Sitting of 10 February 1908

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

KING'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS).
The Comptroller of the Household reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present Session of Parliament."

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of
  1354
  Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Great Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill; South-West Suburban Water Bill; Garw and Ogmore Gas Bill; Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS].
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, viz:—Metropolitan Electric Tramways; Interoceanic Railway of Mexico.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bills, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—Metropolitan Electric Tramways [Lords]; Interoceanic Railway of Mexico [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—Ards and Bangor Railways Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz:—Margate Corporation Bill,
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Burnley Corporation Bill; Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill; City of Glasgow Bill; Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Board Bill; Criccieth Water and Improvement Bill; Don-caster Corporation Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Glyncorrwg Urban District Council Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Harwich Docks Bill; Hastings Harbour Bill; Leeds Corporation Bill, Read a second time, and committed.
  Lincoln Corporation Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Padiham Urban District Council Bill; Rochdale Corporation Bill; Slough Urban District Water Bill. Read a second time and committed.
  Stockport Corporation Bill. To be read a second time To-morrow.
  Thames Conservancy Bill; West Bridgford Urban District Water Council Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  West Riding County Council Bill. Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER called the attention of the House to the provisions of the Bill, which were of too important a character to be dealt with by a Private Bill.
  Whereupon the Order was discharged, and the Bill withdrawn.

PETITIONS.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petitions for legislation: From Birkenshaw; Birmingham; Hose; Leeds; Truro; Spen Valley; West Birmingham; and Wolstanton; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petitions for legislation: From Awsworth; Birmingham; Brighton; Burslem; and Stanford le Hope; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Judicial Statistics Part I., relating to Criminal Proceedings, Police, Coroners, Prisons, Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and Criminal Lunatics for England and Wales for 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Copy presented, of Tables of Comparison between the Provisions of the Bill and existing Enactments [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (DISCIPLINE).
  Copy presented, of Rules and Regulations, dated 18th January, 1908, amending Regulations for Naval Prisons, made by the Admiralty under Section 81 of the Naval Discipline Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHETLAND MAIL SERVICE.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 7th February; Mr. Runciman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 41.]

  LAND REGISTRY (NEW BUILDINGS) ACT, 1900.
  Account presented, showing the Money issued from the Consolidated Fund,

  1357
  under the provisions of The Land Registry (New Buildings) Act, 1900, and of the Expenditure; the Money expended and borrowed and the Securities created under the said Act, for the period ended 31st March, 1907, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 42.]

  PUBLIC OFFICES (ACQUISITION OF SITE) ACT, 1895, &c.
  Account presented, showing the Monies issued out of the Consolidated Fund, the Monies borrowed and the Securities created in respect thereof, the disposal of Monies issued to the National Debt Commissioners for temporary investment, and the Expenditure, under the provisions of the Acts, to the 31st March, 1907; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 43.]
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 6th February, 1908, granting a Retired Allowance to Mr. George MacEvey, Civil Assistant, Ordnance Survey, Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, under the Act [by Act]; to he upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3956 and 3957 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Augmentation of Benefices. Copy of Return of Proceedings under The Augmentation of Benefices Act, 1863, up to and inclusive of the 7th February, 1908 [by Act].

  COMPENSATION ON NON-RENEWAL OF LICENCES.
  Address for "Return showing in respect of each of the Licences for which compensation was awarded at the supplemental
  1358
  meetings of the quarter sessions for the county of London, held on the 27th and 28th days of January, 1908, the total amount awarded, and the share thereof assigned to the Licence holder, and the values at which the licensed premises were in 1907 assessed for Schedule A of the Income-Tax and for local rates.—(Sir Thomas Whittaker.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Licensing Statistics.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can explain the fact that the figures of on-licences issued for the years 1903–1904 and 1904–1905. as given in the Annual Reports of the Inland Revenue Department, show a total diminution of 1,727 on-licences, from 102,757 to 101,030, while 361 new on-licences were in fact granted in those two years, whereas the Home Office Blue-book, Licensing Statistics, 1906, page 1, shows only a net diminution of 1,288 on-licences in those two years; whether the Parliamentary Returns of licences refused, 194 of 1903 and 230 of 1904, and this Home Office Blue-book, have ignored some hundreds of licences given up in those two years in Birmingham and elsewhere under surrender schemes, which were not technically licences refused by the justices; and whether, therefore, the total gross diminution of all on-licences got rid of on all grounds, allowing for the grant of new on-licences, was 2,088 in the two years preceding the passing of the Licensing Act, 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The figure 102,757 appears to refer to the year 1902–1903, not 1903–1904. Subject to that correction the explanation of the difference between the various figures quoted is as follows. The figures given in the volumes of licensing statistics represent premises in existence on a given date and in possession of justices' licences authorising them to take out Excise licences. The figures in the Reports of the Inland Revenue Commissioners represent the Excise licences issued during

  1359
  a period of twelve months. More than one Excise licence may be taken out in respect of the same premises; so that the abolition of one licensed house may involve the disappearance of more than one Excise licence, or the expiration of an Excise licence may leave the premises to which it related still in existence as licensed premises. On the other hand a holder of a justices' licence does not always proceed within a fixed time to take out an Excise licence. Facts such as these necessarily cause differences between the two sets of figures. Differences wall be found both before and after the Act of 1904 came into operation. Again, as regards the statement in the Question that "361 new on-licences were in fact granted" in the two years 1903 and 1904, it is to be observed that, in the volumes of licensing statistics from which these figures appear to be taken, it is stated that they are "only approximate." Moreover, the figures represent justices' licences, and cannot be used for the purpose of subtraction or addition in connection with the figures of Excise licences, e.g., so as to convert the figures 1,727 into 2,088. As regards the old Parliamentary Returns of Licences Refused, which are indicated in the Question, it would be wrong to say that they ignored licences given up under surrender schemes, seeing that they did not profess to deal with such cases or with more than was required by the terms of the Orders of the House of Commons to which they were returned, viz., the licences actually refused by justices for certain reasons. The licensing statistics have not ignored such surrenders, for without them, and without lapses of licences from other causes also, the difference between the figures shown for 1903 and for 1905 could not be obtained. The figures in the licensing statistics have been obtained by inquiry into the actual facts separately for every date and for every area for which they are given. If, therefore, any licensed premises have, in fact, ceased to exist as such by reason of refusal, surrender, or lapse, the result appears in the figures shown for successive years. Every care has been taken to make these figures represent accurately the premises in existence on a given date which afford facilities (actual or potential) for obtaining liquor for consumption on the premises.
  1360
  No similarly practical end appears to be served by a calculation of the "gross diminution" of licences, if that phrase means the mere number of licences which may have ceased to exist, irrespective of the new licences which may have been granted by justices and actually come into working existence.

  New Rules for China and Earthenware Trade.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state when the new draft special rules for the china and earthenware trade, to replace those depending on Lord James's voluntary scheme, and rendered necessary by the inclusion of lead poisoning among industrial diseases for purposes of workmen's compensation, will be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I propose to appoint a Departmental Committee of Inquiry with regard to the use of lead in a number of industries, including the one mentioned in the Question, and pending the Report of that Committee I do not think it would be worth while to undertake the revision of the existing special rules. No serious difficulty has arisen from the temporary co-existence of Schedule B. of those rules with Section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, and none is anticipated.

  Treatment of Imprisoned Women Suffragists.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Miss Mary Pearson, of Croydon, who was recently sentenced at the police court to six weeks imprisonment in the second class; whether he is aware that the other persons committed for the same offence were sentenced to imprisonment in the first class; whether he will state why a distinction has been made in the case of Miss Pearson; and whether he will give instructions that she may be placed in the first class for the remainder of her term of imprisonment.

  1361
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have made inquiry about this case, but I am informed by the magistrates that the other persons committed for the same offence as this lady were similarly treated. None of them were placed in the first division. A year ago a number of persons committed to prison in respect of similar disturbances were placed in the first division, but the matter is one in the discretion of the magistrates, and I understand their view is that the persistence of such offences renders it undesirable to adopt that course any longer.

  Remuneration of Sub-Postmasters.
  MR. GRAYSON: To ask the Postmaster-General, in view of the fact that over 20,000 sub-postmasters in shops receive as remuneration only £20 to £40 a year for a working day of twelve hours, without a meal hour, and that many of them are compelled out of this sum to pay for assistance if they desire to absent themselves for a single evening, whether he will take steps, without at present reopening the general question of postal employees' grievances, to make some improvement in the cases cited.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The case of the sub-postmasters was

  Percentage Reduction in Death Rate between

  United Kingdom.

  German Empire.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  (1) 1872–6 and 1901–5

  …

  …

  28

  (2) 1872 and 1905

  …

  …

  26

  32

  It should be added that, although the German death late has declined to a greater extent than the English death rate, it remains (in 1905) 19·8 per 1,000 of population as against 15·5 per 1,000 in the United Kingdom. In other words the death rate of Germany in 1905 was 28 per cent. higher than that of the United Kingdom.

  Army Reservists Residing Abroad.
  COLONEL WARDE: To ask the Secretary of State for War, how many men of the Army Reserve are known to be residing abroad, and to
  carefully considered by the recent Parliamentary Committee, and I hope shortly to make an announcement as regards certain changes which are contemplated. But I may point out that the number of sub-postmasters who receive as remuneration from £20 to £40 a year is under 6,000 and not over 20,000 as stated by the hon. Member, and that none of them have continuous work for the twelve hours a day during which the offices are open.

  The Death Rate in United Kingdom and Germany.
  MR. HADDOCK: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, what was the reduction in the death rate in Germany and the United Kingdom between the years 1870 and 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Registrar-General's figures for England and Wales only give the death rates for the German Empire from 1872 onwards. I have thought it better, therefore, to compare the quinquennia 1872–1876 and 1901–1905, and the single years 1872 and 1905.
  what branches of the service do they belong; whether such men continue to be reckoned as forming a part of the Reserve immediately available on the outbreak of war; and whether in the event of the Reservists residing in any of the self-governing Colonies failing to rejoin the colours when called upon, the Army Council can enforce their return, or can take any legal steps to that end outside the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.)

  Return of Army Reservists who have permission to reside Abroad. 1st January, 1908.

  Arm of the Service.

  Places having Garrisons.

  Africa, S.

  Africa, W.

  Bermuda.

  Ceylon.

  China and Hong Kong.

  Egypt.

  Gibraltar.

  India, including Aden and Burmah.

  Indies, W.

  Malta.

  Straits Settlement.

  Jamaica.

  Mauritius.

  Total.

  Household Cavalry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Cavalry of the Line

  160

  1

  —

  1

  —

  5

  —

  38

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  209

  Royal Horse and Field Artillery

  85

  —

  7

  2

  30

  5

  13

  119

  —

  6

  14

  —

  1

  282

  Royal Garrison Artillery

  21

  —

  7

  2

  27

  —

  11

  48

  —

  6

  13

  —

  1

  136

  Royal Engineers

  48

  —

  1

  1

  2

  8

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  63

  Foot Guards

  48

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  53

  Infantry of the Line

  169

  —

  5

  2

  26

  27

  8

  389

  10

  12

  20

  1

  1

  670

  Army Service Corps

  71

  1

  —

  —

  4

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  81

  Army Ordnance Corps

  5

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  49

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  55

  Royal Malta Artillery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  —

  —

  —

  426

  —

  —

  —

  437

  Total

  656

  3

  21

  8

  92

  60

  36

  598

  14

  450

  55

  1

  3

  1,997

  Return of Army Reservists who have permission to reside Abroad. 1st January, 1908.

  Arm of the Service.

  Other places.

  At Sea.

  America, N.*

  America, S.*

  Australia.

  Canada.

  France.

  Germany.

  New Zealand.

  Uganda.

  To travel.

  Siam.

  Switzerland.

  Abyssinia.

  Canary Inlands.

  British New Guinea.

  Malay States.

  Falkland Islands.

  Total.

  Grand total.

  Household Cavalry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  5

  Cavalry of the Line

  61

  17

  —

  15

  299

  —

  —

  6

  —

  15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  352

  622

  Royal Horse and Field Artillery

  134

  22

  —

  16

  558

  —

  1

  11

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  609

  1,025

  Royal Garrison Artillery

  62

  8

  —

  9

  301

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  322

  520

  Royal Engineers

  23

  20

  2

  8

  195

  —

  —

  5

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  231

  317

  Foot Guards

  44

  7

  —

  7

  245

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  263

  360

  Infantry of the Line

  522

  71

  11

  55

  1,522

  4

  1

  34

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1,703

  2,895

  Army Service Corps

  43

  6

  1

  3

  146

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  158

  282

  Army Ordnance Corps

  3

  —

  —

  1

  13

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  28

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  27

  4

  2

  5

  89

  —

  —

  4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  105

  187

  Royal Malta Artillery

  5

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  444

  Total

  924

  155

  16

  120

  3,372

  4

  2

  68

  3

  16

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  3,764

  6,685

  *Exclusive of British Pus-sessions.

  Official Advertisements in the Press.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if instructions have been given to Government Departments that official advertisements are to be withheld from Conservative and Unionist newspapers with large circulations and given to Radical newspapers with small circulations; and, in such case, if full particulars will be laid upon the Table of all such subventions.
  (Answered by Mr. Whiteley.) The Answer is in the negative.

  Prices of Wheat.
  MR. REMNANT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the average prices of

  (A.) Statement showing the Average Price of Wheat per Imperial Quarter in England and Wales, France, and Germany during each month of the year, 1907.

  Month.

  England and Wales (Gazette Average Price of British Wheat.)

  France (Official Average).

  Germany (Average Price).

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  January

  26

  1

  39

  7

  38

  2

  February

  26

  6

  39

  7

  39

  1

  March

  26

  9

  40

  0

  39

  4

  April

  26

  8

  38

  9

  40

  5

  May

  28

  1

  40

  3

  43

  6

  June

  31

  6

  42

  6

  44

  9

  July

  32

  2

  44

  0

  45

  6

  August

  33

  6

  42

  7

  45

  4

  September

  31

  7

  39

  10

  47

  0

  October

  33

  11

  39

  10

  48

  10

  November

  35

  3

  40

  2

  48

  4

  December

  33

  7

  39

  6

  46

  2

  Mean for the year

  30

  7

  40

  7

  43

  10

  wheat in France and Germany for each of the months of the year 1907, and also at Liverpool and on Mark Lane for the same periods.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The following statements contain the information desired by the hon. Member as far as it can be given. In Statement A the French and German prices of wheat are compared with the Gazette average price of British wheat in England and Wales. Statement B is a comparison of prices at London, Liverpool, Berlin, and Paris, the London price being the Gazette average for British wheat on the London market, and the Liverpool price the monthly mean of the quotations for a representative grade of imported wheat. Liverpool is not a returning market under the "Corn Returns Act."

  (B.) Statement showing the Average Price of Wheat per Imperial Quarter at London, Liverpool, Berlin, and Paris during each month of the year 1907.

  Month.

  London (Gazette Average of British Wheat).

  Liverpool (mean of Weekly Quotations for "No. 2 Red Winter Wheat")

  Berlin (Average Price).

  Paris (Official Average).

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  January

  27

  3

  29

  6

  38

  6

  40

  4

  February

  27

  7

  30

  4

  39

  7

  40

  2

  March

  28

  1

  30

  0

  40

  6

  40

  0

  April

  27

  6

  29

  8

  41

  8

  39

  10

  May

  29

  2

  32

  2

  43

  9

  41

  9

  June

  32

  1

  33

  8

  44

  1

  44

  5

  July

  33

  3

  34

  11

  44

  10

  46

  6

  August

  33

  1

  33

  11

  45

  9

  43

  9

  September

  32

  9

  36

  4

  48

  2

  40

  6

  October

  35

  5

  39

  6

  48

  11

  39

  3

  November

  36

  6

  38

  5

  48

  5

  38

  5

  December

  35

  6

  37

  1

  46

  9

  38

  5

  Mean for the year

  31

  6

  33

  9

  44

  3

  41

  1

  Manning of Fleet during Christmas Leave.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, prior to Christmas, the ships of all fleets in Home waters dispersed to their respective ports to give Christmas leave; and whether any organised fleet of battleships, cruisers, and destroyers is kept fully manned ready to proceed to sea at the shortest possible notice.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, except that the Channel Fleet remained at Portland and gave Christmas leave from there. In regard to the second part of the Question, it is obvious that whenever leave is given from a fleet it must be temporarily under-manned,
  but arrangements are made to recall the men on leave by telegram if required.

  Blasphemy Prosecution.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the prosecution for blasphemy, recently instituted, was decided on because of apprehensions of breach of the peace; and, if so, on what those apprehensions were founded; whether he has considered the expediency of guarding against alleged breach of the peace by other legal procedure; and whether it is proposed henceforth to institute prosecutions in cases in which, at political and other meetings, language is used which might conceivably promote breach of the peace.

  1371
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Proceedings were taken because it was necessary to protect the public against grossly indecent and ribald language used in a public street, language of such a character as to shock and outrage the feelings of those passing in the street, and, if persisted in, to render a breach of the peace inevitable. Many similar offences can be dealt with under the Police Acts, but in this case the police were advised that only procedure under the Blasphemy Act was available; and when the case came for trial the jury convicted without leaving the box. As regards the last part of the Question, I cannot answer a hypothetical question, but I may say that under identical or analogous circumstances the same action would again be taken. The case has no connection with, or bearing on, speeches at political meetings.

  Taxation of Licenced Houses for Compensation Funds.
  MR. BARNARD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, (1) whether he can give the number of pre-1869 beer-house licences that were in existence at the passing of the 1904 Licensing Act; (2) how much has been contributed by the owners of these houses to the compensation fund in the financial years of 1905, 1906, and 1907; (3) how many of them have been suppressed during these years; (4) how much money has been collected from the trade under Goschen's Act; (5) will he state the purposes to which Mr. Goschen originally intended to apply that money; (6) and how much has the war tax of 1s. per barrel on beer and 6d. on spirits yielded since the termination of the war.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) (1) The numbers of ante-1869 beer-houses have never been ascertained with certainty; but it is believed that, out of the total number of 31,942 beer-houses in existence on 1st January, 1905, i.e., when the Licensing Act, 1904, came into operation, the ante-1869 beer-houses numbered 28,000 and upwards. (2) Owing to the absence of exact records it is not possible to say how much has been contributed by the owners of ante-1869 beer-houses
  1372
  to the compensation fund. (3) The number of ante-1869 beer-houses extinguished with compensation in the years 1905, 1906, and 1907, is believed to be 1,673. This number is exclusive of the ante-1869 beer-houses (believed to number 277) which have come to an end without compensation for various causes in the same three years. (4) The total sum derived from the additional duties on beer and spirits imposed by the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890 (to which presumably my hon. friend refers), up to 31st March, 1907, amounted to £21,087,970. (5) It appears from the Budget Statement of 17th April, 1890, that the original intention of the Government was to devote about one-quarter of the proceeds of these additional duties to the "purchase of licences," and the remainder to various local purposes (see Hansard, Vol. 343, Col. 734). (6) The estimated yield of the additional 1s. per barrel on beer and 6d. per gallon on spirits from the termination of the war up to 31st March last, amounted to £8,557,000 and £4,152,000 respectively.

  Losses on Small Holdings Schemes.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, when a Treasury Minute will be issued giving an undertaking that, in the event of the Small Holdings Commissioners carrying out a scheme where the county council have declined to do so for fear of incurring a loss, and such scheme does result in a loss, the whole of such loss shall be borne by the Treasury.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) A Treasury Minute, dated 31st December, 1907, stating the conditions under which one-half of any loss incurred by a local authority in carrying out a scheme under the Act would be paid from public funds, was communicated to county councils and county boroughs by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries on the 25th ultimo, and was also sent to the Press. No undertaking was ever given that, where a loss is entailed by action of the Commissioners in default of a council, the whole of that loss should be borne by the Treasury. The Act empowers the Treasury in such cases to pay the whole or any part of such loss, but each ease

  1373
  must be considered on its merits and in relation to the surrounding circumstances.

  Suggested Tax on Theatre and Entertainment Tickets.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the expediency of imposing a tax upon theatre and other entertainment tickets, as is at present done in various Continental countries.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) Yes, Sir. This, like all other suggestions which I receive on the subject of taxation, shall have my most careful consideration.

  Raids into British Territory by Afridis.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state how many raids by Afridis into British territory have taken place during the past four months; and whether it is intended to despatch a punitive expedition from Peshawur against this tribe.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The number of raids by Zakka Khel specially reported since 1st October, by the Government of India is eleven. None of these raids can be classed with mere border disturbances such as are frequent on the tribal frontier. They were all serious raids organised for purposes of plunder, and executed by armed bands of Zakka Khel beyond the limits of tribal territory, and in the area under the direct administration of the Government of India. In these raids nine of our people were killed and thirteen wounded. Among the killed were six police and two native soldiers, and among the wounded eight police and one native soldier. Also large quantities of property, including rifles, were carried off. All the usual methods of bringing about a settlement between the elders of the tribe and the political officer have failed. Of the raids mentioned above three occurred in January. On 3rd January at Jalozai, 15 miles south-east of Peshawur, two Government employees were mortally wounded: and forty-one mules were carried off. On 24th January the railway station at Kacha Garhi, between Peshawur and
  1374
  Jamrud, was raided, one of the station staff being severely wounded. On 29th January, a gang raided in Peshawur city, escaping with property estimated at a lakh after killing one police constable and wounding two others. In addition to the above, two further raids attributed to Zakka Khel have been reported on the 7th and 8th February. In the one, at Abazai village, the raiders looted the house of a Hindu who was shot. In the other, at Tirchi Bala, in the Peshawur district, they looted the house of a Hindu and removed cash and jewels to the value of Rs. 800. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government have sanctioned punitive measures against the tribe.

  Whipping in India.
  SIR HENRY COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Bill for the Amendment of the Whipping Act, now under consideration in India, contains a provision that no whipping shall be inflicted by order of a court unless and until the person convicted has had a reasonable opportunity of carrying his case before a Court of Appeal.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Money.) As I informed the hon. Member on the 5th instant, the amendments of the law are under the consideration of the Government of India, and I am not yet in a position to state the nature of the amendments proposed.

  Land Purchases in County Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how much land has been purchased, either actually or by agreement, under the Land Act of 1903, in Comity Clare up to the end of 1907; what has been the amount of purchase money; how many tenants have bought; and how much untenanted land is available for purchase in the county.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that agreements have been entered into for the purchase of 111,232 acres of land in County Clare for £854,410, and of this 24,845 acres, of which the price was

  1375
  £197,036, had been invested in 720 tenant purchasers on 31st December, 1907. The Commissioners have entered into negotiations for the purchase of 10,598 acres of untenanted land in the county, of which 1,668 acres have already been purchased.

  Abandonment of Construction of Road from Glenarm to Feystown.
  MR. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he could state the circumstances under which the Antrim County Council rescinded, in February, 1907, a resolution passed by that body in December, 1902, with reference to a new road from Glenarm to Feystown; and whether, seeing that this action of the council has resulted in loss to the promoters of the road and a continuance of inconvenience to a large section of the ratepayers, he will consider the advisability of ordering a Local Government Board inquiry into the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The reason assigned by the Antrim County Council for abandoning the proposal to make the new road referred to is that the cost of obtaining the necessary land and making the road would be quite out of proportion to the usefulness of the road. The land could only be obtained by the exercise of compulsory powers, and it is stated that the line of the road passes through a quarry. The Local Government Board would have no power to interfere in the matter unless upon appeal by the rural district council, and no such appeal has been made to them.

  Aghalee, County Antrim, Labourers Cottage Scheme.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Aghalee, county Antrim, District Council approved of a scheme for the erection of forty-three labourers cottages in February, 1907, but that, up to the present, no inspection for these cottages has been made by the Local Government Board; whether about the same time a number of labourers, whose claims were rejected by the council, petitioned the Local Government Board to hold an inquiry, and that the Board
  1376
  consented, but that no inquiry has yet been held; and, if so, whether he will direct the Local Government Board to take action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The scheme in question was not submitted by the rural district council to the Board for confirmation until 14th October last, and on examination of the documents it was found that the provisions of the Acts as to-advertisement of schemes had not been complied with. As the Board had no power to dispense with this requirement, the scheme was sent back for due publication, and it was again presented to the Board on 23rd December. The application was then dealt with as quickly a possible, and arrangements have already been made for the holding of a local inquiry, which will be opened on the 12th instant.

  Cattle-driving by Person Bound Over to Keep the Peace.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of persons reported as having taken part in cattle-drives after being bound to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour; and in how many cases have applications been made by the Crown to estreat the recognisances of such persons, and with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed that two cases only have been reported in which persons who have been bound to the peace have again taken part in cattle-driving. In one of the cases the recognisances of the person concerned were ordered to be estreated. In the other case some of the owners whose cattle were driven took part themselves in the drive; and it was decided that proceedings could not be successfully taken in the case. One of the persons identified had been bound to the peace in connection with a previous case of cattle-driving; but in the circumstances no action to estreat his recognisances was taken.

  Evicted Tenants' Rejected Applications.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention

  1377
  has been called to the fact that considerable hardship has been caused to a class of particularly deserving evicted tenants owing to the regulations of 13th February, 1906, under which 2,995 applications have been rejected, one of the reasons for rejection being that applicants are unsuitable to work land by reason of their age and infirmity, or without purpose to work it and not to sell or assign it; will he inquire whether the effect of this regulation has been to deprive of redress, under Section 2 of the Purchase Act of 1903, applicants in broken health or reduced to extreme poverty owing to the length of time during which they have been excluded from their old homes and means of livelihood; whether consequently the rejection of such applications is a contravention of the object of the Act in respect of a class of evicted tenants with special claims to consideration; and whether under the circumstances, he will so modify the regulations as to give the Estates Commissioners a larger discretion in dealing with such cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The regulation to which the hon. Member refers is No. VI. of the regulations dated 13th February, 1906, the last paragraph of which provides that the Estates Commissioners shall not sell a parcel of land to any person of whose farming experience, habits of industry, and competence to work the land as a holding the Commissioners are not reasonably satisfied. The Commissioners inform me that they have not rejected applications because of the poverty of the applicants. On the contrary, they have given farms to evicted tenants who had for many years been employed as labourers, and have provided them with houses and stock when they were physically able to work the land and were otherwise suitable. But when the applicant was wholly unfit to work the land, and there were no members of his or her family able or willing to assist in the working of it, the Commissioners have refused the application. In the Commissioners' opinion it would not be in accordance with the intention of the Act to give land to persons manifestly unable to work it in a husband-like manner, with the result that they would merely transfer it to other persons. The procedure of the Estates Commissioners appears to have
  1378
  been adequately imbued with the spirit of consideration which inspires the hon. Member's Question, and I think he will agree that a modification of the regulations is neither necessary nor desirable.

  Police Injured in Cattle Drives.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the (Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state the number of policemen who have received injuries since 30th June, 1907, in connection with cases of cattle-driving.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that six policemen have been injured in connection with cases of cattle-driving. The number of such cases was three, the police in each case consisting of a patrol of two men. In two of the cases the injury to the police was not serious; in the third case, the two policemen were severely beaten.

  Losses of Loan Funds in County Tyrone.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has had his attention directed to a memorial presented to the Attorney-General for Ireland by Mr. John Owens, J.P., on behalf of the debenture holders of a number of loan funds in Tyrone, Donegal, and Fermanagh; and whether, having regard to the fact that these loan funds were rendered insolvent by the effect of a decision of the Queen's Bench Division in 1896, upsetting the practice of over half a century, carried on under the management of a Government Department, and that the money lost represents the savings of persons in a humble rank of life who trusted their money to the loan funds on the security of their being under Government control and audit through the Loan Fund Board, any steps will be taken by the Irish Government to assist the people whose money has been lost through no fault of their own.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The hon. and learned Member is mistaken in supposing that the Government are in any way responsible for loss which may have been sustained by debenture holders in loan fund societies. In the first place

  1379
  the Loan Fund Board is not a Government Department, and the Government are not responsible for the administration of the Board. The fact is that a large amount of money was irregularly lent by certain loan fund societies which are under local management, and that these loans were irrecoverable. In 1906, the Government procured legislation which provided, so far as they thought possible and just, for the recovery by such societies of debts which had legally lapsed. As regards the responsibility of the Loan Fund Board, I am informed by the Board that they called the attention of the local managers from time to time to the irregularities which were discovered by the Loan Fund Inspector. The Government cannot further assist, by legislation or otherwise, the people whose money may have been lost.

  Indian Mutiny Veterans in Workhouses.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for War, what, so far as he is aware, is the number of the veterans of the Indian Mutiny who, at the recent banquet in commemoration of the jubilee of that episode in English history, left various workhouses to attend that banquet and subsequently returned to those work-houses.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Inquiries have been made to enable me to give the hon. Member some information on the subject. I have been informed by the honorary secretary of the Veteran's Relief Fund that, as a large number of the applications to attend the dinner were made by relations and friends of the veterans on their behalf, it is not possible to give any accurate information. The men who came from workhouses were particularly unwilling to admit that they were so accommodated.

  Loch Long Torpedo Range.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the areas of the land and foreshore, respectively, of the property bordering on Loch Long recently purchased by the Admiralty in connection with the Loch Long torpedo range; when and from whom that property was purchased; what was the price paid;
  1380
  and whether the purchase was effected under compulsory powers.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The area of land is 4·17 acres. All foreshore rights that the owner possessed in the foreshore fronting the land are being acquired; but the area is not defined. The land has not been purchased, but is being taken on a feu from Sir Alan Colquhoun. The feu charter is not yet completed, and the annual feu duty is £12 per acre. Compulsory powers were not exercised.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, what are the areas of land and foreshore, respectively, of the property near Greenock, recently purchased by the Admiralty for purposes in connection with the Loch Long torpedo range; when and from whom that property was purchased: what was the price paid; and whether the purchase was effected under compulsory powers.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson). The area acquired is 10 acres of land, 4¾ acres of foreshore. This property is being purchased from Sir M. H. Shaw Stewart, Baronet. The purchase has not yet been formally completed, but the Admiralty are in possession of the property. The price to be paid is £27,225: the Admiralty will also pay costs. A "notice to treat," under the Defence Act, was served with a view to compulsory purchase, but the price was subsequently settled by agreement.

  American Gooseberry Mildew.
  MR. GWYNX: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), what steps, if any, are being taken to deal with the American gooseberry mildew under the Destructive Insects Act; if the Board will publish returns showing the injury being done by this pest in various counties; and whether the Board are taking steps to prevent the introduction into Ireland, by the import of diseased seed potatoes, of the new potato disease known as black scab (chrysophlyctis endobiotica).
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The Department have drafted an Order dealing with American gooseberry mildew

  1381
  under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, which will be issued at an early date. The Department have ascertained that this pest existed in parts of the following counties during the past years: Antrim, Cavan, Clare, Down, Kerry, King's, Kilkenny, Londonderry, Meath, Queen's, Roscommon, Tipperary, N.B., Tipperary, S.R., Tyrone, Water-ford, and Wexford. The Department are not aware of the existence in Ireland of the disease known as black scab in potatoes; but they have taken steps to warn the recently appointed seed inspectors to watch for and report any case which may come under their notice.

  Grants in Aid of Irish Lace Industry.
  MR. O' MALLEY: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether, in view of the fact that many of the convent and village lace industries of Ireland are not in a position to incur any serious financial outlay on their own behalf, and of the desirability that exists for encouraging this class of work amongst cottagers, His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of taking steps to insure that these industries may be adequately represented at, and placed in a position to reap the advantages of participation in the Exhibition of British and Irish Lace which is to be held in London next month; and whether there are any public funds available that could be used for this purpose.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The Department have considered the matter, and do not propose to take part in the exhibition referred to. They do not think it necessary to afford any aid additional to that now rendered to lace industries in order to enable them to exhibit at the exhibition.

  Foreign Advertisements in the Board of Trade Journal.
  MR. BONAR LAW: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any instructions have been given to exclude the advertisements of foreign firms from the Board of Trade Journal.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Answer is in the negative.

  Pensions of Ex-Service Men in the Civil Service.
  SIR HENRY KIMBERTo ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether Civil Servants of the State why have previously served in the naval or military services are allowed to count the time of their service in the latter for pension in the Civil Service; whether a person who commences to serve the State at the age of twenty in a military capacity for seven years and then joins the Civil Service is unable to obtain full Civil Service pension as he cannot give forty years' service in the Civil Service but must retire at fifty-eight and count nine years less for pension than a person who entered the Civil Service at the age of twenty and who could retire on a full pension at sixty; and whether any action has, or will be, taken on the Report of Sir Edward Ward's Committee on the Unemployment of Discharged Soldiers and Sailors to remove, by legislation or otherwise, this disadvantage of ex-soldier and sailor civil servants.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) As regards the general question raised by the hon. Baronet I must refer him to my Answer to the hon. Member for Mile End on the 3rd instant. Civil servants of the State who have previously served in the naval or military services are not allowed to reckon their services in the latter for pension in the Civil Service They are not required to retire at fifty eight, but at sixty or sixty-five as the case may be.

  Subscription to the International Seismic Association.
  LORD R. CECIL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government have decided to subscribe £200 towards a German institute for seismological inquiries; whether any similar assistance has been given to any similar British institution; and, if not, what is the reason for this preference for foreign enterprise.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) A subcription of £160 a year is paid, not to a German institute for seismological inquiries, but to the International Seismic Association which His Majesty's Government have joined for a period of four

  1383
  years, as the share of this country in the expense of the central bureau. No subscription is paid to any other seismological institution.

  Return of Undelivered Vaccination Exemption Declarations.
  MR. LEHMANN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that on 1st January Mr. J. H. Moore, of 7, Silver Street, Gainsborough, posted to the local vaccination authority of that place a declaration of conscientious objection, but omitted to stamp it, in the belief that it would go free, being marked O.H.M.S.; that this was surcharged and that the vaccination officer refused to accept it; that Mr. Moore did not receive it again from the Post Office authorities, and is consequently threatened with prosecution under the Vaccination Acts; and will he give instructions to all post offices in England and Wales that declarations of conscientious objection found in the Returned Letter Office shall be returned to the senders, whether the letter bears a ½d. stamp or not.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The packet to which the hon. Member refers should have been prepaid ½d. As it was refused by the addressee it was, no doubt, disposed of at the office of destination in accordance with the regulations respecting undelivered ½d. packets. The sender of any ½d. packet may secure its return to him in case of non-delivery by printing or writing his name and address, with a request for return, on the outside of the packet. In view of the practical difficulty in affording exceptional treatment to any particular class of packet bearing no such request, I am sorry that I do not see my way to giving instructions for the special selection for return of deck rations of conscientious objection to vaccination.

  Post Office Savings Bank Funds.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what, on 31st December, 1907, was the total amount due to depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank; whit amount
  1384
  of Consols was sold during the year 1907, and at what average price, what was the amount of Consols held on account of the Post Office Savings Bank on 31st December, 1907, and what is the cost price on balance of the Consols held at that date; what is the deficiency in the capital account on 31st December, 1907, estimating the assets at the market price of the day; what is the deficiency, if any, in the income account for the year ended 31st December, 1907; and what amount of gold is held as a reserve against the liability to depositors.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The total amount due to depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank at the end of 1907 was estimated at £157,518,000. The amount of Consols sold from the Post Office Savings Bank Fund during the year 1907 was £2,193,401, at an average price of £84 3s. 5d. per cent. The amount of Consols held on account of the Fund at 31st December, 1907, was £59,072,319. The cost price on balance of this stock works out at £103 6s. 5d. per cent. The deficiency in the income account of the Fund for the year ended 31st December, 1907, is estimated to amount to £88,190.

  Sale of Tuberculous Cattle.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is aware that cattle in the last stages of tuberculosis are occasionally exposed for sale and food in the open market, with consequent risk of spread of the disease and danger to human life; and if he proposes to take any steps, by legislation or otherwise, in order that persons submitting dying diseased cattle for sale may be prosecuted.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. My attention has been called to the subject referred to in it, and in September last I caused a circular to be issued to local authorities bringing the matter under their notice, in order that they might, as far as possible, exercise supervision over the cattle in their

  1385
  districts with a view to anticipating and so averting possible or intended infringement of the law. I also suggested that suitable officers of the local authority should be instructed to watch closely the cattle markets, slaughter houses, and knackers' yards in the district, with the view of satisfying themelves that no animal, the condition of which appears to render it unfit for human consumption, is disposed of in such a manner that it is likely to be used for this purpose.

  Quality of Paper of Irish Ordnance Map.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, who is responsible for the quality of the paper on which the Ordnance maps in Ireland are now printed or engraved; were the Ordnance maps until recently printed or engraved in Ireland, and where are they now done; and, having regard to the number of these maps now required in connection with land purchase, will he represent to the proper authority that they should be printed or engraved on paper on which ink and colours will not run, the paper at present in use being little more than blotting paper.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Director-General of the Ordnance Survey is responsible for the quality of the paper on which the Ordnance maps in Ireland are printed. So far as it is possible all maps of Ireland are prepared and printed in Ireland, but no facilities exist at the Ordnance Survey Office in Dublin for printing in colours, and printing of that class is therefore carried out at Southampton. If the hon. Member will let me know the particular maps of which he complains, we should be glad to make inquiry into the matter.

  Trustee Savings Bank Funds.
  MR. MACNEILL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will state what, on 20th November, 1907, was the total amount due to depositors in the Trustee Savings Banks: what amount of Consols was sold during
  1386
  the year ended 20th November, 1907, and at what average price; what was the amount of Consols held on account of the trustee Savings Banks on 20th November, 1907, and what is the cost price on balance of the Consols so held; what is the deficiency in the capital account of the Trustee Savings Banks on 20th November, 1907, estimating the assets at the market price of the day; what is the deficiency, if any, in the income account for the year ended 20th November, 1907; and what amount of gold is held as a reserve against the liability to depositors.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The figures showing the total amount due to depositors in the Trustee Savings Banks are not yet available; but it is estimated that the amount is something over £52,000,000. The amount of Consols sold from the Trustee Savings Banks Fund in the year ended 20th November, 1907, was £327,573, at an average price of £85 0s. 3d. per cent. The amount of Consols held on account of the fund at 20th November, 1907, was £17,347,487. The cost price on balance of this stock works out at £94 3s. 6d. per cent. Since the Act of 1904, as has been explained on previous occasions, no valuation of the capital account is published, and the information is not available. The deficiency in the income account of the fund for the year ended 20th November, 1907, amounts to £7,327 19s. 5d. No gold is held as a reserve.

  The Council of the Secretary of State for India.
  MR. ELLIS: To ask the Secretary of State for India, who are now members of the Council of the Secretary of State; what was the previous official career, if any, of each member; what was the date of his appointment; and what is the date of its expiration.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The following are the particulars asked for including the principal official services, if any, of each Member of Council:—

  Name.

  Previous Official Career.

  Date of Appointment.

  Date on which tenure of Office will expire.

  Mackay, Sir James Lyle, G.C.M.G., K.C.I.E.

  President of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, 1890–3. Member of the Governor-General's Legislative Council, 1891. His Majesty's Special Commissioner for Commercial Negotiations with China, 1901–2. Re - appointed Member of Council for five years from 27th April, 1907, under 32 and 33 Vic. c. 97, sec. 3.

  27th April, 1907.

  26th April, 1912.

  Edge, Sir John, Kt., LL.B., K.C.

  Chief Justice, North-Western Provinces, 1886–98. Member of Royal Commission on South African War, 1902.

  30th March, 1898.

  29th March, 1908.

  Hutchins, Sir Philip Perceval, K.C.S.I.

  Judge of the High Court, Madras, 1883. Member of the Council of the Governor of Madras, 1886. Member of the Governor-General's Council, 1888. Secretary, Judicial and Public Department, India Office, 30th November, 1893 to 31st July, 1898.

  1st August, 1898.

  31st July, 1908.

  Lee, Warner, Sir William, K.C.S.I.

  Additional Member of the Governor-General's Council, 1893. Resident in Mysore and Chief Commissioner of Coorg, 1895. Secretary, Political and Secret Department, India Office, 18th September, 1895 to 11th November, 1902.

  12th November, 1902.

  11th November, 1912.

  Barnes, Sir Hugh Shakespeare, K.O.S.I., K.C.V.O.

  Resident and Agent for the Governor-General in Baluchistan, 1896. Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign Department, 1900. Lieutenant-Governor of Burma, 1903.

  9th May, 1905.

  8th May, 1915.

  Barr, Lieut.-Colonel Sir David William Keith, K.G.S.I.

  Agent for the Governor-General in Central India, 1895. Resident at Hyderabad, 1900.

  16th August, 1905.

  15th August, 1915.

  Name.

  Previous Official Career.

  Date of Appointment.

  Date on which tenure of Office will expire.

  Schuster, Sir Felix Otto, Bart.

  —

  —

  26th April, 1906.

  25th April, 1916.

  Morison, Theodore

  Formerly Principal of the Mahomedan Anglo-Oriental College, Aligarh.

  19th December, 1906.

  18th December, 1916.

  Egerton, General Sir Charles Comyn, G. C. B., D. S. O.

  Assistant Quartermaster-General, Bengal, 1895. Commanding Secundera-bad Division, 1904–7. A.D.O. to the Sovereign, 1896–1902.

  5th February, 1907.

  4th February, 1917.

  Appointed for Seven Years under The Council of India Act, 1907.

  Lawrence, Sir Walter Roper, Bart., G.C.I.E.

  Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Revenue and Agricultural Department, 1886. Settlement Officer, Kashmir, 1889. Private Secretary to the Viceroy (Lord Curzon), 1899–1903.

  16th October, 1907.

  15th October, 1914.

  La Touche, Sir James John Digges, K.C.S.I.

  Chief Secretary to Government, North-Western Provinces and Ough, 1893. Additional Member of Viceroy's Legislative Council, 1897 and 1899. Lieutenant - Governor, North-Western Provinces and Oudh, 1901.

  1st November, 1907.

  31st October, 1914.

  Bilgrami, Saiyid Husain, C.S.I.

  Formerly Director of Public Instruction, Hyderabad, and Member of the Governor-General's Legislative Council.

  11th November, 1907.

  10th November, 1914.

  Appointments for Natives in Public Works Department, India.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether in the reorganisation of the Public Works Department, Indians educated at Indian engineering colleges will be placed on the same footing in every respect as Europeans sent out from Home.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) It is a general rule of the public service in India that officers recruited in India, whether Indians or Europeans, are on a different footing as regards pay, leave, and pension from those who are recruited in England. It is not proposed to make an exception to this general rule in the case of the Public Works Department.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he is aware that there is considerable unrest on the North-West Frontier of India; whether he can state the cause; and will he say what is the strength of the British forces surrounding Afghanistan.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) If the hon. Member means political unrest in British territory, I would refer him to what I said in debate on 31st January. If he means the difficulties due to raids of Zakka Khel, who reside in tribal territory beyond the area under the direct administration of the Government of India, I would refer him to my Answer to-day to the hon. Member for Mid Armagh. The distribution of troops along the North-West Frontier of British India can be found in the Indian Army list. In no sense do they surround Afghanistan.

  Pension of Constable O'Halloran, R-I-C.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and if so, what compensation by way of increased pension or otherwise has been awarded to Constable O'Halloran, Royal Irish Constabulary, who was shot at and severely wounded near Athenry, when on patrol duty.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Constable O'Halloran has been awarded a special
  1392
  pension of £52 per annum. The ordinary pension to which he would have been entitled if incapacitated through ill health would be £25 13s. 9d.

  Life Saving Apparatus on the West Coast of Ireland.
  MR. GWYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if steps have been taken to increase the number of points at which life-saving apparatus is kept on the West Coast of Ireland; if he will state the present number of these points; and if he will call the attention of the Irish Lights Commissioners to the want of a lighted buoy on the western point of the Margaretta Shoal in Galway Bay.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. Steps have been taken to establish four new life-saving apparatus stations on the West Coast of Ireland viz., at Kilrush, Costello Bay, and at North and South Arran. Life-saving apparatus was previously kept at six stations on the coast between Valentia and Tory Island, not reckoning a number of places at which the belts and lines equipment was provided. As regards the latter portion of the Question, the Board of Trade have lately given their statutory sanction to a proposal made by the Commissioners of Irish Lights to establish a lighting and whistling buoy on the Margaretta Shoal.

  Irish Land Purchase Delays.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, how long does the Judicial Commissioner anticipate it would take the Land Commission to deal with and complete the sales to the value of some 34 millions of money in respect of agreements already lodged, even if the money to pay were provided as rapidly as the Land Commission could deal with the agreements.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) This Question appears to have been framed under a misapprehension as to the functions of the Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission. The Judicial Commissioner deals only with the distribution of the advance after the purchase has been

  1393
  completed, and cannot answer for the previous stages which concern the Estates Commissioners.

  Re-valuation of Dublin.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, what progress has been made with the re-valuation of Dublin; how many tenements are there to be valued, and how many have up to the present been valued; when, approximately, does the Commissioner of Valuation anticipate the re-valuation can be completed; and has the Commissioner been given a sufficient staff to enable the work to be done with reasonable speed.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Commissioner of Valuation informs me that there are 47,000 rateable hereditaments in the city of Dublin, of which 11,500 have been surveyed, but that he is not yet in a position to fix a date for the completion of the work. He has a sufficient staff to enable it to be done with reasonable speed.

  Restoration of Evicted Tenants in County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state in how many cases were evicted tenants restored to their original holdings, or equivalent holdings found for them, in county Longford.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Up to 31st January, 1908, forty-five former tenants or their representatives had been restored to their original holdings, or had been provided with other holdings in lieu thereof, in county Longford.

  Sale of the Maconchy Estate, North Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state the cause of the delay in completing the sale of the Maconchy estate in North Longford; whether he is aware that the tenants have now paid three years' interest in lieu of rent, in addition to the price agreed on between the landlord and tenants; and if, with a view to putting a stop to further loss to them, he will ask the Estates Commissioners to now issue the vesting orders and complete the sale.
  1394
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the delay in completing the sale of the estate mentioned in the Question arose through difficulties in dealing with the turbary on the property. This matter has now been disposed of, and a scheme under Sections 4 and 20 of The Irish Land Act, 1903, and regulations under Section 21 of the Act are in course of completion, and when these have been settled the sales to the tenants on the estate will be completed. It is therefore expected that the holdings will be vested in the tenants at an early date.

  Untenanted Grazing Land for Sale at Granard, North Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. James W. Bond, D.L., of Fanagh, county Longford, has expressed his willingness to sell the untenanted grazing lands of Asnagh Tully, Ardagullian, and Strokes-town, all in the barony of Cranard, North Longford, comprising some 4,000 acres of land, if asked to do so; and will he direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to this matter, and that negotiations may be entered into for the acquirement of this land for the relief of congestion in North Longford.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they will now approach Mr. Bond in regard to the sale of the untenanted lands referred to in the Question.

  Sale of the O'Brien Estate, North Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, what is the present position as regards the sale of the O'Brien estate at Cornakelly and Corglass, in North Longford; and will he urge the Estates Commissioners to afford much required relief to these tenants by now purchasing the estate which is for sale in Judge Ross's Court.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) On 13th January last, the Land Judge signified his approval of the offer of the Estates Commissioners for the purchase of this estate with the object of re-selling it to the tenants, subject to the fulfilment of the condition mentioned in the offer, namely, that the tenants should pay

  1395
  to the receiver such sum, not exceeding in the case of any tenant a half-year's rent, as the Land Judge should direct. It has not yet been notified to the Court that this condition has been fulfilled, but as soon as this is the case the Judge will make a final order accepting the Commissioners' offer for purchase.

  Restoration of James Green, Evicted Tenant, of Killywilly, County Cavan.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say whether the Estates Commissioner have investigated the claim of one James Green, son of Bernard Green, deceased, who was evicted from his holding at Killywilly, county Cavan, held under Mrs. Roe; is this holding in the possession of John T. Montgomery; if so, when did he get possession, and did he pay a fine; and will he say whether there is any prospect of James Green being restored to his father's holding.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are unable to trace the receipt of any application for reinstatement on behalf of either James or Bernard Green.

  Legislation Regarding Milk.
  MR. ABEL SMITH: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that there are several Private Bills containing milk clauses now before Parliament; and whether, considering the importance of the question from a public as well as from an agricultural point of view and the expense now being incurred by local authorities in connection with these Bills, he will be prepared, on an early

  1st Feb. 1903.

  1st Oct. 1905.

  1st Feb. 1908.

  Officers

  480

  480

  458

  Warrant Officers

  40

  41

  47

  Non-commissioned Officers

  2,309

  2,331

  2,328

  Men

  17,086

  15,788

  14,570

  19,915

  18,640

  17,403

  1396
  day, to state definitely if the Government intend to deal with the whole question by general legislation during the present session.
  (Answered, by Mr. John Burns.) Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question. As I stated on Tuesday last, in reply to a Question from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Derbyshire, the Government are desirous of legislating on the subject of milk supply during the present session.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Royal Marines.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many Royal Marines, officers, noncommissioned officers and men, respectively, were on the strength on 1st February, 1903, and how many on 1st February, 1908; and whether the Admiralty propose to still further reduce this arm of the service.
  VISCOUNT DALRYMPLE: I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what was the number of officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Marine Artillery and Royal Marine Light Infantry on the 1st October 1905, and the 1st February 1908, respectively; and whether it is proposed to make any further reduction in the strength of the Royal Marines; and, if so, what is the amount of the contemplated reduction.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT,: Excluding 1,163 band ratings transferred to the Marines since 1903, the numbers were as follow:—

  1397
  As regards the last part of the Question, any alteration in the numbers will appear in the Estimates which will be published shortly.

  Royal Naval Reserve.
  MR. MORTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state how many second-class Royal Naval Reserve men have been allowed to re-enrol for service up to the age of 45 during each of the five years prior to the 1st April, 1906; will he state how many second-class Royal Naval Reserve men, who were 35 or over on 1st April, 1906, have been allowed to complete their current period of enrolment; and on what ground they have not been allowed to re-enrol for a longer period.
  MR. LAMBERT: The actual re-enrolments in each year were:—1901–2, 806; 1902–3, 615; 1903–4, 556; 1904–5, 688; 1905–6, 462. The actual age of the men at the time of the re-enrolment averaged about 36. The Answer to the second part of the Question is that all have been allowed to complete their current period of enrolment. The Answer to the third part is that these men had reached the age of 35 without qualifying themselves for advancement.

  Overtime in Devonport Dockyard.
  MR. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give the number of men who have worked overtime in His Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, during the month of January this year; and the average number of hours overtime to each man.
  MR. JENKINS: I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many men employed in the Devon-port dockyard are working overtime, and the extent to which overtime is being worked.
  MR. LAMBERT: The number of men working overtime at Devenport during the month of January was 2,604, the average number of hours worked being approximately one and three-quarters per day per man. On the 6th February the numbers were 1,007, working an average
  1398
  of four hours per day. These figures include men who are permanently employed on overtime for raising steam and similar purposes. The greater portion of this overtime will cease within the next ten days.
  MR. JOHN WARD: Has any attempt been made to regulate the conditions of dockyard employment so as to prevent excess at one time and shortness of employment at another?
  MR. LAMBERT: This case arose from exceptional circumstances, and apart from permanent overtime, will cease, I hope, in the course of ten days.

  Greenwich Pensions.
  MR. A. ALLEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether his attention has been called to cases of naval pensioners who, when they enlisted in the Royal Navy, were under the impression that at the ago of fifty-five they would receive a supplemental Greenwich pension of 5d. a day, but are still without that pension, though in some cases they have passed the age of sixty-five and are incapable of supporting themselves; and, if so, whether he can hold out any hope that such men will receive the pension at an early date.
  MR. LAMBERT: Among the large number of men eligible for Greenwich Hospital age pensions there are some known to be over sixty-five years of age. As the available funds do not permit of pensions being awarded to all candidates, it is necessary to fill the vacancies as they occur by selection from among the oldest and most necessitous. Very few men over sixty-five are not receiving Greenwich pensions unless they are in receipt of substantial naval pensions.

  Shipbuilding Policy of the Government.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to continue the policy of building large armoured ships in a period of two years from the date of laying down.
  MR. LAMBERT: No change is contemplated at present.

  Territorial Army—Efficiency Regulations.
  COLONEL SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the regulations as to the conditions of efficiency in the Territorial Army will be issued; and if he can state whether these conditions will differ to any great extent from those now prevailing.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The regulations are not for the present ready for issue, but in order that all concerned may be informed as to the system of training and the conditions of efficiency of the Territorial Force, a pamphlet is being prepared indicating the lines on which the regulations will be drawn up. This pamphlet will very shortly be issued. The conditions of efficiency under the new system do not differ to any great extent from those which applied to the Volunteers, and are not more onerous but are more elastic in their nature.

  Revervists Residing Abroad.
  COLONEL WARDE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many men of the Army Reserve are known to be residing Abroad, and to what branches of the service do they belong; whether such men continue to be reckoned as forming a part of the Reserve immediately available on the outbreak of war; and whether, in the event of Reservists residing in any of the self-governing Colonies failing to rejoin the colours when called upon, the Army Council can enforce their return, or can take any legal steps to that end outside the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom.
  MR. HALDANE: 6,685 men of the Army Reserve are residing abroad. The detailed figures are too long to read out to the House but I will have them printed and circulated with the Votes and Proceedings. These Reservists are considered as available to make good wastage if, owing to the locality of the theatre of war, we may be unable to utilise them immediately on mobilisation. The question of the best method, etc., of recalling to the colours Reservists residing in the Colonies is now being considered in Concert with the Colonial Office, and the Colonial Governments concerned. But it
  1400
  is understood that the Reserve Forces Acts of 1882 and 1906 taken together give the same powers of arrest and punishment of offenders as are possessed in this country.
  COLONEL WARDE: Will extra time be allowed for these men to return when called upon to do so?
  MR. HALDANE: They must of course come at once. We are watching this matter very closely.
  COLONEL WARDE: Will the men permitted to go abroad lie allowed travelling expenses when called back to the colours?
  MR. HALDANE: We have never undertaken to do that.

  Territorial Army Association Secretaries.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether officers of the Imperial Yeomanry are eligible for appointment as secretaries to the Territorial Army Association.
  MR. HALDANE: Officers of the Imperial Yeomanry are eligible for these appointments, subject to the conditions that they are seconded from their regiments and further, in the case of any ox-regular officer serving in that force for five or ten years under the provisions of Appendix III or Article 510 of the Pay Warrant, that they are willing to forego the annual retaining fee which would otherwise be paid to them.

  Army Contract Inspectors.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the appointment to the inspectorship of boots, leather, and grindery recently made has been cancelled; whether it is proposed to renew advertisements for the appointment: and whether applicants will in future be selected solely on trade qualifications.
  MR. HALDANE: The appointment of the candidate originally selected never took effect. It was cancelled because it was found that he was over the age of 40, which was the limit of age fixed. There was no necessity for renewing the advertisements and a candidate was accordingly selected from the numerous

  1401
  applicants. Mr. F. T. Lovell, late under manager to Messrs. Hewlett and White, Limited, of Norwich, has been appointed on a six months probation and took up his duties on the 3rd instant.

  Section A, Army Reserve.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether modifications in the composition of Section A of the Army Reserve refer to the number, or to the pay, or to the terms of service of that Reserve, and to what extent they affect the surplus.
  MR. HALDANE: The Question apparently refers to the explanatory note in the Supplementary Army Estimate. The modifications refer to the maximum number and terms of service of Section A introduced by the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act of which the hon. and gallant Member doubtless is aware. £40,000 is saved on the amount taken in Estimate for the Section.

  Madras Landed Estates Bill.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India a Question of which I have given private notice, viz., whether he is aware that the Madras Government intends to pass the Madras Landed Estates Bill within a few days; that if this course is pursued, the advisers of the landholders in England will have no opportunity of seeing the Bill as amended, and of considering what further representations should be made to the Secretary of State regarding its provisions, and the Secretary of State himself will have no opportunity of seeing what effect has been given to the terms of his despatch; that the Bill is not one of an urgent character, so as to make it necessary to pass it immediately through the Council, to the dissatisfaction of the great landowners of Madras who, rightly or wrongly, are under the impression that their interests are unfairly and prejudicially affected by it.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEV,: I do not quite understand why my hon. friend did not put his notice on the Paper. I have been in communication with the Government of Madras on this subject, and I have satisfied myself that this legislation has not been unduly
  1402
  hurried, and that the zemindars have had full opportunity of representing their views in the Madras Legislative Council. Their interests have at all its stages received the most careful consideration of the Secretary of State in Council. It would be altogether undesirable and contrary to practice to suspend legislation in India in order that private persons in this country may criticise its contents. The zemindars, if they still conceive their interests to be unfavourably affected by the Bill, will doubtless memorialise the Secretary of State in Council. I shall at all times be glad to consider in Council any memorial that they may submit to me through the ordinary channels. My hon. friend need have no doubt that I shall satisfy myself that the Act gives effect to my orders, before it is left to its operation.

  Native Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under. Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information to the effect that, as stated by Mr. Schumacher during the Recess, the mines of the Transvaal would in future have partially to rely on natives from Central Africa; and whether further recruitment from Nyassaland is contemplated.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): Correspondence on this subject is proceeding. I may, however, say that the Secretary of State will have great difficulty in authorising the resumption of recruiting unless there are strong grounds for believing that the death rate can be very substantially and permanently reduced.

  Gold Coast—Tribal Lands.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the Gold Coast Concession Ordinance of 1900, whereby Native chiefs can sell tribal lands to whites; whether he will ask for a special report on the working of this Ordinance, and the amount of land so alienated, and at what price; and whether he will prevent the passing of similar Ordinances in the northern territories of the Gold Coast or in Northern Nigeria.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Ordinance referred to gives no power to natives to sell tribal land, nor does it give the natives any rights which they did not already possess. It was intended to safeguard and regulate the exercise of their rights, by bringing it under the control of the Government and the Supreme Court of the Colony. The Ordinance was introduced with the approval of a native Member of Council who represented several of the kings and chiefs. It has worked well, and there seems no sufficient reason for calling for such a report as is suggested by the hon. Member. There is no intention of introducing similar legislation in the northern territories of the Gold Coast or in Northern Nigeria.

  St. Helena.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government is doing anything to assist the poverty-stricken people of St. Helena to provide a market for the 1,200 head of cattle on the island; and is he aware that farmers found it necessary to kill calves at birth in order to avoid unprofitable outlay on their rearing.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has seen the statement to which the hon. Member refers. He understands that supplies of fresh meat for His Majesty's ships on the South African Station are already partly made under contract at St. Helena, and that the Admiralty are considering whether it would be possible or economical to ship cattle from the island to South Africa. The War Department has also been approached in the matter, but it appears that the purchase of these cattle for the use of the troops in South Africa would be an infringement of the conditions of existing contracts. It may be added that His Majesty's Government have made grants for industries which it is hoped will benefit the whole community, including the farmers.

  Mortality of Native Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
  SIR CLEMENT HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the most recent death rate in the Transvaal mines amongst natives recruited in Portuguese East
  1404
  Africa; and whether any Natives are still recruited for those mines in the Nyassaland Protectorate.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The death rate for all natives employed in the mines of the Transvaal for the quarter ended September 30 last was thirty-two per thousand per annum, of which twenty-eight were due to disease, but I cannot give separate figures for the natives from Portuguese East Africa. No recruiting is at present going on in the Nyassaland Protectorate.
  MR. LYTTELTON: What is the death rate among the natives recruited in Nyassaland?
  MR. CHURCHILL: The figures have been quoted to the House. I cannot recall them for the moment, but if the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I will get them.

  Dinizulu Trial.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the preliminary examination of the chief Dinizulu was conducted in open court, with right of access to the public; whether the examination was based upon any formal charge supported by any sworn information; whether he has been committed for trial; and, if so, upon what charge and before what court.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The preliminary examination of Dinizulu has not been held in public. The circumstances are reported by the Governor in his despatch of 28th December printed at page 217 of Cd. 3,888. The same Blue-book contains some of the sworn information on which I understand the Colonial Government relies. With regard to the charges the Governor has telegraphed as follows: Following are charges in warrants—(1) High treason; (2) Contravening the provisions of Section 44 of Act No. 1 of 1906 known as the Firearms and Ammunition Act of 1905; (3) Sedition and rebellion; (4) (a) Murder, (b) being an accessory to the crime of murder, (c) conspiracy to murder, (d) inciting to murder. The Secretary of State has not yet been informed that Dinizulu has been committed for trial. The trial will be before the Supreme Court.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the statement that the barrister employed to defend Dinizulu has decided to give up his brief and return home in consequence of the obstacles which he alleges were placed in his way in obtaining evidence for the defence, and will the right hon. Gentleman make close inquiry into the matter, so that Dinizulu may at least get a fair trial?
  MR. CHURCHILL: My attention has been directed to the statement which appears in the newspapers, but at present I have only newspaper authority for it. In view of the special conditions which were attached to Dinizulu's return to South Africa, the Secretary of State representing His Majesty's Government is bound to give earnest and persistent attention to the whole course of this matter.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct his earnest and immediate attention to the statements made by Mr. Jellicoe publicly that in Zululand unresisting natives had been shot, and in several cases Hogged? Those statements are made on the authority of an English professional gentleman.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I think I should prefer to deal with the question of Dinizulu apart from other matters.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that I will call his attention to these statements.
  MR. MACKARNESS: Are we to understand that the charges of murder and incitement to murder are not charges of murdering a particular person or inciting to murder on a particular occasion, but are vague charges.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I read to the House the words of the telegram we received, which constitute the capital charges so far as they have been imparted to us.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the Government inquire whether it is a fact that Miss Colenso
  1406
  was not permitted to have interviews with Dinizulu?
  MR. CHURCHILL: There has been a lot of telegraphic correspondence on that subject.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What is the upshot of it?
  LORD R. CECIL: Under the law of Natal, is it possible to bring any one to trial for murder without alleging who was murdered?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot answer that Question without notice, but the point certainly occurred to me.

  Canadian Coasting Trade Regulations.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the recent changes which the Canadian Government have made in the regulations affecting British and foreign shipping in Canadian coasting waters; what foreign nations who now engage in Canadian coasting trade are affected by these changes; whether the Law Officers of the Crown have been consulted as to the bearing of foreign treaties upon freedom of action by Canada as regards coasting trade generally; and, if so, what action, if any, has been take upon their opinion.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Canadian Government has issued an Order in Council to take effect from 1st January next, repealing certain Orders in Council under which the vessels of Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Austro-Hungary, Denmark, Belgium and the Argentine Republic have been allowed to participate in the coasting trade of the Dominion. That coasting trade will, therefore, after the date in question be confined to British ships. The hon. Member will see from the statement at pages 492–493 of the Papers laid before the Colonial Conference (Cd. 3524) that there are no treaties which entitle any foreign country to participate in the coating trade of the Dominion. It has not, therefore, been thought necessary to consult the Law Officers in the matter.

  New Hebrides Convention.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the

  1407
  Colonies whether he can say what will be the housing accommodation provided for Natives under the Convention; and what will he the scale of food.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has just received a report from the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific on his recent visit to the New Hebrides to proclaim the Convention. In that report it is stated that the British and French High Commissioners have instructed the Resident Commissioners to prepare regulations on recruiting and the conditions of labour. These regulations will of course contain all necessary provisions on the subject of the housing accommodation and the scale of food of natives employed by Europeans in the New Hebrides.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the Report be issued to the House?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have not read it yet. That point will be considered.
  MR. J. WARD: Will the regulations drawn up by the Resident Commissioner be laid before the House?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; but the instructions given to the Commissioner have already been published and I understand have met with a considerable amount of approval.

  III-Treatment of Natives in the New Hebrides.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether under new instructions issued to the High Commissioner of the Pacific under the New Hebrides Convention, any penalty or punishment may be inflicted for ill-treatment of Natives other than the termination of contract.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It is unnecessary to make any provision in instructions from His Majesty's Government for the punishment of British subjects ill-treating natives, as such punishment is already prescribed, both by the Convention of the 20th October, 1906, and by the Pacific Order in Council, 1893, as the hon. Gentleman will not fail to perceive if he reads Articles LIV. (1) and LV (1). of the
  1408
  Convention, and Articles 23 and 49 of the Pacific Order in Council, 1893.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Do these articles exactly cover cases of ill-treatment of the natives, or only cases of injury?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am informed that they cover such cases completely. If the hon. Gentleman will read them he will be able to judge if that is so.

  Delagoa Agreement.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Delagoa agreement gives Germany the reversion of the Portuguese Colonies in East and West Africa, or whether any agreement to a similar effect is in existence; and, if so, whether it has received the adhesion of Great Britain.
  MR. CHURCHILL (for Sir EDWARD GREY): My right hon. friend is unable to give any further information on the subject beyond what has already been given by his predecessors in reply to similar Questions.

  Slave Labour in San Thomè and Principe.
  SIR C. HILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the result of the representations which are understood to have been made by the Foreign Office to the Portuguese Government on the subject of slave labour on the cocoa plantations of San Thomé and Principe.
  MR. CHURCHILL (for Sir EDWARD GREY): We learn from the Portuguese Government that fresh regulations are being drawn up, placing the recruitment of labourers for the plantations entirely and permanently under the control of Portuguese officials. Due provision is also to be made for repatriation. An official in whom complete confidence is placed by the Portuguese Government is to proceed to Angola shortly in order to superintend the inauguration of the new system.

  Licensing Duties.
  MR. BARNARD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the number of pre-1869 beer-house licences that were in existence at the passing of the 1904

  1409
  Licensing Act; how much has been contributed by the owners of these houses to the compensation fund in the financial years of 1905, 1906, and 1907; how many of them have been suppressed during these years; how much money has been collected from the trade under Goschen's Act; will he state the purposes to which Mr. Goschen originally intended to apply that money; and how much has the war tax of 1s. per barrel on beer and 6d. on spirits yielded since the termination of the war.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): 1. The numbers of ante-1869 beer-houses have never been ascertained with certainty; but it is believed that out of the total number of 31,942 beer-houses in existence on 1st January, 1905, i.e., when the Licensing Act, 1904, came into operation, the ante-1869 beer-houses numbered 28,000 and upwards. 2. Owing to the absence of exact records, it is not possible to say how much has been contributed by the owners of ante-1869 beer-houses to the compensation fund. 3. The number of ante-1869 beer-houses extinguished with compensation in the years 1905, 1906, and 1907 is believed to be 1,673. This number is exclusive of the ante-1869 beer houses (believed to number 277) which have come to an end without compensation for various causes in the same three years. 4. The total sum derived from the additional duties on beer and spirits imposed by the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890, (to which, presumably, my hon. friend refers) up to 31st March, 1907, amounted to £21,087,970. 5. It appears from the Budget Statement of 17th April, 1890, that the original intention of the Government was to devote about one-quarter of the proceeds of these additional duties to the "purchase of licences," and the remainder to various local purposes. (See Hansard Vol. 343, Column 734). 6. The estimated yield of the additional 1s. per barrel on beer and 6d. per gallon on spirits from the termination of the war up to 31st March last amounted to £8,557,000 and £4,152,000 respectively.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: Is it not the fact that about 900 houses were given up in the three years before the Act of 1904 came into existence, and has not the yield of taxation from the
  1410
  trade been practically stationary as compared with what it was before the war, while the burden of other taxation has increased by 30,000,000 sterling?
  MR. ASQUITH: I must ask for notice of the Question.

  Income Tax.
  MR. YOUNGER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is demanding payment of Income Tax in England at the present time with the same rigour as it is being enforced in Scotland.
  MR. ASQUITH: At the present time, the procedure is identical on both sides of the Tweed—equivalent notices demanding payment within ten days having gone out about the last week in January alike in Scotland and in England and Wales.
  MR. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that distraint notices were issued in Scotland last week?
  MR. ASQUITHasked for notice of the Question.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if a large number of income taxpayers will be deprived of the benefit of the reduction of the tax to 9d. to which they are entitled, owing to the fact that they delayed or neglected to send in their claims within the period limited; if complaints have been made on this account; and if, having regard to the increase of income tax from other sources which has been already received, he can see his way still to allow the abatement to those who pay the tax during the present month.
  MR. ASQUITH: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for East Tipperary which is printed with last Thursday's Votes. For the reasons therein explained, I fear it is not possible to extend the very considerable concessions which have already been made.

  Small Holdings Schemes.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when a Treasury Minute will be issued giving an undertaking that, in the event of the Small

  1411
  Holdings Commissioners carrying out a scheme where the county council have declined to do so for fear of incurring a loss, and such scheme does result in a loss, the whole of such loss shall be borne by the Treasury.
  MR. ASQUITH: A Treasury Minute dated 31st December, 1907, stating the conditions under one-half of any loss incurred by a local authority in carrying out a scheme under the Act would be paid from public funds, was communicated to county councils and county boroughs by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries on the 25th ultimo, and was also sent to the Press. No undertaking was ever given that, where a loss is entailed by action of the Commissioners in default of a council, the whole of that loss should be borne by the Treasury. The Act empowers the Treasury in such cases to pay the whole or any part of such loss, but each case must be considered on its merits and in relation to the surrounding circumstances.

  Boy Offenders.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say for what offences, and by what courts, the four boys under twelve referred to on page 13 of the Report of the Commissioners of Prisons for 1906 were imprisoned; and what terms of imprisonment were actually served by them.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,: No. 1 was convicted at Kettering Police Court of stealing apples and sentenced to seven days imprisonment, which he served. He had been previously convicted. Nos. 2 and 3 were convicted at Lindsey (Lincolnshire) Petty Sessions of larceny of eggs after a previous conviction, and were ordered to be sent to a reformatory school for three years, and to be detained in prison until a reformatory school could be found to receive them. They were in prison for ten days. No. 4 was committed from Ashby-de-la-Zouch Petty Sessions for three days for stealing growing apples, and was discharged in ordinary course on the morning of the third day. Though his age was given at the prison as just under twelve, it is now stated that he was over that age.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will direct that any boy under fourteen years of age who is committed to prison shall be detained in a female prison or on the female side of a prison.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The treatment of boys under fourteen in prison is governed by Special Rules (Nos. 258 to 274 of the Rules for the government of Local Prisons) which provide for considerable modifications of ordinary prison arrangements and mitigations of prison discipline in their case. The question will be further dealt with in the Children's Bill, which is to be introduced this afternoon.

  Crimes in Lincolnshire.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that during the year 1905 there were reported to the police 1,218 indictable crimes in the county of Lincoln, including two attempts to murder, one threat or conspiracy to murder, two cases of manslaughter, twelve cases of malicious wounding, two cases of unnatural offences, one case of indecency with males, two cases of rape, nine cases of indecent assault on females, ten cases of defilement of girls under sixteen, seven cases of larceny of horses and cattle, fourteen cases of arson, three cases of killing and maiming of cattle; if he can now state when the figures for 1906 will be available; if he can state how many of these crimes were committed in the Stamford division of the county; and if he can now state whether there is any diminution of these classes of crime in this county or in the parishes comprising the Stamford division of the county.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The figures given by the hon. Member correspond closely with those in the Criminal Statistics for 1905. The figures for 1906 will be available in two or three weeks. They show a slight diminution in some of the classes of crime specified. I have no information as to how many of the crimes were committed in the Stamford Division.
  MR. MOONEY: How is it the right hon. Gentleman can get the latest possible figures for Ireland and not for

  1413
  England? Is the Irish Office a branch of the Home Office?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid there was a time when the Irish Office was practically under the Homo Office. He wished the calendar of crime in England were as light as it was in Ireland.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman send a copy of his Answer as to the appalling state of affairs in Lincolnshire to the hon. Member for the Stamford Division, who is so much interested in crime in the county of Clare.
  MR. MACVEAGHasked the right hon. Gentleman if his attention had been called to the fact that in the Stamford Division in 1905 thirty-eight persons committed suicide in a state of insanity, and whether, as the electors there had given other evidence of insanity, he would communicate with the Commissioners of Lunacy in order to have this serious matter attended to.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Would it not be well for the country if an equal number of persons in Clare committed suicide?

  Shop Thefts.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will grant a Return showing the number of charges of stealing from shops which came before the police courts during the year 1907, with the description given in each case of the occupation or social position of the person charged, together with the result of the proceedings.
  MR. GLADSTONE: To collect the information necessary for this Return would involve a vast amount of labour on the part of the police and justices' clerks throughout the country; and the value of the information does not appear to me to be sufficient to justify this.

  Postage on Prisoners' Letters.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that in certain of His Majesty's prisons persons awaiting trial, and who have had their money
  1414
  taken from them, are not permitted to; purchase the postage stamps they require for communicating with their friends, and that such letters are consequently sent unstamped, involving the payment of double postage by the recipients; whether such practice is general in His Majesty's prisons; and whether he will take the necessary stops to remedy it without delay.
  MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. friend appears to be under a misapprehension. It is the rule in all prisons that prisoners awaiting trial who have money in the prison's books, are allowed to pay the postage of their letters from such funds.

  Limerick Competitions.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the amount of Limerick competitions that take place in certain newspapers; and whether, having regard to the quasi-gambling nature of the competitions, he will be prepared to initiate legislation to deal with this question.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; my attention has been drawn to a number of these competitions. I am aware that both the character of the competitions themselves, and the manner in which the awards are said to be made, have aroused considerable dissatisfaction. It would be better if the energies of the public could be diverted into a healthier channel, but I cannot at present give any pledge to introduce legislation to deal with the matter. The question is, however, under the consideration of the Attorney-General and myself.

  Conviction by Penzance Magistrates.
  MR. EDWARD DUNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if his attention has been called to the fact that two lads, charged with sleeping out, were sentenced on Monday last to one month's hard labour by the Penzance justices; and, if the sentence and crime be as stated, he will order their immediate release.
  MR. GLADSTONE: My attention had not previously been called to the case;

  1415
  but I have made inquiries and find that the prisoners referred to, who are eighteen and nineteen years of age, respectively, have been sentenced as stated in the Question. I find that both prisoners had been previously convicted, and that the justices in dealing with the case took into consideration the characters of the prisoners, their refusal to work, and their circumstances generally, and were guided in the sentence passed by the recommendations of the inter - Departmental Committee on Vagrancy (pars. 189–92), who strongly advised that to sentence tramps to very short terms of imprisonment was worse than useless. In the circumstances, I regret that I do not feel myself justified in advising His Majesty to interfere with the sentence imposed by the justices.

  South Devon Farmers and Trial by Jury.
  CAPTAIN MORRISON-BELL: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a petition received by the Members of Parliament for Devonshire constituencies passed by the South Devon Farmers' Association, showing that, whilst they approve of the general principle of trial by jury, they strongly condemn the present system whereby it becomes possible for one juryman to be called four times in succession, when others are not called once in forty years; and whether he will take action in this matter, either by legislation or otherwise.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have not seen the petition which the hon. Member mentions, but complaints with regard to the summoning of jurors reach my Department from time to time; and in October last I issued a circular to the Under Sheriffs calling their attention to the matter. From the replies which I received to that circular it appears that most Under Sheriffs fully realise the hardship involved in summoning a man to serve on a jury too frequently, and do their best to prevent such hardships. Where cases such as are mentioned in the Question occur, they should be brought to the notice of the Under Sheriff. I have no authority to take any further action in the matter, and I fear that I cannot make any promise as to legislation.

  Cost of Excluding Aliens.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the fact that it is costing the country nearly £1,000 a month to exclude sixty or seventy foreigners who desire to land on our shores, and that experience has shown that the working of the Aliens Act brings such meagre and incommensurate results, obtained by administration which necessarily causes irritation and annoyance, the Government will now recommend that the Act be repealed or modified.
  MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. friend must remember that the results of the Act are not to be measured only by the small number of aliens turned back at the English ports, but also by the number of those aliens who pass through as trans-migrants instead of remaining in England, and of those alien criminals who are sent out of the country, the cost of whose expulsion is included in the figures I gave last Wednesday in answer to my hon. friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets.

  Imports of Cane and Beet Sugar.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the respective quantities and values of cane and beet sugar imported into this country for consumption in the past year
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,: I am unable to give the precise information asked for by the hon. Member, as no distinction is made between sugar refined from raw cane and raw beet respectively when entered for consumption from British refineries. The total imports of raw sugar were however divided as follows:—Cane sugar 5,488,020 cwts. valued at £2,782,395; Beet sugar 9,443,822 cwts. valued at £4,541,797. The total imports of refined sugar (practically the whole of which are derived from beet growing countries) amounted to 19,721,426 cwts. valued at £11,819,033.

  Prices of Wheat.
  MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the average prices of wheat in France and Germany

  1417
  for each of the months of the year 1907, and also at Liverpool and on Mark Lane for the same periods.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The information asked for by the hon. Member, as far as it can be given, will be printed in the Votes.
  MR. REMNANT: I beg so ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will the give prices of wheat, as nearly as possible of the same quality, in London, Liverpool, Paris, and Berlin, on the 31st January, 1908, or thereabouts.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The following are the prices quoted on the 29th January, for representative qualities of wheat in the markets referred to. It is impossible, however, to say how far the various qualities of wheat mentioned are properly comparable.

  Per Imperial Quarter of 480 lbs.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  London (Mark Lane):

  English, Good to fine Reds (delivered)

  35

  9

  to

  36

  2

  Liverpool:

  United States, No. 2 Red Winter

  36

  2

  to

  37

  5

  The prices of representative Canadian and Australian Wheats on Liverpool market are considerably higher.

  Paris:

  Wheat, Good

  39

  8

  to

  4

  11

  Berlin:

  Home Grown

  46

  6

  to

  47

  9

  The New Patent Act.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he can inform the House as to the extent to which the new Patent Act has led to arrangements for the manufacture of patented articles in this country which were formerly made abroad.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is, of course, too early at present for me to gauge the full extent to which the Act
  1418
  has already led to the making of the arrangements indicated by the hon. Member: but I am satisfied from the information which I have received from a variety of sources, that the Act has already had a great effect in bringing home to patentees, who have hitherto been working their patents exclusively abroad, the necessity of establishing works in this country for carrying on their inventions in order to protect their patents from revocation or infringement, and I have every reason to believe that before the end of August next, when the section relating to this question will come into force, the effect of the Act in this respect will have been very considerable.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman know of any definite cases where foreign firms have already made arrangements by the purchase of land, and so on?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Oh, yes, I know several cases.

  Hong Kong Mail Contract.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Hong Kong mail contract which was temporarily renewed after a debate in this House on March 27th last, will shortly expire; whether it is proposed to make a new contract for the same service; and, if so, whether he can assure the House that, in accordance with the principle laid down by himself in the course of that debate, care will be taken that an absolute equivalent is received for the money spent.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,: The contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the conveyance of mails to Canada and the Far East expires April 6th. The question of its renewal for a limited period and under certain conditions has been raised by the Canadian Government, and is now under consideration. Any proposal for the renewal of the contract will necessarily be submitted to the House.

  New Zealand Mail Service.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if any progress has been made in the re-establishment of the mail service with New Zealand via the Pacific.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The United States Post Office arranged in August last for a four-weekly mail service between San Francisco and Auckland. Mails from the United Kingdom for New Zealand are regularly sent by this route on every fourth Saturday.

  Post Office Wages.
  MR. BARKER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, when he proposes to take the Post Office Supplementary Estimate, under which provision is made for carrying out the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on Post Office Wages.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: There is no intention of taking the Supplementary intimate to which my hon. friend refers until I have published the revision of wages and conditions of service founded on the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee, and until time has been given for the consideration of the revision. If the House desires to discuss the report of the committee and matters arising out of it, it would be able to do so on the Supplementary Estimate with due notice given. The revision will, I hope, be issued within a day or two. As I have already stated, the delay in publication will not adversely affect the remuneration of any officer, as all improvements in pay will date back to January 1st. I may add that, for various reasons, the publication of the revision has been delayed, as I was anxious to make it as complete as possible before publication. As it is, the classification of offices will be necessarily very incomplete, as the Board of Trade inquiries into the cost of living are not yet finished.

  Postage Parcel Excess Charges in Limerick.
  MR. SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that a Post Office regulation has recently been made charging three pence on every postage parcel which the postman on his beat in the district of Drumcollogher, in the county of Limerick, failed to deliver owing to the absence of addressee; if he can say whether this regulation is a general one or confined merely to this district; and whether, owing to its unfairness, he will take steps to have it removed.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The charge referred to by the hon. Member was made
  1420
  under a misapprehension, and I have given instructions for it to be discontinued.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the money paid be refunded?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: If the hon. Member will consult me privately I will see if it can be done.

  Medical Inspection of Schools—Speech of the Chairman of the Staffordshire Education Committee.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the speech of the chairman of the Staffordshire Education Committee in which he states that the efficiency or otherwise with which the local authorities put into operation the medical inspection of school children will be a determining factor in the annual grant given by the Board of Education; whether this is generally known by all local education authorities; and whether the Board will circularise authorities, stating at the same time that they consider the appointment of whole-time doctors, as in Staffordshire, to be the surest way of securing this efficiency.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKEXNA,: The Board have stated in Section 10 of the Memorandum on Medical Inspection, which has been issued to all local education authorities, that the effectiveness of the minimum inspection required under the Act will in future be one of the elements to be considered in determining the efficiency of each school as a grant-aided school. The appointment of whole-time medical officers will no doubt be advisable in the larger and more populous districts, but in view of the differences in area and population among the various local education authorities who are charged with the duties of inspection, I do not think an expression of opinion, such as my hon. friend suggests, could lie made of universal or even of general application. The Board will always be happy to give advice to any authority who desires to consult them, but the detailed arrangements and personnel required will be matters in the first instance for the consideration of the authority in the light of local circumstances and existing public health organisation.

  Cost of Medical Inspection.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered the additional expense likely to be thrown upon the local authorities by carrying out the medical inspection of children under Section 13 of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907; and whether it is proposed to give them any relief from the Imperial Exchequer.
  MR. McKENNA: The financial arrangements in connection with the forthcoming Education Bill will include an additional grant in aid of the expenses of local education authorities under Part III of the Act.

  Oxford Street School, Swansea.
  MR. LYTTELTON (St. Georgo's Hanover Square): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether after the 1st April 1907, the managers of the Oxford Street voluntary school at Swansea paid the teachers in that school the difference between the lower salaries authorised by the local authority to be paid to them and the higher salaries recommended by his colleague and predecessor; and whether the local authority have refunded to the managers the amount of such difference.
  MR. McKENNA: The right hon. Gentleman, if he were more familiar with the details of this tangled controversy, would be aware that the item of salaries was only one of the questions in dispute. Pending the settlement of the more important questions, this matter has been deferred, as the managers were aware, for on 5th November they wrote to the Board:—"The managers do not, of course, abandon their claim for the full amount they have paid the teachers, and reserve this matter to be dealt with in subsequent correspondence." I may say, however, that the Board are now communicating with the local education authority.
  MR. LYTTELTONasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, as the information which he gave to the House appeared to be neither complete nor accurate, he would reconsider the question and take some steps to refund to the managers the money they had paid in respect of salaries of which his predecessor approved.
  MR. McKENNA: The information on which the right hon. Gentleman bases his supplementary question is inaccurate, but the statement to the House is both full and accurate.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Is it the fact that local managers have paid out of their own pockets the difference between the salaries authorised by the local education authority and the salaries sanctioned by his predecessor? Is that the fact or not?
  MR. McKENNA: My predecessor never sanctioned payment of any salaries at a higher rate.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I refer to the salaries, the withholding of which the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor declared to be "unjust to the teachers and gravely imperilling the efficiency of the school."
  MR. McKENNA: The right hon. Gentleman is not familiar with this controversy. If he were, he would know that, with regard to the salary of any individual teacher, upon which alone the Board could adjudicate, no question has been brought before the Board. I must have a question on each individual salary brought before me before I can determine whether it is or is not sufficient. There is no general standard of salary throughout the country.
  LORD ROBERT CECILasked if it was not the fact that in April last year the managers paid to the teachers the difference between the salaries they were to be paid and the salaries being paid to teachers in a similar position in the county schools; and, further, if the payment was made because the National Union of Teachers called out the teachers from the Oxford-street school because they were not receiving what they regarded as a sufficient and proper wage for the services they were rendering.
  MR. McKENNAbelieved it to be the fact that in some cases the managers did pay higher salaries than they were refunded by the local education authority. But that was not the question. (A voice, "Yes, it is.") He was not aware what the reasons were, but he thought they

  1423
  were somewhat different from those stated.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it in order to refer to speeches delivered in former debates and base a Question on them? I have often been called to order before.
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Wales and the Secondary Schools Regulations.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education how many local education authorities in Wales have expressed their approval of the financial provisions under the new Secondary School Regulations.
  MR. McKENNA: I have no detailed information on the subject, but as far as my experience of local education authorities goes, an increase of grant is not ordinarily considered by them to be adequate.

  Mall Electric Lights.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid Armagh, I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works when the new electric light standards will be erected in the Mall.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,: The casting of these standards is now going on, and it is hoped that those required to light the space around the Queen Victoria Memorial will be completed and fixed before July. The standards for the Mall will follow in due course; but I cannot fix any date at present; bronze founding is a lengthy process and occupies much longer than iron founding.

  Press Dining-Room.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh, I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works when the dining-room used by members of the Press will be ready for their occupation; and what has been the cause of the delay in its preparation.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Question
  1424
  is repudiated by the Press Gallery Committee, and that the members of the Gallery have no complaint to make of the present temporary arrangement?
  MR. HARCOURT: Yes, I am aware of the fact stated in the supplementary Question. The dining-room is now ready for occupation. During the short delay other accommodation was provided for the Press from whom I have received many expressions of gratitude for the improvements recently effected.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: May I remark that there is no such insinuation in the Question as suggested by the hon. Member?

  Marble Arch Improvement.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh, I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if his Department is incurring any outlay upon works now being executed at the Marble Arch; and, if so, when it is probable that the Supplementary Estimate will be presented.
  MR. HARCOURT: My Department is incurring some outlay for the remaking of roads within the Park; all other works which are being undertaken at the Marble Arch are to be paid for by the London County Council. There are funds available on the Vote for the payments for labour which are likely to be incurred during the present financial year; and it will not therefore be necessary to present a Supplementary Estimate.

  Workmens' Compensation Government Contract.
  MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that in some cases contractors have omitted to insure their workmen under the impression that when men are engaged upon work for the Government there is no need for such insurance; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take.
  MR. HARCOURT: It has been reported to me that some such misapprehension exists, I need hardly say that it is wholly unfounded. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act the liability of employers whose workmen are engaged

  1425
  on work for the Government is precisely the same as that of any other employer.

  Official Advertisements.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if instructions have been given to the Government Departments that official advertisements are to be withheld from Conservative and Unionist newspapers with large circulations and given to Radical newspapers with small circulations; and, in such case, if full particulars will be laid upon the Table of all such subventions.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. WHITELEY,): The Answer is in the negative.

  Army and Navy Pensions.
  SIR CLEMENT HILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he can state the number of soldiers and sailors who are affected by the decision of His Majesty's Government not to allow such persons to count their service for continuous pension under The Superannuation Act, 1859.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: My hon. friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—who is absent on account of illness—asks me to say he has no information on this subject.

  Small Holdings.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the honourable Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, when a local authority purchases land for small holdings, it is intended that the rent to be paid by the tenant to the local authority shall be fixed so as to cover the repayment of the purchase money borrowed by the local authority, as well as the interest on that purchase money; and whether, having regard to the fact that, under The Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, tenents engage for the use and not the purchase of land, the Board will issue a circular instructing local authorities that rents should be fixed to cover the interest on purchase money, and not the repayment of purchase money.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. STRACHEY,: The intention was as indicated in the first part of the Question of my hon. friend. It was considered that in view of the fact that the repayment of money borrowed for the purchase of land might extend over a period of eighty years, the additional rent which would be chargeable to the small holder would be but small, and not more than a reasonable equivalent for the advantages accruing to him by the use of the powers and credit of a public authority. The question is not however free from difficulty, and we are in communication with the Local Government Board and some of the county councils concerned respecting it. Perhaps my hon. friend will communicate further with me on the subject at a later stage.

  Foot and Mouth Disease in Scotland.
  MR. McCRAEasked the hon. Member for South Somerset if he had any further information to give the House with regard to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Midlothian.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid that no further suspected cases of foot and mouth disease had been reported since Saturday last. The slaughter of the diseased herd had been carried out, and the carcases buried in trenches in the ground set aside for the purpose by the corporation of Edinburgh, who had throughout rendered the greatest assistance. The order of scheduling the district had been so far relaxed as to allow animals from outside the scheduled area to be moved by rail to Edinburgh, Musselburgh, and Leith, and from the railway station to a slaughterhouse.
  MR. DELANYasked for information as to the origin of the outbreak.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYreplied that suspicion for the outbreak of the disease rested on hay imported from Rotterdam. The matter was being further investigated.

  Illegal Trawling in the Moray Firth.
  CAPTAIN WARING: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland how many cases of illegal trawling in the Moray Firth were reported to the

  1427
  Fishery Board during the months of December and January last; and whether cases of British trawlers flying a foreign flag were reported.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. Sinclair,): Sixteen trawlers were detected on forty-four different occasions in the Moray Firth in December and January. Some of these are understood to be owned or managed by persons or companies having their places of business at a British port.

  Uig Cottars' Grievances.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that 330 crofters and cottars in the parish of Uig, Island of Lewis, Rosshire, have called the attention of the Government to the fact that more than one third of the inhabitants of the townships in which they reside are cottars or squatters without land, and point out that crofts of a greater rental than £5 yearly would aggravate the evil; and, seeing that they urge that a clause should either be inserted in the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, or a separate measure passed, whereby available land may be divided into small lots in those districts in which squatters at present constitute a burden, will he state what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am aware that a petition to the above effect has been presented to the House of Commons. Powers are taken in the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill which are designed to increase the number of small holdings of any size up to the limits contained in the Bill and to make these available to suitable tenants. That Bill has already been presented to the House of Commons this session and will shortly be proceeded with.

  House-Letting in Scotland.
  MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is in a position to state when he will introduce legislation giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee which reported last year on the subject of house-letting in Scotland.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Not at present. The report is now under consideration.

  Irish Land Act Finance.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state what is now the annual amount of the Sinking Fund created for the purposes of The Irish Land Act, 1903; in what securities this money is being invested, and what is the profit arising from such investment; and whether profit so arising is placed to the credit of the Irish Land Act Finance Fund or, is paid direct to the Treasury and used by the Treasury for purposes other than financing the Irish Land Act of 1903.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Sinking Fund receipts of the Irish Land Purchase Fund in the current financial year are estimated to amount to £101,000. The Sinking Fund portion of the Purchase Annuities is not invested in securities, but is applied in making further purchase advances, in accordance with Section 36 (2) of the Irish Land Act, 1903. The effect of this application is to reduce the amount of Stock which would otherwise have to be created to provide for advances, and thereby to reduce the charge for Excess Stock upon the Guarantee Fund. By this mode of application the Sinking Fund accumulates at a fixed rate of 2¾ per cent. per annum. No profit is made over and above the 2¾ per cent., but the Guarantee Fund is saved from a loss which would fall upon it if the Sinking Fund moneys were applied in any other way.
  MR. HAYDEN: Has this been the practice since the commencement of operations under the Act.
  MR. ASQUITH: I think so. I will inquire.

  Irish Sorters' Grievances.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will say whether he now considers the advisability of giving the sorter, Mr. D. Feeheny, a second trial in the clerical department, General Post Office, seeing that the work of the particular duty, on which he was disqualified at the money order department, has since been found to be excessive, and six hours extra duty per week allowed for it.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The case of the officer to whom the hon. Member refers

  1429
  has been carefully considered on two separate occasions. As I informed the hon. Member in July last by letter, I am satisfied that Mr. Feeheny has had a fair trial in the money order department. Every Allowance was made for inexperience, but he was found unsuitable for clerical work. In these circumstances I see no sufficient reason for giving him a further trial.

  The Law of Entail.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, if he will consider the necessity of promoting legislation at an early date to abolish the law of entail in this country.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBKLL-BANNERMAN,: This is a very large and important subject. Perhaps my hon. friend Would repeat his Question when the measures named in the King's Speech (or most of them) have passed into law.
  MR MORTON: Will my right hon. friend give me an indication when these measures will be passed?
  The following Question and Answer were omitted from the Debates for Monday, Feb. 10th:—

  Grants-in-Aid to Crown Colonies.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury with reference to the grants in aid made to certain Crown Colonies, whether, in view of the gradual progress towards financial solvency of most of those Colonies, notably Uganda and certain of the West Coast Colonics, and in view of the now achieved prosperity of others, notably in Asia, he will arrange that all future grants in aid are in the nature of loans, so that the British Treasury may ultimately recover capital and interest.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): No, Sir; I cannot undertake to do this. I have given the matter careful consideration from time to time, and each case is and must be dealt with on its merits.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked what business was to be taken
  1430
  on Wednesday and Thursday. He also asked whether the Government could name a day for a discussion on the Anglo-Russian Agreement.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-ANNERMAN: I should like, in the first place, to express, on behalf of the whole House, the satisfaction with which we greet the right hon. Gentleman's return. As to the Anglo-Russian Agreement, probably a truncated day, such as we sometimes have at disposal at this period of the session, would suffice. I will endeavour to discover what would be the most convenient day. As to the business of the week, to-morrow the Supplementary Estimates will be taken again. On Wednesday I propose to move the Resolution allocating the time for the consideration of the two Scottish Bills. On Thursday that debate will be continued, if Wednesday does not suffice, as I should hope it would, and then, if time permits, the report of the Supplementary Estimates will be taken.

  NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
  Samuel Thomas Evans, esquire, K.C., His Majesty's Solicitor-General, for County of Glamorgan (Mid Division).
  Edward Alfred Goulding, esquire, Parliamentary Borough of Worcester.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee on Standing Orders do consist of Thirteen Members:—Sir John Brunner, Sir Frederick Cawley, Mr. Ellis, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Sir Frederick Dixon-Hart-land, Sir Joseph Leese, Colonel Long, Mr. Mildmay, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. David Alfred Thomas, and Mr. Eugene Wason were accordingly nominated Members of the Select Committee.—(Mr. Ellis.)
NEW BILLS.

  DAIRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To regulate Dairies, and ensure the purity of milk supplies in Scotland," presented by Mr. Gulland; supported by Sir John Tuke, Mr. Cleland, Mr. M'Callum, Mr. Findlay, Mr. Sutherland,

  1431
  Mr. Barnes, Mr. M'Crae, Mr. Younger, Mr. Menzies, Mr. Wilkie, and Mr. Esslemont; to be read a second time upon Friday, 21st February, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To provide for the suppression of illegal fishing by trawl vessels," presented by Mr. Morton; supported by Mr. Weir, Mr. Smeaton, Mr. Lamont, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. John Hope, and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 18th February, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]
  RAILWAY TICKETS BILL.
  "To prevent a time limit being set upon the use of passenger tickets," presented by Mr. Morton; supported by Mr. Rowlands, Mr. Ernest Lamb, Mr. Weir, Mr. John Hope, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, and Sir Howard Vincent, to be read a second time upon Tuesday 18th February, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL.
  "To make further provision with respect to the arrangement of Polling Districts for the election of County Councillors," presented by Mr. Acland Allen; supported by Mr. Guinness; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]
  DIVORCE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To enable the wives of persons sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, or of persons certified to be incurably insane, to annul their marriages," presented by Mr. Bottomley; to be read a second time upon Friday, 28th February, and to be printed. [Bill 64.]
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
  "To amend The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906," presented by Mr. Hyde; supported by Major Dunne, Mr. Cecil Harmsworth, Dr. Hazel, Mr. Harold Pearson, Mr. Thomas Frederick Richards, and Mr. Stewart-Smith; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 18th February, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]
  COMMONS BILL.
  "To amend the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, and the Law relating to Commons," presented by Sir John Brunner; to be read a second time upon Friday, 29th May, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  "To prohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday," presented by Mr. Perks; supported by Sir George White, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. John Wilson, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Nicholls, and Mr. Maclean; to be read a second time upon Friday, 8th May, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
  PAYMENT OF JURORS BILL.
  "To provide for the Payment of the expenses of Jurors attending assizes and quarter sessions." presented by Mr. Lloyd Morgan; supported by Mr. Abel Thomas, Mr. Hay Morgan, Mr. Mackarness, Mr. Bertram, Mr. Herbert, and Mr. Partington; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 10th March, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

CHILDREN BILL.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY or STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,in asking leave to bring in a Bill "to consolidate and amend the law relating to the protection of children and young persons, reformatory and industrial schools, and juvenile offenders, and otherwise to amend the law with respect to children and young persons," said: This is the first reading of a Bill to which we can give no narrower title than that of "Children Bill." The present law for the protection of children and the treatment of juvenile offenders is in some confusion. It is spread over a large number of statutes, and it urgently needs consolidation. Experience has shown the need of a considerable number of amendments and extensions of the law. The Government have decided not to introduce a series of small Bills in successive years, but to ask Parliament to enact, in one large and comprehensive measure, a thorough codification, and amendment of the law relating

1433
to children. A Bill of this scope could not, in a crowded session like this, expect to pass into law unless it commanded, more or less, the favour of all sections in the House, and we have, therefore, excluded from it all the subjects which might properly be described as controversial. Even the question of children in publichouses, with regard to which there is a general measure of assent, we have thought it wiser to defer to be dealt with in the Licensing Bill. The question of the employment of children, whether in factories or elsewhere, raises important industrial questions on which, unhappily, there is not complete agreement. The question of education naturally belongs to the Education Acts, and there are other subjects which we might have liked to include but which we have been obliged to omit. But, even with these omissions, the Bill is a somewhat voluminous one. It contains 119 clauses, covers seventy pages, and consolidates twenty-two statutes and parts of many others, together with a number of new provisions. For the convenience of the House, and of the public who are interested, I have had prepared a White Paper, which will show clearly, clause by clause, the effect of this Bill on existing legislation, and which will be circulated at the same time as the Bill. The Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom. Through all its parts uniform definitions run. A child is a person under the age of fourteen years; a young person is a person above the age of fourteen and under the age of sixteen. The first part of the Bill embodies the Infant Life Protection Act, 1897, which was passed to stop the evils of baby farming and for the protection of the lives of infants put out to nurse. That Act has been found in practice ineffective in many respects. There are many holes through which evil-disposed persons may escape its control, but, by a series of detailed amendments we stop those holes and strengthen the control of the Act. One disputed point in connection with this measure we have left, for the moment, an open question. The Act of 1897 exempted from inspection those persons who received one nurse-child, and not more than one, in consideration, not of a lump sum, but of periodical payments. Since
1434
the passage of the Act there has been a keen controversy among those who are best entitled to speak as to whether this class of home should be included in the Act or not. I have no time now to enter into the merits of that dispute but we shall ask the House to appoint a Select Committee on this point which will hear evidence and report, and whose conclusions, I trust and expect, will be received in time to enable them to be embodied in the Bill at its later stages. The second part of the Bill re-enacts the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1894, with a large number of amendments mainly designed to strengthen the law and to facilitate the action of those societies which are doing such admirable work in the three kingdoms for the prevention of cruelty to children. I will mention only two of the chief provisions proposed in this part of the Bill. Every year some 1,600 infants meet their deaths from overlying, a waste of infant life which should easily be preventible and which ought not to be allowed to continue. We propose, in such cases, since the offence is not one of wilful cruelty, but of negligence, to make the penalty a light one, except where drunkenness can be proved. An equal number of children are killed year by year from burns and scalds owing to their being left in rooms with unguarded fires. We impose in such cases, also, a similar penalty, except where it can be shown that reasonable precautions were taken. The proposals of the third part of the Bill deal with an evil, growing in extent, most deleterious to child life, and for which public opinion almost universally demands a remedy. I refer to the evil of juvenile smoking. The Committee on Physical Deterioration recommended a legislative remedy, and a Committee of the House of Lords, appointed in 1906 specially to examine this question, after hearing much medical and other evidence, made a unanimous and a very emphatic recommendation in the same sense. Many countries throughout the world have already legislated on this subject. We propose to prohibit the sale of cigarettes and cigarette paper to children under the age of sixteen, to prohibit persons under the age of sixteen from smoking in streets and public

1435
places, and to make them liable for the first offence to no more than a reprimand, but for subsequent offences to a light fine. We also allow, and this will probably prove a more effective provision, the police and other authorised persons to confiscate the tobacco which is being used by those little boys who are found smoking in streets and public places. We have a provision also for dealing with such automatic machines for the sale of cigarettes as are found to be extensively used by juveniles. The fourth part of the Bill consolidates the nineteen Statutes which now contain the law relating to reformatory and industrial schools. The changes we propose are too many and too minute to deal with now, but I would like to mention that it has been suggested that the age for committal to a reformatory should be raised above the present figure of sixteen, and to explain that we are not adopting that suggestion only because we consider that it is inadvisable to mix older offenders with smaller boys and girls, and because my right hon. friend the Home Secretary hopes to introduce a Bill establishing a new class of reformatories for these older offenders. There are in the Bill a number of miscellaneous clauses, of which I will only mention two. From time to time cases of cruelty and neglect are discovered in so-called homes for children which are fraudulent institutions, conducted by persons who live on the charitable contributions which are intended for the destitute children whom they have collected. There is no right of entry under the present law to such institutions, and the Bill provides that, where a home is kept for destitute children and is supported by charitable contributions, there shall be a right of entry for persons authorised by the Secretary of State. Regard will be had in the selection of such persons to the religious denomination by which such homes are being maintained. The other clause is one designed to solve the difficult and long-standing problem of the vagrant child. There are some hundreds of children, who are now continually taken about the country, deprived of any opportunity of schooling, educated only in vagabondage, and denied many of the most elementary
1436
benefits of a civilised life. We propose a clause which, we hope, will stop that once and for all. We adapt the machinery of the Compulsory Education Acts, which are at present found to be inapplicable to these cases, to meet the requirements of the vagrant child. The last part of the Bill, which has to do with juvenile offenders, is based upon three main principles. The first is that the child offender ought to be kept separate from the adult criminal, and should receive at the hands of the law a treatment differentiated to suit his special needs—that the courts should be agencies for the rescue as well as the punishment of children. We require the establishment throughout the country of juvenile courts—that is to say, children's cases shall be heard in a court held in a separate room or at a separare time from the courts which are held for adult cases, and that the public who are not concerned in the cases shall be excluded from admission. In London we propose to appoint by administrative action a special children's magistrate to visit in turn a circuit of courts. Further, we require police authorities throughout the whole of the country to establish places of detention to which children shall be committed on arrest, if they are not bailed, and on remand or commitment for trial, instead of being committed to prison. A great many towns have already provided places of detention, and we require that this practice should be made universal. We anticipate that a Treasury grant will be made for the maintenance of children, in places of detention, on remand. The second principle on which this Bill is based is that the parent of the child offender must be made to feel more responsible for the wrong-doing of his child. He cannot be allowed to neglect the upbringing of his children, and having committed the grave offence of throwing on society a child criminal, wash his hands of the consequences and escape scot free. We require the attendance in Court of the parent in all cases where the child is charged, where there is no valid reason to the contrary, and we considerably enlarge the powers, already conferred upon the magistrates by the Youthful Offenders Act of 1901, to require the parent where

1437
it is just to do so, to pay the fines inflicted for the offence which his child has committed. The third principle which we had in view in framing this part of the Bill is that the commitment of children in the common gaols, no matter what the offence may be that is committed, is an unsuitable penalty to impose. The child is made to feel for the rest of his life that he is regarded as a criminal and belongs to the criminal classes, and at the same time that vague dread of the unknown penalties of imprisonment, which is one of the most powerful deterrents of crime, becomes useless and nugatory. After consultation with many of the chief judicial and legal authorities of the country, the Government has come to the conclusion that the time has now arrived when Parliament can be asked to abolish the imprisonment of children altogether, and we extend this proposal to the age of sixteen, with a few carefully defined and necessary exceptions. Many methods will still be left in the hands of the courts for dealing with delinquent children, but where none of the ordinary methods are suitable, our Bill will permit the committal of the child for a short period, under Home Office rules and a proper system of classification, to the places of detention which have to be provided for remand cases. Such committals we anticipate will be exceedingly few, and a similar Treasury grant will be paid in respect of them. It has not been easy to explain in the ten or fifteen minutes which the rule allows a Bill of so wide a scope as this, but I trust I have been able to say enough to bespeak for the Bill the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion made, and Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to the protection of Children and Young Persons, reformatory and industrial schools, and juvenile offenders and otherwise to amend the Law with respect to Children and Young Persons,"—put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Herbert Samuel and Mr. Secretary Gladstone.

CHILDREN BILL.
"To consolidate and amend the Law relating to the protection of Children
1438
and Young Persons, reformatory and industrial schools, and juvenile offenders, and otherwise to amend the Law with respect to Children and Young Persons," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire Mid.) and, subsequently, Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.

  ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATE, 1907–8.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): I should like on this occasion to have made some statement to the House of the progress that has been made with the carrying out of the plans which Parliament sanctioned last session, but if I were to attempt anything of the sort you, Sir, would apply the strict rules which govern occasions such as this, and which confine the speaker to the subject matter of the Supplementary Estimates and the Votes concerned, and I shall bear these rules in mind. The purpose of the Supplementary Estimate may be expressed very shortly. Last session Parliament sanctioned the plan of giving an organisation to the Volunteer and Yeomanry force so as to make it a territorial or citizen force, organised in brigades and divisions, with staffs in a fashion that it had not been before. For the purpose of that organisation it was necessary that some of the existing units should be disbanded, and in all cases transformed into units of a different character—fewer battalions, but of a larger strength and with a more perfect organisation. And it is proposed that that organisation should be carried out as rapidly as possible, and it has been arranged that it should take place within this financial year, because it was, obviously, to the general convenience to prevent two systems of finance running in the same year. For that purpose it is necessary to disband the existing corps and to convert them into corps of a

  1439
  different order under a different Statute, and that operation is to take place by 31st March. One of the defects of the old Volunteer Force was that it had no proper financial arrangement. The colonels of the battalions were practically responsible for the whole of the finance. They contracted the debt and the result was that it was hardly possible for anyone who was not a rich man to be an officer of a Volunteer corps. Of the very essence of the scheme there was this, that the administration of its finances should be placed in the hands of County Associations who should take the burden of administering the money and administer it in respect of a smaller number of units and deal with them not separately but together. It was hoped in that way not only to get financial control but to get greater economy, and that was the scheme which was sanctioned last session. For that purpose it was essential that in disbanding the old corps or in converting them into the new organisation we should relieve them of the load of debt which hung round their necks. That is not so formidable an operation from the financial point of view as it seems, for the whole of the money with which these debts were paid used to be provided by Parliament, and all we propose to do is to take the new method of finance whereby the means which Parliament places at present at the disposal of the Volunteer corps should be put at the disposal of the County Associations so as to meet the requirements in a different fashion, but with the same results. Therefore, in asking Parliament to pay off these debts, I am not asking Parliament to take up any burden of a new order. Under the old system the money would have had to be raised all the same, only it would have been raised in a different form, but it is necessary in order to give the new system a start to clear off the debts of these corps so that under the new arrangements the Associations may not have to apply money or to ask Parliament for money for paying off old debts. Last year I moved a Supplementary Estimate in respect of the mortagages which affected Volunteer and Yeomanry property, and that Estimate incurred a certain amount of criticism. I did not agree with the criticism, though I appreciated the
  1440
  point of it, which was that instead of applying the money which had been saved to the mortgages it would have gone in the natural course into the new financial year. Whether that criticism is good or bad—and I doubt whether the hon. Members for the City and I will ever agree upon that—I have not to discuss now, because I think I can show the Committee that strictly and absolutely what we are doing now belongs to the present financial year. It must be remembered that this comes under the decision which Parliament has already given of having to be wound up by 31st March this year. They have to be cleared of their debts, therefore the debts are strictly payable within the financial year. Indeed, they are debts which are due and in the ordinary course ought to have been paid within the year, but by the old practice would have been continued until the next year if the corps had gone on. But as the corps are not going on it is obviously only an act of justice as well as a convenient course to discharge the debts within the year to which they belong, and, therefore, I am taking the only course I could take in asking for a Supplementary Estimate. It would not have been right to put money on the Estimates of next year, even if I could have done it, which belongs to a past state of things.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say the old Volunteer companies would have been bound to pay off these debts within this financial year?
  MR. HALDANE: No. The old Volunteer companies were always in debt. They used to put off the payment of their obligation and Parliament furnished them in the next year with money to discharge their bank balances and pay their bills. But as the old corps are coming to an end, and the colonels who are personally responsible in many of these cases will cease to be colonels of these corps, it is only right that the matter should be wound up, and the corps freed from the debts before they are disbanded. Therefore, it comes strictly into the financial year, and I do not see that even the greatest financial

  1441
  purists would have any objection to the process. It is quite a different case even from last year. Now I come to the mode in which this is to be done. During the year the policy of the Government has been a policy of the strictest economy and of the observance of the obligations of frugality. As we have gone on we have found a certain number of economies possible with efficiency, and the result of that is, I am glad to say, that I have not to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give me any money out of his general surplus, but we have been able to save on the Army Estimates last year enough to make this operation financially possible without adding a penny to the old Estimates. That is always a satisfactory state of things. I do not think we could have estimated for less. We brought down the Estimates more than £2,000,000 last year, and I thought it was as close as I could get, but in working along a number of small items were found on which by prudent and careful administration it has been possible to effect economies. I will give the Committee an example. I do not want to go into the matter in detail though I will answer questions fully. We found a great number of lawsuits and claims which had been brought against the War Office in connection with the war. They had gone dragging on their course, as lawsuits sometimes do, and, perhaps because I have had more experience of lawsuits than the average War Secretary, I dislike them particularly. Consequently a very searching examination was made. If I may say so metaphorically, I doffed my cocked hat and resumed my full-bottomed wig, and the result was that, with the assistance of the Solicitor to the Treasury, a number of these things were brought to an end, a considerable saving being effected. Then in the course of last year we have been able to go into a number of matters very carefully. For instance, in North China there used to be kept an Indian battalion as well as half a British battalion. With the consent of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the War Office determined to substitute one complete British battalion for the half battalion and the Indian battalion. Consequently something has been saved on the cost of trans-
  1442
  port. These savings make up a sum sufficient to meet this Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked how much the modifications amounted to.
  MR. HALDANE: The plan put forward last year for forming a reserve of officers has been worked out and is ready to be put in operation. As a matter of fact, I doubt whether I have spent a penny of the £50,000 I took last year for this purpose. When one comes to investigate a new conception closely, one finds a number of points in which it can be improved, and it is only a few weeks ago that the plan became a complete one. Then there is the Army Reserve. Last year when I moved the Estimates, I made the proposition that Section A., which consists of Regulars, should be brought up to 13,000 from 5,000. That would have meant a very large sum, and it was found that some of the services for which the increase was wanted were services not of an exclusively military character, such as transport, medical, and ammunition column services, and the result was that before the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act passed through Parliament, we had a Committee which, with the General Staff, made a considerable modification, which will be found in Section 32 of the Act of last session. Under that modification only 6,000 men are raised as Regulars, and 4,000 are taken from the Special Reserve. They had good hope they would get the 6,000, but from the experience of the last few months we have not much hope of getting more. We have somewhat relaxed the conditions enabling men to enter. We have taken the period of two years since leaving the colours, instead of one year, and we hope to get the 6,000. We, therefore, obtained 4,000 more from the Special Reserve, which is a very much less expensive way of raising them. Then there is also a small sum of £8,000 for the expenditure of the County Associations up to 31st March, when the new system comes into operation. The Associations will be furnished with money for their establishments, but before 31st March they have a very serious piece of work to do, and that is the conversion

  1443
  of the force. Consequently, we have given them the money they have asked for—an allowance for secretary, clerical work, and so on, for which we have taken £8,000 on the Supplementary Estimate, which is covered by the figure we are asking the House to authorise us to take out of our savings. The only other observation I have to made in conclusion is this. Hon. Members may say: "Why did you not put this sum in your Estimates last year?" That is a very legitimate question, and there is an equally legitimate answer. I could not do so. The Estimates were brought in in February, and the new Act passed on 2nd August. Many modifications were made in the plan, some by agreement between the two Front Benches; and the result was that the scheme emerged from the House a good deal changed, and, I think, a good deal improved by the very satisfactory discussion which took place across the floor of the House. It was, however, impossible to tell at the time the Estimates were brought in whether the plan would go through. But now there are Associations in every county in England and Scotland. They were doing their business most satisfactorily and with great credit to themselves, and I do not think the House will grudge the very small sum which it is necessary to provide for their expenses if they are to discharge their duties properly in connection with the conversion which will take place between now and 31st March.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for additional Expenditure in respect of the following Army Services, viz.—
  Vote 5. Volunteer Corps, Pay, Allowances, etc.:—

  £

  E. (a) Grants for the Extinction of Debts

  350,000

  E. (b) Expenses of County Associations

  8,000

  358,000

  Less Surpluses on other Votes

  357,900

  100

  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: Upon this occasion the right hon. Gentleman has been able to base his reasons for asking the Committee to vote a considerable addition to the Army Estimates on rather different grounds from those he gave last year. I should like to remind the Committee of what actually did occur in connection with this transaction of relieving officers of the debts upon their corps and drill halls. Last year the Committee in a revised Supplementary Estimate was asked to vote £435,000, and we were mainly induced to do that on the plea put forward by the right hon. Gentleman that he was contemplating great changes in our military organisation, to carry out which it was necessary to place the Territorial Army on a more satisfactory basis, and to relieve them of many of these obligations which were pressing so heavily upon them. We said then, as we say now, that the policy of taking over these debts which pressed upon individual corps was one for which there was much to be said. Personally I believe Parliament was right in relieving those gentlemen and those corps of those responsibilities, but what we protest against is the method by which this transfer has been carried out. Last year we asked what was the urgency of carrying out that change in the way the Government adopted, namely, by the money which ought to have gone to the redemption of debt under the old sinking fund. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will say that this money will eventually go to the reduction of debt, but I wish to impress upon him that the more regular course to have taken would have been to make it form part of the scheme of the reorganisation of the armed forces of this country. I now come to what happened last year. The right hon. Gentleman passed a Bill of very considerable magnitude, which had far-reaching effects. It must be perfectly obvious that it will be a long time before the Act will be actually in operation, but there were various changes to be carried out immediately after its passage. We have a right to say that when the Act was being discussed, provision ought to have been made for immediately carrying out some of its purposes, and at any rate, we should not now in

  1445
  the form of a Supplementary Estimate be asked to vote money which ought to have gone to the reduction of debt, for the purpose of carrying out matters which must have been clearly foreseen, and in regard to which it was perfectly obvious a very considerable sum would have to be spent to carry the Act into effect. I do not wish to make too many references to previous debates in connection with Supplementary Estimates, but I do wish to point out that, however good a policy may be in itself, the method of proceeding to deal with it by Supplementary Estimates is one to which we ought to offer a very stern opposition. I have had a fairly long connection with the Public Accounts Committee, and I know that there has never been any change in the opinion of that Committee as to the undesirability of these Supplementary Estimates. I should like to quote a few sentences from a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster upon Supplementary Estimates in general.
  "The great value of the debate was, however, the eliciting from all parts of the House objections to the unsatisfactory state of those Supplementary Estimates …. Mr. Gladstone looked upon a Supplementary Estimate as almost a crime on the part of the department which presented it, and it was no easy task to get over his objections …. The value which he attached to the debate was that it directed attention to the financial unsoundness, the tendency to extravagance, and the diminution of the control of the House of Commons which this growing practice of Supplementary Estimates involved."
  I believe that on that occasion the Supplementary Estimates were a good deal connected with the war. I think every word said by the right hon. Gentleman on the broad general principle are even more applicable now. Practically a new policy is being introduced. Great changes in the Auxiliary forces are being carried out by the unsatisfactory methods of Supplementary Estimates. More than that, there is no urgency in bringing the subject before the notice of the House. I think we want stronger reasons for not allowing money to go to the old sinking fund, and if such reasons are not given we ought to resist any proposal which the Government make for the purpose of diverting this sum of money from the object for which it was origin-
  1446
  ally voted by the House of Commons. I have no doubt that if we could get any general assurance that this practice is likely to stop the House would for the present be satisfied. In the last two years the right hon. Gentleman has assumed the rather melancholy role of a gentleman known in Ireland as the "gombeen man"—whatever benevolent objects he may have ultimately in view in the buying up of other people's debts and the fag end of other people's mortgages, I do not know how long the right hon. Gentleman is going to proceed on that line. I hope that the practice followed for the last two years will now cease. However desirable it may be to relieve people from the obligations they have incurred, I hope they will be dealt with when the Estimates for the year are presented and not as now, when practically the House of Commons loses all control and has no means of preventing the money from being voted. I do not know whether I am entitled to ask questions as to what has been done under the reorganisation scheme. I am bound to say I have taken as active a part as I can in connection with the formation of the association in the county with which I am most closely associated, but looking to the voluminous and ample documents placed before the association I have had some difficulty in reconciling my duties as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee with the duty of presiding over the County Association. I have endeavoured to reconcile the two positions although the bodies take rather antagonistic views. I should like to ask on what basis any allowances are now going to be made for the expenditure which the County Association is incurring up to 31st March. I can only mention that in the case of my own association we have not received any sum of money which we are able to deal with in carrying on the necessary and I am afraid rather expensive work which we have hitherto been told to do. We have been confronted with the further difficulty that we do not know on what basis we are to proceed. We have been told that for certain purposes under the Finance Memorandum we were to get the sum of £1,845. These purposes practically include administrative charges. I cannot take this sum as absolutely final. To

  1447
  meet the services already arranged for the charges on the basis of the average of the last four years would require the sum of £2,984. Being in that position it is a little difficult to see how we are to meet the charges with the sum of £1,845. In the three regiments with which I am principally dealing, namely, one regiment of Yeomanry and two regiments of Volunteers, every care has been taken to keep the charges as low as possible. One of the difficulties we have experienced is that we do not see how it is possible to reduce to any considerable extent, on the information we now have, our present expenditure of £2,984. There is a further difficulty in this connection. I presume it is on the authority of the Army Council that the County Association has been told that not more than 10 per cent. of the £1,845 could be devoted to the salaries and expenses of the secretariat, exclusive of the rent of offices and buildings. I do not know on what information the Army Council framed these regulations, and I shall await with the greatest interest to know how it would be possible in a large and rather inaccessible county like Derbyshire adequately to carry out the intentions of Parliament if the whole of the offices are to be run for £184 10s. a year. We may be able in the light of further information—I hope we shall—to effect such reductions as will enable us to do it, but I would point out that in Derbyshire we have a very representative association of hard-working gentlemen, and no scheme could have a better chance of success; but unless those who have willingly given a great deal of their time and trouble are adequately supplied by money contributions all their zeal will vanish, and it will be impossible to carry out the scheme in a satisfactory manner. Last year many hon. Members thought that the reorganisation scheme was bound to be excessively expensive, and I am afraid that those prophecies are becoming true. So far as Derbyshire is concerned I see no difficulties in carrying out the requirements of the Army Council. I do not wish to make any rash promises, but I think if we get the right men we might be able to do even more if the Army Council thought it desirable. It is absolutely useless to attempt to
  1448
  carry on the scheme if we are going to be tied in monetary matters, unless we have local enthusiasm behind it, and unless we get proper backing from the Government. Owing to the regulations already issued we are unable to proceed with the very desirable object of at once appointing a secretariat. We have only £184 10s. a year for that purpose and we do not know how far we would be justified in getting a gentleman to undertake the work on what really amounts to an uneconomic wage. If you expect the services of a competent man you should give adequate remuneration. We would like more information on this subject. However desirable and proper the policy of the Government may be, we have every justification in saying that the method by which the right hon. Gentleman is proceeding to obtain the money is one the House of Commons ought to view with the greatest care, and I might almost say with the greatest hesitation. These Estimates are not in the proper sense of the word Supplementary Estimates. They are really new Estimates.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITIT,: It would be respectful to the Committee if I should say a word at this stage. On the first point raised by the right hon. Gentleman he was not only entitled, but was bound as a most efficient Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and from the House of Commons' point of view, to take a very serious view of this question. I entirely agree with him in his two main propositions. In the first place, I consider that prima facie a Supplementary Estimate is an indication of bad finance. I lay that down as a broad general proposition subject to qualifications which I will state in a moment. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that this year the Government have avoided Supplementary Estimates to an extent to which he will not easily find a parallel within Parliamentary memory. In the second place, I quite agree with him that a saving in the ordinary expenditure for the public service ought not to be diverted from the Old Sinking Fund. When a vote such as that now asked for violates these conditions, it is quite right that an explanation should

  1449
  be given. I speak from the point of view of the Treasury when I say that prima facie Supplementary Estimates are most objectionable to us and expose us to severe and relentless criticism, although the right hon. Gentleman will understand that we do not resent criticism. The ground on which we feel justified in withdrawing our opposition to a Supplementary Estimate on this occasion is two-fold. I said a moment ago that Supplementary Estimates are bad finance; but there are exceptions. One, if not the only, exception where a Supplementary Estimate is justifiable is where it is for a purpose which could not at all have been foreseen at the time when the original Estimate was made, or when owing to the development of unforeseen circumstances the Estimate has swollen to the present demand on the public expenditure. I think that even so strict an economist as the hon. Member for Norwood will admit that this Supplementary Estimate falls within that category. I think that on the whole it does. At the time when the Estimates were presented last year this scheme depended entirely upon its being embodied in legislation which required the approval of both Houses of Parliament. It was a widely complicated scheme involving very debatable points, and it was absolutely uncertain in what shape it would ultimately emerge—in particular in relation to the Militia and what were formerly called the Auxiliary Forces. At that time the scheme from a Parliamentary point of view was in a hypothetical condition; and I do not see how my right hon. friend could possibly at that stage have put down on paper a definite sum for the particular purpose we are now discussing. But my right hon. friend the Member for West Derbyshire says:—"Why not have done it later or when your scheme did take shape and when you began to feel sure it would take the form you anticipated and receive the assent of Parliament?" It was not till the month of August, I think the 2nd, that the Bill passed, and then it would have been impossible to say that a Supplementary Estimate could have been presented. In point of fact so far as Parliamentary control is concerned the situation is the same as if the Supple-
  1450
  mentary Estimate had been presented earlier in the financial year. In the second place, the money proposed is for the extinction of debt. These are debts the extinction of which you must admit is part of the bargain; and my right hon. friend has to meet them in the course of the present financial year. Therefore, the money is not going for a new service but for the extinction of capital liabilities which you are bound to discharge. Taking these two considerations together, I think a case has been made out, without relaxing the strictest rules of financial integrity, for this Supplementary Estimate. It does not involve any additional charge, but will enable my right hon. friend out of useful economies he has made on other Votes, to discharge those capital liabilities which for him was an obligation of honour.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down at the opening of his speech the rules which in his opinion should govern the Treasury with regard to Supplementary Estimates, and I think that they are quite orthodox. But when the right hon. Gentleman applied the reasons to this particular Estimate he destroyed the value of the principle. If he extends the exception to cases of this kind, I think it would not be difficult to do so in any case when it suited his convenience. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that prima facie all Supplementary Estimates are bad finance; and, in the second place, that savings ought not to be diverted from their proper course, viz., the Old Sinking Fund. He makes two exceptions. The first is where the expenditure cannot have been foreseen. That is an exception we all make, and no objection can be taken to it. But I cannot accept its application to the present Estimate. The Secretary of State for War is paying this year, or proposes to pay this year, a charge which would have ordinarily fallen upon the revenue of next year. That charge is one which the War Office, I will undertake to say, could have estimated not perhaps in pounds, shillings and pence, but certainly within a few thousands of pounds—I almost think within a few hundreds of pounds before we had

  1451
  gone over the year. But I go further. The right hon. Gentleman said that there would be difficulty not only in paying off the charge, but that it could not be paid until the Bill passed both Houses of Parliament. What is the difference between this expenditure and the expenditure which the Secretary of State for War asked us to pass last year as a Supplementary Estimate to the expenditure of the previous year? At that time he asked us to buy up the mortgages on all the Volunteer drill halls. He proposed to do that in preparation for his Army scheme, which was in fact the Army scheme subsequently embodied in his Bill. If it was necessary for him to wait for that Bill before he asked for this expenditure, how was it right for him to proceed with the other expenses for his Army scheme before the Bill was passed? It is quite obvious that this was an explanation invented quite after the fact, although I do not wish to use a phrase offensive to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When last year the Secretary for War asked for £500,000 for cognate services dependent upon the passage of a Bill not then introduced, it is absurd to say that the right hon. Gentleman could not have presented an Estimate for this purpose quite early last session. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer's exception does not apply to this particular case. I think it was quite possible to estimate this expenditure with sufficient accuracy before the passage of the Bill, because it is an expenditure which has been recurrent, going on year after year, and the War Office had only to look at what it had been doing over a series of years in order to frame a satisfactory Estimate of what the expenditure would be this last year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought to justify this Estimate on the ground that it went to the extinction of debt. The blessed word "debt" when used by the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite, either covers a multitude of sins or a multitude of meanings. If this money had not been intercepted by the Secretary for War, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's permission, it would have gone directly to reduce the permanent capital liabilities of the State. What is the debt he is going to reduce now? It
  1452
  is a charge which would be a natural charge on the Estimates of next year. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing is to divert merely from the payment of National Debt to lighten the charges on the revenue next year. It is that and nothing else. Of course there are all kinds of obligations which fall due next year. The contracts entered into this year for the feeding of the Army and those for coal supplies for the Navy would have to be met out of revenue next year, and the payment of interest on the War Loans. I feel quite as strongly with regard to Supplementary Estimates as the right hon. Gentleman, but if you press the doctrine that you are not to have Supplementary Estimates too far you would exaggerate the Estimates-in-Chief. If either the Treasury or the House of Commons make it too difficult for a Department to make an under-estimate you will always have an over-estimate. When a Department has over-estimated it is very reluctant to see money go to the Exchequer for the reduction of debt; and it may say "We should have a surplus for this purpose or the other." I therefore think that you may easily carry the protest against Supplementary Estimates too far. I am a little heterodox in my views on this subject, as judged by the standard of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Public Accounts Committee. But still I think they ought to be watched and that the attempt to justify these Estimates on the ground put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer altogether fails. So much for the financial point of view. That leads me to another observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which has a more serious bearing upon policy than the one on finance. The right hon. Gentleman said he was all the more ready to authorise the expenditure in these cases, because no fresh charge would be put upon the taxpayers, the Secretary of State for War having fortunately been able to make savings sufficient to meet the excess expenditure. Again, the words "savings" and "economies" are words which are used in two entirely distinct senses in this House. They have a technical sense, which means that you have not spent the money, and they have a general and popular sense which means that you did not need to spend the

  1453
  money; and the two things are quite different. When the Secretary of State says that he has been able to close down law proceedings and has made arrangements for more satisfactory terms than if the arbitration were allowed to go on, he has made a real saving; but when he says that he has been able to postpone the reserve of officers, or when he speaks of the altered position of Section A of the Army Reserve, these are not savings; they are failures to spend this year and involve at any rate as regards the first, an increased liability on future years.
  MR. HALDANE: The system is only postponed.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This is work which was to have been done this year, but has not been done, and the money which we voted to enable the right hon. Gentleman to provide the reserve of officers has not been spent, because no reserve of officers has been provided. But that is not an economy. The money is not spent; the service is not performed and as that service, by the confession of the right hon. Gentleman himself and by the common consent of every military critic, and of every one who took part in our Army debates last year, was one of the most important and most urgent questions before the Secretary of State, I can only express my deep regret that there has been this delay in carrying out his intention to establish a reserve.
  MR. HALDANE: Only of five or six months.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Only of five or six months, but five or six months are five or six months, and the peculiarity of the right hon. Gentleman is that while he regards with perfect equanimity the delay of his construction projects, he permits of no delay in any of his work of destruction. As I say, in the opinion of every man interested in this question, there is no more urgent military problem than the increase of the number of officers whom we have, and instead of doing that, if my calculations are right, the right hon. Gentleman has failed to
  1454
  make even a beginning with that reserve of officers and has cut down the existing number of the Regular Army by over 300, the Militia by some 250, and the Volunteers by about seventy, I think, making in all a total of 634. There has been no economy there. We are worse off in that respect, as we have not done what the right hon. Gentleman intended to do, and we are worse off on this matter of military preparation than we were twelve months ago. Just one word on the similar question of Section A of the Army Reserve. I speak with some diffidence on this subject, because I am a child in these matters. I have done my best, however, during the discussions of last year and in other ways, while I was in office and since, to get some understanding of our military system as it was, as it will be when the right hon. Gentleman has carried out his work of construction, and as it is. I confess that it is a study which is perplexing to a layman; I do not readily master the technical language which is required to describe these forces properly, and I may be misunderstanding the facts; but as I understand the right hon. Gentleman he intended last year to have a force of 13,000 men of this Section A drawn from the Regular Army; men who had spent twelve years with the colours.
  MR. HALDANE: Seven years with the colours and who would return to the service with the colours as Regulars.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: They would I understand be men who had spent seven years with the colours and who would return to service with the Regulars. Within nine months of developing that scheme to the House of Commons the right hon. Gentleman has come to the conclusion that it is impracticable and that he cannot get the number—that the prospects which he offered are not attractive enough, and that instead of being able to raise the number of such men from 5,000 to 13,000 as he had intended, the most that he can hope to get is 6,000. That is what I understand, and then help reposes to fill the place of the remaining 7,000 regulars whose services he cannot

  1455
  secure by 4,000 irregular troops. He described them as being on a militia basis, and I know what he means, troops without regular training. You would have thought that if he could not get the number of Regulars he wanted he would have said, "I must have three of the others in place of two, or five where I proposed to take three," because men who have not trained regularly will not be so valuable as men who have had seven years training. And here is the right hon. Gentleman's amazing proposal: because he cannot get 13,000 regulars we are to be content with 6,000 regulars and 4,000 other men who will not be regulars. That can only be described as a saving if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to say not merely that he could not get his Regulars, but that he was totally wrong in asking for 13,000 men at all, and also that which he will scarcely say, that the 4,000 places which he is going to fill with men who have been trained on a militia basis will be as good as the Regulars. I do not think he will say that. He says, however, that the character of the work does not require such high training as Regulars receive, but I think everyone will admit that the better a man is trained the better the work will be done. At any rate, I do not call it an economy that the right hon. Gentleman should profess to give us 13,000 Regulars to come back to serve the country at any moment and then save the money by substituting 6,000 Regulars and 4,000 less well trained men for them. One further observation I have to make. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will answer fully and in detail the question of my right hon. friend the Member for Derbyshire. I think there is a strong feeling on the part of most people who have been looking into this Territorial Army that it is going to be a much more costly affair than the right hon. Gentleman has yet admitted to the House. He began by producing an Estimate—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. He seems to be discussing certain savings which appear here as Appropriations-in-Aid, but he cannot discuss the policy of these Appropriations-in-Aid on a Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have finished what I had to say on that point, Mr. Chairman, but on the point of order, may I ask whether we are not at liberty to discuss the argument which was put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that as money is saved there is no objection to spending it on these purposes; would it be objectionable to say either that the money was not in fact saved or that it was inexpedient to save it?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly in order in discussing whether the money saved on certain branches of the service could be spent on other branches of the service, but what cannot be discussed is the policy on which the savings are made. They are just the same as Appropriations-in-Aid, and they cannot be discussed in detail as a question of policy.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will not say a word more on the subject, but what I was asking the Secretary of State was that he would deal fully in connection with these items with the expenses of the County Associations. Many of us think that the expenses have been very much under-estimated in regard to the Territorial Army in this and other respects, and the right hon. Gentleman will, of course, remember that he himself at a very early stage revised the original Estimate presented to the House and introduced a new and much larger one. We are only now beginning to see his scheme at work, and he pledged himself and the Government with the full approval of the House on all sides that there should be no "sending round the hat" in connection with the expenses of this new force, and that the legitimate expenses should be met by grants from the Exchequer. But we have heard on many sides of the narrow squeezing of the County Associations, especially in regard to the payment that may be made for their secretarial and other expenses. It is "sending round the hat" in spirit if not technically if you ask men to give their services for a remuneration which is below their value. You want to get as the secretary of a

  1457
  County Association the very best man you can, an ex-officer with considerable experience in the Army. If you want men of that kind to give their time and attention to the business of the County Associations, it is absurd to offer them the small amount of remuneration which is stated to be the case in many cases. That is not begging from the county so much, but it is begging from the individual who, like many poor people who are not satisfied with their remuneration, would rather have that than nothing at all. There is a great deal of feeling in the country on the subject, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will relieve the fears that are felt, and will give us the best estimate he can of what the expenses will be. I make this protest on this occasion, because I am as certain as I stand here that in future years this scheme of his, if it remains in force and if he is successful in getting the men and the army that he desires, will be a much more costly one than the House has yet been prepared for, and we ought to have from the right hon. Gentleman a full disclosure of the expenditure which is likely to be incurred, so that when he himself or his successors have to come to the House for that expenditure they may be able to justify themselves by a reference to our debates now, and may not be accused of swelling the Estimates, when in fact they are but endeavouring to meet obligations which the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken.
  MR. McCRAEcongratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the speech which he had made on his first appearance as a probable Secretary of State for War, although the first part of his speech was brought to a speedy termination by the intervention of the Chair. A great deal of the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman was based on a complete misapprehension as to what the Minister of War was going to do. It was not the fact as stated by the right hon. Gentleman that Last year the Secretary of State for War had met all the capital liabilities of the Volunteers and that the expenditure now proposed to be met was really of a current nature. What his right hon. friend did last year was to
  1458
  meet the capital liabilities of the Volunteers so far as those due to the Public Works Loans Commissioners were concerned. The plea his right hon. friend then made was that if his Bill did not pass, and it had not then passed, what would happen would be that the Volunteers in the future, if they were retained, would be indebted to the War Office instead of the Public Works Loans Commissioners. His right hon. friend's proposal only dealt as it were with the indebtedness of the Volunteers to the Public Works Loans Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman would admit that if we were to adopt a new policy with regard to the Territorial Army the County Associations which were to carry out the policy should start with a perfectly free hand and not be handicapped by the liabilities of their predecessors. Hitherto the liabilities of the Volunteers had been all vested really in the commanding officers. If the Volunteer Force was to take shape in the Territorial Army, then the State was bound to relieve the commanding officers not only of the expenditure for clothing to which they were at present committed, but also of these mortgage liabilities. In his own case his regiment purchased their headquarters. They did not borrow from the Public Works Loans Commissioners because he thought he could do better and borrowed elsewhere at a lower rate of interest. Although he was not one of those who would benefit, because in this particular case the regiment would be able to hand over £3,000 to their successors, so far as his regiment was concerned they had a mortgage on their headquarters from which they should be relieved. In his opinion the Secretary of State for War was doing a wise thing in asking the Committee for the money to wipe out all these liabilities before the new Territorial Army was formed. These debts were of two kinds: the mortgage debt and the charges incurred in respect of clothing which should have been met out of the capitation grants which would have been paid to the present Volunteers on 1st April. What the Secretary of State proposed to do was to wipe off all these liabilities which there could be no doubt the State was bound to meet, so that the County Associations could start

  1459
  with a free hand with the new force. He did not know that he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Supplementary Estimate, because he held rather strong views in that respect. But he thought that if ever there was a case in which a Supplementary Estimate was justified this was the case. If the new Territorial Army was to have any chance at all it ought to start under free and fair conditions, and if these charges were allowed to be transferred and made a charge on the new County Associations it would be very unfortunate. He had always taken a very strict view of any surplus being appropriated to matters which could have been foreseen and placed upon the Estimates, but if his right hon. friend had not taken this money out of his savings he would have been bound to have placed it on his Estimate next year, and the money would have had to be raised by taxation. [OPPOSITION cheers.] He quite appreciated that point, but having regard to all the facts of the case he thought his right hon. friend was perfectly justified in the course he had pursued. He had been much interested in the struggle which had taken place in the bosom of the right hon. Member for Derbyshire, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and as chairman of one of the County Associations, and to see his desires as an economist give way to his desires for expenditure in his own district. There was no doubt a considerable feeling of difficulty in these County Associations in regard to the limited amount with which they had to meet the salaries of the secretaries and the working expenses. It was represented only to the extent of £8,000 in this Estimate, and that he had no doubt had been sufficient for what had been done in the interregnum. But he joined with his right hon. friend the Member for Derbyshire in saying that this was a matter for consideration. His right hon. friend had not done what he might have done under the power of virement, viz., made this transfer with the sanction of the Treasury without coming to this Committee. That dreadful word virement did not come into this question at all. His right hon. friend had done right when he came to the Committee for sanction for the transfer.
  COLONEL R. WILLIAMSexpressed the opinion that it was a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman had misled—he did not use the term offensively—the country as to the cost which the Territorial Army would involve by asking for a Supplementary Vote of only £100. It would have been much better if the whole amount had been openly stated. Nor did he think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite right as to the inability to ascertain the amount last year. So far as he was concerned he at all events could have told the right hon. Gentleman very nearly what would have been the cost last year if he had been asked. Neither did he think the hon. Member who spoke last was quite correct as to the mortgage debts, because the hon. Gentleman would see by the Vote that this was "for the extinction of debts other than those secured upon property." But he rose to ask the Secretary of State about two things—as to one of which he hoped it might be in order, as it affected the future of the Territorial Forces and therefore of the County Associations. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would soon issue the conditions of the new force. He himself knew of whole districts where the condition of the Volunteer Force was at a standstill. Neither commanding officers nor men knew what was going to be done. The men were thinking and reasoning, and said they would not be caught in a four-years enlistment when they did not know under what conditions they were to serve, and they would not come to drill. If the right hon. Gentleman would issue the conditions of the new force he was sure he would get a good force if the men only knew the conditions under which they were serving. Another thing which he desired to reiterate was that it was impossible to run the secretariat on the sum proposed to be allowed. Four or five years hence when everything had settled down they might not want so much. His own county of Dorset was one with poor communication, and with a small and scattered population, and the secretary would have a great deal of travelling to do. They might very likely find an office in the county building, but with the small sum of £154 it was not possible that they would be able to carry

  1461
  on the organisation. The very lowest they could pay a secretary was £150—it ought to be £200—and that left £4 for the office and travelling expenses. He quite admitted that £8,000 seemed to be enough to pay the expenses of forty or fifty County Associations for two months, but if it was going to be based on any such calculations as at present existed it was impossible to start or carry on the Associations as they ought to be carried on, and it was not giving the Territorial Army a fair chance of success. The right hon. Gentleman would not find the counties take up the scheme as they ought unless he was able to fulfil his promise not in any way to starve the Territorial Army.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he remembered no occasion in his experience of debates in Committee of Supply in which it was so difficult to say what was and what was not in order as in this debate. One or two subjects which he thought were certain to be mentioned had not been mentioned, and several had been mentioned which he would hardly have thought to be in order. The only practical rule one could follow was not the general and admirable principle laid down by the Chairman, because it did not give much help in this case, but to follow other speakers and deal with points which they had been allowed to deal with. He saw no other principle to follow, because it was very difficult to say, when they had the expenses of starting the County Associations in the Estimates, how far they might deal with them and their policy.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, this Vote is supplementary to the Votes of the current year, and it is the only mode we have in the present year of discussing the expense of the County Associations. We have always been allowed to discuss an item which appears for the first time.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEdid not wish to strain the privileges of the House in Committee of Supply. He thought it was safer to confine oneself within very reasonable limits on occasions of this
  1462
  sort, because it would be opening the floodgates if they discussed the whole of the finance which they had discussed last year in this supplemental Vote. It would be somewhat trying the patience of the Committee, and they would have opportunities when they could fully discuss the finance. There was one matter which had not been dealt with which he mentioned first, though without any desire to deal with it. He mentioned it because he thought people outside the House would be surprised at certain words having been used by the Secretary of State, and at the matter not having been followed up in debate. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that one reason why the Vote was necessary was because regiments would have to be disbanded. He understood what the right hon. Gentleman meant. He did not think he invited them to debate the failure to take advantage of the willing services of persons in all parts of the country, or that they could debate on this occasion the getting rid of particular companies or battalions which did not fit in with the divisions of the scheme. But there was so much feeling on the subject outside the House that if it were in order they ought to discuss it. He thought, however, that the Secretary of State had used the word "disbanded" in a different sense—that the whole Volunteer Force had been disbanded, and that a technical change had been made in the character of the force. They could not properly discuss on this Vote the getting rid by the War Office policy—not the policy of the Territorial Associations—of certain battalions and certain companies. Putting that matter aside, they had before them an anticipation of the Votes of next year, pure and simple. It charged on the Votes of the present year a sum which otherwise would come on the Votes next year. He was not a financial purist, he was not a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and he did not take the detailed interest in the matter that his hon. friend the Member for East Edinburgh did; but there was this to be borne in mind, that those who argued that this force would be infinitely more costly than the House of Commons believed or had been led to

  1463
  expect were in the position of having to point out that the Estimates of next year for this force were being relieved by this sum, and that an illusory reduction therefore on next year's Estimates was being made at the cost of the Estimates of the present year. As regarded the form in which it was done, the savings were also illusory. The War Office had always over-estimated on many items in order to have money in hand for certain purposes, and he imagined that on this occasion there was some doubt whether it would have been legal to deal with this sum by a mere virement by Treasury consent. Therefore, they came to Parliament for a Supplementary Estimate. But the fact that they always overestimated on purpose had been demonstrated over and over again, and the Public Accounts Committee had had it before them every year. For, he thought, seven years under successive Governments money was taken in the Estimates for keeping up a force of mixed artillery in Lancashire which was never but a third of what it was supposed to be on the Estimates, with no attempt to raise the cadres. That led to a regular saving every year, and was taken with the knowledge that it would be a saving when the Vote was passed. These savings were illusory. It was rather difficult to keep a serious face when they found year by year these additions of two sums, one on one side of the account and the other on the other, coming to exactly the same figure within 6d. or within the imaginary £100, which was the sixpence of financiers. The original author of that kind of finance was Mr. Micawber, who showed that a small sum on a large total made the whole difference between affluence and beggary. This was very imaginary finance. Not being a member of the Public Accounts Committee, he treated it as a mere anticipation of next year's Estimates. It was simply taking so much of next year's Estimates and paying it now. Personally he had no objection to that course, provided the House of Commons thoroughly understood what it was doing. It had been stated by several speakers that the Estimates laid before them last year were a great understatement as regarded cost, and that the force
  1464
  was likely to be exceedingly costly. The House would have to vote the money with a full sense of its responsibility, not only in the present but in the future, because the Secretary of State admitted that although he hoped to effect some small reductions on the Estimates of the coming financial year, there would be an increase year by year after the first small reduction. He did not propose to go over the whole ground to-night. He did not think it would be fair to do so. He merely uttered this warning note, that those of them who thought the figures of last year were under-stated had every reason to continue to think so, and believed that this was going to be an extremely costly force. In the last speech of the Secretary of State dealing with this question of finance, on Friday last, he said, "My friend, Mr. Buchanan, has provided us with the money." He wished it was their friend the Financial Secretary who had provided the money. He thought he would provide it with great care if left entirely to himself, and he would have great confidence in his judgment. But it was the House of Commons that had the responsibility of providing the money for which the Secretary of State asked. Last year the Financial Secretary in defending the Estimates told them that the Territorial Force in the future would be an improved force at a lesser cost, and that raised in a very sharp form the issue between them. Whatever illusory savings might be shown in the first year, when the system was in full work they were convinced, and they thought the country would come to know it, that the cost of the Territorial Force was not fully shown last year and would be a very great cost indeed, unless the force were starved to such an extent as not to exist at all except on paper. It had been said that the Secretary for War had led them to expect that the Territorial Force would be more costly than the corresponding force had been in the past. He had listened to every speech the right hon. Gentleman had made in the House of Commons, and he could not recall any occasion when that statement was made. The right hon. Gentleman's estimate was laid before them as the maximum estimate of the cost, and they were told that over and over again. The occasions when the

  1465
  Secretary for War told the House that there would be great reductions were extremely numerous, and he made that assertion in the clearest terms on three or four occasions. He appealed to his hon. friends sitting on the Ministerial side to state whether it was not their impression that there was to be a saving of money upon the Territorial Force. That statement was repeatedly made and the contrary statement was one they could not find and for which they were not prepared. He was, however, content to rest his case upon the words of the Financial Secretary to the War Office who stated that the Government would obtain a better force at a lower cost. In a speech made at Manchester the Secretary for War led them to expect that there would be a trifling reduction on the force the first year, and that afterwards there would be a slight increase. Those who disputed the finance of this question last year were ultimately met by the argument that there would be a larger saving upon the Regular Army than any possible increase in the cost of the Territorial Army including the Militia, and as regarded the future that argument was beginning to be used again. But he would not now discuss that matter as it brought them face to face with the whole system upon which the Army was based. In conclusion he said that those who had looked most carefully into this finance were still under the impression that the country had been misled as to the cost of the Territorial Army, which, he thought, would prove in the end to be far more costly than they anticipated.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the speech of the right hon. Baronet was only the last of a series of speeches which he had made on this subject, in which he had attacked the plan which it had been his duty to place before Parliament. His consolation was that the attacks of the right hon. Gentleman were not confined to himself. No Secretary for War, or, indeed, no secretary for anything, had put forward plans which the right hon. Gentleman had not attacked. What they had been waiting for from him was something constructive, but they had waited in vain.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he offered a suggestion in the last debate they had—a scheme of General Miles.
  MR. HALDANE: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman had said he was in favour of a short-service army in addition to a long-service army—two armies. They knew what the expense of that was. As three-quarters of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was out of order, and only permitted by indulgence of the Chair, it was impossible for him to discuss the matter without having the Estimates for the year relating to this new force before Parliament. They would be before the House very shortly and that would be the time to deal with the question. All he asserted was that his task had been to produce a bettor army at a less cost, and when it was nearer completion he would leave it to the House to judge whether he had done so or not. In the meantime it was not, to say the least, fair to raise an issue which was wholly foreign to this debate, and for which there were no materials before the House to form a judgment. Assertion was not argument. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer raised the question as to whether they would not have done rightly in bringing this matter of the debts of Volunteers into the original Estimates last year. That was impossible for a very simple reason. In the discussions on this question it was not only an issue whether these debts should be paid, but when they should be paid. They were to be paid upon the disbandment of the corps under the old system and the creation of the now ones. But there was no certainty at the time when the Estimates were presented last year when that disbandment would take place. In the case of the Militia it was contemplated to treat them pari passu with the rest of the force, but it had to be postponed until after the next summer's training. A plea was also put in that the Volunteers and Yeomanry should be treated on the same footing, and therefore it was impossible to contemplate the present operations as falling within the present financial year. That was the conclusive reason why they could not possibly have taken the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. Another point was raised by the Member for Derbyshire as to the allowances and expenses of the County Associations. What they had done they had based on an examination of a large number of cases. They might not be right, but

  1467
  their minds were not closed, and he would be very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman of any particular difficulties caused by the allowances suggested in the case of his own county.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid they sent up to ask how £1,845 was going to meet the expenditure of £2,984, and they had had no answer.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the answer depended upon their examination of the headquarters accounts of the battalion. They had occasionally found some very curious expenses put into headquarters accounts. There had been a committee on the subject of contributions for prizes, which laid down limits which were very seriously considered in this case; it was the same with bands and the same with refreshments. Their minds, however, were not closed, and the matter was at this moment under consideration.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea as to what he intends to allow Associations to pay a secretary? My right hon. friend was forbidden to spend more than 10 per cent. on certain things, including the salary of a secretary. That only works out at £180.
  MR. HALDANEsaid they had not limited the Associations strictly under heads, but had given them freedom. They said 10 per cent. was a proper amount to spend on certain things, but added the warning that, if they did run short of money, taking all things together, the War Office would be bound to comment upon their proceedings. Some counties did not require to spend anything like as much as others, and, therefore, they had been left a large latitude to work out their own finance. All the War Office wished to do was to get this matter put on a proper footing, and he was quite certain the House of Commons would not grudge anything to make the Territorial Force a good and efficient one, both on the administrative and on the combatant side. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking of Section A, had rather reproached him for not taking the whole of the men on the Regular basis, but he was not sure that for transport work—for work to be done by waggoners, farriers, and so on—the less trained
  1468
  man was not a more handy man than the Regular soldier who had been trained from the military point of view. Anyhow, it was very much more economical to get a force as far as they possibly can—
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the right hon. Gentleman was now going into a matter which was not raised by the Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he would pass to another matter. One comment which had been made was that the reduction in the matter of paying off the debts of the Volunteer Force was illusory, because it would appear in future Estimates. Obviously that was not the case. They were paying off the debts of the Volunteer Force once and for all; they would not appear in any future Estimates, and, therefore, if the reduction belonged to this year, and if it was right that it should be dealt with this year, there could be no hesitation about treating it in that fashion. He thought he had answered most of the points which had been put. If any other question should arise the Financial Secretary would deal with it.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he would like to speak from the soldier's rather than the financier's point of view. He was very glad indeed that the Volunteer corps were to be handed over to the County Associations clear of debt, and if to attain that end it had been necessary to strain the practice with respect to Supplementary Estimates, he would not be inclined to blame the right hon. Gentleman. He understood the difficulties which the new County Associations would have to face, and it would be a great thing for them not to be burdened with the debts which at present rested on the Volunteer Force. From the Army point of view, he wished first of all to join issue with the right hon. Gentleman for having made the fatal mistake—it ran through all the Army policy—of thinking that any sort of man was as useful as a trained one.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is a question which I think it would be out of order to discuss at present.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYthough he was in order in following the course which had been hitherto followed in the debate. If he could not go into that matter, the right hon. Gentleman would be able to escape some of the criticisms which otherwise might have been offered. He hoped he would not be out of order in commenting on the expenditure of the secretariat, and the equipment of the County Associations. The right hon. Gentleman must by this time be aware of the very strong feeling throughout the County Associations in regard to the great difficulty which they had over the question as to how they were adequately to supply the salary of the secretary on whom the efficiency of organisation would depend. Pressure was being put on certain Associations not to take the best men available, but to take only soldiers who were drawing small pensions. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman that that could not make for efficiency. It was not fair to bring that pressure to bear. His duty to the Army was to say that this work must be done by absolutely efficient men. If the work was fairly and honourably worth such and such a salary, he should find that salary. He might base it on the number of corps to be maintained in a county, or on the number of thousands of men. He must have a basis for the calculation, and the remuneration for the work which the men had to perform must be reasonable. It might be, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the intense stress of the work would be got over in the first four or five years, and it might be fair to say: "We will give so and so for the first four years, but we reserve the right to reduce it in future when there is less work to be done." He was encouraged to urge that point on the right hon. Gentleman by the words he himself had used. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he would see that there was a proper, just, and sufficient allowance. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him that it would be neither dignified nor right for the Department or the country to avail itself of the services of some poor officer whose pecuniary circumstances were such as to force him to take up the work on a salary which he knew to be inadequate. It was conceivable that the salary
  1470
  offered here and there might be £80 a year, and that a poor officer might be tempted to accept the appointment, knowing that he had no opportunity of earning anything in any other direction. Surely that was not the basis on which the salary should be paid. He pleaded with the right hon. Gentleman to establish a standard of the remuneration for the work which these men were to be asked to do. That was the only way in which the question could be adequately adjusted. To say that it was to be left to the counties and that these men were to get what was over when other expenses had been paid was not right. He did not ask extravagant salaries, but they should be adequate for the work to be done. If the right hon. Gentleman would do that, he would put an end to a great deal of trouble and difficulty in the County Associations. What was the use of saying that a County Association could get a secretary at 10 per cent. of the expenditure? It was impossible. Unless the right hon. Gentleman guided the County Associations in the direction of putting their forces in the hands of capable and experienced administrators whose interest it would be to keep the general expenditure down, he would find that he was pursuing an extravagant instead of an economical policy, and ha would seriously disappoint those who were trying to work with him. He was pretty confident that after two years experience the right hon. Gentleman would find that the total expenditure on the Army would be greater than it would have been if the administration of the County Associations had been entrusted to capable and properly paid men. He further asked the right hon. Gentleman to lay it down primarily that he would not allow the Territorial Army to be founded on any private subscription basis whatever. The right hon. Gentleman knew that in many cases corps could not be maintained unless such and such privileges were provided for out of private purses. If the Territorial Army was to be a reliable Force for all the purposes which the right hon. Gentleman hoped it would fulfil, he should practically refuse to accept private money for any of the purposes which ought to be provided for out of public funds. These were points which were already

  1471
  beginning to corrupt the administration of the Territorial Army. [Cries of dissent.] The right hon. Gentleman would pardon him for saying so. The new Army should be clear of all suspicion of being paid for out of private pockets. He could assure "the right hon. Gentleman that there was that danger, and it would be better to calculate on a fair basis the amount which the Treasury should pay, and that all private subscriptions should cease. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that those mistakes were nipped in good time to prevent mischief being done.
  MR. HAROLD COXsaid that this form of finance was utterly indefensible, and he moved the reduction of the vote by £50. Nearly four years ago the whole of the hon. Members representing the Liberal Parly protested strongly by their votes and in almost every speech they made in the House against this kind of finance. He admitted that on that occasion the crime was a more serious one. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] That represented the difference between the two Parties. They were then dealing with millions, now they were dealing with only a few hundreds of thousands. They were now asked to vote £100, but they were really voting £385,000 for the right hon. Gentleman's Territorial Army. His hon. friend the Member for East Edinburgh attempted to defend the vote by the use of a French word, meaning that it was not quite so bad as it appeared, but he did not think it prudent to disguise a vice by the use of a foreign term. In effect the transaction was a misapplication of public funds in order to relieve future estimates of the charge which ought to lie upon them. He agreed with the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire that money which had been obtained by economies on other Votes and ought to have been used towards paying off the National Debt was being intercepted to pay off a purely Army debt. The effect would be that the Army would appear to cost less in future years than it did actually cost, and that the public would not see it. The appropriation of economies should, in the course
  1472
  of strict finance, have gone to pay off the National debt. Next year the right hon. Gentleman could have done either of two things. First, he could have asked for a capital sum to pay off these Volunteer debts; or secondly, he could have fallen back on the example of the late Government and raised a national fund by loan and then charged the Estimates with the sinking fund. Either method would have been sound finance; but the right hon. Gentleman had done neither—he had paid off an Army debt, and the result would be that the Army Estimates would apparently be reduced. He went further. The right hon. Gentleman must have known that these Volunteer debts were in existence, and why did he not tell the House that the cost of the Territorial Army would be, because of them, so much more? Hon. Members opposite said that the new Territorial Army was going to cost more and more. Hon. Members on that side of the House not long ago were breathing fire and brimstone against the Government for increasing the Army expenditure, but he saw none of those Gentlemen present when there was before the Committee a definite question of preventing the Secretary for War misapplying money which ought to go to pay off debt in order to use it for purely Army purposes. He wished to point out in passing that the purpose for which the right ton. Gentleman was asking this money was to pay, not for a fighting force, but for a non-fighting force, because as long as the Navy kept the sea none of the members of that force would be used for fighting. He was one of those Members pledged to public economy in all departments of government; but he had not yet had the satisfaction of seeing that economy realised. Whilst it was important that economy should be carried out throughout all the branches of the public service, it was still more important to prevent extravagance being imposed upon the Committee by what was virtually a misapplication of funds. He begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £50, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Harold Cox.)
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh had endeavoured to defend the Secretary for War, but he unintentionally let the cat out of the bag when he admitted that this was practically voting something which ought to be made a charge upon next year's Estimates. One of the principal charges brought against the late Government was that they had failed to reduce the expenditure and the public Debt. When the Party opposite came into office they declared that they were going to reduce the Debt, and that they would not meet what ought to be current expenditure out of capital account. The action of the Secretary for War violated both those promises. The right hon. Gentleman was going to take money which ought to go to the reduction of the National Debt to pay off charges which ought to be voted as annual expenditure. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean did not allude to the way the money was to be found; he was not a financial purist; but there were many Members on that side of the House who did not go so far as the right hon. Gentleman when he accused the late Government of swelling the expenditure, but who still thought that the National Debt ought to be reduced. Therefore it was with great sorrow they saw the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War persisting in the error he began last year. It was quite true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid down two very excellent maxims—that no Supplementary Estimate was right, and that money devoted to the Old Sinking Fund should not be diverted from that purpose. But then the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say that this was an exceptional case, and that the money was going to pay off a debt due by the Volunteers. But this was a debt, he insisted, which ought to be paid off by the ordinary Estimates of the year. He was glad to see the right hon. the Member for Wolverhampton in his place. His speeches were always excellent, and any little knowledge he had of the rules of finance had been acquired from reading the speeches of the right hon. Member. On 22nd February, 1904, when dealing with
  1474
  Supplementary Estimates which arose out of the War, the right hon. Gentleman made a speech in which he said—
  "The great value of the debate was, however, the eliciting from all parts of the House objections to the unsatisfactory state of those Supplementary Estimates. There were two Leaders in this House who did a great deal to destroy that practice. They were Mr. W. H. Smith and Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone set his face like flint against it, and in his Cabinet too."
  Had the right hon. Gentleman set his face like flint against this Supplementary Estimate?—
  "And no such remarks could have then been made as were made by the penultimate Chancellor of the Exchequer last year with reference to the support in the Cabinet of the Prime Minister. Mr. Gladstone looked on a Supplementary Estimate as almost a crime on the part of the Department which presented it, and it was no easy task to get over his objections. "
  And then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
  "They were all agreed that the Cabinet should put down its foot with regard to these Estimates."
  He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell the Committee that he had carried out his excellent intention, because they all knew that he had the courage of his opinions. They also knew that there were rumours of dissensions in the Cabinet which arose from his setting his face like flint against Supplementary Estimates which did not arise from circumstances which could not have been foreseen. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh seemed lost in admiration of the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to ear-marking, but the hon. Member knew perfectly well that the Treasury would never sanction the transfer from one sub-head to another, unless there was the other sub-head to transfer it to. There was not this special sub-head last year, and therefore, when the breast of the hon. Gentleman was filled with admiration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his statement as to ear-marking, he must have known that he could not ear-mark the money.
  MR. McCRAEsaid the last Government transferred an item of £10,000,000 from a sub-head to another sub-head which did not exist.
  SIR F. BANBURYreplied that the late Government might have done all sorts of things but that had nothing to do with the question, as two wrongs did not make a right, and his point was that the right hon. Gentleman could not have obtained the sanction of the Treasury, because the sub-head did not exist. But did the hon. Gentleman tell him that the late Government transferred an item of £10,000,000 from one sub-head to another which did not exist? If the hon. Gentleman told him that, he would admit that he was wrong. If not he should contend that he was right.
  MR. McCRAEreplied in the affirmative, and said that not only did the late Government do so but they did so without the consent of the House of Commons.
  SIR F. BANBURYinquired if the hon. Gentleman would give him the instance he referred to.
  MR. McCRAEsaid it occurred while the war was going on. The late Secretary of State for War, with the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, spent £10,000,000 of money allocated to a particular purpose on a purpose for which it was not voted and which did not exist when it was voted, and by doing that avoided the necessity of calling Parliament back for an Autumn session.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Gentleman had not met his point, because the item to which the £10,000,000 was transferred was in the Estimates.
  MR. McCRAEsaid the item to which the £10,000,000 was transferred was the carrying on of the war, but the item for which the money was voted was for a different purpose altogether.
  SIR F. BANBURYinsisted that the hon. Gentleman had not answered his objection. They knew perfectly well that the Treasury did allow and it had been customary for Parliament to allow money saved on one item to be spent on another, with the consent of the Treasury. His point was that in this particular case the second item did not exist; it was not
  1476
  in the Estimates: whereas in the case to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, both items were in the Estimates and nothing irregular was done. He had endeavoured to show that the right hon. Gentleman had not taken to heart the lesson which they tried to give him last Session, but was again breaking all the traditions of sound finance and all the traditions upon which his Party were returned to power at the last election. He could quite see why this particular course was pursued. It was much easier to have a Supplementary Vote which would not be noticed in the country, than to increase the Estimates next year and have attention called to the matter. But whatever the reason for it might be, he did not think it was sound finance, and he should vote for the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Preston, who had the courage of his convictions and was consistent in what he said.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the hon. Gentleman after swallowing a great many camels which were the property of his own Government was now distressed at swallowing this fly. He must say, however, that the arguments used lent a good deal of colour to the objection to pay money in this way, but he thought he could give reasons why it should be done. They all understood that Supplementary Estimates were bad things, and he quite agreed with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about them, and with his view of finance. There was one thing in favour of the explanation of the Secretary of State for War. As the right hon. Gentleman had said, he did not know whether this item was coming this year or next year because he did not know when the termination of the Volunteer corps would take place. It was impossible to say that the Volunteers would come to an end this year, and that this expense would be thrown on the Territorial Army. That was the reason why this expenditure was not put in last year's Estimates, and there was a reason why it should not go into next years. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had said it ought to have been in next year's Estimates, and no doubt, in the ordinary course of things,

  1477
  if the Volunteers had not been done away with, it would have been in next year's Estimates. But the Volunteers had always been in the habit of getting into debt and then paying what they owed out of their grants in the next year. Under the new scheme they were doing away with the Volunteer system and they should pay ready money, in the same way as in the Army ready money was always paid. Most of this money, however, was for clothing, ammunition, and so on, and it had nothing to do with the mortgages on drill halls which several hon. Gentlemen had spoken of. It was the ordinary course of expenditure for which the Volunteers colonels or associations or whoever looked after the finances of the corps got into debt and paid when they got the grant. Now that that system was being brought to an end and the Volunteers were being wiped out, in order to clear off this debt it had been put in as a Supplementary Estimate this year. He thought it was a debt that ought to be cleared off this year, and that it was rather a good thing to see the end of the Volunteers. Of course, it might be said that to a certain extent it relieved next year's Estimates. So it did, but surely if we ought to pay a thing this year it was sound finance that we should pay it even if it did give the Secretary of State for War an advantage in next year's Estimates. He hoped, however, that the National Debt Commissioners would profit by that advantage and that they might be able to reduce more debt next year. But the great point was that this was not an Army debt. It was a private debt of the Volunteers, which in carrying out the new scheme the Secretary of State for War had to take over.
  MR. HAROLD COX: It was to be an Army debt.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid it was made an Army debt under the new scheme and it had to be taken over. It was stated over and over again that these debts were to be taken over, and it was an understood thing when the scheme was passed that they should be. He considered, therefore, that they should be paid at once, instead of leaving
  1478
  them as private debts to be paid next year, even though that gave his right hon. friend a slight disadvantage. He hoped the whole scheme would result in economy. He differed from the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean in thinking that there was any specific pledge that this particular part of the new scheme would by itself be an economy. What he understood was that the whole scheme was to be an economy, and he hoped that that would be the case not only this but in future years. The hon. Gentleman for Preston had moved a reduction, but he would point out that this was a token Vote and to vote on the Amendment would have the same effect as dividing on the Vote. He therefore thought this proposal of a nominal reduction was absolutely unnecessary, unless the hon. Member wished to amplify the division list and vote twice over. If, however, the matter was pressed to a division, he hoped the Amendment would be rejected. As to the item of £8,000 which had been spent he quite agreed with the Secretary of State for War, that there ought to be strict supervision of these County Associations, but he also agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who said that the man who was employed as secretary ought to get sufficient pay. There had been extravagance in managing Volunteer corps in some cases, and he thought the Secretary of State for War was quite right in giving County Associations full power over the money as he had done and giving a lump sum instead of saying: "This man is to be paid so much and that man so much." Might he point out one thing that nobody seemed aware of? It was that these secretaries of County Associations would not necessarily be old soldiers. Everybody talked as if the secretaries would be all ex-officers; but this was not soldiers' work; it was more accountants work, and therefore that supposition was inaccurate. He had, however, every good wish for old soldiers and old officers who had served their time in the Army, and hoped that many of them would take these positions. He was glad to see soldiers in touch with the civil work, but he thought it ought to be known that this was civil work and would not necessarily be carried out by old soldiers.

  1479
  He said this because he knew many officers were looking out for these appointments with the idea that they were something of the same nature as the old adjutants' position in days gone by.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War a question. They had been discussing this Supplementary Vote for some time, but there seemed to be a good deal of doubt as to what it covered. He understood it to be for charges which had recurred in every year's Estimates as long as the Volunteers had existed, for clothing, ammunition, and things of that kind; but the hon. Member for East Edinburgh undertook to correct him and he said was mistaken in that point of view, and that this was in fact for debts on property other than moneys advanced by the Public Works Loans Commissioners. He did not know whether he had made his point clear to the Secretary of State, but he wished to know which of those two ideas was correct. If it was as the hon. Member who last spoke and as he understood it, it would be what had been a recurring charge while the Volunteers continued and would be in fact a recurring charge still though perhaps under a slightly different name, the charge being not for the Volunteers but for the Territorial Army. He wished to know whether in regard to these items for clothing, ammunition and so forth, by the transition of the Territorial Army the right hon. Gentleman put a double charge on this year and left that of the coming year normal.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the situation was this. There were now, he believed, 217 battalions. In the new Territorial Army there would be considerably fewer battalions, which would be strengthened. The County Associations would receive the money, which would not be appropriated to each battalion or ear-marked in any way, but would be used for the force as a whole. Just now there were, as he had said, 217 battalions the colonels of which had incurred liabilities for what might be, shortly, called tailors' bills and overdrafts. In a sense the Government were paying double this
  1480
  year, but the reason for that was that it was impossible to get rid of a colonel without liquidating his liabilities. His hon. friend the Member for Edinburgh he thought had the same thing in mind. He had dwelt upon another aspect of the same trouble. But what the right hon. Gentleman had said was strictly true. The Government were in a strict sense paying double this year.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid as he understood there would be the normal charge next year. The Volunteers had hitherto borrowed through the year and had received their payments at the end of the year. The new County Associations were to be kept on a cash basis and the Government would pay out the money to them in the course of the year.
  MR. HALDANEagreed that that was so. Next year the Government would supply the cash and the Volunteers would pay cash for what they wanted. Next year there would be a single charge.
  COLONEL SEELYsaid he supposed the defence of this Vote, which had not yet been raised, was really a good one, namely, that the people who had paid off nearly £20,000,000 of the National Debt in two years had a better title to divert £380,000 from its proper destination than those who had added £150,000,000 to the National Debt. He, like many others, had devoted most of the recess to these County Associations and their work, and he joined with all those who had advised his right hon. friend to instruct his Department not to dictate to the County Associations, not only with regard to what they were to do with their funds, but as to what their duties were. All who had listened to his right hon. friend knew that he desired to give the fullest responsibility to the County Associations. If it was desired that the work should be properly done full responsibility must be given. The failure of the parish councils was due to the absence of responsibility in them, and if these County Associations were in any way checked in the duties they were desired to perform under the Act

  1481
  it was quite certain that the enthusiasm which bid fair to make the new Territorial Force a success would die away as quickly as that which animated the people with regard to parish councils. The whole business would then fall back into the control of the War Office and it would be a failure. He wished to impress on his right hon. friend the desirability of impressing his own view upon the War Office. He could assure his right hon. friend as one who had had some connection with the County Association work, so far as it had gone, that it was necessary to get his Department to understand that the power was very largely transferred from the War Office to the County Associations. He also joined with those who thought it unwise to pay the secretary too little, especially if that was to be done by getting an old soldier to give his services practically for nothing. That was a very bad principle in all Departments of the State, and in another walk of life would be called sweating. Nobody could expect a good man to be obtained at less than from £400 to £600 a year, and it would be a great mistake to pin them down to £180. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Derbyshire say that what his district would recommend would be £1,800 for what they had hitherto spent £2,900 upon. He thought there must have been some mistake in the figures which the right hon. Gentleman had given to the House. But if it were the case then he did not see how the new force under the name of the Territorial Army could be expected to go on, because to suppose the pay and expenditure of a branch of the force could be reduced by 70 per cent. seemed an impossibility. He would warn the Secretary of State that if it was proposed to make the force efficient by any such reduction he could not hope to make the Territorial Force a success. His right hon. friend should warn his subordinates not to put the Volunteer Force in too narrow a bed. The disbandment of corps could not be discussed conveniently now, but he would counsel his right hon. friend to go slowly and walk warily, not only with regard to disbandment, but also with regard to re-arrangement. They should encourage all if they compelled none. He could not on this occasion support his hon. friend
  1482
  in the financial proposal he had put before the House.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYwished to endorse what had been said with regard to the County Associations. Little short of a panic had spread amongst those men who thought they were going to get a billet which they believed they could work well, when they found that they were not to be adequately paid for their services. It was impossible to get good men without paying good money. If the Government had given out that they were going to pay £300 a year he believed they would get good men. There was no doubt that an office and a clerk ought to be supplied to the secretary, and that they ought to be adequately paid. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see to that. In his own county they were all very keen to make the Territorial Army scheme work. Everybody had done his best and was keen to go on, but men were complaining that they did not know how many drills they would have to attend, how many rounds they would have to fire, or how long they would have to be in camp. They were in a state of uncertainty, and the sooner that uncertainty was removed the better. It was now within six weeks of the time when the new Territorial Army would be launched upon its career, and these doubts should be dispelled without delay.
  MR. MORTONsaid he did not consider this a good opportunity to discuss the whole expenditure of the new Territorial Army, but he certainly considered that it was an occasion that should be taken advantage of to discuss the pledges which hon. Members had given with regard to the question of economy. Economy could certainly not be obtained if the Government proceeded to get money in an irregular and, as he thought, an illegal manner. The main question which ought to be discussed was the means by which this money was to be obtained. In the first place, it was put down as being a Vote for £100, which was incorrect. Whether it was intended or not, such a procedure deceived the taxpayers, because it would

  1483
  go forth from this House that only £100 had been voted, when in fact £358,000 would have been voted for this purpose. So far as he could understand it this was a much worse case than that which occurred twelve months ago. When nearly half a million was taken a year ago it was at least taken to pay off debt, and the properties came into the possession of the War Office, no doubt a valuable security. Therefore, there was something to be said in favour of that. But there could be no advantage in obtaining a Vote in this way except that of deceiving the taxpayer to some extent in regard to what the Territorial Army cost. It was wrong, and in this case there was not the slightest reason for going out of the ordinary course. As he understood, this surplus had been appropriated and solemnly set apart by Parliament for payment of the National Debt, and they were legally bound to pay this money away for the purpose of reducing the Debt whenever they had any surplus on the Votes. It was very easy, of course, to spend money in this way and might become dangerous. He did not think the hon. Member for East Edinburgh properly appreciated the irregularity of the way in which the money was being taken. He had some recollection of what was taken by the War Department when he was on the Public Accounts Committee. He discovered on one occasion that out of a surplus on one Vote about £400 was taken to pay for a dinner given by a Minister as a dinner given by himself. He was invited, but fortunately he did not go. He remembered another occasion when money was taken from one surplus and went to decorating and repairing a house belonging to one of the departments. Money could, of course, be used for the Army and Navy, with the consent of the Treasury, on other Votes than that which it was voted for. The Government, however, could not have used this money without coming to the House, as it was for a different item altogether. He was sorry that a Liberal Government should have done this, for undoubtedly there was not the slightest occasion to do it at all. It might have come on on the regular Estimates. It was a little curious to
  1484
  find the Tory Party objecting to this, but it showed what they might do when in opposition and apparently in their right mind. He had no doubt it would appear to some people irresistibly suggestive of the pot calling the kettle black, or Satan rebuking sin, but he was glad to think they were willing to do something in this direction even if it was only when they were in opposition, because if they could only get the principle main-tuned that money was not to be taken in this irregular manner, both Parties by and by would have to abide by it. Let the House imagine what might happen when the Tories come in power, if they ever did. They would say that the Liberals set them the example of taking money which ought to go to the payment of the National Debt and applying it to other purposes, and they, the Tory Party could do the same. They were in another difficulty. It was the House of Commons alone which had the voting of this money. They had no House of Lords to help them in this case or in any way to criticise the Vote, because a mere majority of the House could vote away the money without any other authority having the right to interfere. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that it was wrong, but seemed to think that there were exceptions sometimes. No body had attempted even to make this an exception or a case of emergency in any way. He did not know whether it was much use voting for the reduction, because a reduction of £50 on an expenditure of £358,000 seemed somewhat ridiculous This money ought to have gone for the payment of debt, and the Government could have asked for what they wanted without laying themselves open to the charge of using the money for one purpose when it had been legally set on one side for another. He did not charge the Government with corruption or even improper expenditure, but he did charge them with a grave error of judgment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think our position has been rather a difficult one in this debate. It is very difficult to know how far we may, with propriety, trespass beyond the somewhat

  1485
  narrow limits of this year's finance. But it seems to me, having listened very carefully to all that has been said, that the points really are narrowed down to two. First, is the Government justified or not in asking for a Supplementary Estimate, or ought they not on the other hand to have allowed the money voted, but not spent, to go to the Old Sinking Fund and asked us for a Vote in the next year for these same services. The second point is the way the Government are actually financing during this year the new Associations which they called into being. I understand it would not be desirable to discuss the general future cost of these Associations or the comparative economy of the Territorial Army in relation to the old Volunteer Forces. Upon the first of these points I do not myself take a very strong view, but I think if we take, not the original speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but his last speech, we have a better case than perhaps some of the speakers in the debate appear to have thought. I confess that when I heard the beginning of the debate, I supposed it was to clear off debt of a permanent kind, which once cleared off would never recur, and I thought the right hon. Gentleman used words which could only bear that interpretation. But as the debate proceeded it appeared that at all events there was a difference of opinion about the point, and that in all probability what the Government are really doing is not dealing with the permanent debts of the corps at all. Not only are they not touching debts secured upon real property, but they are not dealing with the permanent liabilities of the Volunteer Force at all. All they are doing is to put on a cash basis transactions which have hitherto been carried on on a credit basis. I think that is not an unreasonable proceeding, but I do not see that the Government have carried it out consistently. That brings me to the second subject, namely, the manner in which they are treating the new Associations and the financial obligations which the new Associations evidently have incurred and must incur. If the Government's view is that all proceedings connected with the Territorial Army are henceforth to be on a cash basis and not, like the transactions of the old
  1486
  Volunteer Force, on a credit basis, they ought surely to see that all the cost the Associations have incurred during this financial year shall be paid out of Government grants in this financial year. Otherwise we are relapsing from a cash into the credit basis which this very Vote condemns. There is only £8,000 put down as far as I can see for expenses of the County Associations in the financial year ending 31st March next, but surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot seriously suppose that no more than £8,000 is going to be engaged to be spent. The thing seems to me quite incredible, and though it would be very inconvenient to discuss the Government's financial proposals in regard to these new Associations, surely it must be evident from the whole course of this debate that £8,000 is a mere fractional contribution to the expenses already incurred in by the County Associations. We know indeed that they have not been able to get on with their work in many cases because they have not been able to get a secretary, because the Government will not allow them to spend the necessary money, and therefore, in one sense there has been a delay in carrying out the operations due to friction between them and the controlling powers at the War Office. But, after all, the fact that the County Associations have not got on so fast with their work as they would have done is not a matter on which we ought to express satisfaction, and it is only by the fact that they have not been allowed to get on with their work that this sum of £8,000 can appear with any decency on the Estimates as representing the cost incurred during the last few months of the current financial year. I do not feel as strongly as some of my hon. friends the impropriety of which the Government have been guilty in trying to put the Territorial Army upon a cash basis. What I complain of is that they have not done so consistently and thoroughly. While they are really carrying out their policy of paying off the existing debts of the bodies which are about to be abolished, they are permitting the new bodies to fall into the old and vicious system of entering into pecuniary obligations upon their personal or corporate credit in some

  1487
  unexplained fashion, and not supplying those funds which are absolutely necessary if their duties within the financial year are to be carried out. I think the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly justified in refusing to attempt any broad survey of the financial results of his Army reorganisation. He is right to delay that till he brings forward the Army Estimates for next year, and I am not going to press him to anticipate the statement he will then make. But I think when we are discussing the manner in which you are to treat the Volunteer or Territorial Army, when we are discussing a question intimately connected with the policy of having it on a cash and not a credit basis, the Government are bound to show us that they are not perpetuating in regard to the new force all the faults into which they admit the House and the country have in the past fallen when dealing with the Volunteer Force, and owing to which alone these debts have had to be incurred by successive colonels of Volunteer regiments. I do not propose to criticise very severely the difference between paying off this money in the present year and putting it on the Estimates for next year. I have not the stern conscience and the unbending virtue of my right hon. friend near me, though I am bound to say he only expressed the unbroken tradition of that Committee over which he so admirably presides. But I do think that, behind all the technical questions of Treasury views and views of the Public Accounts Committee, there he larger questions of policy on which I should have liked to have a much fuller statement than the right hon. Gentleman has yet found it convenient to give.
  MR. CARLILEsaid he had tried to gather from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks what the total was in this Vote which had any connection with uniforms and other matters. He thought the proposals to allow County Associations to expend 10 per cent. of the total cost of administration in their area upon the remuneration of the Secretary was not an efficient proposal at all. Some areas might be very small and then of course the cost would be proportionately small;
  1488
  but on the other hand there were areas which might be very large and in which the means of communication were very difficult, and although the total cost in that area might not be very large, the work of administering it might be very serious indeed. The proposal that 10 per cent. should be used for the remuneration of the secretary rested upon an unsound basis. What they wanted to occupy the position of secretaries was a good supply of young men who possessed great capacity and organising skill. This would be essential because they would require from them a large amount of intelligent work. If the amount placed at the disposal of the County Associations was limited in the way suggested, they would be obliged to accept not even first or second rate men, but the best man they could get for the small remuneration placed at their disposal. Reference had also been made to the position which in the future private subscriptions were to occupy. They would all realise that if the Territorial Force was to be made efficient either ample funds must be placed at its disposal or private subscriptions would have to be once more encouraged. It was extremely desirable that the new Territorial Force should not depend in any degree upon voluntary subscriptions. They desired the County Associations to devote themselves closely to their work, and they could not do that if every man felt he would have to pay considerable sums out of his own pocket towards the cost. Reference had been made to the expenses of commanding officers. Many hon. Members had been commanding officers for many years, and they knew that often to ensure a battalion being continued when their command ceased, they had had to put their hands largely into their own pockets in order that their successors might be able to take over the command. He was sure the Secretary of State for War desired that the Territorial Force should be self-supporting or at any rate should be supported entirely by the funds granted under the Act and not from private donations. If the secretaries were to be efficiently paid it was quite clear the right hon. Gentleman must modify his proposal to limit the amount to 10 per cent. or the County Associations would

  1489
  have to subscribe as individuals to make good what was lacking on the part of the War Office. That seemed to him to be a very undesirable limit, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would deal with the subject in no cheese-paring way, but place sufficient funds at the disposal of the County Associations for this purpose. It was not merely a question of maintaining outside organisations, because County Associations had to provide ranges, and transport for mobilisation and to incur all sorts of expenses which did not obtain in the past. Even now, as the right hon. Member for Derbyshire had pointed out, the County of Derbyshire received far less under the new scheme than it had received hitherto, and if that was so, it was manifest that the Derbyshire force could not undertake new work such as providing and registering transport on mobilisation. If the income under this scheme in any case was less than had hitherto been considered necessary to maintain the force with less detail and less organisation then it was essential that the right hon. Gentleman should give the County Associations more latitude, especially in regard to the remuneration of the organising man who would have to devote his life, energy, and intellect to this work. The secretaries ought to be placed upon such a footing that they would not feel they were being paid in a miserly and cheese-paring manner for the great services which would be required of them.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1907–8.

  CLASS II.
  2. £100,000 (Supplementary), Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid he had one or two important questions to put to the representative of the Board of Agriculture, and he wished to know if he would be in order in raising the question of the salaries of agents for Crown lands. He wished
  1490
  to know first of all whether new agents had not been appointed for Crown lands in the firm of J. Carter, Jonas & Co., and if so when were they appointed.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,said the salaries of agents for Crown lands did not come under this Vote, which consisted of items to cover the expense of additional work which had been thrown upon his Department by three Acts which were passed last session.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONcontended that under the heading of salaries and wages he would be in order in raising this question of the agent for Crown lands.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the responsible Minister says that the salaries of the gentlemen in question do not come in this Estimate it is clear that the matter cannot now be discussed.
  SIR E. STRACHEY: This only applies-to new work.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid that that raised an entirely new point. Probably the increase was due to the fact that a change in the Crown agent had taken place. He thought he was entitled to raise the question.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is correct in his contention, he is perfectly in order in raising it, but I understand that the Minister in charge denies that.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONasked on, what Estimate the question could be raised if it was not in order to raise it now.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can only raise questions which properly come under this supplementary charge. He is not entitled to raise the question of the salary of an official who was appointed under the Estimate passed last session.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: But he was appointed since last session.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member surely understands that the salary was passed last session, and if the official has been changed that has nothing to do with the Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid that there was an increase of £950 shown by the Supplementary Estimate, and he contended that he was in order in raising any question of wages on this particular Vote.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am informed that not a single penny will go to the gentleman against whose appointment the hon. Member desires to protest. That being so, it is clearly out of order to discuss the matter.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONasked the hon. Member for South Somersetshire to state every single item included in the £950.
  SIR E. STRACHEY: The salaries asked for are for the Small Holdings Commissioners and inspectors, and for inspectors under the Butter and Margarine and the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts of last session, which Acts were not in force when the Estimates of the Board of Agriculture for the present financial year were voted.
  Vote agreed to.
  3. £20 (Supplementary), The Mint, including Coinage.

  CLASS III.
  4. £1,870, Public Trustee.
  MR. J. D. WHITEsaid that when the Public Trustee Act was passed they were assured that the office would be conducted on the basis of the outgoings being met by the income. The Estimate now submitted did not include, he thought, some expenses which ought to have been included. A pamphlet which had
  1492
  been very widely circulated upon the work of the new office was not accounted for on the Estimate. He saw it was printed for the Stationery Office, and he wished to know whether it would come under the Stationery Office account. The circular had been sent broadcast in envelopes marked "On His Majesty's Service." He wished to know whether the cost of advertising the Department was to be borne by the Post Office. It seemed to him that it was. He did not see any item for rent, rates, and taxes. He thought the new office ought to be conducted on a self-contained financial basis, and all the expenditure connected with it ought to be entered on this Estimate. He protested against the plan of dumping some of the expenditure connected with it upon the general taxpayers. The general taxpayers included Scottish and Irish taxpayers, but the Public Trustee Act did not extend to Scotland and Ireland, so that they got no benefit from the establishment of the office. He appealed to the Government to see that the Public Trustee Office was placed on a self-contained basis, and that no part of the expense was borne by the general taxpayers.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir SAMUEL EVANS,said the Attorney-General was not aware that this question was to be raised, and he was not present. He had taken careful note of what had been said by the hon. Member, and he would bring the matter to the notice of his learned friend.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS V.
  5. £327, Treasury Chest Fund.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

ADJOURNMENT.
Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Whiteley)—put, and agreed to.
Adjourned at two minutes before Eight o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society [H.L.]; Llanelly Gas [H.L.]; Pontypridd Water [H.L.]; Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water [H.L.].
Also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Metropolitan Electric Tramways; Interoceanic Railway of Mexico.
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with:—Ards and Bangor Railways.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Ammanford Urban District Council Water Bill [H.L.]; Audenshaw and Saddleworth Urban District Councils Bill [H.L.]; Bristol Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Briton Ferry Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Camberwell and other Metropolitan Borough Councils (Superannuation) Bill [H.L.]; Herne Bay Pier Bill [H.L.]; Huddersfield Water Bill [H.L.]; Keighley Corporation Bill [H.L.]; London and District Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.]; Magee Presbyterian College (Londonderry) Bill [H.L.]; Merthyr Tydfil Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Monmouthshire County Council Bill [H.L.]; Skegness Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Swansea Valley Gas Bill [H.L.]; Wath-upon-Dearne Urban District Council Gas Bill [H.L.].—Read 2a.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CHILDREN'S BILL.
  Tables, of comparison between the provisions of the Bill and existing enactments.
  JUDICIAL STATISTICS, ENGLAND AND WALES, 1906. (PART I., CRIMINAL STATISTICS).
  Statistics relating to criminal proceedings, police, coroners, prisons, reformatory and industrial schools, and criminal lunatics, for the year 1906.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3956. Colombia.
  No. 3957. Spain.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NAVY (DISCIPLINE—PRISONS).
  Rules and Regulations, dated 18th January, 1908, amending Regulations for Naval Prisons.

  SUPERANNUATION (TREASURY MINUTES).
  Dated 28th January, 1908, granting a special pension to Sir Mackenzie Dalzell Chalmers, K.C.B., C.S.I., late Permanent Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  Dated 6th February, 1908, granting a retired allowance to Mr. George McEvey, Civil Assistant, Ordnance Survey, Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

  DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 AND 1907—ORDERS.
  Dated 29th November, 1907, entitled "American Gooseberry Mildew (Prohibition of Importation of Bushes) Order of 1907."
  Dated 10th December, 1907, entitled "The American Gooseberry Mildew Order of 1907."

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT, 1907.
  Board of Trade Rules (Employers' Liability Insurance Companies).
  Board of Trade Rules (Underwriters).
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES ACT, 1863.
  Return of proceedings under the Lord-Chancellor's Augmentation Act since the same came into operation (1st November, 1863) up to and inclusive of 7th February, 1908.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 6.)

  HOUSE OF LORDS MANUSCRIPTS.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Calendar of the Manuscripts of the House of Lords, Volume IV. (New Series), with an appendix, in continuation of the volumes issued under the authority of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, The same was ordered to be printed. (No. 7.)
NEW BILLS.
  PATENTS AND DESIGN BILL [H.L.] (No. 8).
  A Bill to explain section 92 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907; and

  FATAL ACCIDENTS (DAMAGES) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.] (No. 9).
  A Bill to amend the law with respect to the assessment of damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts.
  Were presented by the Lord Granard (E. Granard); read 1a, and to be printed.

BLACK SCAB AND FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Board of Agriculture is taking any, and, if so, what steps to prevent, under the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1907, the spread of the new and destructive potato disease known as black scab. I hope the President of the Board will be able to assure me that he is prepared to take drastic action in the case of this vegetable pest.
Last year I asked the noble Earl a question upon another important matter to agriculturists—I refer to the disease called gooseberry mildew. At that time he did not seem to think the matter of very great importance, and was not prepared to take legislative power. But in the course of the year I think he must have found that my information was superior to that of his Department, for he did take steps to pass, and succeeded in passing, the Act to which I refer in my Question. Unfortunately, however, the executive action under that measure has not been successful. The Department has been far too tender, and I am
1304
informed, on excellent authority, that the pest is spreading in the most alarming way. I am told that there are now 1,000 consecutive acres affected in Cambridgeshire alone. The measures that the noble Earl has taken have failed in this way. The Government give no assistance towards compensation for destruction, which is the only possible way of getting rid of the pest. The county councils, I suppose, think it is not fair to the ratepayers that they should find the whole of the compensation, and the cultivator naturally defers destruction until the very last moment, when probably it is too late.
The pest to which I refer to-night—that known as black scab—is just as dangerous, if not more so; and the danger is imminent for this reason, that I am informed it has spread at last to Scotland, from which the best seed is usually obtained. If seed is to be disseminated all over the country with this pest in it, the risk of spreading the disease is very serious. I understand that, in the case of cattle diseases, such as the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Scotland, the Agricultural Department does contribute towards the compensation for destruction. If that is the case in connection with animal pests, why should it not be done in the case of vegetable pests? I am certain that, unless the noble Earl takes drastic action, this vegetable pest to which I am now directing his attention will spread all over the country. Already the English black-currant has almost disappeared from England altogether, the present variety being a French variety. We have had the gooseberry attacked and now the potato, and in view of the present policy of small holdings the importance of these matters is very great. Therefore, I suggest that it is as reasonable for the Department to give assistance towards compensation to small farmers for the destruction of these pests, as it is for them to give assistance to the larger farmers when their cattle have to be destroyed.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, it is the case that the potato disease called the black scab, to which attention has been

1305
called by the noble Lord, is in existence. It was first observed in 1901, and was imported, I believe, from the Continent. It has since spread over the whole of the North-west of England and the North of Wales; it is prevalent in Lancashire, and cases have been reported from Scotland and the Midlands; but, so far, it has not appeared in the South and the East of England. Your Lordships were good enough to give me very drastic powers under the Destructive Insects and Pests Act of last year, and I can assure the House that my Department are fully sensible of the danger of this new potato disease and will do the best they can to stop it. We have been considering whether it would not be right to issue immediately an order giving power to deal with this pest. These diseases are not very much understood as yet, but we shall at once introduce black scab into the Order. I do not think I need follow the noble Lord into the question he raised about compensation. If he will bring it up on some future occasion, I shall be very glad to argue it out with him. As he also mentioned the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, perhaps I may be permitted to assure the House that, so far as we know, the disease has been entirely confined to the area where it broke out. Almost all the cattle have been already slaughtered, and there are great hopes, owing to the promptness with which the officials of the Board have tackled this serious outbreak, that it will not be extended.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDEREY: My Lords, I am sure the statement of the noble Earl that active steps have been taken to confine the foot and mouth disease to the part of the country in which it broke out is most gratifying; but I should like to ask him, in the interests of agriculture as a whole, if he can give the House any idea as to how the disease first originated, and whether the origin has been traced to any other part of the country.
EARL CARRINGTON: I think its origin has been traced, but we are not absolutely certain. In these circumstances, I hope the noble Marquess will forgive me if I do not make any further statement to-day.

THE ANGLO-RUSSIAN AGREEMENT.
Order of the Day read for resuming the adjourned debate on the Motion of the Lord Curzon of Kedleston that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers respecting the Convention recently concluded with the Russian Government relating to the respective interests of Great Britain and Russia in Persia, Afghanistan, and Thibet.
LORD SANDERSON: My Lords, the noble Lord who initiated this discussion on the Convention with Russia is a practised and eloquent speaker, to whom one always listens with pleasure. I have not that advantage. For forty-seven years of my life I have sedulously cultivated the art of holding my peace, even from good words; and I shall not venture on this occasion to do more than address to your Lordships, as briefly as I can, the few observations which have been suggested to me as a result of a rather prolonged official experience.
For many years successive Foreign Secretaries have been attacked for making no serious effort to come to a general understanding with Russia in regard to the policy of the two empires in the various parts of Asia in which they are interested. I do not think that at any time the fault has been with the Government here. The difficulty has been at St. Petersburg, where the dominant political party has been unwilling to fetter itself by positive engagements except on terms that would have been unacceptable to us. They have preferred to let matters slide under the conviction that events were working in their favour, and that they had something to gain, and at all events nothing to lose, by delay. It is only recently that there has been a change in this respect, and whatever criticisms may be passed on the details of the Convention, it is, at all events, satisfactory as an indication that the Russian Government have been led to believe that it is to their advantage as well as to ours that the two countries should endeavour to work in harmony rather than in a condition of constant rivalry and at times of only half-suppressed antagonism.
The Convention is of necessity a compromise, and a compromise is rarely

1307
at first sight attractive to either of the parties interested. It cannot ordinarily be attained, as so many people seem to suppose, by generously conceding whatever you think unimportant, while carefully retaining everything to which you attach any real value. As Lord Granville once tersely put it—
"It is of no use going to market unless you put some eggs in your basket."
We have obtained in this Convention positive and permanent engagements in regard to Persia and Afghanistan which the Russian Government have hitherto been unwilling to give except in the form of rather fluid assurances in the course of correspondence and conversations. It is true that these assurances have been frequently repeated, but it is also the fact that the Russian Government have quite candidly stated that they must be regarded as subject to modification under change of circumstances. The mere fact of repeated renewal is an indication of the temporary nature of the assurances. One does not constantly renew a permanent engagement. It stands to reason that we were bound to offer in return similar engagements sufficient to induce the Russian Government to enter willingly into the bargain and to abide by it strictly and unreservedly. The whole value of such an agreement depends on the spirit in which it is observed.
The arrangement with regard to reserved zones of interest in Persia, which has been so sharply criticised, has no doubt been so framed as to offer such an inducement. Some of my colleagues and I once explained to a former Prime Minister the line which, in the opinion of British experts, divided Northern from Southern Persia. He looked at the map and observed—
"Well, gentlemen, I do not wish to dispute your superior knowledge, but to an uninstructed mind Persia seems to hare a remarkably high waist."
That line has not been followed on the present occasion, and most of us may think that the waist of Persia has been put too low.
But there seems to be a good deal of misconception as to the real nature and effect of this part of the Agreement. In the first place, it does not protect either
1308
Government from the competition of other countries in any part of Persia. No one is bound by the arrangement except the two parties themselves. In the second place, both Powers have bound themselves to the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and trade of all nations. There can, therefore, be no question of differential tolls or charges in any concessions obtained from the Persian Government by either of them. Thirdly, all existing con cessions are expressly maintained by Article III. of the Convention, and British subjects and companies already possess several valuable concessions within the Russian zone. Fourthly, although it is true that this country is bound not to oppose Russian applications for concessions within what I may call the neutral zone, the Russian Government are equally bound not to oppose British applications for concessions within that zone. In the event of rival applications the two Governments will be bound to come to an understanding, instead of proceeding on the detestable system of secretly working against each other. The arrangement is, in fact, an expansion of one concluded by the late Lord Salisbury in 1899, with regard to the railway interests of Great Britain and Russia in China. I have never heard complaints that that Agreement had operated disastrously for British railway enterprise in the districts affected by it, and I cannot help thinking that the gloomy anticipations which have been expressed as to the results of the present arrangement ace somewhat exaggerated.
Russian commercial enterprise in the North of Persia has always had a considerable advantage over all competitors from the fact, not only that Russia by her geographical position has the power of exercising great political pressure at Teheran, but that the Russian Government has been always ready to spend large sums of money from the Imperial Treasury in aid of such enterprise. The Russian Government have guaranteed large loans, they have established a bank at Teheran, with the Russian State Bank at its back, and they have spent several hundred thousand pounds on the construction of roads from the Russian

1309
frontier and from the Caspian to the capital and into the interior. Such a policy is contrary to our practice and tradition. The Treasury have never been willing to incur pecuniary liability on account of Persia, and it was only with difficulty that they were induced for a few years to obtain from Parliament a very moderate subsidy in support of the steam packet service on the Karun. The Foreign Office has been expected to turn out a full tale of bricks with the most beggarly allowance of straw. We have constantly been abused for apathy and indifference when it really seemed to me surprising that we have managed so well as we have. I do not suppose that our financial policy will be materially altered in that respect, and so long as it is maintained I am not at all sure that British commercial enterprise will suffer seriously by being concentrated on the development of existing concessions, and on such new undertakings as may present themselves in the field still open to it.
It has been asked why the Convention contains no provision recognising the special position and interests of Great Britain in the Persian Gulf. If I may be allowed to speak as an aged official with considerable experience in the preparation of such documents, I should say that this matter was not very suitable for insertion in a Convention. The special interests of Great Britain in the Gulf are matters of fact, but they are not very easy to define, the less so because they seem to me to be always expanding, and definition might be found to operate by way of limitation. I see in Sir Edward Grey's despatch a statement that His Majesty's Government will continue to direct all their efforts to the preservation of the status quo on and in the Gulf. That is an announcement quite suitable in a despatch, and it has a general broad meaning which is quite sufficient. But I do not envy anyone the task of defining accurately the territorial status quo of the shores of the Persian Gulf in a manner that would be acceptable to the parties immediately concerned. I believe it to be incapable of accomplishment. I do not see how the Government could ask Russia to accept as fixed that which is really in a state of flux and development;
1310
and experience has shown that engagements by one or two Powers to abstain from certain modes of action or intervention in seas or on coasts which are open of access to other Powers not parties to the arrangement are apt to be very inconvenient and embarrassing.
Well, my Lords, in the presence of so many ex-Viceroys of India, and ex-Governors of Indian Presidencies, your Lordships will not expect me to have the audacity to discourse to you on the subject of Afghanistan. I leave that subject to others better qualified.
In regard to Tibet, I will only say that, however distant the Russian frontier may be from that country, Russia has undoubtedly the means of exercising considerable influence there, not necessarily in a manner conducive to our interests; it is surely a matter of ordinary prudence that we should come to an arrangement to avoid the risk of antagonistic influence in a region where we desire to avoid any necessity for active intervention. The noble Lord has, I think, done a real service in subjecting the critical Convention to critical examination, and eliciting explanations on many points on which explanations were desirable. I may be biassed in favour of my former Department, but after listening to the discussion I do not see much reason to fear that any of the provisions of this Agreement will operate seriously to our detriment.
We are however, I think, agreed that the Agreement should be judged as a whole, and viewed in that light it has great claims to be regarded with favour. It is an endeavour on the part of two Great Western Powers most interested in Asia to put aside small jealousies and suspicions, to come to an agreement on points on which there is danger of conflicting policies, and to work together in the cause of progress and civilisation. It is to this, and not to any previous assurances or to any specific engagements in the Convention that I attribute the fact that the two Powers have been able to adopt a united attitude during the recent disturbances in Persia. If that happy disposition continues it may save both countries much anxiety and expense, and I hope I shall not be considered too romantic if I add that it may largely

1311
increase their influence for good. For such objects it is worth while to make considerable sacrifices, and I cannot think that those actually made in the Convention are excessive.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I am sure it has given your Lordships great pleasure to listen to the speech which has just been delivered by the noble Lord, whose great knowledge has been placed at the disposal of successive Foreign Secretaries to the great advantage of the country. The weight of opinion, especially of Indian opinion, in this House is so great—it has been illustrated, not merely in this debate, but in the debate initiated by Lord Ampthill last week, in which for the first time, I presume, in the whole history of this Assembly five Members of the House who had filled the office of Viceroy and the ex-Commander-in-Chief in India were heard—that it is difficult to rise and take part in this discussion; and I should certainly have felt absolved from troubling your Lordships even for a few moments to-night had it not been for the speech which was delivered by the noble Lord the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the course of the debate on Thursday.
I do not think anybody would be surprised that the Under-Secretary should have entrenched himself as far as he possibly could in replying to the very powerful indictment which was levelled against the Convention, and it was also most natural, I think, that so far as was possible the noble Lord should have relied upon the opinions left on the records of the late Government. In principle, I think every member of the late Government would be ready to give assent to the course which has been taken by the present Government. But in detail I think the noble Lord carried us, or attempted to carry us, a little too far and I am not sure that he would not have had even a stronger position if he had relied more than he did on the general difficulty of concluding such a Convention at all, on which something has just been said by the noble Lord on the cross benches. Any one who discusses this question must do so from the standpoint that in politics, especially
1312
in Asia, the great nations are drawing closer together, the opportunities of attack and of collision have become greater in each successive decade, and unquestionably the effects of that change are far-reaching; and, if I may venture to go a step further, I would say that especially is that the case between this country and Russia.
Russia has been for a long time an advancing nation in Asia. On the other hand, it was said with great force on Thursday last that it can be a proud boast that for 150 years we have not taken a strip of territory in Persia, or indeed, in Afghanistan. The Russians, again, regard the marching forward of their outposts as a strength. The tendency of late years on our part has beer: to consolidate that which we have already, and to regard expansion in some cases rather as a weakness than as a strength. I might go a step further and say that, whatever the internal conditions in Russia, money has never been wanting to back what may be thought necessary in regard to extension; while in regard to the Indian Exchequer, every rupee taken away from the growing needs of India in education, in railways, in public works or in sanitation, has had to be accounted for to the House of Commons. Between two nations taking such a very different view of their responsibilities and national interest, it is not difficult to see that to come to any accommodation at all on such a point would not be very easy.
From my own comparatively small experience I can corroborate what fell from the noble Lord. When I went to the Foreign Office in 1898 the mind of the late Lord Salisbury was much set on coming to some arrangement with the Russian Government with regard to Asia; when I left the India Office seven years later, although that wish had been as much if not more in the mind of Lord Lansdowne, I do not think it could be said that we had come within sight of any such agreement. When the noble Lord opposite said practically in terms that if we had attempted any further demands it might have proved fatal to any Agreement at all, I could not help remembering the principle to which Lord Salisbury held very strongly—that

1313
in such an Agreement we must keep our eyes solely on what concerns this country, and must not turn too critical an eye on the benefit which might be obtained by some body else, unless that benefit was obtained at our expense. If we could keep that in view, it not inconsiderably clears the issue.
In international matters I would submit that we cannot draw up a commercial balance sheet. I remember, if I may give an illustration, that a gentleman whose estate very lately contributed to the rapacity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer one of the largest sums which has been given in the lifetime of anybody here, once told me how he considered his fortune had been built up, and it had some bearing on this question. He said—
"If I can make a fair profit, I do not jeopardise it by attempting always to get the highest price. If I insisted on the highest price, I should lose my market, and in half my ventures I should fail. When you have safeguarded your own interest do not trouble yourself if someone else is going to make a profit."
I think we may apply that principle to these treaties. With regard to the French Treaty, I do not doubt that if we were closely to scan its various provisions we could find a good deal to say as to who had scored the advantage. But I believe that the feeling of this country and of this House would be at this moment to take the broader view. The French Treaty has cleared our way in one sphere and has cleared the way of the French Government in another, and if there is any balance in favour of one or against the other, it has been more than compensated by the increased good feeling between the two countries, by the cessation of irritating episodes, and by the cordial co-operation of the two countries in other spheres of action.
But even admitting that we may look at this Convention from that standpoint, I think the Under-Secretary carried us too far. Look at the question which he put to us with regard to Persia. Lord Fitzmaurice said, very truly, that there had been previous negotiations, or rather proposals, for they hardly amounted to negotiations, with regard to a strip of territory to be secured to this country in Persia as against foreign
1314
enterprise; and from that he proceeded to argue that, a similar boundary having been adopted for that purpose, His Majesty's Government were not making a bad bargain in taking that boundary for the purpose of this Convention. Well, I really think that was straining the analogy.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): I also pointed out that when that proposal was made, it was part of a proposal under which a very considerable sum of money would have been advanced, at the cost of this country or of India, to the Persian Government, but that we have obtained it as an arrangement with Russia without any loan transaction at all.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: The question is whether that sum of money bore any relation whatever to the concessions which have had to be made to Russia in order to secure similar concessions to ourselves. The noble Lord has really made my argument for me. Let us look at the fact—
LORD FITZMAURICE: The abandonment of that loan to Persia was never brought in as a matter of pounds, shillings and pence, in connection with this Agreement. We have now obtained, as part of this arrangement, a boundary viewed very favourably by the Departmental Committee to which I alluded, and which was originally proposed as part of a series of loan transactions, the abandonment of which as a matter of principle we consider to be a good thing, because the whole of that policy of loan transactions in which Russia and Great Britain competed in Persia has not, we consider, been in any way justified by the results.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: As between ourselves and Russia the arrangement proposed was unilateral and not bilateral. We were to obtain something, in consideration of an advance to Persia, which would ensure for us good relations with Persia at the moment. But there was no question then of the concession of any other sphere. There was no question of the trade routes or the loss

1315
of trade, there was no question of establishing a more dominant position for any other power at Teheran, still less was there a question of giving a large strip of country over which, it must certainly be argued, there will be a tendency to advance railways which may come to the Gulf. Let us consider the difference between the former and the present situation. The boundary was not the whole of the former proposal; it was the irreducible minimum without which it was not considered by the late Government that it would be well for us to involve ourselves even in a loan for a moderate amount to Persia. But that irreducible minimum is now given to us at a time when seven out of the eleven trade routes, and eleven out of the twelve chief towns, are being handed over to Russian influence, and when, if it is desirable that the Persian Gulf should not be connected with the north by railways, the power of entering any protest against such action has to a large extent passed out of the hands of the British Government. That is a totally different bargain from that which was formerly proposed. The best we can say for the arrangement is that we have paid a heavy sum by way of insurance for what I hope will be future peace and good working with the Russian Government.
Then I turn to Tibet. There have been strong differences of opinion as to the precise value to this country of the trade in Tibet, and also of the sacrifices which might be entailed upon us by it. I do not propose to enter into that discussion to-night. All I will say is this, that considering the differences between the Russian frontier and our own, and considering the commercial interests which I understand have been reserved to us, to put Russia in the future absolutely on a par with this country seems to be a concession susceptible, at all events, to some diplomatic compensation in another quarter. But I look in vain for such a diplomatic compensation in the arrangement regarding Afghanistan. The desire of the Ameer and of his father apparently has been to keep Afghanistan clear of external and international politics, as far as possible. We have joined
1316
warmly in the view of His Majesty's Government, that so far as possible Afghanistan should be impervious to outside influences, and so far as the negative part of the Agreement goes, as it effects ourselves, I do not think the noble Lord will find much criticism.
But this self-denying ordinance, whether in the negative or positive part, appears to us to be somewhat one sided. We have guaranteed the integrity of Afghanistan, and how to carry out that guarantee has been the subject of grave consideration by our military experts and statesmen. At this moment we are in a position which must be apparent to the whole world. We are guaranteeing a nation which has none of the usual advantages which are necessary to protect it—there are no railways, no ports, no stores, and scarcely any telegraphs. Under these circumstances, to talk of making Afghanistan a place d'armes is out of the question. But the Russian Government for years have made preparations for carrying on any campaign that might be necessary. If we are bound in such a way that any movement of ours, any attempt to prepare Afghanistan against a common enemy, would be regarded as an unfriendly act, there should have been some reciprocal undertaking from Russia in regard to her Asiatic territories.
The same thing may be said with regard to the commercial agreement. We are to enter into correspondence with Russia if any question arises a to commercial agents. But such a correspondence is not always an easy matter, because commercial and scientific expeditions have been for many years past almost the recognised mode of commencing political relations. Therefore, I cannot help wishing that throughout these negotiations in regard to Afghanistan the statement which the Russian Government have made over and over again and which has been quoted in this country continually—namely, that Afghanistan is outside the sphere of Russian influence—had been hung up in red letters in the Foreign Office as the guiding principle upon which such concessions should be made. However much sympathy noble Lords on this side of the House may have with the general

1317
scope of the Convention, we cannot help having doubts and misgivings as to the actual manner in which it has been carried out, though I hope these will not be regarded as proceeding from any lack of patriotism or from any Party considerations.
We recognise the objects of His Majesty's Government as identical with our own. However much we may regret that the Persian Gulf is left outside the scope of the Convention, we take note of the language used by Lord Fitzmaurice as being as firm and direct upon that point as was the well-known utterance of the noble Marquess behind me (Lord Lansdowne), to which we rigidly adhere. We recognise also that in all these details, local feelings and local considerations must to some extent give way to the wider effects of foreign policy, and how necessary it is in concluding a Convention at all to keep our eyes, not merely on the present, but on the future. Perhaps the agreement between the two sides on this question is a greater national asset than any in our foreign policy during the past twenty years. We have had a great increase in our territory, our armaments, and in the solidarity of our Colonies and Empire generally, but I submit that these would have been useless if not accompanied by that putting aside of Party in foreign matters which has been the greatest change within our recollection.
Thirty years ago I remember, while standing on the steps of the Throne, hearing a debate on Afghanistan in which the noble Marquess who sits opposite took part, and in which there was apparently the same bitter feeling existing between the two Parties as prevailed at that time on almost every question of foreign politics in the Near and Par East. I believe that door of difference is closed. We hope it is permanently closed. We realise, even if we cannot agree in all the details, that a great step forward has been taken by this Agreement in the direction of those understandings and alliances which were happily inaugurated by the late Foreign Secretary; and I trust His Majesty's Government will acquit us of any desire to take a narrow view of the Convention if we cannot agree with
1318
all the details, just as we acquit them of not having taken a wide view. We fully recognise that they have taken the widest view, even though they have had to make concessions which in some respects we regret; and I believe there is no Party in this country, least of all those who sit on this Bench, who, having regard to the great issues which are at stake in the matter, will not use this Convention to the very best advantage for the national safety and for the security of our Eastern Possessions, hoping that what we have conceded may at least have the effect of binding us more closely to our neighbours, and securing so far the peace of the world.
LORD REAY: My Lords, I wish to make a few observations on this very important Treaty. In the first place, a question has been raised with regard to our trade relations with Persia. Our trade relations with Persia have been placed on an absolutely secure footing by the Treaty of 9th February, 1903. By that Treaty we have obtained the same right as the Russians to object to any alteration to our detriment in the Persian tariff. That was a right which we did not possess under the Anglo-Persian Treaty of 1857. Therefore, as regards our trade we are in exactly the same position as Russia, and this Treaty does not alter any facilities or rights we have under existing Treaties. The ordinary trade of the country will continue as at present.
With regard to the line of demarcation of the Russian sphere, as has been pointed out in his speech by the noble Lord who represents the Foreign Office, the line simply acknowledges existing facts. There is no concession made and no advantage gained which is not already, to a certain extent, at all events, possessed by Russia; and the line of demarcation of our sphere gives us what is most essential to our interests. The argument has been used that Russia can extend her railways to the West of Bandar Abbas, but what prevents us, in case Russia is making railways from Teheran either to Yezd or to Ispahan, from obtaining concessions which will link up at Yezd and Ispahan the railways in the South under our control. Obviously the

1319
whole question of construction of railways will be one for further negotiation, for further consideration by our Government, by the Russian Government, and by the Persian Government, and in any case the development of the Persian railway system will be to the advantage of Persia. As for the idea that the extension of the Bagdad railway should necessarily be under our control, I do not think that has ever been contemplated. The fact mentioned by my noble friend Lord Fitzmaurice, that the Imperial Bank of Persia approves of the Treaty, seems to me to be very important. I was pleased to hear from the noble Viscount who has just sat down, that with regard to the Persian Gulf, he fully accepts the declaration which was made by the Government, and in that respect there is absolute unanimity of opinion that our position should be maintained. The unsettled state of affairs in Persia indicates the great value of a definite settlement with Russia of our relative spheres of influence and excludes friction at Teheran which has been so mischeivous in the past.
I now approach the question of Afghanistan. The Treaty, in Article I., gives us with regard to Afghanistan an engagement by Russia that it is outside her sphere of influence, that all her political relations shall be conducted through the intermediary of His Majesty's Government, and that Russia will not send any agents into Afghanistan. It has been contended that this is not a concession on the part of Russia because declarations to that effect were often reiterated before. As my noble friend Lord Sanderson has pointed out, the very fact that these declarations were reiterated shows of what advantage it is that at last they have been embodied in such a form in a Treaty that it will not be necessary in future to elicit further declarations on the subject, and it is quite clear that any departure from these pledges by Russia which we need hardly coil-template would constitute a state of things which would absolve us from any obligation we may have undertaken in the Treaty, and would set us completely free in order to deal with the defence of Afghanistan in accordance with our pledges.
1320
Then I come to the provision, in Article III., for the settlement of local questions of a non-political character. Those questions are the result of the conditions on the frontier of Afghanistan and Russia, where cultivation on both sides gives rise to disputes about irrigation, grazing and cattle thieving; and it is clear that these questions can be better dealt with by local officials. The sooner they are settled on the spot the less likelihood there is of further complications arising. Obviously, if they degenerated into something more serious, then the local officials would ask for instructions from the Ameer, who would either send instructions which would settle the dispute or if need be refer to us for assistance in their settlement. The character of the region on the Russo-Afghan frontier is entirely different from that on our frontier, where we have to deal with turbulent tribes and a mountainous district, and where, if difficulties arise, they are generally of a nature which makes it desirable that they should be dealt with by the Ameer; and they are not, as a rule, disputes which can be settled by local officials. There is nothing in the Treaty, however, which prevents the Indian Government from making an arrangement with the Ameer that minor disputes should also be settled by the local officials.
With regard to the question of trade, the tariff of Afghanistan is of rather a primitive nature, and we know that the great impediment to trade consists in the prescriptive right of towns in Afghanistan to levy octroi duties, of which they make considerable use, and it is not likely that those duties will for the present disappear. A certain duty is levied on each camel, and an additional ad valorem duty on the goods carried which varies. Any trade advantages we may obtain will be enjoyed by Russia, and it is obvious that any advantages Russia may obtain will accrue to us. With regard to the admission of commercial agents, the Treaty distinctly says that the Ameer's sovereign rights are safeguarded. Therefore if the Ameer does not wish these agents to be appointed, there are no means under the Treaty to force them on Afghanistan; but if, on the other hand, the Ameer concedes to Russia the introduction of such agents, then under the

1321
Treaty we obtain the right to be consulted, and therefore it can only be done under an agreement with us. It seems to me that the Treaty fully safeguards the interests of both the Ameer and of ourselves in the matter. I cannot see that the Ameer has any reason to object to this Treaty, which gives him every security and leaves his sovereign rights untouched; and I cannot conceive how it could have been possible to make the Ameer a third party to the Agreement. It was essential that any negotiations with Russia had to be conducted between the Russian Government and ourselves, and that we could not consult the Ameer, who, under an Agreement which dates from the year 1880, is, as regards his foreign policy, to follow the advice of the British Government, and if ever there was a question in which that advice should be accepted, surely it is in a matter of such vital importance to Afghanistan as an amicable adjustment of our relations with Russia.
Now with, regard to Tibet, it has been asked what interest Russia had in Tibet. I may, perhaps, refer to a Despatch from the noble Marquess the late Foreign Secretary to Sir Charles Scott of 8th April, 1903. In that Despatch Count Benckendorff stated that Russia "regarded Tibet as forming a part of the Chinese Empire, in the integrity of which they took an interest, and he hoped that there was no question of any action on our part in regard to Tibet which might have the effect of raising questions of this kind." Now, if Russia takes an interest in the integrity of China, certainly our interest in the integrity of that country is not less; and if the Treaty establishes with regard to the integrity of China an identical policy between this country and Russia, it may be considered a very great, and I should say, an additional advantage. There is the further question of the Buddhist pilgrims.' There is no doubt that there was a possibility that the pilgrimages might be used for political ends. Such intrigues are, by this Treaty, prohibited, because the Treaty distinctly states that Buddhists may enter into direct relations on strictly religious matters with the Dalai Lama and the other representatives of Budd-
1322
hism in Tibet, but that the Governments of Great Britain and Russia engage, as far as they are concerned, not to allow those relations to infringe the stipulations of the present arrangement. Besides, I do not see how it would have been possible for us to interfere with these pilgrims, and it is well-known that Russian policy is identical with our policy, namely, to protect the interests of its subjects in any country to which they may be going.
As to our trade with Tibet, the Treaty distinctly maintains any commercial privileges given to us by former Treaties with Tibet and China, and it secures direct relations between the British commercial agents and the Tibetan authorities. Under Article II. of the Convention between Great Britain and Tibet, of 7th September, 1904, a free right of access is secured to markets at Gyantre and Gartok as well as Yatung, and, in addition to establishing trade marts at the places mentioned, the Tibetan Government undertakes to place no restrictions on the trade by existing routes, and to consider the question of establishing fresh trade marts under similar conditions of development if trade requires it. Therefore it is quite clear, under Article II. of this Treaty that the trade privileges we have under the Treaties with Tibet and with China are perfectly guaranteed, and that the situation remains exactly what it was under those Treaties. It is true that the; Treaty excludes representatives in Lhassa, but that is in accordance with the policy of the late Government. It would clearly not be to our advantage to have a Resident at Lhassa, who would be confronted by the Chinese Amban, and complications might, therefore, arise which are avoided by our dealing direct with China in any negotiations.
As to the declaration with respect to our occupation of the Chumbi Valley, I cannot see that it is derogatory to our dignity. We are, in fact, only repeating a declaration which we had already made, and we are in that respect doing exactly what the Russian Government did in reiterating its declarations about Afghanistan. If it was not derogatory to the dignity of Russia to make these declarations, I do not see how it is derogatory

1323
to our dignity that we should simply have reaffirmed a former pledge.
I admit that it is not difficult to criticise this Treaty. Nothing is easier than to say that you could have made a better Treaty, but the question is whether, if we had insisted on more favourable conditions, we should have obtained any Treaty at all; and I venture to ask your Lordships whether the fact of having a Treaty with Russia is not of such importance that the great result which has been attained is well worth any concessions which may have been made. For years statesmen here, and also perhaps in Russia, in a minor degree as was pointed out by Lord Sanderson, have been of opinion that for both countries it was almost imperative to come to some friendly understanding. Those who have been connected in any way with the Government of India know, as the noble Viscount pointed out, what the result was of the constant apprehension of Russian aggressiveness with regard to our policy in India. Therefore we can give a cordial welcome to a situation in which we shall no longer be watching on either side of the frontier with a feeling of rivalry and suspicion whatever is done on the other side of the frontier; and if this Treaty is carried out in the spirit in which it is concluded, it will have a most beneficial influence on Asia, half of which was kept in a state of suspense by this irritating and dangerous friction. Moreover, there is no doubt that the tension which existed in our relations with Russia in regard to Asia had a reflex action of a most detrimental character on international relations in Europe. I think, therefore, that we have every reason to approve of this Treaty which initiates a new era in the conduct of our foreign relations, not only in Asia, but also elsewhere.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the speeches we have heard to-night and those we listened to last week have differed very widely as to the merits of this particular Convention, but I do not think that any one has been found to say that His Majesty's Government were not perfectly justified in endeavouring to dispose of outstanding difficulties with Russia by an agreement of some
1324
kind. I hope that this practical unanimity may be taken as reflecting the judgment of the country.
It seems to me that the time has undoubtedly come when agreements of this kind are really inevitable, not so much because our policy has changed but because the circumstances of the case have altered. The stronger Powers, partly owing to aggressive tendencies, partly in order to safeguard themselves against remote attack, have advanced, I will not say their frontiers, but the limits of their spheres of activity, until there is very little of the surface of the globe which is not overshadowed by the proximity of some great Power. Their outposts are within sight of each other, and an act of indiscretion on the part of a local agent, a blunder, or a piece of impetuosity on the part of a soldier, may give rise to a conflagration in which the whole civilised world may be involved.
Nor is it less true that the attitude of the weaker communities has changed in recent years; they are better organised, better supplied with information, and, as my noble friend on the cross benches said the other evening, more liable than they were to the impressions of those waves of restlessness that from time to time pass over an Oriental community. It follows that they are better able than they used to be to take advantage of the rivalries of their more powerful neighbours. I do not know anything more unedifying than the competition of two Great Powers for the favour of a weaker Power. Their methods, whether they resort to cajolery, or intimidation, or bribery, are none of them of a very satisfactory or dignified description, and all of them have a feature in common, that they render it easy for the weaker Power which is the object of these attentions, to play a part which has for weak or corrupt Governments a special fascination, the part of tertius gaudens.
I believe, therefore, that the people of this country are ready to welcome any International Agreements which will have the effect on the one hand, of diminishing the prospect of international conflict, and, on the other hand, of relieving their Government from the somewhat sordid and expensive rivalry of which I have just

1325
spoken. Most of us will, therefore, be found, for a fairly good Agreement of this kind, willing to pay a liberal price and to make sacrifices on points of secondary importance, and most of us will be ready to regard an arrangement of this kind as a whole and not merely in respect of its effect upon those particular regions in which the contracting Powers are brought into immediate contact.
I pass now to that part of the Convention which has reference to Persia, and let me say that in no part of the world has the rivalry to which I have referred taken a more unedifying form than it has in Persia. The representative of the Foreign Office told us the other evening that he had reason to know that the predecessors of the present Government had for many years past been in favour of some general arrangement with Russia of the kind embodied in this Convention. I believe that is perfectly true, but he must be aware that in those days, although we were willing, the Government of Russia apparently were by no means prepared to come to terms with us. At any rate, I will venture to say this, that this particular arrangement in regard to its different elements is entirely new, and so far as I am aware, entirely unlike any previous proposition entertained by the late Government.
So far as Persia is concerned, this Agreement is based on the division of Persia into three spheres. Now, I do not think anyone will have the courage to say, not even my noble friend had the courage to say, that these spheres are described in a manner favourable to this country. He based his argument rather upon the statement that the spheres were described in a manner corresponding to the existing facts. Now, what are the existing facts? Stated in the broadest way are they not these? Russia has a strong and acknowledged predominance in Northern Persia. My noble friend told the House that in his belief the late Government would have allowed Northern Persia to be within the Russian sphere. That may be true, although we may have something to say as to what is and what is not Northern Persia.
1326
Then with regard to Southern Persia, is it not the case that just as Russian influence has been predominant in the north, so has British influence been predominant in the south? The figures given by my noble friend last week, and which I will not recapitulate, established that completely.
Now, does the sphere division as we see it in this Convention at all correspond with the existing facts as I have described them? We have, in the first place, a Russian sphere, which includes a great deal more than Northern Persia, which includes provinces which by no stretching of language can be described as "adjoining or in the neighbourhood of" the Russian frontier. I do not think that can be seriously asserted, and this sphere includes nearly the whole of the principal Persian cities and nearly all the great trade routes. Then we come to the British sphere. Now, I am not going to deny for a moment the strategical value of the British sphere; but from other points of view it compares very unfavourably with the sphere allotted to Russia. But between the two is the neutral sphere in which each of the two Powers is to have a free hand, and in theory no doubt that is an arrangement fair to both parties; but how is it likely to work? Is it not more than probable that Russia, based on her strong position in the northern sphere, holding as she will all the great lines of communication from the north, and the whole of the important cities which are the termini of the trade routes—is it not humanly certain that she will compete with us in the neutral sphere upon terms extremely advantageous to her and extremely disadvantageous to us?
It is quite true that, under this Convention, existing British concessions wherever they are found will be safeguarded. My noble friend on the cross benches has dwelt upon that and has suggested that the stipulation should be sufficient to protect the various important British enterprises which are to be found in different parts of Persia; but although it is quite true that, according to the letter of the Convention we are given a kind of most-favoured-nation treatment, both in the neutral and the Russian sphere, is it not the case that

1327
experience has shown that where all the natural advantages are in the hands of another Power, such most-favoured-nation treatment is really of very little value. I hope I may be wrong, but I shall be agreeably disappointed if we do not find that before we are very much older the virtual boundaries of the Russian sphere will extend to the limits of the British sphere, and that the neutral sphere will prove of very little avail to us. Because we must remember that when we are talking of concessions in this matter, we are dealing, not only with commercial concessions, but with concessions of a political character, and we all know the deadly effect with which these hybrid concessions, partly of a commercial and partly of a political character, whether they are for banks, railways, or lines of telegraph—we all know the deadly effect with which they can be used by a Power which is strong on the spot, and which has behind it financial resources greater than our own, which it is able to use, as the noble Viscount behind me pointed out, with a freedom which is not accorded to us under our system of Parliamentary government.
Now just a word in reference to the Persian Gulf. I am sure we listened with satisfaction to my noble friend's announcement that His Majesty's Government stand in regard to this question exactly where we stood before them. I hail that admission with delight. It will proclaim to all concerned that the policy of the late Government in this respect did not represent a passing mood, but was based on the deliberate judgment and opinion of the people of this country. But is my noble friend quite right in thinking that we can wish for no more than the kind of reference to the Persian Gulf which is found in Sir Edward Grey's despatch, with which this correspondence opens? I am anxious to make it clear to your Lordships that my expectations in this matter are not of an exaggerated description. I do not think it would have been possible to insert in this Convention anything like a detailed agreement with the Russian Government in regard to matters connected with the Persian Gulf. It would for example, have been impossible for the two Powers to take upon themselves to deal with the rights of
1328
other Powers in the Persian Gulf, but I cannot see why it was impossible for Russia by some distinct acknowledgment to make her own position towards us perfectly clear to all concerned.
Surely, in these cases what usually happens is that notes are exchanged between the representatives of the two Powers. In this case we have no document emanating from the Russian Government. We merely have an announcement that our view of the Gulf question has been clearly represented to and noted by the Russian Government, and an intimation that His Majesty's Government have reason to believe that this question will not give rise to difficulties between the two Governments should developments arise. I am grateful for small mercies. I would much sooner have this than have nothing at all; but, if I am told that it represents the high-water mark of our reasonable expectations, then I respectfully take leave to express my doubt. It seems to me that we are particularly justified in entertaining that feeling, because the whole essence of this Convention is that we are endeavouring to substitute for the obiter dicta of Ministers—for vague assurances given from time to time and sometimes qualified or withdrawn afterwards—a distinct and permanent record of policy of the Governments concerned.
Then, my Lords, as to Afghanistan. Here let me say unreservedly that I welcome heartily the three-fold announcement which the Afghan part of the Convention contains. We have a distinct statement that Afghanistan is admitted by Russia to be outside the sphere of Russian influence, that the political relations of the country are to be conducted through the British Government, and that no Russian agents are to be sent into Afghanistan. To have obtained those admissions is an achievement on which I am ready to congratulate His Majesty's Government. I know it may be said that we have had these principles admitted before by Russian Ministers; that is undoubtedly the case, but those who have followed the history of this question must be aware that we have been constantly told that these various assurances were given with reference to the circumstances of the

1329
moment, and that as the circumstances have changed, so the obligatory character and the scope of these assurances must change also. That kind of qualification will be impossible now that we have a contract recorded in a formal document founded upon reciprocal concessions and reciprocal obligations.
My noble friend Lord Midleton called attention to the wording of Article I, which certainly seems to me to require explanation, because, if the second paragraph is taken literally, it does appear to preclude us from allowing the Ameer of Afghanistan to take any measures for the defence of his own country. I feel quite sure that that is not the intention of the clause, and that what is intended is that we should do all in our power to discourage the Afghan Government from organising unprovoked attack upon the Russian frontier. But the ambiguity of the clause as it reads in the English version is much increased by an extraordinary omission in the translation to which I should like to call the attention of the noble Lord opposite. If he will compare the second paragraph of Article I. in the English version—
"His Britannic Majesty's Government further engage to exercise their influence in Afghanistan only in a pacific sense, and they will not themselves take, nor encourage Afghanistan to take, any measures threatening Russia—"
with the same paragraph in the French version—
"Le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté Britannique s'engage, en outre, aà exercer son influence en Afghanistan seulement dans un sens pacifique, et il ne prendra pas lui-même en Afghanistan et n'encouragera pas l'Afghanistan à prendre des mesures menacant la Russie—"
he will find that whereas in the English version His Majesty's Government engage themselves not to take, nor encourage Afghanistan to take, any measure threatening Russia, in the French version the British Government undertake not themselves to take "in Afghanistan," nor to encourage Afghanistan to take, any measure threatening Russia. The noble Lord will observe the great difference in the sense made by the omission of the words "in Afghanistan." I trust we shall be told why that omission has taken place, and also whether in this case
1330
the French or English text is that which is binding upon us.
I wish to say one word in regard to Article II. Article II. is somewhat singularly drawn. It recites our treaty with the Ameer of Afghanistan of the year 1905, and, having recited that treaty, it proceeds to bind us, not to the Ameer of Afghanistan, but to the Russian Government, to observe the terms of the treaty. So far as Russia is concerned that engagement seems to be of a rather superfluous character, because in Article I. we have already declared that we have no intention of changing the political status of Afghanistan, and, as my noble friend pointed out the other evening, these words, on the principle of the greater containing the less, preclude us from annexing or occupying, in contravention of the treaty, any portion of Afghan territory.
But what I suppose to be the real significance of this article of the treaty is, I imagine, to be found in the concluding words of the article. We engage not to annex nor to occupy Afghan territory, but only provided the Ameer fulfils the engagement already contracted by him towards His Britannic Majesty's Government under the above mentioned treaty. I interpret those words to mean that the provisions of the Afghan Treaty remain in force, and that if the Ameer of Afghanistan should fail in meeting his obligations, we are thereupon released not only from our engagement with him, but from our engagement under this Convention to Russia.
A good deal has been said with reference to Article III. of the Convention, and I admit that it deals with a very difficult and delicate point. It is one which came not infrequently under my consideration, and it always seemed to me that it was desirable to make some arrangement for enabling what may be described as petty frontier disputes to be dealt with without the delay and circumlocution involved by a reference of them either to Calcutta or St. Petersburg; but when this matter came before us we always made it clear that in our opinion, before any such arrangement could be come to, it was necessary that there should be some definition of what was

1331
and what was not a merely local dispute; that there should be some proper machinery for dealing with those disputes which were of a local character, and above all that it should be a conditio sine qua non in any such arrangement that it had the consent of the Ameer. My noble friend admitted the other evening that the details of this new arrangement would require some elucidation. I do not wish to press for it to-night, but I do hope that the new arrangement, if it is to operate, will be very carefully guarded.
Article IV. lays down the admirable principle that there should be equality of commerce, particularly in Afghanistan. But the principle of equality of opportunity is enforced in a very singular fashion when you come to consider the wording of the Article. The Ameer, under that Article, promises to give Russia any facilities that he gives to us, but he does not promise to give us any facilities which he gives to Russia; and, in the next place, we are made to promise Russia equal opportunity in Afghanistan, where we predominate, but Russia does not promise us any equality of opportunity in those Asiatic regions where she is predominant. A more one-sided application of a sound principle I never came across.
With regard to the Ameer's consent, I thought there was some force in my noble friend's argument that if the whole of this matter had been suspended until such time as the Ameer's consent had been obtained the period of suspense might have been indefinitely prolonged. But I cannot help hoping that the Indian Government have taken some steps, at any rate, for preparing the mind of the Ameer for a transaction of this kind. We know that the Afghan Government are not always easy to lead, and I ask myself what would be the effect upon this Convention, which we are invited to consider as a whole, if the Afghan limb were dropped out altogether, owing to the refusal of the Ameer to give his adherence.
In regard to Tibet we are told that His Majesty's Government have followed in the steps which the late Government laid down for them. Now one word as to those steps. The Tibetan policy of the late Government was perfectly con-
1332
sistent; and it has again and again been clearly defined in the Blue-books. It is based on four principles. The first was-that we had no desire ourselves to intrude into Tibet. In the second place, that we had no intention of allowing any one else to intrude into that country. The third principle was that we desired reasonable facilities for our trans-frontier trade, and the fulfilment of the pledges given to us by the Tibetans in 1890, The last principle upon which our policy was founded was this—that owing to our geographical position, and our comparative proximity to Tibet we insisted on maintaining a distinct predominance over the external relations of the Tibetans. To those four propositions we adhered, and we adhered to them, in spite of great provocation, when we were driven by the outrageous conduct of the Tibetans to send an expedition into their country. We demanded reparation for those outrages. When our frontier was violated, we insisted upon a proper settlement of the frontier question. When the pledges given as to the admission of our trade were broken we insisted upon extended trade facilities. When we were ignored and flouted by the Tibetan Government we insisted upon a clause giving us a predominant voice in regard to all that concern the external relations of Tibet. But we never asked for Tibetan territory. We never asked to send agents to Lhasa, nor did we ever ask for the right to interfere in the internal relations of Tibet. That was our policy. This was the policy which we explained with the utmost frankness at the time to the Russian Government, and it is the policy which is embodied in the Tibetan Convention of 1904.
The question I have to ask is whether we may take it that in the view of His Majesty's Government our Agreement with Tibet of September, 1904, remains intact and unaffected by the new Convention with the Russian Government? I hope the answer to tint will be in the affirmative. I should, however, like to call attention to one point in which it seems to me that the Anglo-Russian Convention takes away something from the Convention with Tibet. By Article IX. of the Tibetan Agreement, the Government of Tibet engages that without

1333
the previous consent of the British Government no concession for railways, roads, telegraphs, mining or other rights, shall be granted to any foreign Power or the subject of any foreign Power. In the same way no Tibetan revenues, whether in kind or in cash, are to be pledged or assigned to any foreign Power or the subject of any foreign Power. This clause puts a distinct embargo upon Tibetan concessions. It is an embargo which can be raised only by the consent of this country. It is an arrangement which leaves us in a position in which we can raise the embargo or keep it on exactly as we please. Now, if your Lordships will turn to Article IV. of the Anglo-Russian Convention you will find this:—
"The two high contracting parties engage neither to seek nor to obtain for themselves or their subjects any concession for railways, roads telegraphs, or mines or other rights in Tibet."
And in the following article a similar contract is entered into by the two Governments in regard to pledging or assigning any of the Tibetan revenues. I own that at first sight it does seem to me that these two articles imply an absolute prohibition so far as Great Britain and Russia are concerned, a prohibition which prima facie might be held to deprive us of the power of raising the embargo whenever it might suit us to do so, and which pro tanto takes away from this country that position as the tutelary Power upon which we have insisted throughout those negotiations, which is so distinctly recognised in the Tibetan Agreement, and which forms a part of the status quo which, according to the preamble, it is desired to maintain.
I will ask only one other question in regard to Tibet. I see it is stated that orders have been issued for the withdrawal of the British force from the Chumbi Valley. Your Lordships will remember that the British force was to remain in the Chumbi Valley until two things had happened. First, the new trade marts were to be effectively opened for three years; and, secondly, the Tibetan authorities were to comply faithfully with the terms of the Convention of 1904. I shall be glad to have it from His Majesty's Government if it
1334
is true that the troops have been ordered to withdraw, that these two conditions have been satisfactorily fulfilled.
I trust that what I have said in regard to the details of this Convention does not go beyond the limit of reasonable criticism, and I am sure that His Majesty's Government would be the last people in the world to desire that they should escape from reasonable criticism. For myself, I fully admit that at some points this Agreement contains stipulations which I regard as of the utmost value. At other points I am bound to say that the balance-seems to me to incline in a marked manner against this country. But a great deal will undoubtedly depend upon the manner in which the Convention is interpreted by the Russian Government. Upon the Russian Government and upon its agents it will depend whether those direct relations which we are now obliged to allow on the Afghan frontier are used for legitimate purposes. Upon them will depend whether the free access which has been given to the Buddhist pilgrims who desire to visit Lhasa is made a pretext for political intrigue. Upon them it will depend whether those British concessions which the Russian Government have bound themselves to maintain in Persia are denied or really receive fair play.
I venture to express my confidence that this Agreement will be loyally and honourably interpreted by the Russian Government. This Convention seems to me to mark the beginning of a new era in our relations with Russia. Let us not forget that it was Russia that sought this Agreement, for until lately we know that she kept us at arm's length. I think we are justified in regarding this as denoting a fundamental change in the Asiatic policy of Russia, and, I hope, a greatly improved disposition towards this country. We have met Russia not only in the case of this Convention, but on other occasions, fairly and straightforwardly. We have done so whether at the moment fortune was smiling or frowning upon her enterprises. Therefore I, for one, am not afraid to say that I am ready to trust Russia to observe this Agreement in a spirit of absolute

1335
loyalty. I say that although it contains provisions in regard to which I entertain some misgivings. If it is interpreted in that spirit, then I hope we may look upon it as one which will heal many old sores, which will allay dangerous rivalries, which will draw two great nations closer together, and which will make for what is after all the greatest of all British interests—the interest of international peace.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, this debate, which, I think, by common consent of the House, would be described as one of extraordinary interest, has been so far conducted entirely by experts. I am sorry to spoil the average which would have been maintained if my noble friend the Leader of the House had been able to be present this evening, but I regret to say that I heard this morning that he is laid up with what, I hope, is not a serious attack of influenza, and that he will, therefore, I am afraid, be unable to be in the House for some days. In these circumstances I must ask the indulgence of noble Lords opposite while I endeavour to reply to the various points which have been raised in the course of the debate.
But before I do so, I hope I may be allowed to take the first opportunity I have had of expressing the pleasure it gives me, both as a political opponent and as a very old personal friend, to see Lord Curzon in the House. It was almost too much to hope that the noble Lord would have been able to take part in the Irish debate on the Address, and it was, therefore, with particular pleasure; that I observed the noble Lord's notice on the Paper dealing with three countries of which he has a greater first-hand knowledge, for we know he has visited two of them and has had political dealings with the third. The noble Lord presented his case, as one would expect, in a manner which was powerful, lucid, and complete, and I, for one, heard his speech with great admiration. If I were to make a criticism on it I should say that, in dealing with the extraordinary mass of detail which he handled, he sometimes seemed to lose sight of the broader aspects of the case; to use a common expression, he sometimes did not quite
1336
see the wood for the trees. That was an aspect which was brought out in the speech of the noble Earl who followed him—Lord Cromer—who, with other noble Lords, reminded us that it is important to regard this Agreement as a whole. At the same time, of course, the noble Lord, and any other noble Lord, is fully entitled to draw attention to any detail which seems to him unsatisfactory.
Looking at the matter in its broad aspect, what is the effect on our relations with Russia? I most cordially reecho everything that fell from the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, on that subject. The noble Marquess knows as well as anybody in the House that for ten years past our relations with Russia have been, generally speaking, of a somewhat uncomfortable character, and more than once even threatening. We are glad to know that the carrying out of this Agreement showed, as the noble Marquess has said, a friendly disposition on the part of Russia, and since its conclusion I think it can be said without the slightest hesitation that our relations with that Power are of an infinitely more pleasant character than they were before. The Convention has also been carried through without causing complications in any other part of the world. The noble Lord, Lord Curzon, asked what the opinion of Persia might be supposed to be. We have had no word of protest from Persia on the subject, and it may interest noble Lords to know that a very distinguished Persian statesman within the last few days expressed himself in most favourable terms of the Convention, because he believed that the financial difficulties of Persia had been very largely due to the rivalry between Russia and ourselves in that country, and, although he did not say so, I take it that he meant that the actual effect of that rivalry had been rather to exploit than to develop the resources of Persia.
I could not help thinking that Lord Curzon somewhat under-rated, in the course of his arguments, the actual position which Russia has obtained as regards influence in Persia; and the noble Viscount Lord Midleton, developed what, if I may say so, was a very ingenious argument, to the effect that

1337
what I will briefly call the loan transaction might have been carried through, giving us practically all we have at present merely on condition of the loan, and without involving us in any reciprocal obligations to Russia. That may be so, but I should like to ask the noble Viscount, if that had happened, what sort of a position should we have been in to object to Persia's making any independent arrangement with Russia not merely of the present kind, but possibly of a kind more damaging to our interests. That seems to me to answer the point raised by the noble Viscount.
Before this Convention was concluded, what was the position of Russia in relation to Persia? So far as commercial advantages were concerned, noble Lords know that the Trans-Caspian Railway brought Moscow and other great centres of industry into something like immediate relations with Persia. Then Russia, at great expense, had made three very fine roads from her frontier to Teheran and elsewhere. Russia had advanced some three millions sterling by way of loan to the Persian Government. Then, as regards the military position, the Trans-Caspian Railway, of course, consolidated that, and it was further consolidated by the extension of the Caucasian Railway to the Persian frontier. Take another fact—what is called the Cossack Guard. It is called a guard, but it consists of 1,500 Cossacks, led by Russian officers, and it is not merely posted at Teheran, but is distributed in detachments in other parts of the country. All those facts taken together mean a position of great power and influence, and therefore when Lord Curzon seemed to imply, as he appeared to do in the course of his argument, that we were almost in a position to dictate terms to Russia in this matter, he surely was travelling beyond what was justified by the facts of the case.
Then as regards the South—although, as the noble Marquess said, we may have different ideas as to what constitute the North and South of Persia—speaking generally, we have, of course, a paramount position, but, on the other hand, there has been some natural tendency, from the trade development in the North, for Russian trade to extend
1338
further South. When the noble Marquess therefore talked of the danger of the neutral zone becoming, as he said, purely Russian, one has to remind him that, after all, we are dealing with more or less accomplished facts, and that if we had attempted to include in the British sphere a part of Persia in which Russian trade was becoming predominant, even supposing that we could prevent the extension of Russian trade, which, after all, by no means followed, we should then have been making an arbitrary and artificial agreement of a kind almost sure to lead to complication and difficulty in the future. To continue as regards the South. Our position in the South is, no doubt, paramount, but it would not now be true to say that Russia has no influence there. Russia, as the noble Lord knows, subsidises a line of steamers to the Gulf, which certainly was not the case when he was travelling in those parts of the world. She has also established Consuls-General at Bushire as well as at Ispahan, and Consuls at Bandar Abbas and various other places in the South.
When we come to this question of the delimitation of spheres, I am inclined to ask my noble friend whether he remembers what the opinion of the Indian Government was on this matter during the time that he was Viceroy. At that time some arrangement of this kind was contemplated as possible, and the Indian Government intimated their opinion of what the sphere was over which Russia exercised a political and commercial influence. That sphere was not the same as this, but in some respects it was a considerably less advantageous one for us than that embodied in the present Agreement. It did not include Ispahan, but it did include the British trade route which the noble Lord mentioned from Khanikin to Teheran.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Is the noble Lord alluding to some Despatch of the Government of India in my day, or to an expression of opinion?
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am alluding to an expression of opinion of the Indian Government.
LORD QURZON OF KEDLESTON: What form did it take?
THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid I must ask the noble Lord to give notice of that Question.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Surely, my Lords, it is hardly fair that the noble Earl, by way of making a point apparently against me, should quote from some expression of opinion which he cannot describe, of the origin of which he is uncertain, and as to which he is not quite certain whether it can properly be attributed to me, but which is alleged to have emanated from the Indian Government during the time of my Viceroyalty.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The expression of opinion emanated from the Indian Government. How far the noble Lord, as Viceroy, was responsible for it I am not in a position to say. But I assume that in respect of this, as of all despatches which emanated from the Indian Government during his time, he would take responsibility. The point I make is this. The noble Lord criticises, as he has a perfect right to do, the line drawn by our Convention. We are prepared to show that the Indian Government at that time favoured, or, at any rate, admitted as a possible line of delimitation, a different line, and one which in some respects was more unfavourable to our interests than that which is now embodied in the Convention. If the noble Lord desires to have that expression of opinion laid on the Table, we shall find no difficulty in doing so.
I will proceed to say what that line did. It included Yezd, over which the noble Lord shed a tear, and it passed through Kerman to a point just north of Seistan. Therefore not only was that sphere larger than that which Russia has now obtained, but it also included a considerable area of the Afghan frontier which is now in its entirety either within the British or the neutral sphere. Of course, the noble Lord is quite entitled to say that that proposition on the part of the Indian Government, if it were a proposition, was made upon the under-
1340
standing that the whole of the rest of Persia would fall under our influence, and that therefore this particular line ought not properly to be compared with the line which we have suggested, or, rather, carried into effect, in the Convention, because he would under no circumstances have admitted the principle of a neutral zone, and if his line had been taken we should have obtained a very much larger portion of Persia under our influence than that which we obtain under the existing Agreement. That may be so, but, at the same time we think that the advantage of obtaining, as we have obtained, either a neutrality or an influence along the Afghan frontier very much outweighs considerations of that kind.
But we do not admit that the neutral zone is in itself a disadvantage. There is a tendency sometimes to talk as though this were a partition of Persia. Everyone knows it is not, but language is sometimes used in argument as to the effect upon our commercial position there, as though the partition of Persia were taking place, with the possible results of a partition in the power of injuring trade. As my noble friend Lord Reay pointed out, and as the noble Lord opposite knows perfectly well, our commercial position in Persia does not in substance depend upon this Convention at all, but upon our commercial treaties with that country; and we believe it will be a distinct advantage to have this neutral zone between the two spheres of influence in which the rivalry will be of a purely commercial, and not at all of a political character. The noble Marquess admitted that strategically we had obtained all that he could wish.
On the point of the Persian Gulf, the noble Marquess who has just sat down went so far as to admit that there were very strong reasons for not including any mention of the Persian Gulf in the Convention itself. But the noble Marquess asked whether it might not have been possible to have obtained some definite and authentic declaration from the Russian Government on the subject. As a matter of fact, the Russian Foreign Minister did hand to our Ambassador at St. Petersburg a document explaining

1341
that the Russian Government did not deny our especial interests in the Persian Gulf, and a special note of the receipt of that document was taken in the reply to the Russian Foreign Minister. I do not know whether that meets the question of the noble Marquess. Our position in the Persian Gulf is very much that of Russia in the northern parts of the frontier of Persia—it is reserved and regulated by the logic of facts; and whether any further advantage could be obtained by a more formal recognition of that by the Russian Government seems to me to be open to great doubt, having obtained, as we have, the document which I have described.
As regards Afghanistan, I repeat that the advantage to us of having the frontier of that country within the British or neutral sphere is of the greatest possible value. That fact was recognised long ago by Lord Salisbury, who realised what the dangers might be, if the British and Russian frontiers were coterminous on the borders of Afghanistan, in having to deal with any isolated incident of the kind mentioned by the noble Marquess, arising, perhaps, from the imprudence, or even the bad faith, of some subordinate on the spot. It was because of the nonexistence of such a barrier that the Penjdeh incident occurred. I confess, therefore, I do not see how Lord Curzon was able to argue that there was a positive additional danger arising from the arrangements devised under this Agreement. Then the noble Lord went on to say that, after all, this was only the twelfth assurance we had received in relation to Afghanistan, and he could not see that it had much more value than former assurances. That statement has been answered more than once during the debate from both sides of the House. There surely is a very distinct difference between the mere expression of an intention given, as has been said, only while the same condition of things lasted, and a formal instrument drawn up between the Sovereigns and the Governments of Great Britain and Russia.
As the noble Lord knows, difficulties have actually arisen, after several of these declarations have been made, between the Russian Government and ourselves as to the proper interpretation
1342
which ought to be put upon those declarations. There was a time, unless I am mistaken, when the Russian Government were not willing to admit that political agents ought to be altogether excluded from Afghanistan. Anything of that kind is now rendered absolutely impossible by the direct veto which is put upon any such interference in the Agreement. Of course, it is open to the noble Lord, or to anyone else, to say that commercial agents may act politically, but how that, under any circumstances, is to be prevented without building a complete wall round the country and denying admission to anybody, it is difficult to see.
Then the noble Marquess asked me one or two questions about the Articles of Agreement with reference to Afghanistan. As regards Article I, the French version, of course, is the one which has to be taken as binding, and if there is any real discrepancy in the English translation the correction will, of course, be made. But I confess I do not see that the sense is otherwise than perfectly clear, as it is obvious that in an Agreement referring to Afghanistan it could only be in Afghanistan that the interference could possibly occur. As to Article II, I take it to be perfectly clear that if the Ameer fails to keep his obligations we are released from ours, and, ipso facto, released from them in relation to Russia in the same way as we are in relation to the Ameer himself. The noble Marquess did not ask me to give him an answer to his question relating to Article III, but the point he raises shall certainly be borne in mind. As regards Article IV, there is no doubt an apparent inequality, but I understand that when the Agreement was being discussed it was not thought worth while to press this point, on the ground that our position in relation to Afghanistan was such that concessions of a kind damaging to us were most unlikely to be given to Russian traders without at any rate our agreement.
Then with regard to Tibet, we are asked how we came to introduce Tibet into this Agreement at all—a country which is so far from Russia and so near to India. That question, I think, has

1343
really been answered by Lord Lansdowne. We have only carried out the noble Marquess's policy as explained in the conversation he had with the Russian Ambassador in 1904, and I do not think we have departed from that in any material point. The fact of the Chinese suzerainty over Tibet has never been seriously contested by anybody, and I thought the noble Marquess put it somewhat strongly when he spoke of our influence there as being almost of the nature of another suzerainty. It is perfectly true that our interests in Tibet or in the integrity of Tibet, were of a very special kind, but we have not yet attained, neither have we ever attempted to claim, any joint suzerainty with China over that country. As to the integrity of Tibet, I take it there is no difference of opinion. Mr. Balfour stated in another place that the less we or Russia had to do with Tibet the better, and that, I suppose, is the common opinion of statesmen in this country. But the fact that Russia has been brought into the matter at all was due, as appears from the conversation which the noble Marquess opposite had with Count Benckendorff, to its being part of a larger arrangement affecting our relations with Russia, not only in Asia, but in other parts of the world. That being so, if there was no objection in itself to bringing Tibet into the Agreement with Russia, it was a very good reason for doing so, and I think that, if the Agreement had been carried out by the noble Marquess, the same thing would have occurred.
As regards the pilgrims, Lord Reay explained very clearly that, as a matter of fact, it would be impossible to stop the pilgrimages from the Russian side, and, that being so, it would be futile to attempt to do so by way of agreement. What has happened is that the pilgrimages are placed on a firm footing, and it becomes a duty on the part of Russia to see that they are pilgrimages and not anything else. The noble Marquess opposite has taken some exception to Article IV. I understood the noble Marquess's argument to be that we had agreed with Tibet that no other Power should obtain concessions or in any way interfere in Tibetan matters, and that by joining Russia in a similar declaration we had deprived
1344
ourselves of the power of departing from that declaration if we found it necessary to do so. But if, as I believe, the declaration was taken to apply to ourselves just as much as to other countries, I do not see how that point arises. We did not, as I understand, reserve to ourselves the power of entering Tibet to the exclusion of everyone else, and if we exclude ourselves, the mere fact that we agree with Russia to exclude ourselves and Russia does not seem to me to alter the position in the slightest degree. I may say, in reply to the noble Marquess, that it is perfectly true that the Chumbi Valley has been evacuated. It has been evacuated because the conditions for its evacuation have been complied with.
I have made what I fear is a very imperfect attempt to deal with the various points raised in the course of this debate. We believe that this Agreement will stand, as fully as can be expected of any such Agreement, and particularly of one of such a far-reaching kind, detailed examination without its being found possible to pick too many holes in it. We also believe that the Russian Government will loyally carry out its provisions so far as they affect her. We think, therefore, that, considered in its broader aspect, this Agreement will not only tend to the most desirable result of closer amity with Russia, but also achieve what, after all, is the main object of all our diplomacy—the assurance of the peace of Europe, and thereby of the whole civilised world.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord for the kindly terms on which he welcomed me to your Lordships' House. I cannot promise him an early intrusion into Irish discussions, although even that is a frontier which I may some day cross. At any rate the noble Lord has provided me with ample material for a short reply in regard to the three countries about which we have been speaking. My Motion in the form in which it was drawn up contained a request for Papers; but understanding from the noble Lord who represents the Foreign Office that His Majesty's Government did not think it desirable to lay any Papers upon this

1345
matter, I desisted from that portion of my Motion.
Noble Lords opposite have replied to that act of abstention on my part in a somewhat peculiar and, I venture to think, although I speak without any great experience of this House, in a somewhat irregular manner. Lord Fitzmaurice in the debate the other day quoted at some length from a Paper which appeared to be a Report of a private Committee that sat in the India Office or the Foreign Office during the time I was in India. I do not recollect that Report; nor do I remember the opinion, if any, which I was called upon to give upon it. But the noble Lord quoted it apparently to put me in a difficult position. I submit that the noble Lord ought not to have adopted that course unless the Paper was already on the Table.
LORD FITZMAURICE: I had no wish to put the noble Lord in a difficult position. I only wanted to show that the two lines were practically identical.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The noble Earl has gone even further, because he referred to Papers about the identity of which he was uncertain, and he certainly did quote them in order to put me in a difficult position. His object was to show that while I was in India the Government of India had apparently written a despatch in which they had cither proposed or agreed to a line of demarcation between the Russian and British spheres in Persia.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I had no desire to put the noble Lord in a difficult position. My intention was simply one of self-defence.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I do not know that the noble Lord has been attacked; therefore there was no necessity for his defending himself.
THE EARL OF CREWE: The Government have been attacked.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: The noble Earl's object was to show that while I was in India apparently I recom
1346
mended a line of demarcation between British and Russian spheres of influence in Persia which disabled me from the position which I took up the other day. I deny that in toto. The noble Earl asked me whether I would accept responsibility for the despatches of the Government of India about Persia. I do, because to the best of my recollection I wrote every one of them myself. I should be very glad indeed if the particular despatch to which the noble Earl alludes, or, indeed, the whole of the despatches which I wrote about Persia while I was in India were laid upon the Table of your Lordships' House. They would show the steady efforts of the Government of India for the affirmation and consolidation of British interests in Persia. As regards the interpretation to be put upon this particular despatch my recollection does not in the least bear out what the noble Earl has said; and I believe that if the despatch were laid upon the Table he would find that a very different impression would be produced.
This debate has produced a number of very interesting and important speeches, but I think I am carrying with me the majority of those who were present on Thursday when I say it has not produced anything in the nature of a reply to the detailed criticism that was passed upon the contents of this treaty. Whenever we have got to close quarters with His Majesty's Government they have taken shelter under the formula that we must not look at the details, but be content to examine the treaty as a whole. They are even ready to admit that they have made a doubtful and perhaps a bad bargain in certain particulars, but they contend that a doubtful and bad bargain is better than no bargain at all. I admit the validity of that contention as far as it goes; but I submit that it is placing rather a considerable draft on our confidence, because it amounts to a claim that we, who know nothing of the negotiations, or of the degree of valour with which the British Government backed up British interests, are bound to accept whatever terms they submit to this country on the simple assurance from them that the result will be more harmonious relations between some other Great Power and ourselves.

1347
It is obvious how immense and dangerous an extension might be given to this plea. We might have some future Government concluding a treaty with France in which they gave up, for instance, the Channel Islands, and they might come here and say: "You must not look at the details, the sum total is that we shall have more harmonious and friendly relations than before." I remember that much the same argument was applied to the cession of Heligoland to Germany, and I cannot say that is an experiment that has been altogether justified in the state of feeling it has produced. Therefore, I do not feel at all inclined to absolve the Government from the duty of answering the criticisms of this treaty point by point.
The fact that so little has been said with regard to the individual clauses of the treaty leads me to think that the task of defence has been found one of great difficulty. May I briefly allude to those points of the criticism directed against the Government which, as it appears to me, have met with no reply at all, or with an unsatisfactory reply? Lord Fizmaurice spent a good deal of time the other day in answering a speech which I did not make. He had evidently studied the views of Professor Vambéry in advance, and imagined that I had used some of his arguments. I am not Professor Vambéry, and I was unfamiliar with his views. That considerable authority, when the fact of the treaty was announced in the newspapers, did most heartily welcome it, but as soon as he saw the terms of the treaty he retracted his approbation and denounced it in rather violent terms.
As regards Persia, one of the points that have been made most strongly from these Benches is that the Russian sphere has been drawn with an elasticity and exaggeration that find no justification in the arguments advanced by the Government; and that it is likely to be inimical to British commercial interests in the future. To that no reply has been vouchsafed except on one point. Lord Fitzmaurice has told us that the trade route from Baghdad, by way of Khanikin, to Teheren, had been included in the Russian sphere because
1348
Russia put her foot down and said but for that concession she would not conclude the treaty. Well, that is a very suggestive admission; it rather indicates the spirit in which this treaty was negotiated. One would like to know whether it ever occurred to His Majesty's Government to be in a situation in which it became them to put their foot down and say: "We must have this point conceded or there will be no treaty at all." I very much doubt if the secret records of the Foreign Office contain any mention of an incident of the kind.
The noble Lord said it was only reasonable that this trade route should be handed over to Russia, because when the Germans made their railway from Baghdad to the frontier Russia would desire to make the extension to Teheran. But is not the proposition equally valid that the extension to Banda Abbas should one day be carried forward under British influence? The noble Lord who spoke just now laid much stress on the evidences of Russian interests in the north of Persia; he spoke of roads, of concessions of various descriptions, and of Cossacks—they, by the way, were not bona fide Cossacks, but Persians in Cossack uniform, with a few Russian officers—but none of this evidence of Russian interest has been contested; nor has that part of the treaty handing over the northern part of Persia to Russia met with criticism; where we do feel alarmed is when we leave that sphere and come to the neutral sphere—to the south. Any argument that can be put forward in favour of Russian influence in the north can be more strongly advanced for British influence in the south.
The noble Lord seems to think that the account of the condition of things I gave your Lordships dated from the time when I was in Persia for the first time, fifteen years ago or more. I would not have presumed to have based my statement to your Lordships' House on such ancient, obsolete experience. I was in Persia not five years ago, and I say that, so far from His Majesty's Government recognising facts as they now are as they claim to have done, they have entirely ignored the position that existed at that time. In the

1349
whole of Southern Persia British influence was absolutely predominant over the sea; in the ports, on the trade routes that influence predominated, and I cannot understand what reason can be advanced for our exclusion from competition in that part of the neutral zone.
There is one point which has been made more than once, to the effect that British concessionaires will lose nothing by this treaty. Well, I should like to put that to practical test. There is a most important concession in the south of Persia held by a firm, the leading member of which is a Member of the other House, and a supporter of His Majesty's Government. I allude to Mr. Lynch. The route runs from Karum River to Kermanshah, and there is another from Arnaz to Ispahan. On these two routes the firm has spent enormous sums of money, and has been assisted by subsidies from the Home Government and the Indian Government. Under the Agreement these are in the neutral sphere, but the terminus is in the Russian sphere. I would suggest to the noble Lord that he should put the question to Mr. Lynch, one of the supporters of his Government, whether he considers the prospect of the enterprise, to which he has devoted so much money and patriotic energy, is as good now as before the Convention was concluded. I think he will say the prospect is very different.
Upon one point I was glad to hear an explanation. My noble friend and others have been somewhat disquieted at the terms in which the Russian declaration about the Persian Gulf was conveyed. We could not understand why the declaration did not appear with the name of the Russian Minister, but was only included in the form of quotations from conversations. It is gratifying to be told as we were just now by the noble Lord that the assurances were contained in a letter from the Russian Minister to our Foreign Secretary, and I am only surprised that His Majesty's Government did not do us the favour of letting us see the document itself. An argument has been used about the Gulf which I confess I do not understand. What has been said as to the difficulty of making any statement as to our direct
1350
interest in the Persian Gulf where other Powers may be said to have interests also has impressed me very considerably. But when the noble Lord and others went on to argue that our position in the Gulf was strengthened by exclusion of mention of the Persian Gulf I confess I could not follow him. I have friends and correspondents on the Persian Gulf, and I am sure if the noble Lord visited that part of the world he would not find a single individual in any responsible position who would say, and I very much doubt if the Government of India would say that our position is strengthened by the omission. I notice that the Russian newspaper Novoe Vremya welcomed the omission of any mention of the Gulf in the treaty on the ground that it might open the way to Russia for the future gratification of her ambitions in that quarter.
And now a word or two in reference to Afghanistan. No attempt of any sort has been made to answer the questions we have addressed to the Government as to the apparent failure to obtain reciprocal right from Russia in respect to trade with the khanates of Khiva and Bokhara, where we have for several years been endeavouring, without success, to obtain concessions. We might have supposed that something would have been said about Chinese Turkestan. What would have been more natural than that we should have recognition from Russia of the rights of our Consul at Kashgar when we were making concessions to Russia; that when we were entering into self-denying ordinances in regard to Tibet we should ask for similar self-denying ordinances from Russia? There were some other points in regard to Afghanistan, but I will not trouble the House with them now.
In regard to Tibet, there has been no attempt whatever to justify the remarkable Article by which we take Russia into consultation about our evacuation of the Chumbi Valley, and the fulfilment or the reverse by the Tibetans of their undertakings with with us. The argument of the noble Earl practically amounts to this: "We have really been carrying out in all loyalty the policy of our predecessors, and it is not for you to object, because

1351
we have done nothing more than you would have done yourselves." But can you seriously take that line? I have a series of quotations from conversations between my noble friend and the Russian Ambassador giving more than once the views and intentions of His Majesty's Government, and it is perfectly clear that he did no more than repeat the declaration of intentions made in both Houses. He also more than once repeated the claim that in consequence of our geographical position Great Britain would continue to occupy a tutelary position towards Tibet. That was the claim upon which the action of the late Government and the expedition were based. But has any predominance in Tibet been left to Great Britain by this Convention? The whole point of this part of the Agreement is that Russia is taken into partnership with equal lights to our own. When the noble Earl contends that the late Government, had it remained in office, would have carried out this Agreement, he does an injustice to the late Government which its members have every reason to resent.
The most serious part of this Tibet policy is that disclosed in the speech of the noble Lord when he defined the present policy of His Majesty's Government as a "minimising" policy. That is a diplomatic euphemism for throwing away all the advantages that were gained by the trouble and expenditure of the expedition. I remember in old days that the late Mr. Gladstone once described a retreat of British troops as a strategical movement to the rear, and in this case this minimising policy means that, after having undertaken this great outlay and having been successful, we have replaced China, or rather we have placed her in Tibet in a position she never before enjoyed, and we have left Tibet, with whom we had every prospect of opening friendly relations, to lapse into the condition of monkish superstition and churlish isolation she occupied for so long.
There is one argument on which great stress has been laid outside the House, by the omission of which here I have been much struck, and that is the security of India. There is not one of us who
1352
would not hope that the security of our Indian Empire—immeasurably sacred and strategically important as it is—had been fortified and secured by an agreement with Russia. If we could think that, many of us would throw away the doubts with which we have regarded particular parts of this Agreement. But the fact that the Government have made no allusion to that possible result leads me to think that it is one on which they are not inclined to lay overmuch stress themselves. However that may be, I hope that nothing has occurred under this Convention which will induce His Majesty's Government to relax in the smallest degree the efforts to which we are bound for the defence of Indian territory. I hope there will be no reduction of military forces in that country, no reduction by a single rupee in the expenditure to which we are committed for its defence. If favourable results are to ensue from this Convention, I hope that they may be found over the whole sphere of diplomacy.
The noble Lord laid immense stress upon the attitude of friendly and harmonious co-operation which was springing up between Russia and ourselves in consequence of this Agreement in all parts of the world. If that be true, then that attitude between the two Powers ought to be directed to the solution of many questions hitherto at issue between us. Only the day before this debate was opened, I happened to be reading a report of proceedings in another place and I came across this Question and Answer—
"Mr. Pike Pease asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if there were any outstanding cases with regard to compensation for damage or loss incurred by British ships during the Russo-Japanese war. Mr. Rumanian, on behalf of the Foreign Minister, replied: 'My right hon. friend regrets to state that most of these cases are still outstanding. Though His Majesty's Government have repeatedly called attention to the case of the "Knight Commander," and pressed for a reply to their proposal that the matter should be referred to aribtration, no answer has, down to the present time, been received from the Russian Government. His Majesty's Government are also awaiting replies to communications they have addressed to the Imperial Government in regard to the case of the "Calchas," and the claims arising in connection with the detention of the Peninsular and Oriental steamer "Malacca" in the Red Sea. The cases of the "Hipsang," "St. Kilda," "Ikhona," and

1353
"Oldhamia" are still pending, in various stages" before the Russian Prize Courts.'"
It is apparently a very long time that these claims have been outstanding. I venture to say that it would be a most satisfactory test of the relations which His Majesty's Government claim to have set up between the Russian Government and themselves, and a most happy omen for the future, which we all without distinction of party would welcome, if we could have some evidence of the existence of that harmony and co-operation which is the real and sole basis of the treaty concluded by His Majesty's Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBUBN): Does the noble Lord press his Motion?
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No, I withdraw it.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.