On this Bill the parties have arrived at an agreement which is virtually' though not in the same words, the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper. I therefore propose to withdraw my Amendment, and to move instead the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Hull, and, finally, to move the agreed proviso.

I desire to call the attention of the House to a new departure in connection with this Bill, and I will ask the Vice-President for some expression of opinion as to the course which has been pursued. A very extraordinary proceeding was adopted by the London School Board in the case of the Netley Street Schools in St. Pancras. In the immediate vicinity of these schools there is a very large and flourishing Church school, and before the School Board proceeded with the scheme for the enlargement of the Netley Street Schools, they instructed the visitors, who are the attendance officers of the Board, to make a house-to-house canvass of the parents of the children attending the Church schools. I venture to think that that was an exceedingly improper and probably an illegal course to have taken. The visitors are officers appointed to secure the attendance of children at Board and Voluntary schools alike, and it can only be regarded as a serious abuse of authority that they should be taken away from their proper duties to take part in a partisan canvass of this character. I maintain that those officers were deliberately taken away from their duties to participate in this party canvass, and to use information obtained for a totally different purpose, in order to carry out the policy of the School Board. I hope we shall have from the Vice-President a very candid opinion as to these tactics. I do not think they are conducive to the interests of education, or that they are legal, and I trust that the Education Department will take steps to prevent their recurrence. The only other matter to which I desire to direct the attention of the Vice-President is with regard to the accommodation in the Voluntary schools. A great many of the schools in this Bill calculate their accommodation upon what is known as the ten-foot basis. I wish to know whether the School Board is acting under the sanction of the Education Department in enlarging those schools upon that basis without reckoning the accommodation in neighbouring Voluntary schools. I know that in the minds of many members of the School Board for London there is a doubt as to the action that would be taken by the Department, and it is very desirable that there should be an understanding. I do not desire to prevent the passing of this Bill, and I only rise to draw attention to the two points I have mentioned.

I desire to call attention to another aspect of this Bill. Attention has been called to the action of the London School Board in vastly increasing the enormous difficulty of the housing problem in London by taking possession of working-class dwellings without making any accommodation for their occupants elsewhere. The Board is under statutory obligation to provide accommodation elsewhere if they take more than twenty houses, but they directly evade that obligation by breaking up what is practically one scheme into a number of parts, no one of which would involve the taking of twenty houses, thereby escaping the obligation laid on them by Parliament. As regards Bethnal Green, it has been proved to the satisfaction of the Home Secretary that that course has actually been followed by the London School Board. The Bill now before the House remedies that evil by the Amendment introduced yesterday, and I merely desire to explain that in consequence of the assurance given by the right hon. gentleman the Home Secretary I do not intend to move the Amendment that stands in my name, and I thank him on behalf of my constituency for his action.

In reply to the hon. Member for West Bradford, the Education Department have nothing to do with the proceedings of the London School Board attendance officers. I have no official knowledge of the matter he has mentioned. From what I have heard I think it is extremely improper, but the remedy is not with the Education Department; it rests mainly with the ratepayers if they disapprove of the action of the Board. With regard to the ten foot basis, the Education Department is not bound by the calculation of the London School Board. They calculate the number of school places in accordance with the provision in the Code, and enlargements are made, having regard not only to existing deficiency, but also to prospective deficiency. The Department acts in accordance with what is laid down in the Code, without any reference to the London School Board.

If the right hon. Gentleman will investigate the point raised by my hon. friend, he will find that there is more in it than he imagines. What I understand is that the London School Board, in calculating the amount of accommodation required, looks round to see what other school accommodation exists, and they cast their eyes on a number of Voluntary schools, for which they have no particular sympathy; and if the School Board takes an extravagant basis and calculates on it, and then puts the onus on the Voluntary schools of proving that they have a sufficient amount of accommodation, a deficiency at once arises. When the School Board approaches the Department with a case calculated on this basis, unless the Department is vigilant—

It is vigilant.

I am glad to hear it, but I think it is not as vigilant as it ought to be.

I think it right at this stage to point out that there is an important principle involved in this Bill. The Government have proceeded on the footing that there ought to be equalisation of the stipends of the canons in this cathedral, whereas previously some of the canons had too much and others too little. The very same thing obtains throughout the whole of the Church of England, and I hope that, having begun with the principle of equalisation in this Bill, that principle will be carried out in the interest of justice, and of the Church, in a larger measure with regard to the stipends of ministers in the Church of England as a whole. If that were done, it would be found that the low salaries of so many clergymen could be easily put right, and the apparent injustice to so many clergy with small incomes would be remedied without any resort to more drastic measures.

I wish to call attention on a point of order to a new clause which was added to the Bill, and which refers to a matter of local rating, and is not an ordinary case of lending money out of the Public Works Loan Fund. Even assuming that it is competent to introduce the matter of the extension of the local area for rating, it ought to be limited to the purposes of the Public Works Commission. I submit that that part of the clause takes the clause outside the scope of the Bill.

I cannot rule the clause out of order on the grounds stated.

I am in hopes that the hon. Gentleman will now withdraw his Amendment.

The character of the discussion is entirely altered by the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made to the Committee yesterday to the effect that this is an emergency Bill indemnifying certain Governments in regard to certain steps taken by the Crown agents. I do not, therefore, propose to press the Amendment. I may, however, be allowed to say that the right hon. Gentleman cannot hold the House responsible for the step the Government has taken.

I am quite ready to accept all responsibility.

These words were in the other Bill, but on the principle of this Bill I would rather object to them, for they might affect the growing revenues of these colonists. I may add that in one of the Papers issued to us Sir David Barbour, speaking of the Home Government giving some aid to Jamaica, said that the Secretary of State should obtain a greater control over the finances of Jamaica than he possesses.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but it is unnecessary to put these words into what has become an emergency Bill. But as a matter of fact, the Government have control over the Colonies specified in the Bill.

I should be out of order in making any remarks as to the policy of granting these loans. But taking that for granted, it is very necessary that we should discuss the conditions under which the loans should be granted. The principal ground on which I ask the Committee to agree with the Amendment I now rise to move is, that it is necessary in the interest of the British taxpayer. No one will deny that in regard to these loans there is a greater element of risk than if the loans were made on home securities. First of all, there is the fact that the very position of the countries for which these loans are to be made is such that they are far more liable to changes in their financial condition than England. My second point is that, so far as I can understand, no real searching inquiry has been made into the position of, at all events, a number of the investments proposed in the Bill. If a similar loan were proposed to a local authority in England, the Local Government Board would inquire very carefully as to the exact conditions under which the loan would be made. No one in this House is more willing than I am to admit the exceptional business capacity of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary; but it is not a question of his personal capacity, it is a question of principle. In the interests of financial security, the rate of interest should be higher than 2¾ per cent. The security cannot be so good as in a case where money is advanced on the security of local rates in England; the nature of the undertaking prevents it; and, moreover, there is no practical security outside the undertaking itself. Take the case of the loan to the Gold Coast. In the year 1896–7 there was a deficit in the revenue of £45,000. It is true that, according to the statement distributed yesterday, the revenue for 1898 had gone up from £237,000 to £267,000, but there was no information given as to the expenditure, so that it is impossible to see whether that increase is any proof of enhanced security. In the case of Jamaica, it is proposed to advance a sum of £150,000. Since 1891 up to the present time, with the exception of the years 1894 and 1895, there has been a very large annual deficit, which, last year, amounted to the huge sum of £154,000. Under these circumstances, how can it be said that it is a sound transaction financially to advance this sum at such a low rate of interest? It is proposed to advance to the railway £88,000 for arrears in debenture interest, and £110,000 for the further construction of the railway. The Government of the colony is involved in an annual charge amounting to something like£35,000 in respect of that railway. Again I ask, how can this proposal be defended on financial grounds? Then it must be remembered that these loans do not form a first charge upon these undertakings. In Clause 2 it is provided that these loans should have priority over subsequent charges, but everyone knows that the security for a loan of this kind depends, not upon subsequent charges, but upon what comes before. I have tried to measure the element of risk involved, and now comes the question whether the minimum rate of interest which I propose is too high. In reference to loans made upon the security of local rates in this country, the scale of the Public Works Loans Board, under the Education Act and the Public Health Act, was, for loans to be repaid in thirty-five years, 3½ per cent.; forty years, 3¾ per cent.; fifty years, 4 per cent. That was prior to 1897, in which year the rate of interest was altered in the case of a thirty years' loan to 2¾ per cent.; forty years, 3 per cent.; fifty years, 3¼ per cent. That brings it to within ¼ per cent. of the minimum rate which I propose. The nature of the securities upon which we propose to advance money to the colonies, and the position of the colonies themselves, make it necessary to provide a reserve against loss; and, taking the average rate of interest as being 3 per cent., I do not think that ½ per cent, is too large a percentage for that purpose. Another reason why this rate of interest should be higher is in the interests of justice to the field of home investments. It seems to me that there are a great many classes of investments in this country upon which money of this kind could be lent, and it is rather unjust to our own people to go out of our way to lend it at a low rate of interest outside the country, unless you base the whole of the policy upon the necessity of doing something by way of relief to these colonies. From the purely business standpoint, my case is a very strong one. With regard to the Malay Straits, is is proposed to advance half a million upon a railway. That railway has been constructed for 175 miles at a cost of £850,000, and has paid on an average 8 per cent. upon the cost. It is surely unnecessary for Parliament to sanction a loan of British public money to an undertaking in that position. I submit that if the security upon which these loans are to be made is a good one, there ought to be no difficulty in getting money through the ordinary channels of investment. On the other hand, if the security is a bad one, or not in every way a sound one, the money should not be lent without providing a certain margin to correspond with that greater element of risk. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, if he cannot agree to the full Amendment I propose, will, at all events, make the minimum rate of interest something above 2¾per cent., as it now stands in the Bill.

The acceptance of the Amendment would unnecessarily fetter the discretion of the Treasury, and I hope, after the explanation I made earlier in the discussion, the Amendment will not be pressed. We are not now attempting to lay down the principles of any great scheme of loans to colonies, but are dealing with an emergency Bill. The hon. Member in his concluding observations said, if the security by the colonies was good, he could see no reason why they should ask for Government assistance. That the security is good is proved by the fact that the colonies have been enabled to contract similar loans at 3 per cent., but the market would only take a certain amount of stock in a given period, and owing to the delay, to which frequent reference has been made, the amount the Crown agents have to place is very much above the average, and these able officials have found it impossible to place it all. It is for this reason, and for this reason alone, that we ask the House to provide the means, and I sincerely hope I shall never have to come again for such assistance, for though there are advantages on both sides, seeing the objections raised, it would probably not be worth while to raise the question again. The hon. Member says that 2¾per cent, is too low a rate, but that is the limit at present of the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and the practice is to vary the interest according to the terms of the loan, a practice that will be followed under the Bill. It is not to be assumed that the minimum will be the actual rate in all cases. Two colonies have been mentioned by way of illustration, and it may interest the Committee and tend to shorten discussion if, in anticipation of the discussion on the schedule, where these points may more properly arise, I refer to these cases. Taking first the Gold Coast, I find that colony in a most prosperous condition. True, it has a debt, and that may seem inconsistent with my last statement, but the debt arises from the deficits created by the Ashanti war and expenditure in the northern parts of the territory, separate items unconnected with the ordinary balance of accounts, for the territory may be considered as a separate colony, though for convenience the accounts have been mixed up with the administration of the southern portion. It is the intention of the Government to introduce a separate administration for the northern territory, when the accounts will be kept separate. But for the deficits arising from the Ashanti war, and expenditure in connection with the French proceedings in the hinterland of the Gold Coast, there would have been a large surplus. In 1897 the revenue was £287,000, and in 1898 it was £267,000; while in the first half of the present year it was £169,000, and it is estimated for the year at £338,000, an increase of something like 40 per cent. On the other hand, the expenditure for the first half of 1899 was £142,000, or for the year £284,000, and if this continues there will probably be a surplus of £54,000 on the year as between revenue and expenditure. The loan which is required is for a railway, which there is every reason to believe will be an extremely profitable undertaking. My opinion is based on the report of an expert who has made an exhaustive examination as to the probable cost of construction of the line and its returns. So that, quite independently of the fact that the colony is in a good financial condition, there is every reason to believe that the expenditure now contemplated will add to the revenue. The security will be the whole of the assets, the whole of the revenue of the colony; any surplus from the railway will go to the assets, and thus become answerable for the whole of the loan. In my opinion this is the best security that could be found, and I have not the slightest doubt that the money could be obtained in the market at 3 per cent., and I hope when the emergency is overcome by what I hope will be the decision of the House it will be unnecessary to come to Parliament again. Then the hon. Member went on to speak of the case of Jamaica. Jamaica is a typical case of a colony at present in great financial stress and needing help. There can be no doubt whatever in the mind of anyone who has read Sir D. Barbour's Report that Jamaica will be able to pay its own way in time, though for a year or two the colony will be in considerable straits. I have given a great deal of anxious attention to the condition of things in the colony, due probably to insufficient control on the part of the home Government. But it must be borne in mind that a constitution was deliberately conferred on Jamaica the defect of which was to give to the elected members control of finances, and I cannot help saying they have made an "awful mess of it," and the time will soon come when it will be necessary for the home Government to have larger control, especially if they are to have responsibility. Prosperous times, with large surpluses, are followed by bad times, and instead of decreasing expenditure and increasing taxation the local Govern- ment relied on its surplus, and having spent that began to create a deficit, which after several years has accumulated to the amount of£150,000. The bad state of affairs arose from the falling off in revenue due to general depression of trade in the West Indies, and more especially in the sugar industry. But at present things are better, trade with the United States is prosperous, and so long as this continues Jamaica will not only be able to make ends meet, but probably in a short time will arrive at a surplus. The local Government has been impressed with the necessity for economising expenditure and increasing taxation, and next year it is hoped the returns will show an equilibrium between revenue and expenditure. In the more prosperous times the elected members have made a somewhat improvident bargain in regard to a railway. Some American speculators issued debentures for the construction of the line, and the local Government gave a guarantee that if interest on the debentures failed they would take over the responsibility and give the debenture holders 3½per cent. stock of the colony. I have nothing to say as to this bargain; it was disapproved of at the Colonial Office, but my predecessor felt that, in the circumstances, a constitution having been granted to the colony, it was not his duty to do more than point out the objections, without putting a veto on the proposal. I do not in the least dispute the accuracy of the decision at which my predecessor arrived, though personally I regret it did not prevent the bargain being concluded. Ultimately no doubt the local Government will take over the railway, and that will for a time involve an annual deficit. The line has got into great disorganisation, the rolling stock is insufficient, and the expert sent out, having advised what should be done, thinks that in course of time, with proper management, the line can be made to pay. Meantime Jamaica will be put to additional expenditure to provide the deficit between cost of working and receipts, and will be called upon to pay the arrears of interest, £88,000, and to find £100,000 odd for the equipment of the railway. Jamaica is in the position that, if not assisted, it must become bankrupt. Does anybody in the House contemplate that, in the case of a Crown colony over which this country has a large measure of control—a control we should have to increase and probably will increase by an addition to the number of official members on the local Government—does anybody contemplate our allowing such a colony to become bankrupt? I have made inquiry into this subject, for I am anxious to distinguish between the responsibility of the home Government and that of the colony, and I find that practically no distinction exists, except that under the present system we pay a higher rate of interest than we need. The actual state of affairs is this. Whether we do or do not guarantee a loan, we assume responsibility. We pay a higher rate in the market because we will not give in terms a guarantee which really in practice we have to maintain. No one can contemplate our allowing one of our colonies to repudiate its obligations, and that is a justification in my mind for the Bill. If the loan were not made, then I should have to ask the House to make a grant in aid, as in the case of smaller colonies in a bankrupt condition. I believe that if the loan were given at a reasonable rate of interest, in the course of two or three years, with the savings made and the reforms to be made, and the greater control the Colonial Office would be able to exercise, we should be able to bring this colony round without ultimate cost to the British Exchequer. I would suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and that it should be left to the discretion of the Treasury what the rate of interest for a particular loan should be.

We cannot allow a Crown colony to go bankrupt, and, whether we give a specific guarantee or not, if a Crown colony does not pay we shall have to pay. If the railroad paid they would derive the benefit of it; if it did not pay then the colony is to take it over. The Colonial Office was against that arrangement, and yet, if this doctrine be a true one, every Crown colony might enter into some sort of bargain of that kind and expend its credit in this reckless manner; and although the Colonial Office may protest against it we must make the loan. In Jamaica the Budget is voted by the elected Members, and they have spent money in the most reckless manner, and we are making ourselves liable for all their faults, and will have to pay if they cannot. The right hon. Gentleman says that this Bill is an emergency Bill, and that it does not lay down any general principle of colonial loans. The colonies have been advised that a Bill was going to be brought in by which we would give our direct security for the loans, and they have not in consequence gone to borrow money in the open market, although, assuming that their security is as good as the Colonial Secretary suggests it is, the colonies could probably borrow for the next six months from banks and other sources at a cheaper rate than the Government could borrow on its own security. We are told that this is an emergency Bill and must be carried this session. I do not see the force of that contention, and I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman as a compromise, having regard to the small number of Members now in the House, the majority having left because they understood that no contentious Bills would be taken at this period of the session, that in the interests of peace and harmony, he should provide for any loan that may be urgent, and that this Bill should be left until another time. We would agree to that course. This Bill does require great discussion, and I do not think that it should be forced through the House in this manner at this period. I trust that the Colonial Secretary will see his way to enter into some amicable arrangement such as I suggest.

When I saw the schedule I must admit I stood aghast at the amount that was required for these loans, and the lack of information respecting them. We have now had some information, but, agreeing as I do with a great deal which fell from the hon. mover of this Amendment, I think the Committee are entitled to further information than they have received with regard to which of these loans will be made at 2¾per cent., and which will be made at the higher rate. No doubt some of these eleemosynary loans will be a total loss to this country. A portion of them will be really gifts, and not loans at all.

I think not. On the contrary, there will be no loss at all. The eleemosynary loan made to Barbados has been repaid.

Of course, we are a wealthy country, and we ought to support our colonies in times of stress; but I do not see why so low a price should be charged for these loans. If the hon. Member had moved that the minimum rate should be 2 per cent. I should have gone into the Lobby with him. My reason for rising is to ask, first of all, what amount of these loans will be made at 2¾per cent. and what amount will be made at the higher rate. If we can get that information now, or when we come to the schedule, it will greatly facilitate the matter we are discussing.

I shall be happy to give the House any information in my power. I would remind the Committee that in introducing the Bill I stated that we should not make loans to the colonies under the Bill on better terms than to local authorities in the United Kingdom, and in certain cases I should think it right to require higher terms. In regard to Barbados and St. Vincent it is intended that the hurricane loan should be at 2¾per cent., repayable in twenty-three years. These are less favourable terms than are given to local bodies in England who repay in thirty years, and do not compare unfavourably, so far as the Treasury is concerned, with the Government guarantee of 3 per cent. given some years ago to the Mauritius under circumstances similar to those on which these loans are to be made to Barbados and St. Vincent. The loan to the Mauritius, I might remind the Committee, has never cost the United Kingdom a penny. With regard to the other cases, I think their governing principle will be that which I have already stated. I do not wish to make any undue profit out of these loans. It would be absurd to attempt to do so, and it would be grossly unfair to the colonies. But in each case I shall have to consider the position of the colony, the security offered, and, particularly, the length of time for which the loan may be desired. If a colony, owing to the nature of the work, desires that the repayment of the loan shall be extended over as long a period as fifty years, then we shall have to charge a higher rate of interest, just as we do in the United Kingdom. In each case the Treasury and the Colonial Office will carefully examine into all the circumstances, with the view of fixing the interest and the repayment of principal on the basis I have indicated to the Committee.

The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman meets in a measure the object which my hon. friend had in view. As I understand, the loans to Barbados and St. Vincent are given for twenty-three years. In regard to the Local Loans Act, the Treasury drew up a sliding scale, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this Bill appears to have started on the same lines, and I should like to ascertain from him that in the future he will continue to work on similar lines. There is just one other thing I should like to say. In the beginning of his statement, the Colonial Secretary told us that he hoped this Bill would be a final one, and would not be followed by similar Bills in coming years. But these loans, I take it, will occupy the same position as the loans made to the colonies by the Treasury under the old Act. I think the discussion would be greatly facilitated if we had an assurance from him that, so far as he was concerned, this Bill will not be followed by similar Bills in coming sessions.

The Amendment which I now wish to propose is to insure that the rate of interest for the loans shall be fixed by the Treasury alone. In cases of this sort, the Colonial Secretary is in the position of borrower; he makes a complete statement of what he believes to be the goodness of the security offered, and under those circumstances I think the Treasury alone should fix the rate at which the money is to be advanced. I anticipate that I shall get the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the remarks he made just now, in which he implied that it was the work of the Treasury to fix the amount, and that they should accept the responsibility of so doing.

I am afraid I cannot agree with my hon. friend in this. It would not be fair that the Treasury alone should settle the matter. The colony will have to pay, and the Secretary for the Colonies is responsible for the colonies. I therefore do not think it right that he should be omitted from all voice and control in the matter.

I see from the clause that these loans are to be regarded as local loans within the meaning of the Local Loans Act. In that Act alone the Treasury is responsible for fixing the interest. In this case there will be, of course, communication between the two offices, and the Treasury would be

Under the Local Loans Act the Treasury lays down certain rates of interest, that is all. The application of those rates of interest to particular cases does not depend upon them at all, but upon an entirely different body.

The rates would vary according to the credit of the colony, and if the colony has not an advocate in the shape of the Colonial Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might fix a rate of interest which would be unjust to the colony, whilst at the same time this Bill precludes the colony from borrowing in the open market.

I now move to insert the words "together with the annual interest accruing thereon." I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether they are necessary having regard to the last words of the sub-section, for it is clear that in a considerable number of cases the colony will not be expected to pay the annual interest on the loan from the beginning.

said the words were not necessary.

I have now to move an Amendment limiting the period for the repayment of loans to thirty years. I do not think that that term should be exceeded except under very exceptional circumstances. In this case the security is very inferior to the security given by our own local authorities for loans, the repayment of which is spread over longer periods, and I therefore trust the Government will make some concession, otherwise I shall be compelled reluctantly to divide the committee.

I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment. I may, however, point out that the Colonies may be induced to borrow for shorter periods by the fact that in such cases a lower rate of interest is charged.

Although I feel strongly on this point, I am aware it is quite hopeless to press the Amendment, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw it.

I think we have reason to complain of the course which has been pursued by the Government in regard to this Bill. They have delayed giving us the necessary explanations of its provisions, and certainly that is not a way calculated to commend this legislation to the favour of the House. It is incumbent on us to protest against the introduction of an important measure like this at the fag end of the session, and without adequate explanation, and I therefore think we should divide against this clause as a whole.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this is an emergency Bill, and that the Government did not anticipate a large extension of the loans. But £3,300,000 is a very large extension indeed. The right hon. Gentleman also said that we should have a full explanation of all the different items. Most unquestionably we have not had that, or any explanation of any sort or kind. As to the Bill being an emergency Bill, it is not an emergency Bill in the sense in which that word is generally applied, because the colonies could get on very well by borrowing the money until next year, and we could then discuss whether or not we should give them a guarantee. The colonies would not be in any sort of way damnified by the Bill being carried over. In view of the fact that we had no explanation on the Second Reading, we are bound to do our utmost at this late period of the session to protest against everything in connection with this Bill. The minority in the last Division was not what I would call large, but that was because a great many Members on this side of the House have gone away, leaving us to keep watch and ward over the public expenditure. We therefore represent not only ourselves and our constituents, but also the vast mass of Members who confided their interests to us, and under these circumstances I think my hon. friend ought to go to a Division.

The Party of which the hon. Member is a distinguished member does not appear any more united on this question than on most others. A full explanation has been given to the House of the proposals of this Bill.

When?

In the Paper which has been circulated among hon. Members. Some hon. Members appear to think that the sum of £3,300,000 is enormous, but it compares favourably with the loans to local authorities which have been sanctioned by Parliament, and which this year have reached a total of £7,000,000.

I am sure the House is ready to extend every consideration to the Government for carrying on the business of the country. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has told us that the finances of Jamaica are very intricate. The Blue Book containing Sir David Barbour's Report was only issued to us on Monday, and in debating these intricate proposals we are placed at a very considerable disadvantage by not having had the necessary information supplied to us. Though the Secretary of State for the Colonies has declared that this Bill is an emergency Bill, yet long after these debates are forgotten the Act will remain on the Statute Book, and it will open the door to consequences which none of us are able to foresee or prevent. The hon. Member for Lincoln pointed out that this Bill practically closed the old method of borrowing for the Crown Colonies, and last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed to the possibility of consolidating the debts of all the Crown Colonies. These are two very large consequences flowing from this measure, and I think we are justified in the interests of the one man who seems to be forgotten in this Debate, namely the taxpayer of this country, in making a very strong protest against this proposal being brought before the House at so late a period of the session.

I quite appreciated the objection raised on the Second Reading of the Bill with reference to the non-presentation of information in respect to the loans in the schedule, and I think the House generally concurred in the view suggested by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, that the Committee stage should not be undertaken until the document prepared for the Secretary of State for the Colonies was in the hands of the Members. We all know the delay which has occurred is not the fault of the Colonial Office or of the Government, but of the printers of the House. ("No, no.") Well, I am speaking from my own experience. What I want to say, without expressing any opinion on the items, is that this Bill was fully discussed on the Second Reading, and that the House of Commons assented to and approved its principle. The Amendment now before us to leave out Clause I is really a proposal to reverse the previous decision of the House. I claim myself to be as strong an advocate of economy and of strict supervision of public expenditure as any man in the House, but I have come to the conclusion, which I think it is my duty to state, that this is a very desirable change in our fiscal system. I am not going into the question of the Colonial Funds Bill, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has withdrawn, but I hope he will bring it in again next year. I think it will be an improvement so far as the colonies are concerned, and also so far as our general fiscal system is concerned. But, at all events, that stands over, and the question now before us is whether we will or will not pass what appears to me to be an administrative Bill in order to enable the colonies to carry out their more or less pressing obligations. The present motion before the Committee is whether or not we are going to reject the Bill altogether, because if this Amendment is carried there is an end to the whole measure. I am not prepared to reject the Bill. I think there are a great many loans in this schedule which ought to be made, but that is a question of detail, and I appeal to my right hon. friends not to ask the Committee to again decide what has been already decided by the House on the Second Reading.

I am sorry I cannot respond to the appeal of my right hon. friend. One of his statements

The hon. Member cannot review the Debate on the Second Reading.

I have no desire to review the Debate, but I maintain that the principle of the Bill was not discussed on the Second Reading, and that we are justified in opposing the details on the ground that the Bill was introduced at the end of the session, and was not fully explained, as was promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On these grounds, and in defence of the interests of the British Treasury and of good legislation, I shall most certainly divide the Committee.

The object of the Amendment I now move is to prevent the legislative authority from passing any Act diminishing the security. The words of the Statute could not be too precise, and my Amendment, I think, will infuse more precision into the somewhat vague words of the clause.

I do not quite understand the meaning which the hon. Member has in his mind. The words in the Bill are very plain, requiring that the loan should be provided for in a legal way; and the colonial authority cannot do that except by an Act, Ordinance, or something corresponding to an Act or Ordinance. I do not think the words are necessary.

The words in Sub-section 2 are very definite indeed, and I thought there was probably some reason for that.

That is obvious, because there you have to refer to an Act or Ordinance.

My object in moving this Amendment is, if possible, to increase the security to the Treasury in advancing the money. In cases in which the loans are to be made for the construction of reproductive works, such as a railway, I think the money advanced from the British Treasury ought to be so advanced not only on the security of the Colony itself, but on a first charge on the works themselves, and the revenue from them. I think in 1885, in the case of a Cape Act, a loan for the construction of the railway to Kimberley was made, not only on the security of the Colony, but on that of the revenue of the railway itself.

I think I answered this by anticipation earlier in the day. As a matter of fact, any such surplus or profit will go to the general revenue, and the whole of the general revenue and the whole of the assets of the colony will be pledged. Therefore, it is quite unnecessary to put in these words. I may point out as an analogous case that the security of the assets of a corporation or local authority is considered sufficient for loans under the Public Works Loans Act.

I had an Amendment of this kind on the Colonial Loans Fund Bill, which was withdrawn. I think the Amendment is a very reasonable one. Supposing the Government advances money to make a railway, the loan ought to be made a first charge on the railway, in order to secure the money to the State. It is obvious that what is intended by the clause is that there should be priority at the time of the advance, but there could not be any priority, because if the colony had no assets they could not pay anything, and the priority would go. I think the Amendment is a reasonable one, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.

in moving to substitute "Parliament" for "the Treasury and the Secretary of State," said his object was to secure that, in the

said that he could not accept the Amendment. It would be an absolutely unconstitutional and novel procedure for Parliament to have anything to say as to the voiding of the Ordinances of Colonial Legislatures. That power was vested in the Secretary of State. The Treasury was added in order to safeguard the matter from a financial point of view.

in moving the omission of the Gold Coast as one of the colonies entitled to participate in the loans both in respect of its railways and the Accra harbour works, said the right hon. Gentleman had inferred that the finances of that colony were in a flourishing condition, and that we should be repaid every penny of the loan, and that the security offered was in fact A 1 security. In his opinion the published Returns of 1897 hardly bore out the view of the Colonial Secretary as to the peculiarly excellent financial position of this colony. In 1887 there was a deficit of£17,000, in 1888,£35,000, in 1889,£19,000, in 1894,£8,000, in 1895,£35,000, and in 1896,£44,000. The total revenue was£237,000. Customs produced£199,000, and the spirits imported paid in Customs duties£132,108. Their object was, as far as they could, to prevent spirits from being imported, and if the revenue from spirits was taken away there was an enormous deficit. Really they ought to look a little into what some of those colonies were. The official population of the Gold Coast was 160, of whom last year six died and 31 were invalided; the non-official white population was 362, of whom 34 died and47 were invalided. The fact was, there were hardly any Europeans who would go there, because they would not risk the climate, and it was hardly a place that was likely to be converted into a wealthy colony. At all events, he saw no reason why this country should step in and find the money for making a railway there, because there was no probability that it would pay or extend the trade of the country. The Secretary for the Colonies was a good business man, but he had a fad in his head; he wanted to develop the colonies. This was a rotten place to develop. It was not worth while to expend£500,000 on the security of the revenues of this colony, which were not sufficient to meet the present expenditure. In these circumstances he begged to move his Amendment.

said the hon. Gentleman, who rather regarded himself as of advanced views, was, on the occasion, nothing but a fossil. views were the views which were held by his predecessors in the early sixties, and had been altogether altered and changed, so far as the majority of the people were concerned, by subsequent experience. It was perfectly true that there were few Europeans in this particular colony, and he did not suppose there ever would be a large European colonisation of tropical Africa; but if the hon. Gentleman inferred from that that tropical Africa was of no advantage to Europeans because there was no trade worth having, he was entirely mistaken. So far from the Gold Coast being a bankrupt colony, the trade, imports and exports, is at the rate of£2,400,000 per annum. For a long series of years it had surpluses, and it was only in 1894 that the deficits began; and how did they begin? The colony, having procured surpluses amounting in the total to £139,000, began to feel itself justified in embarking upon large expenditure on public works, and, above all, sanitary improvements. For some time the amount so expended did not swallow up the surpluses; but then came the Ashanti war, and the deficit mounted up to £168,000. That left a debt which—although he was convinced it was a good debt—the Treasury would probably have to allow to run for a year or two until they gained back a period of surpluses, when they would pay it off as rapidly as possible. Why was this place called the Gold Coast? Because, as had been perfectly well known for centuries and centuries back, it was a great place for gold; the gold of our early days always being derived from the washings of the rivers. But now, with modern machinery and the advantage of modern science, we were able to deal with the places from which the gold comes from the quartz in the rocks, and many persons who had gone into the interior prospecting had returned very sanguine as to the investment of their money. The public took a similar view, because, in regard to some of these companies, although subsidiary companies were not issued, so well did the investing public look upon the undertakings, that the shares had gone up 1,500 and 2,000 per cent. That showed that in the belief of those who were well-informed there was a splendid opportunity for gold mining over this large area. Ten years ago the export of gold from the Transvaal was £80,000, and who could say that ten years hence the gold from West Africa might not bear a similar proportion to the growth of the gold export from the Transvaal? The reason why the export up to the present was so small was that they had not got up the heavy machinery required for modern gold mining, owing to the primitive method of transport which prevailed in those tropical climates. The Colonial Office had taken the best advice, and had good authority for assuming that the proposed investment would be an admirable one for the colony, and a perfectly sound one for this country to guarantee. As regards the harbour at Accra, it was a misfortune that there was no good harbour there, the bar constituting a difficulty. In the opinion of the great engineers who had been consulted, great improvements might be made by deepening the harbour. A moderate sum was asked for that, and here again the expenditure was fully justified by the condition of the colony. He recognised that the hon. Gentleman had the power of causing a great deal of unnecessary trouble to a good number of hon. Members. He implored him, as he was strong, to be merciful. Their advisers, the Crown Agents, who, he thought, were entitled to speak with authority on the subject, told them that they would be placed in a most serious and embarrassing position if the Bill were not passed. Therefore the Government were obliged to press the Bill, and no good would be gained by delaying its progress, so far as regarded any alteration of its terms. Hon. Gentlemen had expressed themselves aggrieved by what they regarded as arbitrary conduct on the part of the Government; but he appealed to the Committee whether there was any ground for a punitive expedition on the present occasion. The Government had yielded to the Opposition. They understood it would materially promote the rapid progress of this Bill if they abandoned the Colonial Loans Bill. They had withdrawn the latter Bill, and, as he had said, there was no prospect of its re-introduction; at least, he did not favour such a course. Again, yesterday, in deference to the Leader of the Opposition, who also assured them they would materially promote the conduct of public business by yielding to his request, they agreed to postpone the discussion on this Bill, in order that hon. Members might have an opportunity of studying the information they had provided. They had in every way endeavoured to meet the Opposition. He quite recognised that hon. Members like the hon. Members for East Aberdeenshire and Forfar might desire to make a solemn protest against the principle of the Bill. He hoped they had a distinguished career before them, and, if they had, he ventured to think that they would regret the course they had taken to-day, and that they would find themselves some day or other in a position in which they would have to take a totally different line. But perhaps that was too far off to look forward to. In any case, granted the perfect right of those hon. Members to make their protest, he appealed to them whether they had not now made a sufficient protest. As to the hon. Member for Northampton, he would say, let him by all means take a Division upon the Amendment he had moved, which would be a typical Division. If there was any other colony as to which he had any particular Amendment to move, it would be perfectly reasonable he should take a Division upon it, but he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not put the Committee to the trouble of walking through the Lobbies indefinitely with no practical result, especially in view of the conciliatory attitude which it must be allowed the Government had adopted.

The right hon. Gentleman says he has adopted every plan to meet our objections, but there is one plan he has not tried—that of withdrawing the Bill.

I cannot.

I have already shown how it can be done. These colonies can carry over; they have borrowed at a little under the bank rate, and can go on till next year. Our primary complaint is that the Bill is brought in at a time when we are left here to carry on the discussion without those Gentlemen who have gone away supposing there were no controversial matters to come forward. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to make this a test Division, and only to divide upon any loan to which I particularly objected. But what am I to do if I particularly object to all of them?

as a sample.

I have gone diverse and special reasons to submit against each. It is suggested that I should take a Division against the items altogether. That appears reasonable at first sight, but, while there are excellent reasons against all, there are stronger arguments against some than, against others, and therefore, in regard to particular items, I should get a better Division, and accentuate my views more by dividing upon the different items. But, after all, the right hon. Gentleman will get away on Wednesday; there is nothing else to do to-day. We are not obstructing; we are simply carrying out what we believe to be our duty.

I wish to assist the hon. Gentleman in his desire to get through the business as quickly as his conscience will allow him. I therefore suggest to the hon. Member that he should take a Division against the schedule as a whole, and then anyone who objects to any particular item will vote against the schedule, and in that way he will get a bigger Division than he could get under any other circumstances.

After the speech of the right hon. Gentleman it is a most invidious task for anyone to stand here to make any remarks upon this Bill, but I submit that the responsibility rests with the right hon. Gentleman himself. I would challenge him to find any previous instance of such a measure as this, involving such a large financial burden on the country, being given so short a time for its discussion. Certainly no suggestion of obstruction can be justified. If, however, the House shows any decided feeling in favour of terminating the Debate I shall not stand in the way, but I am entitled to make a few observations upon the Amendment which has been moved, and the reply which has been made. The question we have discussed is whether this railway should be made. The proposal can be divided distinctly into two parts. One half is a railway which has already been begun, and which the Colonial Office have approved, and the other half is an undertaking which the. Colonial Office have not approved, and which has in no sense been accepted as a wise investment or undertaking. The basis of profits in regard to this railway is practically the gold mines. The right hon. Gentleman submitted that it was a very good investment, and that there would be no difficulty in getting that loan taken up in the open market. That obviously calls forth the retort that it is a pity it was not left to the open market to take up. Development is going on in all parts of the world, and it is only natural that the Colonial Secretary should wish to develop as quickly as possible those parts with which he is specially concerned. But we are going too fast. If we are to dash in at once wherever there is a prospect of a remunerative investment in any part of the world, we shall be landed in very large undertakings, which at a future time it may be very difficult to fulfil. Another aspect of the question is that the revenue of this colony depends very largely on spirits, from 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of the revenue being derived from that source. If we raise this loan and make the colony liable for it, we shall be practically riveting upon the colony the present methods of raising the revenue, and it will be very difficult to free them from this liquor traffic, or to proceed in the direction in which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to proceed, viz., of the restriction of the importation and sale of spirits. I am not one who would wish to restrict the expenditure on the colonies, but I certainly think, on the grounds I have put forward, there is some reason for hesitating to confirm, at any rate, the latter part of this proposal. I should also like to ask how it is proposed to construct these railways, and by what labour the existing portion has been constructed.

The right hon. Gentleman himself told us that the time for discussing this Bill was on the schedule. We have now just reached the schedule, and we are endeavouring to extract some information with regard to the different loans. The proposals under this first item are of two kinds. First, to complete and go on with railways already in course of construction. That railway is to go to the gold mines, and if the gold mines are successful the railway will be successful; if there is not paying gold there the railway will fail. That means that this railway is part of a gold mining speculation. Why should the Government with the aid of the Imperial Treasury step in to assist individuals who, no doubt, with a view to their own interests have gone into a gold mining speculation on the Gold Coast of Africa? The portion of this undertaking which has been sanctioned by the Colonial Office stands on an entirely different foundation from the other. In regard to the latter there is no emergency, and the right hon. Gentleman ought not to endeavour to get upwards of half a million of money when he has only a fair claim to about half that sum. We should also like to have some information as to what form of labour is being used in the construction of this railway, and is to be used on future railways. There is an Ordinance in the Gold Coast Colony which enables forced labour to be used. What security have we, if Imperial money is advanced for this purpose, that these railways will be constructed under conditions which will give no encouragement, either direct or indirect, to the employment of forced labour or any form of slavery?

The latest Returns that we have appear to contradict the statement which has been made with regard to the decrease in the trade in spirits. In the year 1896 833,000 gallons of rum were imported, in 1897 878,000, showing an increase of 44,000 gallons, while there was a total increase in the importation of liquor of nearly 50,000 gallons. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that the revenue from liquor did not form a large proportion of the total revenue of the country, but a reference to figures shows that while the total Customs receipts amounted to £193,000, the receipts in respect of spirits amounted to £132,000. It is, therefore, obvious that as far as its revenue is concerned the colony is now practically on a basis of liquor. The present proposals tend to perpetuate that, just as the large revenues derived by India from the opium trade have tended to perpetuate that trade, with all its baneful effects. The official Return with regard to the revenues shows that the security is not a good one for the amount which is being advanced. It is also perfectly true that a large portion of the money may not be required at all, as the construction of certain lines has not yet been decided upon. Is it not therefore reasonable that we should wait before we vote this amount in order to ascertain whether these undertakings will be proceeded with or not? The whole question is of such a speculative character that I

I move to omit "Niger Coast Protectorate Harbour Works, £43,500." The arguments are to a considerable extent the same as on the previous item. There is no reason if you make railways on the Gold Coast why you should make harbours at Accra and Calabar. The right hon. Gentleman has given up the point that these places are in any way fit for habitation by Europeans. The white population, exclusive, I presume, of officials is stated to be 200, and the revenue is£153,000, of which£116,730 is derived from spirits. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was his desire that the liquor traffic should be reduced. But most unquestionably it has not been reduced in those parts, because the amount of liquor sold in 1897–98 was a little over£23,000 more than was sold in 1896–97. We do not profit ourselves by this huge liquor traffic; it is the Germans who send liquor from Hamburg that profit, £63,861 worth of gin being introduced by other countries as against £1,331 worth by us. I will put the matter on a practical basis. Is a colony with a population of two hundred Europeans, with the revenue dependent on the duty charged on liquor, good security for the expenditure of money in that particular colony?

I cannot say much in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, because it will only be a repetition of what I have said already. The Niger Coast Protectorate is a promising colony, and there is no reason to believe that there will be any deficit. These works are eminently necessary, some of them were commenced before I had any control over the Protectorate, and I am not answerable for them in that sense, although I thoroughly approve of them. They are necessary works, they will be remunerative, and I think there is ample security.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that these works will be remunerative, but there is no note to that effect in the statement which has been issued. Will there be any income to justify the British taxpayer in paying this money?

I hope so. I take exception to the words "British taxpayer" because he is not asked to spend anything, and I do not think he will be called upon to do so.

I propose to leave out the various loans in the schedule with reference to Jamaica. This is one of the largest items, and includes sums for public works, aid to revenue, the completion and equipment of the railway, interest on railway debentures and water works. Whenever it has been desired to advance money to certain of the West Indian Colonies after hurricanes and other exceptional circumstances, it has been done by a Vote on the Estimates, and full particulars have been laid before us. I believe this is the first occasion on which we have been asked to lend an individual colony money in aid of its annual revenue. With reference to the amount for public works, this loan has already been expended, and therefore it will come to a certain degree within the emergency category mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman explained in an earlier part of the Debate that the Colonial Office considered itself under an obligation to relieve the colony from the speculative company which contracted for the construction of its railway; but if a colony with its eyes open enters into an arrangement of that sort, it ought to bear the consequences, and the Treasury ought not to be asked at the last moment to step in and indemnify it. Then there is an advance for rolling stock, which appears a very curious purpose to which to devote a portion of this loan. We had laid before us on Monday night Sir David Barbour's Report on the financial condition of Jamaica. It is a very interesting document and shows, what we have been endeavouring to urge, that Jamaica, like many of the other colonies, has had its ups and down. Sir David Barbour points out that, although its financial condition at the present moment is very bad, still it had in the past a great many ups as well as a great many downs. I have an Amendment down to the effect that we should only advance these sums if the Colonial Office obtained control of the finances of the colony. This is one of the essential recommendations of Sir David Barbour's Report, and the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary has not yet told us whether he intends to adopt it. For my part, I should certainly be prepared to urge that the necessity of the Colonial Office getting greater control over the Colonies than it at present possesses is a very essential objection to this Bill, because I believe the proper Colonial policy to be to encourage as much as possible Colonial independence—even in the Crown Colonies—with a view to making them capable of managing their own financial and domestic affairs. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what further security he hopes to be able to offer for this advance to Jamaica, which constitutes one of the most objectionable features of this Bill?

The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire seems to think that a change in the Constitution of Jamaica is necessary in order to give the Colonial Office control over the expenditure of the money raised on the guarantee afforded by the Bill. This is not the case. The Colonial Office has the right to appoint a majority of the members of the Council, and I would not hesitate to exercise that power if necessary.

Was that not attempted last year and dropped?

In connection with the Tariff Bill I did appoint some official Members. The elective Members took objection to that course, but they finally agreed to pass the Tariff Bill, so my object was attained, and there was no reason for continuing the appointments. I should, however, reappoint them at once if I deemed it necessary. I must say that I differ entirely from the view of the hon. Member that what he calls constitutional rights should be extended to the West Indies. I think, on the contrary, that we have already gone too far in that direction. As is shown by the very small number of persons who take part in the elections, it is evident that the people who constitute the electorate do not care for the privilege, and the consequence is that these so-called liberal constitutions are really nothing more nor less than oligarchies. Under all these circumstances, I am convinced that a Crown Government which pays attention to such public opinion as exists in the colony is the best form of government possible.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his views with regard to constitutional government. We complain here of the House of Lords, but in Jamaica, under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman, the people are infinitely worse off, as if they do not act as he directs, he says he will introduce into their Assembly four or five nominated members in order to create a majority. I only hope this action will be confined to Jamaica, and that the right hon. Gentleman will not seek to introduce it into this country. We are carrying out his wishes now by taking all these grants to Jamaica in a lump sum, instead of dividing on each of the five items. But let us see what is the position of this remarkable Colony. It already owes £1,740,000; its finances show a perpetual deficit, and yet we are asked to advance it more money! And for what? In the first place we are invited to guarantee the interest on a loan for sewering and street re-construction in Kingston. What would be said if the London County Council came and asked us to guarantee a loan for such works in London?

Many towns in England, including, I think, the borough of Northampton, have obtained loans for a similar purpose.

Yes, and that is exactly my point. I do not object to spending the money in this country; what I do object to is to guarantee the interest on a loan to such a colony as Jamaica, with its stupid and ridiculous financial system. I would not lend money to that colony at 10 per cent. The next item is a grant in aid of the revenue. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be under the impression that Sir David Barbour takes a favourable view of the future finances of Jamaica, and that he thinks an equilibrium will be established in a short time. But it seems to me that Sir David is the reverse of sanguine on that point, and he suggests that we should come to the aid of the colony. There seems to be every prospect that if we guarantee this loan we shall have to pay it ourselves. Then I come to the item for railroads. The thing is perfectly monstrous. Jamaica entered into an arrangement with some speculative Americans by which the latter were to keep the railway if it succeeded, but by which Jamaica was to become responsible, if the railway failed, to pay 3½ per cent. on a million and a half of capital. As Sir David Barbour points out, this adds largely to the obligations of the country without in any way benefiting it. This railroad has not been able to pay its way or even to pay the interest on its debentures. Sir David Barbour does not suggest that it will pay, and as I understand it the arrangement is that we are to advance this money to a railway with this first charge of 3½ per cent which it cannot pay. Under those circumstances the Colonial Secretary threw up the sponge as far as the contention that this was a business matter was concerned, and he now appeals to us in formâ pauperis for Jamaica. I entirely disagree with the Colonial Secretary that we are bound to come to the rescue of these reckless colonies who make bargains with American companies, and get into financial difficulties through their own bad management and speculation. I think the best thing would be to hang one of them up as an example to the others, and if Jamaica were allowed to incur the odium of bankruptcy it would be an object lesson to the other colonies. If you lay down the principle that whether these colonies do well or ill we will pay their debts, you will have them perpetually outrunning the constable and making faults and errors of finance.

The right hon. Gentleman has made a very important statement. He has taken an opportunity of indicating his policy with regard to these Crown colonies—that is, direct control on the part of the Colonial Office. Of course the provision of funds will, rightly or wrongly, put it in the power of the right hon. Gentleman and his successors in office to exercise a more direct and potent influence over the Governments of these colonies. The circumstances in Jamaica are different in nearly every respect from the circumstances in other colonies. It is not a case of a Governor and a nominated council, but of a legislative assembly and local institutions throughout the colony; and it seems to me to be a very important matter for consideration as to what the future of Jamaica is to be. We have had no opportunity of discussing the West Indies on the Estimates this year, and I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman can on this occasion give us any further indication of what he proposes to do regarding the report of Sir David Barbour.

I desire to sever myself from the financial policy with regard to our colonies which has been laid down by the hon. Member for Northampton. He said that it would be better to have a colony end in disaster in order that it should serve as an object lesson to other British colonies. Is that a policy likely to commend itself to the commercial common-sense of this country? I venture to say a more fatal policy could hardly be conceived. It endangers the whole position which this country holds by the enterprise of its merchants and traders in various parts of the world. We must not hesitate to lend the credit of this country—especially when we get good sound security—to those of our British colonies which may be emerging, not perhaps always from depression, but from the consequences of unsuccessful commercial adventures. I observe that the hon. Gentleman referred to the loan for Kings- ton, but he omitted to state that the rates from the town of Kingston are sufficient to cover the charge of this loan. We are told that these loans ought not to be granted, but the same system is applied to many large municipalities in this country, some of which have been notoriously on the verge of financial difficulties, and surely there can be no reasonable objection to extending the same indulgence to an old British colony. What would be the effect of driving these colonies into bankruptcy? They would have to go to the lending agencies of the world—some British, some French, some German, and some, possibly, American, and raise loans at exorbitant rates of interest. That policy would redound against this country, because how are the colonies going to raise the revenue to pay for these loans? Partly by local taxation and partly by increased import duties. Who would have to bear the burden of the latter? The manufacturers of Manchester, Sheffield, and other large towns, who are already complaining of the heavy import duties in some of these Crown colonies. But the colonies could turn round on us and say, "We have had to raise heavy loans at big rates of interest, as you refused to lend us your credit, and therefore we require these heavy import duties. I have