their command, that our gendarmerie officers have been allowed access to the prisons—a most importat point—and that they have also been allowed to be present in Court when trials have been proceeding. All that seems to me to show that, so far at all events as the gendarmerie are concerned, something has been accomplished in the way of reforms. When we remember that this has been done in a country distracted by unrest, paralysed by the excesses of the troops, and saturated with old race antipathies which existed long before the Turks went into the country, I think we must feel that our efforts have not been entirely in vain. I should in any circumstances have asked your Lordships whether, this being so, it was necessary for us to proclaim that everything which has been done under the mandate had been a failure.
  But I am the more anxious that your Lordships should not rush to that conclusion, because at this moment the two Powers, and indeed all the Powers concerned, are not sitting with folded hands congratulating themselves upon that which has been achieved. It is admitted on all sides that further reforms are necessary and should be undertaken at once. The noble Lord spoke particularly of the scheme of financial reforms which has been put forward

  1343
  by Austria, and Russia. As to that, the right rev. Prelate asked your Lordship what use it was to prescribe financial reforms for a country in such a grievous state as Macedonia. My Lords, I venture to tell the right rev. Prelate that the condition of Macedonia never will be improved unless its financial system under goes a thorough and complete overhauling Financial reform lies at the root of all other reforms. You cannot expect the civil administration of the country to be properly conducted, you cannot expect the officials to be paid, you cannot expect the Law Courts to be pure and honest unless the finances are properly administered, and unless the salaries of the public officers are punctually paid.
  The scheme of the two Powers as to which the noble Earl asked me for information was, I think, correctly described by him. The pivot of the scheme is the Imperial Ottoman Bank, which is to be treasurer and paymaster-general for the three vilayets. It is to receive the revenues after the deduction of the obligatory charges and the expense; of administration, and it is to issue the necessary payments. Local budgets are to be framed for the vilayets and sandjaks. Those budgets are to be approved by the Inspector-General and by the Bank and the two Powers interested—Russia and Austria. A general budget is to be drawn up by the Bank; and it is provided that no fresh sources of revenue are to be tapped, and no new expenditure outside the limits of the budget is to be incurred, except with the consent of the two Powers.
  Finally, there are to be six inspectors of finance who are to be Turkish subjects nominated by the Bank and appointed by the Inspector-General. That is the outline of the scheme as it has been proposed. It seems to us to be a scheme which contains some good features; but we have made no secret of the fact that it appears to us a very imperfect project, and that in certain respects it falls very short of what is necessary, notably in this respect, that apparently it is contemplated that the Bank is only to receive the surplus revenues after such deductions and abstractions as the local officials may consider themseleves
  1344
  justified in making. We also take exception to the scheme on the ground that it appears to be based on an assumption, about which I think there is a good deal to be said—namely, that the mandate to the two Powers to deal with this all-important question is, as a matter of course, to continue beyond the expiration of the present year, when it was always contemplated that that mandate might come to an end.
  Then there is the Turkish counter-project, into the details of which I need not go, but which resembles the scheme of the two Powers, differing from it, however, in this, that while the scheme of the two Powers assumes the control of those two Powers, the Turkish scheme does not assume any external control at all
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: Will the noble Marquess say whether there is any project put forward by the Turkish. Government for raising revenues such as I have referred to?
  *THE MARQUESS or LANSDOWNE: I was coming to that. I have described the financial scheme of the two Powers and the counter-financial scheme of the Turkish Government. I now come to another scheme, separate from those two, but one to which we attach great importance. The Turkish Government has proposed to all the Powers that they should consent to an increase of the Customs duties from 8 to 11 percent, for the purposes of providing the funds necessary for these Macedonian reforms, that is a proposal which I need not say affects this country very closely. Sixty percent, of the Turkish foreign trade is ours, and it would clearly impossible that we should allow that trade to be subjected to an increased impost without thoroughly satisfying ourselves that there was a case for accepting such an additional burden.
  The proposal is also important for his reason: the two Powers have agreed to it upon condition that the Turkish Government accept their scheme of financial reform; so that it becomes mixed up with the question of financial reform. As to this proposed

  1345
  increase of the Customs duties, we have thought it our duty to ask from the Turkish Government an explanation upon certain points, and amongst them these. We desire to know the basis of the calculation upon which these demands are founded. We want to know what are the estimates of local receipts and expenditure which justify the demand for this grant-in-aid from the Customs receipts. We also think that some attempt should be made to show the Powers that the Custom revenue of Turkey is administered in such a way as to bring to the Turkish Treasury the whole of the receipts which a proper and effectual collection of duties will produce. Unless that can be shown it seems to us that the case for increased duties loses much of its strength. Besides that, we have made it clearly understood that, if we agree to accept this increase, we shall expect some of the great abuses which characterise the administration of the Turkish Customs, and of which we have for many years past complained, to be first removed. That is what we have said to the Turkish Government in regard to their proposal to increase the Customs duties. But I am also able to tell the noble Earl that we have made it clear to the two Powers who have put forward the schema of financial reforms that we consider that we are entitled to have a Voice in the settlement of that scheme before it is finally approved, and I may add that we have said the same to the other Powers.
  The noble Earl asked me whether I could give him any information as to a statement which he had noted in a well-known newspaper to the effect that in the month of January His Majesty's Government put forward a scheme of their own for the introduction of reforms. These revelations, I observe, usually come to us from abroad. Whether it is that newspaper correspondents in other countries show more enterprise or that public offices in other countries are less discreet than they are here I do not know; but the author of this statement evidently must have overheard, or have had accessto some one who overheard, an important conversation between myself and the French Ambassador,
  1346
  and must have discussed the contents of confidential despatches which have not yet seen the light and which are not likely for the present to do so. But I think it is very likely that, in the course of my frequent discussions and conversations with the representatives of foreign Powers on this subject, I may have said something not unlike, what the noble Lord has gathered from this particular newspaper report; I must, however, ask him not to press me further upon this subject. It is quite clear that these discussions were confidential and should remain confidential. We believe at this moment that there is something very like a consensus of the Powers in favour of further reforms, and we earnestly desire to find ourselves in a position to co-operate with them. It would, therefore, be most unfortunate if these confidential communications were to be divulged; and it would be even more unfortunate if we were to create an impression that, instead of encouraging the other Powers as we have done to strengthen their proposals, we were to embarrass them by running counter-proposals of our own; the existence of which would certainly create, where we least wished to create it, the impression that the European Powers were divided amongst themselves, instead of presenting, as I hope they will, a solid front when they ask for the execution of these further measures.
  But, though I am obliged to shelter myself behind official secrecy, I have not the slightest objection to give the noble Lord a general indication of the manner in which we regard the situation which has arisen. I may tell him in the first place that in our opinion the question has reached a stage when all the Powers have the right to make themselves heard, and in the next place that, so far as we are concerned no proposals will be regarded as satisfactory unless they secure to the provinces of Macedonia a financial system effectually decentralised; and I add to that that in our opinion these reforms, whatever they may be, should be extended to the vilayet of Adrianople. I used an expression just now which perhaps I ought to explain more fully. I said that in our opinion no proposals

  1347
  would be satisfactory unless they involved the effectual decentralisation of the financial system of Macedonia, and I dare say the noble Lord would like to ask me what I mean by that expression. I will tell him. We think in the first place that the budget should be so framed as to provide adequately for all the legitimate needs of the civil administration of Macedonia, and we think that those requirements should be a first charge upon the local revenues. I mean by this that they should come first after the obligatory deductions for the payment of the debt and other purposes; but I do not include among the obligatory deductions deductions for the sake of keeping up the large military force now quartered upon the vilayets.
  In the next place I mean that the finances of Macedonia should be placed either directly or indirectly under International control; and, lastly, that guarantees should be provided sufficient to render it certain that any revenues which may be ear-marked for the special benefit of Macedonia should find their way there and should not be intercepted or diverted to other purposes. These are the main considerations to which we attach importance; and I hope that my noble friend will agree with me that our voice has been raised in support of the cause of Macedonian reform, and that we have not accepted with that resignation which has been attributed to us the difficulties which have beset our path. We have urged these views, and we shall continue to urge them; and, although I do not desire to appear too sanguine, I for one have every hope that they will command the attention to which we think they are entitled. They have at all events this merit—that they are entirely disinterested, and that we urge our claims in the great cause of humanity and peace.
  *EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I am sure we have listened with great interest to the debate which has taken place this evening. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Newton, said that a debate on this subject in your Lordships' House was always monotonous, but I do not think I can agree with him in that. We have had great variety in the observations and
  1348
  sentiments of those who have spoken, and we have heard many interesting and important criticisms on the policy of the Powers and also on the prospect of the success of the present scheme. I rise after the appeal of my right rev. friend who spoke just now to say that the necessity for a great change in the government of Macedonia is recognised as powerfully on this side of the House as elsewhere; and I feel it a duty on my part, as representing my friends here, to join with those who earnestly press for the success of measures of amelioration in Macedonia. I wish to make a few remarks on what has fallen from the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I confess I felt that he was speaking in a somewhat despondent tone, and was not so sanguine as to the success of the measures adopted by the Powers as he had been on previous occasions. I do not for a moment say he showed less desire for improvement in the government of that country. I think what the right rev. Prelate said of him is quite true, that his sentiments are disinterested, humane, and good for all those concerned. But I venture to think he did not give a very good account of what has been done in the past through the measures that have been undertaken by the great Powers. He told us that the country remained in unrest, and that a great part of the population was still paralysed by the excesses of the soldiery. The instances which the noble Marquess gave of what has already been done appear to be merely isolated instances of improvement here and there. Take the question of the gendarmerie.He quoted two cases in which the effect of the gendarmerie had been very good; but he gendarmerie has been established in Macedonia for about eighteen months.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:: The training only began last autumn, and you cannot turn out trained gendarmerie in a week.
  *EARL SPENCER: I think there must have been some delay in getting the men trained and at work. At all events, the noble Marquess only gave us a few instances of improvement resulting from

  1349
  the gendarmerie. So far as my memory serves me the number of officers was orignally to be sixty; but I believe the number is only forty-eight. They are not enough to deal with all the difficulties that have to be encountered. I was glad to hear that there has been progress in regard to repatriation, and that Adrianople is to be included in any scheme of reform. That is a very important matter, and it has all along been proposed by those interested in the question. I am not one of those who have advocated isolated action on the part of His Majesty's Government in this matter. What is done must be done by collective action on the part of the great Powers. But, unfortunately, as the noble Earl who raised this discussion and the noble Lord who followed him pointed out, circumstances have considerably changed since Russia and Austria had the mandate from the other Powers to take this matter up. I do not wish to say anything to hurt the feelings of Russia, but we all know that Russia at this moment is not in the same position to effect the reforms as she was when these matters were first dealt with; though whether she would desire to withdraw and have some other Power put in her place is doubtful. I think the noble Marquess a little misunderstood what fell from the right rev. Prelate with regard to the suggested scheme of financial reform. The right rev. Prelate did not object to having a sound system of finance in these provinces. What I understood him to say was, that the first thing necessary in order to restore peace was to establish order and good government, and that no system of finance which could be devised would be of any avail unless it were accompanied by good government. I feel that very strongly; but I agree that the proposals indicated by the noble Marquess are exceedingly interesting and may lead to considerable progress. We have heard the views of the noble Marquess on several occasions. On a former occasion, he actually proposed that a Christian Governor should be appointed to manage these provinces.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: As an alternative.
  *EARL SPENCER: I hope that proposal has not been forgotten, as I cannot help thinking that the appointment of a Christian Governor for these provinces would be one of the most effectual ways of putting an end to the mischief and disorder and unrest which now prevail. The noble Marquess did not explain to us the relations between the gendarmerie and the Turkish military and civil authorities. That is an important matter. At different times we have heard that they are not on good terms, and that the civil and military authorities interfere a great deal with the independent and firm administration of the officers of the gendarmerie put there by the great Powers. As I have said, I should be the last to press for individual separate action on the part of His Majesty's Government, but I do urge vigorously that the great Powers should do everything possible by pressure on Turkey to put an end to a state of things which is so lamentable.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: The noble Marquess said nothing in his speech with reference to the issue of further Papers. I should like to ask him whether, in view of the fact that this Blue-book, which is the last that has been published on this question, is now nearly eight months old, he can see his way to give further Papers on the subject.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I will consider my noble friend's suggestion. I think he is fairly entitled to ask for more Papers, and I will see what Papers can be presented; but it obviously would not be possible to present Papers regarding any matters which are still under consideration between the Powers.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered on Thursday next in order to its being suspended for that day's sitting.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.