To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Chinese War Indemnity debit to the American Government is to be paid in silver by agreement; whether the gold standard European countries' claim will remain unpaid; and whether any communication has been received from President Roosevelt suggesting an international conference upon this currency question. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) In answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question I have to say that His Majesty's Government are not aware that any such agreement has been come to. As regards the second part of the Question, I have to say that the claims are in process of payment. The answer to the third part of the Question is in the negative.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of making a rule that all Bills affecting the administrative conditions of boroughs, cities, towns, and urban districts shall in future be first submitted to the House of Commons. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) Under existing Standing Orders it is impossible to give effect to the suggestion of the hon. Member that all Private Bills shall first be submitted to the House of Commons; and I am not prepared, without further consideration, to recommend an Amendment of the Standing Order which would effect the change in the system of Private Bill legislation which the hon. Member appears to desire.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to give statistics in regard to the prevalence of cancer in India. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have ascertained from the Viceroy that in the existing condition of death registration in India he is unable to furnish information which would justify any conclusions as to the prevalence or distribution of cancer among the general population. The Government of India are considering the advisability of requiring cases of cancer to be recorded separately in future in the dispensary and hospital returns.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is yet in a position to say whether arrangements have been made for the more general adoption of the automatic brake and system of intercommunication with the guard on passenger trains of the Indian Government Railways. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) As regards the adoption of automatic brakes, the report on the progress in the introduction of, and results of working automatic vacuum brakes in India during the six months ended the 30th June, 1902, has been received. Compared with the previous half-year there was no increase of braked vehicles, but a considerable improvement in the results of working them. The Government of India were asked in January last to furnish any information they may be able to supply as to the adoption of a system of intercommunication between passengers and guards on Indian railways, but no reply has yet been received.

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will say whether a scheme for the conversion of the Khair- pur currency has yet been arranged; and on what conditions the Native State rupee is accepted by the Khairpur State Treasury. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) So far as I am aware, the scheme has not yet been arranged. I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave the hon. Member on the 11th December.†

To ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of his reply on 30th October, 1902,: in answer to a Question to the effect that deliveries of locomotives ordered from German contractors by the East Indian Railway Company were in arrear, will he now state what is the present condition of affairs; and whether the policy of giving this order to German contractors was submitted to, and sanctioned by, him before being put into effect. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) As regards the present condition of affairs, I am unable to give the information for which the hon. Member asks. The policy of the Board, so long as they keep within their agreement, is not a matter with which the Secretary of State can legitimately interfere.

To ask the Secretary of State for India what reply has been received from the Government of India to the memorial signed by the Right Honourable Lord Hobhouse and others, praying for the separation of judicial and executive duties in India, presented through the India Office in August, 1899, and forwarded to the Government of India for consideration; upon which, as stated by him on 13th March last,§ the Government of India had been consulting the local Governments. † See (4) Debates, cxvi., 902. ‡ See (4) Debates, cxiii., 1192. § See (4) Debates, civ., 1266. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) No reply has yet been received. The matter is still under the consideration of the Government of India.

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he has yet received a copy of the official Memorandum prepared by the Viceroy of India from figures collected for the Famine Commission of 1898, showing the latest estimate of the value of agricultural production in India, from which the Viceroy, in a speech to his Council on 28th March, 1901, estimated the average agricultural income per head at 20 rupees; and, if so, would he lay it upon the Table of the House, and print it for circulation as a Parliamentary Paper. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have received the Memorandum in question, but I do not propose to publish it.

To ask the Secretary of State for India when he intends to publish the Report on an Inquiry, instituted by Lord Dufferin in 1888, into the condition of the agricultural population of India, which he promised to the House on 30th January, 1902.† (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have received the Report; it is very bulky, and it is fifteen years old. I doubt if it is worth the expense of publication, but if the hon. Gentleman presses for it I will not refuse to lay it upon the Table of the House.

To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the Post Office authorities about eighteen months ago laid telephonic wires through certain parts of the Paddington district, and that the houses in the district have not yet been connected with the wires, and † See (4) Debates, ci., 1323. whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to the residents, he will give instructions to have the work completed as soon as possible; and will he state when it is proposed to complete the telephonic system in the district referred to. (Answered by Mr. Austen. Chamberlain.) The underground wires referred to by the hon. Member are to be connected with a new exchange which is being established in Bird Street, Oxford Street, and will be known as the Mayfair Exchange. Unexpected difficulties occurred in the acquisition of the premises in which the exchange is to be situated, but the necessary structural alterations were begun in the autumn, and the Office of Works expect that they will be completed in about four months. The installation of the switchboard will then be at once taken in hand, and must, I fear, occupy four or five months more. I will do everything in my power to hasten the opening of this exchange.

To ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the delay of certain telegrams between Wolverhampton and Belfast last Saturday in connection with a football match; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am making inquiries in this case and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that letters which should have been delivered at Ballyshannon at 8.30 a.m. on the 18th February were not delivered till 11.30 on that day; and whether, seeing that there is a line of railway through the district which the mail car traverses, he will take steps to improve the postal service at Ballyshannon, and secure expedition in the delivery of letters by causing their carriage to be by rail instead of by mail car. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I will make inquiry as to the delay in delivery of letters at Ballyshannon referred to by the hon. Member, and also as to the possibility of improving the postal service to that place, and I will communicate the result to him as soon as possible, but the inquiry will probably occupy some time.

To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Rev. Arthur J. Bulmer, Congregational Minister of Zeerust, Transvaal, and for some time Acting Chaplain to His Majesty's Forces, was arrested by the Boers at the commencement of the late war for remaining loyal to the British Government, and was kept in prison for three months, that his home was destroyed, and that his wife and family were compelled, after suffering privations, to come over to England for refuge; and whether the Government will take steps to enable these and other loyal refugees, who are destitute of means, to return to their homes and relatives in South Africa. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) The ease of Mr. Bulmer has not been brought before the Colonial Office. It is impossible to lay down any general rule for the treatment of such eases, but any applications made to the Department are referred to Lord Milner for his recommendations.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the advisability of amending the Merchant Shipping Act to enable a colonial seaman to recover in a summary manner the cost of his journey home if he is discharged in Great Britain, in the same way as is provided by Section 186 of the Act for British seamen when they are discharged abroad. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) No Amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act in the direction suggested by my hon and gallant friend would appear to be necessary, as the position of a colonial seaman whose service terminates at a port in His Majesty's Dominions is the same as that of a seaman belonging to the United Kingdom who is discharged in similar circumstances. Section 186 of the Act only applies to seamen discharged at ports outside His Majesty's dominions.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the issue of the monthly Trade and Navigation Returns for January, and printed on 7th February, was exhausted by the 9th, and that the public were not able to obtain further copies until about the 20th instant; if he can say how many copies were printed at the first issue, and whether the number was limited owing to no order having been made by the House of Commons for their printing; and, seeing the pressure to which Customs officials are put in getting these Returns out with regularity on the 7th of the month following that to which they relate, will he take steps to provide that in future they are fully available to the public on that date, whether or not Parliament is in session. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am informed that, owing to an unusual demand for the January issue of the monthly Accounts of Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom, the stock was exhausted on the 9th instant: that a further supply was available by mid-day on the 10th, and that this in turn was exhausted on or about the 17th. A further supply was available on the 19th instant, which is not yet exhausted. The number at first issued seems to have been in accordance with the usual practice when no order to print has been made by the House, but I will take steps to ensure that a sufficient number of these Accounts shall always be available in future, whether Parliament is sitting or not.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have made any representa- tions, either to the Government of Cuba or to that of the United States, as to the effect of the Reciprocity Treaty made between those two States and already signed, upon British trade and upon the sugar industry in the West Indies; and, if not, whether they will make such representations before that Treaty is ratified. (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The reply to the first Question is in the affirmative.

To ask Mr. Attorney General whether he has received the Report of the Commissioner appointed to impure into the charges of bribery and corruption arising out of the recent municipal election at Shrewsbury; and whether he proposes to take action thereon: and will the Report be laid upon the Table. (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) I have not yet received the Report of the Commissioner; but a copy was yesterday obtained by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the whole matter is now under consideration.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any portion of the funds of trades unions that are or may be made applicable to the general purposes of a union, and are not specifically earmarked or assigned to its charitable purposes, are exempt from income tax: and, if so, if he will state the regulations that exist governing such exemptions. (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) It is the practice of the Board of Inland Revenue, under the provisions of the Trade Union (Provident Funds) Act of 1893, to allow a registered trade union exemption from income tax in respect of so much of its interest and dividends as is actually applied for the purpose of provident benefits (as defined in the Act), whether specifically earmarked to such benefits or not. Section 2 of the Act prescribes that the exemption is to be claimed and allowed in the same manner as in the case of income applied to charitable purposes, i.e., in accordance with the provisions of Section 98 of the Income Tax Act of 1842.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consider the desirability of transferring to the County Council of Tyrone the disused gaol at Omagh for purposes of technical instruction or other useful object, subject, however, to such reservations as the Prisons Board required in a similar case in another county. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Prisons Board, with the consent of the Treasury, would be prepared to hand over this prison to the County Council, subject to the conditions referred to. No application in this respect, however, has yet been made to Government by the Council.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state what steps the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction and the Congested Districts Board intend to take in order to encourage the adoption of the Rural Libraries Act by Rural District Councils, in view of the fact that the rates will shortly be struck for the next financial year. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am unable at present to supplement my reply to the hon. "Member's previous Question of Monday last.† The matter is receiving careful consideration.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have had under consideration the question whether the proceedings of the Commission of † See 505. Inquiry into the conduct of the late war should be held in secret or should be open to the public; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction at the withholding from public knowledge the proceedings of that Commission, he will take any, and, if so, what steps to secure the immediate publicity of the evidence produced before this Commission.

The hon. Member knows that the Royal Commission is not under the control of the Government; but I have referred the Question of the hon. Member to the Secretary of the Commission, and from him I have received the following report—

"The note as to evidence is not officially prepared by the Commission or reviewed by the witnesses. It is furnished to the Press by the Secretary to the Commission, who is responsible for its contents. The Commission accept full responsibility for the procedure adopted by them, and would be prepared to show cause for it in their Report. They have, however, considered it inadvisable to present the evidence until the whole case is complete, but they recognise the natural anxiety for fuller information and the desirability of completing the inquiry as soon as practicable. They cannot as yet state definite dates, but they are using every endeavour to prevent undue delay."

Are these proceedings held in secret by the advice of the Government or not?

I cannot go behind the backs of the Commissioners, and I am sure the House would not wish me to do so. The Commission is absolutely responsible for its own proceedings; and if the hon. Member asks me whether the procedure is wise or unwise, I may say that I think it is extremely wise.

It was at the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion?

That is a suggestion which the hon. Member has no right to make.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the special Army Order, issued on the 11th April, 1901, announcing that any officer or soldier who, when in the presence of the enemy, displays a white flag or other token of surrender will be tried by general court martial, was in operation at the close of the war; and, if not, under what circumstances, and at what date, was that Order revoked or modified.

The Army Order in question was in operation at the close of the war and has not been revoked or modified.

Was everyone brought under it, not merely subordinates, but the general officers '

Order, order!

Was General Lord Methuen tried by Court-Martial?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an Army Corps includes engineers, transport, commissariat, and ammunition trains, medical and veterinary services, and is immobile and unfit for war without them; and whether he will complete the Parliamentary Paper, State of the Six Army Corps Commands, by furnishing particulars of these services in each of the first three Army Corps.

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The demands of the South African War have not enabled us to withdraw all the departmental corps simultaneously with the fighting units, but after the close of the financial year I shall be in a position to show the cadres which it is intended to maintain in time of peace for the first three Army Corps.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give a Return showing what actually exists at present in the three Army Corps, not merely the cadres.

No, Sir; I think as the units are not yet withdrawn from South Africa the Return would be of no value to the House.

But the Return might show what troops are really in the country.

With considerable labour a Return could be prepared to show in detail all the departmental units scattered over the country.

Would it not be worth while for the Department in the public interest to undertake this labour?

I think that, perhaps, hon. Gentlemen exaggerate the importance of the question. Obviously, the units of the departmental corps in South Africa cannot be in this country at the same time, and as they are in process of withdrawal it would give a false impression of the strength of the country if it were assumed that only those units at present in England are to be compared with those to be withdrawn. in a few weeks

Will the right hon. Gentleman cease to use the name of Army Corps until they are really formed?

This is becoming a debate. The hon. Member should defer further discussion until the Army Estimates come on.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is his intention to issue any further orders with respect to alterations in the dress or equipment of Militia officers; and, if so, whether, considering the near approach of the preliminary drill season, he will issue such orders with the least possible delay.

No, Sir. There is no present intention of making any such alterations.

I Leg to ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the taxation on natives instituted by the Native Tax Ordinance, published in the Transvaal Government Gazette of 12th September last, is actually being levied; and whether, seeing that the taxation by the South African Republic which it replaced was not collected in the northern and north-eastern districts of the Transvaal outside the settled country, and that the new taxation exceeds the equivalent taxation levied on natives in the Cape and in Natal, he will consider the advisability of making some relaxation to districts in which native taxation was not previously levied.

I have no information as to the extent to which this taxation is being actually levied. The fact that the Government of the South African Republic was unable to collect its taxes in certain districts does not appear to be a reason for relaxing in those districts the taxation which the present Local Government considers equitable.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what precedent, if any, is there, before the year 1900, for the utilisation of a ship of the Royal Navy by a Minister of the Crown unconnected with the Admiralty, for a voyage for health or pleasure; whether there is any instance, and, if so, what instance, before 1900, of the employment of a ship of the Royal Navy to convey a Minister of the Crown unconnected with the Admiralty on a voyage, except in the cases of Ministers of the Crown who were going on Missions to Foreign Powers in the capacity of Ambassadors, Envoys, or Plenipotentiaries.

I do not know whether or to what extent Ministers have been conveyed on ships of the Royal Navy on voyages undertaken solely for the purpose of health or pleasure. It is quite possible that Ministers have been so conveyed on the invitation of the captain, and there is nothing in the King's Regulations to prevent such a proceeding. Ships of the Royal Navy have been used prior to 1900 for the conveyance of Ministers of the Crown unconnected with the Admiralty, and I may mention the case of the Duke of Buckingham, who visited Heligoland in 1867, and of Colonel Stanley when visiting Cyprus and Egypt in 1878. There are doubtless other precedents, but as I have said on a previous occasion, the practice, as far as the Admiralty is concerned, is regulated not by precedent, but by the circumstances of each case. The Ministers above referred to were not going on missions to foreign countries or acting in any of the capacities referred to in the hon. Member's Question.

Was it on the invitation of the captain of the "Canopus" that the Secretary for War travelled by that vessel? I shall call attention to this perversion of the ships of the Navy on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any record is kept of payments made by Naval officers out of their own money for ship services, and whether such payments are reported to the Admiralty; whether the practice is limited to officers of particular ranks or branches, or is permitted generally; and whether, in any case of such expenditure, the consent of a superior officer is necessary.

NO record such as that which is suggested is kept, nor are the payments reported to the Admiralty. There is no limitation with respect to the ranks of particular officers, nor is the consent of a superior officer necessary. The general policy of the Admiralty with regard to such expenditure was stated by me in reply to the hon. Member on Monday, the 23rd inst.† † See page 491.

Will the Admiralty reconsider this extraordinary practice with a view to its abolition?

At present it is impossible and undesirable to make any actual prohibition.

I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the subject on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the Madras Planters' Labour Bill, now before the Madras Legislative Council, providing that in the case of breach of contract a labourer may be imprisoned, and that afterwards the magistrate shall hand him over to the planter with an order to complete his contract; whether he is aware that two Indian members of the Council protested against this provision as being legalised slavery, but that these two members were not appointed upon the Select Committee to which this Bill was referred; whether he will explain by what process the planter will give effect to the magistrate's order for the completion of the contract; and whether he will take immediate steps to stop such legislation.

I am aware of the Bill referred to in the Question, and have perused the remarks upon it of the two Indian members cited by the hon. Member. I think that there is much exaggeration in the language used by them, and I do not admit that the provision referred to. which is found in labour legislation not only elsewhere in India, but in Great Britain itself, and in many other British colonies and dependencies, bears any resemblance to slavery. I understand that if the planter applies for the labourer to be made over to him instead of serving out his sentence, and the magistrate agrees to this being done, the labourer will become again subject to the obligation to perform his contract as he was before, and the contract may be enforced by the means provided in the Bill. I see no reason for taking steps to stop the legislation at this stage. The Bill has been referred to a Select Committee which includes a native of India,; and if it passes the Council it will come before me for consideration in ordinary course.

May I ask the noble Lord whether his attention has been drawn to the case reported in the last Indian mail, of the case of Lalsa, who absconded from a tea-garden in Cachar, and was brought back by guards employed on the estate, was mercilessly beaten by the assistant-manager with a stirrup leather until his head fell on one side, and in a few minutes he was dead.

Order, order: I gather the hon. Member is reading an extract from a newspaper.

No. Sir; I am giving facts which have reached me and which, I think, show what the end will be if this Bill is passed.

If the hon". Member will give me the facts I shall be happy to look into them.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state to the House the modus vivendi agreed upon between the Powers in regard to the question of consular jurisdiction in Shanghai.

If the right hon. Gentleman will move for a Return I shall be happy to give it. He will, however, no doubt bear in mind that the modus vivendi is only a provisional arrangement.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the attention of the Government has been called to the working of establishments in Holland, where the unemployed obtain work on the land without interfering with the ordinary demand for labour; if any reports on the subject have been furnished them; and, if not, if representations will be made to the Foreign Office so that a report on the subject will be supplied to Members of Parliament.

His Majesty's Government have obtained reports from time to time as to the working of the labour colonies in Holland. The latest report will be found on pages 308-319 of the Report on Agencies and Methods for dealing with the Unemployed, laid before Parliament by the Board of Trade Labour Department in 1893 (C. 7182).

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can inform the House how many alien convicts and prisoners were on 1st January, 1903 undergoing sentences of criminal punishment in the Criminal Lunatic Asylum at Broadmoor, and in the convict prisons and local prisons of England and Wales.

I am unable to give the figures in the form for which my hon. and gallant friend asks; but I am about to obtain a Return of aliens in prison on a given date in the near future, in order to lay it before the Royal Commission. The result of the inquiry shall be communicated to my hon. friend if he wishes.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of dogs removed from the streets of the Metropolis last year by the police, and the number restored to their owners through police agency; and will he state the amount realised through the sale of lost, stolen, or strayed dogs which have been sold during the year under an order of the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police.

The total number of dogs removed from the streets of the Metropolis by the police in the year 1902, under the various provisions in force in the matter, was 26,503. Of these 4,150 were restored to their owners, and the rest, with the exception of 492, which escaped or died, were sent to the Dogs' Home. Nothing was realised for the Police Fund by the sale of lost or strayed dogs. The only cases in which dogs were actually sold by the police—namely, those of seven dogs supposed to be stolen—resulted in a loss, the proceeds not being sufficient to cover the cost of keeping the dogs while required in connection with the charge of theft.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can inform the House how many aliens were on 1st January, 1903, being maintained in the lunatic asylums and workhouses of the counties of London, Middlesex, Surrey, Berks, Hants, Bucks, and Herts.

I have no information showing how many aliens were inmates of workhouses on the 1st of January last. As regards lunatic asylums, the matter is one for the Lunacy Commissioners, but I have made inquiry and understand that they have no statistics on the subject.

May I ask if the "places of origin" of inmates of workhouses are not ascertained by the workhouse authorities in order that the proper ratepayers may be charged with their cost of maintenance?

Not in the case of aliens.

Then these destitute persons from all countries can come in and be chargeable to the rates.

Yes, and they do.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that in the Ashton-under-Lyne petty sessional division no permanent resident magistrate has been appointed for nine years, and that the Urban District Council of Droylsden, with a population of between 11,000 and 12,000 inhabitants, has no permanent resident magistrate, and that it is five years since the last one died; whether he is aware that several urban councils have made representation, by resolution and otherwise, to the Lord Lieutenant of the county, pointing out the inconvenience occasioned by the scarcity of magistrates, without avail; and whether he will take steps to remedy this state of affairs.

I am not aware whether during the last nine years any county magistrate has been appointed who permanently resides in the Ashton-under-Lyne petty sessional division, nor am I aware whether there is any magistrate permanently residing within the Urban District Council of Droylsden, but on both these points I have caused inquiry to be made. I am aware that representations have been made to the Lord Lieutenant pointing out the inconvenience caused by the scarcity of magistrates in certain districts of Lancashire. I have already communicated with the Lord Lieutenant on the subject, and within the last few months several additions to the County Bench have been made, and I understand that the names of more gentlemen are about to be submitted to me for appointment. I will, however, make further representation to the Lord Lieutenant, and with special reference to the petty sessional division mentioned by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the case of Terrington, North. West Norfolk, where the managers of the elementary school have definitely given notice to close the school on the 25th March next; and will he state what action (if any) he proposes to take to prevent the children being without instruction between that date and the 30th September, which is the day suggested by the Norfolk County Council for taking over the schools.

The Board of Education have received information that the managers of the three schools at Terrington, St. Clements, are unable for financial reasons to carry on the schools after 31st March next. The Board, however, are in communication with the managers with a view to inducing them, if possible, to continue the schools until the local authority is in a position to take them over.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Congested Districts Board have now received a revised estimate of the cost of construction of the Cromore-Gravir Road, Island of Lewis; and will he state whether the Board are now prepared to provide a grant such as will enable the local authorities to proceed with the construction of the road.

No estimate of the cost of construction of this road has been received which would justify the Board in promising a grant.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether Mr. William Shield, who was deputed to report on the condition of the harbour at Port Ness, Island of Ness, has yet made a report; and, if so, will he state what steps are proposed to clear the harbour of sand, and render it of service to persons engaged in the fishing industry.

Yes, Sir; a report from Mr. Shield has been received and has been under consideration. The Secretary for Scotland thought it necessary to ask for further information on some of the points dealt within the report, and when this has been received the report will be made public.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that some school boards in the Highland crofting counties insist on prescribing the precise form in which a medical officer shall make out his certificate, notwithstanding the fact that no such powers are conferred on school boards by Act of Parliament; and seeing that two crofters in the Western Highlands were recently prosecuted and fined for not sending their children to school, the medical certificates with which they had provided themselves not being accepted by the Chairman of the School Board on the ground that the medical officer did not subscribe the words "on soul and conscience'' after his signature, will he consider the expediency of issuing a circular to school managers on the subject.

The hon. Member has already been in communication with the Department on this subject. The rejection of the certificate was by the sheriff, and the hon. Member has been informed that it does not fall within the province of the Department to review the decision of a court of law. The suggestion contained in the latter part of the hon. Member's question as to the reason for the said rejection is not, according to information given to the Department, accurate. It is not proposed to issue any circular on the subject.

Is it usual for medical officers to subscribe the words "on soul and conscience" after their signature?

Yes, it is usual to do so when the certificate is required for production in a court of law.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what amount of money has now accumulated in the hands of the Commissioners of Education of rents received out of the Roxboro Load School, Limerick; and will he explain why that money is allowed to remain in a bank, instead of being applied to some educational purpose; and whether, seeing that in all the schemes proposed for dealing with this endowment by the Educational Endowments Commission it was pro- vided that the value of it should go for educational purposes to the city of Limerick, he will now take steps to have these school premises on Roxboro Road, which were built out of the rates of the city and county of Limerick, transferred to the representatives of the ratepayers for technical education.

The schools have been let to Dean Gregg at a rent of £20 a year which, with the dividends on the funded portion of the endowment, is being accumulated in the hands of the Commissioners. These accumulations amount at the present date to £212 cash and £63 stock. The Commissioners are prepared to consider any proposal that may be made to them for the allocation of these funds to the purposes of technical instruction. In respect to the second part of the question, the position of these schools has on several occasions been discussed in this House. I can only repeat that there is no power to deal with the premises in the manner suggested.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the increase in lunatic asylum charges in Ireland in recent years, he will consider the expediency of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the cause or causes of the growth of local expenditure on lunatic asylums in that country, and to consider whether any means can be found of limiting or reducing the burden on Irish ratepayers which is involved.

The statistics of insanity do, most unfortunately, show an increase in the numbers of the registered insane. This increase is not confined to Ireland. There has necessarily been a corresponding expansion in the contributions from local rates and from Parliamentary Grants, for the provision of accommodation for the insane, and for their maintenance. The proposal in the Question has already been dealt with in the reports of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, and I see no reason for further investigation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the amount paid to the Board of Works annually by each of the training colleges of Belfast and Limerick on account of their building loans; what proportion does this annual payment bear to the total income of each college; and whether, in the interest of education in these most important institutions, it is proposed to relieve them of this burden and give them free homes on the same terms as they have been given to the denominational colleges in Dublin.

The income of the Belfast Training College for the year ended 31st August last was £3,583, and of the College at Limerick, £2,188. The annual payments on foot of their building loans are £853 and £803 respectively. It has already been more than once explained that there is no power under existing Treasury rules to make free grants in respect of these colleges, The cases of the colleges in Dublin were exceptional, and the object of the decision arrived at in 1890 was to place the denominational and undenominational colleges in that city on an equality.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the sum of £3,000 annually would settle the whole question and put these denominational and undenominational training colleges on an equal basis? Will the right hon. Gentleman make such a grant?

I can give no pledge on the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of Constable Heaphy at Thurles on the 14th of January last, who, without orders from the officer in charge, left his place in the police cordon and endeavoured to smash a drum which was stationary a few yards in front of him; and will he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.

I have caused inquiry to be made into this matter, and am assured that the constable named did not act in the manner alleged.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that two out of three men, named respectively John Mitchel, Thomas Larkin, and Patrick Fitz-patrick, who were sentenced to two months imprisonment each, with hard labour, for riot at Roscrea, have been released from Glonmel Prison after twenty-two days imprisonment, and that the third man, Patrick Fitzpatrick, is still detained in prison; and will he explain the reason for this man's detention, the sentence of the court being exactly similar in each of the three cases.

The hon. Member has. I think, been misinformed. The case of each prisoner was considered on its merits. I may add that I took the preliminary steps towards the discharge of the prisoner named and some others the day before yesterday.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an undertaking was given by his predecessor in November, 1898, that on application of their relatives or friends children committed to industrial schools should be released; and will he say whether he has acted, or is prepared to act, in accordance with this undertaking, and will he explain why this has not been done in a case to which his attention has been called of a child committed under a false description both as to age and religion.

My hon. friend has not been correctly informed. No undertaking such as alleged was given by my predecessor. The case referred to at the end of the Question is presumably that of Elizabeth Dunbar. She was not committed under a false description as to age and religion. The entries in the committal order corre- spond in both of these respects with the facts as disclosed by the certificate of baptism.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill dealing with the power of judges to give prolonged imprisonment in cases of contempt of court.

The Government has already stated that there is no necessity for legislation in this matter, the Rules which govern questions of contempt being well understood.

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been directed to abuses of this power?

And will the right hon. Gentleman speak to the Irish judges about it?

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that assistant surveyors in the Irish postal service are paid 15s. a day subsistence allowance, and first-class railway expenses, whilst inspecting telegraphists are paid only 10s. a day subsistence allowance and second-class railway fare; and whether, seeing that both classes of officers have similar expenses, he will consider the advisability of equalising the allowances granted to them.

I am aware of the difference referred to. Inspecting telegraphists are of a lower official rank than assistant surveyors, and their subsistence allowances follow their rank. The allowances in Ireland are the same as those in the rest of the United Kingdom, and I see no reason to alter them.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet received from the Commissioners of Irish Lights any explanation as to the position of certain lights on the Irish coast referred to by Lieutenant Webster, R. N. R, in his letter of 25th August, 1902; and, if so, will he say what steps he proposes to take in the matter.

The Commissioner of Irish Lights informed mo last December that after a careful comparison they had found that the geographical positions of these lights were in practical agreement with their positions as marked in the Admiralty Charts. In these circumstances, no further action has been taken.

; I beg to ask the first Lord of the Treasury whether he is yet in a position to say when the Government propose to proceed with the Education Bill for London.

I am not in a position to make a statement as to the day on which the Bill will be introduced.

Will it be proceeded with before Easter?

I should certainly hope to be able to introduce it before Easter.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of Mr. Attorney General's decision not to direct a prosecution in respect of the alleged fraud connected with the London and Globe Finance Corporation, he will agree to a Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances.

The hon. Member must be aware that that is a request which cannot possibly be acceded to.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the names of the Members of the Government who are directors of public companies, together with the names of the companies.

The hon. Member, I believe, has access to this information. [Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL: No.] I should like to know, then, where he got the ample materials which he produced in his speech? I cannot accede to the suggestion on the Paper.

As a personal explanation I may say that I ask the right hon. Gentleman for this information because he impugned the facts which I gave in my speech.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will take steps to reappoint the Committee on National Expenditure appointed last session, in order that the Committee may present a report before the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his Budget statement.

I shall certainly take steps to reappoint the Committee in which my hon. friend is so much interested, but whether it will be able to finish its labours before the Budget is a question which, of course, depends on the Committee.

Can the First Lord of the Treasury say what will be the course of business after the debate on the Address is concluded.

I trust that the business connected with the Address will finish to-day. To-morrow is a private Members' afternoon. Next week I propose to take the Supplementary Estimates. We shall begin them on Monday and continue them

During the seventeen years I have occupied a seat in this House, I have frequently called attention to the subject matter of this Amendment, the immigration of destitute aliens into our large cities, and especially into the East End of London. Perhaps I may tell the House why I have taken so much interest in this matter. For some years before I became a Member I occupied the post of Director of Criminal Investigation to the Metropolitan Police, and I had a good deal to do with the criminal population of London. I saw the enormous and increasing harm which was being done by criminal aliens, and directed my attention very urgently to the question. I desire to present my case this afternoon in the calmest possible manner, and without unduly encroaching on the patience of the House. In the first place, I should like to say most emphatically that this motion has nothing whatever to do with any religious question. For Jews, as Jews, I have the greatest possible respect; for ability, intelligence, activity and perseverance, I believe them to be absolutely unequalled. I therefore hope that my hon. friends who are members of the Hebrew faith will accept my most positive assurance that I move in this matter without the slightest feeling as regards the Jewish persuasion. There is another point, and that is that I have no feeling whatever against foreigners. I look upon this subject entirely as one of British interest. The sole question is: Is this immigration doing harm to the British working man; is it ousting him in particular districts and trades from his employment? If hon. Members will be so kind as to look at the terms of the Amendment on the Paper they will see that I refer first of all to the great increase of late in the immigration of destitute aliens, coupled with the considerable numbers of such who become a charge on the criminal law of this country, I have provided myself with the latest Returns that are available, and that have been presented by the Board of Trade to this House. The Alien Return for December last gave figures for the whole of the twelve months ending 31st December, 1902, and under the heading of "Aliens not stated to be en route to America or other places out of the United Kingdom," there appears a total of 81,402, as compared with 70,610 in the year before. I am quite aware that a considerable number of the aliens included in this Return—which I may say by the way is by no means an accurate Return, because it is one taken very much at haphazard, and although it contains the very best information we can get, I am sure the President of the Board of Trade will not pretend that it is a really accurate statement of alien immigration, neither will he deny that it is very much larger than is apparent—I say I am quite aware that a considerable number of these aliens are sailors. The total of these for the two years remained, however, substantially the same, viz., 15,039 in 1901 and 15,146 in 1902, and though we may deduct these, I contend that the importation of foreign sailors is a grievous injury to the British mercantile industry and to British sailors. The decline in the number of British sailors in the mercantile marine is a serious factor in our industrial life at present. But even deducting the whole of the foreign sailors, we have an increase during the twelve months of over 10,000 aliens in this country. I gather from the Board of Trade Returns that that increase is continuing in the present year, for I find that in January the aliens described as "not en route," number 5,443 as against 4,132, an increase of 1,300. These figures fully justify me, then, in calling the attention of this House to undoubted facts of great interest. The great majority of these aliens go to the East End of London, some go to Hull, Grimsby, Leeds, and places on the East coast; but the great majority, 60 per cent. or 70 per cent., undoubtedly find their way into the East End of London. My second point is that a considerable number of these aliens become a charge on the criminal law of this country. I do not say that the great majority of the aliens who come in are dishonest or criminal, or otherwise than civil and industrious individuals, but my contention is that they are ousting our own countrymen from trades in which they are entitled to a considerable proportion of the employment. Still, among the aliens coming in there is an increasing number who most undoubtedly, from the point of view of the criminal law, are very undesirable persons. Hon. Members can hardly have failed to have noticed frequent statements by Judges of the High Courts sitting at the Central Criminal Court, by the Recorder of London, by the Judge at the London Sessions, and by Metropolitan Police Magistrates in reference to this matter. I have here a statement made by Mr. M'Connell, Chairman of the London Sessions, to the effect that of 103 persons charged no fewer than 25 per cent. were of foreign nationality. The evidence given by Mr. M'Connell only this morning before the Commission on Alien Immigration was of a very remarkable character indeed. A report of it will, no doubt, appear in the papers, and I would commend it to the consideration of hon. Members. I gather, roughly, that Mr. M'Connell stated that in 1892 there were 1,627 prisoners at the North London Sessions, and of these 116 were aliens, giving a proportion of about 7 per cent. In 1900 there were 1,722 prisoners, of whom 195 were aliens, or about 11 per cent. Last year the total number was 1,896, among whom then; were 249 aliens. or a proportion of 13 per cent. It was further stated by Mr. M'Connell that at the February Sessions this year the aliens formed one-fourth of the total number of prisoners in the calendar. I think, therefore, the House will acquit me of all exaggeration as to the great increase in the number of these aliens amenable to the criminal law. The statement of Mr. M'Connell this morning was, it will be admitted, of a very serious and important character. I understood him to say that many of the prisoners who come for the first time for trial at the North London Sessions give very strong foreign names, there being thus no doubt as to their place of origin. They also require the services of an interpreter. But when they reappear at some subsequent sessions they claim to be the possessors of strong English names—''Smith," for instance. They no longer require the services of an interpreter, and appear to thoroughly understand all evidence given in the English language. That is a very serious condition of things. At the Sessions which had just been held there was one prisoner especially who had been in this country considerably under a month. Some of the offences charged against these aliens are, I admit, of a very trivial kind, but others are of a very grave and serious character indeed. The House is aware that one of the most common offences, indicting loss on the people of London, is the crime of burglary. Now, a considerable number of these prisoners arrested by the Metropolitan Police are burglars provided with tools of a most elaborate character, and considerable association has been traced between the severa gangs that have fallen into the hands of the police. My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department gave me, in November last, a very remarkable statement indeed. It was to the effect that in the twelve months ending October, 1902. 4,930 aliens—or nearly 5,000—had been arrested by the Metropolitan police. I need hardly point out to the House how very serious a charge this puts upon the ratepayers of Loudon. The police are a very costly part of the taxation of London. But we have no hesitation in paying for them, because they render us very great services indeed. I do submit to the House, however, that it is unfair to the ratepayers that they should be called upon to maintain a large police force in order to restrain alien immigrants from committing offences against the law. It should also be borne in mind that while these alien offenders are serving their sentences in prison they involve a pretty considerable expenditure, for the lowest cost of a prisoner is 8s. per week. As I was told by the President of the Local Government Board in answer to a Question I put this afternoon, destitute persons of all countries can actually come over here and quarter themselves, in the workhouses and asylums, upon the ratepayers of this country, whereas, if a destitute person comes from Sheffield, or any other place, and goes into the Union of St. George's, Hanover Square, the Guardians of that Union can immediately make a claim on the authorities of the place of origin of that pauper, so that the London ratepayers, at any rate, do not have to bear the burden. There is no such remedy, however, in the case of foreigners who go into our workhouses. I do not desire to elaborate this matter to any great extent, but I may point out that some important figures with regard to the increase of criminals amongst the aliens have been recently published by a journal which has, with great public spirit, devoted considerable attention to this subject. I refer to the Daily Express, which, on the 7th February last, published figures for the year 1902, showing the number of aliens charged at every North London Session, the total for the year being 280. It has been pointed out, too, that a new kind of offence is coming much into vogue—viz., larcenies by German and other foreign waiters. They go into an hotel and obtain from the waiting room a sheet of note paper with the hotel heading, on which they get somebody to write in fluent English a character; by this means they secure a situation, and take advantage of the opportunity to rob their employer. Another serious matter is the expulsion by foreign countries of their worst characters, who drift to England. I am not speaking from imagination. During the years I served with the Metropolitan Police I had opportunities of making myself acquainted with the facts, while recently I have had the privilege of being a British representative at the Anti-Anarchist Conference at Rome, called by the Italian Government, at which the chief officers of police of every European nation were present. This deportation of criminals from one country to another without the slightest notice was a matter of general complaint. All agreed that persons in France, Germany, Russia, Italy, or Spain, against whom there was strong suspicion, although they might not have been convicted of any offence, were, on the warrant of the Minister of the Interior, deported, and in the natural course of things, drifted to England, because England was the only country to which they could go without inquiry as to their physical health or antecedents. That being so, the public of this country have a very fair ground of complaint against unrestricted immigration of this kind. As to the effect of this immigration, in the year 1888, on the motion of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, a Select Committee, of which I was a member, was appointed to inquire into the question. That Committee sat through the session of 1888 and into the session of 1889, so that it went very elaborately into the whole matter. The conclusions at which the Committee arrived were—that the better class of immigrants only arrive in transit to other countries, but the poorest and worst class remain here, moving on when they have made a little money, and giving place to other poor aliens; secondly, that in the trades they chiefly affect—tailoring, shoemaking, and cabinet making, they work for less wages than British workmen and for longer hours; and are dirty and uncleanly in their habits. Under these circumstances the Committee recommended the enforcement of the Alien Act of William IV., which had fallen into disuse, but which required the master of a ship to report to the Customs the names of the aliens on board his vessel, the British Consul being then instructed to exercise vigilance in the matter. That suggestion was adopted by the Government of the day, and since then we have had these ''alien returns," but, as the master of the ship complies with the requirement in a somewhat rough and ready way, too much reliance must not be placed upon them. The Committee declared—

"There is general agreement that pauper immigration is an evil and should be checked, and that so doing would largely decrease, if not altogether destroy, the sweating system. The only way effectually to accomplish this is to stop them at the port of arrival. While your Committee see great difficulties in the way of enforcing laws similar to those in the United States and other countries against the importation of pauper and destitute aliens, and while they are not prepared to recommend legislation at present, they contemplate the possibility of such legislation becoming necessary in the future, in view of the crowded condition of our great towns, the extreme pressure which exists amongst the poorer parts of the population, and the tendency of destitute foreigners to reduce still lower the social and material condition of our poor."

In 1903 I think we are justified in asking the Government of the country whether the time contemplated by the Select Committee has not arrived. On what do I base my contention that the time has arrived for very active steps to be taken? First, the information furnished by the Alien Returns and the police reports as to the increasing extent of immigration; secondly, on the measures adopted in Eastern Europe to bring about the exodus of from 70,000 to 100,000 of the poorer population every year; thirdly, the refusal of any number of European countries, the United States, and the self-governing colonies, to accept these people save under the strictest regulations, vigorously applied, and the consequent necessity for the poorest weakest, and most undesirable of the immigrants to seek shelter within the United Kingdom; fourthly, the enormous increase in our own urban population, the overcrowding and the high rents of workmen's dwellings, with an augmented difficulty of finding employment and the danger of an epidemic disease being brought to our crowded centres by these immigrants; and, lastly, the change which has come over public opinion upon this question, and the urgent demand of the people as a whole, and especially in East Loudon, for some measures to be taken. I come now to the real effect of this immigration. It is seriously affecting the employment, welfare, and housing of the working classes. The employment question is of a most serious character. My hon. friend the Member for South Islington is to preside over a conference at the Guildhall to-morrow on the question of the unemployed. Why is such a conference thought necessary? They will doubtless seek some pallative measures. Why do they not go to the root of the evil? Last night the President of the Hoard of Agriculture refused to allow Canadian store cattle to come to this country for fear they should introduce disease. Why is not this question looked at in the same light? Would it not be better to look the facts in the face and see what it is that causes the lack of employment, instead of seeking palliative measures? I hope my hon. friend in his presidential remarks to-morrow will address himself to this question. I am sorry not to see present more Members who claim especially to represent the labour interest, because this is essentially a labour question. I understand the Home Secretary received this morning a deputation which pressed for a reduction of the naturalisation fees. If anything, the fees should be larger, not smaller. We are far too ready to accord the privileges of British citizenship without inquiry, provided an individual gets a lawyer or some one else to write out an application and sends the moderate fee of £2 or £3. The authorities ought to be extremely careful with regard to whom and on what grounds they accord these privileges. It is quite unnecessary for me to say more to show the effects this alien immigration has upon the employment of the people, because we have evidence of the surest possible character that in certain localities the large number of aliens presses very hardly upon certain trades. As to the welfare of the people, and the question of the housing of the people, a, very remarkable statement was made the other day by my hon. friend who will second this Motion, with regard to the ousting of the population from certain localities in the East End of London by these foreign immigrants. I have no doubt my hon. friend will tell the House the facts upon this very important question. That will, of course, obviate the necessity of my going into detail. The Birkbeck Institution trustees made a very elaborate inquiry into this question, and although I have the report in my hand I do not think it is necessary to read in detail the result of the inquiries made by the two Commissioners who were appointed. They report, however, that this foreign immigration had a very serious effect upon the housing question in the East End of London. What is the use of Motions of this kind, and (Questions being addressed to the President of the Local Government Board, and of Bills being introduced in this House for the welfare of the people, if our own people are to continue to be displaced by destitute foreign immigrants? My hon. friend mentioned that even model dwelling houses erected by the Loudon County Council were inhabited by these aliens. There is this remarkable fact about them for which I have a very strong sympathy, and it is that they stick very closely together. They rent houses and recoup themselves by taking an inordinate number of lodgers and crowd a number of people into one small room, in defiance of all the regulations of this House, of the County Council, of the local authorities, and of the Public Health Act; consequently they are a real source of danger to the community. I submit that I have largely made out the case that the immigration of destitute aliens has a very serious effect upon the housing and the welfare of the working classes. In regard to the large increase in the number of undesirable persons who have become amenable to the criminal law, I claim to have made out my case. Upon this criminal question I would refer hon. Members to what is announced in the evening papers in regard to an anarchist plot to assassinate the rulers of practically all European nations, this has just been unearthed in New York, and has rendered it necessary to take the utmost precautions with regard to the safety of the residents of the United States. It behoves, therefore, every nation as a duty not only to its own country, but to society at large, to take every possible precaution they can against any conspiracy to assassinate persons, whether they be Sovereigns or ordinary members of the community. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will not misunderstand my meaning. I have no desire to press the case against him personally, but he must allow me to say, as a loyal member of his Party, and as one who has taken great interest in this subject, that I do not think the Board of Trade and the Government as a whole, have redeemed their promises upon this question. Every month, almost every week and every day, hon. Members for years past have called the attention of the Government to this question. When the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was President of the Board of Trade, he stated in 1895 that this question of the immigration of destitute aliens was one of great importance and demanded attention. And in the year 1896 it was one of the principal measures in the Queen's Speech. Lord Salisbury, in 1894, introduced a Bill to deal with this question, and now my right hon. friend finds great difficulty in dealing with the subject. I would remind him that Lord Salisbury found no difficulty in 1894. In 1898 a noble friend of mine, Lord Hardwicke, now the Under Secretary of State for War, introduced a Bill in the House of Lords and it went through all its stages, and yet the present Government do nothing whatever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 10th of February, 1897, said that he was alive to the promises he had made, and the words he then used were of a most important character. A Motion was made by an hon. friend of mine who then sat in this House—I refer to the hon. Member for Haggerston, Mr. Lowels. It was stated that not only individual Members, but the whole Government, were pledged on this subject, and did not desire to depart from the pledges given. One Minister stated that the Government adhered to every pledge they had given and declared that at no distant time they would bring forward legislation on the subject. That was a Minister giving expression to the opinion and feeling of the Government as a whole. After a statement so categorically clear and plain Mr. Lowels withdrew his Motion and left it in the hands of His Majesty's Government. And yet the Sessions of 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901 and 1902 go by, and we hear nothing more of this matter, which not only individual Members but the Government as a whole have pledged themselves to deal with. Last year a Motion was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Stepney. It was shown that the whole matter had been enquired into in 1888 and 1889 when two or three volumes of evidence of the most drastic character were produced. We all know that the Government has very easy ways of getting out of anything, and there are two ways to do it. You can appoint either a Select Committee or a Royal Commission. The Royal Commission is the better of the two, because then the Minister concerned can say: "I have no authority upon this question, for the Commission are absolutely free; I should not dare to ask them when they are going to meet, or when they will report, for that would be interfering with their function." That is exactly what took place. A Royal Commission was appointed, with Lord James of Hereford as Chairman. I make no charge whatever against Lord James, but I am sorry to observe that after the Royal Commission had met several times in the course of last summer it never met at all from July to December, so that for six months in the year nothing was done. An urgent question of this character is not to be trifled with in this way. It must be understood that I make no charge in the slightest degree against Lord James himself. I only regret that the imperfect state of his health did not enable him to proceed with the inquiry, but of course it was the duty of the President of the Board of Trade to ask if his health precluded him from holding meetings on such an important subject. My right hon. friend gives the reply which I expected, namely, that he has no authority over the Commission and that he really does not know anything about them. Happily, repeated Questions produced a meeting on the 8th of December, and the Commission is sitting at the present time. The complaint I make against my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade, and against the Government of which I am a loyal supporter, is that the pledges they have given, and the numerous promises to the electors made by individual members of the Government—as for instance in the election addresses of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade and a large number of other Members—have not been fulfilled. I have all their names and the names of their constituencies here. I expected something better than that a Royal Commission should be set to hush up the whole thing again. I cannot understand why my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth shire is not here to-day. We know by the daily papers, and by The Times especially, that he takes a great interest in this question of immigration, but unfortunately his interest in it is confined to immigration into South Africa, and not into the East End of London or into this country generally. Ft was well known that this question was coming on first to-day. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not ill, but if he is well I cannot understand a Statesman who takes such an interest in the question not being here. On the 5th February he wrote a letter to The Times with regard to the immigration of Chinese into South Africa, in which he says—

"No wonder Mr. Chamberlain has treated as an insult this presentment of a project for the latest pattern of a British colony. I shall not waste time in discussing such an alternative. I am well assured that no British Government will ever be a party to such a degradation of the British name, it has been made clear that it has been indignantly rejected by every organ of public opinion in this country and by the unanimous voice of our self-governing colonies also, who have had bitter experience of this demoralising mischief."

[An HON. MEMBER: Question.] It is the question. The immigration of aliens into this country is more a question for the people of this country than the immigration of a few Chinese to work in the mines of South Africa. They would be brought in there and returned to their own country under proper regulations, as the coolies are at the present time. Why all this indignation when be is not even here to give his opinion on the question of alien immigration into London? I am greatly indebted to the House for the patience with which they have listened to me. I hope I have succeeded, as it was my endeavour to do, in putting the question moderately and fairly. I am most anxious that it should not be thought that this has anything to do with any attack upon Jews or foreigners as foreigners, but I occupy a seat as the representative of British electors, and it is in their interest and the interest of the people of this country that I have brought forward the Amendment. I beg leave, therefore, to move it, and to commend it to the earnest consideration of the House and of His Majesty's Government.

My hon. and gallant friend, the Member for Sheffield, who has just sat down, made a most lucid and exhaustive speech on this subject, and I rise, though very willingly indeed, with considerable diffidence, to second the Amendment, with the terms of which I am in hearty accord. I should like to take up the parable of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Monmouthshire, and to say that I raise my voice in this House in order that I may save my fellowmen in this country, if not in South Africa, from that moral degradation to which the right hon. gentleman himself is so rightly opposed. I rise as the representative of British working men in a working class constituency in East London—men who are suffering day by day from this unrestricted alien immigration, which is surely—I was going to say slowly, but it is moving fast—turning them out of house and home, and also out of the work by which they can earn their livelihood. The state of things in East London at present is indeed a most serious one. I had the honour to second an Amendment at the commencement of last session upon the same subject which we are discussing this afternoon. In seconding the Amendment to-day I find my task less difficult. At the same time, I am sorry that I find it easy to second the Amendment after a lapse of one year, because a very great deal has taken place on this momentous subject during the last twelve months. The increase in the immigration from various countries of paupers and un- desirable characters who are quite as objectionable, and even more objectionable than the extreme pauper class, is so serious, that I do not see how any Government, whichever side of politics they might represent, could allow the present time to go by without having a full and exhaustive inquiry made into the circumstances. When we hear that during the past twelve months the increase of immigrants was no less than 11,000. when I remind the House that those people find their homes in the congested districts of our great cities, and chiefly in the East End of London, and that the housing accommodation in those parts of London and of other cities, instead of increasing, is rather on the decrease, and liable to decrease still further through the clearing away of overcrowded slum areas, then I think the House of Commons and the Government must seriously consider whether this is not a state of things which cannot continue. It is a state of things which, if allowed to go unrestricted, must end in riot and disorder. I do not like to have to refer to, or even to suggest, anything so terrible as disorder and riot among our own labouring classes. It is sad enough when we hear of disorder and disagreement between employers and employed. But the truth in regard to the present dangerous state of things was brought home to me the other day in the district I represent in East London, It was brought to my knowledge that two foreign Jews had been hunted down the streets by hundreds of British working men. When we have come to that, then I think it is indeed time for the Government to consider what action should be taken in the matter. The President of the Board of Trade has stated that he cannot hasten the labours of the Royal Commission, who have been sitting only half of the time they ought to have been sitting, inquiring into this matter. I would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, cannot in some way bring pressure to bear on the members of the Commission in order that we may obtain a speedy report, and see whether we cannot do something to remedy this dangerous state of things. There is another reason why I second this Amendment to-day, and it is one with which the House is perfectly familiar, namely, the case of the unemployed in London, which has been so prominently brought before us during the last few weeks. We have had processions of unemployed parading the streets of the West End and other parts, seeking to raise money in order that they may alleviate the distress which prevails. I am not of those who believe that these processions are composed entirely of the deserving unemployed, or of desirable characters. I am not one of those who think that it is wise that processions of this kind should he allowed to annoy and disturb peaceable citizens, but being closely connected with those whom I represent in this House, I do know that there is a very large amount of genuine distress felt in East London at the present time. I know that the working classes generally suffer in silence and in patience. They are content to give up their little luxuries, which are not many at the best of times, and they bear their burdens as best they can. They are used to it. It comes year after year, as the winter comes round. They bear the pinch, and they do not make much noise about it. But it is undoubted that this winter there has been an abnormal amount of distress felt in some districts of London, and especially in the East End. This distress has been rendered far more acute by the enormous influx of these destitute aliens who become the prey of the sweater directly they arrive in this country. They are willing to work for any wage. I heard of a case the other day of a number of these people being employed in overcrowded rooms at a most insanitary business; these poor foreigners were paid at the rate of a halfpenny per hour for their work. I mention that only to show to what depths these people may sink in order to keep body and sold together. They do not know the English language, and they are willing to work for almost anything, because they have themselves and their families to support. They therefore fall, an easy prey, into the hands of sweaters, who herd them in sweating dens and work them to the bone day and night. This is not sentiment I am giving to the House—I know that sentiment is the last thing the House of Commons; wants—but it is the stern and solemn truth, in regard to what is going on at the present day. There are builders who pull down slum areas and erect whole new streets; on the top of the buildings there are workshops with intercommunication between one house and another. They will not accept a Christian landlord, though why I cannot for the life of me understand, unless it is in order that they may carry on their trade under some conditions which are certainly not according to the law. These houses are built by whole streets at a time, and as soon as the roof is put upon them, they are entered by foreign paupers who do not even understand the English language. When an inspector is admitted, the people are hustled out at the top round by the back, and you can never arrive at the true state of the over-crowding in these districts. I referred the other day to what I considered to be the key of the housing problem, viz., this unrestricted influx of aliens. My hon. and gallant friend has quoted a remark I then made in regard to certain buildings which had been erected by the London County Council. I said at that time, and I believe it is the case, that it is absolutely useless for us, at enormous cost to the ratepayers and the Metropolis, to erect expensive and elaborate blocks of flats and model dwellings which do not suit the class of people whom we turn out, because they cannot afford to pay the high rents demanded, and then to allow these buildings to be tilled with aliens, from whatever country they may come. Our own workmen are consequently driven from the neighbourhood where they are obliged to live by the exigencies of their trade—thus taking the bread out of their mouths. I had a census taken a year ago of what is known as the Boundary Street area in Shoreditch and Bethnal Green. No doubt that area is familiar to many hon. Members. A most insanitary district was cleared, and the site built upon at an enormous cost. Many hon. Members have, no doubt, read Mr. Morrison's book "The Child of the Jago," which contains a very faithful account of the conditions under which the people in that part of London lived. I knew it well, for I worked in it myself for years. I found from that census that there were no fewer than 259 alien families then comfortably ensconsed in these dwellings. Is it not perfectly grotesque that we should be content to sit here and allow these heroic measures to be passed, and put our hands in our pockets for the erection of these buildings which, forsooth, are not to serve the purpose we had in view, but are used to turn out the very class of men, the British workers, whom we are seeking to help. I have no doubt that if I could get another census taken now—and should ask for a return by the London County Council—we should find that there are a greater number of aliens living in these blocks now than a year ago. I want to suggest, this consideration to the House: if the rents charged for these dwellings are so high that the British workman cannot afford to pay them, how can the aliens pay them? I do not suggest the answer; I leave it to the common sense of hon. Members to draw their own conclusions. There must be a reason.

What is it?

The only reason that suggests itself to my mind is that there must be some very serious overcrowding going on, and that if the system of inspection were complete it would prove that the rents could only be earned by some such overcrowding.

Does that remark apply to Boundary Street?

The remarks I make apply to any buildings for which these excessively high rents are being charged, and where British working men have been ousted to make room for these aliens, I will not detain the House by going into any details of the figures so fully presented by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment, but I will take a point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not referred to; and that is, that if other countries find it necessary to have restrictive legislation on the subject, does it not strike some of us here that there may be something in it? I know perfectly well what is the result of this restriction in America, it reacts upon us. The most healthy immigrants, those who have really a good character and some visible means of subsistence, are admitted into the United States, where there is an elaborate system of examination. But the result is that those who may have no means of subsistence, who are unhealthy and undesirable in many cases, come to this country where no examination whatever is imposed. Therefore, in self-defence, I maintain we would be wise to place some restriction on the influx of these undesirable aliens. Now, this question has forced itself on the attention of the country, during the last twelve months especially, through the medium of the law courts and by reports of the speeches of various judges and magistrates in London, as to the amount of crime committed by foreigners of a most undesirable class, who introduce crimes into this country with which, thank God, we, as a rule, are not conversant. They carry on a nefarious traffic in human lives, not only of working men, but of women and young girls. These facts surely are a disgrace to any country, and it will be a greater disgrace if the responsible Government of this country, does not take steps to apply a remedy to that dreadful state of things. When we know that there are large companies of employers and associations of men, banded together in order to carry on what is called a traffic in women and girls—it is difficult to know by what phrase to describe it—as has been shown by the evidence given before the Royal Commission, hon. Members will see what is the real state of things. When it is brought to our notice that there is such an organised traffic, surely the Government cannot allow this state of things to go on without moving a hand to try and stop it. I am afraid I have detained the House too long, but I have endeavoured not to cover the ground occupied by my hon. and gallant friend. I ally myself with him in everything he has said in his exhaustive and noteworthy speech. Hon. Members on the other side of the House who take an interest in this subject, and I know that many do, should face it boldly. I know it is a difficult question, but that is no reason why it should not be faced and dealt with both from an economic and a moral point of view, otherwise we cannot do the good we are all seeking to accomplish. This is not a political question, but one on which all hon. Members on either side of the House should ally themselves, go to the root of it, deal with it honestly and fairly, and see whether something cannot be done to remedy a state of things which causes such havoc and destruction to so many of our fellow-subjects. Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words—

"And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that the great increase of late in the immigration of destitute aliens into the East End of London, coupled with the considerable numbers of such aliens who become a charge on the Criminal taw of this country, constitute a grave national danger, seriously affecting the employment, the welfare, and the housing of the working classes, and calls, therefore, for the immediate fulfilment of the repeated promises of legislation upon the subject on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and notably of that of 10th February, 1897, declaring that not only individual members, but the Government as a whole, were pledged to some legislation on the subject."—[Sir Howard Vincent.)

A year ago an Amendment was moved by my hon. friend the Member for Stepney, and seconded by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, raising the same question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield. On that occasion the Amendment was withdrawn on the announcement by the Government that they proposed to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole subject. Now, my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Sheffield and the hon. Member who has just sat down have not expressed themselves as satisfied with what the Government proposed to do. The hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield has taken a different view, and has insinuated, if he has not declared, that the Royal Commission was appointed in order to hush up the whole matter. I must express my regret that my hon. and gallant friend should have made a statement of that sort. I can assure the House that the Royal Commission was not appointed to hush up this matter, which we recognise to be a very grave and also a very difficult matter. My hon. and gallant friend further said that the Royal Commission has trifled with this question, inasmuch as it had sat up till July last, but did not sit during the later months of the year. My hon. and gallant friend knows, of course, that the Commission did not sit during the later months in the year because of the indisposition of the Chairman, Lord James. My hon. and gallant friend suggested that it was my duty as President of the Board of Trade to intimate to Lord James that it was desirable that he should retire from the chairmanship. I believe no man in either House has a keener sense of public duty than Lord James; and I am quite certain that it was perfectly safe to leave a question of that kind to him, because if he considered it his duty to retire he would undoubtedly have retired. If he had considered it his duty to retire, it would have been a great public misfortune, because there is no man more capable of discharging the duties of Chairman than Lord James. As a matter of fact, I do not think it was quite fair for my hon. and gallant friend to suggest that the Commission has trifled with this question. Since it was appointed, the Commission has sat twenty-one times, and has examined eighty witnesses. I understand that the case of the persons represented by the hon. Member for Stepney is still under consideration by the Commission, and that evidence has still to be given in favour of excluding aliens or of imposing some restrictions on alien immigration. When the case for exclusion or restriction has been finished, naturally the case of those who are opposed to that view will have to be heard; and not until both sides have been heard is it possible for the Government or the House of Commons to come to a wise conclusion on this matter. It is under these circumstances that my hon. and gallant friend thinks it right to move an Amendment which practically censures the Government for not having brought in legislation before the Loyal Commission had reported. Even if my hon. and gallant friend's contention is correct, which I absolutely deny—and it is wholly inconsistent with the attitude of the hon. Member for Stepney and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green—the Government would have deserved censure, if, having appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into this question, they were to undertake legislation before that Commission had reported. I do not propose to follow my hon. and gallant friend into the details of his speech, because I do not consider it would be practicable or desirable that the matter should be fully discussed in this House, any more than it would be practicable or desirable for the Government to introduce legislation. I would say, however, that the speech of my hon. and gallant friend shows what a difficult problem we have to face. One of the points my hon. and gallant friend laid stress upon was the crimes that had been committed by aliens. What were the crimes to which my hon. and gallant friend specially referred? He referred to alien burglars, provided with tools of the most elaborate kind. I always understood that a burglar's outfit cost, at the very least, £100, and I should like to ask my hon. and gallant friend how he thinks that any man with that amount of capital would come to this country as a pauper alien.

I cannot accept my right hon. friend's statement as correct.

Then my hon. and gallant friend refers to larcenies by German waiters. Does he suggest that we can prevent that by any ordinary restriction placed on immigration? The fact is, that although my hon. and gallant friend pointed to what everyone admits is a great evil, he has not suggested what remedy should be applied. He referred to the discussion yesterday on the question of the exclusion of Canadian cattle, and he asked, if the President of the Board of Agriculture would not permit the importation of Canadian cattle, why should not the Government take up a similar attitude with reference to alien immigration? Does he say we should absolutely prohibit immigration? [Sir HOWARD VINCENT: Yes—undesirable immigration.] It is there the difficulty arises. My hon. and gallant friend referred to the Bill introduced by Lord Salisbury in 1894. He said that Lord Salisbury had no difficulty regarding the matter, and asked what difficulty the present Government should have. In spite of what my hon. and gallant friend has said, we do understand this quest on, and we have a deeper sense of the difficulties connected with it than was possible in 1894. I venture to express the confident opinion that if the Bill introduced by Lord Salisbury in 1894 were passed into law, it would have done almost less than nothing towards diminishing the evil of which my hon. and gallant friend, and my hon. friend the Member for Bethnal Green justly complain. It was in order that we might have further information and further light thrown on this subject that the Royal Commission was appointed; and I venture to suggest to the House of Commons that it would be inconvenient and undesirable to pursue this debate at any length until we have that further information and that further light, without which it would be impossible for us to come to a wise decision.

I confess myself at a loss to understand why this question has been brought before the House. It cannot have been brought forward for the benefit of the House of Commons, because we have had similar speeches on similar occasions from the hon. and gallant Gentleman; and it cannot have been brought forward for legislative purposes, because we know perfectly well it is impossible for any Government to legislate on a subject on which a Royal Commission is taking evidence. I can only suppose that this subject has been brought forward, not to enlighten us, and not with a view to legislation, but with a view to constituencies outside for which apparently hon. Members think the time of the House of Commons ought to be expended. I am very glad the President of the Board of Trade has taken the only course for a Minister to take, and has declared the entire inability of the Government to deal with this question until this Royal Commission, which is presided over by an eminently competent Chairman, should have reported upon it. It is not for me to add anything to the censure which the President of the Board of Trade has awarded to the hon. and gallant Gentleman; but I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman must himself admit that it would be quite impossible for the Govern- ment to accelerate the proceedings of the Commission, having referred to that Commission a question of extreme difficulty. The more one looks into the question the more difficult it becomes. One story is good until another is told. It is perfectly easy to make a strong case against the immigration of destitute aliens, and I do not say that it might not be desirable to have legislation on the subject; but everyone who has dealt with the matter knows how difficult it is to introduce effective legislation. The President of the Board of Trade said, with perfect truth, that Lord Salisbury's Bill, if passed, would have entirely failed to grapple with the difficulty. That certainly was the impression left on me when I had to deal with the matter at the Board of Trade in 1894. I do not profess to say whether the evil is the same, or whether it has taken a different form, but up to then no practical scheme had been suggested; and I am not aware that up till to-day any practical scheme has been suggested tor dealing with the difficulty. It is very easy for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to hold up a scheme in his hand, but I should like to know what the Royal Commission would say to it. I remember another scheme of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, for the exclusion of prison made goods. A Bill was passed for that purpose, but it utterly failed to accomplish its purpose.

But it has kept out the goods.

It has not had the slightest effect as far as I know, and the result verified the prediction we made, that legislation would be incompetent to deal with the matter. I should be committing the error I deprecate if I were to express an opinion on this subject. It is impossible to deal with it until the Commission has reported. I shall, and I hope we all shall, keep an open mind upon it. We shall see the gravity of the evil from the evidence of the Commission. The experience of America shows that it is very difficult to deal with; but I think the only proper course for us is to reserve our opinion on the whole matter, and approach the evidence and recommendations which will be submitted by the Commission with a perfectly unbiassed mind. That being the case, I shall not discuss the merits of the matter now. What I rose for was to express my satisfaction that the Government have refused to deal with the matter at present, because I believe that the question is one of so much difficulty that we should not approach it without fuller information than we now possess.

said he did not propose to enter into this question at any length, for the reason that he did not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who had moved the Amendment, and his friends, having asked for a Royal Commission, had practically presented their case.

said he was not surprised at the attitude adopted by the hon. Gentleman opposite, though he was surprised that he should have stated that the labour classes and their leaders were against any legislation for the prevention of this alien invasion. Mr. Joseph Arch, a late Member of the House and the founder of the Agricultural Union, said in his autobiography that while the best British workers were being driven out of the country we allowed the riffraff of other lands to come freely into England, and that he was strongly opposed to alien immigration. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, was quite wrong in saying the labour classes were against legislation of this kind. It was ten years ago since, he himself had moved an Amendment to the Address on this subject. At that time there were strong grounds for immediate action on the part of Parliament. They had had various enquiries, the result of which certainly afforded strong grounds for legislation. The Government—practically the present Government—in the Queen's Speech of the subsequent session undertook to legislate in this direction; they had not acted up to their pledge, and he thought it was high time that the Government should realise that the country was getting heartily sick of the delay. So far from Members on that side having asked for a Royal Commission, the Commission in their opinion was a "put-up" affair to delay the question. Thousands of British-born workmen were destitute of employment, and yet every day there were brought into the country large numbers of men who must in the long run compete in the national labour market. No small amount of the pauper charges of the country were due to persons driven out of employment by this unfair competition. The minds of the great mass of the people of the country were made up on this question, and, notwithstanding official vacillation, public opinion would enforce its way. He hoped the Commission would hurry up, and that its Report would enable legislation to be promptly undertaken. This country had become a bye-word as being the rubbish-heap of the world, upon which those elements, which no civilised community would retain in its midst, were pitch-forked. All other countries, including our self - governed colonies, had stringent legislation by which to guard their communities from these evils, and it was perfectly monstrous that year after year the Executive here should shirk the obvious duty of dealing with the matter. The country had had enough of the delay, and would not stand it much longer.

, as a member of the Royal Commission at present inquiring into this subject, expressed his surprise that, after spending a considerable portion of the day on that Commission, he should come to the House and find Members pressing the Government immediately to introduce a Bill dealing with the question. The Commission had held over thirty sittings, and heard over eighty witnesses, many of them at great length, and collected a mass of evidence of a most important character. It was for the Government to defend themselves against the accusa- tion that the Commission was a "put-up job," but such a statement was grossly unfair to the members of that body, who at considerable cost of time and convenience had for a long time been devoting their efforts to the elucidation of the question. He had no right to speak in the name of the Commission, or of the Chairman, but he might say that at a private meeting of the Commission that day the Chairman had expressed an earnest desire, in which he was supported by every member of the Commission, that they should bring their labours to a termination at the earliest possible moment, and to that end steps had been taken to compress the remaining evidence as far as possible. Without speaking officially in any way, he thought it highly probable that the Commission would report before the end of the present Parliamentary session. Under these circumstances it seemed hardly reasonable for the hon. and gallant Member to ask the Government immediately to introduce legislation on a subject which had greatly changed in its essential conditions during the last, year or two, and therefore concerning which the new evidence was of immense importance.

said that ten years ago, in supporting a Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet, he was able to demonstrate how this matter had affected the rates of Liverpool. The statistics of the Liverpool workhouses showed that during the year no fewer than + 36 pauper aliens had passed through them, from which fact Members could gather how pauper immigration affected the rates. He was glad that in the debate no attack had been made on the Jews, but no fair-minded or practical man would contend that immigration of pauper aliens of any creed should be allowed. He hoped, therefore, as soon as the labours of the Royal Commission were over, the Government would see their way to bring forward legislation, as the subject was no doubt becoming an urgent one.

said it was evident that, with a Royal Commission sitting, the Government could not be expected to give any pledge or to introduce a Bill. But that was not the; point before the House. The Motion was a vote of censure on the Government for having neglected their promises and broken their pledges on this subject. He for one most cordially desired some legislation directed against the unlimited immigration of destitute aliens, and he looked to the Government to redeem its pledges in this matter if it could not in others. In 1897 the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking on behalf of the Government said—

"Not only individual Members, but the Government as a whole, are pledged to some legislation on the subject. We do not desire to depart one iota from the pledges we have given: we adhere to every pledge, and I hope at no distant time to propose in Parliament legislation in the direction desired."

That surely meant that the Government not only felt that this was an evil which ought to be remedied, but had thought out the means by which their promises could be redeemed. But the speech the President of the Board of Trade had just made seemed to imply that the Government had given promises on a matter with regard to which they had not made up their minds, and had undertaken to introduce a Bill of which they had not thought out the principle. The right hon. Gentleman had said it was a very difficult problem. Of course it was, but the business of a Government was to solve difficult problems, and, having given pledges, it was still more their duty to solve this problem instead of endeavouring to hush it up by the appointment of a Royal Commission. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Wolverhampton, no reflection whatever had been cast on the Commission itself. If a Commission was necessary, the one appointed was an admirable instrument for the purpose; it was an able body presided over by an able Chairman, and would doubtless do its duty in all respects. But that was not the matter under discussion. What they were discussing were the pledges of the Government. It was in the year 1897 the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his promise. In 1898 a Bill was introduced in the House of Lords by the present Under Secretary for War. Lord Salisbury spoke in favour of it, and the Earl of Dudley, speaking on behalf of the Government, supported it. The Government now found that they were not able to draw a Bill, and they had to appoint another Commission. There was another matter in regard to this question. In July, 1900, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was then President of the Board of Trade, and he was approached with regard to this very question. Upon that occasion he said the only reason why the subject had not been dealt with was that the House had been engaged in other business, and implied that they had a Bill ready. Never, in all his Parliamentary experience, had he seen a more flagrant violation of absolute promises and pledges given, not only on the hustings, but also to hon. Members of that House, and given deliberately by Members of the Government. They had promised to draw a Bill and to introduce it, and the only reason they gave for not doing so was want of time. And now the right hon. Gentleman told them that afternoon that it was impossible for the Government to do what was required or draw a Bill without referring the latter to a Royal Commission. He thought it was necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to give the House some further information.

The hon. Gentleman's speech should have been made last year; it is a year too late.

, said he rose to thank the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield for bringing forward this question. He had no wish or desire to turn out the Government for this neglect of their duty, but a great many of those who took a great interest in the labour questions of the country must feel that the time had come when this question should be dealt with most thoroughly. And now the President of the Board of Trade simply passed over the question as a subject which had been recently sprung upon the Government, but it was no such thing. In 1894 Lord Salisbury himself brought forward a Bill on this question in the House of Lords, when his Lordship declared that the Board of Trade should prevent anyone who was either an idiot, an insane pauper, or was likely to become a public charge, or was affected with contagious disease, from landing in this country. Such a Bill as that was a very simple question, and a strong and powerful Government ought to have no difficulty in framing such a measure. Why should we have thousands of destitute women and children swarming into our midst? A Bill dealing with this question had been carried by eighty-nine votes to thirty-seven, and still they found the Government doing nothing. Private Members had a very great deal of difficulty in forcing upon the Government the importance of dealing with subjects in which they were interested, and although he should not vote for this Amendment this was the only way in which they were able to show the Government that they did not intend that important subjects like this question of the immigration of destitute aliens should be allowed to go unheeded and uncared for. It was all very well for them to be a powerful Party, especially on great Imperial questions, but the Government should understand that they had subjects at home which were also dear to them, and they strongly appealed to the, Government to give these subjects attention and endeavour to deal with them. It was a disgrace to them to see so many unemployed able-bodied men walking through the streets of London. And why was it? Because destitute aliens were allowed to come into our midst in thousands to labour at a price which English workmen could not accept. He was certain that there were many Members on the Government side who would like to speak in similar terms to those be had spoken in. They felt that it was the duty of the Government to bring forward such legislation as this, and he was greatly surprised to hear the President of the Board of Trade say that they had not enough information, and sufficient intelligence, at the Board of Trade to frame a Bill which would put a curb upon this immigration into our midst of such a large number of useless individuals, in many cases useless paupers, and the sooner they had some one at the head of that Department who would deal with this question, the better.

said he was one of those who sat on a Committee that inquired into this subject some years ago. It was quite true, as the President of the Board of Trade had said, that it was difficult for the Government to legislate while the Royal Commission was sitting; but it should be remembered that this was a subject which had been before Parliament for nearly twenty years, and that the feeling in London was very strong upon it. It was a difficult subject, for although we objected to these people coming into the country, we sent a great many out. It was clear, however, that some legislation was desirable, and there was no doubt that even the mention of legislation would have a great effect in preventing many of these people from coming over. There was a general idea on the Continent that any rubbish, so to speak, could be shot on these shores. This was a state of affairs that a very little legislation would stop. It should be understood that this country was not an asylum for those who were destitute and who were in such a state of dirt that they should not be imported. When the Committee of which he was a member was sitting, a number of aliens were brought before them, but on account of their condition they had to be excluded from the room. It was very painful to have to say so. To have hundreds and thousands of that class landed and kept here was a very serious state of affairs. He suggested to the President of the Board of Trade that he should hurry on the labours of the Royal Commission as rapidly as possible so that this evil might be put a stop to.

said he could not adopt the view expressed by the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen, who joined the President of the Board of Trade in deprecating discussion and doubting whether it had any value. He thought this debate had been of great value. It had drawn a declaration from the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen of which, no doubt, the public, and especially the London public, would take due note. It had also been an occasion on which the hon. Member for Poplar had been able to announce his views as an influential London Member—views which he owned were not shared by the majority of his Party. The House had also had from the hon. Member for Whitechapel certain statements which he would venture to refer to. He could not help thinking that the hon. Member could scarcely have meant what he said when he stated that not a single British workman had been ousted by these foreigners. If he would honour him with a visit to Hoxton he could show him premises which had been occupied by British subjects for close upon a century, who had been ousted from their homes and trades by aliens. The hon. Member must be gravely ignorant of East London if he could state as he had just done that the cabinet making industry did not exist in the East End before the aliens had become numerous and where the question of alien immigration was now constituting a serious evil. The hon. Member had also alleged that we, after all, could not take exception to the arrival on these shores of foreign criminals because there were British subjects incarcerated in the prisons of foreign lands. He was one of those who had had the advantage of visiting prisons in many parts of Europe, and he would venture to say that the proportion of British subjects whom he had found serving terms of imprisonment in these was infinitesimal as compared with the proportion of foreigners who were undergoing sentences in London prisons for serious offences. He joined the hon. Member for North Islington in saying that they should not be guided absolutely by what fell from the President of the Board of Trade, when he said that it was impossible that the Government should embark on any legislation pending the Report of the Royal Commission on the subject. The etiquette in the matter of Royal Commissions should be departed from when judicial statistics and the opinions of the judges of the High Court, together with returns which could be obtained from prisons, afforded irrefragable evidence that alien immigration constituted an urgent and intense social danger. If hon. Members would look into the statistics of the criminal courts of London, they would find that a very large proportion of the offences—in some instances, as his hon. friend the Member for Sheffield had said, 25 per cent. of the whole—were committed by foreigners. That being the state of things as stated on the authority of magistrates at first hand, why should the Minister responsible await the presentation of the Report of the Commission before taking steps to remove a crying evil from the very centre of our national life? This evil constituted a most serious burden on the taxpayers of this country. Only about a fortnight ago at one of our courts a Frenchman, who was a well-known professional criminal in France, was sentenced to seven years penal servitude. At the expiry of his last term of penal servitude in France he was banished from the country. The convict was conducted to a ship and sent off to these shores, with the result that within a fortnight of his arrival in London he committed a serious burglary, coupled with a dastardly and brutal attack on some person. Assuming that the cost of maintaining criminals in prison was £40 per head per annum, the British taxpayer was now saddled with a charge of £280 for this Frenchman. The position, he submitted, was one which was not, after all, so difficult as appeared to be thought by the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen said that he doubted whether any legislation would be really effective. Any one who had given attention to the subject knew that though the American law might not be absolutely effective, the Act was, nevertheless, a very great deterrent in the sense that not only did it prevent people from going to America, but enabled the authorities there to ship back to England those who were refused admission because they were not considered fit for the country. These rejected aliens were sent here because they would not be readmitted by the European countries from which they originally came. What was the experience of any British subject who went to reside in any country in Europe? Immediately he arrived at an hotel his name was written down and given to the police, and he had every sort of inquiry to answer. If we were now to take steps for the exclusion of paupers and undesirable aliens, we should simply be doing, in the twentieth century, that which every foreign country in Europe had done for sixty or seventy years past. There was one point in regard to the criminal aspect of this subject on which he and others on that side of the House would press for an answer from the Government. Why should the 16 per cent. who were aliens of the felons now incarcerated at Wormwood Scrubs at the expense of our fellow citizens not be taken out of the country, so that we should not have the possibility of their being again convicted as recidivistes? They all knew that the men of whom he spoke were not first offenders, but were men who had been stamped with crime from their earliest manhood. A disappointing feature to many inside and outside the House who had had this problem, and the evils which flowed from it, pressed on their minds, was the absolutely limp attitude taken up in regard to it by the great majority of Gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House. Surely in a matter affecting the social condition of our people they should discard Party politics and press the subject on the Government, and aid them all they knew in every endeavour to put, by rigorous legislative measures, an end to that which was physically and morally a, gigantic evil in our immediate midst. The economic question involved was one upon which he need not touch, except to say what was the use of all those great public Acts dealing with the health of the people if they permitted this influx of destitute and unclean aliens to continue, and if those laws were to remain a dead letter, He asked any man who had any knowledge of the east, north, south and, he might add some parts of the west of London, any one engaged in the administration of their laws, how they could attempt to enforce them when their enforcement would drive the dwellers into still more overcrowded neighbourhoods? This question not merely impinged upon, but was inseparable from, some of the great social problems which lay at the root of true Imperialism, and which, referring for a moment to the debates in the earlier part of the week, would render any scheme of Army reform utterly useless—more especially if they allowed the population of the towns to grow up in the miserable conditions under which they were born and had to pass the younger years of their lives. It was because he, and those who were accredited with the desire of pursuing a policy of pin-pricks towards the Government—which accusation was not well-founded—believed that if the Government saw that they had the support on this subject, not of their own side only, but of all quarters of the House, they would pass the measures demanded of them that he welcomed the Debate. IT; thanked his hon. and gallant friend with all the warmth at his command for initiating the debate which, though it might not have filled the Benches, excited a very real and sincere interest among the great mass of the people.

said he could not help thinking that his hon. and gallant friend had done good service in introducing this subject to the attention of the House; and if he had done nothing more than spur the Government to take some action, his object would have been attained. But the position of the House was rather curious, for they had the responsible Minister of the Crown telling them that he had not material enough on which to legislate, while members of the Royal Commission alleged that this question had changed very much in the last two or three years. He hoped, therefore, his hon. and gallant friend would not divide on his Amendment.

said he had been very much interested in the speech of his hon. friend on the front Bench opposite; but he could not help thinking that there was a great deal of force in what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that that speech would have been much more appropriate and more effective if it had been delivered before the Royal Commission was appointed. He could not admit that the argument the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward was relevant. The hon. Gentleman told the House that he did not have in his pocket the speeches containing the broken pledges of the Government to which he had referred; but this question had not come for the first time before the country, and if it was the duty of the hon. Gentleman to bring it before the House that day, it was equally his duty to have done so a year ago, when it was within his power to have produced those references to the speeches of the Members of the Government.

, moved as an Amendment to the Address, at the end, to add, "And, having regard to the great poverty of the Indian people, and to the fact that 30,000 troops of the Indian Army have been used in other parts of the world in which India has no direct or substantial interest, we humbly express our regret that Your Majesty's speech contains no recommendation for the reduction of the military expenditure of the Indian Empire." Having been engaged during the last two days in discussing the alarming increase in British Army expenditure, it appears to me that this Resolution should be moved to give an opportunity to consider the question of Indian Army expenditure, and whether or not, in justice to, and for the safety of, India, some relief may be given to that country. I will not attempt to criticise the efficiency of the Indian Army in any way, but certainly it ought to be the most efficient, because it is the costliest, army in the world. From its very nature it should be so, for India is the only county in the world which does not depend on its own sons for its national defence, but depends on the paid aliens of a foreign overlord. The Indian Army consists, roughly, of 75,000 British troops, 150,000 Indian troops, 20,000 Indian Reserves, 30,000 Volunteers, and 16,000 Imperial Service Corps, or a total of 290,000 men at a cost to India of £15.000,000, or £52 per head. The British Army came next, its total cost for all branches being £29,000,000, or £21 per head. The French Army costs £20 per head: the Russian Army £10; the German Army £9; the Austrian Army £7: the Turkish Army £7; the Italian Army £4; and the Swiss Army, the best for national defence in the world. £2 5s. Not only is the Indian Army the costliest in the world, but it is imposed on the poorest nation in the world. It costs 75 per cent. more per soldier than the British Army; it is four times dearer than the French Army; five times dearer than the Russian Army; six times dearer than the German Army: seven times dearer than the Austrian or Turkish Army; and twenty-four times dearer than the Swiss Army. Lord Curzon, whom no one who knows him would charge with being a pessimist, places the average wealth of India at £1 6s. 8d., or less than 1d. per day per head of the population. Upon so poor a community a rich overlord like Britain has no right to impose any expenditure except for the benefit of India, or any armament not absolutely required for peace at home and defence from foreign foes. No one will contend that India has any aggressive policy. Unhappily, however, the expenditure on its Army is steadily increasing. In 1884 it was Rx17,000,000: in 1888 it was Rx21,000.000; in 1893 Rx23,500,000; in 1898 Rx24,000,000; and in 1903 Rx27,000,000. This latter figure includes the saving of Rx. 1,500,000 by the loan of troops to the British Government. We are informed by the Secretary of State for India and by Lord Curzon, that a further increase must be expected. Already from Ex. 70,000 to 80,000 has been imposed on the Indian taxpayer for additional pay for the Army; and in all probability in a year or two the expenditure on the Indian Army will reach Ex.30,000,000. What is the Indian Army wanted for? I hold it is wanted only for the maintenance of peace and order in India, and, secondly, for defence from foreign invasion. I know of nothing else for which it is required. But during the last fifteen years the additional duty has been imposed upon the Indian Army of providing a great reserve force for the general defence purposes of the British Empire, towards which the British Exchequer does not contribute a farthing. I will not speak a word of my own in justification of this statement; but I will venture to read two paragraphs from a speech delivered by Lord Curzon to the Council during the discussion on the last Indian financial statement. He said:—

"It is, I think, generally known that it was by the loan and prompt dispatch of British troops from India that Natal was saved from being overrun by the Boers at the beginning of the South African campaign. It was the holding of Ladysmith that prevented them from sweeping down to the sea. That service has been publicly acknowledged by the Commander-in-Chief in England and by the Secretary of State for War."

I hope these services will be acknowledged by the more decent treatment of Indians who have settled in South Africa. The Viceroy proceeds:—

"It is also known that it was an Indian General commanding Native troops from India that relieved the legations at Pekin, and further, that, in the absence of our European troops elsewhere,"

—this was spoken ten months ago—

"it has been Native regiments by which our garrisons in China have since been supplied. But the extent or value of our contribution in either case is perhaps imperfectly understood. Since the beginning of the war in South Africa we have sent from India 13,200 British officers and men to that country, of whom 10,000 are still absent. Over 9,000 Natives, principally followers, have gone with them, of whom 5,600 are still away. To China we sent 1,300 British officers and men, nearly 20,000 Native troops, and 17,500 Native followers, of whom 10,000 Native soldiers and 3,500 followers are still away. I venture to say that these are very large and handsome contributions.''

I wish our wealthy self - governing colonies made such large and handsome contributions to national defence. The Viceroy further says:—

"I would like to mention another respect in which we have been of service. This had been in the provision of ammunition, stores and supplies."

The Viceroy then read a list of articles which had been sent to South Africa and China; but throughout his speech he did not say a word about the danger to India of taking away such a large number of men to engage in the fiercest military campaign since Waterloo. The peace of India was still maintained. Russia did not invade the frontier, and India was able to send all these troops without any risk of danger to herself. In 1885, Lord Dufferin, who was then Viceroy, with the consent of Lord Randolph Churchill, then Secretary of State, increased the Indian Army by 30,000 men. For fifteen years this wholly unnecessary increase has never been used either for maintaining the peace or defending the frontier of India. Now these men are taken away from India to be employed in the defence of self-governing Colonies in. an Imperial war, to make war in China, or against remote African tribes, or for garrisoning Crown Colonies to relieve British troops for the South African campaign. To provide this reserve force for possible contingencies in the Empire outside India, the Indian people have, since it was imposed upon them, paid out of their penny a day something like £30,000,000. My contention is that India has no use for these 30,000 extra troops imposed on her at a time of panic, and that they are neither more nor less than a reserve force for the British Army, as is amply proved by Lord Curzon's speech. This increase followed the Penjdeh scare; but the Penjdeh scare was followed by a wise delimitation of the frontier, to which Russia agreed. The fifteen years that have passed since then have been years of almost unbroken quiet in Central Asia. During the same period Russia has become absorbed in the development of her superb Siberian territories, and the Russian scare has become the deadest of all bogies, except to the Prime. Minister, and even he declared in his speech on Tuesday night—

"I think that a war between Russia and Great Britain is to the last degree improbable."

I ask him if he thinks it is worth while to maintain the salt tax in India, and to starve irrigation works in order to pay for the maintenance of Lord Dufferin's 30,000 additional troops. Since 1885, we have been far nearer war with other countries than with Russia. At one time we went near war with the United States. We have a frontier with the United States of 3,000 miles, which could be crossed by an Army at any point for 2,000 miles; but what would Canada say if we imposed an Army Corps on her finances because we might have a war with the United States? If we did that, we should lose Canada, and serve us right. In India, with an impregnable frontier of 300 miles of the most 'difficult mountain passes, we maintain an Army, the costliest in the world, to defend the poorest country in the world against a Power that would not Take India and its responsibilities as a gift, to say nothing of taking it as the result of a life-and-death contest with a great naval and military Power like Britain. Russia's feeling towards India was perfectly expressed by Prince Gortshakoff in 1887, when he declared "the conquest of India by Russia to be a perfect impossibility, and, if practicable, an act of supreme folly." Lord Salisbury once spoke of the dread of a Russian invasion of India as "an antiquated superstition." I want no three better authorities on this question than the present Prime Minister, the late Prime Minister, and Prince Gortshakoff. The first says that a war between Russia and Great Britain is in the last degree improbable; the second speaks of the fear of the invasion of India as an antiquated superstition, and the third as a perfect impossibility and an act of supreme folly. These 30,000 men were added to the Indian Army as a result of the Penjdeh scare. Their continued inclusion is in flat contradiction of all accepted authority with regard to the purposes for which they were added. The time has long since passed for the relief of India from this intolerable burden; but when the day arrived for the whole 30.000 troops to be taken away from India for service in countries where India has neither a direct nor an indirect interest, the continuance of this burden on Indian finance becomes an infamy. If the 30,000 troops are wanted for the defence of India from Russian invasion, and the Governments of Britain and India really believe this, what are we to say of the statesmanship that takes the whole of them from 2,000 to 5.000 miles away from the Indian frontier at the very crisis in our history that furnished the only possibility of success for Russia if she had any such intention. I ask the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for India if they believe that Russia has sinister designs on India. If they do not, for what purpose do they still maintain these 30,000 men who were added because that belief had some shreds of justification fifteen years ago? If they think that Russia has sinister designs on India, how could that justify the withdrawal of these troops to distant service at a moment that would certainly be chosen by an enemy, when this country was involved in the greatest military struggle she has ever had to face since Waterloo? It could be done with absolute safety. No one doubts the word of the Indian people. I am quite sure my noble friend the Secretary of State will agree with me that never in the history of India were people so loyal as they are to-day. If the Durbar means anything it means that. But we can only hold India while her peoples are loyal to British overrule. It is such acts of barefaced injustice as the continuance of the 1885 addition to the Army, after using the whole of them for our own purposes, that tend to loosen the attachment of the Indian people. Educated public opinion in India is not slow to speak out. The Indian National Congress, the most representative body of men in all India, passed this resolution on the subject:—

"That this Congress enters its most emphatic protest against the fresh permanent burden of £786.000 per annum which the increase made (hiring the course of the year in the pay of the British soldier would impose on the revenues of India, and views with alarm the recent announcement of the Secretary of State for India hinting at a possible increase in the near future of the strength of the British troops in the country. In view of the fact that during the last three years large bodies of British troops have, with perfect safety, been withdrawn for service in South Africa and China, the proposal to increase the strength of the British garrison manifestly involves a grievous injustice to the Indian taxpayer, and the Congress earnestly trusts that the proposal will either be abandoned or else he carried out at the cost of the British Exchequer, who in fairness should bear, not only the cost of any additional British troops that may be employed, but also a reasonable proportion of the existing garrison."

It is not for one so ignorant of military affairs as myself to suggest how, or in what direction, Indian Army expenditure should be reduced. It might, however, take the form of a grant-in-aid from the British to the Indian Exchequer on the understanding that 10,000 British and 20,000 native troops of the Indian Army were to be treated as a Reserve Army Corps for the defence of the Empire, or for any warlike operations east of and including Cape Colony and Egypt. Lord Curzon claims that this 30,000 loose and available troops saved South Africa, and I think the claim is a good one. It is monstrous to lay the burden of saving our great self-governing colonies upon India without asking those colonies to contribute either to the protection of India or to the cost of Imperial defence, and it is idle to say that the Imperial Exchequer bore the cost of the Indian troops (luring service abroad. India bore the cost of their recruiting and transport and of their maintenance for fifteen years during which they were there for Imperial use when wanted, and now India is called upon to shoulder the burden rendered heavier than before until another foreign emergency arises. Sir, I have endeavoured to put the case for my Resolution in as short a time as possible, and I now bog to move the Amendment standing in my name.

In rising to second this Motion, I feel that I ought not to occupy too much of the time of the House in doing so, neither do I think it necessary to make any apology for bringing forward a Motion of this character at this stage of our parliamentary proceedings. It is generally admitted on this side of the House that India does not receive from Parliament that consideration which she ought to do, and it is absolutely necessary for us to grasp any opportunity which we may have at our disposal for bringing before this House and the country questions of vital interest to India. I think it is not unnatural that we should select as our special subject for consideration to-night the question relating to the Army in India. As my hon. friend who moved this Motion has already pointed out, military matters have absorbed and are likely to absorb a great deal of our Parliamentary attention in the present session, and if it is right for us to pay special attention to the question of the possible reduction of military expenditure at home, I think every one will admit an equal, if not a greater, duty lies upon us to consider whether this is not possible in the case of India. India, as is well known, pays the whole cost of the British Army in that country. I do not know whether it is clearly realised that India pays more than one-third of the total cost of the British Army, and when we in this country are called upon by the Government to-day to consider a change in the organisation of the Army—British and Indian—it is right, I think, that we should bring the question of our responsibilities to the Indian taxpayer prominently before this House. There are two primary points which I. should like to mention upon this, indications which, I think, are of good omen with regard to the treatment of the Indian question in this House in the future. The first is that there is an evident disposition to regard India in this House from a non-political point of view, and the second is a growing sense of the fact of the importance of India to our Empire. Now there are three main points which lie within this Motion. The first is the necessary and inevitable fact that there continues in India to-day a widespread poverty; the second that some retrenchment in some direction in regard to taxation is absolutely necessary; and the third is in accordance with the terms of this Motion, and it is that we believe that the direction in which this reduction should take place is the direction of the Army. I am not going to dwell on this question from the standpoint of poverty of the Indian people. I only regret it is not possible in considering a great matter such as this to sweep away on the one hand official optimism, and on the other the pessimism which is perhaps inevitable on the part of those brought face to face with the poverty of India, in order to get at the facts. What we want to take is not an exaggerated view on one side or the other, but the facts of the case, and it ought, and I believe it is, the desire of everyone within these walls to act in accordance with those facts, and to shape the policy of that country in harmony with their own. But there are one or two outstanding features in regard to the great poverty of the people of India which I will, in one sentence, and only one sentence, refer to. No one who has studied Indian matters during the last few years will doubt that the fact that the effect of the unprecedented famines that have occurred recently in that country are still present in the lives of the people, and that that gives emphasis to the special means now being considered. I read the other day in the Pioneer, an able newspaper in India, which has been all along in loyal support of British Administration in that country, a statement to the effect that nearly 100,000,000 of the people of British India lived in extreme poverty, and if we look in other directions we find the same facts prominently pressed on our attention. To conclude this particular part of my statement. I think everyone must admit that the widespread poverty of the people of India does continue, and that it must necessarily be greater and more acute by reason of the great number of famines and other evils which have afflicted that land for fifty years past. This makes it all the more necessary, when we in this House consider to-day whether it is not possible to reduce taxation, to consider in what direction this reduction should take place. I think I shall carry the House with me when I say that before we can develop the industrial resources of India we must lighten in some way the burden of taxation which now rests upon the people of that country. No one who knows anything of India will deny that it is of the utmost importance to emphasise the necessity of developing the industrial resources of the country. What we want is what the Viceroy said in his speech the other day at Calcutta. What we want in India is capital. What we want is to bring about a condition of things which would result in the flow of capital into that country. And what I hold is, that we must give this question of industrial development in India more and more thought and attention, and in doing this we cannot lose sight of the necessity of reducing, as far as possible, taxation which arises from unproductive expenditure. In other words, before we can hope to make India permanently prosperous, we must lessen the burden of taxation on the people. I now come to the third part of my remarks as to the special direction in which this lightening of the burden of taxation should take place, being that of military expenditure. One or two questions arise under this head. First of all do we or do we not get full value for our money in connection with the British Army in India? I do not intend to go into that, because that has been dealt with by my hon. friend who moved this Amendment. The second question is, is the force we have in India at present excessive for Indian purposes? I know very well in the long run we must depend on the judgment of our military advisers in regard to this part of the question; but, alter all, military advice is not always infallible, and I agree with my hon. friend in thinking that so far as the purpose of preserving international peace and security in India itself is concerned, there has been ever since 1885 an excessive force established in the country. I do not think I would venture to express this opinion, were it not based on a somewhat close study of the views of those mainly responsible for the government of India. But I will mention just one statement made by Sir Auckland Colvin, an Indian administrator of great reputation, whose judgment on this question will be accepted by everyone in this House. In 1897, Sir Auckland Colvin made this statement—

"Up to 1885 the military authorities in India were looked upon us responsible only for securing the country against internal danger."

Since then a change has taken place. There have come plans and projects for securing India against attack from Central Asia, with the consequence that—

"Almost every consideration for the good government of India has been made to yield to the alleged requirements of defence against external attacks."

In considering this question I am not placing the opinions of those who think they represent the people of India against those of the Government of India, but rather the opinions of those who are responsible for the government of India against the opinions of the War Office at home. About twenty years ago, a Commission was appointed to inquire into military expenditure in India, and the then legal member of the Viceroy's Council, in his Minute of Dissent from the Report, made this statement—

"A standing army which is larger than is necessary for home requirements will be a tempting and almost irresistible weapon of offence beyond the borders."'

I think the events of the last twenty years, the adoption and abandonment of the so-called forward movement, and the millions of money it has involved, are a vivid commentary on that statement. The third question which arises on this Amendment is this: Supposing it be granted, for the sake of argument, that the present force in India is not excessive for internal and external purposes, is it right to charge India with the whole cost of that military force? In his reply the Secretary of State will probably instance the Report of the Indian Expenditure Commission, which recommended that a certain sum should be paid in settlement of the claims made by the Government of India in reference to home charges. But that Report was made on the assumption that the United Kingdom and India must be kept strictly separate in the calculations made. At the same time it is said in that Report that—

"The Home Government has derived and does derive great benefit from the existence of a large effective force in India."

In other words, the Commission in the same breath say that you must treat India and England separately in this matter, and that you must realise that India is conferring a great benefit upon this country in military matters. I do not think it is incumbent upon me, or upon any Member on this side of the House, to make any suggestion as to the solution of this question. I read the other day an interesting article by another able administrator, Sir Edwin Collen, in which, about ten months ago, he made this suggestion—

"There is, I think, only one way out of the difficulty, and that is by England foregoing the annual charges for the training of men sent to India, while India, on the other side, accepts the cost of reforms which are necessary for the general welfare of the whole Imperial Army."

I am not competent to pronounce an opinion whether such a solution of the difficulty would be a proper one; I only mention it as showing that such men as Sir Edwin Collen and others, who have had life-long experience and responsibility in regard to the administration of Indian affairs, admit that something ought to be done, and that there is an obligation due to India from this country on that account. The revenues of India have been charged with the cost of many changes of organisation, not directly necessary for the efficiency of the Indian Army. The most recent case in point is the extra expenditure of £786,000 per annum, which will be imposed upon India by the changes now being carried out in the Army system. To take this step, and to burden India with this large annual charge, destroys once and for ever the validity and the finality of the Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure, because what you give by that Report you more than take away by this additional charge. The Indian Expenditure Commission has not solved the problem; we are faced with it to-day in an aggravated form. Let me, in conclusion, mention some of the dominating features in the situation. I am one of those who believe that India is the pivot upon which our supremacy in the East turns; I believe in the growing importance of India from an Imperial standpoint. The trade of the Empire may be accounted for, roughly, in these proportions: 61 per cent. to the Home country; 23 per cent. to the Colonies, and 16 per cent. to India. From that standpoint it is necessary that we should seriously consider our obligations to India. Then, from a military standpoint, I believe that we should maintain in India a force adequate for internal purposes; but if it is necessary to maintain there a force adequate for external purposes—and I am not one of those who say it is not necessary—we ought to make such a contribution to Indian finances as will substantially pay the additional cost. In regarding India as a necessary part of the British Empire I think we should do something to strengthen the bonds between that country and this. It is necessary for us not only to relieve the strain of taxation in India, but also to promote the growing consciousness that they are one with us, and that they are, in reality as well as in sentiment, a bulwark of the Empire. I beg to second the Amendment. Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words—

"And, having regard to the great poverty of the Indian people, and to the fact that 30,000 troops of the Indian Army have been used in other parts of the world in which India has no direct or substantial interest, we humbly express our regret that your Majesty's Speech contains no recommendation for the reduction of the military expenditure of the Indian Empire."—(Mr. Caine.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

said that inquiries had been made in various parts of the House as to the necessity for the maintenance of three Army Corps of Regular troops in this country, and the Prime Minister had declared it to be an Indian necessity. That was a startling reason, and one requiring more explanation than had as yet been given. If this pressing necessity existed, surely the country should have heard of it before now. If India was really in that dangerous position it was a terrible thing that the country should have been kept entirely in the dark. Not a word was mentioned on the point at that critical moment when large bodies of troops were withdrawn from India for service in other parts of the world. If India was in need of reinforcements the proper course was to increase the Army in India itself, as the military position of that country would not be improved by maintaining large bodies of troops consisting of five-feet-two-inch inefficient men on Salisbury Plain or at Aldershot. If the Government came to the conclusion that the Indian frontier was in danger, then let them, for Heaven's sake, send out more troops now before war broke out. What would be our actual position if war broke out? They would not be able to send a single man unless they had previously destroyed or locked up the Russian Fleet. If more troops were necessary for India, let the Government enlist the necessary number of Gurkhas, Sikhs, Pathans, and others, who were the finest military material in the world, and keep them on the spot. Some ridicule had been cast upon an hon. friend of his for expressing certain opinions with regard to Indian matters.

The hon. and gallant Member seems to be continuing the debate which was raised upon the Army question. The question before the House is simply how far the cost of the troops in India should be charged upon the Indian revenue.

The hon. Member who brought this question before the House pointed out that his Motion was in a sense similar to that which was moved a few days ago in connection with Army expenditure in this country; but the facts on which the two respective Motions are based soon parted company. The present period is one in which the military expenditure of every country is rapidly increasing, with one exception, and that is to be found in India. I did not wish to interrupt the hon. Member who moved the Amendment in regard to his figures, but he seemed to have a statistical department of his own; his figures differed from official returns. He gave the military establishments as 290,000; I do not know where the hon. Member got his figures from, but the number should be 220,000.

I got them from the official returns. I have not figures of my own.

But nobody would include among the regular military establishment the Volunteers and Reserves.

I was making a comparative statement of the cost of the various armies of different countries, and I took all the effective forces of this country upon a war footing. I supposed that the Volunteers and Reserve forces might be used in India in a war.

It is an absolutely indisputable fact that during a period of great military expansion throughout the world the Indian Government alone has kept down military expenditure. During the seven years I have been in office the military establishment has grown from 219,000 to 220,000, and the military expenditure has advanced from £16,400,000 to £17,100,000; and it seems to me that when the Indian Government accomplished this remarkable feat of keeping down expenditure and increasing efficiency it is not a result that deserves the censure implied by the Amendment. I think that if the growth of the military expenditure in this country had been so slight the Government would have met with universal thanks from the House of Commons and the taxpayers. Per head, the Indian Army is necessarily costly, because it is largely composed of white men taken from our own country, and, being supplied on the voluntary system, it is necessary to offer the men sufficient pecuniary inducement. While located in India great precautions for preservation of health are necessary, and this involves large expenditure, and still the death-rate is far higher than it is in this country. It is quite true the cost per head is great, and it is equally true that a large proportion of the taxation is supplied by poor people; but the hon. Member does not mention two governing facts of the situation—the area of the country in which the military establishment is retained, and the fact that the military establishment of India is much smaller in proportion to population than in any other Government in the world. Of course the establishment, being small, it must be made efficient. The hon. Member went on to say that India had an almost impregnable frontier, and seems to imply that the small force maintained is in excess of requirements. But the hon. Member is aware that the history of India long before the establishment of British rule is a continuous record of invasions over that frontier which he describes as impregnable. Nobody can say that, if our rule were withdrawn or insufficiently supported, India would not again be subjected to similar invasions from warlike tribes inhabiting the regions to the north and west, and who from time immemorial have been taught to look on the plains of India as their natural prey. Therefore the establishment is moderate and, in proportion to population, less than that of any other Government in Central Asia. The Russian establishment in Asia is ten or twelve times as great in proportion to population. But the hon. Gentleman's main argument in support of the Motion for reduction is that during the crisis of the late Boer War a considerable number of men were sent to assist the Imperial forces in different parts of the world. I quite admit it. But surely the hon. Member must know that in times of great national stress some risks may legitimately be incurred which in normal times would not be justified. Lord Curzon, with characteristic courage, did deplete his military establishment by sending 6,000 white men to Natal and 17,000 native troops to China. No one can dispute that the despatch of those forces was a most effective aid to the British arms, and well they upheld British prestige. During that period there were scarcely any Regular troops in this country; but the hon. Member would surely not argue that therefore the home establishment was too large, and that it should be reduced to the figure at which it stood during the Boer War. Such a proposition would be absurd and nonsensical. Lord Curzon, in the speech to which the hon. Member referred, never gave a. hint that in his judgment the normal Indian establishment was too large. I do not think the hon. Member would be able to get any responsible military authority to admit that our present military establishment in India is in excess of the needs of India, or more than is required to guard against certain dangers which are always present. Then my hon. friend referred to the speech made by the Prime Minister the other night. I do not think that he quite grasped the significance of what my right hon. friend said. My right him. friend did not describe India as being in serious danger, nor did he speak of the probability of a war between England and Russia, but he pointed out that it was a possibility, though he thought it was a very remote possibility. He said there was in the same way a remote possibility of a war between Germany and Russia. But if that contingency did occur it would necessitate very large reinforcements being sent from this country to augment and bring up the Indian establishments to the standard necessary to combat such a danger.

May I point out to the noble Lord that that is a contingency and a danger that has existed for years past?

My right hon. friend said there was the possibility. He said nothing more than that.

Why three Army Corps?

Possibly in the past sufficient attention has not been given to the organisation and training of soldiers, and if those matters have been brought to light now it is incumbent on the Government of the day to try to remedy them in what they believe to be the most effective manner. I now come to what I think was the method of relief the hon. Gentleman suggested, and that was that a certain number of men on the Indian establishment should be maintained and paid for out of the Imperial revenue and kept in India. I cannot say that that is a proposition which in any way commends itself to my mind.

It would be cheaper than the three Army Corps.

I am not going to argue about the three Army Corps. I am arguing as regards the dimensions at which the Indian establishment should be kept up. All these establishments, as my hon. friend is aware, are organised on the Army Corps principle. I say that what the hon. Member suggests is not a proposition that I can assent to. I believe nothing would be more dangerous than to put nominally under the control of the Indian Government certain forces paid for by the Imperial Government, because it would follow that the Imperial Government would have control over those forces. Each party, the Imperial Government and the Indian Government, would rely on being able to use the same troops, and it is not unlikely that at the critical moment some large combination might utterly fail if each Government were to rely on. such an arrangement. Whatever men are on the Indian establishment must be absolutely under the control of the Indian Government, just as those on the Imperial establishment must be under the control and direction of the Imperial Government. What the Prime Minister in his speech the other night really made clear was possibly new to Members of the House, namely, that the possession of India does put such a strain on the military system as is in no way compensated for by the payments made, and therefore it did follow that the taxpayer and the military system of this country were subjected to constant pressure in consequence of the possession of India, which puts upon them a very considerable strain. I have always felt that while it is necessary to fight, and to fight hard, to secure justice between the Indian and' the British exchequers, so far as the apportionment of charge is concerned, for services in which they have a common interest, the fact that India is a charge upon the Imperial revenue ought never to be forgotten. I believe that the connection between India and Great Britain is beneficial to both; we gain largely, commercially and otherwise, but the greater gain, I think, is to the inhabitants of India. We have so swept away the oppression and misgovernment which prevailed that we have really eradicated the recollection, and I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that India is the foundation—I think he said the pivot—of our Imperial interests in Asia. If that be so, both Great Britain and India must combine together to preserve those interests, and each must bear a part of the charge that falls on their exchequers. During the past seven years we have been able to improve the efficiency of the military establishments. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment alluded to taxation and to charges, and he put those against the revenue which the Indian Government receives. I am glad to say that, not withstanding the period of exceptional drought through which we have passed, we have been able to bear all the extra expenditure connected with that drought, and yet year after year we are realising a considerable surplus. I am glad to say that the agricultural prospect is improving and that we have been able to close Indian relief establishments which we were obliged to maintain for a considerable number of years. I do believe that the prospects of commerce and agriculture in India are improving, and if we can only have normal years there is not the slightest doubt that there will be an increase under every main head of revenue, and as we have already a certain surplus, we hope to be able to remit taxation. We shall keep our military establishments up to that level in India to which it is the universal opinion of our military advisers it is necessary to keep it, at the same time carefully supervising all expenditure connected with these establishments. That is our first duty, and the next is to endeavour, in the years ahead of us, so to adjust our income and expenditure that we may be able in some way to reduce the burdens that the Indian people now are suffering from. Here perhaps I may remind the House that for the last seven years no additional taxation whatever of any kind has been imposed in India. It seems to me that this is not an Amendment which should be pressed to a division.

moved an Amendment representing that the railway charges for agricultural and other produce in Ireland are excessive, and that the general management of Irish railways is such as to require immediate inquiry and reform. He regretted that when attention was called to this matter the Chief Secretary, some time ago, did not see his way to grant an immediate inquiry, because there was no doubt in the mind of the great majority of the people of Ireland that rates and charges were excessive, and that they were strangling the trade and industry of the country. The Government had granted the railway companies a monopoly, and it was their duty to see that the monopoly was conducted in a way fair to everybody. He did not complain of the shareholders expecting dividends, but his complaint was that the whole system of railway management in Ireland was bad. The hon. Member quoted certain rates charged on English and American railways, and contrasted these with the rates in Ireland, in order to show that the latter were greatly in excess. The rate for bacon from Chicago to Liverpool was 22s. 6d. per ton—a distance of 3,000 miles by water and 1,000 miles by rail—while from Ireland to Liverpool the rate for the same merchandise was 18s. 4d. per ton, only a little less for a few hundred miles than the American rate for carriage for 4,000 miles. It had been said by the Chairman of one of the Irish railways that the railway rates in Denmark for agricultural produce were higher than those in Ireland. This he denied. The distance from Copenhagen to Hamburg was 220 miles, and the rate was 10s. 8d. per ton; the distance from Cork to Dublin was about 120 miles and the railway rate was 16s. 8d. per ton. Those figures proved very clearly that there was something far wrong in regard to Irish railways, so very as their charges were concerned, and showed why an inquiry should be made into those charges The Chief Secretary had said that the Irish Board of Agriculture was accummulating facts; but he wished to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to what had happened in England. The Minister of Agriculture in England had directed attention to the charges for freights on English railways for agricultural produce, and the Chairman of the Great Eastern Railway, Lord Claud Hamilton, told the Minister of Agriculture that if he minded his own business equally as well as the railway directors minded theirs, the Board of Agriculture would be properly managed. That was his opinion in regard to the Irish Board of Agriculture inquiring into railway rates in Ireland. He urged the right hon. the Chief Secretary to go on accumulating facts in regard to the management of railways in Ireland, and he was sure that the result would be that some improvement would take place. There were no fewer than 300 directors in Ireland for 3,000 miles of railway, or one director for every ten miles. That of itself was enough to show why there should be mismanagement of the Irish railways. The directors said that the reason why they were unable to charge lower rates for Irish traffic was because of the smallness of the consignments; but he contended that they offered no inducement to Irish traders to send more than 10 cwts. in each consignment, for the large traders received little more benefit from the rates than the small consignors. Generally speaking everybody in Ireland was agreed that there was need for some inquiry into railway charges there, and he thought that the Chief Secretary ought to hurry up the Irish Board of Agriculture in getting their facts ready for a Commission of some sort to deal with the matter.

begged to second the Amendment. He confessed he had been very much disappointed by the reply of the Chief Secretary the other day to a question of his in regard to the appointment of a Departmental Committee to inquire into this matter. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the subject was not yet ripe for such an inquiry. He wished to know when it would be ripe, because they in Ireland had been agitating for over half a cen- tury for a Royal Commission, and the same stereotyped answer had been given over and over again to their demand. He had asked for something much more modest than a Royal Commission—a Departmental Committee. He was sure that if such a Committee were appointed most valuable material would be obtained by the Government. This question was of enormous importance to the entire population of Ireland, for everyone knew that the railway rates there were more extravagant than in any other country in Europe. From the returns prepared by the Board of Trade the average rate per ton of merchandise carried on Irish railways was 38 per cent. in excess of the English rate, and 34 per cent. in excess of the Scotch rate, and this not with standing the fact that the cost of construction of railways in Ireland was remarkably low in comparison with the cost in England and Scotland. England offered to Ireland a market large enough for the consumption of all her agricultural produce, but they knew that Irish industries had been in a languishing condition for a long time, due in the first place to the land system in Ireland, and in the second place to the Irish railway system. He hoped that now that the Chief Secretary was turning his attention to relieve Ireland from the incubus of landlordism, he would follow that up by ridding that country of the incubus of its railway Several steps might be taken towards the solution of this vexed question. It would be useless to urge anything in favour of the nationalisation of the Irish railways, but he thought the Government might consider a practical suggestion for meeting the difficulty which had been made by Archbishop Walsh of Dublin. That suggestion was that, following the Canadian precedent, the Government should induce the railways to reduce their rates by 30, 40 or 50 per cent., subject to a guarantee from the State to provide a dividend in case the experiment should not prove a financial success. But at least a Departmental Committee should be appointed without delay to place all the facts of the case before the public. He had been reading in the Daily Telegraph an article on the previous day's debate, in which they were informed that all legislation for Ireland seemed to be based on some sort of travesty of the Scriptural injunction "Ask (with a blackthorn) and it shall be given unto you; knock (with a blunderbus) and it shall be opened unto you." Now that all of them who were connected with Irish affairs were in a very good humour with one another, he would appeal to the Chief Secretary to give his personal attention to this question of transit and transport in Ireland, both by railways and waterways, because it was most vital to the prosperity of the country. Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question to add the words—

"And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that the railway charges for agricultural and other produce in Ireland are excessive, and that the general management of Irish railways is such as to require immediate (inquiry and reform."—(Mr. O'Mara.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

The hon. Member for South Kilkenny, and the hon. Member who seconded his Amendment, have brought forward a subject of great interest and vital importance to Ireland; but they at the same time knew perfectly well that during the present session there was no probability of the House dealing with it. I would be only wasting the time of the House, therefore, if I were to pretend that we could, during the present session, deal with the question of Irish railways. But that does not by any means preclude the desirability of reconnoitring the situation with a view of considering in greater detail what action may be taken in the future. I may say that that is what I have been doing. Through the Agricultural Department and the officers of other Departments, I am at the present time collecting provisionally as many facts as I can bearing upon the question of transit and transport in Ireland. But when I am asked to appoint a Commission or Committee of some sort, I must tell hon. Members that almost everybody in Ireland at the present moment is thinking of, and labouring for another object, and I would get a great deal less information on this subject if I were to call away the attention of any official from it. I think we must concentrate ourselves more or less on the land question. Reference has been made to a statement in a letter by the Archbishop of Dublin in regard to what has been done in Canada; but in April, 1901, I myself referred to the Canadian precedent as one that possibly we might some day follow. Certainly it would be absurd for me to say that it would be at all likely that the Government of this country would consent to deal with the question of Irish railways in the near future. I should have thought that the history of the land question would have warned us that we had better not take up this question by trying to penalise directors. We had better seek to elicit the interest of all classes in transit problems and encourage private enterprise. The hon. Member for St. Stephen's Division of Dublin (Mr. M'Cann) has recently brought about a working experiment in respect of waterways, which is, I think, of supreme interest. The River Boyne may have associations ultimately connected with it other than those which are historical. It had been opened to free navigation by barges from Navan to Drogheda. The boats have been built in County Meath, and they were allowed to pass down this canal for no charges, provided they gave facilities for carrying agricultural produce of convenient, bulk at very low rates, and that has already brought a certain amount of prosperity to Meath, and increased the value of the land all along the sides of the canal. That is a useful work, and if those who are concerned in Ireland, when we have done something to settle the land question, will concern themselves with the transport question, then I think it will be found that such benefit as may accrue from the settlement of the land question will be multiplied, it may be threefold by the settlement of the transit problem. I do not think I ought to detain the House at greater length. I need only quote what I said two years ago. I said then—

"I am very glad we have had this debate. The subject is one that deserves the consideration of all parties in the House. But I cannot disguise the fact that it is interlocked with other economic questions in Ireland—inter- locked with the land question, and so long as that is in an unsettled state, so long as we do not get either from the landlords or from the tenants, and much less from both combined, the pressure which we would get in England or Scotland upon other economic questions—it is difficult to make progress on other economic questions."

If that was true then it was true now, but if the landlords and tenants did combine to settle the land question they would combine also to settle the transport and other problems.

said that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment had rendered a good service by eliciting a very sympathetic answer from the Chief Secretary. There was no doubt that the cost of transit heavily handicapped agricultural interests in Ireland: and that some remedy must, sooner or later, be found for the. existing state of things. He, however, agreed with the Chief Secretary that all the attention of the House, and all the energies of the Irish Members, should, for the present, be concentrated on the great problem of a good land measure, that would finally settle a question which almost for centuries had been at the root of every Irish trouble. The question of railway rates was one of peculiar difficulty, because it should be remembered that railway companies were not philanthropic institutions, but commercial undertakings; and that it was impossible without doing very great injustice, especially in Ireland, to impose the obligation of carrying goods and passengers at rates below what the principles of ordinary management would require. There were only four really large railway companies in Ireland. What were the facts regarding them? One paid no dividend on its ordinary stock: two paid, for the last half-year, a dividend on the ordinary stock of, he thought, 3½ per cent.; and only one the Great Northern—paid anything like a large dividend. In making that observation he did not at all minimise the importance of the question. The moment the land question was settled, it would certainly be incumbent on the Minister of the day to have a departmental inquiry or a Royal Commission for the purpose of ascertaining whether some remedy could not be applied to the matter. The nationalisation of the railways would be one remedy; he was not arguing in favour of that, but if was worthy of consideration. There was also the question of guaranteeing a certain dividend, as had been already done in the case of small branch railways. But the subject could not be considered by this House during the present session. It would require all their attention to pass a Land Bill that would do justice to all classes in Ireland, and would ultimately be of substantial benefit to the Empire.

sad he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that they should concentrate all their efforts on the settlement of the land question; but while they were waiting for that, (hey found that the development of trade in Ireland was materially harassed by the existing system of railway rates. He agreed with the Chief Secretary that a great deal had been done by the hon. Member for the St. Stephen's Green Division; but still they had to bear in mind what the railway companies were doing all over the country. In a journal published in this country it was stated that it was cheaper to send a ton of mineral ore from Wexford or Clare to England via America than to send it direct. He held that the arguments of his hon. friend who moved the Amendment should receive the attention of the Chief Secretary and the Government. At present it did not pay farmers in inland districts in Ireland to produce agricultural produce for the English market because of the railway charges; and something should be done in the matter while they were waiting for the Land Bill. He thought it was the duty of the Government to see that all the railway rates were of a similar class, and that no preferential rates wore granted on one route over another. They believed, rightly or wrongly, that the question of railway rates was at the bottom of some of the ills they complained of with reference to the non-development of the resources of Ireland, and he hoped an inquiry would be instituted into the matter. He cordially supported the Amendment.

said he agreed that there was very much in what the Chief Secretary had said. It was a large question involving very great interests powerfully represented in Parliament, and a question which could not be settled without a great deal of discussion in this House. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had exercised a wise discretion. He was face to face with a question of supreme importance affecting the country he governed in the settlement of the land, and he had done, he thought, the right thing not to approach another great question in which all the influence in this House would combine against him. If the land question were settled in the new spirit that prevailed they might tempt the railway directors into a conference at the Mansion House.