To ask the Secretary of State for War whether those members of the clerical staff of the War Office who retired previous to 9th August, 1902, but served during the late war, might be specially considered in connection with the Imperial Service Order. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) As the Statutes of the Imperial Service Order provide that the Archives of the Order shall be kept in the Home Office, this question has been referred to me. In answer, I can only say that I deprecate the practice of addressing Questions to Ministers with regard to Decorations or Orders the grant of which rests solely with His Majesty the King.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the case of Dewsbury, a non-county borough having endowments for secondary and technical education amounting to £1,842 annually, the West Riding County Council will under the provisions of the Education Bill be empowered to levy one uniform higher education rate upon Dewsbury as well as the rest of the county, or only to levy on Dewsbury a rate sufficient to provide the difference between the annual cost of the secondary and technical schools in Dewsbury and the sum of £1,842; and how under the Education Bill the benefits of the above endowments are secured to Dewsbury over and above the rest of the county. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The amount of the rate required by the County Council of the West Riding for education other than elementary will be in the discretion of the County Council. irrespective of any income from endowments which may be at the disposal of any particular school or authority. Clause 19 (1) (a) empowers the County Council to deal specially with particular areas. The point referred to in the Question will be affected by the provisions of the Education Bill in precisely the same manner as it has been affected since 1889 under the Technical Education Acts.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, whether he can state at what date a Municipal Council will become a local education authority for the purposes of Clause 11 of the Education Bill; and what powers a local education authority will possess to obtain from trustees, managers, and others information enabling them to make an application for an Order, or to advise the Board of Education with regard to any Order sent to them under sub-Section (2) of Clause 11 of the Bill. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The powers conferred by Clause 11 of the Education Bill may be exercised, if necessary, as soon as the Bill becomes Law. Rule 15 of the Second Schedule provides for the supply of information on reasonable requirement by managers of a public elementary school to a local education authority immediately after the passing of the Bill.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that the last Report on the Constitution and Functions of Ministries of Commerce was laid in 1889, since which date all the principal countries of the world have more or less reformed their administration of Trade and Commerce, he will grant a return up to date, showing the manner in which Trade and Commerce is administered in the principal countries of the world, and the powers conferred on the Minister of Commerce by those countries which possess such a Minister. (Answered by Lard Cranborne.) I shall be happy to collect further information for presentation to Parliament.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a dispatch from the Governor of the Leeward Islands to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which it is stated that the abolition of sugar bounties will mean immediate ruin to many estates in the Leeward Islands; and, whether, in view of the circumstances under which these bounties are to be established, he proposes to take any steps to compensate the owners of such estates. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies) In the despatch to which the hon. Member refers, the Governor was urging the introduction of modern machinery as vital to the success of the Antigua sugar industry whether bounties were abolished, or not, but in estimating the immediate effect of the abolition of bounties on the American market, the Governor has fallen into an error, since, when the United States countervailing duties are taken off, the Continental State bounties will also be taken off, and the effect of the one will neutralise the effect of the other, and the position will be as before; while, as regards the more important Cartel bounties, which have never been countervailed in the United States, West Indian sugar will obtain the full benefit of their abolition, and will, therefore, be in a better position in the United States market than before the abolition of bounties.

To ask the Lord Advocate whether he is yet in a position to say how much of the £95,000, which has been granted by Parliament this year for continuation classes in Scotland, will be expended in each of the Highland crofting counties. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The amount of the grant in question which has already been paid to schools in the crofting counties is £2,455 17s. 10d. There are still two important cases outstanding. The claim in one case has not been sent in, and in the other it has not yet been adjusted.

To ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, to state if he has received an application to extend the Wick School Board district to the area which has been added to the burgh by the recent Provisional Order; and, if so, whether he has arrived at a decision in the matter yet. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) Such an extension of the Wick School Board district as is contemplated in the hon. Member's Question might be made by the Scotch Education Department under the Education Act of 1878, or by the Secretary for Scotland under the Local Government Acts. No application for such extension has been made to either Department.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will give information as to the number of children in the Hanwell Poor Law Schools who are now suffering from diseases affecting the ears and throat; whether he will say what number out of the 88 mentioned in Mr. Cheatle's report, published early in the year, as being in danger of their lives and requiring surgical attention, have been operated on; and whether the Board of Management have issued a report on the subject. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have made inquiry, but have not at present received definite information as to the number of children in the Hanwell schools suffering from diseases affecting the ears and throat. Many of the children who were examined by Mr. Cheatle have since left, while there have been many new admissions. Of the number of cases mentioned in the report referred to, 73 have been successfully treated at the Hospital for Diseases of the Throat and Ears, Golden Square, and 12 more are going to the hospital to-day. Under an arrangement with the hospital authorities 12 cases are received weekly for examination and operation. The managers have not yet issued a report on the subject.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the reasons why Torpedo Boat No. 81 has been placed in the repairing dock, and how long she has been there. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster Torpedo Boat No. 81 went ashore during the manoeuvres of 1901, and was badly damaged. Her salvage was, however, effected, and she was brought back to Portsmouth, and placed in No. 5 Graving Dock at that yard on the 19th August, 1901, since when she has remained there to relieve the pressure upon the basin space required for other ships, pending the completion of arrangements for reboilering and thoroughly refitting her. Had the dock been required for other purposes in the meantimes she would have been floated out.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether telescopes for the purpose of improvement in straight shooting are supplied by His Majesty's Government to naval officers, or whether such telescopes are purchased by the officers in question from thier private resources. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) Telescopic sights are provided for certain types of guns, and the supply is being extended as manufacture admits. It is not the practice to furnish telescopes to the officers who are already in possession of them as a necessary part of their equipment.

To ask the Secretary to the Admmiralty if he will state what is the average cost per head of training the Royal Marine Artillerymen and the Royal Marine Light Infantrymen from the time they join until they qualify as trained naval gunners, or are regarded as efficient; and what proportion of the Royal Marine Light Infantrymen qualify as gunners. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The information asked for in the first part of the Question will take some little time to compile, but I shall be happy to send it to the hon. Member if that will meet his wishes. As regards the second part of the Question, there is no rating of gunner in the Royal Marine Light Infantry, but practically every man qualifies as a '' trained man," and receives extra pay as such. The exact proportion could only be ascertained by an examination of the pay sheets at the depots and elsewhere, and would involve considerable labour.

To ask the under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the cost up to the present date to the British Treasury of the Uganda Railway.(Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The actual sum expended up to date which has been defrayed by the Treasury, or for which the Treasury will be liable, is £5,207,199. This sum is being repaid with interest by a sinking fund, and £73,222 5s. has already been devoted to this object.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House the substance of any recent Reports received from His Majesty's Consular Officers in Macedonia regarding the Condition of affairs there; whether it is proposed to present to Parliament Papers on the subject; and, if so, when those Papers will be presented. ((Answered by Lord Cranborne) According to the latest reports from His Majesty's Consular Officers in Macedonia, tranquility seems for the time to have been restored. Small isolated bands of revolutionists are, however, still endeavouring to create disturbances in the more inaccessible parts of the country. His Majesty's Government are considering whether Papers in regard to the affairs of Macedonia can with advantage be presented to Parliament. South Africa—Transfer of Blockhouses from Military to Civil Authorities.

To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of state for the Colonies, in view of the fact that the blockhouses in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies were taken over by Lord Milner at a valuation agreed upon by him with Lord Kitchener, will he quote the amount of that valuation; and to whom the blockhouses have since been sold, and at what price. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) It is understood that these blockhouses were taken over by Lord Milner for a Lump sum of £50,000, and that they are on sale to the inhabitants of the districts at prices varying according to size. Pretoria Field Force Canteen.

To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he will state the number of contracts which have been entered into since the termination of the war for the supply of provisions and beverages to the Field Force canteen at Pretoria; will he state whether excisable liquors thus supplied are exempt from tax, the number of tenders for each liquor contract, and whether the lowest tender for each such contract has been accepted. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) There is no information to be given beyond that furnished to the hon. Member in reply to a similar Question put on the 2nd instant.

To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can state the names of the firms who were invited to tender, and did tender, for railway material in respect of the Sierra Leone, Lagos, and Gold Coast Railways, also for coal for their use, and the quality and prices paid for delivery of coal and rails delivered at the various ports: And whether he will permit a Return to be prepared in detail of the cost of material and construction connected with the Lagos Railway. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) The Question seems to have been asked under a misapprehension. The West African Railways have not been built by contract, but departmentally. Tenders have been invited from time to time for materials, etc., as required, and to give the information asked for would involve practically a reproduction of the accounts of the construction of the three railways from the beginning to the present time. It is proposed to lay Papers shortly with regard to these railways.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that of the seventy reformatory and industrial schools in Ireland only six schools presented accounts for the year 1901 audited by a chartered accountant, and whether, seeing that previous complaints to the same effect have been disregarded by the managers of these schools, he will state what steps the Irish Government propose to take in the matter. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The managers of reformatory and industrial schools (with one exception, that at Baltimore, the accounts of which are audited in connection with the Education Endowments Act of 1885) are not at present required to submit audited accounts. The accounts of the five other schools in question are audited in pursuance of arrangements voluntarily made by the respective committees of management. It does not appear to be necessary, upon the information before me, that special steps should be taken to require these institutions to submit their accounts to audit.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the step in rank given to the Reserve officers for their services during the Boer War, which appeared in the Gazette of the 17th October last, was substantive, he will explain why those officers are shown in the November Army List as still holding their former rank; will he state whether the promotion given to the Reserve officers in the Gazette of the 17th October is to be antedated, in view of the fact that the delay in complying with the instructions contained in the Circular Letter of the 3rd of April to general officers, calling for the names of Reserve officers recommended for promotion, was not the fault of these officers; and will he explain why a Reserve officer reemployed during an emergency is deprived by Royal Warrant of his gratuity on completion of a period of service entitling him to a higher rate of retired pay. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) For the first part of the Question the hon. Member is requested to refer to the reply given to a Question put by the hon. Member for Northampton on the 11th instant. It was decided that no antedate should be given officers promoted in the Gazette of the 17th October, and that all should bear the same date. As regards the last part of the Question, it has been explained on previous occasions that an officer cannot draw both gratuity and increased retired pay.

To ask the Secretary of State for War what measures are taken to insure that the Government contracts for military clothing are executed in factories and not by outworkers; whether prices paid to women for making khaki trousers and tunics at the Royal Army Clothing Factory have been reduced from 3s. 9d. and 1s. to 2s. 6d. and 7d. respectively; and whether he will give an assurance that what is known as sweating shall not be sanctioned in establishments under the control of the War Office. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The right hon. Member has been misinformed in regard to the figures quoted. No changes in price have been made since 1898, when that for a tunic was fixed at 3s. 1d. The price for trousers, 11 1 /8d., has not been altered. The contracts for making up clothing contain very strict clauses to prevent work being done at home, and to prevent sweating; frequent inspections of factories are made, and penalties are inflicted where firms are proved to have infringed the clauses.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether Professor Wright is resigning his appointment in the Army Medical School in consequence of the refusal of the authorities to allow him to pursue his investigations in connection with typhoid inoculation at a London hospital. (Answered By Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) It was considered that, as the duties of the post to which Professor Wright had been appointed at St. Mary's Hospital would seriously interfere with those in the Medical Staff College, he should not be allowed to hold this appointment at the hospital. Professor Wright preferred to retain the latter, and has accordingly resigned his appointment in the Medical Staff College.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the usual practice of the War Office has been to station regiments returning from active service in South Africa near their depots, thus allowing men going on furlough the opportunity, without unnecessary expense, of visiting their relatives; whether the number of battalions recruited in Scotland and the north of England is too great to allow of all returning being quartered in or near their own districts, thus creating cases where a man's railway fare and travelling expenses between the regimental district and the station where the regiment is quartered may amount to as much as two pounds or more; and whether, in cases where a battalion has been abroad for more than two years on active service in South Africa, and is stationed more than 100 miles from its regimental district, he will arrange that some allowance for railway fare shall be made to men proceeding to their own regimental district on furlough. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. As regards the second paragraph, there are not sufficient stations in Scotland to quarter the regiments re- cruited there. Return tickets are, however, granted for soldiers proceeding on furlough at single fare, and there would appear to be no sufficient grounds for making the suggested extension of this grant.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether grants under The Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, and under Section 97 of The Elementary Education Act, 1870, as amended by The Elementary Education Act, 1897, will continue to be paid until the date on which the new local education authority becomes responsible for the maintenance of elementary schools within the area of that authority; and, whether, having regard to the fact that the aid grants usually paid to voluntary schools in one sum to be expended during twelve months, and that the managers of voluntary schools have been encouraged to incur expenditure in anticipation of such aid grant being received, the Board of Education will make to such schools aid grant payments for any period which may elapse between the close of the school year and the date on which the new authority becomes responsible for maintenance; and whether the provisions of Clauses 11 and 12, Second Schedule of the Education Bill, apply to the above-mentioned grants as well as to the ordinary Parliamentary grant. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) In answer to the first and second paragraphs of the Question, I may say that both the grants named will continue to be payable up to the "appointed day." The answer to the third paragraph is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many reservists are destitute and unemployed in this country; whether he can say how many reservists have returned from South Africa, and of these how many have obtained permanent employment through Government bureaux; whether he will recommend that emergency works should lie started during the winter months for destitute and unemployed reservists of certified good character; and whether the Government, by grant or otherwise, supports or recognises any association for the employment of Reserve or discharged soldiers.

It is not possible to state how many reservists are unemployed, nor how many have obtained employment through various offices without calling for Returns. Even if these Returns were obtained, they would not be entirey reliable, as the men register their names in several societies, and when they obtain employment by means other than through these agencies do not intimate this fact, and therefore remain on the books. The numbers of mobilised reservists, men due for transfer to the Reserve, Militia reservists, and discharged time-expired men, amount to about 80,000. The Government support the National Association for the employment of Reserve men and discharged soldiers by subsidy, and supervise the regimental and other military associations. In order to prevent distress, reservists are being permitted to rejoin the colours, and remain until they can obtain employment up to a limit of a year. Six hundred and fifty-three have availed themselves of this permission up to date.

May I ask whether the Government are prepared to subsidise all organisations for finding employment for civilians out of work as well as reservists?

The Government cannot subsidise all such organisations. The organisation mentioned in my answer was subsidised by the Government with the consent of the House, because it finds employment for men who have served the country in the field.

On what grounds are special terms given to this organisation as against similar organisations?

did not reply.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what cavalry regiments the officer recently appointed to command the 2nd Provisional Regiment of Hussars has commanded; and whether it is proposed in future to appoint cavalry officers to command infantry battalions.

The Cavalry Brigade which Colonel de Lisle commanded was drawn from the 1st, 3rd, and 7th Dragoon Guards and 14th Hussars. As regards the second part of the question, a cavalry major has been brought into the infantry regiment out of which Colonel de Lisle was promoted into the cavalry, and he will, it is assumed, aspire to command it.

Is it part of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman that officers are in future to be transterable from one branch of the service to another?

No, Sir, it is not a question of the scheme. It is whether the Commander in-Chief, having found an officer particularly well fitted to command mounted troops in the field, is to be allowed in time of peace to be employed in commanding unmounted troops.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the Memorandum lately issued officially to certain regiments stating that officers who received direct commissions during the war without examination are to go up for examination on or about 1st February next in arithmetic, mensuration, algebra, Euclid, geography, and history, he will say whether it is intended that such of those officers who are now stationed in remote places abroad, where the means of tuition are not accessible, shall come under this regulation; and whether the examination will, or may be, followed by a withdrawal of commissions in cases where officers fail to pass it.

Nothing whatever is known at, the War Office about this Memorandum. Perhaps the hon. Member would kindly forward me a copy of the document.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state on what grounds an officer of the 8th King's Regiment was appointed to command the 27th Regimental District at Omagh; and whether there were any officers belonging to the district regiments available.

There were no officers having regimental claims who were available when the command of this regimental district fell vacant, and Colonel Mellor, who was an. applicant for the post, was selected. He is well acquainted with the district and is a landowner at Coleraine.

Why is it that the Irish officers who have passed through all the dangers of the war in these regiments are passed over in favour of English officers?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet considered the draft reply, drawn up by the States' Special Committee, to the Privy Council letter of the 12th May, addressed on the advice of the War Office to the Bailiff of Jersey, and unanimously adopted by the States at their meeting on Monday last; whether it has been the policy of the War Office throughout the correspondence that the allotment of 2,000 regulars to form in time of war the nucleus of the land force required for the defence of the Channel Islands is only made on the understanding that Jersey as well as Guernsey should provide an effective force of Militia; what steps he proposes to take in view of the reply of the States of Jersey; and whether the Question of the possible superiority of local naval defence for Jersey over defence by regular land forces has been considered; and, if so, by whom.

No representation from the States of Jersey has as yet reached the War Office, so that I am not in a position to make any statement. I think the Hon. Baronet will agree with me that it is not expedient in the interests of national defence to discuss the other points raised in the question through the medium of question and answer in this House, but all these questions are being carefully considered, and the assumption that an effective force of Militia, must be organised, if the regular force now in the island is to be maintained, is correct.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman had a copy of the draft answer of the States of Jersey—a very long document, printed about four months ago?

reply was inaudible.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any final decision has yet been come to in reference to the disbandment, or to the increase above the numbers named in the Estimate, of the Chinese regiment.

It has recently been decided to retain the Chinese regiment, to consist of four companies, with a total strength of about 400 men.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state, in view of the recent case of death by suffocation through overcrowding in Gravesend. Barracks, to which his attention has been drawn by the coroner's jury, what steps he intends to take.

The matter has been inquired into, and steps were immediately taken to stop the overcrowding referred to. The causes of the overcrowding are being made the subject of careful inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a Report can be presented to Parliament on such portions of the recent combined operations of the Mediterranean and Channel Squadrons as can be made public without prejudice to the public interests.

The reports of the combined manoeuvres have not yet been fully considered by the Board of Admiralty, but when they have been so considered, there is no objection to laying before Parliament a report giving an account of the general scope and results of the manoeuvres.

It will be done by the Admiralty?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now prepared to suggest to the Indian Government the advisability of instituting an inquiry as to the effect of the closing of the mints to the free coinage of silver, since the attainment of stability at sixteen pence per rupee, upon the economic condition of India generally.

l am not of opinion that there is any sufficient reason for instituting a special inquiry, which would of necessity be elaborate, into the economic effects either of the closing of the Indian Mints in 1893 or of the stability of exchange which that measure was intended to produce and has produced. Those effects, so far as I am able to judge of them, appear to me to be on the whole eminently satisfactory.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he proposes to give any information to the House as to the grounds upon which an attack has been made by the British fleet on the fleet of the Government of Venezuela; and if Papers will be laid upon the Table giving details, and when.

These Papers are now to be had at the Vote Office.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman propose to give us a definite opportunity before the prorogation of discussing the matter?

That is not the question.

May I ask my right hon. friend, as the British and German Governments are acting together with regard to Venezuela, whether the British Government are responsible in any way for any act the German Government my think it right to take: and whether the British Government are responsible in any way for the sinking of the Venezuelan vessels?

That is a question entirely for the German Government, and not for us.

Is there any foundation for the suggestion which has appeared in the morning papers, on the authority of a Reuter's dispatch, to the effect that the British Admiral was responsible for the sinking of the captured Venezuelan ships. Is the noble Lord in a position to give us any further information on the subject?

The answer to the question is in the negative. The operations against the Venezuelan ships were undertaken in some cases by the British naval authorities and in the remainder by the German. We are informed that the German Commodore found it necessary to sink two gunboats.

What is the comparative value of the German claims on Venezuela and of the gunboats which have been sunk?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if be can state what is the present state of the negotiations between Cuba and the United States for a Reciprocity Treaty; whether His Majesty's Government have taken any, and what, steps for the protection of British interests and the maintenance of their right to most-favoured nation treatment in Cuba; and with what result.

Negotiations are proceeding at Havana for the conclusion of a Reciprocity Treaty between Cuba and the United States, and have nearly reached their final stage. Representations have been made at Washington with regard to British commercial interests in Cuba. No answer has yet been received.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it will be competen; for the Germanor Austrian Government, under the terms of the Brussels Convention, to pay the whole of the rail and shipping freights on sugar exported to the United States, and what relation such payment would bear to the money bounties now paid by these Governments.

Under the Brussels Convention, should any question arise as to whether one of the contracting Powers were, by some course of action such as that referred to in the question, conferring an indirect bounty on the export of sugar, such a question would be referred to the International Commission for consideration and report. I cannot anticipate the decision of the Commission on a case which has not arisen.

Will the decision of this Commission not be absolutely final and without appeal?

Yes, I rather think it would on this point.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, have the present law officers of the Crown given to His Majesty's Government advice relative to the effect of the Brussels Sugar Convention on the most-favoured nation Clause in existing commercial treaties contrary to that given by the law officers of the Crown in 1880; and if so, is the present advice that of all the law officers of the Crown, including the Lord Chancellor, Mr. Attorney General, and Mr. Solicitor General, or is it the advice of one only of them. The HON. MEMBER also had the following Question on the Paper: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact, recently ascertained upon further investigation by His Majesty's Government, that the highest legal authority, the law officers of the Crown, advised His Majesty's Government in 1880 that to impose a countervailing duty in order to neutralise a foreign bounty on sugar would be contrary to the most-favoured-nation Clause in existing commercial treaties, His Majesty's Government now propose to ratify and and act upon the Brussels Sugar Convention, and thus to violate those treaties; if not, do they propose to give notice of the termination of those treaties; is he aware that such treaties exist between Great Britain and twenty-one foreign States, not being signatories of the Convention, including Russia and the United States; and what course do His Majesty's Government propose to take in the event of these countries adhering to the view expressed by the British law officers of the Crown in 1880, and withdrawing from British produce and manufactures the advantages of the most-favoured nation Clause.

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer both Questions together. His Majesty's Government are advised that there is nothing in the terms of the Sugar Convention inconsistent with the most-favoured-nation Clause that is in the contrary sense to the advice which it appears was given in 1880. My hon. friend has asked for details as to the particular law officers concerned in giving the advice, and, although there would be no objection on the present occasion to giving the advice, I think it would be a very bad precedent, which I ought not to set. As my hon. friend will have perceived from that answer, we are not of opinion that the Sugar Convention violates the most-favoured-nation articles in the existing treaties. This opinion is shared, so far as we are aware, by every non-signatory Power except Russia; and Russia herself was a signatory to the convention of 1880, which contained a penal Clause.

Has any communication been received from any of the twenty-one countries concerned, or any inquiry made to ascertain their opinions?

I cannot answer my hon. friend's Question off hand. But, of course, this matter has been long before the international public of all these countries; and, if there had been any objection of the kind my hon. friend supposes I am sure we would have been made aware of it.

May I ask whether there will be any objection to the presentation to the House of all the correspondence which has passed with foreign nations on the subject of the interpretation of the Convention, particularly on this point?

I am not aware that there has been any correspondence on this point, because it is a point which, I believe, is a matter of common agreement, not requiring correspondence. But, if the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on the subject, he will receive an answer.

With a view to clearing up the point, may I ask, if there has been no correspondence, by what means is the right hon. Gentleman able to state his belief as to the agreement of the other nations?

That is obviously a Question which cannot be answered without full notice. But take the case of the United States. We know full well that the United States has vehemently protested against the view of my hon. friend, not in relation to this Convention, but in relation to other international transactions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the despatch from Russia, in which Russia takes the view which was given by the law offers in 1880 and by my humble self now?

That point will be answered when the Question is put on the Paper by my hon. friend or the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, what proportion of the total sugar exports from the West Indies is sold in the United States; whether the sugar so sold is now protected from European competition by the American countervailing duties; and whether those duties will cease if the Brussels Convention comes into operation.

Of the total sugar exported from the British West Indian Colonies in the year 1901-2 roughly speaking about three-fourths went to the United States. The European State bounties are now countervailed in the United States, and if both the countervailing duties and the European state bounties are removed the position will be as at present, except that the Cartel bounties which are not countervailed will disappear also, to the advantage of the West Indian sugar producers.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, what is the relative value of the sugar exports from Jamaica as compared with the total exports.

For the year ending the 31st of March last the value of the sugar exported was about 7 percent, of the total value of the exports.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will grant a Return showing the inclusive cost per head per annum (both establishment and maintenance charges) of the children in each of the village communities or grouped cottage homes for Poor Law children.

I shall be happy to grant a Return on this subject if the hon. Member will move for it in the form which I have suggested to him.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether be can state on what basis the Home Office experts assume that 27 degrees should be deducted from the 110 degrees fire-point Tagliabue test of petroleum in Pennsylvania, so as to make it equivalent to the 73 degrees Fahrenheit Abel close test employed in these countries.

There is some mistake in the figures given in the lion. Member's Question. In particular, 63 degrees, not 73, was the figure given for Pennsylvania in the previous answer to which he refers. This statement of the approximate equivalent (according to the English Abel close test) for the results shown by the Tagliabue open test was based on a collation of statements of responsible officials in the United States who use the latter test.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, with respect to the alleged punishment of a girl for objecting to bow to an image of the Virgin Mary, while attending St. John's Schools, Sutton-on-Plym, Plymouth, whether, having regard to the fresh representations that have been made to the Board of Education, he will now make any statement, or proposes to take any further action in the matter.

A fresh set of statutory declarations has been sent to me by the hon. Member. The original declarations related to a time when a life-sized image of the Virgin stood in the church referred to (St. John's Church, Sutton-on-Plym). The later declarations, made by the same persons as the earlier, state that the date given in the earlier was erroneous, as the girl was not attending the St. John's School at that date. The later declarations relate to a period nineteen months before the image was even placed in the church. I am informed that on the altar screen is a group representing the Crucifixion, and that one figure in this group represents the Virgin; but it does not appear that this figure has been an object of worship, or that it could be separately worshipped, being one of a group; and I am informed that the words used in the declarations "bow one by one as we passed this image" would, from the position of this figure, bo totally inapplicable. Having regard to these apparent inconsistencies in a story relating to a period two and a half years ago, supported only by declarations, of which the later set admittedly contradicts the earlier, the Board of Education do not propose to make further inquiry into the case.

Arising out of that answer, may I ask whether the father of the girl, or the girl herself, has withdrawn anything from the original statement except the date; also whether among the fresh representations he has received there is one from another girl who alleged that she was caned in the same school for the same offence.

The alteration of the date puts the incident back to a time when there was no image of the sort described in the first declaration. As regards the other case, it relates to a period more than three years ago.

Are there two images in the church?

Order, order! The matter cannot be debated.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can state how many Roman Catholic jurors were ordered by the Crown to stand aside at the trial, on Tuesday last, of Mr. Denis Kilbride, on a charge of inciting to murder, at the winter assizes held in Maryborough; how many Roman Catholics were on the jury that convicted in this case; and what were the instructions given to the Crown Solicitor as to challenging of the jurors on this occasion.

I have no definite official information which would enable me to reply to the first and second queries contained in this Question, since, as directed by the circular of February, 1894, no inquiry is made into the religions of jurors, no record kept of their religious opinions, and no action taken by the Crown in reference to jurors on account of them. The Crown Solicitor, however, reports to me that he set aside with equal impartiality every juror who, from prejudice either for or against the prisoner, he had reason to believe would not have given a fair and impartial verdict on the evidence, and further that he has since been informed and believes that of the 221 jurors on the panel one-fifth were Protestants and four-fifths Roman Catholics, while out of the forty-six jurors ordered to stand aside over one-fourth, namely twelve, were Protestants. As to the last query, no instructions other than those contained in the above circular were given to the Crown Solicitor.

What is the name of the Crown Solicitor for this county?

Dr. Todd.

Is he a resident of the county?

No.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many prosecutions under the Criminal Law and Procedure(Ireland) Act, 1887, have taken place in the parishes where 184 officers of branches of the United Irish League are in occupation of evicted farms and eleven months grazing lands; and what has been the result of these prosecutions.

I have already stated that, so far as I could discover, no such proceedings have been instituted against the officials mentioned. The Papers before me do not contain the further information now desired, and I do not think its importance could be commensurate with the trouble involved in procuring it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give a Return setting forth their names and addresses?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received any representation from the Irish Forestry Society as to the necessity of tree planting in two and a half million acres of waste land in Ireland; and whether he can state what steps he proposes to take by means of legislation, or otherwise, in this matter.

The Department has received no recent representations from the Society on the subject, and does not propose to take any steps in this direction pending the issue of the Report of the Departmental committee on British Forestry. It has, however, made arrangements to afford expert advice to persons desiring to improve or extend their woodlands.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is now in a position to state when the Commissioners of National Education intend paying the capitation grant for the present year.

The payment of the residual capitation grant for the present year, to which the hon. Member presumably refers, will be made in April next.

I beg to ask the Chief secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what terms the Congested Districts Board have purchased from the Earl of Lucan his Ballinrobe estate; what is the total amount of the purchase, and how many years purchase does it represent on the gross and net rentals respectively.

The Board has not purchased, and is not negotiating for the purchase of this estate.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire why officials of the Congested Districts Board set these rumours afloat?

They are not circulated by the officials of the Board.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to the fact the local Secretary to the Postal Telegraph Clerks Association, at Londonderry, is to be removed from the postal to the telegraph department after the Christmas pressure for closer supervision, and is at present under surveillance by instruction of the postmaster; and will he say whether this action has his sanction.

No such arrangement is contemplated. It is not the case that the officer in question has been placed under special surveillance.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what are the regulations adopted by the Department of Agriculture as to the selection of itinerant instructors recommended for appointment to the Agricultural and Technical Instruction Committees established in connection with the various County Councils; what are the tests and examinations to which these instructors are subjected; and who recommends the candidates to be placed on the lists framed by the Department of Agriculture.

The annual Report of the Department for 1901-2 contains much information on the several matters referred to in this question. The Report will be laid on the Table today. I have forwarded a copy to the hon. Member, and if, after perusing it, he desires any further information on the subject I shall be glad to give it to him.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the grants at present paid by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests towards the maintenance of various voluntary schools throughout the country will be continued if the Education Bill comes into operation; what the amount of those grants is at present, and among how many schools it is distributed; and whether any other National Department contributes in the same manner to voluntary schools at present.

The question of continuing these grants is one which will have to be considered as soon as the Education Bill becomes law. With regard to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, I have no information to enable mo to fully answer it, but so far as the Commissioners of Wood and Forests are concerned, it appears that they make grants to 104 schools, the total amount distributed in 1901-02 having been£1,110.

I should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Lords' Amendments to the Education Bill will be distributed tonight, otherwise, it will not be very convenient to go on with them tomorrow.

I do not like to answer the question off-hand, without having consulted the authorities responsible for the printing. I see a difficulty in carrying out the hon. Gentleman's view, because I believe the Lords have power, which they often exercise, to amend a Bill on its Third Reading.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will take steps to secure further employment of Reserve and discharged soldiers of good character in public departments.

May I inquire whether, if the right hon. Gentleman gives the undertaking asked for in the Question, steps will be taken to prevent civilians of good character being displaced to make room to them.

The Question of the hon. Member opposite is outside my cognisance. With regard to the Question of my hon. friend, as he is aware, the policy which he advocates is one which has the sympathy of the Government, and which we should be glad to further.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give direct instructions to the permanent officials in this direction?

As I understand the First Lord of the Treasury does not propose to give the House an opportunity for discussing the situation in Venezuela before the prorogation, I desire to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the present state of our relations with the Republic of Venezuela."

I do not at all object. The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over until the Evening Sitting, this day.

in the Chair.]

said that in the course of the discussion on this subject a few days ago. he drew a comparison between the Beira and the Uganda undertakings, and the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in the course of his reply, made a very strong statement. He said, in fact, that the Beira Railway was one of the worst constructed in Africa, and had had to be relaid. He would like to know what authority the noble Lord had for making that statement, and whether the noble Lord had seen the letter in The Timies this morning from the contractors of the Beira Railway, pointing out that the statement of the noble Lord was entirely inaccurate, inasmuch as the railway was built under the supervision and to the satisfaction of the engineers of the company, who were Sir George Bruce, Sir Douglas Fox—both past presidents of the Institute of Civil Engineers—and Sir Charles Metcalfe, all of them engineers of the highest English standing. The line was relaid in consequence of the necessity of altering the original gauge so as to have the same gauge right through from Cape Town to Beira. He would like further to ask the noble Lord whether the account also given by Messrs. Pauling in The Times as to their negotiations with the Foreign Office was correct, and if so what were the reasons given by the Foreign Office for undertaking the works themselves when so advantageous an offer had been made by these contractors?

said that although the hon. Member had not given him any notice, ho would do his best to answer his Question. With regard to the Beira Railway, it was originally a 2It. railway and was constructed on a very cheap basis. All the bridges, with one exception, were of wood. The hon. and learned Gentleman would know that the two most important things in working a railway were the diameter of the curves and the steepness of the inclines. In both these respects the Beira Railway was a far greater sinner than the Uganda Railway; and when the Beira Railway came to be tried, and heavy burdens were thrown upon it, the difficulties were found to be insuperable, and the whole line had to be reconstructed on the 3ft. 6in. gauge. When that reconstruction was completed, the railway had cost between £7,000 and £8,000 a mile. The line ran through far easier country than that traversed by the Uganda Railway; it was only 220 miles long, and never reached a higher point than 3,000ft. above the sea level. In the circumstances he did not think that the difference between £7,500 and £9.500 a mile in the cost of the two lines was at all surprising. It certainly did not reflect badly on the Uganda Railway. He had no desire to run down the Heir a Railway, and if anything he said the other night was thought excessive he gladly withdrew it. He still maintained, however, that the Beira Railway was not an example to be quoted in condemnation of the Uganda Railway, especially when the much more difficult country and the much greater length of the line were considered.

said that the noble Lord had not dealt with the point raised by Messrs. Pauling & Co. in their letter to The Times. They stated that they made an offer to Lord Kirmberley in April, 1895, to construct and work this line on certain conditions for £2,500,000. Lord Kimberley's Government soon after went out of office, and they renewed the ofter to Lord Salisbury's Government, but they never received any reply to that offer. The Government had gone on and made the line themselves at a cost to the country of £5,500,000, or £3,000,000 more than the amount for which Messrs. Pauling offered to do the job. He noticed that that was the same firm of contractors whose work on the Beira Railway was made the subject of comment by the noble Lord. It seemed to him to be very singular. The firm had certainly constructed some railways in Donegal very well indeed —and that was a difficult country—and he could not see why they should not he entitled to receive a courteous answer to their offer. Five millions was being spent on this railway, and another five millions on a colonial cable. Ten millions of the taxpayers' money was being spent on colonials who paid no taxes, while the people who had to pay through the nose—especially in Ireland—were not reaping a shilling's worth of benefit from the outlay.

asked the noble Lord whether he could inform the House as to the amount of remuneration given to the Crown Agents, and other permanent officials, who had had the carrying out of the construction of the railway, and also what amount of remuneration would have been received by Government officials had the work of constructing the railway been entrusted to private contractors.

asked for further information with regard to figures in the estimates. When he brought this matter up last time the noble Lord rather scolded him, and certainly failed to give him any satisfaction by promising to do his best to stop this scandalous waste of money. The amount put down for contingencies was £252,000, and it now appeared that £222,000 had been saved under that head. He wished to know, therefore, why an estimate for £252,000 was laid. Then there was an item of £484,000 for general charges. That was an increase of £200,000. How was it that such a vast sum was required for services which could only bo described as general? Surely now that the line was approaching completion they ought not to have such vague estimates laid before them. Rolling stock up to the present appeared to have cost £400,000, and now £128,000 more was to be spent. That seemed a huge amount for a railway which would have so very little traffic to cope with. But the worst item of all was that for station buildings. They had already cost £370,000 and now a further sum of £200,000 was asked for, or £570,000 in all. That seemed to him a most astounding and extravagant amount. Surely the stations were not to be on the same pattern as Charing Cross or Victoria. He would ask the noble Lord to endeavour to explain these items and to give the Committee some assurance that efforts would be made, event this late stage, to secure economy in this vast expenditure.

said it would be more satisfactory if the noble Lord would give the Committee the detailed accounts of the expenditure. The accounts already laid merely gave the large totals of the money spent under five or six heads.

suggested that the amount of remuneration paid to the Crown Agents for the Colonies might be shown as a separate-item. These gentlemen were borrowed from the Colonial Office for the purpose of superintending the construction of the line, and it appeared that for every penny spent on this railway they received 1 per cent., which amount went to form a pension fund for themselves. That fund now amounted to something like £320,000. Would the noble Lord be kind enough to state how much of the excess was due to this 1 per cent?

trusted that the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would not hesitate to supply the information asked. It was obvious that in a case such as this, where there had been much extravagant waste, the House should be put in possession of all possible information. He also hoped the noble Lord would reply to the question of the hon. Member for the Swansea District with regard to the statement of the well-known contractors, Messrs. Pauling and Co., that they tendered for the work of this railway, and that had their offer been accepted the railway would have been made for about half what it had actually cost. It would be remembered that when the question was last debated the noble Lord put forward the excuse for the Foreign Office doing the work that it was improbable any contractors would have undertaken it. If this firm did offer, then the noble Lord must have been misinformed, and some explanation ought to be forth coming. It would have been the greatest possible advantage to have had a private firm undertaking this work who had had experience of makinga railway under similar conditions. They ought to have an explanation given upon this question. With regard to the Beira Railway, he had two or three remarks to make upon what the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had said. He himself had travelled upon the Beira Railway when it was a two-foot line. It was quite true that the curves were sharp, but it should be remembered that the narrower the gauge the sharper they might make the curves. Therefore the comparison made between the Uganda and the Beira Railways was not a satisfactory one. On all the famous narrow-gauge railways it was well known what extraordinarily sharp curves were made with perfect safety owing to the narrow gauge of the line. The Beira Railway was made under circumstances of unusual haste and urgency, and it might easily have cost a little more than would otherwise have been necessary owing to the fact that it had to be made in such exceptional haste because it ran through one of the deadliest regions in the world. For about ninety miles from Beira up to the sea was a malarious region in which half the Europeans engaged in the line either died or suffered from fever during the construction of the line through that part, and the death rate there was something like 30 or 40 percent. Therefore, it was necessary to make this railway with exceptional haste. No such haste was necessary in the case of the Uganda line, and consequently a comparison with the Beira Railway was not quite a fair one. The noble Lord had stated that the Beira line was constructed through an easier country, but he found that the part near the coast in the case of the Uganda Railway was, according to the best information he had been able to collect, a great deal easier than the coast section of the Beira line, which was subject to floods which put the whole country under water for thirty or forty miles on each side of the line, and consequently the difficulty of making that line through this country whilst it was under water was enormous. Therefore it was necessary to make a bend for the line at great cost, and the question of the bridges presented extraordinary difficulty, and that was a far more costly work in the case of the Beira than the Uganda line. Speaking generally, there was no comparison between the extreme difficulty of that country and the difficulties encountered in Uganda. The comparison which the noble Lord drew was not a fair one, and these facts had to be borne in mind in estimating the amount of money they had spent upon the Uganda Railway. He did not wish to repeat the criticisms offered the other day, but he thought it was necessary that justice should be done to the Beira line.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen has referred to the question of the Beira line. Let me say that he is quite misinformed if he thinks there was no urgency in regard to the making of the Uganda Railway. The right hon. Gentleman having said before that there was no urgency in respect of the Uganda Railway, I was in a position to reply to him and explain in great detail why there was great urgency, and I did so.

said he did not say there was no urgency, but he drew a distinction in this respect between the Uganda and the Beira lines. In the case of the Beira line the climate was very unhealthy, and the difficulties were increased by floods.

Apparently, the right lion. Gentleman does not know the reasons of the urgency of the Uganda Railway because he did not hear the remainder of the debate which he initiated. I think I have some reason to criticise his reference to the question of urgency, although I dealt with the matter rather fully on the last occasion. The hn, and learned Member for Swansea has compared the cost of the Uganda Railway with that of the Beira line, and he compared them unfavourably to the former. Upon inquiry, I find that the Beira line cost £7,500 per mile when it was placed upon a broad gauge and made into a satisfactory railway. I still maintain the opinion that it is not a well-constructed line, and in order to make it into a well-constructed line, £7,500 per mile had to be spent upon it. That £7,500 per mile is in respect of a line which was very much easier to construct than in Uganda. When you have to go up to 8,000 feet in the construction of a railway it must be more expensive than going up to 3,000 feet. The right hon. Gentleman did not do justice to the length of the railway in Uganda, for there is an enormous difference. In Uganda there is extra haulage, and the expenditure increases as you go along with the line, and when you come to very steep hills, as in the case of Uganda, the cost of haulage becomes enormous. The first 230 miles of the Uganda line is all that can be compared with the Beira railway, and it has not cost £7,500 per mile. In Uganda, when you get far away from the coast and have to go to a height of 8,000 feet and make viaducts and bridges which the circumstances of the country necessitate, then you find a very expensive cost. But leaving aside all points of cost, and admitting for argument's sake that I am wrong in my criticism of the Beira line, I do not admit that much can be said against the Ugada Railway by comparing its total cost with the Beira line. The hon. Gentleman opposite asks me about the contractor, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen said that a firm of contractors offered to build the line for £2,500,000, and, therefore, we might have had the railway at that price. But that docs not follow at all. Has the right hon. Gentleman always found that contractors do a job at the price they offer? Is that his experience? No man finds that to be the case. The usual result is that the contractor charges a great deal more. I told the Committee when I first introduced this Bill that it was impossible to make the Uganda Railway without coolie labour. That labour would most certainly have had to be found by the contractor. It was not myself alone who said that you could not have made this railway without coolie labour. The Leader of the Opposition had said so upon a former occasion, and if the right bon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick did not actually say so, he used language which very nearly came to that point, if it was necessary to have coolie labour, as I say it was necessary, what would the contractors have done? Would they have had coolie labour? Certainly not, because the Government would not have allowed them to have coolie labour. It is only as a considerable favour that the Government of India allow us to have coolie labour, and it is only permitted to the British Government. It is, therefore, highly probable that they would never have consented to allow coolie labour to a contractor. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. and learned Member has done justice to the case. One of the conditions laid down by the contractor was that there was to be a certain guarantee of interest bearing all the loss on working expenses, and on the top of that we were to grant not only £2,500,000, but also certain plots of land.

They were not yours, so they would have cost you nothing.

Had we done this we should very likely have been worse off. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock has asked me about the Crown Agents, but that question was very carefully discussed by the House of Commons in 1900, and then my right hon. friend the Member for Bristol, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, explained that though the remuneration of the Crown Agents came out of the fees, yet it was a fixed remuneration. That was the explanation then given. The salaries were fixed by the Colonial Office, and they were found out of the fees. The hon. Member asks mo to give him the total amount paid. As I understand it, the Crown Agents are paid salaries like myself and any other member of the Government, and the fact that they transact the business of the Uganda Railway as well as the work of the Colonial Office makes no difference to their remuneration. That is what I understand is the case. The hon. Member for West Islington asks me if I will give a pledge that economy will be studied in the future. It is really not necessary to ask us if we will study the interests of economy in the future, for of course we will. I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman thinks it is a particularly pleasant thing for me to come down here and ask for this £600,000 on the top of everything else that has been granted for the Uganda Railway. That is not at all the wish of the Government, and I should be very glad indeed if the line could be conducted more economically. I will give the assurance that we shall do our utmost to study economy in the matter of the Uganda Railway in the future. The hon. Gentleman has put several questions on the items themselves which I will endeavour to answer. First of all, as to station buildings. The original estimate, found in the first part of the Table, was made on the mileage rate of the first 270 miles. That was an inaccurate mileage rate, because, as the line wenton, partly owing to physical conditions, the nature of the ground, and so forth, the mileage rate increased so that the rate for the first 270 miles was erroneous when taken as an estimate for the latter part of the line. A great many of these buildings are calculated at so much a mile in the case of English railways, and the calculation is found to work out accurately.

Is galvanised iron calculated at so much a mile?

Then there were certain head-quarters works and a staff at Nairobi. I told the Committee quite candidly when introducing the Bill that certain things had been omitted from the original estimate which ought to have been included. This is certainly a thing which ought to have been in the original estimate, but it was not, and therefore has to be made good now. I have already explained to the House that the climate was disappointing, and, as is well-known, all building operations are much more difficult when the weather is very bad. Then there is the question of the water supply. That all comes into the item "station buildings, etc." The water supply is a difficulty on the Uganda railway because we have not found sources of water to supply the railway at sufficiently frequent intervals. In such cases the water to replenish the reservoirs has to be carried from one place to another on water trains. That is a very expensive matter, but as our investigations have proceeded and we have found more sources of water, we have been very glad to do away with this carriage of water by establishing a water supply. That has at once transferred the cost from annual to capital expenditure. The carriage of water increases the annual, but not the capital cost, whereas the establishment of a water supply increases the capital expenditure, but effects a great economy on the whole enterprise. That has happened in one or two cases, and we gladly ask the House for more money on that account, because it is economical in the long run. The fact that the railway was not made so quickly as we had hoped it would be has rendered it necessary to make more substantial he temporary buildings that were used, and that has increased the amount of that item. As to the rolling stock, there vas an under-estimate of £50,000 in the first instance, made, not by the engineer in South Africa, but by our responsible advisers at home, based on inquiries as to the cost of works and so forth in England. Then there is the question of safety chains and automatic brakes. Hon. Gentlemen may criticise such expenditure on the Uganda Railway, but it is really an economy, because we find that the cost of the breakages which these automatic brakes, and safety chains would have prevented would have gone a long way towards meeting the extra cost if they had been provided n the first instance. The reason for the reduction under the head of "contingencies" is that a large part of the money asked for in 1899-1900 was absorbed by items which are not found in the second column of the table otherwise I should have had to ask for a larger sum even than £600,000. The "general charges" are much higher, chiefly because of the mistaken estimate and the time it has taken to build the railway. "General charges" includes wages, and so on, of the hands employed, and the longer the railway is in the building the heavier the general charges must be. The miscalculation of assuming that the latter portion of the line would cost the same as the earlier part applies also to the general charges.

What about the detailed accounts?

They have never before been supplied in connection with the Uganda Railway. The House did not ask for them in 1900, and, in any case, they could not be presented before this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. I hope it will not be necessary for me to ask for any more money by way of loan for this railway. If there is any other demand on behalf of capital expenditure it will be found in the ordinary Estimates, and hon. Gentlemen will have an opportunity of cross-examining me, or whoever holds my place, in Committee of Supply.

The noble Lord has intimated that in its policy for the future the Foreign Office will take to heart the lessons which the experience of the Uganda Railway has taught them, but he did not seem to realise the lesson which I think the Foreign Office ought to have learnt—a lesson which, I am sure, the House of Commons has learnt, and will insist on in the future, viz., that there shall be no more railways constructed by amateur departments in public offices. The initial mistake, the blunder that has characterised the whole of these proceedings and is responsible to a large extent for this extravagance, is the unwise and injudicious plan of attempting to construct a railway in South Africa by a body of gentlemen sitting in London, a Departmental Committee of the Foreign Office with certain other persons associated with them. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware that the Foreign Office were warned seven years ago against taking this step. They were warned that if they constructed the railway themselves they would have to pay 40s. for every sovereign's worth of material, skill, and labour, as compared with the cost if done by experienced and responsible contractors. This is not the first railway that has been made in Africa, but all the others have been constructed by contractors who had experience of the country, who knew the labour difficulties, the cost of materials and—sometimes, no doubt, from experience—the possible loss. These contractors, while perhaps making a good contract for themselves, would also have saved the public funds a very large sum of money. With reference to the reply of the noble Lord, let me take first his statement as to the Crown Agents. I remember the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot say that that reply, to my mind, was satisfactory, nor is that of the noble Lord. What does ot really mean? That one Department of the Government borrows from another Department certain salaried servants, whose salaries are paid continuously and charged on the Department to which they properly belong. As a simple matter of fact, the borrowing Department ought to pay its proportion of the salaries for the time during which the servants are in its employ. But that is not done here. There is, I am told, a fixed percentage charged on all expenditure on material used. The noble Lord did not tell us where that went to. it is all charged against this account, but into what other account does it come? It is not a relief, as it would be under ordinary circumstances, to the Colonial Vote; that Vote is not reduced by a single penny. The explanation is that it goes to a sort of pension fund, out of which the Crown Agents are remunerated. I have no fault to find with Crown Agents receiving pensions, but that is not the proper way in which to provide them. If Crown Agents are entitled to pensions, they should be voted by this House, as is done in the case of other branches of the Civil Service. But the policy of Government servants governing expenditure, a percentage of which is either immediately or later to go into their own pockets, is a most dangerous one to pursue, and if these accounts were overhauled, and the whole thing shown on the one side and the other, I think that would be the opinion of the House of Commons also. With reference to contingencies, an hon. friend to mine in 1900 pointed out the extraordinary and unnecessary extravagance that had been imposed on the country by this mode of constructing the railway. I do not blame the noble Lord for that; he is in no way responisible for it; he has really come into this damnosa hereditas. He is in no way to blame, and he rather resents some of the criticisms that are made. I have no doubt that, if he could speak out as frankly as he used from below the Gangway, no one would denounce the whole transaction in stronger terms than the noble Lord. But what we must press the noble Lord for, and in this he is responsible, is the detailed accounts He says he is not going to ask for any more money—

I said I hoped not.

We hope so too. But that is no answer to our request for information as to how the money has been spent. It would be no answer on any ordinary Vote in Supply for the Minister in charge to say it was a closed transaction, and that he would give no details of the expenditure because he was not going to ask for any more. The Secretary to the Treasury has just come in. so I will put to him a question which he is perhaps better able to answer than the noble Lord. How are these accounts going to be dealt with by the Comptroller and Auditor General? I remember well when I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee some very extraordinary revelations being made before the members of the Committee of the way in which materials and stores were thrown away in one of the West African matters in which the Government were interested. In that case there were a great many detailed accounts supplied, and many of them were vigorously attacked by the Treasury itself. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is now in his place, and I think that we should have an assurance from him that the Treasury will so vigorously audit these accounts that when the Auditor General comes to deal with them he will have an opportunity to deal with these large items over which the right hon. Gentleman has passed so rapidly, without giving the House any further information than they had before. I agree with my hon. friend who said that it is no use crying over spilt milk. I have no fault to find with the construction of the railway, but I think that every blunder that could have been made in the construction of a railway has been made in the construction of this railway. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman adopt the principle upon which all the great railways of America and Canada were built, of giving sections of land to the contractors who built them?

said he did not object to that mode of paying the contractors, but when the cost came to be considered that item would have to be reckoned in the account.

Half the amount of money which has been paid for this railway would have been saved if that principle had been adopted, and it would have been worth the while of the Government, even if they had only saved a million by it. I press upon the right hon. Gentleman this fact— that the House of Commons have a right to ask, and do ask, for a detailed account of how this money has been spent in plant, material, stations, rolling stock, contingencies, and commissions.

I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that it is expedient that railways should, so far as is possible, be built by contract rather than under the control of a Government Department, but I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite does not quite appreciate the circumstances here, and seems to be basing himself too much on the letter of the contractors this morning when he says that, if the railway had been built by contract instead of by a Foreign Office Committee, they would have had it done for £2,500,000 instead of £5,000,000. But I should like to know what sort of a railway they would have built for £2,500,000—what would have been the gradients, the curves, and the rails. And I should also like to know whether they, or any other contractors, would have bound themselves to a price at that time. No man in his senses would or could have done so. My criticism of the railway is that the Government began to build it before they had any detailed survey or estimate. They had the excellent field survey of Major Macdonald, but no detailed survey or estimates. If the contractors had been let in on that footing, it is perfectly certain that it, would have cost so much as it has under the present circumstances. Therefore my criticism of the building of this railway goes back further, and I regret that the Government did not have a more adequate survey of the line and get better estimates before they began to build it, because then it would have been possible to put something into the hands of the contractors and have saved something for the country. The right hon. Gentleman criticised the Crown Agents and the principle on which they are paid. Crown Agents have orders for our different colonies in all parts of the world, and although it is true that a percentage is charged upon all the purchases they make, the system on which they are paid is quite different to that which the right hon. Gentleman suggests. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Crown Agents are paid by those percentages, but although they are paid out of them they receive a fixed salary.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton said the initial mistake of the Government was in attempting to construct a railway in Africa by a Committee sitting in London, instead of giving it over to a contractor. I agree that that was a very great mistake, but it was not the initial mistake. The initial mistake, in my opinion, was in going to Uganda at all. And for that mistake I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the responsibility rests entirely upon Lord Rosebery, who was the late and is the present Leader of the right hon. Gentlemen. The noble Lord thinks with regard to this matter it is a sufficient answer to come down here and say that there was a mistake in this, that, and the other, but if that was a sufficient answer it was not necessary to come down and tell the House that. Everybody knows there were mistakes in the estimates, but what we want to discover is not where those mistakes are, but who is responsible for the estimates and how the mistakes were made. One suggested explanatlon of the difference in the estimates was the distance of the railhead from the coast and the cost of getting the materials up to the railhead, but the engineers who had the conduct of this railway must have taken that into account. The noble Lord seems to me to have been very easily hoodwinked by the engineers in his employ, because they appeared to have persuaded him that they never took this into consideration. The cost of the material and the carriage of the material to the railhead must have been taken into consideration in the case of Uganda just as it would be in the case of an English railway or any other. The cost of building ten miles of railway in Sutherlandshire may not be much more than the cost of building ten miles in Essex, but the cost of the material necessary and its carriage is always taken into consideration. We are faced with these two facts. First of all we were told that the country was fully surveyed before the railway was made.

No, no.

We paid, at all events, enormous sums for the survey.

I explained that the survey was not complete.

I remember perfectly well that in the last year of the late Conservative Government large sums were voted by this House for surveying the country where this line has been made.

It is hardly fair on the part of the hon. Gentleman, who, no doubt for very proper reasons, has not been able to be present during the debates on this question, to come down and discuss it in this way. I have already explained to the House that the estimates and surveys were not complete in 1900 and 1901, and I have explained the details.

I am not speaking of the £600,000 now asked for, but of the first Resolution moved in the House when the Government first asked for this railway to be made.

There was no survey for that.

Two years ago we were aked to grant a sum for making a survey for the construciton of this line. That survey was made, and it was upon that survey that the estimate was made of £2,500,000, the sum for which the contractors of that time say today they were willing to build this railway. The contractors said they would make it for only £10,000 more. In view of these facts, I think the Committee should have not only a promise of better management in the future, but also an assurance that there will be an investigation as to how these mistaken estimates arose, and who was responsible for them. We should also be informed whether the persons who were responsible for the mistaken estimates are still in the employ of the Government, and whether any personal advantage to themselves has accrued during all these years in the carrying out of this undertaking. There was nothing more rife than charges of corruption against the Government of the Transvaal some time ago, but I venture to say that there was nothing that had a stronger smell of corruption in the history of that Government than the case with which we are now dealing, where a railway which was estimated to cost two and a half millions has cost five and a half millions. This money has obviously been squandered, and the money has gone into the pockets of interested parties at the expense of the State.

thought the Committee had been unwittingly misled by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen. He stated that the line to Beira was one which required expensive beds in its formation.

dissented.

said he was there when the line to Beira was being constructed, and he could state that the whole of it was of the most tin-pot description. The rails were 20 Ibs., and the engines 20 tons, and the whole line as a working machine was valueless. He was the guest of Mr. Pauling at the time the line was being made, and he received very great kindness from him. He did not think that gentlemen failed to carry out his work properly. The object was to get a line made to enable material to be transported to Rhodesia, and for that purpose alone. The railway was made "on the cheap," it was not a good, substantial line, and it had to be entirely remodelled before it became a working machine. He protested against the idea put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton that it was necessary in constructing such railways to give concessions along the line. All the trouble we had had in South Africa was due to the granting of concessions, and he objected to the perpetuation of that system in Uganda. He was opposed to the building of the line out of the pockets of the British taxpayers, for he thought Uganda had not yet reached that stage of development when a work of this kind should be carried out, but since the Government had decided to construct the line, he entirely dissented from the view that the adjoin ing territory should have been farmed out to concessionaires.

said that was not the view he expressed.

said the right hon. Gentleman stated that was the way in which the lines in Canada had been constructed. The contractors in this case had asked for mineral concessions, but when the Canadian lines were made, only grants of land were given. The right hon. Gentleman wished to carry out that principle, and that was a principle he was utterly opposed to, especially in Africa. He thought it was only fair to say that in his opinion it was a wrong conclusion to come to, that because the Beira railway was made for a small sum, the Uganda railway should also be made for a small sum. The Uganda railway was a substantial one, but the Beira railway could not be so described. The difficulties which were encountered in making the Uganda railway were far greater than those which were met with in the other case.

thought hon. Members should not be too apt to come to the conclusion that because this railway had cost more than the estimates which were submitted to the House, it was therefore wrong that the railway should be made by a Department rather than let on a contract. If contractors had undertaken to make a line from Mombasa to the Lake, they would have been quite as much in the dark as the Government had been, and their estimate of two and a-half millions must have been very largely conjectural. It certainly did not include the charge which was involved in the necessity of protecting the constructors of the railway from the tribes which were known to be very turbulent on occasions, and in fact there were unknown liabilities besides. The only thing the contractors could look to as a matter of business in undertaking such a liability at such a price would have been the prospect of the enormous potential advantage. It was believed that in some parts of this road there were very valuable minerals, and of course by undertaking such a work, with large blocks of land granted, there would have been great potential advantages. He doubted very much whether any Government would have been justified in parting with such extensive territories. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton had referred to the working of this system of construction in America, where every inch of the ground was known. There part of the land on each side of the railway was given as the price of the construction of the line, and then the settlement of those parts proceeded, so that money was put into the pockets of the Government in two ways—by the traffic which was brought to the line; also by the increased population and by the general benefit to the State. He recollected when he was himself in Australia that Colony thought it was desirable that a telegraph line should be constructed across Australia—two thousand miles in length, over which only two men had travelled without being lost. It was found impossible to get contractors at any reasonable price to undertake the contract for the whole line, but contractors were willing to make 500 miles at either end. The Government of the Colony undertook to construct the thousand miles in the interior themselves, and finished them before the contractors for the northern end. With such unknown liabilities as the Government had before them in Uganda, he held it was only right and prudent that they should keep the territory in their own hands rather than to grant concessions to private contractors. It was futile now to go into the question why this Uganda railway should be made at all. They were pressed fifteen years ago by certain Members at present on the Opposition Bench to be more forward in the acquisition of territory in the British interest in the great country they were now considering, and to be beforehand in taking possession of this territory with all its contingent liabilities.

said the noble Lord's statement was very unsatisfactory, except in regard to one point. That point was that the climate of Uganda, was very disappointing. He was very much pleased to hear it. The noble Lord had entirely overlooked to deal with the point made about the contractors. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North East Manchester that we should have had to give the contractors every alternate square mile, and that was objected to by the right hon. Gentleman. It was forgotten that if we had given the contractors every alternate square mile, the railway would not have cost the ratepayers of this country anything. It would be giving away what was not ours, where as we had to pay this additional two or three millions which had to come out of the pockets of some of the very poorest people of these islands. When the Government made railways in other people's countries he entirely approved of giving away the land of those countries instead of finding the money out of the pockets of our own taxpayers. Complaint was made in The Times this morning that while from start to finish of this undertaking those gentlemen were pestering—well, he would not say pestering—Lord Salisbury and Lord Cranborne, no reply was ever given to them. In order to prop up the railway they were told that there were large mineral resources in the country, but the country was inhabited by savage and turbulent tribes who would not work at half-a-crown a day, and coolies had to be imported from India. He found that there were to be thirty-six stations on the line, or a station nearly every fifteen miles. Fifteen thousand pounds had been spent on each station. The original estimate for the station buildings was now £372,000, but it was now £570,000, or nearly £200,000 of an excess. What sort of stations were they going to have for these negroes in East Africa? Were there going to be waiting-rooms, lavatories, and all modern improvements? A labourer's cottage of two rooms could be built for £120, and yet these galvanised iron sheds were to cost £15,000 each for the benefit of the people of that country. The craze for Imperialism had reached that part of Africa. He noticed that one of the bridges on the Uganda railway was called the Salisbury Bridge, another the Devonshire Bridge, and a third the Chamberlain Bridge. Now, as they owed the railway to Lord Rosebery, he would suggest that the leading Imperial lavatory should, in honour of the clean slate, be called "The Rosebery."

said there was no other business before the House at the Morning Sitting. The sitting did not technically come to an end till 7.30, but with the permission of the House he would leave the Chair, and would return to it it any formal business had to be transacted, such as receiving a Bill coming from the House of Lords.

I rise to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to the present state of our relations with the Republic of Venezuela. Burke once said it was the first duty of Members of Parliament to be jealous of the action of the executive, and I therefore make no apology for introducing at this period of the Session a subject which is now so markedly in the eye of the world as this is, especially as, in view of the nature of the work which Parliament has still to accomplish, there is not likely to be any other opportunity of discussing the Venezuelan question. I feel decidedly hampered in making out a case, because the Papers have only been in circulation since two o'clock today. It is difficult for any one to pick out the facts in so short a time, or to verify statements contained I in the Blue-book by information derivable from other sources. That is, however, a slight matter compared with the neglect by the Government of its duty to this House. In Germany, nearly a week ago, the matter was before the Reichstag, and ample information was given to the German nation; but with our own Parliament, although the Leader of the Opposition asked for Papers fully a week ago, they are only forthcoming today, which fact naturally precludes an adequate discussion taking place. I had always looked on the German Government as one of the most despotic Governments, and it is a little surprising that the English Government, which is supposed to be the very reverse, and to be popularly represented, should so long delay the representation to the House of these very important Papers. One of the morning papers—the Morning Post—which is more affected towards the Government than I am, says in its first leading article that "in the absence of knowledge we have to live by faith." My faith in the present Government is very small and exiguous, therefore I require facts and details before forming very strong opinions on any question. To declare war is to undertake a great responsibility at any time, but to do so without consulting Parliament, and without explanation to Parliament, is a much more responsible and extraordinary proceeding. I should have thought that the Jingo Ministry, having only just concluded a war in South Africa, which has been the means of losing many precious lives as well as 220 millions of treasure, would not have been anxious to engage in another war, especially as they have already on their hands a war with the Waziris and a conflict in Somaliland. I am almost tempted to conclude that this Government is anxious to show that it can take up a determined position in foreign politics, even when the Colonial Secretary is riding the waves of the Eastern Ocean. I ask the Government to give full details to the House and the country with regard to the motives which have led them—not, perhaps, to declare war, but at any rate to institute a blockade of the Venezuelan coast. I have examined the correspondence laid before us today in the brief time at my disposal, and I must say I am astonished at the very small amount of evidence which is given of the necessity for taking such drastic action. It seems to me that the complaints made by our Government to the Venezuelan Government are rather exiguous, and scarcely sufficient to base such very violent action upon them. The first place in the Government complaint is given to what it calls the unjustifiable interference with the liberty and property of British subjects, including the shipping claims. What are these claims on which the Government base their warlike attitude? They are eight in number—first the seizure by the Venezuelan gunboat of the "Augusto"; second, the case of the "Sea Horse"; third, the case of the "Maria Theresa"; fourth, the case of the "Pastor"; fifth, the case of the "Indiana"; sixth, the case of the "In Time"; seventh, the case of "The Queen"; and lastly, the case of the "Racer." I should like the House to note the fact that the first, second, and fourth of these cases have reference to seizures of property of alleged British subjects at or on the island of Patos, off Trinidad, which is claimed by the Venezuelan Government as their own property. For some time the Venezuelan Government has kept a revenue cutter in the offing of the island with a view to preventing smuggling between Venezuela and Trinidad. Therefore it seems to me that the question of the ownership of Patos Island is one which needs both evidence and proof. I suppose the war, or attack on Venezuela, has not been carried out with the view of deciding whether that island does or does not belong to us or Venezula. I do not wish to take the part of Venezuela without hearing the whole case argued, but on the assumption of the Venezuelans that the island belongs to them, I can quite imagine that it must be irritating to them to have the island of Trinidad made a base for smuggling operations in their country. I know it has gone on for generations, and I do not see how it can be stopped, but it is known that the Venezuelan Government have felt that if stronger measures were taken by us in our own island of Trinidad a great deal of smuggling would be prevented. The case of Spain and Gibraltar affords an illustration of what is going on—there is a chronic state of smuggling between the two places. I should like to read to the House what the Government itself says with regard to the Island of Patos. On page 2 I find these words—

"The correspondence exchanged with the Venezuelan Government with reference to this incident made it clear that they were determined to consider and to treat Patos as belonging to the Republic. In these circumstances it was thought expedient to record a formal protest against this renewed and gross violation of British territorial waters by a Venezuelan gunboat which the facts that the 'Pastor' was a Venezuelan vessel, and had infringed the Customs regulations of Trinidad, were not held in any way to justify.

"His Majesty's Minister accordingly made a strong remonstrance with reference to this incident, but the Venezuelan Government stated that they could not make any investigation with regard to the violation of British territory, as they considered Patos Island, on which the violation occurred, as their own legitimate possession."

I would like to know whether our Government has not tacitly accepted this position. From the correspondence it looks as if we did not insist very emphatically on our rights, and the Venezuelans may possibly have imagined that their claim was admitted by us. With regard to the case of the "Maria Theresa," which was burned by those in charge of the "Miranda," it is stated that—

"The Venezuelan Government, in justification of the 'Miranda's' action, contended that the owner and master of the sloop had been actively engaged in assisting the revolutionists against President Castro. Although the treatment of the British subjects on board the sloop afforded ground for remonstrance, the Government forbore to press the matter strongly, as there was some evidence that the vessel had been in communication with, if not in the employ of, the revolutionary party. Further inquiry and explanation were promised."

Then comes the case of the "Indiana," which was confiscated because she was accused of being a smuggler, the seizure having taken place on the river Barima, within Venezuelan territory, the waters of which are, by the terms of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Award, open to the navigation of all nations in time of peace. It is stated on page 3—

"There was no evidence to support this charge of smuggling, and the colonial authorities, to whom the case was reported, point out that the confiscation of the vessel was an excessively severe penalty for any infraction of the Customs Law, if such were deemed to have occurred. The representations made to the Venezuelan Government have hitherto failed to elicit any explanation."

It certainly does seem to be rather hard that a vessel should be destroyed because it was suspected of being engaged in smuggling, and I, for one, do not see any good reason for the exercise of force of that kind. Now we have the case of the "In Time," which was destroyed by the Venezuelan gunboat "General Crespo." I think that was pretty high-handed, and I make a present to the Government of that case as counting in their favour—

"In connection with this case" we are told "that the Minister was instructed to inform the Venezuelan Government that unless they could disprove the reports received as to the destruction of this vessel. His Majesty's Government might be obliged to cease extending the hospitality of British ports to Venezuelan cruisers."

I am sorry that the Government has not given so the exact words of that notification, so we are unable to judge whether the communication from our Foreign Office was, or was not, of a needlessly offensive character. There only remain the cases of the "Queen, reported by His Majesty's Minister at Caracas, in June, as having been confiscated on a charge of having carried a cargo of arms to Venezuela, and of the "Racer," which was seized on September 22nd. These are cases which. I think, require explanations from the Venezuelan Government. I perfectly understand that we have to take into consideration the fact that for the last eighteen months or two years a revolution has been raging in Venezuela, and that during such times of crisis it is not easy for those in command of gunboats to exactly carry out their operations with every legal formality. It will not be forgotten that during the war in which we were recently engaged in South Africa we had to apologise to one or two foreign nations for rather high-handed proceedings on the part of our own zealous commanders, but this is usually condoned in such times. These eight cases I have detailed to the House are, as I understand, our first line of defence, or rather of attack, and they seem to me rather small points upon which to base such an extreme proceeding as the sending of a huge fleet to the Venezuelan coast. The dates at which some of these seizures were made should be borne in mind. The "In Time" was seized on May 1st, 1902; the "British Queen" in June the same year, and the "Racer" in September. It does not seem that very much time was allowed to the Venezuelan Government to offer explanations, because, on November 11th, the first ultimatum was delivered. We must admit that President Castro, who was engaged in active warlike operations for the defence of his Government, and was indeed struggling for his own life, was not in a favourable position to carry such negotiations as these to a successful issue. I quite admit that many of the South American presidents are very irritating politicians. I have been a merchant in Manchester for twenty-five years, and I know that I have had to leave valuable property in Venezuela, St. Salvador, Columbia, and other countries, which I shall probably never look upon again in this world. I am therefore quiteable to sympathise with this Government. It is its duty in a general way to protect the interests of British citizens, but what they have done on this occasion, looks to me like using a Nasmyth hammer in order to crack a nut, and if they had allowed President Castro a little more time to pull himself together, it might have been possible to convince him of the desirability of satisfying our claims without having recourse to such drastic measures. The second line of defence of the Government may be very much stronger. I am open to conviction on that point. These are the claims for injury to British property during the late Revolution, and the Revolution which put President Castro in power. There are no details given of these claims, and I have not had time to make inquiry in those quarters where it might be possible to get the information. I therefore await with great interest the statement the noble Lord has to make in regard to it. The third line is concerned with the claims of the bondholders. I always feel a little suspicious of these claims, especially when they are raised against a small nation. I believe there are some fine old defaulters to be found among the nations of Europe. There is, for instance, the irrepressible Turk, and there is also the case of Portugal. We have sustained serious losses in Turkey without sending a single warship there, while as to Portugal, she is still our friend. Surely, this House and the country have a right to know what those claims are. Here, in conjunction with Germany, we are sending a fleet to attack an apparently friendly country, and yet no information is vouchsafed to us. I am a lover of the principles of arbitration, and it would have to be a very peculiar war which found me among its defenders. I suppose, with reference to the bondholders, some of the claims are in connection with arrears of payment for English and German built railways, but as to that, the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire, who is to second this Motion, has fuller information. I should like to know, speaking as a Lancashire man. whether, before taking this unexpected action, the Government consulted the Associated Chambers of Commerce, or the Chambers of Commerce of Manchester and Lancashire. Hon. Members may laugh, but it must be remembered that we have enormous business dealings with Venezuela. America, of course, is not likely to disapprove of England and Germany putting pressure on Venezuela, because that would probably mean the boycotting of their goods to the great advantage of American trade. These questions are very interesting to us. We have no Minister of Commerce in our Cabinet, and I am not certain, that it would not be better for us if a few business men had seats therein, but it does seem to be desirable that, in a matter like this, Chambers should be consulted—of course, in quite a confidential manner—for they represent some of the right and power of the nation. I was glad to hear it stated this afternoon from the Treasury Bench that we were entirely independent of Germany, and that each nation was solely responsible for its own acts. It is only right that if any indiscretions are committed the responsibility shall rest with those guilty of them. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to give us fuller details on this point of the responsibilities of each Power, and also as to the 'attitude of the United States. We all understand the attitude of the United States, which is not opposing in any way the action of the two Powers, but, at the same time, we know that at any moment en- tanglement may occur. The Monroe doctrine has many times been used for Presidential election purposes, and, consequently, there may at any time be a change in American sentiment. I believe we may expect all reasonable moral support from President Roosevelt. But it is noticeable that the New York World and the New York Herald are strongly urging arbitration, and the Herald says—

"For lack of a statesman in the British Cabinet, England is cajoled into co-operating with Germany in an enterprise which may result in an attempt to extend European dominion over the Western Hemisphere, which the Monroe doctrine declares must be regarded as a manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States."

I see, too, that the Standard correspondent in New York says—

"The general feeling in Congress is confidence in Messrs. Roosevelt and Hay. Senator Cullon, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, says that the collection of Venezuela's debts by the process communicated to the United States is different from the course that affairs are taking, and which might call for prompt action if the allies were to march to Caracas or invade Venezuela. Mr. Cullon would regard it as a first step towards permanent occupation or acquisition of territory, whether the allies considered it so or not, or by whatever name they described their operations."

I see that the New York Sun and the New York Herald express the views that the bombardment was unduly precipitate. I do not endorse everything said in these papers; I am only reading these extracts to show how opinion may be aroused which would force the hands of those who otherwise would be anxious to act in harmony with us. 1 notice that a German paper, the Neueste Nachrichten, naively admits that—

"Had we Germans intervened alone with armed force in Venezuela, we should have run a risk which is not worth the prize we hope to obtain."

I conclude by saying that the complaints which the Government have put in the first rank are most slender upon which to base so awful a contingency as war, although the Government may have a long list of valid and important claims which may induce the House of Commons to endorse them. But as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs said at Manchester, "There is nothing which refuses to go by programme so much as war." Therefore, while protecting a few ships, we may find ourselves in a much more general engagement than we expect. If the second and third rank arguments are more weighty, let us, by all means, have them. We know that many nations have defrauded us; and that, if we attack them all, we shall have our hands full. Will the Government tell us what they propose to do if arbiration fails? I was glad to see from the evening papers that Lord Lansdowne has informed the nation in another place that the United States has offered its services in case Venezuela is willing to settle matters by arbitration. It is only upon the first claims that the Government are insisting upon an immediate reply; they are willing to submit the other claims raised during the penultimate revolution and the revolution which had just occurred, to a small Mixed Commission, which would ascertain whether they were fully justified or not. In a despatch from Lord Lansdowne, dated 17th November, I find the following statement:—

"on receiving the submission of the Venezuelan Government, and on learning that they were prepared to admit their liability on every count. His Majesty's Government would for their part exact immediate payment of the pressing claims in the first category. according to estimates approved by His Majesty's Legation at Caracas, or by the British Colonial authorities. They would than consent to the heavier claims being referred to a small Mixed Commission in case the Venezuelan Government should have any considerations to urge in mitigation of the damages claimed. An arrangement of this nature would be equitable as regards the Venezuelan Government, and would, moreover, prevent pressure being, exercised in cases such as might possibly occur, where the Venezuelan members of the Commission could prove a claim to be unfounded or excessive."

I am glad to think, and the House will be glad to think, that the Government does not exclude the idea of arbitration by a Mixed Commission; and I hope that the offer of the American Government will lead to such a Commission being formed. But I should like to know what engagements we have undertaken with the German Government; and whether the American Government has fixed any limit as to the time for the evacuation of any port or portion of Venezuela which may be temporarily held by England and Germany. I do not wish to detain the House further. [Some ironical laughter on the MINISTERIAL Benches.] Hon. Members laugh. This is a very important matter, and those are the sort of Members who seem to me to disgrace this House.

That is not a proper expression.

I will put it in a different way, Sir—

The hon, Member must withdraw the expression before he makes any further observation.

I will be very happy to withdraw the expression; but it seems to me that when such an important question as this, which affects the interests of two nations, and which may take an extension we do not dream of at present, is received with laugher by hon. Members, it shows how splendidly fitted they are for their position as Members of this House. I beg to move, Sir, that this House will now adjourn.

In supporting this Motion, I may say I am very glad to see that the British Government are doing something to look after the interests of British traders and British investors in other countries. In my humble judgment, the British Government have not done enough in that direction in past years; and I should be the last to complain of their trying to do something; but I do not agree with the time or the methods. First of all, as to the claims which have been put forward on behalf of British subjects in the correspondence which was issued this afternoon, I should like the House to remember that the Island of Trinidad is very largely inhabited by people of the same blood and language as the people of Venezuela; and that it is used as a base for smuggling and revolution. In fact, Port of Spain is the natural home of the Venezuelan revolutionist out of a job; and when we hear of a British subject being seized, we must remember that, in three cases out of four, although the man is a British subject because he was born in Trinidad, he is, nevertheless, a Venezuelan by descent; and that the Venezuelan coastguard has the greatest difficulty in telling whether he is a British subject or a Venezuelan doing his best to assist revolution by importing arms and money. Still, I am willing to admit that the Government are undoubtedly doing their best in putting forward these claims. Some of them are undoubtedly strong claims, and the Government ought not to be blamed for doing something towards looking after the interests of British investors abroad, whatever some of my hon. friends may think of that; because, I cannot help thinking, that when a Briton invests his money abroad he is required to pay income-tax in order that this country may do something to assist him when it gets a chance. The Government have a moral right to assist him; and it is only a question of degree, and whether it is wise to do so in each particular case. I have been trying to make out what the total claims of Great Britain and Germany are likely to be. I have not been able to arrive at the actual figures, because I have not the information which is at the disposal of the Government; but I have reckoned up the amount as well as I could. The public debt of Venezuela is mainly held in Great Britain, and the coupons are in default to the extent of nearly pounds;700,000. Then we have large claims on behalf of some of the railway companies. In the report of the Bolivar Railway Company, it is stated that from December to June the railway was only in English hands for ten days. That railway has undoubtedly a claim against the Venezuelan Government which they compute at between pounds;40,000 and pounds;50,000, and which will ultimately be probably pounds;60,000. Our claims will amount to a minimum of about pounds;900,000; but I should like to ask the Government if they are going to make claims against every foreign State that is in default on its debt. There are plenty of others. There is Guntemala, Columbia, and Honduras. Are the Government going to blockade these countries, because they are in default on their debt? If they are, they certainly ought to blockade Honduras, which has been in default since 1871. The debt is only pouns;900,000, but the outstanding coupons amount to pounds;2,600.000. If the Government are not going to blockade Honduras, I should like to know why not. [An HON. MEMBER: The bonds are not mentioned.] Yes they are mentioned on page 16 of the Correspondence, where it is stated that the claims of the Government—

"Must be understood to include all well-founded claims which have arisen in consequence of the late civil war and previous civil wars, and of the maltreatment or false imprisonment of British subjects, and also a settlement of the external debt."

That, of course, means the bonds. There are plenty of other claims against other Central American Republics. The other day some friends showed me a claim by a British subject against the Government of Nicaragua, in which an Englishman was so ill-treated that he was actually obliged to shut up his business altogether. I was asked whether the Government would help, and I said I thought not. If were asked tomorrow, I would say that I was sure the Government would help, because the claim is a far stronger one than anything that is alleged in these Papers against Venezuela. Why, when we have stronger cases against Guatemala, Nicaragua, Columbia, and Honduras, have we taken up the case against Venezuela? Because, in that case, we, have the Germans to help us, and because of the pressure which has been exercised on behalf of the German Government. The British claims, as far as I have been able to estimate them, are, as I have stated, about pounds;900,000. The German Government claim for damages during the civil war about pounds;188,000, in addition to which there will be claims in connection with German railways amounting to about pounds;200,000. That would be a total of about pounds;1,250,000 altogether. A debtor presses a creditor for a debt when he considers it is a good moment to get him to pay it; but how can anyone who knows anything about the country believe that this is a good moment to make Venezuela pay. The country has been absolutely torn by civil war for three or four years; its exports have fallen off by one-third; and the Government, even if they were ever so willing to pay, have not a shilling in the Treasury. Now, I should like to say a word or two as to the methods we have adopted. I notice that Lord Lansdowne, in his instructions to Mr. Haggard, said that he left to his discretion the method of presenting the ultimatum. I never heard anything like the way in which that ultimatum was presented. I should have thought that the first move in conducting business like this would be for the British Minister, before presenting the ultimatum, to notify British subjects, in order that they might have a chance of getting out of the country; but in this case, the British and German Ministers left the ultimatums together, and sidled away out of the country without telling anyone. It was very safe and very discreet; but it did not seem a kind thing towards their fellow subjects. It was not the usual course; it was not recommended by the Government, arid I should like to know if it were the independent action of Mr. Haggard, in which case he is not a fit man to represent British interests abroad, or if it were the result of pressure by the German Government. There appears to be some misapprehension as to the taking of British and German subjects as prisoners. The moment I heard that, my own opinion was that they were taken prisoners really for their safety. When there was an excited feeling in the capital I am quite certain that the safest place to put a British subject was undoubtedly the gaol. I should like to say a few words about the bombardment, of which we heard today. I see it reported that the old Spanish Castle of Porto Cabello has been destroyed. The Castle was about as capable of doing damage as the Tower of London or Windsor Castle. It was of great antiquarian interest; it had a few popguns which would be able to throw a shot a few hundred yards; but it was absolutely incapable of being taken seriously as an instrument of aggression by anyone. I think it is most lamentable that our sailors, or the German sailors, should have bombarded this interesting old building, and should have treated it seriously as a warlike enterprise. There is also a report that the Germans have destroyed some of the Venezuelan fleet. I have not been in Venezuela for seven or eight years, but when I was there I do not think that any competent judge would have risked pounds;20,000 on the purchase of the whole fleet. It consisted of a few antiquated old tubs, most of them incapable of steaming; and the House will understand the reason when I tell them that the favourite Venezuelan notion is to use salt water in the boilers. The House will perhaps now understand why the German sailors thought it better to sink them. What we want to know from the Government is, what are they going to do? It is perfectly certain that the seizure of the Venezuelan fleet will have no effect at all on the mind of the Venezuelans. Between ourselves and the German Government a claim has been put forward amounting to about a million and a quarter. But how are you going to get it? I do not believe that, in the best of times, the Venezuelan customs ever yielded a million a year, and I do not think that you would be able to collect a million and a quarter in two years, and I even doubt whether you would be able to collect it in three years. Then there is no mention of the fact that the President of Venezuela will, I imagine, call Congress together and abolish the Customs duties. In that case, if the Government can induce any one to pay Customs duties to it, it will be exceptionally lucky. The President is reported to have asked for arbitration. I hope the Government will agree to it. They have had some little experience of arbitration with Venezuela. They should remember the dispute over the boundaries. For years and years Venezuela was asking for arbitration, but Lord Salisbury refused it over and over again. Then America asked for it, and we granted it next day. We ate dirt. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Is it not eating dirt to refuse a thing to a weak man and grant it next day to a strong man? I should like to point out that when Mr. Haggard presented something very like an ultimatum to the Venezuelan Minister, the Minister's final remark was that "they were used to these communications." In other words, they had seen so much of the British Government that they did not take it seriously. If you are really going to hold these ports and collect the Customs, you cannot collect the full amount of our claims for two years, and probably not for three years; and remember that all that time the claim will be increasing, because the debt will continue. The best thing to be done is to accept arbitration of any kind you can get. Do you believe that the United States, however quietly it may now appear to regard the situation, is going to sit down and allow our Government and the German Government to occupy the Venezuelan Custom Houses for three or four years? I want to press one thing most strongly on the Government. I do beg that, whatever the Germans may do, our Government will not commit themselves to any expeditions into the interior of the country. One thing is certain from the history of the Venezuelans; they will fight. There has never been a nation with Spanish blood in it that would not fight when the pinch came. In Venezuela they have been steadily fighting among themselves during the greater part of the last seven or eight years; in fact, outsiders might say that every man who was not a first-rate fighting man must have been killed off already, that only the creme de la cremecan have survived, and they are the people you will have to meet if you go into the interior. We have heard of this Government of ours conducting warlike operations without maps. I hope they will consult a large scale map before they embark on any expedition, even with the help of the Germans, into the interior of Venezuela. On a small map it looks an easy thing to march up to the capital and seize Caracas, which is only seven miles from the coast. The Government may be encouraged to seize Caracas by the fact that Drake seized it before them. But I do not think you have a Drake sitting on the Treasury Bench, although I have no doubt the Secretary of State for War would consider himself fully competent to take his place. At any rate, I am convinced that the march to Caracas would be no child's play. Caracas is only seven miles from the sea, but the mountains in between are 8,000 feet high, and are covered with wood, and even the railway route over the passes, which, naturally, is the shortest possible, is twenty-three miles long. Even if Caracas be seized, it must be remembered that it is a large town with 70,000 inhabitants, who will have to be fed; it is commanded all round by mountains; and a large army would be required to keep up the communication with the coast, short though the distance is. I do not know what the Government are going to tell us, but I hope they will say most decidedly that their operations are to be limited to the coast, and that they do not intend to go into the interior on any wild goose expeditions. My belief is that the Government have embarked on one of the rashest operations that this country has ever undertaken; I hope they will stop while there is time, and take any kind of arbitration that is held out to them, for I believe that any sort of settlement they are likely to get by peace will prove more honourable to them, and a great deal better for the British bondholders, than anything they are likely to obtain by war. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Schwann.)

I am not quite certain how I ought to treat the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I will not dwell on the questions he has asked with reference to the bombardment reported in the evening papers; in the absence of further information it would be unwise to comment upon it. Nor will I take much notice of the observations he thought fit to make on the attitude of our representative in Venezuela, and the course of conduct pursued by him at the critical moment of the presentation of the ultimatum. For my part I observe nothing in the least undignified in his proceedings; he acted in precise conformity with the instructions he had received from the Foreign Office. He was ordered by the Foreign Office to give the Venezuelan Government every opportunity to avoid the crisis to which we have reluctantly been driven; he gave them twentyfour hours notice at Caracas, and another twenty-four hours when he got to La Guaira, and I consider that he carried out his instruction absolutely, and showed our desire to avoid, if at all possible, the unfortunate arbitrament to which in the end we have been obliged to appeal. I was more attracted by the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, in which, as far as I could make out, he tried to show that we ought to go to war with every South American Republic. He began by saying that he thought not only the more important parts, but every part of our casus belli was good, and that it applied to every South American Republic. That observation was undoubtedly extravagant, but I can hardly reckon the hon. Gentleman, after the early and more serious portion of his speech, as an opponent of the policy of His Majesty's Government. Now I turn to the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Manchester, who complained that the Papers on the situation had been long delayed, and were meagre in substance. I can assure the hon. Member that these Papers, which are but summaries of the voluminous Papers which will be presented later on, have been prepared with the least possible delay, in order to give the House and the country a full knowledge of the situation in Venezuela. These Papers were undoubtedly delayed, but I would ask the House to consider how very difficult it is for a Department engaged in most critical negotiations, involving immense labour, to give the additional time necessary to get Papers together for presentation to Parliament. I can assure the House that no time has been unnecessarily lost in their preparation. Besides, it should be remembered that the Papers could not be presented until the actual crisis had come, for up fill the last moment His Majesty's Government hoped that the Venezuelan Government would take a reasonable view of the situation and accede to our demands; and the House will recognise that no course could be more unfortunate than to publish the causes of our quarrel with the Venezuelan Government while there was still a chance that peace might be preserved. It was only when the forty-eight hours' notice had expired, and all hope of an amicable solution had to be abandoned, that the Papers could be got together and presented. Very few days have since elapsed, and I really do not think there is any great cause of complaint in that respect. As I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for North Manchester, I wondered in what capacity the hon. Gentleman spoke. Was it as a British Member of Parliament? The hon. Gentleman strained every point which could be made against His Majesty's Government in this issue. He was like a third-rate attorney. [OPPOSITION cries of "No,"] The Leader of the Opposition says "No," but the right hon. Gentleman was not present during the whole of the speech; he did not come in, I think, until the hon. Gentleman had nearly finished.

Then I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. But, at any rate, the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Manchester argued the case as an advocate for the Venezuelan Government. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] He certainly did not argue it as the advocate of the British Government—I did not expect that; but he was not even judicial or impartial. What he did was to endeavour to paint the attitude of this Country as black as he could, to show that in every particular we had strained every point against the Venezuelan Government and to convict us of oppressive action, a suggestion which I believe the hon. Gentleman in his judicial moments—for I am sure the hon Gentleman has judicial moments—would feel was not justified. The real truth is that in this matter the British Government have been engaged in the performance of the necessary police duties of enforcing the laws which have to exist between all the nations of the world. They have to restore order where order is destroyed; and they have to prevent such nations as Venezuela from breaking what is an obvious law of nations. The hon. Gentleman has asked why we did not apply to the Chambers of Commerce before taking proceedings against Venezuela.

I said the Government might have asked the bondholders what they thought on the matter.

I will deal with the bondholders presently. Surely you would not expect a policeman to ask the permission of the neighbouring tradesmen before trying to stop an assault that was being committed in the streets? That is precisely the situation in Venezuela in which we were placed. It has been asked what view the United States takes of the situation. I can inform the House that the United States takes the very reasonable and sensible view of the situation that was to be expected from that country. They recognise that the insistence of England that the Venezuelan Government should meet its engagements and respect the rights of British subjects is in no way an infraction of the Monroe doctrine, and they recognise that no nation in the world has been more anxious than England to assist them in maintaining that doctrine. As the House is aware, in a celebrated passage in his Message to Congress, the President announced that in insisting on a South American Republic meeting its international obligations no European Power was infringing the Monroe doctrine. Then the hon. Members who have addressed us began to discuss the various categories of claims which we have against Venezuela, and, as far as I could make out, the hon. Member who last addressed the House thought the most important were those of the bond-holders.

Oh no, decidedly not.

I can frankly tell the House that it is not the claims of the bond-holders that bulk largest in the estimation of the Government. I do not believe the Government would ever have taken the strong measures to which they have been driven if it had not been for the attacks by Venezuela upon the lives, the liberty, and the property of British subjects. The hon. Member for North Manchester seemed to speak of the bond-holders with great contempt. I do not think that was deserved. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think the bond-holder a sort of hostis humani generis, who might be attacked and despoiled at pleasure, and was not entitled to consideration. I do not in the least agree with the hon. Gentleman. In my view the bondholders have conferred very great benefits on these South America Republics, and are entitled to protection from their own country; and, if that be true of the bond-holders, it is still more true of those who have invested their money in great industrial enterprises in that part of the world. When I hear such charges as have been made against the Government coming from the Opposition, I am astonished, because usually I have to listen to very severe strictures upon the Government for not maintaining the rights of British investors in all parts of the world. If they are discussing China, it is said what a contemptible Government we are, and that we do not do what foreign Governments do to protect the rights of their people, but now that the Government have found it necessary to vindicate British interests in South America, and because it is the present Government who have so acted, the complaint is no longer that we do not maintain British interests, but that we maintain them much too vigorously. As I have said, in our view by far the most important matter is the attacks on British subjects. The hon. Member for North Manchester said that several of these attacks had to do with Patos Island. Our position in Patos Island is a very strong one. That island was a part of the Government of Trinidad when Trinidad was ceded to Great Britain. I think I am not wrong in saying that our sovereignty was exercised over it for fifty years without question, and it was only in 1859 that any question of our right in that island was even mooted. But the charges made against the Venezuelan Government, even in the instance named by the hon. Member, do not depend on our title to Patos Island. Even if it belonged to the Venezuelan Government, the action they have taken is wholly unjustifiable. Take the first case on the list. On the morning of 22nd January, the Venezuelan gunboat "Augusto" appeared off the island, and summoned the people who had landed from a British vessel to come on board the "Augusto." This demand not being complied with, a force of some twenty armed Venezuelans was landed, and proceeded to remove the boats and collect their cargoes. About half the passengers and crews of the trading boats were removed on board the "Augusto," the remainder taking refuge in the woods, where they were left without food, water, or means of leaving the island. Suppose that had occurred even on Venezuelan territory, what possible defence could there be for treating a British ship in that way? The hon. Gentleman said that the position of Patos Island was very like that of Gibraltar, and that, just as the Venezuelans might find fault with what was done on Patos Island, we, on the Rock of Gibraltar, might find fault with what was done on the opposite coast. But what would be said of us if we treated a Spanish ship at Gibraltar in the way the Venezuelans treated these vessels?

Three of the boats were Venezuelan.

That makes very little difference. one boat was a British boat with a posse of British subjects. But that is not the only case, or the strongest case. There is the case of the "In Time." The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he would make me a present of that case. Such a present from the advocate of the other side must be a very valuable one, and one for which I am much obliged to him. It appears that a Venezuelan gunboat arrived in the harbour of Pedernales and "orders were given to seize all craft in port, and this was done. No provocation or justification of this order has been assigned." One of the vessels was the "In Time," and she was fired on by the gunboat and an armed party boarded her and broke her up. Then there was the case of the "British Queen." She was not only a British vessel, but she was attacked on the high seas and overhauled. She was seized, taken into a Venezuelan port, stripped of her sails and papers, and finally confiscated on a mere suspicion of having carried a cargo of arms to Venezuela, the crew being put on shore and left destitute.

I said that that was a very high-handed proceeding.

I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

We have no information other than is contained in this book. I have not been to La Guaira, and I think it is rather unfair to treat the matter in the spirit adopted by the noble Lord.

If the hon. Gentleman thinks what we said is not true, that is going a long way even for the advocate on the other side. I will not go into the last, and, perhaps, the worst case of all, that of the ship "Racer," but if the hon. Member refers to it, he will find that that was a particularly pathetic case, because she had been struck by the act of God. She was dismasted, and, taking refuge in the nearest port, she was boarded as she approached by a body of armed men, who pillaged her and robbed the crew of everything they possessed. That was pretty bad, but as she was in port it was thought the authorities would do their best to protect her, and avenge the wrong that had been committed. Not a bit of it. They at once confiscated her by the advice and under the eyes of the Venezuelan Government. These things are, of course, cumulative. It is not one case or two cases. There are six or seven cases of attacks on British ships and British subjects, which make it absolutely necessary that the British Government should intervene. With every regard for the Venezuelan Government, we gave her not one summons, or two, but we gave her three summonses, in the hope that she would yield to our importunity and at last do us justice; but, in the first, second, and third case, she has refused to do anything to meet us and to do us justice, and under these circumstances we were absolutely driven to take the strong course which we have done. Even as it is we desire to pursue the same course of moderation which has dictated our action all through, and though the seizure of the gunboats which has now been accomplished wil, unless the Venezuelan Government yields, be sueceeded by a blockade of the whole coast, yet we hope and intend that blockade should be carried out with every regard to the interests and rights of neutrals, and, as far as possible, with every regard and consideration that is possible even to the interests of Venezuela. Less than that we could not have done. We fully recognise that the Venezuelan Government is not so highly developed as our own. We fully realise that and we are fully aware of the position which we are fortunate enough to occupy in the world. Therefore, we are bound to act with regard to the rights of others, and I venture to say that if the present Government, or any other Government, had not gone so far as we have done in maintaining and avenging the rights of British subjects we should have been justly exposed to the criticism and condemnation which this House would not have been slow to inflict upon us.

The noble Lord ended just where we should have wished him to begin. My hon. friend has moved the adjournment on this occasion in order that the House of Commons and the country may really understand what are the causes of the present situation of affairs with regard to Venezuela, and also what are the intentions and prospects of the Government in carrying out the policy they have entered upon. The noble Lord has said some extraordinary things, and he has assumed for this country duties in the world which, I am afraid, are even too much for the strength and resources which this great country can usefully employ, because he says he has thrown his aegis over all the bond-holders.

I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. I do not prejudge the rights of every bondholder in what he puts forward. On the contrary, if the right hon. Gentleman will look at page 11 of the correspondence, he will see that the Government proposed that on the submission of the Venezuelan Government, and after payment of the claims in the first category, they would then consent to the heavier claims being referred to a small Mixed Commission, and he will see further on that there is to be a Venezuelan member of the Commission, and that, if that Member can show that any claim is unfounded or excessive, effect will be given to the finding.

That does not include all the bondholders, but the noble Lord went far beyond the longitude and latitude of Venezuela. He spoke of the bondholders of the whole world, and he spoke of our police duties in restoring order. ["No, no."] He was full of contempt, as you might expect from that sort of spirit which is not infrequently exhibited by the present Government, for my hon. friend the Member for North Manchester. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] I recognise the politeness, the courtesy, of that cheer, so admirable an illustration of the good manners which always characterise the House of Commons. My hon. friend suggested that before taking violent steps in Venezuela, as there was a great body of trade with Venezuela in this country, it would have been well to consult—and he wished to know whether such consultation had taken place—such bodies as the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester, who surely know something about it, and who would be able to tell the Government whether on the whole they thought that more advantage would have been gained to the trade of the country by taking strong measures or by reliance on other courses. [MINISTERIAL interruptions.] Again I notice the courtesy and good feeling which prevails. The noble Lord's view is that when a policeman is engaged in preventing breaches of order and punishishing assaults he is not going to consult the tradesmen in the neighbourhood. The vulgar tradesman—["Oh"]—really he ought not to interfere with a sublime mission of one who has to exercise his authority in the way of police. That is not the tone or spirit in which the affairs of this country are to be successfully conducted, and it is not the tone or spirit in which they were conducted in the days when this country was much more strong than it is at the present day in the respect of the civilised world. When my hon. friend moved the adjournment of the House he went over the separate cases. I am not going over the separate cases, because we are not in a position to judge the merits of each case. They will require, and no doubt will receive, inquiry. As they stand in the, I have no doubt, perfectly honest and straightforward statements conveyed in these Papers themselves, they show a great want of proper conduct and supervision on the part of the Venezuelan Government, and a disregard of international usage on the part of the officials of that Government; and their actions deserve, therefore, not only to be reprobated and protested against, but, if necessary, that protest should be supported by strong measures. We must remember that it is quite conceivable that there should be strong suspicion attached by Venezuelan officials to vessels proceeding from Port of Spain, especially during a time when one of the innumerable revolutions is going on. Port of Spain is the focus for every intrigue and conspiracy against the Government of Venezuela; it is the nearest most convenient port for such a purpose, whether it be smuggling or intervention in a revolution; and it is natural they should be inclined to stretch Venezuelan authority to the ulmost as against a vessel from that port. That, of course, does not justify or excuse them, but it is a circumstance to be borne in mind in judging the case. But the papers, although they contain particulars of these irregular and improper proceedings on the part of Venezuelan officials, do not contain other information useful and necessary for us to posses. We have no information as to the extent and character of the financial claims urged on behalf of this country, nor have we any indication whatever as to the nature and extent of the German claims. Germany apparently has none of these breaches of order to resent or punish; the attitude of Germany is based purely on financial claims. We want to know, we ought to know, from the Government—that is why I say the noble Lord stopped where he ought to have begun—we want to know the nature of our own financial claims and of the German claims; because the relations of this country as established by the Government to Germany in this matter are of the most extraordinary, of an almost unprecedented, kind. I am a strong advocate of the best feeling between this country and Germany—I should be very glad to see the two countries acting together on every occasion where it is possible; but the Government has gone a great deal beyond joint action and co-operation in this matter. Look at page 11, and the despath from Lord Lansdowne. The German Ambassador communicates to Lord Lansdowne the conditions of co-opration. In his despatch to Mr. Buchanan, Lord Lansdowne says:—

"As to the joint execution of measures of coereion, the German Government recognised that there was a sharp distinction between the character of the British and German 'first-line' claims."

We want to know what is this sharp distinction dividing the claims.

"Nevertheless, the two claims ought to stand or fall together."

So that we cannot accept compensation for damage done to one of the vessels hailing from Trinidad, we cannot do anything in regard to any of our claims which are on a different footing to those of Germany unless Germany is perfectly satisfied for her claim,

" And we ought to exclude the possibility of a settlement between Venezuela and one of the two Powers without an equally satisfactory settlement in the ease of the other.''

Then he goes on to say—

"I told Count Metternich that it seemed to me only reasonable that, if we agreed to act together in applying coercion, we should also agree that each should support the other's demands, and should not desist from doing so except by agreement."

So we are bound hand and foot to Germany, and the House of Commons and the country have not the ghost of an idea what the claims of Germany may be. whether they are reasonable or unreasonable; we have this responsibility without knowledge, we are boundhand and foot not to accept any satisfaction unless Germany agrees. I venture to say such an arrangement so stringent is not for the best interests of this country. There is no one in the House or out of it more anxious than myself to do away with the stupid bad feeling some people have tried to excite or foster between this country and Germany. Nobody is more anxious to work hand in hand with Germany, as we ought to work, being kindred nations in so many respects. But that we should enter into this in the dark, having claims of different characters, Germany having claims of a financial character of which we are not vouchsafed any explanation, that we should accept no solution of our wholly different claims that did not include complete satisfaction to Germany, to bind ourselves in this way, is a state of things only equalled by some other international arrangements which the Government have within a short time explained to the House, and are endeavouring to bring about. We have information through the Press that a communication has been received from the United States Government on this subject. I am told so; I have not seen the report of what has occurred in another place, where. I understand, the Secretary of state for Foreign Affairs made the announcement that there had been these communications from the United States; but that is surely a matter of the first importance. Yet the noble Lord, having disposed of this and that case of, outrage on this or that vessel, which have been maltreated by the Venezuelans, thinks he has done all he ought to do, and he sits down and leaves the House of Commons destitute of this knowledge which some hours ago was given to the House of Lords. The House and the whole country are anxious to know the nature of this communication; and I am quite sure there will be a universal feeling of satisfaction if it is such as may lead to a peaceful settlement of this question without any further violent measures being taken. But we know nothing; the House of Commons is not allowed to hear a whisper of this, though a communication has been made to the House of Lords. The opinion will be shared by everybody that an opportunity of settling this dispute by arbitration should be availed of; they seem to me to be particularly the sort of claims that can with advantage be submitted to settlement in that way. Perhaps the head of the Government can confirm what his colleague has said elsewhere, if he knows of it, for it is almost inconceivable that the noble Lord should have sat down without reference to it. If somewhere in his pockets he can discover some little note that such an approach has been made to the Government of this country by the Government of the United States, I am sure the whole House will rejoice to know it, and hope that they will find in it a solution of what, after all, we cannot but regard as a somewhat squalid difficulty.

The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has, I think, misunderstood the intentions of the mover and seconder of this Motion. He certainly misunderstood the Government of this country, and he has also misunderstood the Government of the United States—a considerable list of misunderstanding for one speech. As regards the intention of the mover and seconder, the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to suggest that their object was simply to elicit information from the Government. If that was the object, they set about it in the most extraordinary way.

You were not present.

No, but the fame of the hon. Gentleman's speech has reached my ears, and I was present during the speech of the hon. Gentleman who seconded it, and I understood that speech to be entirely worthy of the first. I can state with absolute confidence, from personal experience of the second speech and the authenticated report of the first speech, that whatever else they may have intended to do, their object was not to elicit information from the Government but to throw discredit upon them; and there was no virtue, except, perhaps, efficiency in naval matters, which they were not prepared to attribute to the Venezuelans, and no vice which they were not prepared to attribute to those who now control the affairs of this country. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh !" and MINISTERIAL cheers.] I candidly confess that I do not think that that is the way in which to approach what all must admit to be a painful international episode. There is not a man in this country who does not regret to find that we have been compelled to take these steps; there is not a man in this country who does not grieve that it has been found impossible to carry on international relations upon a sound basis with this State, to whom international law appears to be a matter of absolute indifference. So much, for the intentions of the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded this Motion. Now, Sir, for the misunderstanding as regards the policy of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman came down to this House prepared to assume that the Government had gone to war for the bondholders

No, no !

If he did not come down with that intention, I cannot understand how he can have so misinterpreted the speech of my noble friend who has already spoken for the Government. My noble friend said not one single word to suggest the idea that His Majesty's Government, any more than previous Ministries, have thought it the first duty of this country to adopt overt acts of hostility in order to protect the interests of the bondholders. I do not deny, in fact, 1 freely admit, that bondholders may occupy an international position which may require international action; but I look upon such international action with the gravest doubt and suspicion, and I doubt whether we have in the past ever gone to war for the bondholders, for those of our countrymen who have lent money to a foreign Government; and I confess I should be very sorry to see that made a practice in this country. The real crux of this difficulty has been the outrageous manner in which the Venezuelan Government, not once nor twice, but time after time, have invaded the rights of British seamen and British shipowners, have insulted our nationality, have treated English sailors and English captains as no nation in the world treats us. And, when we have remonstrated, they have not only refused us any substantial compensation, but have scarcely deigned to reply—sometimes, I believe, they have absolutely refused to reply at all. I put a plain question to those Gentlemen who have taken up the cudgels for Venezuela, and to the right hon. Gentleman opposite— "Would they have sat down indefinitely under treatment of that kind? "If they had done so, it would not have been consistent, I do not say merely with the traditions of this country, but with the practice and traditions of any civilised State, that they should tolerate, time after time, outrages of this description for which no apology was offered, no compensation given, and no explanation suggested. Such a situation is an intolerable situation, and it did require overt action on the part of His Majesty's Government. Has that action been unduly hasty in its character? As far back as July last we sent, to use a Hibernicism, our first ultimatum to the Venezuelan Government.

We never issue ultimatums.

The hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that, at all events, I meant no offence to his countrymen. That first ultimatum was absolutely disregarded. We went on month after month, and on the 11th of November we sent our second ultimatum, and, finally, we have been driven, after exercising boundless patience, to issue a final ultimatum. When that was disregarded, we took overt action. I do not know whether the Gentlemen sitting on the benches opposite differ from our policy. I am not sure that they do. But, whether they differ from it or not, I am perfectly confident that their patience would have been as early exhausted as ours. That is the first point I have to make. The second point I have to make turns on the question of co-operating with Germany. The last portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech consisted of two propositions. The first was that there was nothing so much to be desired as cordial cooperation with Germany in all international matters. The second proposition he suggested was that nothing was more dangerous than co-operation with Germany, and that we had committed a great error by co-operating with Germany in this particular case.

I never said so.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I did not mean to misrepresent him, but if that was not the gravamen of his criticism against His Majesty's advisers I do not know what it was.

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman in two seconds. It is riot only that you are co-operating with Germany, but that you have entered into such a formal arrangement and so bound yourselves to them that your independence of action is hampered.

I understand now. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. He desires to co-operate with Germany on terms peculiar to himself—terms which, I venture to say, have never been the basis of international co-operation before and never will be the basis of international co-operation in future. He thinks that the proper way to make an alliance for warlike purposes with a foreign State is to inform that State that no doubt you will fight as long as it suits you, and when it does not suit you you do not intend to go on fighting any longer. All I can say is that, when in the ordinary revolutions of public affairs the right hon. Gentleman takes an important part in deciding who our allies are to be, and on what terms we may have to carry on operations together, I can promise him he will find very few allies prepared to deal with him on the basis he has laid down. The truth is that anybody who considers the situation will see that the British Government had no alternative but to take the course they have actually done. Let me recapitulate. In the first place, I think it will be admitted by everybody who has read the Blue-book that it was perfectly impossible for the Government of this country to tolerate the way they were treated by Venezuela, and overt action had to be taken. In the second place, Germany found herself aggrieved in a manner which also induced her to agree that overt action had to be taken. The third proposition is that we ought to co-operate with Germany in circumstances of that kind. Surely the fourth proposition is self-evident, that, if we are to co-operate with another country for common purposes, that co-operation must be based upon an understanding which binds the two allies together until the common object has been accomplished. I do not see how we are to escape from that issue of cause and consequence, and if you cannot escape from it, then this policy of the Government with regard to Venezuela is justified from beginning to end. That is all I need say on the merits of the question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me for interrupting him? Will he kindly give an answer to the two questions I addressed to him? Namely, first, what is the nature and extent of the financial claims put forward on our part, and, secondly, what is the nature and extent of the financial claims put forward by Germany.

I do not admit this theory of debt collecting. That is not to me the main justification nor the main origin of these difficulties. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the Blue-book they will see that so far as we are concerned, at all events, we are prepared, to agree to a tribunal by which the exact amount of the financial claims, which are less important than the other, may be assessed. As regards the German claims, of course I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman information of the same precise character.

May I ask this—Has the German Government any claims, such as we have, on other grounds than financial debts? In other words, is this joint, co-operation not to be used mainly for the purpose of collecting debts?

Yes, I understand they have other grounds.

What are they?

I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the detailed information he desires to get. The only other observation I need make refers to the version which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to infer from what was said in the House of Lords this afternoon. It is a mistaken version. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be under the impression that the United States Government has made to us a suggestion of arbitration. That is not so. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, British and German interests have been entrusted to the United States Minister in Venezuela, and that Minister has with admirable energy protected the lives of our compatriots and those of German nationality. I understand it is from Venezuela, through the United: States, that a suggestion has come for arbitration. Ou that I will say no more than this—that it is surely unfortunate that the Venezuelan Government should not have thought of the advantages of arbitration during the many months and years in which we have had these controversies with them; that they should have refused all answer, and all suggestion, even of apology or explanation for anything that has occurred; that they should have received the ultimatums of July, of November, of December, without condescending to take the smallest notice of our action: and that it is not until we are actually engaged in what I suppose I must describe as these hostilities that this idea of arbitration should suggest itself to their minds. Whether the idea be good or bad—as to that I sayabsolutelynothing—practicable or impracticable, it does not come from the United States Government: it comes from that of Venezuela.

There is one question l should like the right hon. Gentleman to answer, and that is, what are the claims of the German Government. The right hon. Gentleman says very truly that we are entered upon a common enterprise for a common object—that is, to obtain satisfaction of the claims of the British Government and the claims of the German Government. We have been told in those papers what are the claims of the British Government, but we have no information whatever as to what are the claims of the German Government, and yet the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the engagement is that neither party shall come to an arrangement until their respective claims are fully satisfied. Surely we ought to know what are those claims of the German Government which we undertake to see satisfied before we accept any satisfaction ourselves. We are bound to maintain the claims and the see them satisfied without knowing what those claims are. That is a position in which no Minister or Government ought to be placed. When you enter into an alliance for the purpose of hostilities, both parties should come to an understanding as to what is the object, and what are the demands to be satisfied. Now the official answer of the right hon. Gentleman is that we do not really know what is the object of these hostilities as regards Germany. We only know what is the object we are pursuing. We are not told what is the object the German Government are pursuing. Surely it is not unfriendly to this Government or the German Government to ask about proceedings which may result in very serious consequences. We should be frankly told what are the engagements and what are the demands which are to be satisfied on behalf of Germany before we accept any satisfaction for ourselves. I really think the Government ought to give us some information on that subject.

I should like to ask, Who is the senior officer in these operations? Is it the German or the British officer? He is in rather a difficult predicament, from my point of view. In this case, if the senior officer happens to be German, and he does such things as sinking the Venezuelan hulks, which is totally opposed to the chivalrous ideas of this nation, we might be in the position of doing something to cause irritation to Germany by our refusal to sanction such action. I think, whatever we do, we ought to be most careful to cement friendly feeling with the Government of the United States. We should do nothing of any kind, sort, or description that would be in the least way provocative of irritation or animosity on the part of the United States. I should like my right hon. friend to state who is the senior officer who will be charged with the duties carried on, so far as hostilities are concerned, in Venezuelan waters.

It is only by leave of the House that I can answer my noble and gallant friend. There is no question here of seniority. The German Admiral is not under the orders of the British Admiral, nor is the British Admiral under the orders of the German Admiral. No doubt they consult together and co-operate together; but the fleets are acting on different parts of the Venezuelan coast, and not as one organisation under one commander. Therefore there is no question of that seniority which, as my noble friend justly observes, might in certain circumstances land us in some difficulty. The responsibility for the action of each fleet primarily rests with its Admiral and with the country to which it belongs, and neither fleet is responsible for the action of the other.

From what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman it would appear that the Government has plunged into this matter without asking or knowing how they are to come out of it. The despatches seem to indicate that they have not made up their minds what would follow if President Castro refused to yield. We are in a state of war, yet we do not know what for, and even after the challenges which have been addressed to them the Government do no inform us. Our claims also seem to have grown. They are formulated in Numbers 3 and 10 of the Despatches, but in these the bondholders do not come in at all. They come in as an afterthought in No. 14, and it seems to me to be a deplorable afterthought. This idea of the British Fleet being employed to collect the debts of foreign bondholders is assuredly a mistaken one. It was said by Wellington once that the British army did not exist for the purpose of collecting certain debts. It is still more true of the British Fleet that it does not exist for the purpose of collecting the debts of bondholders. People who lend money to South American Republics know what the security is and what they are likely to get in return, and they ought not to have the British Fleet at their backs. I believe, from the response that greeted some of the very powerful remarks of my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, that this view is shared on the other side of the House. The Government do not seem to have realised the feeling with regard to Germany. it is clear from the de spatches that Germany suggested joint action, and it was the German Government that suggested that neither Government should recede until the other was satisfied. We are pledged to support the German claims without knowing what they are.

Quite the reverse is the case. Lord Lansdowne's statement will be found on page 16.

I am in the dilemma of either accepting the statement of the right hon. Baronet who interrupts me, or that of the Prime Minister. Under the circumstances I accept the statement of the Prime Minister, who said that he was not aware what the German claims were. Are German aims and objects in South Africa identical with our own? There is a good deal of doubt on that matter in the United States. Is our Government quite sure that they see eye to eye, while they are walking step by step, with Germany? That seems to me to be a question on which every legitimate doubt can be felt. Is it not conceivable that certain developments might be at the same time extremely pleasing to Germany and extremely displeasing to this country? Already one example of different methods of thought and action has suggested itself. According to the despatches exchanged the naval officers of the two countries were pledged to seize the Venezuelan ships and hold them; but we have information that the Germans not only seized but destroyed ships. With regard to the position of the United States the most important point is the great weight public opinion has there. It is certain that the action of the United States Government will be scrupulously correct and friendly to this country: but the American Government is peculiarly susceptible to public opinion, and public opinion may from one week to another take a much keener interest in this matter, which may make the position more serious for this country. I speak with some confidence, for I happened to be in Washington, and was pretty well acquainted with the state of feeling in America during the negotiations in regard to a previous Venezuelan dispute. If arbitration has been offered it must be the obvious duty of this country to accept it; and they ought to be thankful for such a very good way of getting out of the difficulty. But, if arbitration has not been offered, then there is every reason why this country should approach the United States with a view to securing it.

said that the Government had not given the House any information on what he considered was a most important subiect—viz., whether the owners, officers and crew of these vessels were supposed to be guilty of smuggling or any other crime. If there was no suspicion of that kind there could be no two opinions in the House as to the propriety of the action of the Government. If there was no possibility that these British subjects were lawbreakers, if without any provocation British vessels were seized, and their crews put into prison, then this country ought to act promptly and vigorously. On the contrary, if we in this country claimed the right to suppress smuggling, so did the Venezuelan Government, and we should not claim that British subjects caught smuggling there should be treated in a different way from that which would be given to the subjects of any other nation if they indulged here in mal-practices. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it was tolerable that half the passengers and crew of a trading steamer should be taken prisoners, and the cargo seized, while the remainder of the passengers and crew had fled into the woods where there was neither food nor water. The whole question depended on whether they were smugglers or not. The mere fact that half the passengers and crew had taken refuge in the wood raised a suspicion that they had been breaking the law. The same applied to vessels supposed to have been carrying contraband of war to the insurgents. This Government ought to be most particular to see that none of its subjects were permitted to interfere in any shape or form with the internal peace and order of other countries; and if they did that, either by freebooting raids, or by smuggling arms, that they could not be protected by this country. The very foundations to enable hon. Members to give a reasonable judgment on the question seemed completely wanting. Surely a dispute of this kind should have been referrd to arbitration, and the Venezuelan fleet ought not to have been taken possession of. The Venezuelan Government sought refuge in the fact that no compensation had been given for the action of the "Ban Righ," and said that until the matter of the "Ban Righ" was settled, they declined to listen to the representations of the British Government. That meant that the Venezuelan Government considered that they had a prior claim to this Government on account of some action of the "Ban Righ." He thought the House ought to have some fuller information in regard to the facts of the case. The noble Lord made an excuse for the Papers not being delivered in time on the ground that the Government were hoping that some accommodation would be arrived at. That need not have prevented the House getting earlier information than they had. He noticed that the Admiralty were communicated with in August, and told that matters were coming to an important stage. The entire correspondence ought to have been ready to put into the hands of hon. Members at the same time as the ultimatum was delivered—not before, as was the case under the new diplomacy in the Transvaal and the defence of which had been that it carried the public opinion of this country along with the Government.

said that the right hon. Gentleman the member for South Aberdeen, who was so well acquainted with United States politics, had told the House that it was because of the existence of the Irish vote in America that we had been driven into this curious arrangement with Germany. German emigrants in America were always in favour of their own people in cases of dispute with the United States, and the German Government could rely on the support of that sentiment. But, whenever the American Government was dealing with England, it knew that the whole weight of Irish sentiment would be thrown against England. Accordingly, in this matter, England had to go hat in hand to Germany, who had no grievances of prestige to redress as England had, to get the United States to allow this inroad to be made on the Monroe doctrine in Venezuela. The right hon. Gentleman said that Venezuela had rejected arbitration; but who gave that country that bad precedent? It was Lord Salisbury; but before long America was irritated by that high-handed action, and then followed the Cleveland incident, In the same way the high-handed manner in which Germany had seized two Venezuelan vessels—which were worth probably ten times the amount of their monetary claims—and sent them to the bottom of the sea, had roused irritation in America Was it to be imagined that the American people would go on tolerating that conduct indefinitely? The President of the United States would be looking out for a second term of office. Everything in America was decided on by political issues; and soon the Democratic gong, and President Roosevelt would be asked if he were not as good a man for the Monroe doctrine as Mr. Cleveland. He expressed no opinion on the merits of the quarrel; but he warned the Government that they were in a risky and perilous position, having regard to politics in the United States, and the enmity of a large body of men of Irish blood, driven from their country by British laws.

said that an hon. Member had stated that Lord Salisbury had persistently refused arbitration in regard to certain former claims against Venezuela. That was not the case. The difficulty of submitting these claims to arbitration was that there was no basis of reference which we could accept consistently with the undoubted rights of this country. When a basis of arbitration was proposed by the United States Government which was consistent with our national position, arbitration was resorted to, and resulted in the concession of nearly all the claims for which Great Britain contended. He thought it would be most unfortunate and inconsistent with the practice of this House if an impression were made to prevail that the action of His Majesty's Government was not being supported by the House and the country, when the Government were making claims in satisfaction of the just rights of British subjects. He would remind the House that, not many years since. Her late Majesty's Government was compelled to resort to a naval demonstration in Venezuelan waters for outrages committed on British subjects, and that, following that demonstration, the Venezuelan Government made the necessary concessions.

said England and Germany were not the only two Powers which had claims aganist Venezuela. Within the last few hours Italy had entered into the field on account of a dept of £12,000. Could the Prime Minister inform the House whether any arrangement in regard to common, or concerted action had been made between this country and any other country besides Germany? If so, the arrangement would become very complicated, for it was obvious that the claims might be of as very different character. The British claims were for aggression aganist British persons and property. The main cliam of Germany was financial, and the claim of Italy was of a purely financial character. If we were to bind ourselves to other countries in the same way as we had bound ourselves to Germany, it would be absolutely impossible for us to obtain satisfaction for our claims of a very different character by Germany, Italy, and possibly other powers were settled; and in that way the settlement of our claims might be postponed indefinitely.

I understand that the Italians are sending a ship, but there is no agreement like that which exists between us and Germany.

said he most heartily supported the action of the Government in bringing whatever pressure was necessary to bear on the Venezuelan Government tosettle these claims; but he ventured to express disagreement both with the leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the House in their view that it was desirable in this particular instance that he should co-operate with Germany, He did not deny the general proposistion, though it was a good thing to work with other Powers in as friendly a way as possible; but from a long experience in the United States he was constrained to express the belief that it was a serious mistake on out part to co-operate with Germany in bringing pressure to bear on Venezulean Government, surely this country was big enough and strong enough to enforce them without the assistance of Germany or any other Power. We ought to have more fully considered the great jealousy there was in the United States with regard to Germany and German aspirations, in South American, before the people of the United States as an ally of Germany in enforcing these claims. It had created a very bad impression in the United States that we should not be acting alone. United States opinion would never have allowed Germany to have undertaken independent action aganist a South American State, and Germany, knowing this, had astutely cajoled us into a partnership, and thus was able to use us a buffer between her and American public opinion. He hoped the arrangement with Germany would be restricted to what was absolutely necessary to meet the British claim, and that we should not be bound to the chariot wheels of Germany in whatever action she might be inclined to take of a more drastic character.