Sitting of 5 July 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Great Yarmouth Waterworks and Lowestoft Water and Gas Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Hull and Barnsley Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  London and North Western Railway Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time
  198
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill [Lords]; Folkestone and District Electricity Supply Bill [Lords]; War-boys (Union of Districts) Drainage Bill [Lords]; West Yorkshire Tramways Bill [Lords]; Cumberland Electricity and Power Gas Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Glamorgan and South Wales Water Bill [Lords]. Reported with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Dover Corporation Bill [Lords]. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the third time.
  Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 7).
  Mr. OSMOND WILLIAMS reported from the Committee on Group 7 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; from Barnet (two); Grosmont; Leiston cum Sizewell; Monken Hadley; and, Ugley; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Wakefield, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Brinsley; Caddington; Hucknall under Huthwaite; Sutton in Ashfield; and South Croydon: to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow (two), in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES TAXATION, ETC. (SCOT- LAND) BILL.
  Petition from Eaglesham, against; to lie upon the Table.
  POISIONS AND PHARMACY BILL [LORDS].
  Petitions for alteration; from Blaydon on Tyne; Chester le Street; Dover; and, Everton; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PURCHASE INSPECTORS (IRELAND).
  Return [presented 3rd July] to be printed. [No. 237.]
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Copy presented, of Note explaining the Repeal Schedule [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND REGISTRY.
  Account presented of receipts and I payments in respect of the Land Registry for the year ended March 31st, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be I printed. [No. 238.]
  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND COURT OF APPEAL, ETC.
  Copy presented of Account showing the Receipts and Expenditure in respect of the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal during the year ended March 31st, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 239.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders
  200
  (No. 2) Bill, Metropolitan District Railway Bill, without Amendment.
  Epsom and Ewell Gas Bill, Waterford Corporation and Bridge Bill, with. Amendments.
  Amendments to—Hull and Barnsley and Great Central Railway Companies. Bill [Lords], Trent Navigation Company Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  Worcester Election. That they acquaint this House that His Majesty has appointed To-morrow, at Three of the clock, to receive the Address of both Houses of Parliament on the Election for the city of Worcester, and that they have appointed the Lord Steward and the Gentleman-at-Arms to present the said Address on the part of their Lordships; and that they do desire this House to appoint a proportionate number of its members to present the said Address with their Lordships.

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL.
  Lords Amendment to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 297.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Local Authorities and Teachers' Salaries.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Board of Education authorises the practice that teachers in schools cannot receive payment of salary until copies of agreement forms have been completed by them with the county education authorities; and, if so, whether, in view of the effect of this rule, he proposes to take any action in She matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have no information that any such practice exists. The Board of Education do not intervene is to the arrangements made by local education authorities for the payment of teachers' salaries. The only point in which that Board are concerned in this connection is to secure that every teacher is employed under a written agreement, or, n the case of council schools, under a minute of the local authority. It would

  201
  not be desirable to waive this requirement, and I think that no difficulties need arise out of it in practice which cannot be satisfactorily met.

  Money Orders—System of Payment.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that when a person sends any small sum of money from Great Britain to Germany through the Post Office the money is taken to the residence of the person to whom it is addressed, but in the case of money sent from Germany or elsewhere to this country the receiver of the money order has to go to the post office for the money; whether he will introduce the German system into this country, in view of the convenience that would result in case of telegraph money orders if the money was taken to the residence of the addressee, as is the practice in every foreign country, and of the saving of time and protection that would be afforded if the money with the 10,000,000 money orders annually issued in this country were brought to the people's residences rather than 10,000,000 persons should have to go to the post offices for the money, and of the saving of time involved in one person delivering the money with 200 money orders than that of 200 persons going to the post office in a town for the money.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The system of money orders payable at the residences of the addressees, which the hon. Member describes as the German system, has some advantages and many drawbacks. It has frequently been considered and rejected as less advantageous on the whole in this country than the present system. But I cannot accept my hon. friend's assumptions nor his figures. For instance, half of the ten millions of money orders which he mentions are paid through banks, so that it is not the case that ten million persons have to go to the post office to cash ten million orders.

  Post Office Savings Bank.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Post Office Savings Bank refuses to take sixpences on deposit; will he explain why a depositor is allowed to withdraw 19s. 6d., but is not allowed to deposit 12s. 6d. in the savings
  202
  bank; and whether he will give instructions to abolish this anomaly.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.)The refusal of the Post Office Savings Bank to take fractions of a shilling on deposit is based on the provisions of the Post Office Savings Bank Act of 1861, and no change could therefore be made without legislation.

  Lighting and Ventilating Department— Pension System.
  MR. ALDEX: To ask the Secretary to the i Treasury -whether retired employees of the Lighting and Ventilating Department are receiving pensions under a scheme which was formerly in existence: and, if so, would he consider the advisability of restoring this system of pensions in considerate n of long service and good conduct, taking into account the fact that some members of the present staff have been connected with this Government Department for over twenty years, while in one case a workman has been employed for forty-five years.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Pensions were granted to persons appointed before the passing of the Superannuation Act of 1859. Those appointed after that date are employed on a non-pensionable footing, without certificates from the Civil Service Commissioners. They are excluded from pension by the terms of Section 17 of the Superannuation Act of 1859, but gratuities may be granted to them under Section 4 of the Superannuation Act of 1887.

  Vizamgam-Malia Line
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the fact that the reconnaissance of two alternative routes for the construction of the Vizamgam-Malia line has been sanctioned, will he state when the reconnaissances are likely to be completed; and whether either route passes through the territory of the Rao of Cutch.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I regret that. I am unable at present to state when the reconnaissance sanctioned in January last will be completed. One of the routes to be reconnoitred passes

  203
  through the territories of the Rao of Cutch.

  Minutes of Intermediate Board.
  MR.THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when he intends laying upon the Table the minutes of the various meetings of the Intermediate Board, held to discuss the proposals in the Resolution of the House of Commons of May 21st regarding their rules for 1907,† as well as all the correspondence which passed between the Irish Government and the Board on this subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Intermediate Board have been informed of the wish expressed in the House that the minutes mentioned in the Question should be presented to the House, and have been told that the Irish Government are willing that the minutes should be presented, and that, in order to enable them to do so, a copy should be supplied by the board. The reply of the board to this letter and the copy desired are now awaited. As respects the correspondence, the reply of the board to a letter sent to them by the Irish Government last Monday is now expected, and when it has been received I shall be in a better position to state the date at which the correspondence can be presented.

  Russian Government—Shipping Claims.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to report any further progress in the negotiations with the Russian Government with reference to the claim of the crew, the owners of the ships and cargo, which were sunk, and for which no compensation has been made; and whether he is aware that the crew have abandoned all hope of their claim being settled by diplomatic negotiations, and are now taking legal proceedings to enforce a claim against the owners of the respective vessels.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey..) I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by me on the 17th of May
  † See (4) Debates, clvii., 1072.
  204
  last respecting the British shipping claims. ‡ Since that date, the Russian Government have refused to entertain a claim put forward on behalf of the crew of the "Allanton," on the ground that the Supreme Court decided that the seizure and detention of that vessel was regular and that they were unaware of any grounds either in Russian or International Law on which such claims could be maintained. His Majesty's Government are still in communication with the Russian Government in regard to the cases of the " Knight Commander," " Malacca," and " Calchas." I am not in possession of any precise information as to the position of the legal proceedings referred to in the Question.

  Light Railways Act, 1896—Advances.
  MR. THORNTON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the aggregate of the sums advanced by the Treasury up to the present time under Section 4 of the Light Railways Act, 1896, and of special advances under Section 5 of that Act; whether there are any outstanding payments still to be made under either section: and whether it is the intention of the Government to institute any inquiry into the working of the Act by means of a departmental or other committee.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Under Section 4 of the Light Railways Act, 1896, £13,500 has been advanced up to the present time, and farther loans amounting to £35,000 have been conditionally agreed to. Under Section 5, special advances have been conditionally agreed to amounting to £212,495, of which £139,128 has been actually advanced, leaving £73,367 outstanding. My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade informs me that he sees no reason for the appointment of a Committee as suggested.

  District Railway.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the District Railway have for many hours of the day reduced the number of carriages making up a train to four, and in many cases three, and that
  ‡ See (4) Debates, clviii., 643.

  205
  as a result much overcrowding and inconvenience is occasioned to travellers, not unattended with danger; and whether he will consider the advisability of making representations to the company on the subject, and, if necessary, framing regulations which shall prevent a continuance of the practice complained of.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Complaint has been made to the Board of Trade that the Metropolitan District Railway Company have reduced the number of carriages making up certain of their trains, and I have been in communication with the railway company on the subject. The company now inform me that the frequent services of seven-car trains, which were at first provided after the introduction of electric traction upon their line in 1905, wore found to be in excess of public requirements, and have consequently been curtailed from time to time. The company add that they still have these services under careful observation, and are of opinion that the trains at present run meet the requirements of their passengers. If the hon. Member will furnish specific instances of habitual over-crowding of these shortened trains, further inquiry shall be made, but the Board of Trade have no powers which would enable them to frame regulations of the nature suggested.

  Education Bill—Position of Schools.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether schools recognised under Clause 38, Part 5, of the Education Bill, 1906, as elementary schools being part of or held in the premises of an institution in which children are boarded, will be considered as exempt from the provisions of Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill; and will such schools with the sanction of the local education authority, receiving aid from the Parliamentary grant but not from the rates, be allowed to. control their own management, including the appointment of teachers and all questions of finance, as they do now under Clause 15 of the Education Act, 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool in regard to these
  206
  points, and I mast decline to forestall by Question and Answer discussion upon points that may be raised in Committee in respect of later clauses of the Bill.

  Education Bill—Position of Teachers.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Board of Education will, under Article 15 of the Code, decline to rocognise a teacher who enters into an agreement with a local authority to give religions instruction as part of the staff of a school or of a department of a school.
  SIR. FREDERICK BANBURY: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether a requirement to give religious instruction is a duty connected with the work of a public elementary school within the meaning of Article 15 of the Code.
  SIR. FREDERICK BANBURY: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether a requirement to give religious instruction embodied in an agreement between a teacher and a local education authority will fall under Article 15 of the Code.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I must remind the hon. Baronet that articles in the Code may be modified if it should seem expedient or necessary, in view of any particular provisions in the Law which differ from those which the present Code may have designed to meet. Hence I cannot, at this stage, undertake to say in what way any article in the present Code will operate under any new conditions that may be brought about by the new Bill.

  Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 1855.
  MR.. JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of any correspondence that has taken place between the superintendent registrar of deaths in the Naas union district and the Under-Secretary for Ireland and the Registrar-General for Ireland, on the subject of the furnishing of Annual Returns of the deaths of adults with reference to the carrying into effect of the provisions of Section 16 of the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act

  207
  of 1855, and if he will state how under the circumstances stated in the superintendent registrar's letter of the 15th instant, addressed to the Under-Secretary for Ireland, superintendent registrars are to comply with the law; and whether the Government would consider the propriety of making provision for the payment of remuneration to superintendent registrars for preparing the Returns, and allowing for any out-of pocket expenses incurred in attending at the several registration stations for this purpose, there being no obligation on them to attend at any other place than their offices.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Government are aware of the official correspondence referred to. It is established that a local registrar is not bound to attend at the office of the superintendent registrar to enable the latter to extract from the registers the information required to carry into effect the enactment quoted. It is also the fact that there is no section of the Births and Deaths Registration Acts, nor any regulations made by the Registrar-General, obliging the superintendent registrar to attend at any place other than his office. It is evident, however, that the superintendent registrar, though he may not be specifically directed to do so, must, in order to comply with the Registration (Ireland) Rules, attend at the registrar's offices to get the necessary information to enable him to prepare the Death Returns. Upon the subject of remuneration, I beg to refer to my reply to the Question of the hon. Member for South Down on June 21st. There is no power to authorise the payment of' remuneration.

  Irish Railways Inquiry.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the gentlemen who are to serve on the committee of inquiry respecting Irish railways have been already nominated; and whether Parliament will be afforded an opportunity of selecting or approving of this committee.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the proposed terms of reference to guide the committee in the inquiry on
  208
  Irish railways will be submitted to the House previous to its adoption.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Government are considering the names of gentlemen to be asked to hold this inquiry, and the terms of reference are also under consideration. An announcement on both points will be made in due course, but I do not know of any precedent for inviting a discussion in this House upon either the names or the terms of reference.

  Congested Districts Board and Baslickane Farm, County Kerry.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, can he state what the Congested Districts Board intend to do with the untenanted land of Baslickane farm, on the Butler estate, at Waterville, county Kerry; is the Board aware of the loss sustained by the caretakers in the farm since its purchase by the Board, and, if not. will they inquire into these cases with a view to remedying this loss; and will the Board consider the applications for allotments at an early date.
  (Answered, by Mr. Brine.) The Congested Districts Board intend to utilise the Baslickano farm for the migration of a few tenants from the Burns-Hartopp estate, which adjoins the Butler estate, and for the enlargement of adjacent small holdings on both estates. The Board are not aware that the caretakers have sustained any loss since the Board arranged to purchase the Butler estate, which is not yet vested in them. The Board do not intend to give any of the land to any person except landholders on the Butler and Burns-Hartopp estates, and they are not prepared to consider applications for allotments from any other persons.

  Intermediate Board and House of Commons.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what proceedings he-intends to take in order to compel the Intermediate Board of Education in Ireland to obey the resolution unanimously passed by the House of Commons; and whether he intends to allow a nominated board which defies Parliament to remain in its present unconstitutional non-elected irresponsible position.

  209
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I cannot at present state what action the Irish Government will take in this matter, but I do not understand from the letter recently received from the Board that they now entertain the intention attributed to them in the Question. The reply from the Intermediate Board to a letter addressed to them some days ago is at present awaited by the Irish Government.

  Foyle and Bann Fisheries.
  MR. ODOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware of the action of the conservators of the Foyle and Bann fisheries, in attempting to deprive the deep sea fishermen of their rights in the pursuit of their calling by endeavouring to prohibit the ordinary use of drift nets in the open sea and imposing various other restrictions; and whether he will take any steps in the matter to protect the fishermen from such treatment.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The question of the use of drift nets for the capture of almon off the coasts of the Ballyshannon, Letterkenny, Londonderry, and Coleraine fishery districts formed the subject of j inquiries recently held by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction at eight different places in the locality. A decision in the matter has not yet been arrived at.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  9th Queen's Royal Lancers.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the 9th Queen's Royal Lancers are under orders to proceed from India to South Africa in the Autumn; that this regiment has already served for three years in South Africa; and whether, seeing that there is at the present time in India at least one cavalry regiment which has never been stationed in South Africa, he will say whether there is any precedent for a regiment being sent to that country both at the commencement and again at the conclusion of its tour of foreign service.
  SIR CARNE RASH: Is it not the fact that the foreign service of a regiment is quite irrespective of the place it happens to be quartered?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): We endeavour as far as possible to make it fall conveniently. The raising of the cavalry garrison in South Africa in 1904 from two regiments to four necessitated the formation of a new roster. The 9th Lancers are going from India to South Africa in the ordinary course, as they are at the top of that roster. One cavalry regiment will, under the present arrangement, go every year from India to South Africa, so that every regiment now in India will go in time to South Africa. There is no precedent for the exceptional position in which the 9th Lancers are placed in consequence of circumstances not likely to again occur. They were stationed in South Africa in 1896 on account of the increase of the garrison in that country.
  SIR. W. EVANS-GORDONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could say how long the 9th Lancers would be in South Africa this time.
  MR. HALDANE: I should not like to pledge myself to an Answer now. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.

  Cairo Barracks.
  SIR. CARNE RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the cavalry regiment recently ordered out to Cairo found on i its arrival there that the cavalry barracks were in the possession of an infantry regiment, thus necessitating the occupation of the vacant infantry barracks by i the cavalry regiment and the separation of the officers and men from their horses, to the discomfort and inconvenience of the regiment; and whether he will take such steps as will ensure that the cavalry regiment in question shall have the 'use of its own quarters at as early a date as possible.
  MR. HALDANE: The General Officer Commanding is responsible for the distribution of the troops in the various barracks in his command. Inquiries on the point will be made.

  Chinese Coolies in South Africa—The Repatriation Proclamation.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether His Majesty's Government propose to set any, and, if so, what limitation of time or number on the further importation of Chinese coolies into the Transvaal.
  MR. VERNEY: I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a time limit will at once be fixed beyond which no more Chinese coolies should be imported into South Africa, whether under contracts already entered into or otherwise; and, if so, whether the Government will immediately telegraph to Lord Selborne the date so fixed, with orders to notify it to every one concerned.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): My hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Abercromby division has given me private notice of a Question on the subject of the issue of a new proclamation, and it will, I think, be convenient if I answer the Question of my hon. friend and other Questions on the same subject at the same time. In order to remove all possible doubt or suspicion as to the intentions of His Majesty's Government from the minds of the Chinese coolies and others, the Secretary of State has given instructions for the issue and posting of an amended proclamation which I will shortly lay upon the Table of the House. All minatory and hortatory sentences contained in the original proclamation will be omitted. And for the following words:—" If circumstances appear to me to warrant it, I will take note of and register the application, but the applicant will thereafter have to make an honest effort by working on his mine to earn a contribution towards his expenses. Of such honest efforts I will constitute myself the judge and should any fail in this respect his application will be cancelled. On receipt of the applications from the various mines I will carefully weigh each individual case and decide which of them are deserving of the generous consideration of the Government and entitled to this favoured treatment " will be substituted the following:—
  212
  " I will take note of and register the application. It will then be your duty if required to work on your mine faithfully and honestly for one month. If at the end of this period you are still of the same mind and will contribute half of the wages earned in that month towards your travelling expenses, I will arrange for your return to China without unnecessary delay." Further, upon the question of a time limit, in view of the evident public advantage to be gained by the certain and total arrest of all importations of coolies under outstanding licences before the establishment of a Transvaal representative Assembly the Secretary of State will now name the 30th day of November as a date after which His Majesty's Consular representatives in China may be instructed to resume the functions now delegated by them to the representatives of the Labour Importation Agency in respect of recruiting, and to discontinue the issue of all licences to recruit.

  Indentured Chinese in the Transvaal.
  SIR. CARNE RASCH: I beg to ask the Lender-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the approximate number of indentured Chinese in the Transvaal when the Government took office; what are the numbers now: and how many have been repatriated.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The numbers on December 20th, 1905, wore 47,241; and before the appointment of His Majesty's present advisers, licences to import a further 14,700 had already been issued and were outstanding. Of these licences about 7,000 have been worked off up to the present time. The coolie population would therefore have been increased about 54,000 as the result of the policy of the late Government. But Lord Selborne has repatriated under various clauses of the Ordinance above 2,000 coolies; and the total number of Chinese upon the Rand on May 31st, which is our latest figure, was 50,974.
  SIR CARNERASCH: How many have been repatriated?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have said about 2,000.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: Do these include the sick and dead?
  MR. CHURCHILL: They include those who had been repatriated through sickness or misconduct, but certainly not deceased coolies sent hack in accordance with the custom of their country.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEYasked how many coolies out of the 2,000 had been repatriated under the most recent proclamation.
  MR. CHURCHILL: As far as I am aware, up to date fifty-four have applied. [OPPOSITION cries of " Applied?"]—Yes, they have gone.

  Coolie Desertions.
  MR. MACKAKNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the number of Chinese coolies who deserted from the gold mines in the Transvaal during the months of March, April, and May respectively.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have only the returns for March and April; that for May has not yet arrived. The total number of convictions for the three offences—absence without permit, desertion, and unlawful absence—were in March 1,169, and in April 821.

  African Forests.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government has under consideration the propriety of restricting the wholesale felling of forests in order to facilitate the shifting and temporary cultivation practised by the natives in British Central Africa, whereby, in part, at any rate, the drying up of Lake Nyassa and the Shire River have resulted to the detriment of trade, cultivation, and navigation, and whether he will arrange that privileges accorded to the original inhabitants in respect of clearing forest land shall not be given to immigrants from neighbouring Portuguese territory.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The question of forest conservation in British Central Africa is engaging the attention of the local authorities and the Secretary of State with a view of preserving the forests from improvident treatment by settlers of whatever nationality.

  The Disturbances in Natal.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state how many natives have been killed since the beginning of the military operations now being carried on against them by the Natal authorities; what proportion the wounded bear to the killed; and how many of the white forces in the field have been killed and wounded during the same period.
  MR. CHURCHILL: From the information in the Colonial Office, it would appear that twelve white men have been killed and thirty wounded since the beginning of May. No trustworthy accounts of native losses are available, and I would recommend the House to receive, with considerable reserve, statements of native casualties, admittedly based upon " estimates " which are almost invariably much exaggerated by the victors in any action. I cannot therefore attempt to state the proportion between native and British losses; but of course the number of the native killed and wounded greatly exceeds that of the white troops, who are armed with modern weapons and compelled to fire at close' quarters with these weapons upon charging masses of spearmen. The native wounded are taken from the field to the neighbouring kraals, with which the country is thickly studded, and are there tended by their own people. I do not know what is the proportion of wounded to killed; but it would certainly not be less than half-and-half.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked whether the hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the description of some of these engagements as a drive, and what did that mean. Were these natives hunted down like the beasts of the field?
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether there was any truth in the report that native levies who accompanied the Natal troops despatched the wounded after the engagement.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he certainly did not think there was any truth in an implication of the nature conveyed in the last Question. As to the significance of the word " drive," he should have thought it was an operation that had been made

  215
  tolerably familiar, unfortunately, in recent years.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid he had only heard the word in connection with grouse.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLIn fact it is merely a technical expression.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House particulars of the fighting in Natal, near Noodsberg, on Sunday last; the extent of the carnage; and especially the respective casualties of the white and black contending forces.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The following telegram has been received from the Governor:— " 2nd July, No. 7. Barker's Transvaal Mounted Rifles, moving from Dalton to Isidembeni Mission to take part in to-morrow's operations were attacked by Mhlubi and Xakwana's tribes, 1,500 strong, who advanced to close quarters. Rebels repulsed and pursued down Insuzi Valley. Their loss estimated at 600. Our loss trooper Knight killed, troopers Simcox and Tobin wounded."
  MR. BYLESsaid there had been very severe fighting since Sunday, and asked whether the hon. Gentleman had any information as to that. It was reported that the rebels fought half-heartedly, and retired eventually before terrific rifle and Maxim firing. Was that what Englishmen considered fair fighting?
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he had received another telegram to the following effect: — "Governor Sir H. E. McCallum to the Earl of Elgin. (Received Colonial Office, 11 p.m., July 4, 1906.) July 4, No. 2. —Major Campbell, Durban Light Infantry, escorting convoy 22 wagons Bond's Drift to Thring's Post with detachments j of Durban Light Infantry, Northern District Mounted Rifles, Zululand Mounted Rifles, 140 strong in all, attacked in the evening of July 1st Macrae's Store by impi 500 strong Gobizembi's and Nhlovus tribes; rebels charged three times but repulsed with steady fire. Laager formed escort, stood to arms all night. On following morning 40 rebels found dead; two wounded, who were attended to and left on field when convoy
  216
  again set out for Thring's Post, which was reached July 3rd. Trooper Coll, Zululand Mounted Rifles, severely wounded by assegais, since dead. All ranks behaved greatest steadiness."

  The Ceylon Pearl Fisheries
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the negotiations for the concession of the Ceylon pearl fisheries during 1904 and part of 1905 were carried on in strict secrecy by means of confidential correspondence without any reference to the people of Ceylon; whether this method of administering the domestic affairs of the Colony and the granting of such a concession to a private company in this manner are contrary to the usual practice in the Colony of openly inviting tenders after public advertisement; whether, of the fourteen members of the Legislative Council who voted for the Ordinance sanctioning the concession, ten were paid officials, three were representatives of non-permanent European communities, one was a Singhalese official in the pay of the Government; and whether the four members who voted against the Ordinance were the only independent Ceylonese non-officials in the council; and whether, during the confidential negotiations with the late Colonial Secretary for the concession, Sir West Ridgeway acted on behalf of a group of South African financiers and mine owners who held a preponderating position on the syndicate and who have the largest holdings in the new company.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am informed that the communications, being business negotiations, were necessarily confidential, and, in regard to the second part of the Question, that this was not contrary to the usual practice of the Colony. According to the division list, the i majority who voted for the Ordinance consisted of seven officials, the officer commanding the troops, the Kandyan representative, who is, it is understood, one of the native headmen and paid in that capacity, and the three European non-official members. The four who voted against it were the representatives of the Low country Sinhalese, the Tamil, the Burgher, and the Mahommedan communities. I have no knowledge as to the last point referred to by the hon. Member.
  MR. SMEATONasked the Speaker whether he was entitled to ask the late Colonial Secretary to give information on this extraordinary transaction, which was enshrouded in so much mystery?
  MR. SPEAKERruled that that would be out of order.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether, inasmuch as the name of the late Colonial Secretary had been frequently mentioned in connection with this transaction, it would be in order for that right hon. Gentleman to make a personal explanation.
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no question of a personal explanation. What the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, would be called upon to do would be to expound the policy of the late Government, and that, of course, would lead to some debate.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Perhaps the House will allow me to state that I did ask the Speaker whether it was in conformity with the rule of the House that I should make a statement on this matter. Mr. Speaker said that it was not. I confess that, without apportioning any blame to the Under-Secretary, he is not precisely the channel through which I should desire my views to be conveyed to the House of Common. It would be a matter of satisfaction to me, inasmuch as this trans action—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is going to do the very thing I told him he could not do.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid he would not pursue that point, but instead would ask the Prime Minister, as this matter had been conveyed to the House in sporadic Answers to sporadic Questions, and very incompletely, as he thought, whether he would facilitate the discussion of the subject by giving a day.
  SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the only day would be that on which the Colonial Vote was taken.

  British Indians in East Africa
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether
  218
  British Indians enjoy the same rights as European colonists in the East African Protectorate in respect of mining, settling, and acquiring land; whether representations to the contrary have been made to the Colonial Office, and, if so, whether they are still pending; and, if they have been disposed of. whether he will inform the House of the result.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It is contrary to the policy of His Majesty's Government to exclude any class of His Majesty's subjects from mining, settling, and acquiring land in any part of a British Protectorate over which he exerts direct control, but in view of the comparatively limited area in the East African Protectorate suitable for European colonisation, a reasonable discretion is exercised in dealing with applications for land on the part of natives of India and other non-Europeans. It appears from a despatch which has been recently received from the Commissioner of the Protectorate that a meeting was held by the Indian Community in Mombasa for the purpose of urging on the Government that equal rights should be accorded to Indians and Europeans. This led to a public meeting of the European settlers being hold at Nairobi, at which a resolution was passed urging the Imperial Government to reserve for European settlement the only part of the Protectorate suited to Europeans. The resolution has been transmitted by the Colonists' Association to the Secretary of State, who is sending a reply in the sense of the first part of this answer.
  MR. R. DUNCAN: Is the " reasonable discretion " to be such as is sometimes shown by the Under-Secretary?
  MR. REES: Are these British Indians then practically under certain disabilities in this behalf?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not gather so from the answer.

  Religions Services in Malta.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government have sanctioned the action of the Governor of Malta, as set forth in the correspondence recently laid upon the

  219
  Table of the House, in preventing the Rev. John McNeill continuing his religious services at the request of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Malta.
  MR. CHURCHILL: As I stated in reply to another Question on June 13th,† the Governor, as the authority responsible for the peace and good order of Malta, exercised his own discretion in the matter of the religious services referred to by the hon. Member, but I will add that, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the arrangements for preserving the peace and order of Malta should be sufficient to enable all law-abiding persons at all times to perform whatever religious exercises they may choose, irrespective of creed or sect, and instructions have been given with that intention.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTasked whether freedom was to be accorded for all meetings held within doors in future.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he had nothing to add to his Answer.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: The Answer is no answer at all.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I think it is, and that if the hon. Member will study it in the report he will find it made clear even to his comprehension.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Are Protestant meetings to be allowed to be held indoors in future or are they not?
  MR. BELLOCasked whether there was not a definite compact between the people of Malta and the Government of this country to this effect.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he believed that that was not the case, but the British Government had undertaken to respect the religion of the Maltese and not to subvert it, and it was the intention of the Government that there should be equal treatment as between persons of all religious denominations.
  MR. SLOANasked whether representations had been made to the Governor of Malta that the dis
  † See (4) Debates, clviii., 956.
  220
  abilities of Protestants should be removed at once.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I understand that instructions have been given with that intention.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTasked the hon. Gentleman whether he would lay on the Table of the House the communication made to the Governor of Malta.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise to a point of order, Sir. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in answer to a supplementary Question, observed that he believed that his written Answer would be clear even to the intelligence of the hon. Gentleman behind me. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is in accordance with the traditions of this House that that kind of reply should be given by a Minister of the Crown.
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot say that the expression was unparliamentary, although it was certainly provocative and somewhat offensive.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer my Question, whether the communication of the Government to the Governor of Malta will be laid on the Table of the House?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that.

  Public Meetings in Eastern Bengal.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the assurances given that the Government of Eastern Bengal and Assam have withdrawn all restrictions on public meetings and processions imposed by previous orders, other circulars have been promulgated by the local magistrates and district superintendents of police which direct that all persons wishing to hold a public meeting or procession must apply to the police for permission to hold such meeting or procession, and that acting under these orders the police have arrested and retained in custody, until they were released on heavy bail, respectable gentlemen who were attending religious

  221
  processions; and whether he will take measures to ensure that real effect is given to the pledges made in this House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): The licences for processions and meetings are required under the ordinary law, and the instructions of the local government are that such licences are only to be withheld in cases where there would, if they were granted, be serious risk of breaches of the peace. As I stated in reply to a Question on the 27th June, † I will take whatever stops may appear to be necessary to ensure that these instructions are not disregarded.

  Swadeshi Movement.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has boon drawn to the orders passed by the inspector of schools, Dacca Division, in the province of Eastern Bengal and Assam, directing that teachers of schools who are interesting themselves in the Swadeshi movement shall be dismissed, and that the right of holding and competing for Government scholarships shall be permanently withdrawn from schools in which the teachers are so interested; and whether he will take steps to cancel these orders.
  MR. MORLEY: I have at present no information as to the orders stated to have been passed, but I have telegraphed to the Government of India on the subject.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the frequent Government prosecutions which have been, and still are being, instituted in the province of Eastern Bengal and Assam against schoolboys and others in connection with the Swadeshi movement; and whether, as a political measure tending to allay the unrest in that province, he will issue instructions through the Government of India to the local government to refrain from endeavouring to repress the movement by prosecution of this nature.
  Mr. MORLEY: In cases in which the measures adopted by the adherents of the
  † See (4)Debates,clix., 927.
  222
  Swadeshi or any other movement involved serious breaches of the ordinary law, the hon. Member will, I think, agree that the authorities have no alternative but to take cognisance of them; but police interference will be limited to what is strictly necessary.

  Examinations in Indian Languages.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table the amended regulations for examinations in Indian languages recently issued by the Government of India.
  MR. MORLEY: The regulations are hardly of sufficient general interest to warrant their being laid upon the Table, and they are already in the Library. But I shall be glad to provide the hon. Member with a copy of these Regulations.

  Eastern Bengal Legislative Council.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is intended to give the planting interest alternate representation only upon the Legislative Council of Eastern Bengal and Assam; and whether, in that case, he will, in view of the magnitude of the interests involved and of the benefits accruing to the province from the cultivation of tea, provide for the continuous representation of the industry.
  MR. MORLEY: I have no official information as to the intentions of the Lieutenant-Governor in this matter. The regulations under which the Legislative Council will be constituted do not preclude the continuous representation of the planting interest, and I have no doubt that that interest will receive the fullest representation which is consistent, with a due regard for other claims.

  Partition of Bengal.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a public manifesto put forward by the leaders of public opinion in both provinces of Bengal, including seven gentlemen who have been or now are representative members of the Legislative Council, giving expression to the feeling of unrest which is prevailing in those provinces, due to the partition of Bengal, and to the measures

  223
  which have been adopted to stamp out popular opposition to the partition and to suppress the Swadeshi movement; and whether he will give his consideration to the views expressed therein and take steps to remedy the grievances complained of.
  MR. MORLEY: I have seen the manifesto referred to. As I have already stated in this House, His Majesty's Government regard the partition of Bengal as a settled fact; but it is my wish to deal in a spirit of full consideration with all questions arising out of it. I shall be glad in the future, as I have been in the past, to take any possible steps for the removal of legitimate causes of complaint.

  Tibet.
  EARL PERCY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has refused permission to the eminent Swedish traveller, Dr. Sven Hedin, who is now in India, to enter Tibet; if so, upon what grounds this refusal has bee a based; whether it is in accordance with the advice of the Government of India; and whether he will consider the advisability, in the interests of friendly relations with the Tibetan Government and people, of encouraging, subject to their consent, the occasional visits of well-qualified travellers to a country enjoying Treaty relations with the British Government.
  MR. MORLEY: Dr. Sven Hedin has been refused permission to enter Tibet from British territory. It had been decided for reasons of policy that not even British parties could be allowed to explore Tibet; and what had been refused to British subjects could not be conceded to foreigners. It is true that the Government of India were in favour of encouraging the exploration of Tibet by qualified travellers. His Majesty's Government after full consideration decided otherwise, as they considered it advisable that Tibet should continue in that state of " isolation," the maintenance of which was stated by Mr. Brodrick in his despatch of December 2nd, 1904, to have been one of the main objects of His Majesty's late Government in their dealings with Tibet. A subsidiary reason was that there was no ground for thinking that the Tibetan Government—whose consent to explora-
  224
  tions is recognised by the noble Earl to be necessary—would be more disposed to grant passports now than they were in the summer of 1905, when they refused a request for one. I should add that the decision of His Majesty's Government in no way affects the right of access to the trade marts secured by the Lhasa Convention. I should also like to express the regret with which I was compelled recently to refuse applications from the Royal Geographical Society and the Royal Scottish Geographical Society for assistance in the work of exploring Tibet. The claims of scientific explorers obviously stand on a different footing from those of persons who wish to visit Tibet for amusement. Still, even geography must wait upon the requirements of political convenience.
  EARL PERCY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be inconsistent with his desire to maintain the isolation of Tibet that the policy which he has announced to the House should, at all events, be modified in the case, not only of British subjects, but also of foreigners, where there is clear evidence that the Tibetan people have no objection whatever to their entrance to the country?
  MR. MORLEY: If the noble Lord can establish his proposition that there is clear evidence that the Tibetans do not object, I shall be very glad to receive it: and if I do receive it, I will urge His Majesty's Government to change their policy.
  MR. FLYNNasked whether China, as the suzerain Power, alone had the right to give or refuse entrance to Tibet.
  MR. MORLEY: I do not think I can answer that question.

  H. J. Penson, Indian Remount Department.
  MR. SEARS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that H. J. Penson, late Sub-conductor of the Remount Department, was instructed by the India Office on November 29th, 1900, to apply through his late superior officer in India for an official certificate of service and character on his retirement; that although application was made, no certificate has been received, and it is now stated

  225
  that such certificates are not issued; is he aware that when Penson applied to the War Office for employment he received a letter dated January 3rd, 1906, asking for his certificate of retirement; that he has been refused civil employment for want of such certificate; and will he make inquiries with a view to such certificate being issued without farther delay.
  MR. MORLEY: As the hon. Member was informed on June 11th last, †" parchment " certificates of discharge are not issued to warrant officers of Indian Army Departments. I will ask the Government of India to obtain a certificate of service and character for pensioned Sun-conductor Penson from his late commanding officer in India.

  Abyssinian Railway.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any preliminary agreement between Franco and Great Britain as to the Abyssinian Railway, has been reached; and, if so, whether the consent of the Emperor of Ethiopia has been obtained, or is expected.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): Negotiations on the subject are still proceeding, and I am unable at present to make any statement on the subject.

  The Denshawi Affray.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Egyptian Ministry of the Interior, acting under the advice of Mr. Machell, issued an official report of the facts of the Denshawi affray case, as presented by the Government at the trial, a week or some days before such trial took place; if so, whether, in view of the effect of such publication upon the public mind in Egypt and in England, and in view of the possibility of prejudicing the Court before which the trial was held, he will explain why this course was adopted; whether the trial was held under the special Khedivial Decree of 1895 and the Court duly constituted in accordance with such decree, and all the members thereof thoroughly familiar
  † See (4)Debates, clviii., 696.
  226
  with the Arabic tongue, both written and spoken, and duly qualified in criminal law: whether, under the Egyptian native penal code, flogging is permitted for any offence whatever, and if he will state whether such flogging is permitted under the Decree of 1895; whether there was any preliminary investigation, and, if so, whether the prisoners, or any of them, were represented thereat by counsel, and whether such investigation was held in public or in private, and whether at the preliminary investigation, if any, and at the trial, counsel for the prisoners were permitted to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution, or whether all questions were put to the witnesses by the President of the Court.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether flogging is permitted by the penal code of Egypt; and, if so, by what article of the code, and as a punishment for what offences.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: In view of the very incorrect reports which were being circulated in the Press, a preliminary statement of the facts, so far as they were then known, was given to the Press by the Ministry of the Interior on June 17th. The trial was held under the Khedivial Decree of 1895, and the Court was duly constituted in accordance with that Decree. The English Members of the Court were specially chosen on account of their knowledge of Arabic, and all except the military member, who was specially selected for his knowledge of Arabic and his experience of such matters, were technically as well as thoroughly qualified in criminal lair. Flogging is no longer allowed under the ordinary criminal law, and no stipulation as to the character of the punishment to be inflicted is laid down in the Decree of 1895. The Decree of 1895 lays down that a preliminary investigation shall take place, on the termination of which the case shall be brought publicly before the Court. I have no official information as to the other points mentioned in the Question, but they will be dealt with in the full Report which has been asked for. I should like to add, as Captain Machell's name is mentioned in this Question and was mentioned the other day, that, while any responsibility that Captain Machell had in the matter cannot be pronounced upon

  227
  until the full Report has been received, I have asked Lord Cromer about him, and I am told by him that there is probably no European in Egypt who is more popular I with Egyptians and whose character stands higher.
  MR. PAULasked when his right hon. friend expected to receive the despatch for which he had asked.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: A full Report of the judgment is on its way, and a full Report, I imagine also, of the execution of the sentences. The evidence, which I also promised, extends to 200 pages of Arabic, which have to be translated, and obviously I cannot expect to have that as early as the other Reports.
  MR. DILLONasked, inasmuch as the Decree of 1895 did not specifically mention the right of the special tribunal to give punishments not possible under the ordinary law of Egypt, on what principle the special tribunal acted?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Decree, if I remember aright—I can give the quotation later on if necessary—gives the Court full discretion as to the punishments to be inflicted.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked whether, with the other Papers, the right hon. Gentleman would include a translation of the Khedivial Decree of 1895?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Yes, Sir, there will be no difficulty about doing that.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Denshawi trials and executions were not arranged for under the direction of Lord Cromer; whether Lord Cromer has not been in England for some days; and, if so, why it is necessary to send to Egypt for detailed information on these matters.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Lord Cromer had left Egypt before the special tribunal had concluded their investigations. In any case, the arrangements connected with the trial and the executions of the sentences were primarily under the authority of the Egyptian Government,
  228
  and not under that of His Majesty's Representative in Egypt.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an appeal to the Court of Native Appeal from the judgment of the special tribunal was not allowed in the Mombasa case in July, 1900; and who was responsible for the non-allowance of an appeal in the Denshawi case.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: In the case of the assault on two British officers at Montazah, in July, 1900, proceedings were instituted against the two principal offenders before the ordinary tribunals, and not before the special tribunal as in the present case. Article 4 of the Khedivial Decree of 1895, lays down that there shall be no appeal from the judgment pronounced by the special tribunal.

  Law of Trespass in Egypt.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the outcome of the promise made by Lord Cromer in 1901, after the fracas near Cairo between British officers and the watchmen of Mr. Wilfrid Blunt, that he would consult the legal advisers of the Egyptian Government as to the suggested strengthening of the law of trespass in Egypt, so as to protect native cultivators from injury at the hands of Europeans; and whether anything has been done in the premises.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Lord Cromer consulted the legal advisers to the Egyptian Government on his return to Cairo in 1901, and they were of opinion that no change in the law was necessary or practicable. Nor is there reason to believe that cases of trespass by Europeans are more common than cases of trespass by natives.

  British Fleets in Russian Ports.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Russian people are interpreting the meaning of the proposed visit of British warships to Russian ports to be that the British Government sympathises with the methods adopted by the Russian authorities for the suppression of the reform movement; and. whether, under these circumstances, he

  229
  will intervene to stop the visit from taking place.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: If an impression exists in the minds of any section of the Russians that the visit of the Fleet is to be regarded as having any reference to internal affairs in Russia, it is quite incorrect; and if it is desired that the Answers hitherto given should be amplified, I will do so in debate.

  Slavery on the West Coast of Africa.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to allegations of slavery carried on in the islands of St. Thomé and Principé, on the West Coast of Africa; and what steps he purposes to take to direct the attention of the Portuguese Government to the alleged practices.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The attention of the Portuguese Government has from time to time been called to the conditions under which labour is obtained for the islands of St. Thomé and Principé. Mr. Nightingale, His Majesty's Consul for the Congo, recently paid a visit to the islands referred to for the purpose of enquiring into the matter, and a Report from him on the subject is expected shortly.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will the Report be laid on the Table of the House?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I must see it before I can decide that.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to allegations that slave trade is carried on in the cocoa plantations in the islands of St. Thomé and Principé, under the dominion of the Portuguese Government; is he aware that the produce of these islands is chiefly cocoa, which is almost entirely purchased by British merchants; and what steps does he propose taking in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): Cocoa is no doubt one of the principal products of the islands, and is largely purchased by British
  230
  merchants. I do not see that any steps can be taken respecting purchases of cocoa by British merchants.

  Metropolitan Police Sunday Duty.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would be prepared to allow members of the Metropolitan Police Force the privilege which the members of the City Police enjoy, of performing their Sunday duties in one tour; and whether he would grant constables of the Metroplitan Police Force the same amount of annual leave as London postmen get, namely, fourteen days.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): The conditions on Sunday in the inner portions of the Metropolitan Police District are widely different from those prevailing in the City, and after consultation with the Commissioner of Police I am satisfied that it would not be desirable in the public interest to arrange for the performance of duty in a single tour of eight hours. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I fear I can add nothing to the reply which I gave on May 14th last to the hon. Member for North Lambeth † and to my remarks in the debate on the Metropolitan Police Estimates on June 7th. ‡

  Private Burying Grounds.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any official record of the number of private burying grounds attached to monastic and conventual institutions; and whether he can state the conditions on which permission to use such private burying grounds is granted.
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is not, to my knowledge, any such record, nor am I aware that any permission to use such grounds is required except in the case of a proposed new ground in a place where, in pursuance of the Burial Acts and Orders in Council thereunder for the protection of the public health, no new burial ground may be opened without
  †See (4)Debates, clvii., 181.
  ‡ See (4)Debates,clviii., 601, 603.

  231
  the approval of the Local Government Board.
  MR. SLOAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it right and proper that no official record should be kept of these places?
  MR. GLADSTONEwas understood to to reply that he had not considered that point.
  MR. CORBETT: Has any one a right to use a private burial ground without special leave?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is a matter which is regulated by Act of Parliament.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say more?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid he would make further inquiry if the hon. Member would tell him exactly what he wanted.
  MR. FLAVIN: We will furnish the hon. Member with a burying ground if that is what he wants.

  Sweated Industries.
  MR. J. W. TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the provisions of the Factory Act, 1901, Section 116, relating to particulars of work and wages, have already been applied to only about half of the forty odd home industries actually demonstrated at the recent sweating exhibition, held at Queen's Hall; and whether he will favourably consider the question of extending the protection of this section to all outworkers.
  MR. GLADSTONE: A very large proportion of outworkers have been brought within the scope of the particular section; but I am aware that a number of small industries are still outside, and inquiries with regard to many of these, including some represented at the exhibition, have been in progress and are nearly completed. As soon as the Reports of these inquiries are received, the question of extending the section to the industries in question will be considered.

  Ecclesiastical Discipline.
  MR. PAUL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has observed the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners on Ecclesiastical Discipline, that the Houses of Laymen should be consulted; what is the composition of these Houses; and whether they have any legal sanction, authority, or existence.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, sir. There is in each province a House of laymen composed of lay members of the Church of England elected according to a system based upon population in the various dioceses. So far as I am aware, they are voluntary bodies and possess no legal status.
  MR. PAUL: Is not the only body which represents the Church of England as a whole this House?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Royal Commission on London Traffic Report.
  SIR W. EVANS-GORDON: On behalf of my hon. friend the Member for the Hoxton division of Shoreditch, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade why the last volume of the Report of the Royal Commission on London Traffic was in possession of the Press and published in various newspapers last week, and was not on Tuesday available for Members of this House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to Answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. I understood that abstracts of this volume were sent to the Press on the strength of an assurance from the printers that it would be issued last Saturday. The printers unexpectedly failed to carry out this promise, and it was then too late to withdraw the abstracts. The volume consists of diagrams, statistics, and other appendices, and is of course on a different footing to the Report of the Commission. The incident seems to be of little importance.

  Women Agitators.
  MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the sentence of six weeks imprisonment

  233
  by the magistrate at Marylebone on three women for an alleged disturbance in Cavendish Square, and if he is also aware that one of the women is sixty-four years of age and of very respectable character, and if he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir. I am aware of this case, and I have been in communication with the learned magistrate. I find that the three defendants were urged by him to give him an assurance that they would not repeat their conduct, and that on their refusal to do so he ordered them to enter into their recognisances in £50 each to keep the peace for twelve months, and to find a surety each in the same amount. They will only be obliged to go to prison for six weeks if they decline to enter into these recognisances and to find these sureties. Hitherto they have refused, but I am informed that they are well able to do so if they choose. In these circumstances I do not propose to take any action in the matter.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Do not two of the defendants deny that, although they were in the square, they committed any offence?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is not a question for me.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I shall raise the question on the adjournment.

  Salisbury Railway Accident—Drivers and Scheduled Time.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the accident which occurred at Salisbury recently, and seeing that drivers on the London and South Western Railway are punished by reduction in pay and position for failing to keep to the scheduled time of trains, whether he proposes to take any steps, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent the continuance of this practice.
  THE PRESIDENT OP THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I am informed by the railway company in question that engine drivers who are found not to run their trains in accordance with schedule times are removed to other trains and that this
  234
  may sometimes involve reduction of pay. The company state that such cases are rare, and that men are so removed only when they are found incompetent for the post to which they have been assigned, I and unable to maintain the time which is easily kept by other drivers It is added that drivers who improperly run faster than schedule time are similarly dealt with. Pending receipt of the Report of the inspector appointed to inquire into the Salisbury accident, I am not in a position to say what steps, if any, are desirable on the part of the Board of Trade.
  MR. WARDLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the state of mind of a driver must be if he is fined both for not keeping time and for attempting to make it up?
  MR. SPEAKER: the right hon. Gentleman can have no knowledge of that.

  Birmingham Railway Fatality.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the death of Mr. Thomas Yardley at Vauxhall Station, London and North Western, Birmingham, by accident on June 26th, and to the verdict of the jury that proper provision was not made by the company's officials to protect Yardley's life, the rules laid down by the company having been infringed; and, if so, will he say what he proposes to do in the matter.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, Sir. The Board of Trade have received a report of the fatal accident in question, and also a copy of the verdict and rider of the coroner's jury. I am ordering an inquiry into the circumstances of the accident to be held on behalf of the Board.

  Seamen's Wages.
  MR. L. HASLAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the fact that, under The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the act of desertion on the part of a seaman renders him liable to the forfeiture of the whole of his accumulated wages, however large the amount may be, and also to the forfeiture of all the other effects he has left on board ship, will he state what

  235
  becomes of the money thus forfeited, and how much of it, if any, was paid into the national Exchequer during 1905; and will he introduce an Amendment into the Merchant Shipping Bill now before the House by which the amount of wages to be forfeited for desertion may be limited in amount.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Under the present law (which, as my hon. friend is aware, it is proposed to amend by the Bill now before this House), the wages earned by a seaman up to the date of his desertion are usually retained by the master on behalf of the owner, but in eases whore a court is appealed to either on behalf of a seaman or an owner, it rests with the court to decide what amount shall be re-imbursed to the owners for the expenses caused by the desertion, and the balance is paid into the Exchequer. I regret that I am not able without further notice to state what amount was so paid into the Exchequer during 1905, but I have no doubt that it was only a small sum. With regard to the Amendment to the Merchant Shipping Bill suggested by my hon. friend, I doubt the advisability of limiting the amount of wages which can be forfeited for desertion, as such a limit would tend to weaken the inducements which a seaman has to stay by his vessel.
  MR D. A. THOMAS: When will the Report stage of the Bill be taken?
  MR LLOYD-GEORGE: I should prefer that that Question be addressed to the Leader of the House.

  " Banking " Trains.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the practice of banking passengers and other trains up inclines on the London and North Western and Midland Railways, without either the engine in the rear being coupled to the train in front or any continuous brake connection being formed; and whether, in view of the possibility of accident to the front engine or train, and with a view to securing safe working, especially at night, he will say what steps he proposes to take, if any, to avoid such risk.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am aware that this method of working trains is adopted at some places on the railways mentioned, and the companies inform me that, after full consideration and long experience, they are of opinion that it is safe and unobjectionable. The inspecting officers of railways agree that where an assistant engine is used with a goods train not fitted with continuous brakes, the necessity for coupling does not arise, and that it is often desirable to place the assistant engine in the rear as a safeguard against a break-away. But their view has been that, in the case of passenger trains, the proper place for the assistant engine is in front of the train and coupled on, the brake connection being made throughout. In practice, however, no accidents have for many years past occurred on the railways in question from the practice adopted by the companies, and I am not at present prepared to take any action in the matter.

  Filial Liabilities.
  MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that in many rural Poor Law districts sons whose weekly wages are 13s. or even less per week are compelled to contribute towards the cost of Poor Law relief to their indigent parents, he will issue recommendations to such Poor Law authorities discouraging such demands; or whether he proposes shortly to introduce legislation, fixing a minimum scale of income below which a son or daughter may not legally be called upon to contribute to parental support.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): Children are only liable to contribute to the maintenance of their parents when, being of sufficient ability to make a contribution, they are required by an order of justices to do so. Any question as to the ability of a son or daughter to contribute is a matter for the justices when application is made to them for an order. I have not received complaints of harshness in the enforcement of the law on this subject, and I am not at present aware of any sufficient ground for taking action of the kind suggested by my hon. friend.

  Glasgow Post Office Revision.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what is the cause of the delay in carrying out at Glasgow the revision of allowances to head postmen recommended in the Tweedmouth Report, dated March, 1897; and, seeing that the matter has been the .subject of official investigation for the last five years, whether a decision will be shortly come to.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): This is not a question of a revision of allowances recommended by the Tweedmouth Report. Applications for increased allowances have been made from time to time, and have been under consideration, and I have made a recommendation to the Treasury which, if approved, will, I hope, settle the matter.

  School Curriculum.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education, with reference to the Code of Regulations for Public Elementary Schools, 1906, Curriculum, Clause 7, whether he can see his way to amend the recommendation that teaching need not be limited to English or British history, and lessons on citizenship may be given with advantage in the higher classes, so as to make the teaching of the duties and responsibilities of citizenship compulsory for all children in the higher standards.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH,): The Article setting out the curriculum for public elementary schools is designed to leave the necessary liberty to local education authorities and managers and teachers for considering the circumstances of individual schools, and the qualifications of individual teachers in framing their plans of lessons. Any rigid obligation to give lessons on citizenship in the higher standards of all schools indiscriminately would hardly be a wise regulation in any code. The reference, in the Article referred to, to lessons on citizenship clearly indicates, I think, that the subject is one which the Board regard as of high educational value. I may add that three suggested schemes for instruction in history to
  238
  scholars in the higher classes will be found in Appendix IV. of the " Suggestions for the Consideration of Teachers; and Others concerned in the Work of Public Elementary Schools," and that lessons on citizenship are provided for in all these three schemes.

  The Education Grant.
  MR. W. HOPE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can state when the regulations for the distribution of the £1,000,000 under Clause 12 of the Education Bill will be issued.
  MR. LOUGH: I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to a Question by the Member for Cambridge University on June 27th † upon this matter, to which I have nothing to add.

  Whitburn Beach.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the attention of the Office of Woods has been called to the state of the beach at Whitburn, near Sunderland, due to the tipping of refuse from several collieries in the locality, such refuse consisting of slate and broken bricks, and spoiling the bench as a pleasure resort; and whether it is their intention to take any action in regard to the matter?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The attention of the Commissioners of Woods had not been previously drawn to the tipping of colliery refuse on the foreshore. I understand that the tipping, which takes place about a mile north of the village of Whitburn, has gone on for many years. No complaint of its having any injurious effect has been received by the Commissioners of Woods. In the absence of any general expression of local feeling I do not propose to take immediate action, but, of course, I shall always be ready to consider any complaints and, if necessary, to require the discontinuance of the practice.

  Parochial Assessments.
  MR. SEARS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will cause inquiry to be made to ascertain the percentage of assessments made by
  † See (4)Debates, clix., 919.

  239
  parochial assessors which the surveyors of taxes, in the time at their disposal, revise and amend before they can be transmitted to the clerks to commissioners; and will he also ascertain the percentage of assessments which have to be amended after issue of notices to pay and before payment is made.
  MR. MCKENNA: Under Sections 51, 52 and 56 of the Taxes Management Act, 1880, it is the duty of a surveyor of taxes to examine every return and every assessment delivered by assessors in the years (every fifth year) in which new property tax and house duty assessments are made. It would hardly be possible, at any rate it would involve enormous labour, to go through the 15,000,000 or thereabouts of assessments and to determine the percentage of corrections made by surveyors. As regards the latter part of the Question, in the last year of a new assessment, 1903–4, the number of assessments, as finally settled, was over 13,000,000, and the percentage of corrections after issue of notices to pay was 1·6 per cent.

  Dog Tax.
  MR. SEARS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the saving in poundage, etc., of £6,500 a year on a revenue of less than £250,000 which the Board of Inland Revenue say, in their twelfth Report, was effected by the transfer of the management of the dog tax from parochial to Government officers, in addition to the increase in the number of dogs brought to charge under the now system, and to a saving of £60,000 a year in poundage, etc., from a further transfer of assessed taxes in 1869; will he cause an inquiry to be made to ascertain whether similar saving would result from the substitution of Government for parochial officers in connection with the taxes still in the hands of such officers.
  MR. MCKENNA: Against the saving of £60,000, there was a substantial set-off by increased cost for the Excise Staff. At the same time, the changes made in 1867 and 1869 were unquestionably of advantage both to efficiency and economy. If they were not carried further, nor any proposal made to carry them further, it may be inferred that it was not considered
  240
  at the time that advantage would result from carrying them further. At any rate, that is the conviction of the present Board and of its advisers at the present time.
  MR. SEARS: Can the hon. Gentleman give the actual amounts of the set-off.
  MR. MCKENNA: I cannot.

  Trial by Jury.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether, having regard to the frequent disagreement of juries in England, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to adopt the same system in jury trails in that country that takes place in Scotland, where three verdicts are possible, and the verdict of the majority is accepted.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,)said he quite recognised the greater finality of decision afforded by the Scottish system of jury trials; but he feared that, notwithstanding those advantages, the people of this country preferred their own ancient system, which, if it erred at all, erred in the direction of maintaining the presumption of innocence, and preserving liberty. Those were objects with which he entirely sympathised.

  Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if his attention has been directed to the fact that the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, are not open to the public before 1 p.m. on Sundays, so that they are inaccessible upon the only morning in which the majority of the taxpayers are able to enjoy them; and if he can give instructions for the hours of admission on Sundays in future to be from 10 a.m. until dusk.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: My noble friend considered this suggestion a few months ago, but he came to the conclusion that, in view of the desirability of limiting Sunday labour and of allowing the employees opportunities of attending public worship on Sunday mornings, he

  241
  would not be justified in making any alteration in the existing arrangements.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will the hon. Gentleman see if arrangements cannot be made to enable the public to enjoy the gardens for which they pay?
  SIR EDWAED STEACHEY: I can add nothing to my Answer.

  Importation of Cattle into Alderney.
  MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the hon, Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence between his Board and the syndicate or company which proposes to import into the island of Alderney for slaugher animals from countries from which the importion of animals into Great Britain as for the time prohibited by the Foreign Animals Order, 1903, and its Amendments; and whether, if he cannot lay such correspondence upon the Table, does le propose shortly to make a statement o the House upon this matter.
  SIR EDWAED STEACHEY: I shall be glad to supply my hon. friend with copy of the correspondence in question, or his personal information, and to consider whether any Papers on the subject could be published. I could make a full statement respecting the matter in reply to any Question which might be addressed to me.

  Ecclesiastical Commissioners' Estates— Licences.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Member for East Bristol, as Church Estates Commissioner, the number of licences owned by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and how they are distributed n the various counties; whether the Commissioners grant permission for new licences on their estate; and if they allow licences to lapse on the termination of eases; if so, what number of licences have elapsed during the past ten years.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: The Answer given by the hon. Member for Hallam on March 8th, † to a
  † See (4)Debates,cliii., 603 et seq.
  242
  Question put by the hon. Member for West Denbighshire contains the information desired by the hon. Member, except as regards the distribution of licences amongst the various counties. The Commissioners, in view of the time and cost which would be involved, are not prepared to give this information.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: Will the hon. Member give me the information so far as it is applicable to the county of Durham?
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I will inquire whether I can get that information.

  Conversion of Easter Ross Farms into Deer Forests.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the names of the sheep farms in Easter Ross which have been converted into deer forests within the last five years, indicating in each case the acreage of the farm and the name of the proprietor.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): All the information upon this subject which is available to the Government is contained in the Return No. 232 of June 22nd, 1905, but it does not enable me to answer my hon. Friend's Question.

  Timolin Evicted Tenant.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners received application for reinstatement in September, 1903, September, 1904, and March, 1906, from Mrs. Kavanagh, whose husband was evicted August 16th, 1888, from a farm of 63 acres, the valuation of which was £85 10s. and the rent £172 10s., on the Deane Drake estate, Timolin, county Kildare, the landlord of which resides at Stokestown House, New Ross, county Wexford; and whether, seeing that the evicted farm is on the landlord's hands, never having been relet, he can say what steps have been taken to restore Mrs. Kavanagh and her family to the farm from which her husband was evicted.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): The Estates Commissioners inform me that

  243
  they have received from Mrs. Kavanagh an application for reinstatement in her former holding on the estate mentioned. The owner has lodged an originating application, under the Act of 1903, for the sale of this estate, including 90 acres at Timolin, apparently the evicted holding, which is in the owner's hands and which he wishes to repurchase under Section 3. The Commissioners recently asked the vendor whether he was prepared to sell any portion of the lands to them for the purpose, if considered desirable, of resale to Mrs. Kavanagh, and he replied that he was not prepared to sell any portion of the lands for that purpose. The Commissioners have not yet ruled on the application, and the inspector will enquire into and report upon the circumstances of the case when he visits the estate in order of priority.
  MR. KILBRIDE: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been directed to the fact that the rent in this case is 100 per cent, over the valuation?
  MR. BRYCE: I am sure the Estates Commissioners will do all they can in the matter.

  Wicklow Magistrates.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what is the Catholic and Protestant population respectively of the county of Wicklow; the number of Catholic magistrates and Protestant magistrates, exclusive of ex-officio, in the same county; the number of Catholic and Protestant magistrates appointed for the same county from the 1st July, 1895, to the 12th January 1906.
  MR. BRYCE: According to the last census, the Catholic population of county Wicklow numbered 48,083, and the Protestant population, 12,470. I am informed by the Lord Chancellor's Department that the number of magistrates in the county is 129, of whom twenty-two are believed to be Catholics, and 107 Protestants. The number appointed between 1st July, 1895, and 12th January, 1906, is forty-two, of whom three are believed to be Catholics and thirty-nine Protestants.

  Kilfinane National School.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the application of the manager of the national school at Kilfinane, county Limerick, and see whether the circumstances of it justify him in giving it the benefit of the exceptional treatment which he has promised to the school at Lillavullen, county Cork.
  MR. BRYCE: I will bring the case of Kilfinane school to the notice of the Commissioners in order that they may consider whether the circumstances of the school constitute such a case of urgency as I referred to.
  MR. JOYCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the inadequate accommodation at this school a large percentage of the children have in wintry weather to be kept waiting in a shed outside the school. Is not that a reason for urgency?
  MR. BRYCE: Yes, it is a reason why the Commissioners should deal with the matter as soon as possible.

  Bruff Evicted Tenant
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the inspector appointed by the Irish Land Commission to look into the claims of the evicted tenants in the county of Limerick has been instructed to investigate the claim to reinstatement to her farm of Mrs. Hartigan; is he aware that this farm, situated at Bally nanty, Bruff, county Limerick, had been in the possession of the Hartigan family for 200 years, and had been rented by the father of the late tenant at 12s. per acre, but on being improved by him was raised by the landlord to ,£3 5s. per acre with a fine of £500; and will the inspector be instructed to mediate between Mrs. Hartigan and her landlord, J. C Wilmot-Smith, The Hall, Boroughbridge Yorkshire, with a view to an arrangement.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that an application for reinstatement has been received from Mrs. Anne Hartigan, and will, with others of a similar nature, be inquired

  245
  into by an inspector in due course. The Commissioners have, at Mrs. Hartigan's request, already approached the landlord, and have been informed by him that Patrick Hartigan, the former tenant, was not evicted from his farm but gave up possession in 1888 when he owed a very large amount of rent. The landlord states that he is now farming the land himself, and does not intend to sell it.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Has the right hon. Gentleman informed himself as to the correctness of the facts stated in the Question and of the circumstances of the case, namely, is it a fact that this tenant has expended over £1,000 on the improvement of the farm, and when the lease fell in the rent was raised from 20s. to 65s. per acre, and under the circumstances will not the Estates Commissioners act as arbitrators in order to have a settlement carried out?
  MR. BRYCE: These facts are not within my knowledge, but it is very proper that they should be brought to the knowledge of the Commissioners who will investigate them.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I hope their attention will be called to the facts as stated.

  Fair Sent Appeals.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Cavan Board of Guardians requesting the Government to appoint an additional Judicial Commissioner to dispose of the appeals in fair rent cases in the Land Commission Court, which have remained unheard for years, and asking that the Judge who shall be appointed shall have no connection with the landlord's interests, but shall be independent; and will this matter be dealt with at once.
  MR. BRYCE: I have received the resolution referred to. I have ascertained from the Land Commission that during the past six years the number of appeals annually lodged has steadily diminished, the number lodged last year being less than half the number lodged six years ago. During the same period, the number of appeals annually disposed of has steadily increased, the number dis-
  246
  posed of last year being 2,000 more than were disposed of in the year 1900–1. The net result is that the number of appeals pending on March 31st last was very much smaller than the number outstanding six years ago. It may, I think, be assumed that with the progress of land purchase the number of outstanding appeals will continue to diminish. The question whether it may be necessary to appoint an additional Judicial Commissioner is, nevertheless, one which deserves consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House as to the number of outstanding appeals at the present moment: do they not amount to nine or ten thousand, and will it not take a considerable period of time —some years indeed—before they can be disposed of?
  MR. BRYCE: My impression is that they number 9,400.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that of the 9,000 or 10,000 appeals at present pending-more than one half are from two to six years lodged, and is he not aware that this serious delay is entirely to the prejudice of the tenant and does not affect the landlord?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Inasmuch as this matter seriously affects the working of the Land Purchase Act, will the right hon. Gentleman see if steps can be taken to remedy this state of things?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Does not the Act provide for the appointment of an additional Judicial Commissioner?
  MR. BRYCE: It authorises the bringing in of one of the Judges of the High Court to act as an additional Commissioner. There is no doubt that the great delay which has occurred is very much to be regretted.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is it not a fact that many landlords refuse to sell until the appeals have boon disposed of?
  MR. BRYCE: I am not aware of that.

  Clonfin (Longford) Estate.
  MR. CULLINAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Longford I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. John L. Thompson, nominal owner of the Clonfin (county Longford) Estate was willing to sell his interest to the tenants on the Clonfin Estate; that this offer was communicated to the Scottish Union and National Insurance Company, the mortgagees in possession, but they never replied to the tenant's request; and whether, seeing that this is an insolvent estate within the meaning of the Act of 1903, steps will be taken by the Estates Commissioners to purchase the same.
  I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many writs and processes have been served within the past five years on tenants on the estate of John M. Thompson, Clonfin, county Longford; whether he is aware that these tenants have been brought to the verge of bankruptcy by Mr. Deane, the receiver under the Court; and, if so, will steps be taken at once to take the management of this estate out of the hands of Mr. Deane.
  MR. BRYCE: I have referred these questions both to the Land Judge's Court and to the Estates Commissioners. The Registrar of the Court informs me that, so far as can be ascertained, there is no Court receiver over the estate mentioned. The suggestion made in the first Question that mortgagees are in possession would, if accurate, at once negative the assumption that there is a receiver over the estate. The Estates Commissioners have no knowledge of the facts, but they have, in pursuance of the suggestion made by the hon. Member on June 18th †, entered into communication with the firm of solicitors whom he named as representing the owners of the property. The Commissioners have not yet had any reply, but they are prepared to consider the question of purchase if the owners should be willing to sell.

  Crannagh Farm, North Mayo.
  MR. CONOR O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the
  † See (4)Debates,clviii., 1348.
  248
  Estates Commissioners have approached the owner of the Crannagh farm, in Ardagh, North Mayo, with a view to purchase under the Act of 1903; and, if so, with what result.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify the farm referred to from the information given in the Question. If the name of the owner of the estate upon which the farm is situate were furnished to them, they would be in a position to reply to the Question.

  King Harman Estate, County Longford.
  MR. CULLINAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Longford, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the sale of the King-Harman Estate at Ballinamuck, county Longford; whether he is aware that in order to meet the view of the majority of the tenants the terms of purchase have been reduced by the Master of the Rolls to twenty-one and a half to twenty years purchase, whilst twenty-four and a half years purchase is asked from the second-term tenants, who are a minority, on the property; and will he request the Estates Commissioners, when sanctioning this sale, to reduce the second-term purchase rental from its present basis of twenty-four and a half years purchase to an equivalent basis of twenty-three years purchase.
  MR. BRYCE: I have referred this Question to the office of the Master of the Rolls, and am informed that the facts are substantially as stated in the Question. The Estates Commissioners inform me that proceedings for the sale of this portion of the King-Harman Estate have not yet been instituted before them, but in the event of such proceedings being instituted they will, before sanctioning any aovances for purchase, have a detailed inspection made of the holdings on the estate.

  Athy Post Office.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the unsuitability of the post office accommodation in Athy is recognised, and that possible sites for the erection of a new post office were brought under the notice of the postal authorities in February and

  249
  May, 1905; and whether, in view of the length of time that the consideration of the matter has taken, and his promise to take steps to acquire the site, he can say what steps have been taken within the last three months, and when he hopes to be able to issue advertisements for tenders for the erection of the new post office.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Yes, I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, and as I mentioned in answering his Question of April 5th last,† steps are being taken to acquire the site; but I am afraid that financial exigencies will not admit of the new building being commenced during the current financial year.

  Illegal Practices in the Church.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what action the Government propose to take to restore law and order in the Church of England, and to stay the illegal practices of the bishops and clergy, which are reported by Lord St. Aldwyn's Commission on Church Discipline to be widely prevalent.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): The obvious and adequate reply to my hon. friend is that the Report of the Royal Commission in question was only made public on last Monday.

  Musical Copyright Bill.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Prime Minister; whether, in view of the general approval by the House of the Musical Copyright Bill and its acceptance on the part of the Government by the Homo Secretary, he would see his way to grant facilities for passing it into law.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he, and he thought all his friends, would view a favourable Answer to the Question with great satisfaction.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A favourable Answer must be expected after what has occurred in relation to this Bill. I believe—although it is impossible to say what a microscope would discover—that there is a general feeling
  † See (4) Debates, civ., 749.
  250
  in the House in favour of this Bill passing into law. The Government certainly are favourable to it, and we will do all we can to place it on the Statute-book.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the Prime Minister would treat the Aliens (Amendment) Bill in the same fashion in the House of Lords.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That Bill is in the other House. It is sufficient to answer for the sins of myself and this House, without taking upon myself responsibility for what happens in another place.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Bill: Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Lloyd-George; and had appointed in substitution: The Lord-Advocate and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure: Mr. Nussey; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. William Henry Hope.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
The following Motion stood on tie Paper in the name of Sir H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN:—" That the proceedings on the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill (Motion for Committal to Standing Committee on Law) be not interrupted this evening under the Standing Orders (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he desired to address to Mr. Speaker three points in order, relating to the Motion standing in

251
the name of the Prime Minister. The first was whether under the Standing Orders this Motion was one which must be put without Amendment or debate. The Standing Order relevant to the point said that a Motion might be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, to be decided without Amendment or debate, by which the proceedings on any special business if under discussion at eleven o'clock were not to be interrupted. It would be seen that that was not the form which the Government had adopted for their Motion, and he asked whether the Motion was not debatable in character. His second Question, which depended on the Answer to the first Question, was whether if they had a debatable Motion brought on before Supply that would prevent the day being regarded as one of the allotted days for Supply. His third Question was whether under any circumstances it was possible under the Standing Order to take business other than Supply after eleven o'clock on a Supply day.
MR. SPEAKERsaid that with regard to the first Question he had no doubt this Motion was debatable, because it did not follow the form of words sot out in Standing Order No. 1, Sittings of the House. With regard to the second Question, in his opinion as this matter was debatable, it became business, and therefore it would endanger the day being counted as an allotted day. As to the third Question, did the right hon. Gentleman mean business to be taken after eleven o'clock without any special Motion?
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he knew that the Standing Order enabled the discussion of business of Supply after eleven o'clock on a Motion of a Minister of the Crown to be taken without debate; but he understood that on no account was it possible to take business on a Supply Day after 11 o'clock if that business were not connected with Supply.
MR. SPEAKERsaid he thought that was the right construction of the ruling. All that the House could do was under Standing Order No. 1 to order that the business under discussion at eleven o'clock could be continued, which meant that the business of Supply could be continued, but that no fresh business could
252
be taken if opposed, without a general order for the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule being in force, or a special order to that effect made on a previous day.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid of course Mr. Speaker's ruling would prevent his making the Motion on the Paper, but he might say there were precedents for a Motion of this sort being taken without discussion by which the Government had been misled.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid, without questioning Mr. Speaker's ruling, which, of course, they could not for a moment do, he would like to say that last session this practice was resorted to more than once by the late Government, and Motions of this kind were carried without discussion. He supposed the House might take it for granted that an early opportunity would be given for bringing forward the Motion to refer the Bill to a Grand Committee.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANYes; it is our intention.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind that it would be adding an additional hardship if he were to introduce the Motion on an Education day.
SIE H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid it would be in order on an Education day, and it was to avoid inconvenience that the Government put the Motion, down for to-day.

NEW WRIT.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY)asked Mr. Speaker whether in his opinion the Motion standing in his name (in reference to the issue, of a new writ) was likewise a debatable; Motion.
MR. SPEAKERsaid it was a question of privilege. The issue of writs was a matter which stood somewhat apart in this House. The issue of writs could be moved from any quarter of the House and always came first. It took that

253
position because it was a matter of privilege, and therefore he did not think this Motion would come within the ruling he had previously given.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether a Motion for a new writ in a case where there had been a disputed election required two days' notice to be given, and therefore did not come within the question of privilege, as did the ordinary issue of a writ which could be moved at any time.
MR. SPEAKERsaid it did not destroy the character of the Motion, which he still thought partook of the nature of privilege.
Motion made, and Question—" That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Cornwall (South Eastern or Bodmin Division), in the room of the Honourable Thomas Charles Reginald Agar-Robartes, whoso election has been declared to be void"—(Mr. George Whiteley)—put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY [15TH ALLOTTED PAY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DE PARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1906–7.

  CLASS II.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That a sum, not exceeding £40,396, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1907, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
  MR. H. H. MARKSsaid he rose to move a reduction of the Vote for the purpose of directing the attention of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to certain judicial and punitive methods which prevailed in the British concessions in China generally,
  254
  and notably in the settlement of Hankow. These methods, he might at once say, were of a class which had recently received severe condemnation from high authority. They were methods which they had heard in this House the Government regarded with stern disapproval. The facts which he proposed to lay before the Committee, the evidence upon which they were based, and the statistics in reference to them, were not derived from sensational newspaper reports, or based upon mere vague rumour. They were taken from official information and statistics supplied from British official sources. He would divide the subject under two heads; first, flogging with bamboos, and secondly, torture with the cangue. Those were two forms of punishment inflicted upon Chinamen accused of offences against British subjects, and the extent to which they prevailed was very considerable. The cases were not to be counted singly, or by dozens or scores, but by hundreds. He had lately studied the report issued by the superintendent of police at Hankow, a report which had been made to the municipality of Hankow, and he found that in the year 1903, in the mixed Court at Hankow, 907 Chinamen were sentenced to be flogged with the bamboo and eighty-seven to be tortured with the cangue. In 1904, according to the same report, 585 Chinamen were sentenced by the same authority to be flogged with the bamboo and 101 to be tortured with the cangue and in 1905, 514 Chinamen were sentenced to be flogged with the bamboo and seventy-six to be tortured with the cangue. This flogging with the bamboo was by no means a mild penalty. As inflicted by the mixed Courts at Hankow it was a very severe punishment, and there were cases on record to which he would presently refer where a prisoner had been sentenced to no less than 1,000 blows with the bamboo. The Committee no doubt knew the character of the punishment by the bamboo, but perhaps he might be permitted to say a word as to the form of torture administered with the cangue. The cangue was a wooden collar or portable pillory which the offenders were condemed to carry on their shoulders, for a period ranging from a few days to

  255
  three months. It was a square wooden collar weighing from twenty to sixty pounds, with a round hole in it for the neck, and it measured from three to four feet across. The convict sentenced to wear this cangue was unable to reach his mouth or to lie down, and he could not even defend himself from insects, and he was, during the time he carried it about, entirely dependent on the good offices of his friends. Men and women were chained together in these cangues, and they were permitted to wander at large through the streets of Hankow, publicly exhibiting the punishment to which they had been sentenced, a punishment which it would at once be seen involved both mental and physical torture. The Chinamen subjected to this barbarous punishment were taken into custody by the police of the municipality of the British community. They were tried in what were called the mixed Courts, held in the Court of the British Consul. The prisoners were tried by a Chinese magistrate, sitting with a British Consular officer as assessor; the latter was described in the proceedings as the British assessor, and he was there to watch the proceedings on behalf of the British police, who were the prosecutors. It might be said that the British assessor could not control the Court or the sentence. He thought that was open to question, because by the agreement of Chefoo in 1876 it was expressly provided that—
  " If the officer so attending is dissatisfied with the proceedings, it will be in his power to protest against them in detail."
  Therefore it was not an unfair assumption that the right to protest against these proceedings included the right to protest against the sentence in which those proceedings culminated. It might be said that the punishment and the torture would be inflicted whether the assessor assented to it or not, but it was very much open to doubt whether the dissent of these British assessors from barbarous punishments would be altogether disregarded. It was not at all likely that such sentences would cease to be inflicted so long as the British officials tacitly sanctioned them by their presence in. the Courts in which they were passed. So long as these assessors were officially present at the trials they could not claim
  256
  that they were free from responsibility, and he submitted that their responsibility was directly proportionate to their power. What was their power? They were under no compulsion to be accessories before the fact to the flogging and ill-usage of Chinamen in our concessions in China. Even if it was not deemed advisable to interfere with these established Chinese customs we could at least instruct our consular officials to refrain from being parties to the infliction of punishments which were repugnant to the public sentiment of this country. In Shanghai he believed the punishment by the bamboo had lately been abolished, but so far as he could learn, torture by the cangue was still in force, and in order that the Committee might form some idea of the way in which these punishments were inflicted, he would read a very brief report from the North China Herald. It was a report of the proceedings in the mixed Court of Shanghai. The proceedings took place before Mr. King, the Chinese magistrate, and Mr. Twyman, the British assessor who sat with him.
  " Inspector Wilson mentioned the case of a prisoner who was convicted in April last for burglary, and sentenced to five years imprisonment and 1,000 blows—500 to be administered at the beginning of the term, and 500 after the expiration of six months. The prisoner received the first 500 blows, and afterwards became sick, but he was now certified as well enough to receive the remaining blows, and Inspector Wilson asked how the abolition of bambooing would affect this case. There would shortly be before the court a similar case of a prisoner who is sentenced to receive a second instalment of 500 blows, but in this case the man is also undergoing imprisonment for life, and the court will therefore have some difficulty in finding a punishment in substitution for the blows."
  He ventured to submit to the Committee that we need not shrink from incurring the resentment of the Chinese if we refused to be any longer parties to these brutal punishments and revolting tortures. If we even exercised pressure in this direction, we should be making better and more honourable use of our power than when we used it for the purposes of gain by forcing the opium trade upon the Chinese people in spite of the protests of their Government and the public opinion of the nation. He did not see how the Government could very well refuse to deal with

  257
  this question, or, at any rate, to take such steps as were necessary to prevent British consular agents from becoming parties to the infliction of these punishments and tortures. The Government and its more enlightened supporters disapproved of flogging, and upon that point they had had the most emphatic assurances. If the Government disapproved of flogging, then a fortiori they could not approve of torture by the cangue. They could not defend these practices, and therefore they could not consistently refuse to use what power they possessed to put an end to them. Surely they could instruct their Consuls to refrain from sitting as assessors in the Courts where these barborous punishments were inflicted. That was a point which he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affiairs to consider. He wished to know whether it would not be possible and indeed whether it would not be proper that the Foreign Office should give instructions to their Consuls to refrain from sitting as assessors in the Courts where such barbarities as he had described were inflicted. He sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to take that course, and he was encouraged in that hope by a very pregnant sentence in a speech which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs delivered on March 14th last. If he was correctly reported in Hansard, the right hon. Gentleman said on that occasion—
  " I think the only right and dignified position for the Imperial Government is to lay down once and for all that the Imperial diplomatic machinery will not be allowed to be used over any part of the Empire for an improper purpose."†
  He realised that that sentence was limited by the phrase, " over any part of the Empire." In his opinion the Empire might be said to include His Majesty's Consular Courts in whatever part of the world they might be situated, and if the right hon. Gentleman was of the same mind to-day as he was in March last, then he ought to use his authority to insure that the Imperial diplomatic machinery should not be allowed to be used in any British Court, or in any Court where the
  † See (4) Debates, cliii., 1291.
  258
  British consular official was sitting for purposes which he and the Government did not approve of, or for the infliction of punishment and penalties which were repugnant to the British sense of humanity. He begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100."— (Mr. H. H. Marks.)
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he rose to call the attention of the Committee and the Government to an international question which was exercising the minds not only of the people of this country, but of the people of every civilised country in the world. The question he referred to was the condition of affairs in the Congo Free State, and the remarkable proclamation or manifesto which had lately been issued by the King of the Belgians, who was the Sovereign of the Congo Free State. He wished to call attention to the reforms contained in the decrees which had been issued, and the likely effect of those reforms upon that long train of abuses which had marked the Government of the Congo Free State, a State founded by the approval and with the co-operation of the great Powers of the world. The manifesto published by the King of the Belgians was one which they must separate entirely from the people of Belgium. He desired any remarks he might make to be separated entirely from any question of our relations with the Government of Germany, with whom we were altogether friendly, and with the people, a great many of whom sympathised with the action taken by the British House of Commons in 1903 in passing a Resolution condemnatory of the condition which existed then, and which had existed in an increasing degree during the last twenty years under the so-called civilised government established in the Congo State by Leopold, King of the Belgians. That manifesto was an extraordinary challenge to Europe and to all civilised peoples. He could not imagine in the face of the facts and of what was understood and said by his own people that

  259
  the Sovereign of the Congo Free State could have done anything else but keep his tongue in his cheek when he published that manifesto to the world. A great civilised nation—the United States— gave the first approval to the International Association of the Congo which the King of the Belgians established, not for the purpose set forth in the manifesto, but for the purpose of developing civilisation in those free States as they were called. They were called " free " because they were to be left open to all international commerce and trade. The word was not used in order to suggest freedom constitutionally from the opinion or influence or the right to interfere on the part of the nations which helped to establish the Congo Free State. The United States, through President Arthur, in 1883 said—
  "The objects of this Society are philanthropic; it does not aim at permanent political control, but seeks the neutrality of the valley."
  It was doubtful whether the Congo Free State would have been established with King Leopold at its head but for the approval given by the President of the United States, followed by the agreement which England entered into with the head of the Congo Free State, who was also head of the Association. That agreement established without any shadow of doubt that British subjects and the subjects of all other nations should have the fullest right to trade within the boundaries of the Congo Free State. Then came the Berlin Conference and the Berlin Act, which established the right set forth in Article 26, namely—
  "The Powers signatories of the present general Act reserve to themselves the right of eventually, by mutual agreement, introducing therein modifications or improvements, the utility of which has been shown by experience."
  That was the charter of our right to intervene in the affairs of the Congo Free State, over which Belgium had no more control than we had. Mr. Van der Velde had said—
  " We have been told of money, profits, presents, made to Belgium. I say that this money, these profits, these presents, are shameful, because they are the result of exploitation of a whole people."
  Other members of the Belgian Chamber had expressed their views even more strongly than Mr. Van der Velde. In
  260
  spite of the position held by this country, the United States, Germany, Italy, and France in connection with the development of that State, the King of the Beglians said—
  " My rights on the Congo are indivisible, they are the result of my toil, and of the expenditure of my money. It is essential that I should proclaim these rights aloud, for Belgium does not possess any in the Congo except those which emanate from me. If I am careful not to allow my rights to lapse, it is because Belgium, without them, would have no right at all… The Towers accorded their goodwill to the birth of the new State, but not one was called upon to participate in my efforts; hence it follows that none has the right of intervention, which nothing could justify."
  That was rather different from the message which the King of the Belgians sent to Manchester when he was posing as a philantropist eager to engage the sympathetic consideration of the British people. He said then—
  " that the State had been called into being for the purpose of promoting the civilisation and commerce of Africa, and for other humane and benevolent motives; … to enable commerce to follow the Association's advance into Central Africa," " to prevent the slave trade," to enable European traders "to fully enter into communication with the natives," " to civilise Africa by encouragement given to legitimate trade."
  Not a single prophecy or promise of the King of the Belgians had been fulfilled so far as the Congo Free State was concerned. There was practically no international commerce. England made a separate agreement on behalf of herself and other nations that there should be international exchange and free commerce. A small portion of the Lower Congo was open. There were one Dutch firm and one British firm there, but in the whole of the vast territory to the north what had they got? It was a territory given up to rubber exploitation alone, and the rubber was not got by the payment of wages to the natives as was the case in every other portion of civilised and uncivilised Africa. In all the colonies of Africa, whether French, German, or British, there was not the same system of compelling natives through taxation only to develop the resources of the country. What had been the conditions of labour ever since the occupation began? Up to March of this year the natives spent 300 days in the year collecting rubber by force practically under the terrorism

  261
  of sentries, the only people who represented in these districts the commerce of the places. They were compelled by these sentries to gather rubber for the greater part of their natural existence. The reform announced in the decree published by the King of the Belgians suggested that now, instead of being looked to to pay through taxation during those long days of labour, the natives should pay a tax varying from 4s. to 19s. a year. But supposing the great companies who were the concessionaires and the Congo Government were to say, "Yes, we will allow you a penny or a halfpenny a pound for all the rubber you collect," he thought that, instead of forty hours labour per month being required to pay the tax on the natives, the old, bad, wicked, and oppressive system would still continue. This decree regarded from the standpoint of past experience would prove, he believed, as all those who had studied the question believed, to be a sham and a fraud upon Europe—a fraud upon the nations that had trusted the King of the Belgians. The King of the Belgians disputed our right of practical interference. In another place the case was put very fairly before the people of this country by the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the present Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. They put forward what had been put forward before in this House —our absolute right to intervene in the interests of humanity and civilisation to compel the King of the Belgians to make real reforms. But how could we do it? He believed that the only way that it could be done was through the appointment of consuls and the formation of consular courts. Those consuls would have an international supervision over the affairs of the Congo. The King of the Belgians talked of the people of his State. Who were they? 15,000,000 of natives with black sentries over them, armed with rifles, to compel them to collect rubber, and the rest of the officials hired by the King of Belgium to carry out his orders and nothing else. His orders were that sufficient rubber was to be brought in to enable companies such as he could name, which on a capital of £40,000 could make in three years a profit of £680,000. Why, if those pro-
  262
  mised reforms in the matter of taxation were true reforms to be carried out, the King of Belgium and all his authorities in the Congo Free State would be likely to leave it, because it was only by securing the rubber by this oppressive system that their obligations could become continuously successful. The profits of those companies had only been got by forced labour, and he wanted to know if, under the new decrees, the promises formerly made, and broken, by the King of Belgium were to be carried out. This country had a right to intervene; and were we willing to trust the Sovereign of the Congo Free State to carry out just one of the clauses of the decree as to forced labour which was to be occasionally applied? Were the natives to be compelled to serve as day labourers for five years or else to serve for seven years in the Army? The position was one which ought to make Great Britain as a civilized nation which understood what colonising meant, pause. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, who, he knew, sympathised with the position taken up by the late Government, and by this House, if he really believed that it was wise to wait until those decrees were applied; and if so how long?
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that that only applied to the question of approaching the other Powers. If he remembered aright the late Government did approach the other Powers but did not receive a reply that they were willing to make representations with us.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that that answer had no direct relation to the answer to the replies made by the other Powers. If the right hon. Gentleman meant something else, would it not be that England would take action upon her own authority whether the other Powers would intervene or not? A statement to that effect would, he was sure, be welcomed by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who urged strongly on the right hon. Gentleman that England should take the lead in this matter. After all, the Congo Free State would never have become an entity but for the approval of the

  263
  United States and this country; and we were entitled, in the interests of humanity and civilization to intervene. Our own position in Africa must be considered. The infamous treatment of the natives in the Congo Free State must affect the whole position of natives throughout Africa. The knowledge of the horrible injustice inflicted upon the natives in the Congo Free State was carried by those subterranean wires which all natives employed, from one part of the Continent to the other, and was bound to affect the condition of the natives under the British, German, and French flags. But this government of the Congo Free State was no government. It was the government of one man. If they could deal with this question from the standpoint of a responsible government he believed that the reforms which were demanded would have been put into active operation long ago. But, because they had to deal with an autocrat, who had not even a Council to advise him, but only administrators in Brussels, they had the existing state of things. If the Congo Sovereign were detached from Belgium, if our political sympathy with Belgium were not involved, how long would this monstrous travesty of government have existed in Central Africa? It was only because this man was King of Belgium that those things had been tolerated; otherwise they would have been stopped long ago. As to the subject of monopolies which, by the Berlin Act, were not to be allowed, in the new decree there was an almost farcical statement that foreign companies were to be taxed 1 per cent., as if to show how impartial the Congo Free State was, while Belgian companies were to be taxed 2 per cent. That looked like as if foreign companies were in future to be given an advantage. But the facts were that there were no foreign companies there. On the contrary, the whole of the State had been monopolised by the Belgian companies. Again, in reply to the British Note of 1903 the King of Belgium promised that the native land tenure should be religiously preserved; but afterwards the Congo Government stated that there was no longer any appropriated lands. He could not see how in twenty years every acre of land in the Congo State had been appro-
  264
  priated by all the Belgian companies.Again, a Commission had reported that practically the whole time of the natives was taken up in gathering rubber and that each village had to furnish from its plantations food every two or more weeks for the soldiers who came up on the patrol steamers. The offer to those natives of an enlarged amount of land for their occupation must have been made by the King of Belgium with his tongue in his cheek. It was of no value whatever. There might be in the southern part of the country some trade with British or French merchants, but in the northern part there was nothing but trade in rubber. The natives there had nothing to do but to supply rubber to the Government and food for the soldiers on the steamers which passed up and down the rivers which watered this most unhappy and much abused country. He had no hesitation in speaking strongly on this matter—not in the interests of the Belgian people or of the people of this country, but in the interests of humanity as a whole; and his aim was the destruction of those monopolies and the preservation of the rights of the natives of that region. The total imports for 1905 were £800,000 and the total exports £2,100,000. Of the £800,000, £150,000 represented goods bought by the white officers and servants of the railway and steamship companies. This country was therefore helping to build up the autocracy and monopoly of one man who in the face of all Europe said; " Hands off my territory." In spite of the protests of the Sovereigns of Europe and of the President of the United States this particular Sovereign had the audacity to say that. We however had done nothing during the past twenty years except agitate; we had done nothing to stop this system of spoliation of which this Sovereign was the head. Suppose King Leopold were to die to-morrow, having bequeathed this kingdom of the Congo to the people of Belgium, there would be in the midst of that State what was known as the Crown domain, which was four and a half times the size of Great Britain and Ireland and was absolutely reserved to him and his successors for ever. This territory had given £70,000,000 of profit to the King

  265
  of the Belgians. He asked the Committee to realise what that meant. Did we in this country imagine that we could make a colony a success in the first twenty years of its existence, unless there were gold mines there? Out of the Congo Free State in the few years during which it had existed an enormous revenue had been yielded to Belgium and to the King of that country. In order to placate public opinion and lead it into a channel in which it could be asphyxiated the King of the Belgians had spent a considerable sum in erecting great public institutions which had been great successes; he had endeavoured to bribe public opinion in Belgium to support him in his efforts in the Congo Free State and to make it believe that that State was a successful one from every point of view of colonisation. It was, however, the most unsuccessful attempt at colonisation in the history of the world. If things were allowed to go on as they were at present we should arrive at a worse position than we were in before, because none of the decrees in regard to reforms, even if put into operation, would change the position of affairs one iota. He had no doubt the Secretary of State held views as to reform quite as strongly as his predecessor, and he believed that the appeal which he was now making would have behind it the whole of the best opinion of the British people. The United States was sending a Consul-General out to this place and it was also our duty to establish consular courts. As was said in the House of Lords, half a dozen consuls in the Congo basin would do more for the civilisation of the Free State than all the decrees of the Sovereign of the Free State. The King of the Belgians, instead of dealing with this question by constructing in a perfectly fair manner a new administration, which would represent good faith, appointed three inspectors to cover a territory representing some 300,000 square miles. How in the name of common sense could they do the work? This subject was first called attention to in 1896 by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, who knew more about international affairs than anyone else, and they were all indebted to him
  266
  for bringing it forward. The missionaries of Denmark and Sweden and other countries in Europe last month signed an appeal. They were honest men who had seen what they had seen, and they signed an appeal and reported, and to his mind the report of Mr. Wagstaffe constituted the worst reflection ever made on the Congo Government. It showed a fearful condition of things. Wicked persecutions and horrible oppression of the natives, the using of native labour and grinding it to get rubber and practically no pay—to get rubber at the cost of civilisation, of life, and of the rights of the labour. Hon. Gentlemen might reply on behalf of the CongoGovernment that this was not so, but to them he would say that public opinion in this country, in Germany, in France, in Italy, and in the United States, was giving expression to views such as he was now putting forward, and was expressing them in such a manner that if this Government took direct action other Governments must follow.
  MR. MCKEANsaid that several thoughts came into his mind while listening to the hon. Member for Gravesend, and the first was, if half of what the hon. Gentleman had said was true, what were the Powers doing? If half the picture which the hon. Gentleman had presented to the Committee was true, how could they find language strong enough to condemn the Powers who had rights and responsibilities such as the hon. Gentleman described and were utterly forgetful of their duties in this matter? If half only of these statements were true, why had not public opinion in the countries to which the hon. Gentleman referred given some sign or endeavoured to bring pressure to bear on their respective Governments to do their duty? Was not that a reason why this Committee should inquire into the matter for itself and see whether the remarks of the hon. Member contained any fraction of truth? It would be his duty to examine the picture presented to the Committee and see whether it was a true picture, or whether it was one of those exaggerated productions of which itinerant artists and irresponsible journalists were so fond. The hon. Gentleman had said that his speech was to be moderate

  267
  and temperate, but his phrases as to the the manifesto of King Leopold being a " fraud on the Powers" and the expression " with his tongue in his cheek," hardly partook of the character of moderation and temperance. He supposed it was of no consequence how Englishmen expressed their views towards a small country like Belgium. Bullying and bluff was the order of the day.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he especially exempted Belgium. He addressed himself to the Sovereign of the Congo Free State.
  MR. MCKEANfailed to see how the hon. Gentleman had improved his position by that remark. He had said in this House that the manifesto was a fraud upon Europe. That manifesto came from the King of the Belgians, a king who was referred to in another place as a king beloved by his people. He was glad the hon. Gentleman had given himself away in the disgraceful language which he had used.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERprotested against his speech being described as disgraceful.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that the words "disgraceful language" were rather strong, and to be regretted, but he could not say that they were un-parliamentary.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERdrew attention to the fact that he himself had been called to order for using the word " disgraceful."
  MR. MCKEANsaid he would now pass from the hon. Gentleman's language to his alleged facts and his assertions. He did not propose to follow him in the incoherent discourse which he had addressed to the Committee but would merely select one or two of his leading assertions and show how those assertions were negatived by the facts. He would then leave the Committee to come to their own conclusions as to the rest of the speech. The hon. Gentleman spoke of sentries armed with rifles. In the decree of
  268
  reforms which the King of the Belgians had solemnly and publicly sanctioned was this heading to a paragraph, " The suspension of capetas and sentries armed with improved rifles."
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: With improved rifles !
  MR. MCKEANsaid the rifles were taken away from the capetas and armed sentries. So much for the truth of one assertion. The speech of the hon. Gentleman was not of sufficient importance to go through verbatim et seriatim. The hon. Member had further told the Committee that the natives of the Congo Free State had to work 300 days out of the 365, but the fact was that the tax the native had to pay was a tax of forty hours a month, and those hours were paid for. The things of which they had been told could not be true without the Powers of Europe acting in the matter; the thing was preposterous, absurd and incredible. The hon. Gentleman's speech contained only one important issue, and he would deal with it in accordance with the facts. This matter could not, and would not, be decided by bounce and bluster. The issue was the right of intervention. He denied the existence of that right, and he did so on three grounds. He denied that it existed on grounds of natural right and justice. He denied its existence on the facts and on grounds of international law. And, finally, he denied that it existed on the great principle of the law of equity, which said that he who sought equity must do equity: in other words, he who came into a court of equity must come with clean hands. Let him deal with each of these grounds in turn. First, he had said that on grounds of natural law and justice the right of intervention did not exist. Why? King Leopold, in his dignified and noble letter of June 3rd last, sanctioning the decrees of the Commission of Reforms for the Congo, answered the question. He said—
  " The Congo has thus been and can only have been a personal work. Now, there can be no more legitimate right than the right of the author to his own work, the fruit of his own labour."

  269
  And again where he boldly asserted—
  " My rights on the Congo are indivisible. They are the result of my personal labour and expense."
  Hon. Members laughed. They would see that the claim formulated in these words was substantiated by independent authority, which was quoted with commendation and approval in another place only a day ago. He referred to an article which appeared in the Quarterly Review for January last, entitled "The Congo Question." That article was written in a tone distinctly hostile to King Leopold and his rule in the Congo. The admissions in it were, therefore, the weightier and more valuable on that account. Let him read some of them to the Committee. On page 47 he found these words—
  " Stanley started for the Congo in 1879 at the head of a powerful expedition, mainly, if not entirely, paid for by King Leopold."
  On page 50 he found this sentence—
  " The Congo Free State was left free for some years from international jealousies to develop its organisation at the cost of the King of the Belgians."
  This, he might remark, was subsequent to the Brussels Conference of 1892. Further down on the same page was the following sentence—
  " The money, therefore, which had brought the Congo Free State into being and which maintained it thenceforward, came in the main from the private purse of the King of the Belgians: or, later, from such funds as the King could raise from the sale or granting of concessions or from the produce of the Royal domain."
  On page 54 was the following sentence—
  " There was now nothing for it but to fight with the Arabs for the possession of the Congo Free State. So King Leopold had to spend vast sums in raising armies of trained negroes officered by Belgians, Swedes, and English; and to send them under the command of Captain (afterwards Baron) Dhanis to subdue the Arabs on the Upper Congo. The Arabs were wiped out in several campaigns, conducted with extraordinary bravery by the Belgians and their comrades."
  Further down on the same page was the following sentence—
  " The financial condition of the Free State now became a matter of great urgency to King Leopold. Its mantenance cost many thousands of pounds annually; and its returns, chiefly
  270
  in ivory, went but a small way to meet the expenditure."
  The last quotation in this connection that he would make was the following from page 57—
  " When it is remembered that nearly the whole of the gigantic expenditure of the Congo Free State and other Belgian enterprises in Central and Eastern Africa from 1875 to 1894, and to a less degree down to the present day, has been defrayed by the private fortune of the King of the Belgians, it is doubtful whether, even with all the private fortune assigned to him in the popular estimation as the result of the exportation of rubber and ivory from the Congo Free State, he has been more than reimbursed for the money that he laid out with the view, not only of enriching Belgium, but also of creating a great civilised State in the heart of Central Africa."
  That was from a hostile, article by a hostile writer. He noticed that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not scoff so much now, and perhaps before he had finished they would be even less inclined to scoff. Now they came to the kernel of this matter. He would be glad to hear afterwards the scoffers who sat opposite. They evidently did not know much about the question, if they did they would laugh a good deal less. He thought he was addressing a serious assembly, but he found that it contained overgrown and antiquated schoolboys. Those who claimed the right of intervention were divided into two classes. First, there were those who based the right on the alleged fact that England was a party to the foundation of the Congo State, which State they maintained was the creation of the Berlin Conference and the Berlin Act of 1885. That contention he would show to be historically untrue. Those who made it only showed their ignorance of the facts. The Berlin Conference opened on November 15th, 1884. On April 22nd in the same year the United States of America had recognised the International Association of the Congo as " a properly constituted State." The next day France did the same. On November 8th, 1884, one week before the Conference met, Germany recognised the Association as "an independent and friendly State." On December 16th, 1884, Great Britain, and on the 19th of the same month Italy, recognised the new State as independent and sovereign. Therefore what existed before the Berlin Conference could not be the creation of that

  271
  Conference. Not only was it historically untrue, as he had shown, that the Congo State was the creation of the Berlin Conference, but the contention was contradicted in 1894 by Lord Kimberley, the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In a despatch dated August 14th, 1894, Lord Kimberley wrote to the late Lord Dufferin, then English Ambassador in Paris, the following words—
  " The Congo State was not, at least to the knowledge of the British Government, constituted by a Conventional Act."
  The other class of people who claimed the right of intervention were those who held that, though England was not a party to the foundation or creation of the Congo State, yet the said State was under treaty responsibilities to us, responsibilities derived from the Berlin Act, Clause VI, which provided, along with other matters of no importance for present purposes, that all the signatory Powers bound themselves to watch over the preservation of the native tribes and to have a care for their moral and material improvement. If that contention were well founded the Berlin Act was a treaty binding all the signatory Powers towards one another. But Mr. Root, Secretary of State for the United States, said in this connection—
  " It is questionable whether the treaty rights of the signatories extend to intervention by any one or more of them in the internal affairs "—
  that was, the internal affairs of the Congo. But weighty as was the opinion of Mr. Root, he could prove their case without it. He could show that the right of intervention, based on Article VI. of the Berlin Act, was altogether with-out foundation. This was shown by what took place at the Brussels Conference of 1892. The Brussels Act of that year defined what was meant by the Berlin Act of 1885. At the Brussels Conference the following text was proposed for Article III—
  " The powers exercising a Sovereignty, a Protectorate, or an influence in Africa, confirming and giving precision to their anterior engagements bind themselves to pursue by the divers means indicated in Articles I. and II. the suppression of the slave trade."
  And so on. He invited the particular attention of the Committee to what
  272
  followed. M. Macedo, one of the Portuguese plenipotentiaries, proposed to suppress the words by which the Powers confirmed and gave precision to their anterior engagements. Another plenipotentiary, however, called attention to the fact that these words referred directly to Article VI. of the Berlin Act, and he declared that consequently they were not useless. He proposed, how ever, to replace the word " engagements " by the word " declaration" which more closely corresponded, he said, with the text of Article VI. The text in this amended form, with the word " declaration " substituted for the word " engagement," was adopted. What was the conclusion, the only conclusion, deducible from this fact? Obviously, that all the Powers represented at the Brussels Conference, and England amongst them clearly defined, as he had related. Article VI. of the Berlin Act, not as an " engagement" binding all the signatories one to another, but as a " declaration" of principles binding each of them individually. When this matter came to be discussed, not amongst politicians with a smattering of knowledge upon the subject, but amongst right hon. Gentlemen like the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the importance of this would be at once realised. He supposed the Committee followed the distinction— a very important distinction. If the conclusion which he had drawn was not the correct one, then what would be the significance or force of the change of words? Clearly it would have no force nor meaning whatever, and they would have the spectacle of the delegates of the Great Powers, met in solemn conference, wasting their time in making useless verbal alterations in an historic treaty ! What an impossible position ! No; those who asked for intervention had not, to use a popular phrase, a leg to stand on—an assertion which was proved by the fact that hitherto they had made so little headway in their agitation so far as concerned the Foreign Powers who were signatories to the Berlin and Brussels Acts. The Government were simply making themselves ridiculous. Let him here interpolate a consideration which, though he did not make it a formal part of his argument, was not without

  273
  force and substance. If we had a right of intervention in the Congo, a fortiori we had a right of intervention in Natal. Why two months ago did the Government refuse in the most explicit terms to exercise this undoubted right? Let the Committee hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said. Speaking on the 15th of March last he said—
  " I remember in my time at the Colonial Office I was asked to take the strongest possible measures by well-intentioned people who complained of the treatment of natives by West Australia. My own belief was then, and is now, that these statements of the ill-treatment of the natives were grossly exaggerated. But whether they were right or wrong, I refused to pay any attention to them beyond conveying the letters in which these accusations were made to the Governor of the Colony, leaving it, to his discretion to communicate them to his Government, but making it perfectly clear that I had no claim whatever to interfere in what was a matter of local interest and local interest alone. I deny altogether that on any ground Imperial interest, as under-stood by any constitutional authority, we have or could have any right of interference in West Australia, or, again, in the case of the Transvaal."
  He was glad to find that he had such weighty authority as the Tribune newspaper with regard to his third ground. When one went into a national court of equity it was necessary to have clean hands. Was there any country in the world which went into an international court of equity with such hands as England did? The Tribune newspaper on Tuesday last used these words—
  " There is an appreciable Party in the House " (referring, of coure, to this House) "which, in addressing itself to the methods of barbarism in the Congo, will be inclined to ask: 'Are our hands clean?' "
  Common decency ought to prevent men in this House or outside of it, having regard to the facts of the situation in British Colonies, from getting up and making these appeals until they had set matters right in their own lands. A writer, who called himself an Englishman, said in the Daily Mail some ten days ago—
  " I am not going to say that England is not a robber. She is. She possesses a genius for robbery."
  And this was the nation that sat in judgment on the conduct of other
  274
  nations ! No wonder they were called Pharisees and Philistines all over the civilised world. In listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Gravesend one would have thought that the British Colonies were little paradises, that their administrators were saints, and their institutions perfect. The hon. Member talked of the despotism of the autocrat. Speaking for himself he would say " Give me the autocracy and the despotism of King Leopold in Ireland a dozen times before your boasted constitutional Government." They talked of the depopulation of the Congo and of over-taxation. Were the Committee aware that a Commission of Inquiry appointed by the British Government found that this rich country was robbing Ireland, which was a poor country, of over £3,000,000 a year? And then hon. Gentlemen talked about over-taxation and forced labour in the Congo. What about the forced labour they had in Ireland? This country had sent her sentries to Ireland in the shape of landlords, and the poor people had to live on Indian meal three times a day in order to be able to pay rents to the landlords. It was not this Liberal Government, much as the Irish representatives respected it, that put an end, or attempted to put an end, to forced labour in Ireland. It was done by the Government that preceded this one. Depopulation ! Where were the millions of Irish exiles who by evil laws had been driven from their own land? The hon. Member for Gravesend had talked of the private domain of the King of Belgium in the Congo. What about the private domain in India where the State owned three-fourths of the territory as a private domain? Every one of the blots in the Congo which had been painted in such lurid colours to-night were to be found existing in an intensified and aggravated form in British dependencies. They heard a great deal about atrocities in the Congo. Had there not been atrocities in Ireland too? Government officials in Ireland had committed outrages. They had houghed cattle, got up moonlighting raids, and sent threatening letters. Hon. Members had only to read the debates in this House to know the kind of things which had been done in Ireland. They could not be denied. These things had been done by the officials and the police,

  275
  and the people knew the meaning of atrocities in Ireland. In the same way as the police in Ireland had manufactured outrages and got innocent men convicted and sent to prison, where one of them died, so the reports of atrocities in the Congo had been exaggerated. But there the converse proposition was true. Atrocities had been committed by cannibals, and then, forsooth, they were charged upon the administration, which was not like the British, a pattern administration. He would cite the authority of Mr. George Grey, brother of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in favour of what he was saying now. The statements of Mr. George Grey went to show that what had been said by the hon. Member for Gravesend was not true. Mr. Grey said in a letter addressed to the Morning Post—
  "In the part of the Congo where I lived, I saw nothing of the atrocities which certain English newspapers allege are a daily occurrence in that part of the world. On the contrary, my experience of the Congo administration is that it is composed, of gentlemen who are characterised by humane and kindly feelings, and perform the duties entrusted to them with strict impartiality."
  In a letter addressed to the Morning Post on January 20th, 1903, a Mr. Grey, who, he assumed, was the same Mr. Grey from whom he had already quoted, wrote —
  " That the natives of this country have never suffered ill-treatment from white men was evident to me from the time I entered the country."
  And then he said—
  " When I first entered the Congo I found some armed natives who posed as soldiers of the Belgian Government, and who lived more or less the life of robbers, raiding and stealing wherever they went. The natives believed that these men were the authorised police of the European administration."
  He would quote another letter published in the Globe, dated 28th December, 1905, addressed to the Government of the Congo Free State by Mr. Millman, the head of the Baptist Mission in part of the Congo region. He said—
  " It is a pleasure and an honour to be able to say that in this part of the province Orientale, that is in the country lying between Isanghi and Stanleyville, with which we are, and have been, for eight years very intimately acquainted, we have never see nor known of any case of grave maladministration or cruelty."
  276
  Again he said—
  " We have just completed our annual inspection of the native schools under our direction in over seventy villages, in which some 3,000 children are being taught to read and write, and we have found in all these places uniform tranquillity and comparative contentment."
  He would only cite one other authority, Sir Harry Johnston, who said—
  " While at work in Uganda I had occasion to visit the adjoining regions of the Congo Free State along and across the Semliki River. In this portion of the Congo Forest I questioned many natives. From none of them did I receive the slightest complaint as regards the treatment they received from the Belgians, and indeed, the sight of their villages, plantations and settlements, and the fact that they so freely came and talked to the white men, were sufficient to show that they were perfectly content with their present lot. The Belgian and Swedish officers whom I met in this portion of the territory of the Congo Free State were men of the best character. In short, this portion of the Congo territory left little to be desired, and in some respects was better organised than the adjoining districts of the British Protectorate."
  Further down he said—
  " There are no doubt bad Belgians as there have been bad, cruel, and wicked Englishmen and Scotchmen amongst African pioneers. In the early days of African enterprise I have seen too many misdeeds of my own countrymen in Africa to be very keen about denouncing other nations for similar faults."
  SIR CHARLES DILKEasked if the hon. Gentleman did not know that Sir Harry Johnston had taken the chair at a meeting which he had attended, and had endorsed the opinions of the mover of the Motion now before the Committee?
  MR. MCKEANsaid that if Sir Harry Johnston gave expression to one set of opinions at one time and another set of opinions at another time, the facts remaining the same, so much the worse for Sir Harry Johnston. The story of the atrocities and maladministration in the Congo Free State was one of the greatest myths of the nineteenth or twentieth century. He asked the Committee whether, in face of such testimonies, it considered that there were grounds for intervening in the affairs of the Congo? In connection with the testimony that he had adduced in favour of the existing régime in the Congo, there was another vitally important topic with which he should like to deal at

  277
  length, but which, owing to the exigencies of time, he should have to deal with very briefly, and that was the evidence upon which this fabric of misrepresentation, not to use a stronger word, was based. He would give the Committee his own personal experience to begin with. He went to a meeting this year in the Caxton Hall, at which a resolution condemning the administration of the Congo was proposed and seconded. It was supported in a long speech by a missionary from South Africa, who dealt at great length with the question of atrocities. He told in great detail the story of one atrocity. Strange to say, he never mentioned such important facts as where the alleged atrocity occurred, when it occurred, by whom it was perpetrated, or who the victim of the atrocity was. The speaker, when questioned, said he was prepared to give him (the hon. Member) all the facts. He continued to speak on the topic, but still failed to give a single one of the particulars requested, He (Mr. McKean) again pressed him for the desired information. The gentleman then gave the name of the place where the incident occurred, and the name, so far as he could gather, of an official who was connected with the perpetration of the atrocity. Not wishing to interrupt the proceedings, he accepted for the time being this inadequate information. After the meeting was over the gentleman came to him and told him he would write him full particulars. After the lapse of some days he did write and send him a copy of a letter that he had sent to a Belgian official, but so far as he could gather the document had no reference whatsoever to the alleged atrocity. At a meeting of the Anti-Slavery Society held some six days afterwards he had a somewhat similar experience with the same reverend gentleman. That gentleman talked at large about atrocities. He manipulated his phrases in such a way that one would think he was relating personal experiences. To make sure, he questioned him on the point. He had to say that they were not personal experiences. He asked him from what source then did he obtain the accounts of these atrocities? He answered " From the Report of the Commission of Inquiry." A gentleman in the audience rose and said: " From the
  278
  Report? " The missionary then said: " No, not from the Report, from the evidence given before the Commission," and upon further pressure he admitted that he had never witnessed during his whole time in the Congo a single atrocity. If time permitted, he (Mr. McKean) thought he could satisfy the Committee that all the witnesses on whose evidence these charges of atrocities and cruelties were based were in the same case. He would show that their evidence was utterly unreliable, and he asked whether in these circumstances it was wise on the part of hon.. Gentlemen to engage in this campaign. Not only did they exaggerate and prevaricate, but they were frequently guilty of perversion of the facts and suppression of the truth. By no chance did they ever make an honest admission. Never did they pay the smallest tribute to the work done in the Congo. He wished he had time to read what the Report of the Commission of Inquiry said on this subject. He respectfully submitted that King Leopold's rule in the Congo justified its existence by two alone of its achievements—the abolition of slave raiding and the virtual prohibition of the trade in alcohol. He would not speak of the railways, telegraphs, steamboats, technical schools, and other evidences of civilisation that were found in the Congo. They might ask: How is it that nowhere else is there an agitation proceeding with regard to the administration of the Congo except in this country? " Were we the only humanitarians? Was not the absurdity of the position perfectly transparent? If these charges that were made against the Congo were true, why was it that the other Powers were so slow in supporting our demand for intervention? Let them suppose for a moment that things were not perfect in the Congo. Was there not a certain amount of indecency in this agitation, having regard to the facts with which he was going to deal? A Commission of Inquiry had been appointed and had reported, suggesting certain reforms, and these reforms had been sanctioned by the King. If hon. Gentlemen had waited, had given reasonable time for the reforms to be put in practice, if they had watched the

  279
  operation of those reforms, and found that they had not achieved their object, they would have been in a more favourable position, as he thought, for continuing this campaign. Before concluding, let him say a word on the international aspect of the question. These attacks on the Congo and its Sovereign had excited feelings of deep resentment in the breasts of the Belgian people. Belgium, though small, was a wealthy State, and rich nations in times of difficulty could make their power felt in unexpected ways and places. Perhaps Belgium possessed more influence in some of the courts and some of the Chancelleries of Europe than we suspected. Then, let them ask their military experts as to the strategic value of Belgium in case of war with a certain other European Power. Was it wise, therefore, for hon. Gentlemen to be identifying themselves with a cause which, without their countenance, would speedily collapse, and which, if hon. Gentleman only knew the facts, they would find to possess no humanitarian basis whatsoever? Would it not be wiser to give time for the reforms to be put into practice, thus maintaining our old traditional policy of friendliness towards Belgium, remembering that this country was largely instrumental in calling Belgium into existence as an independent State, and that at every critical period in the history of Belgium, England had been the defender and the protector of independence?
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that only one day was allotted to the discussion of the Foreign Office Vote although this was a most important Vote, and upon it questions were raised in which many Members took very great interest. He was glad that the Committee was not forced to consider the problems of our relations with the great Powers of Europe, for these relations were delicate. By saying that he did not mean to suggest that there was any risk of war. Even the recent proposals of disarmament would be a risky subject to discuss in detail in the Committee. In order to save time he should avoid the many subjects in which he fully supported the
  280
  Secretary of State, and deal only with those as to which he had questions or doubts, before he replied to the hon. Member for South Monaghan. He would point out that, perhaps through no fault of its own, the Foreign Office was at the present time more unpopular than it probably realised in a large portion of the King's dominions. Very severe attacks had been made upon the Foreign Office in the Commonwealth of Australia. That unpopularity was incurred on account of matters which touched other Colonies as well as Australia and New Zealand. Canada was upset on the question of the treaty-making power. In regard to the New Hebrides, a question of great difficulty and danger and one which concerned Australia deeply was dealt with by the Foreign Office in Paris without any previous consultation with the Colony. No doubt the feeling excited had been exaggerated, but he hoped the Foreign Minister would do something to allay the feeling which had arisen in regard to this matter. As to the question of the visit of the Fleet to Cronstadt, many Questions had been asked. He fully agreed with the Foreign Secretary in his desire that this country should be on the best of terms with Russia. The difficulty lay in the prevalence of religious persecution within that Empire. We had had the recent persecution of the Gregorian Church. Then there was the persecution of the Roman Catholics in Poland, and there was also the persecution of Jews in various parts of Russia. All these matters had been admitted by many persons in Russia including Prince Urusoff. In many cases it was also admitted that officials of the Government had assisted in the persecution. When the Fleet arrived in Russia, were there to be banquets and State receptions? If so, to whose honour and glory were they to redound? To what Party would the credit go? We could not tell, but we must take no steps that might be looked upon as expressing sympathy with any Party. Prince Urusoff, one of the leading members of the Duma, who was formally a Home Office official in Russia, said from his experience that the police had taken part in massacres. It was perfectly possible that within a day or two Prince Urusoff might become Home Minister for Russia. In circumstances of that kind

  281
  it might no doubt do more harm than good to stop the visit of the Fleet. But might not the House of Commons ask that at all events there should be nothing in the shape of demonstration or fraternisation? We should not seem to take sides with any Party in Russia. Coming to the Congo, no one could wonder that we should have statements made about our hands not being clean in the face of the first telegram in regard to the Egyptian events that went round the world. The misfortune caused by a first telegram was very great indeed. The great impression produced throughout the world was the first impression. That was what had to be faced. No one would deny the fact that it had always been the desire of the Radicals of this country, whether they were sitting on one side of the House or the other, to hold the balance even between this country and others. If it was shewn that things were wrong they joined with hon. Gentlemen opposite and tried to set them right; they always worked together on matters of that kind. Although there were circumstances with regard to the Congo Free State which wer every different from anything that was alleged in the Egyptian case, yet there was this fact. This House desired to pursue a policy which would conciliate the Egyptians to our rule, if it were possible, and if our object was to strike terror, as it seemed to be from the terrible floggings of which they read, it was fatal to our Occupation, and we must give up the Occupation in Egypt altogether if it could not be maintained without such things as that. He thought enormous harm had been done by the telegram. The punishment of flogging when, even remotely, it appeared to be connected with political offences was one which did this country great and permanent harm abroad, where, in most countries, an entirely different view prevailed with regard to these matters from that which prevailed here. There was some reason for those remarks, because there had been such things denied at first, but afterwards admitted and were recorded. One terrible case was that of Afghanistan at Christmas, 1879–80; a case first denied, afterwards admitted, subsequently apologised for in this House, complete satisfaction being ultimately given. He would not pursue the subject now, as time was precious. All he asked
  282
  the right hon. Gentleman to do in correcting that telegram was to make it clear to the country, and if possible to the world, that we repudiated the statement that we gloried in such horrors; and also that he should remember that the punishment of flogging in connection with any offence which could even appear to be a political offence did undying harm to the name of this country abroad. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Monaghan, he was glad to think we had now reached a time when Catholic opinion and Belgian Catholic opinion was on our side. This country was fond of Belgium, and had great sympathy for the Belgian ' people in this matter of the Congo Free State. He asserted most emphatically that there was no quarrel with Belgium. The quarrel was with the Sovereign of the Congo Free State as a distinct and separate entity from the King of the Belgians, and he was happy to say that after a long struggle Catholic opinion in Belgium was with us on this matter.
  MR. MCKEAN: No, No !
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that was the case. The hon. Gentleman he was afraid had been trying to raise Catholic opinion in Belgium against us on this subject, as he had endeavoured to raise Irish opinion against us. There was one most gratifying illustration of the truth of what he said in the book written by Father Vermeersch, a Jesuit, which had been circulated, not by him, but by his brother Jesuits, a fact which showed that those gentlemen had come to the belief that the state of things in the Congo Free State was doing harm to the national name of Belgium and the Catholic cause throughout the world. It was from the point of view of the patriotic Belgian and the religious Catholic that Belgians had circulated the work of Father Vermeersch. The hon. Member in his speech referred to the domaine de la Couronne. In that domain there was not a single Roman Catholic missionary and not a single mission station of any kind. Therefore there was a territory, next to the territories of the great companies, where the worst abuses prevailed of any part of the State, with regard to which we might admit that the Catholic missionaries had not been able to help us because

  283
  they were excluded from that country. He had stated that all the most authorised representatives of Belgian Catholic opinion had now come on to our side. He would make good that assertion. The newspaper in Belgium which had the largest sale, Le Patriote, was on the side of reform. The best Conservative paper, Le 20 ième Siècle, and Le Bien public de Gand, which was the best-known ultramontane paper in Belgium, were on our side. The present attitude of the Catholic Church in Belgium was expressed by the episcopal organ when it said, in reference to the proceedings they had been pointing out, " This must cease." In the recent five days debate in the Belgian Chamber a number of Catholic organs were quoted, as showing the change of opinion that had occurred. The Mouvement das Missions Catholiques au Congo, an official Bulletin, had declared that " We must submit to the evidence," and " not continue to compromise everywhere the Belgian name." That was exactly what they in this country said, and they were, he submitted, friends of Belgium and not its enemies in saying it. He believed they might now say that the whole of the Protestant missionaries— Swedish, Norwegian, American, Danish, German and British, and the Catholic missionaries stood upon the same side. The hon. Member for South Monaghan had denied altogether the right of this country to interfere, and that right had also been denied by one or two of his friends by interpellated questions during the last few weeks. The State was the absolute creation of Europe, and the right of the Powers collectively to interfere had never been denied by anybody except the King of the Belgians. As to the right of this country to interfere, Stanley, who had in this House described himself as the servant of the King of the Belgians, had declared that we had the strongest claim to intervention if we chose to intervene. The right of intervention seemed to him to be clear beyond all dispute. There were not wanting occasions on which we had interfered in affairs of State on behalf of humanity, where we were less entitled than in this case. But looking at the history of this transaction—which was told most admirably in another place a few days
  284
  ago by the late Secretary of State and the present Under-Secretary of State, who agreed completely on every point— it was impossible to say we had not a national responsibility. The State was founded by the Anti-Slavery Society. It was created in the name of Almighty God for the protection of the natives of Africa, and as an example to all other people of how the natives of Africa should be treated. The hon. Member for Gravesend had alluded to the action of this House in the Congo State at various times. The first action was that taken by him, in which he was glad to say he had the support of the hon. Member for East Mayo, who would, no doubt, take the same line on this occasion as he did then, namely, that of condemning these horrors, but holding that we should first set our own house in order. In that he quite agreed, but we had a national responsibility in respect of this particular State. After that the missionaries were called in and an illusory Committee was appointed to blindfold the people. Then in 1903 there was the unanimous Resolution of this House in consequence of which King Leopold most unwillingly appointed the Commission of Inquiry. Next came the report of that Commission, which he withheld from publication until he was forced into publishing it. The evidence had never been published up to the present time. Then came the reference of that report to the Reforms Commission—a Commission which, though packed with creatures of the King, nevertheless reported dead against him. That report had not been published, though the President of the Commission pressed for its publication, and a Resolution was carried unanimously by the Belgian Chamber. In the preface to that Resolution it was stated that the Chamber expected that the report of the Reforms Commission would be published, which it had never been. It also expressed the conviction that the decrees based on that report would be satisfactory. Those decrees were drawn by the Commission of Reforms, and they were cut down and sent out to Governor-General Waihis who was responsible for all the horror that had occurred. In their emasculated form the decrees were offered to us as though they were a sufficient

  285
  satisfactory reply to all the demands. What was wanted above all was publicity. The five days debate in the Belgian Chamber eventuated in this resolution —
  " Seeing the conclusions of the Commission of inquiry … expresses confidence in the Commission of Reforms and the consequent decrees … and decides to proceed without delay with the Annexation Bill."
  Both Parties in this House had accepted the policy of annexation of the State to Belgium because annexation to a free constitutional State like Belgium ought to bring Parliamentary responsibility and publicity. But, they had since seen the King's manifesto, which, flouting Europe in a way which Europe had seldom been flouted by any potentate, and maintaining principles which they thought were out of date and which were, at all events, singularly inconsistent with the original principles of the foundation of the State and with the original claims made by the king himself, hampered the whole of the future of the State and showed that the King did not desire, in spite of his Ministers, to hand over that State to his country in a free and above-board fashion. What had been done? This, was a practical House, and desired to see practical steps taken. By these decrees as they now stood the domains were left alone. Some of the evidence was too horrible to publish, and witnesses were being punished; but feeling in this country had been too strongly excited to allow Mr. Stannard to die in gaol. He supported the hon. Member for Gravesend in the proposals he had made. Germany had not been very willing to act with us in the past, but always, he thought, for political reasons, having to do with the general state of Europe. On the particular case in question the German Chambers of Commerce and various conferences had more than once expressed concurrence in our view. Lord Fitzmaurice in a recent debate threw out a suggestion which was not reported, that the International Commission for the Congo Navigation could be set up by the Berlin Act. † The Foreign Office once threw some doubt upon the possibility of setting up that Com-
  † See (4) Debates, clix., 1580.
  286
  mission and rather looked upon it as a temporary power which had lapsed. If the Foreign Office did express that view they were wrong. There was one possible means of action besides the revival of the Consular tribunals, the setting up of the Congo Navigation Commission, which he held could be done. To bring into force the navigation powers which could be maintained by such a Commission required only the signature of five of the signatory Powers. He admitted that we could not act in such a matter without Germany, but knowing the feeling of the German Chambers of Commerce on this question he believed it was not impossible to secure. German co-operation, but it should not be overlooked that it was within the right of any five Powers to establish at once a Commission for the navigation of the Congo, supported by their own ships of war. What they asked was more light, and he believed the various suggestions thrown out would afford a leverage for getting it. It was light and publicity they were asking for and which he was convinced this country was still demanding.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): I rise, not because I wish to reply now on the Congo debate, or on most of the points which have been raised. I realise that there are others who still wish to speak. But I rise to make a short statement, an appeal to the Committee on a subject which has been touched on. It is, if the Committee will only realise it, the most serious subject which has yet been touched upon this evening—the question of the present position in Egypt. The right hon. Baronet has spoken of the immense harm which has been done by the first impression given by the report of the way in which the sentences were carried out. I asked the House when the sentences were first announced to accept the statement which I made that the tribunal had been the highest possible, and that its character was such as to be a guarantee that the trial had been fair. But that was followed by an account of the way in which the sentences were carried out. Now, I am perfectly well aware of the effect and impression made

  287
  by that account which appeared in the Press. It gave rise to two impressions certainly, I think, perhaps, three. One impression conveyed by that account was that, in executing the sentences, the men who were going to be hung were compelled to regard others being flogged, so that the last thing they saw was the sight of other men being flogged. The second impression was that the execution of the sentences had been deliberately protracted so that it lasted for a period of three hours. I am told that the third impression created was that the population was compelled to attend and witness the execution. When I read that account in the Press I made up my mind at once that with a short account like that the only fair and sensible thing to do was to say nothing, and as far as possible to do what is much harder, to think nothing till a full report of the whole circumstances had been received from our responsible representative in Egypt, and from those who were concerned in the case. I would ask the House still to wait for a full report—but I have enough information to dispose of all these three points. It is not the case that any single one of the condemned men witnessed the sentences being carried out on others; they were kept apart in separate tents so that that should not be done, and special pains were taken to prevent that. In the next place, the sentences were carried out with the greatest expedition possible in the circumstances of the case; it did not last for three hours, but the whole were executed in one hour. In the third place, no one not on duty was compelled to attend, and a cordon of police was formed to keep the population at a considerable distance. That disposes entirely of the painful impression produced on those three points by the first report that appeared in the newspapers. I would ask the Committee to believe that, when the Court had pronounced its sentence, and the sentences, I think, were to be carried out on the scene of the outrage, there fell to those on whom the duty rested of carrying out the decree of the court a serious and most painful duty, which had to be carried out under considerable difficulties. I must ask the Committee to believe, as I believe from the information I have now read, that that was carried out in
  288
  a way which did not lay anyone concerned open to the charge of being callous. I ask the Committee to remember that I have promised full Papers on this subject. Short telegraphic reports are always liable to error. I would ask the Committee to remember that, in a matter of this importance, to embark upon a discussion before you have a full report of the circumstances, is certain to lead to things being said which, when you get the full facts, you will realise have not been fair to those who have been concerned. Already some unfairness has been done by the way in which Captain Machell's name has been brought into the matter, which I have done my best to repair by a reply I have made this afternoon as to Captain Machell's character. Surely it has been recognised for some time that of all the English officials employed in the service of the Empire, there are none of higher standing than there are in Egypt, owing to the great capacity that has been shown by Lord Cromer, and his great care in selecting men of ability, character, and fairness. Therefore, on the ground simply of mere-fairness, I would ask the Committee not to embark on a debate on this until they have more Papers. But this is not the most serious ground. All this year a fanatical feeling in Egypt has been on the increase. It has not been confined to Egypt, it has been stretching along the north of Africa generally. It was for that reason a little time ago that the garrison had to be increased, and the despatch of British officers which happened recently is something which would never have occurred a little time ago, and would not have occurred to-day but for the fanatical feeling which has arisen in Egypt and spread during this year. Since that attack took place, and even before the trial of those who had been condemned for the attack, one or two disagreeable and significant attacks had been made, I think, upon British individuals, or at all events, Europeans, by natives. We may be on the eve of further measures necessary to protect Europeans in Egypt; and if the House of Commons questions the decision of a tribunal composed of the highest English Judges and the highest Egyptian Judges, it is bound to have the effect of weakening the authority

  289
  of the Egyptian Government. As things are now I say deliberately, with a full sense of responsibility, if the House of Commons does anything at this moment to weaken or destroy the authority of the Government as it exists in Egypt, they will be face to face with a very serious situation, because if the fanatical feeling in Egypt gets the better of the constituted authority of the Egyptian Government you are then face to face with the use of force. The work which has been done by Lord Cromer in the last generation has been widely recognised. The condition in Egypt to-day is very different from what it was twenty-five years ago—I doubt whether in any generation you will find the lot of the common people has improved so much as that of the Egyptian people has, compared with the original state they were in before we were there. I know very well the House is not going to allow, whatever happens in Egypt, that work to be swept away by a rush of fanatical passion. I know that that is so. I promise to lay full Papers on this question, not because I doubt the fairness of the trial, or of anything that has happened, but because, when a wrong impression has once got afoot, as the right hon. Baronet said, how difficult it is to overtake it. The only chance of overtaking and removing it is to publish the fullest possible information. Therefore I shall publish it, not because I doubt, or because I think the House doubts, but because I wish to overtake and remove that wrong impression. As I say, I know the House is determined not to allow the work we have done in Egypt to be undone; but if they say or do anything in debate now to weaken the authority of the Egyptian Government, they may find themselves at any moment forced to take other measures, unconstitutional measures, measures which they are bound to take in an emergency, which no one would regret more than the present Government, and no one more than the present House of Commons, though they might be compelled to do so.
  EARL PERCYsaid that with reference to the executions in Egypt he would say nothing after the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, except to
  290
  express, he thought, on behalf of the whole House the satisfaction with which they heard the statement he had made, and the desire they all had to do everything in their power to avoid giving the impression of wishing to criticise in any way the conduct of the Egyptian administration. The right hon. Gentleman had called for a report both upon the procedure in court and upon the manner in which the sentences were carried out; and, until the report was received, it would obviously be unfair that they should pass any judgment upon the transaction. So far as he was concerned, and he believed he might also speak for the Party with which he was associated, he saw no advantage, on the facts as stated, in carrying the matter further. The House of Commons had in the past never claimed a general right of intervention in the ordinary administration of affairs in Egypt, most of the responsibility for which must rest on the Khedive and his officers, and the right hon. Gentleman who had control in this country, which was fortunate in possessing as its representative in Egypt one who had earned in the course of many years administration the confidence and respect of all classes of the community. He believed they might have every confidence in entrusting matters of this kind to the judgment and discretion of the right hon. Gentleman and Lord Cromer. It was not necessary to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give any fresh assurances as to the policy of the Government on the wider issues of foreign policy. The declarations of the right hon. Gentleman before he assumed office and the policy he had pursued since give them every confiednce that the Anglo-Japanese Alliance and the maintenance of close and cordial relations with our neighbours across the Channel were regarded by the present Government as the twin pivots on which the foreign policy of this country rested. Both of them were founded on the natural community of interests, and neither of them prejudiced in the slightest degree our friendly relations with any other power. On the contrary it might be said to be one of the greatest arguments against a policy of isolation, which he thought this country had now definitely abandoned, that inevitably there should be a suspicion in the minds

  291
  of foreign countries that a nation which had no settled affections could hardly have a settled policy. He passed, therefore, to the subject which had been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean which would perhaps be further alluded to in the course of the debate. He meant the question of the treatment of the Jews in Russia. That subject had been dealt with in terms of strong indignation. Indignation could not be expressed too strongly; but he thought that very careful consideration was required before such a course as that suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean was adopted by the Government. The right hon. Baronet had said very truly that we had to carefully abstain from taking any side.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Or seeming to take a side.
  EARL PERCY: Or seeming to take a side in the internal policy of Russia. He was not quite sure that the course which the hon. Baronet recommended might not have exactly that effect. We had no right to suppose that either the Government of Russia or public opinion in Russia was less alive than we were to the infamy attaching to these repeated outrages upon an inoffensive and defence-less population; and he thought they must recognise quite as clearly as we did the disastrous effect which a repetition of them might have on the relations between the two countries, which all desired should be placed on a more friendly basis. When minorities in any country were exposed to persecution of this kind it was commonly charged against them, either in good or bad faith, that they were actuated by motives of disloyalty to the Government under which they lived; and he was afraid nothing would be more likely to lend colour to that than criticism or intervention on the part of foreign countries. He thought that if this country was to render real assistance to the Jews that assistance might take a different form. The emigration of Jews from Russia, if this persecution were continued, would probably reach an unprecedented scale and might give rise
  292
  to appeals to facilitate the acquisition of temporary settlements for the refugees. One scheme had already been under the consideration of the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office in regard to the acquiring of territory in Africa. Although that had been abandoned, other schemes might very likely be brought forward, and if that was the case he should like to offer for his own part an expression of his wish that His Majesty's Government and other Governments would bring to the consideration of any such schemes an earnest desire to do something more than offer platonic sympathy to the Jewish people, who had quite as much title to the sympathy of the Powers as many of those other races on whose behalf the good offices of Europe had been so often invoked and secured in the past. He wished to touch on the question of the 3 per cent. increase in the Turkish Customs duties in connection with Macedonia. The debate which took place two days ago in another place had left him in some doubt as to what the present state of affairs was. He understood that His Majesty's Government in common with the other Powers presented to Turkey a Note in which they signified their readiness to assent to an increase in the Customs duties on condition that certain stipulations were carried out. He understood also that the Turkish Government made a reply, in the course of which they raised so many objections and difficulties that the negotiations had practically come to a stand. He did not understand that the negotiations had been finally dropped or that the Government had dissociated themselves from the action of the other Powers. As they were at present in the dark as to the particular point on which the negotiations had broken down, it was very difficult to form any opinion as to the chances of their eventually reaching a satisfactory termination. He believed the Turkish Government had signified assent to the demands already made in regard to the reform of the Turkish regulations affecting British trade. He concluded, therefore, that the difficulties raised had reference to the demand that the collection of the proceeds of the new duties should be entrusted to the Commission of the Ottoman Debt, or else to the stipulation

  293
  that was made, that the 3 per cent. increase should be limited to a period of seven years. He entirely agreed with the statement the Government had made in another place, that those demands formed the irreducible minimum which we could accept. He did not believe that public opinion in this country would agree to an appreciable extra burden on British trade, unless we had some guarantee that the money would be properly spent, that the promises of the Turkish Government would be carried out, that the financial equilibrium in Macedonia should be restored, which we might hope would take place within seven years, and that British trade would not be put in the position of having to go on contributing money for purposes of expenditure, or the financing of schemes for railways, or other purposes, from which British trade would derive possibly no benefit, or a very indirect benefit, and over which we should have no control, or no adequate control. But the breakdown of these negotiations with regard to the 3 per cent. increase might be regarded from two points of view — from the purely British point of view, or from the point of view of the European Powers. He thought the failure of those negotiations might be regarded, he would not say merely with equanimity, but with positive satisfaction, so far as we were concerned, for we should no longer be under the obligation to consent to further burdens on British trade, and so far as other Powers were concerned, they would not be in the I position of having to surrender a lever in regard to finance which might perhaps be of great advantage to them in future negotiations with Turkey. But from the point of view of the Tukish Government the breakdown of the negotiations was little short of disastrous. Without fresh revenue neither the financial commission nor the gendarmerie could carry their work to a successful conclusion, and it was obvious that the Powers could not with any regard for their self-respect allow the commission to become a nonentity. Therefore, in some way or other the requisite money must be found, and it could not be found from increased taxation within the Ottoman Empire. It amounted already to 12s. per head per annum, and it would be universally recognised that no administrative reform
  294
  would compensate them for an increase in the burden they now bore. It had been suggested that, as an alternative to the increase of the Customs duties, the Powers might consider the policy of guaranteeing a joint loan to Turkey. In the first place, he did not suppose the Government desired to encourage Turkey in the policy of borrowing, least of all for purposes which should be met out of current revenue; and, secondly, a loan would not be compatible with the existence of such a condition as the seven years' limit without which there would be no effective guarantee for the proper use of the money. Only two practical solutions remained. Either the Powers would have to insist upon the thorough re-organisation of the whole financial system of Turkey, a proposal which would involve an interference with the prerogatives of Turkey greater than had yet been suggested, or else they would have to insist upon a reduction of the vast military expenditure which was largely responsible for the present deficit, but a reduction which the Powers would not be justified in insisting upon unless they also insisted upon a corresponding reduction in the military armaments of the surrounding Powers, or were willing to give a collective guarantee of the territorial integrity of the Turkish Empire. The adoption of either of these courses would raise issues of great magnitude which the acceptance of the financial commission had laid in abeyance. He believed that the financial commission, if properly supported by the Powers, was capable of effecting very material improvements in every branch of Turkish administration. He frankly recognised that if Turkey persisted in its present attitude, a new chapter would be forced upon the Powers. He, therefore, hoped that the Turkish Government would think twice before they rejected conditions which were neither onerous nor disadvantageous to them, and the refusal of which could only be interpreted as motived by a desire on their part to reduce the financial commission to impotence. As to the question of the Congo, it was quite true that it was not from the Berlin Act that the sovereignty of the Congo State was derived, and that that Act did not provide any machinery for enforcing the obligations which were undertaken by its signatories.

  295
  But, as the assent of the Powers to the recognition of the Congo as a State possessing a national existence was given on the express understanding that certain definite principles of administration would be recognised by its Government, it was idle to contend that the Powers had not the right, collectively or individually, to reconsider their position if effect were not given to those principles. He should say further, that, apart altogether from treaty obligations, every State interested in any portion of the territory of the Congo comprised in the Convention had not only the right, but was under the obligation, from the point of view of self-interest, to consider how far the present system of misgovernment carried with it a serious menace to the reputation and even to the security of the European Government. He thought that if any criticism was possible on the action of the late or the present Government in regard to the Congo it was that they had been over-patient. His Majesty's Government would find it difficult, if not impossible, to defend the attitude of mere passive remonstrance if the only result of their forbearance was that the situation altered—as it undoubtedly had altered since the report of the first Commission —steadily for the worse. In regard to the report of the first Commission he had no desire to question its general fairness and impartiality. So far from seeking to palliate the infractions of the law and the abuses which had taken place, he thought the report might be taken as a general condemnation of the whole system under which the administration of those territories had been carried on, and was an emphatic endorsement of the accusations that had been brought against the Congo Government. What we were principally concerned with was not the verdict of that Commission on what had passed, but their recommendations regarding the future, and the practical steps that were to be taken to give effect to those recommendations. In the circumstances, one would have thought that the Congo Government would have been the first to recognise the need of some immediate action. It was said in their defence that some of the reforms proposed by the first Commission required elaboration
  296
  in detail by persons possessed of some actual experience in administration. Even on that assumption, the composition of the second Commission was open to very serious criticism. From that Commission every representative not only of Protestant, but of Catholic missions, was excluded, and it contained actually seven members of the very Administration whose conduct had been so severely condemned. He was not disposed himself to admit that some of the most important reforms advocated by the first Commission ought not to have been immediately put into force without further investigation. Why should not the forty hours minimum of labour have been enforced; why should not fresh lists of contributors have been drawn up with a view to a more equal distribution of taxation; why should not stringent interim orders have been issued forbidding the employment of armed forces in connexion with the taxes; why should not a beginning have been made with earning out the recommendations of the first Commission with regard to the judicial administration of the Congo? The extraordinary decision not to publish the findings contained in the report of the second Commission was exceedingly regrettable. The decrees were for the most part a mere reaffirmation of general laws and regulations which had been for a long time in existence, but which had not been enforced. As to the suggestion that the doubling of the number of officers which was necessary to secure the adequate control of the public forces, and that the general reorganisation of the administration must be postponed and could not be taken in hand without a further increase of revenue, he observed that the ruler of the Congo State had been able to devote a large part of the proceeds of that State to magnificent public buildings in Europe. Yet we were to wait for an increase in the revenues before the Congo State carried out its elementary obligation, but for which it would never have obtained international recognition. The one solitary measure on which we were asked to pin our confidence was the appointment of three inspectors to look after the interests of the natives in an area of something like a million square miles.

  297
  In one respect he discerned in the Report of the second Commission a slight advance on the Report of the first. They recommended that in future the right of levying taxation should be entrusted to special agents who were to act under the District Commissioners. If that recommendation meant that the agents were in future to have no connection with trade, and if it were adopted, it might mark a certain improvement. In view of the statement which had been made that the taxpayer had no right to claim the countervail of the tax which he paid, and the fact that there were no means of ascertaining how a great portion of the revenues derived from the Congo State—either the domaine de la Couronne or the domaine privé— were actually spent, one could not wonder that people should assert that no substantial amelioration of the state of affairs in the Congo could be expected without that provision for full and constant publicity and searching supervision which would be obtained by the establishment by Belguim of Parliamentary control over these territories. That brought him to the concluding remarks he had to make. An answer was given by the Foreign Secretary the other day to the effect that the Government did not propose to renew their representations on this subject in view of the fact that the Congo Free State recognised its obligations under Article 5 of the Berlin Treaty, and time should, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, be given to see the result of the action taken under the present decree. He thought the wording of that answer was unfortunate. There were two Articles of the Berlin Act which had a bearing upon this matter—Article 5 and Article 6. Article 5 referred to free trade in the Congo Basin, and the Congo authorities had always placed a different interpretation to that which we placed on those words. We had invited not merely the Congo Free State, but also France and the other Powers interested to submit the whole question of the interpretation of this free trade clause of the Berlin Act to the decision of some impartial tribunal. A short time ago the French Government seemed mot unwilling to consider the invitation favourably, and he earnestly hoped,
  298
  in view of the dissatisfaction which existed, and the necessity of clearing up questions of this kind in order to avoid all chance of friction with any Power in the future, the right hon. Gentleman would do his best to bring the Powers into line with us in that connection. Article 6 referred to the protection of the natives. And every man of the House except one agreed that the decrees which had been announced were hopelessly inadequate to secure a radical and real reform even if they were carried out in the Congo Free State territory, which was very doubtful. Yet we were going to imply by deferring representations on this subject, until it was seen whether these reforms were satisfactory, that we had some hope of a satisfactory result coming from these reforms. He had no such hope, and if he did not press the Government to-night it was because he was conversant with this question, having had to study it when he was a member of the late Government, and because he knew all the difficulties. In this matter we had no quarrel with Belgium. In the debate no one had uttered a word of criticism of Belgium or the Belgian people. There was ample evidence that the Belgian people were quite alive to the extreme gravity of the situation. Than England there was no country in Europe which, in view of its treaty obligations, had a greater interest in the strength and prestige of Belgium, and no one would rejoice more heartily than ourselves if under Belgian auspices, under the contro of the Belgian Parliament, the Congo Free State were made in reality what its authors aspired it should be, a standing monument not only to the colonising genius but to the humanity, aims, and principles of the Belgian people.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he did not propose to continue the discussion on the Congo Free State. After all, what he saw going on there was but a continuation of what had taken place in all countries civilised and uncivilised in the past—the rich and strong oppressing and robbing the weak and unfortunate. He rose to refer again to the contemplated visit of the British Fleet to Russia. In Russia at the present time was being waged one of those great

  299
  constitutional struggles which divided a nation into two parts. On the one side was practically the entire nation—the peasants, the workmen, the great intellectuals of the universities, and the business men—demanding the sight of self-government; on the other, the Czar and the small ruling class which desired to perpetuate autocratic government. Under these circumstances, if the British Fleet went to Russian waters, who would be honoured by the visit, and what interpretation would be placed on the visit by the people as a whole? Some further light had been thrown on the situation by the telegrams which appeared in this morning's papers. In a letter to the Tribune, one of the Leaders of the Liberal Party in Russia expressed the opinion that if this visit took place it would be looked upon by the people of Russia as a siding on the part of this country with those who were opposing the reform movement. Surely it would be a mistake for the Fleet of Great Britain to visit the Government of a nation when that Government was in open conflict with the entire nation. Only the other day they were told that the explanation of the mutiny of the Marines at Cronstadt was the fear that the British warships which were coming to Cronstadt would fire on them as supposed mutineers. An overwhelming majority of the Liberal Party were against this visit as was a very fair percentage of the Unionist Party. Under all these circumstances was the Government justified in taking the risk of appearing to oppress the people of Russia? If the Fleet went to Cronstadt it would not go to the people of Russia, but to the Russian Government. It would not go with the goodwill of the people of this country, but on the responsibility of the Government itself. If festivities were held, there was strong probability that they would result in conflict between our Marines and the Russian Marines. Undoubtedly from every consideration that could appeal to the Government it was to be hoped that even now the Foreign Office would so recast its plans as to take the visit of our fleet to Cronstadt out of the area of the possible. The persecution of the Jews was but one phase of the struggle for reform. Every prison in Russia
  300
  was filled to overflowing with political prisoners. The road to Siberia was-black with the long dark lines of men and women who had been sent to exile because they were asking to be treated like human beings, and he for one protested against this country in any shape appearing to side with a system of government which made that state of affairs possible. He hoped therefore they would have some assurance in the matter.
  MR. STUART SAMUELdesired to enter a protest against our fleet being sent to pay a visit to Russia. Such a visit was always regarded as a compliment to the country to which it was sent, and if the British Government sent the Fleet at this time to a Russian port it would be practically an insult to the people of this country. It had been proved that the present Russian Government not only connived at but was implicated in the massacres at Byelostok and elsewhere. Were we to hold out our hands in friendship to hands that were imbued with the blood of innocent women and children? The accounts of the massacres at Byelostok which had reached this country from authentic sources were really too horrible for words. He would content himself with reading to the Committee an extract from a Russian newspaper in connection with the murders at Byelostok, describing the funerals of the Jews who had been murdered—
  " But the moat striking scenes were observed near a stretcher which stood apart from the others, in width were lying two little corpses— brother and sister. Their bodies were covered up but their heads were visible. The brother, two years of age, had his hack ripped up with an axe, and the sister, only ten months old, had been strangled. Both appeared as if calmly asleep lying clasped in each others arms and representing the most touching and peaceful picture of two little children wrapped in slumber. Their mother had also been killed. The persons surrounding this stretcher are not the relations of the children, but nevertheless the despair is indescribable and all the men, women, and children round about are weeping bitterly, and their groans and cries seem to say Why all this? and to raise a reproach to the Heavens."
  That was a quotation from a Russian paper, and the fact that it had been, allowed to appear in Russia showed that it was founded on fact. This country very properly refused to recognise the

  301
  murderers of the King and Queen of Servia, but he submitted that the life of the meanest person in a country should be protected by the Government of that country. There was no difference between the life of a sovereign and the life of a subject so long as the individual was wronged. And therefore to send the Fleet at the present time to fête this Government —which, contrary to what had been said by the noble Lord opposite, had been conclusively shown to be implicated in these murders—at a time when the Jews were being murdered in Russia would be a great mistake. Time was when this country was the great champion of liberty, and he believed it to be still. In the American House of Representatives a vote had been unanimously passed in both Houses condemming the outrages on the Jews in Russia. He did not object to the rivalry, but would be very sorry to find that this country had been deposed by the United States as the champion of oppressed peoples and of liberty. He trusted therefore that the Government would take note of the proceedings in the American Houses of Parliament, and that even at this stage they would still decide not to send the Fleet to Cronstadt. In any case, as a member of the Jewish faith, he must raise his protest against this country having any dealings with those who had been guilty of the crimes he had referred to.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOONsaid the debate had ranged over a variety of subjects, which must be the reason for all reference to the present state of affairs in China having so far been omitted, but which might, he feared, before long require the vigilant attention of the Government. But before alluding in detail to that subject, he desired to ask the Secretary of State whether he was aware that the Sultan of Brunei had recently died, and if so, whether the Foreign Office had it in contemplation to incorporate the Brunei territories with the domain of the Rajah of Sarawak. The Regent of Brunei, commonly known as the Bandara, as well as all those who had qualification and authority to speak on the matter, had strongly declared their anxiety in writing to have that fusion brought about without any further loss of time. He felt convinced that in view of the humane and
  302
  enlightened administration of the Rajah, the Foreign Office would give this matter their earliest consideration. He now came to the cautious and circumspect allusion of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean to the contemplated despatch of the British Squadron to Russian waters. We could put out of sight the existence of a dark and menacing spot in a not inconsiderable portion of Europe, where the pinions of liberty and ordered government wore groping, struggling, toiling towards an issue, and he therefore was heartily in agreement with the right hon. Baronet that any action on our part which might even remotely be interpreted as a condonation of those hideous excesses and barbarities which had been amply brought home to the disgrace of Russian authorities, or as countenancing the taking of sides between those who were engaged in the epoch-making conflict between the bureaucracy and the Duma, would mean a deplorable set back towards reaching that issue. Looking further east, we saw the successful emergence from the straits and narrowness of an ancient and mediaeval feudalism. Japan had been spontaneously accorded a front rank among the nations of the globe. But the newly extended alliance with this country was eminently calculated to maintain order and stability in the Far East, to conduce to civilised progress in those regions, and, above all, to give effect to the universal cry of "hands off" to a Power with a stormy petrel at its head, who had been only too conspicuous in fermenting discord among the comity of nations. But eirenicon, with Japan was apparently not devoid of the something bitter, not exempt from some sources of friction and anxiety; because her great neighbour China, without the homogeneity, the cohesion, or any of the attributes of a civilised scheme of government, was endeavouring to acquire immunity from all liability to the trammels of international control. China had shown signs in many directions, and in divers ways, that she was chafing binder that tutelage. Her government was trying to nullify the treaty governing the conduct of the maritime customs, and to usurp the functions and jurisdiction of the consular body in respect of the administration of the Mixed Court. In order to vindicate its aspirations, the oligarchy should prove its capacity to govern as well as to reign, the central

  303
  government should be able to show that it could make its fiat obeyed throughout the length and breadth of the land, and that it possessed the first elements for the dispensing of strictly impartial justice, for the administering of a just and a humane code of laws. He asked the Committee whether these conditions were at all within a measurable distance of being fulfilled. The desire to achieve and to imitate a conquest by Japan of freedom from foreign control, to promote a policy of exclusion and extrusion embodied in the phrase of " China for the Chinese," from all the available data at our disposal seemed to be based upon nothing more tangible than the vague and nebulous view of being altogether rid of the foreign barbarian, without the remotest notion of what might happen to the considerable foreign interests and to the numerically not negligible foreign subjects, who were there pursuing their normal legitimate avocations secured to them under the aegis of treaties, some of them concluded two centuries ago and under the Pax Britannica as represented by the wholesome presence of the British Navy in the far Eastern mains. This consideration, though important, was not the only one. Had any human being any conception of what would befall the Chinese themselves, clustered in their millions under the patriarchal and more or less benevolent despotism of provincial viceroys, whose allegiance to the emperor and empress, or whichever was the power behind the throne, was of the slenderest character, who had been encouraged to organise Army levies for the purpose of maintaining order which the Government themselves, in acts of public spirit, seemed unable to see done themselves, and to whom the bare inkling of foreign withdrawal would be a trumpet call for internecine warfare or struggle for mastery? Did any one doubt that such an occurrence, with its sanguinary trail, would spell disaster, woe and red ruin, to the industrious millions who inhabited that vast geographical and heterogeneous entity known as the Chinese Empire? Fortunately, the Powers were united in their resolve to resist any encroachments upon formally, solemnly, and deliberately concluded treaties. The consuls were, he believed, keenly alive to the latent and inchoate, if they liked, but yet serious unrest and disaffection which was sedulously and
  304
  clandestinely being fanned by some of the advanced Chinese politicians. He would address a respectful warning to the right hon. Gentleman not to permit any repudiation of the legally acquired rights, of British subjects. If immunity was vouchsafed in one case, it would assuredly lead to fresh violations. Some weeks ago he brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman a case which he felt sure, the Committee would agree was an exceptionally flagrant instance of this new spirit that was abroad. He was loth to weary the Committee, and so proposed cursorily to run over the salient features of the Anhui Mining Contract. The preliminary agreement was signed in May, 1902, by the order of the Governor of Anhui, an important district on the Yangtze, and a British syndicate. The final contract was concluded with all the formal, prescribed formalities known to diplomatic usage at the Chinese Foreign Office, in June, 1903, with the full concurrence of our Minister. Mr. Wilkinson, the Legation Secretary, was instructed to be present. Thereupon the sinking of shafts and blasting operations were commenced at considerable expense, in order to determine the value of the mineral deposits. In June, 1905, the engineering and mining staff were sent down, only to be told, without rhyme or reason, that permission could not be granted. That was a deliberate attempt to tender nugatory a concession of which His Majesty's Government had, over and over again, recognised the validity, because the required conditions, and to this he gathered the right hon. Gentleman assented, had been scrupulously observed. Thirteen months had since elapsed, and the demand of our Minister for a recognition of title had been treated with contemptuous procrastination. The natives of Anhui were only too anxious for the granting of the permission, so that they might earn their wages by the emploment which the mine owners were desirous of offering. The Secretary of State had exhausted all methods or persuasion; all conciliatory devices having so signally failed of their effect, the question arose should the Government, would it be wise, for them to acquiesce in such cavalier treatment? The right hon. Gentleman realised, and no one better, the mischievous character of the precedent that would be set were such unquestioned claims allowed to be

  305
  disregarded and the Mackay Treaty, one of the essential stipulations of which contemplated the sanctity of these rights to be unceremoniously torn up and treated as so much waste paper, forsooth, because it did not accord either with the wish or the convenience of the Chinese Government to adhere to them. He might mention that he had no direct or indirect personal interest in this particular matter. But the view of those on the spot, who were best qualified to form a judgment, was that such claims, when recognised by our Government, should be resolutely urged and as promptly enforced. In the case of another Oriental recalcitrant Power nearer East, the Committee would recall to mind the incident of the seizure of a German vessel by the authorities in Constantinople; the German Ambassador, without wasting precious time on circumlocutory correspondence, boarded the vessel himself and hoisted the national flag, and the trick was done. He would suggest to the right lion. Gentleman that it would be rendering a service to the Chinese Government were he to adopt a more vigorous course of action. In that case the Government would turn to the provincial governor and say, " This is a case of force majeure, resistance is futile," and so the Chinese face would be saved. Was there anything unreasonable in that suggestion t the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who knew China well, could assure the Committee how vital, and what vital assets were prestige and influence in Oriental countries, and how disastrous it would be for our Foreign Office to brook an act of injustice on so shallow and untenable a plea as the refractory attitude of a country governor. Let the Committee suppose that our own Government, or any other civilised nation, were to be guilty of a similar injustice; they could be taken before the impartial tribunals of the land, they could, to use the expressive language of recent education debates, be mandamused, or reparation could be obtained by the salutory provisions of a Defaulting Authorities Bill. What recourse had our subjects in China? What could they do to exact redress if the arm of British might and majesty confessed its powerlessness? A more contumacious act on the part of China had hardly yet been recorded. He shrewdly suspected that her states-
  306
  men, who were acute philosophers, had been speculating on the efficacy of those doctrines of non-intervention and turning the cheek to the smiter, which had been so abundantly preached and so insistently advocated by many supporters of the right hon. Gentleman. He respectfully pointed out that by tamely submitting to a bare-faced act of spoliation, which he felt convinced neither the United States nor Germany would tolerate, the right hon. Gentleman would be laying up a store of trouble and harassment to the Government and the nation, such as in former years and so unexpectedly led to the China war. He earnestly implored him not to allow our far-reaching influence and preponderance to became a byword and a reproach, that the influence and power, by means of which, and of which alone our subjects' rights might be uphold, and the predominant commercial position of Great Britain in the China Seas might remain properly safeguarded and unimpaired.
  MR. BENNETTsaid the subject of the Congo State was one upon which he felt as deeply as upon any topic which had been discussed in this House. It was, of course, quite impossible within the time available in the present debate to attempt to bring forward in any detail the evidence upon which they relied in their case against the Congo State. Every fair-minded man who had gone into the question must be aware of the infamous misgovernment of that region and the widespread pillage, torture, outrage and murder which prevailed. The evidence irresistibly proved their case against the Congo State up to the hilt. He was astonished that the only opposition to bringing about a better state of things in the Congo State should come from the Irish Benches. He could only say that the perusal of the evidence left him more thoroughly convinced of the justice of their case than ever. An apology for King Leopold's Government written by a gentleman with an Irish name and a Belgian decoration, recently sent broadcast to Members of this House, relied very largely on its description of various external signs of prosperity in the Congo regions. Photographs of the " before and after" type were displayed—a war canoe on one page and

  307
  opposite to it a stem wheel steamer— large public buildings, steel bridges and so on. Some photographs which this precious pamphlet did not exhibit were those of hestage bands, of ruined villages, of the mulilated bodies of men, women and children whose sole offence was their failure to bring in enough rubber. The reasoning was based on that fallacy too common in modern times—the fallacy that the prosperity of a comparatively small section of the community was a reliable indication of the general happiness. It had, for example, been argued in this House and elsewhere that the securing of large dividends from the mines of the Rand was a proof of the prosperity of the Transvaal. But what thoughful man believed that the general sum of human happiness in the Transvaal and South Africa was not infinitely greater before the goldfields were discovered and the mineowners' war waged than it had ever been since? There were two great evil principles at the very root of this infamous misgovernment in tropical Africa. One of them was the doctrine that the native had practically no rights whatever and no property and that he might be lawfully called upon to labour incessantly for the benefit of the white man, either without wages at all, or at wages wholly inadequate and fixed by his employer. The wages paid to a Congo native amounted to the magnificent total of 11s. per annum. In return for this, according to the Report of King Leopold's own Commission—
  " The native must every fortnight journey two days' inarch, sometimes further, in order to reach that part of the forest where lie can find rubber vines. There he lives. … a miserable existence. He is compelled to build, himself an improvised shelter. He has not the food to which lie is accustomed: he is deprived of his wife, exposed to the climate, and the attacks of wild beasts.…He returns to his village where he can only remain two or three days before the new demand is; made upon him."
  The Belgian Prime Minister, M. de Naeyer, had said quite frankly—
  "The native is entitled to nothing."
  This was simply the old pagan view of the barbarian as a bond-servant by nature "; but against this immoral and utterly unchristian doctrine every Liberal worthy of the name
  308
  must utter his protest whether it was preached by a Belgian on the Congo or a British colonial in South Africa. The second evil principle to which he alluded was the deplorable usage, far too common amongst European Powers, of recklessly employing black troops of inferior civilisation to do their police work and act as their soldiers. The horrible outrages which had disgraced the Government and inflicted this long agony upon the desolate and oppressed people of the Congo State were directly due to the employment of armed savages—in some cases even cannibals—under the euphemistic name of " sentries " or " forest guards."
  " The black soldier," said the Report of the Belgian Commission, " left to himself falls back upon his sanguinary instincts."
  Of course we were told that our own hands were not clean in these respects. He remembered that some weeks ago when he asked a question about the Congo, the hon. Member for Stoke, whose enviable versatility enabled him to deal with every conceivable topic of political interest, got up and asked what right we had to interfere in the Congo when we were engaged in a reckless and unjust war against the Zulus, or words to that effect. He freely granted that our hands were not clean in these respects. He had seen with his own eyes what the employment of semi-civilised troops might mean. Why, too, in Natal at this moment did we never hear of wounded Zulus—the proportion of wounded to killed would be something like five to one. They had better address that question to the black levies or the Government which sanctioned their employment in these inglorious slaughters—too much like rook shooting to be glorious: in fact, the parallel was very close, for he read the other day that forty Zulus had been shot sitting in the trees ! And then let them remember that infernal picture of Christian Vengence which the Moslem fellaheen of Egypt lately witnessed. Oh, no ! our hands were not clean; but still this argument was not in any way conclusive, and if pressed to its issue would really stultify all human efforts towards improvement. He felt sure that few Members of this. House would be deceived by King Leopold's illusory promises of reform. Condemned

  309
  even by his own picked Commission of inquiry, he now recommended, inter alia, that no European factory must possess more than twenty-five rifles of the newest pattern—merely a repetition of an old law, and containing no prohibition of rifles of older patterns. Again, sentries were not to be armed with breech-loading rifles—again a mere repetition of an old enactment which had never been observed. In short, these promised reforms were part and parcel of the same old game of bluff and hypocrisy played by King Leopold and his satellites. It was quite hopeless to expect justice under the existing régime: " What is law to me? " said one of the agents to Mr. Harris, " I am sent here to get plenty of rubber—not to carry out law." He pleaded that something must be done. Surely this infamy could not be allowed to continue. The churches, alas, did not help as they should. There were forty Congo missionaries in this country to-day, and only two, as far as he was aware, were actively helping on the efforts for reform. This "immeasurable suffering" continued from year to year and the Churches of Christ looked on almost in silence ! The immediate summoning of a Conference of the signatory Powers, the establishment of British Consuls and extra-territorial Courts and, for the moment, the rescue of our countryman Standard from the vengeance of these official blackguards—these were the things that naturally suggested themselves. And further, never were the circumstances of the time more propitious for Congo reform than at present. We appeared to be on excellent terms with the French and the Germans, and Italy had come to regard King Leopold's system in its true light. At any rate something must be done and done speedily,for,otherwise, the Congo question would gradually solve itself by the virtual extinction of the people, and the utter destruction of the country's resources. From the shame of that terrible solution he trusted the civilisation of Europe might be saved. He appealed to fair-minded men in all parts of the House and in the country to support the Government in doing what it could to abolish this wicked and abominable system on the Congo, which might be described as the most terrible engine of human oppression and cruelty that the modern world had ever seen.
  MR. DILLONsaid that everyone who was in the House when the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was speaking, must have felt the importance of the present state of affairs in Egypt. He had listened with the utmost possible pain to the statement of the Foreign Secretary with regard to the Denshawi affair. It reminded him of the early " eighties," when the Liberal Party who were returned to power, as they had lately been, with a great majority, were shattered into fragments on the two questions of Egypt and of Ireland, when on those two questions the then Government departed from Liberal principles, and when the guns at Alexandria sealed the fate of the Party for many a year. It was a melancholy fact that when a Liberal Government was in power with a great majority at its back it forgot the principles which it had proclaimed loudest in Opposition. When he heard the Foreign Secretary ask the Committee to abstain from discussing the recent events in Egypt, and draw a terrible picture of the events which might follow any discussion, he asked himself how differently he would have spoken had he been in opposition. [" No, no."] Every word which fell from the right hon. Gentleman convinced him rather of the necessity of discussing the matter as leading him to believe that the case was even worse than he had supposed. When the right hon. Gentleman said that a wave of fanaticism had passed over Egypt, and spoke in tones which most profoundly affected the House as to the danger of discussion, he thought what a sad commentary it was on the twenty-five years of English rule in Egypt. He was old enough to remember all the ideal prospects held out to justify the Occupation. It was a preparation, it was said, for self-government by the Egyptians, and this was the only ground upon which the occupation was defended by the Liberal Party. The speech of the Foreign Secretary left little hope in that direction. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of Lord Cromer in the usual formula. Knowing something of Egypt, he declared that the government of Lord Cromer was the most undiluted, unqualified despotism the world had ever seen. In the main that despotism had

  311
  been a benevolent one; he had effected a marvellous change in the condition of the Egyptian people. All credit for that he justly deserved; but at the same time even a benevolent despotism required careful watching, and particularly when that despotism rested upon an army of occupation. Never in history had there been such a condition of things in which great abuses had not arisen. Three distinct sets of circumstances were to be kept apart in connection with the Denshawi affair: the incidents connected with the outrage, the circumstances of the trial, and the circumstances in which the sentences were carried out. Why, and on whose responsibility, were the sentences carried out with such fearful rapidity? The Secretary for Foreign Affairs thought that he had removed all the impressions that were made by the telegrams which he characterised as incorrect. But here was the telegram—
  " The four natives who were condemned to death for the murder of Captain Bull and the attack on other British officers were hanged to-day. Six others, convicted of complicity, were flogged.
  " The prisoners were conveyed on carts from Shibin el Kum early to-day, guarded by a detachment of infantry. The gallows and whipping post followed. The cavalcade arrived at Denshawi at 7.40. Mr. Machell, Adviser to the Egyptian Minister of the Interior, selected the place close to the road where the executions were to take place, and a space 60 yards by 30 was roped in, the gallows and whipping post being erected in the centre.
  " The prisoners arrived at half-past one o'clock. One man was first hanged, and left hanging while two other were being whipped. Another was then hanged and two were whipped. The remaining two men sentenced to death were next hanged and the other culprits were flogged. Troops were posted round the enclosure, and hundreds of natives stood in a wide circle 200 yards distant. The women wailed dismally as the lash was applied and the prisoners were hanged. All the condemned men met their death with calm."
  Not a word in the published accounts was inconsistent with the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and a more brutal, barbarous exhibition he had never heard of. This disgusting exhibition would remain for ever a stain on the history of the British occupation of Egypt. Was it expected by these methods to inspire respect for Christian civilisation and British government in Egypt? Some hon. Members opposite thought, and he did not blame them, that he
  312
  had some desire to excuse the abuses which existed in the Congo Free State. That was not so, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had admitted that he was the first man to stand up and support him, when he first called attention to the question of the Congo Free State. What he said was, that it was a pity that in Natal and Egypt this country had done things and were doing things which made it impossible for us to exercise moral influence in Belgium or even in Russia. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that no official attempt had been made to prevent the publication of these details. But he found in the Daily News a statement that after the telegram had been sent out, Reuter's Agency sent out a circular requesting the British Press to suppress all allusion to the groans and cries of the women who were present at the executions. He thought some Government agent must have interfered. That was a most disgraceful transaction, because the public ought to be allowed to know these things. Speaking of the affray, the Foreign Secretary had stated that the evidence showed premeditation in regard to the attack upon British officers. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by premeditation? The officers were part of a moving column passing through the country, and they had only arrived at the village the night before. On the following morning a local notable invited them to go pigeon-shooting in the village of Denshawi, thus leading the officers to believe that he had the consent of the villagers. Did the right hon. Gentleman charge this local notable with being in the conspiracy? This man provided the carriages and took the officers to the village, and he contended that there could not have been premeditation unless the notable was in the plot. On the 23rd of June, the Pall Mall Gazette, which was rabidly anti-native in this matter, published a telegram from its Cairo correspondent, in, which it was stated, that the fellaheen strongly objected to the pigeon-shooting on the ground that their crops would be destroyed and their stores burned. It was also said in this account that in the course of the trouble Major Pine

  313
  Coffin's gun went off and shot a native woman. In the official account, which was issued, as he thought, most improperly, by the adviser of the British Minister at Cairo before the trial took place, it was admitted that the officers commenced to shoot these tame pigeons without first obtaining the permission of the head man of the village, who was absent when they arrived. The issue of the official account before the trial was improper, because it must be remembered that in Egypt there was no such thing as an independent judge. Every judge in Egypt held his position by the favour of Lord Cromer, and he thought it was objectionable to issue a detailed account of the proceedings, coming from the Minister of Justice, some days before the trial. As he had said, in this official account it was admitted that the officers commenced to shoot without obtaining the permission of the head man of the village who was absent. Therefore, the officers were at that moment engaged, as he was informed, in an illegal act, it being the law in Egpyt that before these tame pigeons, which belonged to the villagers, were shot, the consent of the head man should be obtained. The pigeons could not under the law be shot unless the necessary consent had been obtained and a sum of money paid. It was exceedingly hard to obtain trustworthy news from Egypt, and he did not accept as Gospel truth any of the accounts which had been received of this matter. There was the greatest possible confusion and conflict in regard to the most important event in connection with this occurrence, and that was in regard to the shooting of the native woman. There was no doubt that the greatest cruelty and brutality was shown by the fellaheen to the British officers, but it was the fact, that when the British troops arrived, they found a ring of men round the officers protecting them. The officers at that moment were surrounded by villagers who were guarding them. He had no doubt that great brutality was shown by the fellaheen, and it was said that a man jumped upon Major Pine Coffin. That officer, however, was evidently a man of great humanity, and
  314
  he showed great courage and forbearance' controlling the men who came to his rescue. The brutality of the attack upon the officers was frankly admitted, and the whole question turned upon the point, which was in dispute, whether the woman who was shot and wounded, if not killed, was shot by one of the officers in mistake, of course, before the row broke out. If the woman was shot in the course of the controversy while the peasants were remonstrating with the officers, and before they struck any blow, it was monstrous to hang any of these natives. The Secretary of State had said that there was a. wave of fanaticism passing over the country, and he was afraid there would be an advance of this wave of fanaticism unless steps were, taken to stop events of this kind occurring. Hon. Members must not suppose that in Egypt we were dealing with an uncivilised race. On the contrary, it was a civilised race, consisting of an educated people, with a highly intelligent Press. News of incidents of this kind ran from one end of Africa to another. There was a very able native Press in Cairo, which was read extensively by the people of Egypt, and there was a University there attended by students from the whole Mohammedan world, and every detail of this transaction would be known throughout the Mohammedan world within a month. What was the Arabic account of this affair? He did not vouch for the truth of it, but he proceeded to read to the House an account of the affray supplied by a native correspondent to an Arabic newspaper in Cairo, the editor of which he (Mr. Dillon) knew to be an able and truthful Arab gentleman. He asked whether the Secretary of State imagined that he was going to cloak this business by preventing the House of Commons from discussing it. The whole Mohammedan world was discussing it to-day.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have promised a report of the evidence, a full report of the judgment and a full report of everything which has taken place. I have urged the House until they have got that report not to embark upon a discussion which is open to danger.
  MR. DILLONsaid he had seen this kind of thing before. When the full report was received they would be asked why go back on these unhappy transactions. He then drew attention to the remarkable fact that the whole French Press at Cairo, which since the entente between this country and France had been friendly to Lord Cromer and Great Britain, condemned the transaction from beginning to end. He thought it was a most sinister fact that before the trial of the Egyptians took place, the Alexandria correspondent of the Daily Chronicle telegraphed that the natives would be severely dealt with, and the sentences would be carried out with military severity. To his mind these transactions savoured far more of a desire to strike terror than to do justice. If officers in Egypt, even if they were doing an illegal act, were brutally assaulted, their assailants should be punished, but in a way as to leave an impression on the minds of the people of Egypt that justice was being done. This policy of endeavouring to strike terror, these brutal, disgusting, and un-christian performances, was not calculated to recommend British rule to the people of Egypt. It was true—he admitted and rejoiced in the fact — that owing to his great ability and his sympathy with the people of Egypt, Lord Cromer had succeeded in twenty-five years in doing more to elevate the name of England in that region than had ever been done by an English Government before, but Lord Cromer had gained nothing of the confidence and love of the Egyptians. It was admitted by the Secretary of State that years ago the lash as a punishment in Egypt was abolished from the native law. It was left for a Christian court set up specially for the protection of British officers to order that men should be lashed in public before their women. Was that the way to recommend British civilisation and Christianity to the people of Egypt?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot reply to the speech of the hon. Gentleman without doing what I am of opinion would be serious mischief—embarking upon a premature and dangerous discussion. If he had raised general questions of
  316
  whether there should or should not be an interval between the passing of the sentence and the execution, or whether the code should be revised, and questions of that kind in the abstract, I should have nothing to say, because undoubtedly incidents of this sort do bring those questions under our consideration with regard to the future. But I am sorry— more sorry than I can say—that he has not responded to the appeal I made, and sorry that it is he who has not responded. He said he had seen this sort of thing before from Liberal Governments. He went back to 1880, but there was no analogy there with regard to Egypt, because we were not then in Egypt.
  MR. DILLON: I referred to 1882 and the bombardment of Alexandria.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I know, but that is no analogy to the situation in Egypt, at the present time. Does he really believe that those of us who have been in Parliament now for more than twenty years, who have sympathised with the cause of Ireland, who have known, because we had to study it, the distress caused by the condition of the land question in Ireland, who have constantly voted with him and his friends against oppression in Ireland— does he think we have gone through all those twenty years without having learnt a great deal, without having become, I think, wiser and better politicians? That, I have no hesitation in saying, is one obligation which I shall always owe to the hon. Member and to his friends; through the difficulties of Ireland, and our association with them in difficult times, we have learnt more sympathy and more caution in being on our guard against oppression than we should have learnt but for that experience. But if he gets up in this House and makes statements, for the truth of which he says he cannot vouch, at a time when I have already promised the truth shall be given in full, how can he teach me further lessons in sympathy? He asks me questions which can only be answered by the evidence, which is not yet in my possession. Surely the hon. Member must know, as things are at present, that there is at the present moment no other course but to promise the House the fullest information I can

  317
  give to them, and to say I accept responsibility for this; and I have enough confidence in the character of the tribunal to believe that I shall not have to regret taking that responsibility. I recognise the tribute that the hon. Member has paid to Lord Cromer. That tribute goes a long way in doing credit to Lord Cromer's work in Egypt; but when the hon. Member draws the conclusion that because a fanatical feeling, which is shared, not only in Egypt, but in North Africa, now exists there that work has not been so good as we have thought, I dispute that altogether. Between East and West, do what you like, whether it be for twenty years or for 200 years, all the material benefit of all your good rue will still leave a crust, and a thin one, between East and West. That has always been; and it is because it is so that in questions of this kind, whether it be Egypt or India, whether it be any other question affecting Eastern civilisation, I ask the House to be exceedingly careful; for by debate and language used in this House, you may set in motion forces, always near the surface, which if they once break forth will lead to consequences which I know the House; will deplore. I must pass from that to other subjects.
  With regard to the Japanese alliance, that alliance is still living and is in exceedingly good health. Japan is devoting that energy and public spirit which has produced such remarkable results in recent years to the arts of peace and civil government, to the guiding of Korea, a great task, and to the development of her own resources; and we in Asia are pursuing no adventurous or enterprising policy. On the contrary, it is one of consolidation; and the result of that situation in both nations is that the alliance which exists to-day gives a sense of mutual security to each with out being a source of anxiety to anybody else. I trust it will long remain so, and that it may gain in strength and confidence on those terms.
  With regard to France, the diplomatic support which the two countries have promised to each other has been forthcoming from either country without qualification and without reserve whenever occasion has arisen. I have but two things to say about our
  318
  relations, our good understanding, with France. One is that that good understanding is not directed against any other country; and the second is that it must be recognised that that good understanding must not be impaired by any other development of our foreign policy. The more clearly these two things are borne in mind, the more clearly it will appear that for neither country is that good understanding a barrier or hindrance to good and cordial relations with other Powers. As to other countries in general, I will only say that the Government reflects, I believe, accurately the public opinion of this country. It is that we cherish no hostile design, diplomatic or other, against any of them. We do not bear any ill will to any other country whatever; and if evidence of that is wanted, I will only point to the recent remarkable readiness shown to give hospitality to and to receive hospitality from other countries.
  Now, Sir, I pass from that to what was, after all, the main subject of debate this evening, and that is the Congo Free State. We have to look back at the origin of the Congo Free State and then to look at what has recently been disclosed to see how much there is which naturally appeals to public attention. The origin of the State was a fair one. It had its origin in 1884 in those declarations exchanged between the British Government and the International Association of the Congo, founded by His Majesty the King of the Belgians for the purpose of promoting civilisation " and other humane and benevolent purposes hereby declared." Our Government declared their sympathy with and approval of the humane and benevolent purposes of the Association and recognised the right of the Association to the Congo State. We have travelled a long way since these declarations. The International Association has disappeared—I do not know where—and as the realisation of the aspirations and expectations under which it was founded we have this Report on the state of things in the Congo by an inquiry appointed by its own Government. I am not surprised, and nobody is surprised, at the impression which has been produced by that report. The statements which were made by British missionaries in the Congo before

  319
  the Report appeared can be discounted no longer, because the Report confirms them. There is, in my opinion, but one thing to be done in regard to those statements, and that is to give the fullest possible publicity to the evidence taken by the Commission and to carry out the reforms recommended in its Report. That is not the course that has been followed. The evidence has not been published. Another Commission was appointed to recommend in regard to reforms. The Report of that Commission has not been published at all, and the reforms which they are said to have recommended are in some material respects less than those that were recommended by the Commission of Inquiry. And that has been accompanied, not with a public expression leading us to believe that by the Government of the Congo the full extent of the mischief in that State has been realised, not with anything that would give us a full assurance that the conscience of the Government of that State has been so reached that matters would be improved in the future, but with a pronouncement of rights in which the Sovereign of the Congo State speaks less as a governor, and more as if he were the owner of private property. Even property has its duties as well as its rights; and every Sovereign of every State, though he has his rights, has also his obligations. If it is to be a question of the letter of rights in this matter, other people and other countries have their rights, too. There are treaty rights, and more than treaty rights. There is the point which the noble Lord opposite dealt with with such force, that if in the centre of Africa a great territory was allowed to fall into a state of bad government it must become a danger to the surrounding States. Some one said in the course of the debate that Mr. Root, the Foreign Secretary for the United States, had expressed a doubt of the right of the United States or of any of the other Powers to interfere in the affairs of the Congo. The United States is not a neighbour of the Congo State. But we know that when the United States had on its own borders a state of disorder which was found to be intolerable it took measures of its own to protect its own interests. That feet I lay stress on as an important
  320
  factor in the case of the Congo. But let me add that, whatever we may say about the Congo State, we do not reflect upon Belgium, or upon the Belgians or upon Belgian officers. The hon. Member for South Monaghan quoted two letters which he said my brother had written to the Press on the Congo State. I am not sure that I have seen those letters; but I have heard from my brother, who has been many years in the Congo State, experiences which entirely bear out the quotations which have been made from his letters. I attach great importance to what he says, because I know him to be attached to accuracy to an extent rather rare in one who has travelled so much. He is, at any rate, likely to be an impartial witness. He has never been in the service of any administration, either Congo or British; but he has had great experience of the natives, having been engaged in private enterprises in Central Africa for many years and never having any trouble with them. He told me personally what he appears to have said in his letters to the Press, that the Belgian officers with whom he came into contact have been men who tried to do their duty. They had small experience of the country, and they may have made mistakes, but they have been humane men who tried to do their best in trying circumstances. In all that I need do nothing to corroborate what the hon. Member for South Monaghan said, but what the hon. Member for South Monaghan did not emphasise was that this statement was carefully limited. The region in question is the southern extremity of the Congo State. It is not in the rubber district. The Belgian officers of the Congo State who have been there have been there solely for the purpose of keeping order, and had nothing to do with the development and exploitation of the resources of the country. The evidence of Sir Harry Johnston about a different part of the Congo State is not relevant to the question of what has happened in the rubber-producing districts and districts conceded to various companies in the Congo State. The very neighbourhood of a man like Sir Harry Johnston or the very presence of British enterprise in any part of the Congo State would have been almost certain, I think,

  321
  to do something to diminish the evils complained of. That has a great bearing on one remedy which has been suggested to-night—whether our consular jurisdiction should not be extended. It is true that by extending our consuls and consular jurisdiction we may not in theory touch the evils of which people have complained, but the mere presence of consuls of another country, distributed through the State, would be bound to have a beneficial effect on the administration and tend to check abuses in the State. As to the contention that forced labour in the Congo State is equivalent to a tax, it is true, no doubt, that forced labour may be equivalent to a tax. If a native cannot pay a tax and his labour is given to the State on that account, then you may call that labour virtually a tax. But this labour which is said to be instead of a tax in the Congo State, do we know that it goes into the pockets of the State or the public revenue? There are no public accounts, and so long as that is so and so long as this taxation or this labour is levied by companies working for profit, the Congo State must remain open to the reproach that it is imposing, not taxes, but forced labour for the purposes of private profit.
  I come to the decrees and reforms which are to be applied. I think it right that our consuls should watch closely the application of these reforms. If carried out in a really good spirit they might produce a great change indeed. Large as their shortcomings are in some respects, they would undoubtedly be of much benefit. I would only refer hon. Members on that subject to the speech made by Lord Fitzmaurice in another place†, in which he described what a paradise the Congo State might be if these reforms were adequately carried out. Therefore, I do not care too much to examine the character of these reforms. It is easy enough to point out that they fall far short of what they might be, but if properly applied they might do a considerable amount of good. Their application should, no doubt, be watched. Even if we find no fault with the reforms on paper, I should still be distrustful as to the amount of good they would do, because the system is wrong.
  † See Debates (4), clix., 1579.
  322
  In the Congo State the State is a trader and you have private trading companies with administrative powers. We have always looked with suspicion upon the combination of trading rights and administration. That fact has always made this House most anxious with regard to its own chartered companies. If we have sanctioned that system, if to an increasingly limited extent it is still allowed to go on, yet we know that behind the chartered company there is the Colonial Office, and that behind the Colonial Office there is this House. There is besides the company the State itself—impartial, not interested in the profits of the company —which is over the company. Even so, we do not much like the system and gradually it has been contracted. The Niger Company, for instance—I believe one of the best chartered companies there ever was—was extinguished, I think, under the late Government. In the Congo State the State itself is a trader, and as long as that is so, I believe that is the real root of the mischief. Other European Countries which have had to deal with natives have at one time or other made mistakes which have had to be regretted; but where there is responsible government, if mischiefs occur, and even if they endure for a time, sooner or later no free Parliament will allow the continuance of the mischiefs; the thing cannot be indefinitely prolonged. But in the Congo State there is no responsible Government in that sense of the word. It has become more like a private possession, and what is really required is a change in the system. I am asked whether we will not have a conference with other Powers. Our record in this matter is a good one. We have once invited them to a conference, and I am ready to make it known again that if all or any of them will join with us in pressing for a change, we shall be only too ready to share in responsibility and in effort with them, and if any Power thinks it has a greater interest, directly or prospectively, in the Congo State than this country, we shall be ready to join with that country if it should desire to take the lead. Meanwhile, till such Power shows a disposition to take the matter up, I agree that the moment has come when we must consider what we ourselves ought to do. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the

  323
  Forest of Dean suggested bringing into existence the provisions about the Congo navigation. I think that needs the consent of other Powers. That is a suggestion which I do not dismiss, but I should like to examine it further. Then there is the question of free trade and the prohibition of monopolies. If there is talk of rights on the part of the Congo State, we must look into our rights, and we shall have to inquire how far it is consistent with the provisions of treaty rights and obligations that there should be these enormous reservations of huge areas of private property in the Congo State, and if there is dispute about those treaties there is the Hague Tribunal. Then there are our rights of consular jurisdiction, and the time must come when we shall have to consider whether, in the interests of better knowledge of what is going on— —information hitherto so difficult to obtain—and the general interests of improvement in the Congo State, those rights should not be enforced. One remarkable change has taken place, and that is that the Belgian Parliament and people have shown an interest in this matter which promises to increase, and have begun to show a sense of responsibility which, in my opinion, is a most welcome and healthy sign. After all, the reform of the Congo State is the first business of Belgium, and the House must remember that it is very desirable not to take any steps which might have the effect of discouraging Belgium from taking the step which I think is so much to be desired—namely, to see to the reform of the Congo administration. If you establish extra-territorial Jurisdiction it will discourage the interest which is now being shown in Belgium. Therefore, I will wait, and I rather think the noble Lord had this point in his mind when he assumed that this matter would be discussed in Belgium. I would like to leave it this evening, so that Belgium, so far as we are concerned, is encouraged and not embarassed by anything we may do. But we cannot wait for ever. We must make up our minds as to what our responsibility in the matter is, but in view of the remarkable awakening of interest which has been shown in Belgium, and in view of the fact that the matter must be further discussed in that country, before I com-
  324
  mit his Majesty's Government to any definite steps, I should like to wait and see what the autumn may bring forth.
  Now I pass from the question of the Congo to one or two of the other questions which have been raised. I do not want to deal at length with Macedonia and the 3 per cent. Customs dues, because time is short and there are other questions still to be brought forward. But I should tell the House in regard to the Customs dues what I found when the present Government came into office. Negotiations had been begun in which, on behalf of this country, it was stipulated that there should be certain commercial concessions, improvement of the Custom houses, and improvement of the mining laws, and other matters. Communications had also been made that if financial reform was put on a satisfactory footing in Macedonia we should be prepared to concede the Customs dues in order to enable that scheme of reform in which Lord Lansdowne so earnestly co-operated to continue. So that the present Government did not come in with quite a free hand. Certain conditions had been stipulated for, and if the Porte fulfilled those conditions we were bound to agree to the increase of the 3 per cent. Then I was confronted with this situation. The Porte claimed that, after Lord Lansdowne had accepted the Financial Commission which the Porte had conceded, this country was bound in honour to agree to the increase of the 3 per cent, dues, and some of the other Powers showed great anxiety that we should agree from fear that, if we did not, the scheme of reforms in Macedonia might be wrecked. The other Powers were ready to agree. In looking into the matter, I came to the conclusion that the conditions stipulated for by Lord Lansdowne had not been, fulfilled. The situation was this. Admitting that the Financial Commission would do much to improve the finances of Macedonia, still there was no guarantee that, if we agreed to the increase of the Customs, the money would be better collected or would be so placed that it would be devoted to Macedonian reforms. After some little time the other Powers, who had been so anxious we should agree, supported us in this point, and we all

  325
  came into line as to the stipulation for these conditions to be conceded by the Porte. This was very satisfactory, because it is essential that the Powers should all be in line. If we had been left alone as the only Power against the increase of the Customs, the other powers would naturally have held ns responsible if the Financial Commission collapsed and the state of Macedonia got worse. If the Customs dues are going to be properly collected and applied to Macedonian reforms, then we ought to consent to the increase of the dues rather than see the Financial Commission starved for lack of funds. But if we gave way too easily, it would do no good to Macedonia and the money would be wasted. If, on the other hand, we continued to refuse, there was the danger that the scheme of the reforms would collapse. The situation was serious, because the deficits wore not being met by the Porte as the Porte had engaged to do. The increase in the Customs could not come into operation for some months, because the increase required, the assent of several Parliaments. Unless the money required to make up the deficits was forthcoming from the Porte, we were bound to raise the question whether the large military expenditure now being charged upon the Macedonian Budget ought to be allowed to continue. Our great object is to keep in step with other Powers or to keep them in step with us, as the case may be. The Financial Commission has undoubtedly done some good work. I think it is possible that it may do still more. But unless the funds are forthcoming, undoubtedly the situation will become more serious still, and at the present moment we are all agreed, that pressure ought to be put upon the Porte to make up the deficit. Unless it is made up, the whole question of the amount of the military expenditure allowed to be placed on the Macedonian Budget will have to be revised.
  As to China, the whole question of concessions in China is difficult at this moment. We hold that while the Chinese are perfectly entitled to claim for themselves a free hand in the future, they are bound to recognize the concessions and obligations into which they have entered in the past. I propose, when Sir Ernest Satow returns
  326
  in a few days, to discuss with him the whole question of concessions in China, and to see whether we cannot arrive at some general settlement with the Chinese Government. With regard to the punishments inflicted in the mixed courts in the foreign settlements in China, I can only repeat again that these punishments are inflicted by Chinese magistrates in Chinese courts. It is true that our police arrest prisoners and bring them before those courts, and that a British assessor sits by the side of the magistrate. But the treaty says that the law administered shall be the law of the nationality to which the officer trying the case belongs. These punishments are indicted by the Chinese not only in the foreign settlements, but through the whole of their own country. If China shows any desire to reform the sort of punishments that she inflicts upon her own subjects she will find no more willing sympathiser than us. But it is impossible in a large settlement like Shanghai, where there are hundreds of thousands of Chinese, that the Europeans should be responsible for all the punishments inflicted by Chinese courts on Chinese subjects according to Chinese law. And the danger of interfering is very great. The Chinese are extremely jealous of their rights. The other day, in the foreign settlement of Shanghai, the consuls laid down a rule that Chinese women brought before the Chinese Court were to be taken to the municipal or European prison, and not to the mixed court gaols, because, on grounds of humanity, they considered that the Chinese prison was not in a condition fit for the reception of female prisoners. A very laudable motive, but unfortunately an act that was not warranted by our treaty rights ! The attempt to enforce it resulted in a protest by the Chinese magistrate and a struggle in court, and ended in a riot, in which one or two people lost their lives and much property was destroyed. It shows the danger of encroaching on Chinese jurisdiction in these foreign settlements. There are treaty rights and an established law and practice; but they cannot and must not be altered without the consent of the Chinese, and if you try you are bound to have trouble, for no nation is more jealous of its rights or knows better, what those rights are than the Chinese.

  327
  There remains a final question and a difficult one, though one in which the House has shown much interest, and that is the question of our relations with the Russian Government and the visit of the British Fleet. I think that the less comment in this House on Russian affairs the better, but if we must comment on those affairs, let us understand quietly what the situation is. There are, no doubt, great troubles in Russia. There are now three authorities known to the outside world, and they are all recognised as playing a great part in Russian government. There are the Tsar, the Russian Ministers of the Central Government, and the authority represented by the Council of the Empire and the Duma. Not one of these three is responsible for these massacres in Russia, and there is not one of these three that does not deplore them. An hon. Member behind me said it has been proved that the Russian Government was involved in the Byalostok massacre and that the Duma itself had held an inquiry and made a report on the massacres. I do not understand that there was any charge made in the Duma by Prince Urusoff against the Central Government in St. Petersburg. On the contrary, the inquiry has led to an entirely opposite conclusion. I can give no information as to what happened at Byalostok, because three different inquiries have been made in Russia itself. But the Central Government neither knew nor was aware of what took place at Byalostok. Russia is an enormous country. Its organisation of officials all over the country is not thoroughly known to us, and when these disturbances and outrages take place in different parts of the country I am sure that you are adding to the difficulties which exist in Russia when it is assumed that it is the Central Government which is responsible. Then it is said that there should be official representations and so forth. Why I believe that there are three parties in Russia—the reactionaries, the reform party, and the revolutionists. I am certain of this, that any interference from any State whatever outside will not strengthen the reform party, but rather strengthen one of the other two parties. All history shows that this has been the result of interference from outside.
  328
  Then as to the visit of the Fleet. The visit of the Fleet was settled some time ago. I am not sure whether it was settled before or after the Duma was summoned by the Tsar, and there was nothing inappropriate in the fact that as the Fleet was to go to the Baltic it should visit some of the Russian ports. As the Fleet went to the Baltic last year and did not visit Russian ports, it would surely be inappropriate if again this year when it went to the Baltic it should not visit any of the Russian ports. In Russia this year a Parliament had been summoned for the first time. It is a remarkable step in Russian history. I do not know why these misconceptions should arise with regard to the visits of the Fleet to the Baltic. Last year something of the same kind took place. The visit of the Fleet was planned early in the year, and it was to visit some of the German ports. Between the time when the visit was planned and when it took place certain events had occurred, and there was a report that the visit of the Fleet was deliberately intended as .a sort of menancing comment on the events which had occurred long after the visit was originally planned. Nothing of the sort was, of course, intended, and the visit of the Fleet took place. Because certain things have happened since the cruise of the Fleet was originally planned, this time it is suggested that the cruise should be abandoned. Why? Because the idea is now that the visit of the Fleet, if it took place, must be intended or must be taken as a sort of commentary on the internal affairs of Russia or an indication of some intention on our part to take sides. The right hon. Baronet hoped that there would be no demonstration, on the occasion of the visit. I do not know what he means by " demonstrations." I think it is usual when the Fleet goes to the ports of a friendly country that the admirals and officers should be shown some civilities by some of the municipal authorities, by the officials of the Government, and so forth. If anything of that kind takes place, and the Fleet is shown civilities of that kind, I trust that such civilities as are shown will include the members of the Council of the Empire, the Duma, and the other branches of the State. If that is so, there can be

  329
  no misconception. The Fleet goes without reference to the internal affairs of Russia. It goes to pay its compliment to the best of its ability to the Tsar, the head of the great Russian nation. It goes in a friendly spirit to the existing Russian Government, but I cannot imagine that its visit to the Russian ports has been fixed without its being arranged and understood that the visit is also intended for the Russian people. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil took the line that we ought not to take sides. The thing is impossible.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the visit was not so much a question of taking sides as of being interpreted by the people as the taking of sides.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot believe that this interpretation will be made, and I am in doubts whether that interpretation will be largely shared. But apart from the taking of sides, I ask would it be possible not to make it seem that there was a taking of sides if the Fleet did not visit the Russian ports? I look forward to increasing our good relations with the Russian Government and the Russian people. There is one safe rule to follow, and that is as far as we can to avoid comment and all interference. The agrarian question alone in Russia is probably more widespread, and on a larger scale perhaps, causing more acute distress, than any agrarian question we have known in the United Kingdom, and that is saying a good deal. The political troubles we all know, and we all realise that Russia is passing through a critical and difficult time—difficult for the people and difficult for the Government. Now for the first time she has her Parliament, and it seems to me through all that has happened there are signs of a vitality, energy, and an ability to work her way through to a great future. I am quite sure that the best thing we can do is to go on as we have been doing, trying to remove political difficulties which may exist between us, discussing difficult questions—difficult frontier questions—when they arise, preventing them from becoming difficult and clearing them away altogether when we can, which can do nothing but good; but so far as our ordinary action, visits of the Fleet, or anything else, is concerned, to go
  330
  on our way without reference to internal difficulties in Russia in the belief that our sympathy, our help, can best be given by not interfering, and that sometimes as the best help in these matters is the least interference, so the best sympathy is silence.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSONasked what limit was to be set to the veto on discussion by the plea of danger from fanatical movements, and did the Foreign Secretary quite realise what he had himself done by making this plea. Was it possible to give a greater stimulus to anything like a dangerous movement than was given by this avowal?
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  Message from the Lords [this day] relating to the Worcester Election read.

  MESSAGE TO THE LORDS.
  Resolved, That Mr. Sinclair, Mr. Harcourt, Mr. Causton, and the Comptroller of the Household, be appointed to present to His Majesty the said Address, with the Lords, as mentioned in their Lordships' Message.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith. — (Mr. Whiteley.)

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Whiteley.)
  MR. KEIR HARDIEcalled attention to the prosecution of women advocates of woman's suffrage at Manchester and at the Marylebone Police Court. He asked whether the Home Secretary was aware that among the magistrates who sat on the Bench at Manchester was Mr. James Kendal, who was the chief steward at the Liberal demonstration from which the women were ejected. That was he thought a most improper proceeding. Surely in a case of this kind a person who was largely responsible for the disturbance which led to the trial, should not occupy a

  331
  position on the bench, when the case came on. He also said, with reference to the women who had been sentenced in the Marylebone Police Court, that they indignantly denied that they had been guilty of a breach of the peace. They were charged with having committed a technical offence which they denied. With regard to the sentence passed on Miss Kenny, he said nothing except it was too heavy; with regard to the sentence passed on the other two women, they were offered the alternative of being bound over to keep the peace for 12 months or of going to prison for six weeks. They did not admit that they had committed any offence, and therefore being bound over to keep the peace would have been an admission on their parts of having been guilty of an offence they did not commit. With regard to one of these women, a woman of 64, all she did was to call out " Featherstone." He thought, under all the circumstances, the Home Secretary ought to reconsider the question, and consider the desirability of releasing these two women. There was a case in that morning's papers, in which a respectable woman had been wrongly arrested on a charge of soliciting, in that case it was made clear that the woman was wrongly treated, and if in a case of that kind an obvious mistake was made it was clear that in a case such as that to which he had alluded there ought to be a full and fair inquiry.
  DR. COOPERjoined in the appeal of the Member for Merthyr to the Home Secretary to reconsider the action taken by the magistrate in this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right to ask for more protection than any other citizen, and he was glad to know that he protested against these women being prosecuted, and believed that had the right hon. Gentleman had his way there would have been no prosecution. He pointed out that Parliament was to blame; Parliament had never listened to a quiet demand for electoral reform. No great electoral reform had over taken place without violence, and these women were only following the royal road which men had taken before them to secure electoral reforms. Many men who took part in pulling down the railings of Hyde Park in the sixties looked back with great glory to their
  332
  achievement, and the same thing happened with regard to the claim to speak in public squares, when the President of the Local Government Board suffered imprisonment for endeavouring to secure the right of the people to speak in Trafalgar Square. He then suffered as those women were suffering to-day from a vindictive prosecution. He begged the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the position.
  MR. C, DUNCANreminded the House that during the Boer war many meetings were held to protest against that war, and men who committed the most brutal assaults on those taking part in those meetings were never prosecuted or imprisoned. This sentence was a brutal one and repugnant to his sense of justice.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,)said that, having considered this case fully, it appeared to him that the magistrate had acted with great discretion. The magistrate did not sentence these ladies. He bound them over in their own recognisances in £50 to keep the peace for twelve months. They could come out of prison any moment they liked by entering into their own recognisances. That being so, he had nothing to add to what he had said at Question time.
  MR. CREMERsaid he thought the magistrate had behaved with exceeding kindness to the women, and he had listened with the utmost indignation to the words of the hon. Member for Merthyr about "Feather-stone." They all knew what was meant, and they knew the repeated and dastardly attack that had been made upon the present Chancellor of the Exchequer by the Labour Party and these women. He held that there women wore guilty of an abominable libel in the reference to Featherstone which they hurled at the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Under all the circumstances he considered the sentences were very lenient.
  And, it being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Eleven o'clock.

EARLDOM OF NORFOLK.
A witness ordered to attend the Committee for Privileges this day and produce documents.
EARLDOM OF NORFOLK.
Committee for Privileges met: Counsel further heard on behalf of the claimant, Lord Mowbray: A witness examined: Counsel heard to open the case on behalf of the Duke of Norfolk: Committee adjourned till To-morrow.
LORD GRAVES (CLAIM TO VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND).
Ordered, that all deeds, documents, and papers produced on behalf of the Petitioner by his agent be delivered to the said agent.
WORCESTER ELECTION.
The Lord Steward acquainted the House that His Majesty had appointed To-morrow, at Buckingham Palace, to receive the Address of both Houses on the said election: A message sent to the Commons to inform them thereof, and that the Lords had appointed the Lord Steward and the Captain of the Gentlemen-at Arms to present the Address on the part of this House, and to desire the Commons to appoint a proportionate number of its Members to present the said Address with their Lordships.
The Earl of Romney sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Cardiff Gas Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Dover Harbour (Works, etc.,) Bill [H.L.]. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway Bill [H.L.]; Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Cork City Railways and Works Bill. Moved, That the Order made on the 26th day of March last, " That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 19th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to. Bill read 2a and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Midland Railway Bill. Read 3a with the Amendments; further Amendments made. Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Uxbridge Gas Bill. Read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill. Brought from the Commons. Road 1a and referred to the Examiners.
Bury Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
Clacton Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Newport Harbour Commissioners Bill [H.L.]; Railway Clearing System (Superannuation Fund) Bill [H.L.]; Sheffield District Railway Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Kettering Water Bill. Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
Hammersmith, City, and North East London Railway Bill. Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have made the following Order, to which they desire the concurrence of their Lordships:
Ordered, That the promoters of the Hammersmith, City, and North East London Railway Bill which has been introduced into this House in the present session of Parliament shall have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon

159
in order to proceed with the same Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so he lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than six o'clock on the day prior to the close of the present session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period be paid.
That the money deposited in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House in respect of such Bill may thereupon be returned to the depositors.
That the promoters of such Bill may, on or before the 31st day of December next, deposit in the Private Bill Office an estimate, signed by the person making the same, of the expense of the undertaking under the Bill, and, previously to the 15th day of January next, deposit a sum not less than five per centum on the amount of such estimate with the Paymaster General.
That such Bill shall be referred to the Examiners, who shall certify whether or not the promoters have made such deposit with the Paymaster-General, and, upon the Examiners certifying that such deposit has been made, that the proceedings on such Bill shall be pro forma only in regard to all other stages through which the same shall have passed in the present session, and no new fees shall be charged in regard to such stages.
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than six o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit in the next session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto signed by the agent stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present session.
That if the money deposited in the present session, as required by Standing Order No. 57, in respect of such Bill has not been withdrawn as provided for by the preceding resolutions, a certificate of that fact from the proper officer of the Court in which such money was deposited shall accompany such declaration, and such Bill shall not be referred to the Examiners.
That such Bill, indorsed by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office as having been duly deposited with such declaration and such certificate, if any, annexed, be laid by one of the Clerks of that Office
160
upon the Table of the House in the next session of Parliament.
That such Bill, so laid upon the Table, shall be deemed to have been read a first time.
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present session.
That all petitions presented in the present session against such Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next session of Parliament, and that all notices and grounds of objections to the right of petitioners to be heard, given in the present session within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Referees relating to such notices, shall be held applicable in the next session of Parliament.
That no petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on such Bill unless their petition shall have been presented within the time limited in the present session or in respect of which Standing Order No. 128 has been dispensed with in the present session, or unless their Petition shall be presented on or before the 12th day of February 1907.
Ordered, That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.
Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.] Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.] Amendments reported (according to Order); and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION.
  Petitions in favour of denominational religious teaching in schools, of parents and guardians of children attending schools at Patricroft; Ashton-under Lyne; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  WORCESTER ELECTION.
  The Lord Steward to attend His Majesty with the Address on the part of this House in the place of the Lord Chamberlain.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  List of boroughs and urban districts in England and Wales with a population of five thousand and upwards in which there are no council schools.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3663. Turkey (Baghdad).
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY.
  Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made and the numbers of patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ended 30th June 1906.
  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury minutes, dated 28th June 1906-DecIaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Keeper of the National Gallery of British Art at Millbank professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired on the public service ate required; declaring that Leonardo de Santo, foreman, His Majesty's Office of Works, Constantinople, was appointed without a civil service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department.
  FINES, ETC. (IRELAND).
  Abstract of Account of Fines accounted for by the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks, for the year 1904.
  DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1865.
  Accounts of receipts and expenditure under the Act, for the year 1905.
  Fifteenth General Annual Report by the Board of Trade under Section 29 of the Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890.
  Account of receipts and payments in respect of the land registry, for the year ended 31st March 1906.
  POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS, INLAND).
  The Postal Order (Inland) Amendment (No. 1) Regulations, 1906, dated 22nd June 1906.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND COURT OF APPEAL, ETC.
  Account prepared in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875, showing the receipts and expenditure in respect of the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal during the year ended the 31st March 1906.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
  Message from the Commons for leave for the Clerk of the Parliaments to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee of that House: Leave given accordingly, and a message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  CONVEYANCING BILL [H.L.],
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  LORD DAVEY: My Lords, this Bill has been very carefully considered by a Select Committee appointed by your Lordships, and some Amendments have been made by the Select Committee. I beg to move that the Amendments so made be introduced into the Bill.
  Moved, " That the Amendments proposed by the Select Committee be made." —(Lord Davey).
  On question, Motion agreed to.
  LORD DAVEY: This Bill, as I have already informed your Lordships, has been very carefully and fully considered by the Select Committee, and probably your Lordships will, therefore, think this a case in which the Standing Committee may be properly negatived. I beg to move.
  Moved, " That the Standing Committee be negatived."—(Lord Davey).
  On question, Motion agreed to.
  The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

  SETTLED LAND BILL [H.L.],
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD DAVEY: My Lords, in this case also the Bill has been considered by the Select Committee to whom the measure which we have just disposed of was referred, and some Amendments were made. I therefore beg to move that those Amendments be introduced into the Bill.
  Moved, " That the Amendments proposed by the Select Committee be made." —(Lord Davey).
  On question, Motion agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD DAVEY: This Bill has also been considered by the same Select Committee and Amendments have been introduced. I move that those Amendments be accepted.
  Moved, "That the Amendments proposed by the Select Committee be made." —(Lord Davey)
  On question, Motion agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

  THE MANNING OF THE MERCANTILE MARINE.
  LORD BRASSEYrose to call attention to the increasing numbers of foreigners
  164
  and Asiatics serving in British ships as shown in the latest Returns; and to the Reports of recent Departmental Committees on the manning of merchant ships and on Naval Reserves, making recommendations as to the training of boys for the sea service, on which no action has yet been taken.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the manning of the mercantile marine, and the need for further means of training. I have confidence that your Lordships will give favourable consideration to suggestions having for their aim the securing of a supply of well-trained British seamen for our vast mercantile marine. Our shipping rivals in tonnage the combined merchant navies of the world. When we turn to the manning of our ships, as shown in the latest Returns, we see to our regret that the crews required for our increasing tonnage consist in ever-growing proportions of foreigners. In the ten years 1894–1904, the number of British persons in ships belonging to the United Kingdom fell from 183,000 to 177,000. Lascars and Asiatics increased from 26,000 to 43,000, and foreigners from 31,000 to 40,000, or from 17 to 23 per cent, of the total number. The figures for the last six years are ominous for the future. Lascars have increased by 6,000, foreigners by 4,500, British seamen and firemen by 2,000. There are various causes for the increasing employment of foreigners. The point on which I now desire to insist is this: that in the opinion of many authorities, including all the superinten dents of the Board of Trade who appeared before Lord St. Helier's Committee, there-are not enough capable British seamen to man the mercantile marine. The sailing ships, and especially the small coasting vessels—formerly our best nursery for seamen—are disappearing. New means of training are required. Every Royal Commission and Committee on Manning has recommended the establishment of training ships.
  The first Report to which I shall refer will be that of the Commission on Manning. It was appointed in 1859. Its recommendations in their main features stand good for to-day. Lord Cardwell was a member of the Commission. His name is chiefly associated with reforms in the Army. It is less generally known

  165
  that the Navy owes to his initiative the recommendations of the Manning Commission in favour of continuous service. There was a further recommendation, to which I desire especially to call attention, also made on the initiative of Lord Cardwell. As the best means of creating reserves for the Navy and providing for the manning of the mercantile marine, the Commission recommended the establishment of school ships. They describe a practical and well-considered scheme. I will not enter into details. If Parliament approves of State-aided training for seamen the management will be with the Board of Trade. The total cost of training should not exceed £60 per head, including an ample amount for premiums to ship owners. Nor should the numbers be more than sufficient to give a supply of 1,000 to 2,000 well-trained men. The cost should be charged to the Votes for technical education. The State would be fully compensated, indirectly, by the improved manning of our merchant service; directly, by the reinforcement of the Naval Reserves, and by utilising the schools at the Ports for the training of boys for the Navy. As a result of their recommendations, the Manning Commission anticipated considerable economy in the training establishments of the Navy, and, further, the creation of those kindly feelings between boys destined for both services which it is of the utmost importance to encourage.
  I pass on to the Report of the Commission on Unseaworthy Ships. It was appointed in 1874. The Duke of Somerset was Chairman; the Duke of Edinburgh and Mr. Milner Gibson were members. Efficient manning being an essential condition of safety at sea, the Commission, in their final Report, called attention to the deficiency in the supply of seamen. They recommended strongly the adoption of the plan proposed by the Manning Commission. Recommendations in favour of training-ships were renewed by the Committee on the Manning of the Merchant Service appointed by the Board of Trade in 1894. The Chairman of the Committee was Sir Edward Reed. Among its members were Mr. Forwood, Secretary to the Admiralty; Sir Digby Murray, for many years the able nautical advisor of the Board of Trade; and Mr. Havelock Wilson, M.P., secretary and founder of the National Seamen's Union. The
  166
  Commission dealt at length with the training of seamen. They thought it—
  " extremely desirable that training ships or schools, with a small vessel attached, should be established at many ports round the coast, where boys, intending to adopt the sea as a profession, could obtain the necessary rudimentary technical instruction."
  The manning question has recently been examined by Committees appointed in 1902 by the Board of Trade and the Admiralty. The late Lord St. Holier was Chairman of the Board of Trade Committee. Shipowners were represented by Mr. Anderson, shipbuilders by Colonel Denny, labour by Mr. Burt and Mr. Havelock Wilson. The Committee made those recommendations for the amelioration of the lot of the sailor which have been embodied in the Merchant Shipping Bill. They dealt also with the training of seamen. As the best means of increasing the number, they recommended that every encouragement should be given to training ships and to the training of boys on merchant vessels.
  I turn lastly to the Committee on Naval Reserves, appointed by the Admiralty. Sir Edward Grey was the Chairman, and with him were associated Admirals Sir Edward Seymour and Hedworth Lambton, Sir Francis Mowatt and Sir Alfred Jones. The Committee were of opinion that the establishment of training ships for boys should be encouraged, but not paid for by the Admiralty.
  The inquiries to which I have referred extend over a long period. Able statesmen and administrators, assisted by men of the widest experience as shipowners or in the command of ships, have been engaged in these inquiries. They have been unanimous in their recommendations. The statistics which I have quoted show that the time for action has come. It would be well to begin by giving aid to existing institutions. In the Port of London we have the Marine Society. Their training ship the " War-spite," has a long and a good record, largely due to the part which a succession of naval officers have taken in the management. For the Port of Liverpool a sea-training home has recently been established by a few public-spirited owners, among whom Sir Alfred Jones has taken a leading part. Training should be gradually extended to the principal ports,

  167
  as recommended by Sir Edward Reed's Committee. The homes should be on the model of the Admiralty school at Greenwich, but on a smaller scale.
  In this country we are generally prompt to take action when a foreign country gives us a lead In the United States it has been necessary to create training establishments. Barracks have been erected for the training of recruits and apprentices to the sea, at Newport, San Francisco, and on the great lakes. There will be objections in certain quarters to State aid for the training of seamen. It will be contended by some that the shipowners are not entitled to such assistance, by others that the merchant service will be distasteful to well-trained boys. I have already shown that the training of seamen would be for the public advantage. If men are well treated they will not leave their employment. There are other considerations beyond those of utility. If in foreign countries means exist for the training of seamen, if under the liberal regulations of the French Inscription Maritime inducements are offered to follow the sea as a calling, which in our own country are lacking, and if, as the result, sailors increase under foreign flags and diminish under the British flag, and the manning of our ships falls more and more to the foreigner, it will be a change tending to lower this country as a maritime Power.
  I close with the words borrowed from Lord St. Helier's report —
  " It would be impossible not to feel great regret if we thought that foreigners were driving out British subjects. The feeling of regret would not be the less real even if it was based on patriotic and even sentimental, rather than on strictly economic, grounds. If by a great increase in the number of foreign seamen in its mercantile marine, the characteristics of the British as a sea-going race should gradually deteriorate, it would be impossible to regard such a change with acquiescence or equanimity."
  The Returns placed in our hands by the Board of Trade are giving timely warning. We must, as other nations have done, take in hand the training of seamen. "When we consider that the fate of our country is in her Fleet and Merchant Navy, that the earnings of our shipping have been estimated at over £90,000,000, and that the number of men employed in shipping is greater than in any other industry except agriculture, and further consider the incalculable
  168
  benefits to trade and commerce resulting, from economy of transportation through the keen competition among shipowners, the cost of any scheme of training must appear a light burden, and the advantages more than commensurate.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, I do not think that there is any Member of your Lordships' House who will not agree with me when I say that there cannot be two opinions as to the desirability of increasing the number of British sailors in British ships, and I think every effort should be made to attain such an end. The noble Lord has given us some figures with regard to the number of British, Foreign, and Asiatic sailors serving on British ships between the years 1894–1904, and during those years there is no question that the number of British seamen has tended to decrease; but I am glad to inform your Lordships that this decrease has now been arrested, and if we turn to the figures for 1905, we find that in that year there were employed on British ships 180,492 British seamen, 39,711 foreigners, and 43,483 Lascars and Asiatics, against 176,975 British seamen, 39,832 foreign, and 42,682 Lascars in 1904. Consequently, your Lordships will perceive that the number of British seamen employed in 1905 reached a higher figure by some thousands than it has reached since 1894. The number of I Lascars is still increasing, but I feel your Lordships will agree with the noble Lord that these men are on a totally different footing from the foreigner; they are mostly British subjects and excellent seamen.
  The noble Lord calls attention to the Reports of various Commissions, one of the Reports dating back to the year 1859. The Manning Commission of that year proposed the establishment of twelve State supported training ships for the purpose of training boys for the Navy and mercantile marine. Those who entered the latter were to be enrolled in the Navy reserve and to be employed in the coasting trade mainly. But this scheme was really intended to provide a reserve for the Navy, The Commission on Unseaworthy Ships, of which the noble Lord was a member, did not go very deeply into the subject, but they favoured State grants to training ships. The Manning Committee of 1894 favoured the establishment of training ships by the

  169
  State, but the Reports of the Mercantile Marine Committee of 1903 and the Naval Reserves Committee of 1902 do not appear to have been so favourable to the proposal, as it would appear from the noble Lord's remarks. The Mercantile Marine Committee, while in favour of every encouragement being given to training ships, were of opinion that —
  " an increase in the number of British seamen in the mercantile marine may be looked for rather in an improvement of their conditions than in the increase of facilities for training boys for the sea,"
  and they were also of the opinion—
  "that there is a better prospect of obtaining an increase of British seamen by means of the employment of boy sailors than by means of training ships."
  I may here say that I think His Majesty's Government have gone a long way in the direction of improving the comfort of the sailor by the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Bill now before the other House. A good food scale is to be made compulsory; the inspection of provisions is to be extended; the accommodation is to be increased to 120 cubic feet; ships of over 1,000 tons must carry a certificated cook; and there are other Amendments. The noble Lord has also quoted from the Report of the Naval Reserves Committee, but I will not trouble your Lordships with any remarks with regard to that.
  I now turn to the question of State aid, and any scheme on the lines in aid of training ships depends, of course, on the amount of aid given, and I very much fear that any scheme of this sort, to have any appreciable effect, would mean a very considerable additional expense. I understand that a boy on a training ship costs from £20 to .£25 a year. The Manning Commission of 1859 estimated the cost of twelve training ships at £40,000 a year, and the total cost of their scheme at £200,000 a year. I am led to believe that in many of the training ships at present in existence, it is found very difficult to get the boys to sea on leaving these ships. The noble Lord suggests that premiums should be paid to shipowners during the first two years served by boys at sea. Here, again, I fear there would be additional expense. There is another grave difficulty, and it is this: If the State spend money on training ships it is essential that there should be some guarantee that
  170
  the boys will not leave the sea service after the first year at sea, and I confess that this appears to me to present the greatest difficulty.
  The noble Lord suggests that His Majesty's Government should begin by giving aid to the " Warspite," and the Liscard Sea Training Home, but such a course would appear to me to be open to grave objections, as it would be giving preferential treatment to one or two institutions. I may, perhaps, be permitted to say that His Majesty's Government have the very greatest sympathy with the object the noble Lord has in view, that British ships should as far as possible be manned by men of British nationality; and the President of the Board of Trade decided some time ago to appoint a Departmental Committee—
  " To consider and report upon the most practicable scheme for the supply and training of boy seamen of British nationality for the mercantile marine."
  I am glad to be able to inform your lordships that the President has been able to secure the co-operation of distinguished representatives of the several interests concerned. This Committee has been appointed, and the chair will be taken by Mr. Kearley, Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. I may also say here, on behalf of the Board of Trade, how very grateful they would be if the noble Lord would give them the advantage of his great experience by giving evidence before the Committee. I am particularly sanguine that the results of the deliberations of this Committee will be of the greatest value to the subject raised by the noble Lord; and if any workable scheme can be evolved—and I feel confident it can be— His Majesty's Government will, I am sure, give effect to any recommendations brought to their notice by so representative a body as the one just appointed. In conclusion, I must thank your Lordships for the kind consideration you have given to me in listening to what I am afraid has been a somewhat long statement.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, my excuse for rising to say a few words on this occasion is that I have brought this subject very often before your Lordships' notice. What my noble friend has just said has been very much like the general reply I have received from those

  171
  representing the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, with this exception, that he has told us that the Government are fully in sympathy with the desirability of manning the merchant service with British subjects. The noble Earl referred to the new Departmental Committee as likely to be of great value, but I must say I distrust it thoroughly. I am led to that conclusion from the result of former Departmental Committees, which really have not done any good at all. When the Merchant Shipping Bill comes up to your Lordships' House and we have an opportunity of discussing it, and, I trust, of inserting some Amendments, I hope some good will result.
  I do not think any one on either side of the House will deny that it is a serious evil that there should be such a large foreign element in our merchant service. We have been told that if we could indicate any means of remedying that evil, our suggestions would be considered. When you are dealing with a matter of this importance you naturally take the line of least resistance. There are nearly 40,000 foreign seamen in our merchant service, and 511 foreign captains and officers. Which is easier, to legislate for the 40,000 foreign seamen or the 511 foreign captains and officers? According to my noble friend Lord Brassey, the Report of the Superintendents of the Board of Trade was to the effect that enough competent seamen to enter our merchant service could not be found. When men entering the merchant service find themselves placed under alien captains and alien officers, I contend that that is enough to discourage any young fellow who is fond of his country and proud of his profession, and I think that if you insist that British ships are to be commanded and officered by British subjects there will be no occasion for State aid. The men will be forthcoming without it. There are one or two matters in which concessions might be made to shipowers, such as light dues, which would not be much loss to the country. I am sure that if our merchant ships were officered by British subjects there would be no difficulty in getting seamen of our own nationality.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do I understand that the Departmental Committee will be confined to the consideration of the most practicable
  172
  scheme for the supply and training of boy seamen of British nationality.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: That is so, according to the terms of reference.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I presume that this Committee will sit at once.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: The names of the Members will appear in to-morrow's papers, and the Committee will begin to sit immediately.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I think the chief difficulty is to get British sailors to remain in British ships after they have been trained for the sea. They will not live in the present dirty dog-holes, mixed up with a number of foreigners of the lowest class, and with their wages sometimes withheld for twelve months. They are, indeed, the only people who are liable to have their wages withheld in this way. I think these points can be bettor dealt with in the Merchant Shipping Bill, which will shortly be before us, and all that I am rising for is to ask noble Lords opposite to use their influence with the gentlemen who sit in another place to send that Bill up to this House as soon as possible, so that we may have ample time for discussing it and not have it crowded out by the Education Bill. I have several Amendments which I am afraid may take up a little of your Lordships' time, but all of them are in the direction of increasing the comfort of seamen, and, therefore, of their retention in British ships.

  THE BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNErose to call attention to the list of measures enumerated in His Majesty's gracious Speech on the occasion of the opening of Parliament; and to ask whether His Majesty's Government were able to give any information as to the time at which those measures, or any of them, were likely to be brought before this House.
  The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I make no apology for addressing to the noble Marquess opposite the Question which I have put upon the Paper. I need not say that I ask it from no idle

  173
  curiosity, nor do I ask it merely in the interest of this House. I ask it on the broadest public grounds. I have said in my Notice that I will call attention to the list of measures enumerated in the gracious Speech from the Throne at the beginning of the session. Let me remind your Lordships what those measures were. That part of the Speech in which legislative proposals are dealt with begins with the announcement that His Majesty's Government—
  " have under consideration plans for improving and effecting economies in the system of government in Ireland and for introducing into it means for associating the people with the conduct of Irish affairs."
  Immediately afterwards comes the statement that—
  " the social and economic conditions of the rural districts in Great Britain require careful consideration; "
  and that —
  " inquiries are proceeding as to the means by which a larger number of the population may be attracted to and retained on the soil."
  And we are told that these inquiries will be completed at no distant date. These statements stop short of a positive announcement of legislation. They are, if I may say so, of a somewhat nebulous character; and I shall assume, unless the noble Marquess opposite contradicts me, that neither of the measures thus broadly sketched out is, so far as this year at all events is concerned, likely to be heard of in Parliament.
  I pass on to the list of measures which are categorically promised. First comes a Bill for amending the existing law with regard to education. Then Bills are promised dealing with trade disputes, with the amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Acts, with the further equalisation of rates in the Metropolis, and for amending the Unemployed Workmen Act. We are also told that the attention of Parliament will be called to measures dealing with the Merchant Shipping Law, to measures for amending and extending the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, for amending the Labourers (Ireland) Act, for checking commercial corruption, for improving the law regarding certain Colonial marriages, for abolishing the property qualification required of County Justices in England, and for the prevention of plural voting in Parliamentary elections.
  174
  That is, I think I may say, a momentous programme of legislation for a single session of Parliament, and it is interesting to consider how many courses of this great legislative feast have up to the present time appeared on the Table of your Lordship's House. The measures which I have enumerated are, I think, a dozen in number. I should say, roughly speaking, that seven of them are of first-rate importance, and the other five, though certainly not without importance, are rather of the second rank. During the five months that have passed since we met at the beginning of the session, your Lordships' have had before you only three of those twelve measures, all three belonging to what I ventured to describe a moment ago as the second rank. I refer to the Bill dealing with commercial corruption, the Bill dealing with Colonial marriages, and the Bill dealing with the qualification of Justices of the Peace. We have also had before us a Bill not mentioned in the gracious Speech dealing with the important question of criminal appeal. The position is this: There still remain two of the measures of lesser importance, and the whole of the seven larger measures, none of which has so far come near this House: and my object in asking this Question is to endeavour to elicit from the noble Marquess what opportunities of considering this long series of important Bills the House of Lords is likely to be given during the course of the present year.
  We have not infrequently had complaints of the manner in which business has been brought before this House. I have felt myself bound to admit with the noble Marquess opposite, that on frequent occasions the House of Lords has been put into a very undignified position owing to the practice of bringing up important Bills in the last days, or even in the last hours of the session, when it was quite impossible to examine them as they deserved to be examined.
  But, my Lords, what have been the reasons which have made this unfortunate practice to some extent inevitable? I think there have been three reasons. In the first place, it has always been usual to introduce important Bills in the House of Commons; in the next place, the House of Commons has, as years went by, shown a greater and greater desire to spend a considerable time in the discussion of such

  175
  Bills; and, in the third place, the difficulty has been occasioned by the universal desire of Members of both Houses to get away from London when the summer weather became hot and unpleasant. I put it upon that ground because I desire to dispute the correctness of the time-honoured theory which explains the date of the prorogation with reference, to the commencement of the grouse shooting season. I have an idea that the Houses of Parliament will be found to contain a large majority of gentlemen who perhaps have never seen a grouse, and who certainly would not hit a grouse if they saw one; and it is entirely erroneous to ascribe our hurry to terminate our proceedings to a desire to take part in that admirable field sport.
  This year, my Lords, that difficulty does not arise, for we are to have an autumn session. I, for one, am certainly not going to complain of the decision of His Majesty's Government. I have always believed that there was a great deal to be said in favour of habitual autumn sessions. To my mind the only serious objection to them is that they encroach upon the one period of the year when hard-worked Ministers and hard-worked public officers are able to devote themselves steadily, and without interruption, to the preparation of the measures which have to be considered in Parliament the following year. But, so far as what I may call the lay members of this House are concerned, I do not believe that many of us would object to autumn sessions, but upon one condition, and I upon one condition only, and that is that at the end of the autumn session we should not be placed in the same embarrassing and undignified position as we have sometimes been placed in at the end of the summer session. We have, therefore, I venture to think, a right to ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking in order to secure the work of this House being properly distributed during the months that lie before us.
  Now, may I be permitted for a moment I to take stock of the work that lies ahead of us. There is, in the first place, the Education Bill. The noble Marquess, the. Leader of the House, has been good enough to intimate privately to me that we cannot expect- to take that Bill until, the 31st of this month. We shall receive it, so to speak, red-hot from the House
  176
  of Commons. We shall have very little opportunity of considering the alterations which it may have undergone during the last days of its discussion, and we shall have to choose between a very hurried debate in the early days of August and a prolongation of the session further into that month. The first Question, therefore, which I wish to ask the noble Marquess is this: Are we to take it that July 31st, is really the earliest day on which we can have the Bill, and, in addition to that, may we understand that we shall certainly have it on that day, and that we shall not find at the last moment that the date of its consideration is still further relegated into the month of August?
  The second Question which I desire to ask is whether there is any prospect of any other Bills beside the Education Bill coming to us before we adjourn for the summer holidays. In the third place, I wish to ask whether His Majesty's Government have yet decided at what date in the month of October they desire to call Parliament together again. The fourth Question which I have to ask is, I think, more important still—namely, whether His Majesty's Ministers have formed any idea or can give any sketch of the manner in which the remainder of the session, including the autumn session, is to be turned to account.
  I will assume for the sake of argument that we meet in the middle of October and sit until the middle of December. That would give us, roughly speaking, about thirty-six Parliamentary days according to the ordinary custom of this House. Has the noble Marquess conferred with his colleagues in the House of Commons, and is he able to tell us with any confidence that during that time, or approximately that time,, there is any prospect of each of the two Houses of Parliament being able to deal satisfactorily with the long series of important measures which I enumerated to the House just now? Even if it be assumed, and I do not know whether I am right in assuming it, that His Majesty's Government intend to take up the whole time of the House of Commons after the holidays, I would still like to know where the House of Lords comes in.
  If we try and project our minds into the autumn months, the prospect seems to me to be of the most appalling character.

  177
  Take the Education Bill. It is quite clear that the Second Reading debate, for the reason I gave a moment ago, must be in some respects a somewhat hurried and unsatisfactory discussion, A considerable number of the provisions of the Bill will come here without having been discussed at all in the House of Commons. Now, is it not perfectly obvious in these circumstances that if the House consents to read the Bill a second time it will be the duty of the House of Lords to examine it and to discuss it very thoroughly indeed? I go further. It seems to me inconceivable that a Bill, the Parliamentary history of which has been that which I have just attempted to give, should pass through this House entirely without amendment. We should abdicate our position as a chamber of revision if we did not discuss the Bill with the object and with the intention of amending it wherever amendment might prove to be necessary. Is it not also conceivable that there may be some want of agreement between the two Houses as to Amendments so inserted, and, if so, does it not follow that that Bill at all events will make a very large inroad upon the Parliamentary time of both Houses?
  I will merely refer in the fewest possible words to the remaining Bills. The Trade Disputes Bill has not yet been through Committee of the other House. I may remind the noble Marquess that with the support and approval of His Majesty's Government a Second Reading was given to a rival Bill dealing with the same subject; so that there is not one Bill, but two, which will have to be examined and considered. The Work men's Compensation Bill is of a highly technical character. It took three days for the First and Second Reading, and was no less than twelve days under examination before the Standing Committee on Law. It has not yet been through Committee of the House of Commons. That obviously is a Bill which must take some time to discuss. The promised Bill for the equalisation of rates has not even been introduced. The Merchant Shipping Bill has not yet been through Committee of the House of Commons. That Bill is one in regard to which, as we have seen from the discussion that has just taken place, we may expect important debates. The Plural
  178
  Voting Bill has not been through Committee of the House of Commons I understand that the drafting of the measure has been very severely criticised, and it is at any rate one of an extremely controversial character. The Crofters Bill has not been introduced, and the Labourers (Ireland) Bill has still to go through Committee.
  Then I come to the Unemployed Bill. That Bill has not been even introduced, but I understand that a statement of the policy of His Majesty's Government upon the subject is likely to be made before long in the House of Commons. I want to say one word, and, if I may, to strike a note of warning with regard to the Unemployed Bill. I do trust that that Bill will not be thrown upon the Table of this House late in the winter, at a time when it would be impossible for us adequately to examine it. That would be a moment when, if there is any serious amount of unemployment and any apprehension of difficulty during the winter, it would be most unfortunate that this House should have the appearance of obstructing or putting difficulties in the way of a Bill dealing with the subject of unemployment.
  I have said nothing of so called Departmental Bills, of which I presume there must be a certain number; nor have I made any allowance for any private Members' Bills which His Majesty's Government may determine to take up; but I ask your Lordships whether the resume of the situation I have given is not one which may well give us some cause for apprehension. I therefore do beg the noble Marquess opposite, if he can do so, to give us some information as to the plan which he and his colleagues have before them for the remainder of the session. The noble Marquess has always been a vigorous champion of the rights of this House, and I would venture to remind him of a discussion which took place here two years ago when he complained, not without reason, I think, of the treatment of this House, and made suggestions for the improvement of a state of things which we all admitted to lie unsatisfactory. The noble Marquess then suggested, in, the first place, that more Bills ought to originate in the House of Lords —an excellent suggestion—and he went on to say that, in his opinion, Government Bills were kept on the Order Paper of the House of Commons long after they had

  179
  any chance of passing, and his advice was that the Order Paper should be cleared earlier of such Bills. I trust that the noble Marquess will maintain the principles he advocated in 1904, and apply them to the present situation. I hope he will give us the information which we seek, and that he will, at any rate, be able to tell us that we shall not be asked to superimpose upon an ordinary session of the usual length a second session in the autumn, only to find that at the end of it we are called upon to discuss precipitately and with indecent haste measures which it has been impossible for us to consider properly. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess OF RIPON): My Lords, I am glad my noble friend who has just sat down recognises that I have always been a champion of the rights of this House; but the noble Marquess must recollect that I have always been very pessimistic in the matter. On the occasion to which he has alluded I did not express any large hope as to the possibilities of greatly altering the condition of affairs of which we were all inclined to complain. One of the propositions which I made on that occasion—namely, that more Bills should be introduced in this House—I distinctly said could only be carried out by a Conservative Government. I did say that when the Conservatives were sitting on this side of the House they could introduce Bills here in the first instance which it would be impossible for a Liberal Government to introduce. I adhere to that opinion, although I spoke on that occasion to the winds, and did not observe the slightest inclination on the part of noble Lords opposite when they sat on this side of j the House to take the advice which I humbly tendered to them.
  I am quite ready to answer, as far as I can, the Question which has been put to me by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. I am not surprised that my noble friend should put this Question, and I make no complaint whatever of his having done so. At the same time I do think that his inquiries would have been more appropriate if made, not at the end of a part of a session, but at the real end of a session, when the prorogation is pending. As regards the Education Bill, I quite agree as to the import-
  180
  ance of that measure; and I am quite as desirous as the noble Marquess opposite is, and as anyone in this House can be, that the Bill when it comes here should be carefully and fully discussed. I am sorry that the Bill cannot get here before the 30th of this month. That, I believe is the arrangement in the House of Commons in connection with what is called the guillotine—an institution of which I am no admirer, but which I am afraid has come to stay amongst us. I am afraid that the Education Bill cannot be read a third time in the House of Commons before July 30th.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The 30th or the 31st?
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: It cannot be read a third time in the House of Commons until the 30th, and I desire to confer with my noble friend as to what would be the best course to take with it when it has passed the other House. I have looked into the course which was pursued by noble Lords opposite when they were in office in 1902. They then had an Education Bill. That Bill was finally discussed in an autumn session. The course taken with regard to it was this: it passed the House of Commons at about midnight on December 3rd. A few Members of this House—unhappy victims-—sat here until after midnight to enable the Bill to be brought up. The Bill was introduced and read a first time at about a quarter past 12 o'clock that night. The Second Reading was taken on the following day. There were two days debate, on December 4th and 5th, and the Second Reading was then passed.
  I confess that that is not a rate of proceeding which I should be inclined to propose to this House. I think it was very rapid. It gave very little time to this House in which to consider a very important measure. But if it should be the pleasure of the House that we should follow that precedent, if it should be the pleasure of the House that the Bill should come up here at midnight on July 30th and then be read a first time, and that the Second Reading debate should be commenced on Tuesday, July 31st, I shall not offer any opposition. But I should not think of proposing such a course. If, however, it would meet the wishes of noble Lords that that course should be taken, and if my noble

  181
  friend opposite, on consideration, thinks that that course would be most convenient to the House, I certainly shall offer no opposition. I desire that the Bill on Second Reading should be fully discussed. My colleagues and I are perfectly ready to sit here until the Bill has been—that is, if your Lordships are pleased to read it a second time—until the Bill has been read a second time; but we are all mortal, and share the feelings of noble Lords opposite. If we are going to have an autumn session in October we do not wish to stay here any longer in August than is necessary; but, whatever time may suit the convenience of the House for a full and adequate discussion of the Bill on Second Reading, that time we are prepared to give.
  I now come to the other points. My noble friend has gone through the list of Bills that were mentioned in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. With regard to the preliminary matters, which cannot be spoken of as measures, I will say nothing. But, in respect to the Bills, I am quite ready to answer my noble friend's inquiries. I will take the Workmen's Compensation Bill. That Bill has passed through the Standing Committee. I do not expect that it will be in this House before October. That is a Bill upon a subject which was dealt with in this House last year. The late Government had a Workmen's Compensation Bill, and that Bill was discussed very fully in your Lordships' House, but it was withdrawn by the then Government in the House of Commons. Then, with respect to the Merchant Shipping Bill, I expect that measure will be in this House before the adjournment. I am told that it is likely to be here about August 2nd. Of course, your Lordships will not be asked to touch that Bill before the adjournment. Then with regard to the Marine Insurance Bill. That Bill is making progress and may also be in this House before the adjournment, so as to be quite ready when we meet again in October. The Prevention of Corruption Bill originated in this House, and is under discussion in the House of Commons. The Labourers (Ireland) Bill is not likely to be in this House before October, but that is a Bill in a very peculiar position, because it is blessed alike by the Nationalist Members and by Colonel Saunderson, and, therefore, it is just possible that it
  182
  may not create a great deal of opposition in this House.
  Then we come to the Trade Disputes Bill. There is some chance—I will not go further than that — that that Bill may come up to us before the adjournment, and may be ready for consideration; whenever we choose to take it in October. Then there is the Plural Voting Bill, which will not come up to this House before October; and, although my noble friend stated that that was a very contentious Bill, it is, at all events, very short, and not likely to occupy any very great length of time when it does come up. The Colonial Marriages Bill has gone down to the House of Commons,, where I have no doubt it will be passed. With regard to the Equalisation of Rates Bill, I am inclined to think that that Bill is not likely to be introduced at present. As to the Unemployed Bill, my noble friend does not really expect me to say anything at this moment. He has rightly mentioned that a statement is about to be made by my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board at an early date; and it would be entirely out of place that I should in any form anticipate the statement which Mr. John Burns will then make. As regards the Crofters Bill, it. is intended to introduce it, and, if possible, to pass it during the present session. The County Justices Bill has been passed. That is the present state of affairs. No doubt there will be several important Bills offered to this House for consideration during the two months of the autumn session, from early in October to the middle of December. I hope they will be here in time to receive full consideration. I can give no pledge on that subject, because the uncertainties of Parliamentary discussions are well known to all of us. I quite agree with my noble friend that the Education Bill in Committee will take a very considerable time, but if you read the Bill a second time before the adjournment you can proceed with the Committee stage at once when you meet again, and you can go through the Committee stage, as I hope you will, steadily until you have brought it to a conclusion. It will take some time, but it will not take two months. Therefore, I still venture to think that, important as these measures are, looking at them altogether, looking to their nature,

  183
  looking to the fact that some of them have been considered beforehand in this House, your Lordships will be enabled to give a reasonable amount of attention to them within the limits of the autumn session. I can say no more. No man can say with certainty what may be the fate of any measure in either House of Parliament as to the matter of time, but I can truly say to my noble friend that my desire that this House should have every opportunity of discussing every Bill which is submitted to it is just the same as it ever has been, and anything I can do to facilitate the arrival of these Bills here in time to be discussed will certainly be done.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: My Lords, I I hope the noble Marquess will excuse my asking another question—namely, whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to support a Bill which is now passing through the House of Commons, and which will give rise to a great deal of discussion in this House—I refer to the Land Tenure Bill. It is a measure which was introduced by a gentleman after being a fortnight in the House, but whose seat is now vacant. Much interest has been shown in that Bill by members of the Government and by the head of the Administration, and I wish to ask whether the Government propose to support the Bill and bring it into this House when the House of Commons have finished with it.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition is satisfied, but to my mind the reply which has been given by the Leader of the House is singularly unsatisfactory. In the first place, it is couched in the old pot-and-kettle vein, if I may be allowed to use so vulgar an expression, into which debates on this particular subject usually descend. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition enumerated a long list of measures which still appear on the Order Paper of the House of Commons. As far as I could gather from the statement of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, only one of these measures is to be dropped—namely, the Equalisation of | Rates Bill, and that is balanced by the statement which the noble Marquess let drop that another Bill which had escaped the notice of my noble friend the Leader
  184
  of the Opposition is coming up—namely, the Marine Insurance Bill.
  What, I take it, was really in the mind of the noble Marquess who raised this discussion was this. As everybody knows, the House of Commons will be occupied with the Education Bill until practically the end of this part of the session. Whether we are going to read the Education Bill a second time before we adjourn or not nobody appears at this moment to know; but what is fairly obvious is this, that our discussion of the Education Bill in Committee will occupy the greater part of the autumn session, for, as the noble Marquess pointed out, there will only be thirty-six Parliamentary days available. What is going to happen in the other House meanwhile? Our time during the autumn session will be almost entirely occupied with the Education Bill, and what I feel curious about is this—What other measures out of this long list are going to be forced through by means of the gag, the guillotine, and the other instruments of torture which are available to the Government?
  I have always been in favour of autumn sessions myself; yet our position is apparently not going to be very materially improved. The only difference will be in point of temperature. We shall have to discuss these measures, and presumably will be expected to pass them, within what appears to be an extremely limited period of time; and, if it is only a question of time, it does not make very much difference whether that time is taken in August or October, though personally I prefer the latter alternative. But the principle remains precisely the same. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House has before now supported me in those feeble and ineffective protests which I have occasionally made against the way in which business is conducted in this House. The noble Marquess gave us to understand plainly that, if he ever had the management of affairs, the rights and privileges of this House would be more carefully guarded than they appear to have been during recent years.
  Now, what is the result? So far as we can see, our position is not going to be improved in the very smallest degree. I confess, after the statements to which I have alluded—the statements which have.

  185
  been so frequently made, not only by the noble Marquess opposite, but by his colleagues who sit beside him—I am greatly surprised to see him adopt this attitude, and the more so in view of the fact that, in consequence of the high respect he has for this House and by his advice, a large number of new .Members have recently been added to it. I submit that, if only out of respect for the newly made Peers, the noble Marquess might make some honest effort to see that our rights are better safeguarded. From that point of view, at all events, the statement elicited from the noble Marquess is of an extremely unsatisfactory nature.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, it must be confessed that the noble Lord who has just sat down takes an altogether too pessimistic view as to the course of the Education Bill during the autumn. I can hardly conceive that, with the best intentions, we should spend nearly two months in discussing the Committee stage of that Bill and on Third Reading. I also think that my noble friend—I am sure quite unconsciously—misrepresented the statement of my noble friend the Leader of the House when in Opposition. I never remember hearing my noble friend say what he would do when he came into power with regard to the usual proceedings at the end of the session. I have, however, heard the noble Marquess make a speech which closely resembled that made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, and I have not the slightest doubt that when once more the wheel of fate goes round and we find ourselves sitting on the Benches opposite, we shall hear the noble Marquess the present Leader of the House make a similar speech to that which has been made to-night by the noble Marquess opposite.
  But I do not rise to lament over the congested state of business which, unfortunately, obtains in this House at the end of every session. I rise merely to endorse what I have always held to be the most practical suggestion With regard to the alleviation of these difficulties—a suggestion which has the approval, I understand, of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. I refer to the suggestion that more Bills should be introduced into your Lordships' House in the first instance.
  186
  I do not take the same pessimistic view as the noble Marquess the Leader of the House as to the fate of Bills so introduced in the event of a Liberal Government being in power. I believe that many of the Bills would be fully and fairly discussed here, and the criticism of your Lordships upon them before they went to the other House would be of considerable advantage A saving of time and, I venture to think, an increase of efficiency would be brought about in this way. When these Bills were sent back, as they inevitably would be, at the end of the session with the opinions of the other House upon them, the attentions of your Lordships would be focussed upon the two or three points of difference, and we should be able to give those points full and fair discussion. I venture to think that such a course as this might be taken, if not with regard to a large number of Bills, at any rate with regard to some of the Departmental measures which are at present introduced in the other House. I agree that it is, perhaps, necessary, in the case of Bills of premier importance, that the heads of Departments should themselves introduce and support those measures.
  The Department of my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the Admiralty, which is represented by my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth, are not offices from which many Bills proceed; but there is one Department which is happily represented in this House by its head, namely, the Board of Agriculture, and I do think that some of the Bills which appertain to agriculture might well be introduced in the first instance in this House. I have said on many occasions that your Lordships are most qualified to discuss matters relating to agriculture. We have many practical farmers amongst us; we have many landowners; we have no agricultural labourers, it is true, up to the present time; but we have many noble Lords here who have taken great interest in allotments and small holdings, and I do think that Bills from the Board of Agriculture might be introduced for the first time in this House. There is a measure now before the House of Commons which is not of primary importance—the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Bill — but it is a measure of considerable interest to the agricultural community. That Bill is highly technical

  187
  and highly difficult, and had it been introduced here, as it might well have been, it would have saved overburdening and overtaxing the House of Commons, and the discussions upon it in your Lordships' House would have undoubtedly assisted in passing this very useful measure into law.
  There is another measure before the House of Commons. I know it is a private Member's Bill, but rumour has it that facilities are to be given, and that when it comes up to your Lordships' House it may be supported by the Government. The measure I refer to is the Land Tenure Bill. I think it would have been far better, if His Majesty's Government are going to support that Bill, if it had been introduced on their own authority in the House of Lords. We should then have known what the opinion of His Majesty's Government was on that matter without having to glean it from the Amendments moved in Standing Committee. When that Bill had passed your Lordships' House, as I have not the slightest doubt it would have done, possibly with some slight alteration, it would have been sent to the Commons. We should have had it returned to us, perhaps, at the end of the session, but we would then have been able to concentrate our attention on the points of difference between the two Houses, instead of having to wade through the whole Bill practically at the point of the bayonet. I think that if His Majesty's Government would consider the advisability of introducing Bills for the first time in your Lordships' House it would be of considerable advantage. My noble friend who leads the House knows that I make these suggestions in no hostile spirit. I am sure that he, of all men, is most desirous of maintaining the efficiency of this House, and of seeing that its proceedings are conducted in the manner best calculated to promote the dignity of Parliament
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, my noble friend opposite has raised an interesting point, but, while admitting that it is a very important one for future discussion, I think it rather undesirable that we should be led away at this moment from the point which is really occupying our attention — namely, the situation into which we have drifted, or apparently
  188
  are going to drift during the autumn session. Though I would not wish to put an unfavourable construction upon what fell from my noble friend the Leader of the House, I cannot say that his statement was at all reassuring. He made one observation which was very important—namely, that he is an enemy of the guillotine, though he believes it has come to stay with us. I venture to lay it down as a general proposition, that the more the guillotine is exercised the more should the functions of this House be preserved. In cases of extreme complication and extreme importance, the more the House of Commons through the difficulties of its constitution is denied the power of criticism, the more ought all parties to combine to maintain for this House in undiminished strength that power which it is our duty to exercise— namely, the power of revision as well as of legislation generally.
  I do not think it will be denied that there are some functions which we ought to exercise, and I am sure the majority of your Lordships desire to know to what extent in the coming autumn session we shall be able to exercise the power of revision over Bills, upon which it is clear the guillotine must fall in the other House, if they are to be passed at all. In that respect, I think we are in an exceptional position. I do not remember that there has been so large a group of Bills striking at fundamental principles reserved to come up within the short compass of a few weeks for discussion. It is from that point of view that I trust His Majesty's Government will reconsider the position, and that at all events we may be preserved from that undignified position— a position which this House would be bound to resent—of having the pistol put at our heads in the last days of December, and being called upon to pass Bills which have been guillotined in part in the House of Commons and which we have not had time to review.
  It would be most unfair to this House, it would be dangerous to our reputation as a legislative assembly, if the group of Bills which the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition has placed before us should not be properly discussed. Whether they can be properly discussed I do not know. I doubt whether my noble friend the Leader of the House knows himself whether it is possible for

  189
  them to be discussed. Might I, at all events, make this appeal to him, that in the conduct of the business of the House of Commons the Government will consider what is to be the course of business in this House. There are two methods in which the business might be conducted. Frequently it happens that a number of Bills are taken at the same time, so that you have them almost in the same stage in this House. If that should be the course of business in the autumn session, then there will be an undesirable rush of business in the last days of the session.
  I would press on my noble friend that he should exercise his influence so that when the Government begin to deal with these Bills they will deal with one first, pass it, and let us have it early in the autumn session, so that we can take it as soon as convenient after the Education Bill. Does my noble friend think it would be possible seriously to consider this matter with his colleagues for the avowed purpose of securing the privileges and the performance of the duties of this House? Will he consider whether, in the conduct of business, this question cannot be before the minds of the Cabinet —Can we manage to get this Bill into the House of Lords at a time when it will be possible for their Lordships to perform their duty in regard to it?
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Marquess who leads this House is going to make any reply to the Question addressed to him just now by Lord Newton. I will venture to repeat that Question, and I hope I may be more successful in eliciting an answer from the Government Bench. The noble Marquess after going through the list of Bills which were mentioned by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, said there were other Bills that might be brought before the House. I venture to hope that if there are any such Bills, the noble Marquess will tell us their names. I do not know anything about fertilisers and feeding stuffs, but it seems to me that your Lordships have been promised an ample supply of feeding stuff to last you from October till the middle or the end of December; and if there are any other Bills to be introduced, I venture to think His Majesty's Government
  190
  ought in fairness to tell the House the names of those Bills.
  Consider what is going to happen in October. This House is to engage in the discussion of the Education Bill in Committee. Well, my Lords, what is going to take place during all this time in the other House? Is the House of Commons going to take up a number of other important Bills, to pass those Bills, and then send thorn up to this House to add to the number of important measures which we are to be called upon to pass? This is a most important question. The Land Tenure Bill has been alluded to on both sides of the House. I should like to ask what sort of Bill that is. There are a great many Bills of that kind, and it is impossible to say whether they are private Members' Bills or Government Bills, or what they are. With regard to some of these Bills we see this course adopted. One of His Majesty's Ministers receives deputations, takes up the Bill, and in speaking upon it assures the House that the Government approves of the Bill. The result is that we do not know whether the Bill in really a Government Bill or a private Member's Bill. In a somewhat lengthy experience of Parliament I never remember until this Session seeing that course taken by Members of His Majesty's Government. I hope that if there are any other Bills to be brought before this House beyond those which he has mentioned, the noble Marquess will be able to give us their names.
  LORD HENEAGEM: My Lords, I should like to ask for more information from the noble Marquess the Leader of your Lordships' House. So far as private Members of this House are concerned, we have received no more information than we could have obtained by looking at the Order Book in the Lobby of the other House. We are not told precisely when the Second Reading of the Education Bill is to take place. We do not know whether we shall be able to get away at the end of the first week in August, or whether we are to be kept till the end of the second week. The only information we have received is that three Bills will be brought up to this House before the adjournment—the Education Bill, the Workmen's Compensation Bill, and the Merchant Shipping Bill. Then, with regard to the meeting of the House in

  191
  October, we are not told anything like the approximate date on which we shall meet. We are informed that the House will meet early in October. Some of us hope that it will not be so very early in October. If we are to remain here till about August 6th or 7th, I cannot think that we shall be desirous of coming back again by October 6th or 7th. Therefore, I think it is only fair that we should have some idea as to the date that will be fixed for the re-assembling of Parliament.
  There are many Members of your Lordships' House who take a very active part in duties in their respective counties, and I think we ought to have some idea as to when we can safely make arrangements for meetings. I hope we shall receive some information on that point, and also on the point that has been raised by my noble friends Lord Camper-down and Lord Newton. It is clear from what we have been told that the three principal measures of the session will not be before the House of Commons in the autumn, and, therefore, there is the possibility that they will be passing further legislation. We are certainly not going to deal with private Members' Bills and ill-considered measures brought in to redeem idle pledges given at election time, and passed simply because the House of Commons wants work to do while we are considering the Education Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think His Majesty's Government must have appreciated the fact that your Lordships are not entirely satisfied with the very courteous, but not very informative, speech which the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has addressed to us. I do not think that the noble Marquess showed in his remarks any appreciation of the fact that the present state of things is entirely unprecedented. There was one noble Lord (Lord Burghclere) who supported the Government, and he said in his breezy way, " This is always the sort of language which the Loader of the Opposition uses as to the treatment of your Lordships' House." The fact is that the present state of things has never occurred before in the whole history of Parliament.
  Do the Government realise that, so far as your Lordships' House is concerned,
  192
  the whole business of the session is thrown over till the autumn? That is a state of things which I do not believe has ever occurred before. When there have been autumn sessions on previous occasions it has been usual for the Government to explain that the state of things was very unusual, and that they asked for unexampled powers in respect of very special measures. Previous Governments have recognised fully that it was asking a great deal to ask Parliament to reassemble in the autumn, and a programme has been submitted. As the noble Marquess knows, when we were responsible for affairs in 1902, the autumn session was called specially and entirely to discuss one particular measure of great importance. That was all that was done. Compare that with the present state of things. Compare that with the long list of measures which my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has read out.
  How many of these Bills are the Government going to proceed with? That is a question which I should like the noble Marquess or one of his colleagues to answer. Are they going to proceed with the whole of the list? The Government know as well as I do that that is a perfectly ludicrous proposal. If they are going to ask Parliament to re-assemble in the autumn the least they can do is to tell us what measures they intend to proceed with. What did Mr. Gladstone do when he had autumn sessions? Did he enter into an autumn session with a light heart and with a long list of thirteen or fourteen Bills? Not at all. When he asked for power to adjourn until the autumn he explained to the House of Commons that the Bills he intended to proceed with were Bills of especial urgency and were very necessary. I looked up just now what Mr. Gladstone said on one occasion. He said—
  " We have considered many urgent claims upon the time of the House, and what we feel is that our only choice is to select the best and most urgent claims among many which are both urgent and good."
  Therefore, Mr. Gladstone recognised that it was only one, or perhaps two, of the important measures of the session which should be dealt with in the autumn. Speaking later, he said—
  "The case is wholly presented to the House as a case of urgency, and a case, generally speaking, of necessity."

  193
  That was the spirit in which the great Parliamentary Leaders of the past asked Parliament to vary its usual procedure and sit in the autumn; but the present Government seem to have had entered into this autumn session with the idea that it was very ordinary, and that there was nothing simpler than to pass thirteen or fourteen measures between the middle of October and the middle of December. It is obvious that that cannot be done.
  In the same speech which I have quoted, Mr. Gladstone said—
  " It is a matter which hardly admits of absolutely mathematical precision, but in these cases it usually happens that the expectations as to time are more apt to be exceeded than to allow of any economy."
  That observation was applied to two Bills—the Parish Councils Bill and the Employers' Liability Bill, which were the two measures Mr. Gladstone selected. He was perfectly right. Parliament did not sit only, as he expected, until Christmas, but right on into the New Year. I want to know from the Government whether they intend to sit on into the New Year. It really is for the convenience of your Lordships' House to know exactly what is before you. Are the Government going to give up not only that part of the autumn which is so important for the departmental work, and to which my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition referred, but also the whole of the winter months to discussions in Parliament? If so, the probability is that the programme which they will lay before Parliament in the next normal session will be of the most jejune and unsatisfactory character, and in the meantime the great departmental offices will suffer very much from the pressure which will be thrown on the Ministers to discharge their Parliamentary duties. When the House of Lords is asked to take this exceptional course, we are entitled to a full statement as to exactly what is before us. Supposing it to be the fact, as I cannot help thinking it is, that the noble Marquess opposite has not consulted his colleagues in the Cabinet as to the reply he should give, I would suggest that we might be allowed to raise this question again, and that he should in the meantime consult his colleagues so as to be able to to give us a reply at length on another day. I contend that we are entitled to a reply. I am confident that the only result of this drifting on from
  194
  one day to another, and from one month to another, will be that a great many of the Bills which are put forward as serious Bills will have to be dropped and there will be great disappointment both here and in another place with regard to those measures. I earnestly hope that we may have a fuller reply from His Majesty's Government.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Goschen) that it is very far from our desire in any way to curtail the discussion of any measures which may come before your Lordships' House. I can also assure him that, in consultation with our colleagues elsewhere, we shall use every effort to see that the course of business may be so arranged as to bring about the full discussion in this House of all measures which come up from another place. The noble Marquess who has just sat down struck a somewhat different note from that which was struck by the Leader of the Opposition in the Question which he asked. The noble Marquess who has just sat down appears to regard it as a matter of some complaint that we are going to have an autumn session at all.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not say that.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Well, the noble Marquess produced quotations and made observations of his own to the effect that an autumn session ought to be reserved, so to speak, for State occasions, and he appeared to think that this was not a year in which an autumn session might reasonably be held.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Of course if the noble Marquess contradicts me, I withdraw that statement.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never said it was a year in which an autumn session ought not to be held. I said that if we are going to have an autumn session we are at least entitled, this being an exceptional proceeding, to know exactly what is in store for us.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Marquess the Leader of the House gave an exceedingly clear account of what the order of business would be during the autumn session. I think I might, however, before saying a word upon that, be allowed to point out that when the noble Marquess who has just sat down speaks of our proceedings as unprecedented, he forgets that the circumstances under which we met were, if not unprecedented, at any rate very unusual. What happened? The late Prime Minister, Mr. Balfour, resigned on December 4th of last year, and the present Prime Minister's Government was approved on December 10th. The general election began on January 8th and terminated, speaking generally, on January 31st. It is perfectly obvious that during the whole of that time it .was impossible for members of the Government, who had to fight for their seats, to go into the consideration of important measures, which, under ordinary circumstances, would have been thought out and considered in the previous autumn. Parliament was not able to meet until February 13th, and consequently there is no doubt—I frankly admit it—that the whole of the Parliamentary session has been pushed back to some extent; and it became obvious, therefore, that an autumn session was absolutely necessary.
  The noble Lord opposite, Lord Newton, seemed to consider that it was unlikely that we should be able in the autumn session in this House to deal with much beside the Committee stage of the Education Bill. I have sat for a good many years in this House, and if this measure is going to take in Committee, I will not say thirty days, but a very much smaller number of days than that, it will be utterly unlike any measure which I have ever seen. The Education Act of 1902 was considered in this House for three days in Committee, and a considerable portion of the first of those days were taken up by several speeches which ought to have been made on the Second Reading, but were allowed to be made on the Motion to go into Committee. So far as points in dispute are concerned, there were quite as many points in dispute in the Act of 1902 as there are in the measure which will come up to your ' Lordships' House at the end of this
  196
  month. I am very far from suggesting that your Lordships should confine the consideration of that measure to three days; but there is a considerable difference between three days and thirty-six days, and I hope it may be found possible to strike some mean which will give time for the consideration of other measures.
  Then the noble Lord seemed to think that while we were discussing this measure in Committee the House of Commons would sit either kicking its heels doing nothing, or devising dangerous measures of some kind which would be brought up to your Lordships' House at a later stage. I venture to think that if noble Lords had followed closely the statement of my noble friend the Leader of the House they would have seen, from the account he gave of the stage which important Government Bills have now reached, that there are two or three of those measures the later stages of which would, in the ordinary course, be taken in the House of Commons while we are discussing the Education Bill in Committee here. I do not dispute that the work in this House during the autumn session will be arduous and continuous. I am sure none of your Lordships would wish to make a complaint of that fact. But so far as we are able to judge, the order in which the measures will come up from another place will be such as to leave very few gaps, and at the same time, we hope, to give the ordinary adequate degree of discussion which measures of that importance are accustomed to receive in your Lordships' House.
  I may say, in reply to Lord Camper-down, that so far as I am aware, there are no measures of what could be called importance, no measures of the character of those mentioned in the King's Speech, which are likely to come up for consideration beside those already known to your Lordships. I cannot say offhand what Departmental measures may appear; but, so far as what are called important measures are concerned, I can venture to reassure the noble Earl on that point. As regards the Land Tenure Bill in another place, I am instructed that in its amended form His Majesty's Government view it with general approval, and would be glad to see it passed; but, further than that, I

  197
  am not in a position to give the information for which the noble Earl asks. I think I have covered most of the ground .raised by the noble Marquess, but if there is any point I have omitted I have no doubt noble Lords will raise it.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Can the noble Marquess tell us on what date in October he desires that we should reassemble?
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I cannot give the exact date, but if my noble friend will ask me the question another time, I will give him the earliest information in my power.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.