laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that in the ease of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.—

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills that, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz.—

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills that, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 66 has not been complied with, viz.—

To ask the Postmaster General if, in view of the disabilities imposed upon the town of Lerwick and trade of Shetland by the present mail service, he will cause inquiry to be made in order to bring it more into harmony with the necessities and requirements of the people. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The cost of the existing mail service to the Shetland Islands is so largely in excess of the revenue from the correspondence for the Islands that the additional expenditure which would have to be incurred to provide a more frequent service would not be justifiable on postal grounds.

To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the fact that some time since Mr. Osbert Chadwick, C. M. G., and Professor Simpson, M. D., were deputed to visit Hong Kong for the purpose of inquiring into the sanitary condition of the colony, will he state whether it is proposed to introduce legislative measures to consolidate and amend the Health and Building Ordinances at present in force in the colony. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) A Bill to consolidate and amend the laws relating to public health and buildings has been recently under consideration in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, and will no doubt be submitted very soon for sanction.

To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of Stale for the Colonies, in view of the fact that the Criminal Procedure Code, 1903, came into force in South Africa on 1st February, if he has now received any official information showing whether a person who is to be arrested for committing a grave crime, and who resists the arrest or attempts to escape, may be killed, if there is no other way of arresting him, and whether any police officer above the rank of sergeant may search a house without a warrant; and whether he can give the other provisions of this Ordinance. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) I have nothing at present to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on the 20th February,† as Lord Milner's despatch forwarding the Ordinance in question has. not yet been received.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what ships on the effective list of the British Navy are at present armed with muzzle-loading guns; and whether the Admiralty can see their way to have these ships removed from the effective list. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) There are no ships armed with muzzle-loading guns on the effective or fighting list of the Navy with the single exception of the "Hotspur," which is employed on special service at Bermuda, and which will be removed from the list when replaced. There are at present six older

† See page 397.

battleships whose armament is wholly or in part composed of muzzle-loading guns. These vessels are not regarded as being in the fighting list of the Fleet. Four of them are appropriated for harbour and training services, the remaining two are retained for use in a similar capacity as occasion arises. The names of the ships in question are "Alexandra," "Superb," "Hercules," "Sultan," "Monarch," and "Dreadnought." The first four carry a considerable number of breech-loading guns.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state whether acts of in ubordination have recently occurred on HALS. "Pembroke," Chatham Depôt. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) There are 4,800 men on the books of the "Pembroke" and "Northumberland," and during the last three months there have been eighteen cases of insubordination. The number is exceptionally small.

To ask Mr. Attorney General whether the Government will consider proposals to legalise in England a system similar to that which is in operation in Scotland for the private care of persons showing symptoms of incipient mental derangement who cannot he certified as insane. (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) The Government have already assented to the principle of such legislation, and a clause dealing with the subject was contained in the Lunacy Bill of 1900. That Bill was introduced by the Lord Chancellor into the House of Lords at the beginning of the session, and was passed; it came down to the House of Commons on the 8th of March in 1900, but had to be withdrawn on the 16th of July.

to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that it has been proposed that half of Mr. Henry Phipps' gift, intended for the Indian people generally, shall be applied to the establishment of a Pasteur Institute in Southern India; can he state whether any official sanction has been given to this scheme; and whether, before any definite decision is arrived at for the allocation of Mr. Phipps' contribution, the correspondence relating thereto will be placed before Parliament. (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I have not received any official communication on the subject from the Government of India, but I believe that, in view of the great benefits conferred on the European and the native community in India by the Pasteur Institute in the Punjab, the Viceroy proposes to apply half Mr. Henry Phipps' munificent gift to the establishment of a similar Institute in Southern India. I cannot give my hon. friend the undertaking which he asks for in the latter portion of his Question.

to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state whether any contract was made for the printing of the Irish Census; and, if so, has the cost so far incurred been in accordance with it. (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) The printing of the Irish Census was carried out partly under a general contract for book-work printing and partly under two special contracts. The cost so far incurred has been in accordance with these contracts, with two exceptions. The firm which held the general con tract performed certain extra work, for which an extra payment of £1,000 was made to them. In addition, a further payment of £1,000 was made to them as an act of grace in consideration of the heavy losses which they had incurred.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant the Return standing on today's Notice Paper respecting the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Army Corps.

My hon. friend asks for a Return on a date which happens to be during the Indian trooping season when regiments and drafts are on passage to and from India, and which would not therefore give an accurate return of the strength of the Army. In addition the moves consequent on the close of the South African war will not be completed till about the middle of April, which would be the earliest date on which a Return could be made which would be of any value. I will order a Return to be prepared accordingly.

On the 15th April?

I cannot say precisely, but some time between the 15th April and the 1st May.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the total number of intelligence officers serving with the British Army and with the Indian Army; and if he will state the number of such officers serving in each of the four continents.

The number of mobilisation and intelligence officers serving with the British Army on the headquarters staff is thirty-four. Beside these, there are a number of officers on the district staff whose staff work comprises intelligence duties. These, at home and abroad, amount to thirty-five. The number of mobilisation and intelligence officers serving with the Indian Army headquarters staff is eleven. The distribution of the above officers by continents is as follows:—Europe, fifty-five; Africa, seven; America, four; Asia, fifteen.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the date on which the order directing the suspension of the enlistment of specials was in the hands of recruiting officers.

Owing to the constant movement of troops during the last few months it has been very difficult to arrive at exact figures as to the numbers of the Army, but on receipt of the figures for 1st February, which reached me about the middle of the month, I decided on 17th February, after consultation with the military authorities, that certain standards should be raised, and that the taking of "specials" should be stopped for the infantry. An Army Order was accordingly drafted and instructions were sent out on the 27th February.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the date and terms of the. circular or order instructing officers in charge of recruiting districts to inquire into the characters of men before enlisting them.

If my hon. and gallant friend will refer to the recruiting regulations he will find that in the case of the Household Cavalry, Royal Engineers, Army Service Corps, Royal Army Medical Corps, and Army Ordnance Corps recruits must produce certificates of character. In the case of other corps the regulations lay down that "if a recruit presents the appearance of having served before and denies having done so, or if his antecedents are unknown or there is any doubt as to his antecedents, he should be required to give a reference to his former employer or other responsible person" and that "full inquiries as to the recruits' antecedents are to be made in every case where there is the slightest ground for suspicion."

Is it not the fact that in a recent case when a recruiting officer made inquiries into the character of a recruit he was prohibited by some one at the War Office?

I never heard of it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting for 1902 is now complete, and on what date it will be issued to the House.

The Report is now with the printers, and all possible despatch is being used to secure its publication at an early date. I hope to circulate it before the end of this week.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the recent new regulations at the Royal Military College in respect of leave and permission to cadets to dine out.

The new leave regulations for cadets at the Royal Military College are set forth in a printed pamphlet, the contents of which are too long to be included in an answer to a Question. Permission to dine out in the neighbourhood can be obtained from officers commanding companies. I shall be happy to forward the hon. Member copy of the regulations.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state what has been the decision arrived at in respect of the garrisoning of certain coaling stations by the Navy, proposed in the Army statement of the Secretary of State for War in 1901; whether he will lay correspondence relating to this question upon the Table.

The matter was considered and it was decided to make no transfer of responsibility from the War Office to the Admiralty in respect of the garrisons of the coaling stations. There is no correspondence to lay upon the Table.

Then are we to understand that the Army will still provide these garrisons?

That is so.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state what the decision of the Government of India has been as to the increased charge which falls upon India consequent on the new regulations for the pay of British soldiers; and, if so, when he will be prepared to lay Papers before the House.

The Secretary of State in Council, after conferring with the Government of India, has agreed to pay the extra twopence a day per head under the new regulations, but objects to paying the whole of the additional sixpence a day for men whose service is more than three years. This part of the question will be referred to arbitration, and as soon as all the details of procedure connected with the arbitration are settled I will publish the correspondence.

Is the noble Lord aware that the question was raised more than a year ago?

Yes; but the new regulations only came into operation last April.

How much money is in dispute?

£209,000 a year.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the differences in cost per man per annum, between the English and the native private soldier in India.

An exact calculation of the annual cost of a British soldier and a native soldier in India cannot be made from the materials that are at my disposal in this country. It was, however, estimated in a Return presented to Parliament in 1894 (No. 20) that the average annual cost of a British soldier, exclusive of deferred pay and pension, was Rs.891, and that the cost of a native soldier was Rs.343. Since the date of that estimate the pay and allowances of the British soldier have been increased by about Rs.123 a year, and on the 1st April. 1904, a further increase of Rs.146 a year (sixpence a day) will come into effect. There has been an increase of about Rs.37 a year in the pay and allowances of the native soldier.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Malsa, who with his wife and niece absconded from a tea garden in Cachar, and were caught by the estate guards and brought back; that Malsa was tied up, beaten with a stirrup leather until he became insensible, and shortly afterwards died; and to the report by the Deputy Commissioner, who presided, that the two women were then beaten by one of the chokidars (guards) with the strap; and to his remarks as to attempts to conceal the facts of the case; and will the Government, of India take steps to prevent such concealment of evidence, and take steps to bring the guilty parties to justice.

I have observed a report in the newspapers of the case referred to in the hon. Member's Question. The assistant manager of the tea gardens, who is charged with causing the death of a coolie, appears to have been committed for trial by the Sessions Court.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state if any steps were taken at Delhi, on the occasion of the intercourse between the Governor General and the Princes and Chiefs of India, to invite their co-operation with his Excellency in those special responsibilities of Imperial rule within the Empire of India which are regarded as under the personal charge of the Viceroy; whether arrangements were then or have since been made to renew and give practical effect to the plan described on the occasion of the Queen Empress's Proclamation of 1877 expressing Her Majesty's desire to seek from time to time in matters of importance the counsel and advice of the Princes and Chiefs of India, pursuant to which the Order of Counsellors of the Empire was established; and whether any communications which may have taken place between the Viceroy and the Secretary of State for India on this subject can be laid before Parliament at an early date.

I have received no communication from the Viceroy as to any action having been taken of the nature indicated in the first and second paragraphs of the hon. Member's Question. There are therefore no Papers that could be presented.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Resolutions or other Orders of the Indian Government, defining the objects and organisation of the Seistan Arbitration Commission, now travelling through the waterless Registan desert, and also the Seistan Boundary Commission under command of Major MacMahon, can be laid before Parliament, together with estimates of the cost of the large military escort accompanying these Commissions; does the proposed boundary demarcation extend to the Persian frontiers: and, seeing that these operations are outside British India, will the expenditure incurred be borne by or delated to the imperial Treasury; has work on the projected Quetta-Nushki-Seistan Railway already commenced; and from what funds, or under what guarantees, will that line be constructed.

In accordance with the sixth Article of the Treatyof 1857, Major MacMahon has been deputed to proceed to the Perso-Afghan frontier to settle certain disputes which have arisen between the Persians and Afghans in Seistan regarding irrigation rights. He has also been instructed to take the opportunity of demarcating, in conjunction with a Persian Commissioner, a portion of the Perso-Baluch frontier, which was settled but not actually demarcated by a joint Anglo-Persian Commission in 1896, but regarding which some misunderstanding has recently arisen. Major MacMahon's escort consists of a troop of cavalry and two companies of infantry. I have received no estimate of the cost, but the expense will fall upon Indian revenues. I understand that the work has commenced on the line to Nushki, which will be constructed from Indian funds. I do not propose at present to lay any Papers on the Table.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to state in what form Russia communicated to His Majesty's Government her desire to enter into direct communication with the Amir of Afghanistan; whether the correspondence is now complete and can be presented to Parliament; and whether Russian officers have as a fact made, direct communications to the Amir.

The communication was made by the Russian Embassy in London. The answer to the second Question is in the negative. His Majesty's Government are net aware that any direct communications have been made by Russian officers to the Amir.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state on what principle publicans' licences are valued for the purposes of the death duties, whether the estimated selling value for the time being is taken, or what other rule is adopted; and whether he will state the highest value assigned to any licence during the last five years.

The value, for the purposes of the death duties, of a publican's interest in licensed premises is the amount for which such interest would sell at the time of the death. No separate record has been kept of the values assigned to such interests, and it would therefore not be possible to say what is the highest value that has been taken in any single case.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the fact that nearly 5,000 aliens were arrested by the London Metropolitan Police in the twelve months ending 31st October, 1902, he is now in a position to give the figures for the period 1st January to 31st December, 1902; and, further, if he can state how many aliens have appeared in the calendar at the Central Criminal Court, the London Sessions, the Surrey Sessions, and on the charge, sheets at Metropolitan Police Courts, during the three months ending 31st January, 1903.

No, Sir, I cannot give these figures. I beg leave to refer my hou. and gallant friend to the answers which I have already given to him on cognate points, and would ask him to believe that all trustworthy information on this matter in my possession will be given to the Royal Commission in the best form that I can devise. The hon. Member shall have a copy.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the blind ship-fender makers of the Sunderland and Durham County Blind Asylum have been locked out since October last in connection with a wages dispute; and whether, seeing that the Mayor of Sunderland has offered to act as arbitrator and bis offer been accepted by the men but refused by the governors of the asylum, he will use the powers conferred upon him by the Conciliation Act to have inquiries made and a Report presented on the facts of the case.

Primâ facie this does not seem to be a case for the application of the Conciliation Act, but I am making inquiries.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the inquest at Bolton on Mr. Peter Fulton, goods inspector in the employ of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, who was killed whilst superintending shunting operations near Orlando Bridge Station; is he aware that it was alleged at the inquest that the accident was due to taking off a flagman who was on duty to give warning of danger, and that the Company were running passenger trains over the goods line; and will the Board of Trade inquire into the accident.

Notice of this regrettable accident has been duly given by the Railway Company, and the Board of Trade have received the Coroner's Return. I am not aware of the allegations stated to have been made at the inquest. I have, however, directed an Assistant Inspecting Officer of Railways to hold an inquiry into the circumstances attending the accident.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state whether action is being taken by the Board or the local authorities to prevent butchers selling foreign meat as home grown; if so, will he state the number of convictions and name the punishments in his last official reports; and whether he will consider the advisability of amending the law with a view to more efficient prevention of the substitution of foreign for home grown meat.

Local authorities have no power to institute proceedings in cases where foreign meat is sold as home grown. The Merchandise Marks Act 1894 gave to the Board of Agriculture certain powers of prosecution in offences connected with agricultural or horticultural produce. Full publicity has been given to these powers, and those interested have been invited to bring specific cases under our notice. We have no staff of inspectors to detect such illegal sales, and before a prosecution can take place the consent of the Treasury has to be obtained. In the case of hams and bacon the trade association most concerned has been able to provide the expert evidence necessary to secure convictions, and proceedings have been taken in forty-one cases. Particulars of twenty of these cases appear in our Report for the year 1900, whilst the forth coming Report for 1902 will contain those of the remaining twenty-one. In the case of fresh meat no specific complaints have reached us upon which a prosecution could possibly be based. I gather, however, from admissions made to me by members of some recent deputations that the meat of foreign animals, slaughtered at Deptford and other wharves within ten days or less of their arrival in this country, is often sold under the ambiguous description of home killed or even home grown meat—and I am now having inquiries made as to the extent of this practice. If it is at all general I think some more accurate definition of such terms may have to be provided by Statute.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will endeavour to alter the law in order to bring—

That question has already been answered.

Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to remove the obstruction to a prosecution.

I do not think that there has been any obstruction from the Treasury on that point.

I should like to know whether, if I bring in a Bill of which the right hon. Gentleman approves, he will give me facilities for passing it?

I should like to see the Bill first.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the M'Farlane Estate, in the County Tyrone, has been in the Land Judge's Court since 1882; and seeing that the tenants made an offer to buy their holdings in 1899, and their offer was accepted by the solicitor to the Receiver, will he explain why the sale has not yet been carried out.

The proceedings for the sale of this estate have been administered by Judge Meredith, Mr. Justice Loss having a personal interest in the matter. No offer to purchase on the ' part of the tenants was ever accepted. The negotiations for sale fell through for the reason stated in my reply to the hon. Member's previous Question of the 28th July last.†

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Mayo I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how long the estate of the Hon. J. Browne has been in the Land Judge's Court; and whether, seeing that the tenants on this estate signed agreements to purchase their holdings in 1899, he will explain why the solicitor to the Receiver is still pressing the tenants for their old rents; and why the sale of the estate has not been completed.

The estate cannot be identified in the Land Judge's Court upon the information given in the Question. I have written a letter to the hon. Member asking him to defer the Question, and to supply some more specific information as to the locality of the estate, when further inquiry will be made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a land bailiff, named McDermott, has come into possession of the Knocalassa grazing farm, situate near Riverstown, County Sligo, which until recently was held by a Mr. Dodd, of Dublin; and whether the Land Commission will advance the purchase money of this farm to McDermott, or will consider the advisability of having it used for the enlargement of the small farms surrounding it.

The estate which includes this farm is administered in the Land Judge's Court. The sale of the estate has not yet been brought before the Land Commissioners. But in any case the matter is at present solely within the discretion of the Land Judge, and the Commissioners have no duty imposed upon them such as suggested in the Question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state what steps the Government are taking to insure that the United Kingdom shall be adequately represented at the Universal Exposition to be held at St. Louis in 1904.

The Government have accepted the invitation of the United States Government to take part in the St. Louis Exhibition of 1904. The extent to which the country will participate, and the modus operandi, are under consideration.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman at least give the House as much information on this subject as has been published, obviously on some sort of authority, in the daily papers?

The authority was not mine. I do not know who has given the information, and I cannot add to the answer I have given to the House. There has been no authoritative statement made to the Press.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he proposes to take the steps needful to carry into effect the recommendations of the Select Committee on Private Business (which sat last session), which are embodied in paragraphs 37, 38, and 39 of their Report.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will defer this Question till next week, as there are some points on which I should like to have an opportunity of consulting the Chairman of Committees.

Yes. I will put it down one day next week.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what business is to be taken in the near future?

To-morrow the business will be the Army Supplementary Estimate", if they are not finished to-day, and the Report of the Supply taken yesterday. Then we propose to introduce Bills and appoint committees, and that business should carry us over to the end of the sitting on Thursday.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what Bills and what committees he refers to?

The Bills introduced will be the Scotch Licensing Bill, the Employment of Children Bill, and the Naval Reserve Bill—not the Education Bill, or the Irish Land Bill, or the Sugar Convention Bill.

The Scotch Bill will not be introduced under what is called the ten-minutes rule?

I will consult the Lord Advocate as to that. If the right hon. Gentleman desires to have a more lengthened discussion, it can be managed. The committees that are to be moved for are the National Expenditure Committee and the Municipal Trading Committee.

When are the Army and Navy Estimates likely to come on?

These Estimates will be brought on early next week. The Army Estimates will be taken first.

Having regard to the fact that the Motion with regard to Volunteers only secured second place in the ballot, can the right hon. Gentleman afford some facilities for the discussion of this very important subject?

We propose to pursue the ordinary practice in discussing the Army Estimates.

said he desired to call attention for a few minutes to one item contained in the Estimate—the item covering the further expenses incurred in connection with the Colonial Premiers' Conference. He did not oppose the Vote; on the contrary he entirely approved it. But he wished to remind the Committee of the very great importance of this Conference. It was a Conference of the Premiers of the self-governing colonies and it was called by the Colonial Secretary to consider some difficult and delicate questions of Imperial government. As the debates of the House showed, the Government had many difficult questions to settle in connection with the Empire, but he believed there were none more difficult and delicate or important than those concerning our relations with the self-governing colonies. So far as the Crown colonies were concerned—so far as India and our other dependencies were affected—that House was the absolute master; it had only to settle the policy, and there was no authority to interfere with its decision. But with reference to the self - governing colonies the position was entirely different. They had been told by a spokesman of the Government in that House that the self-governing colonies were in point of fact independent—that they were sister nations bound to us by a tie which was purely sentimental and extremely slight, and that, slight though it was, we would not bind them by it for a single moment longer than they desired. That was a view expressed perhaps in terms a little too unguarded on the part of the Government. But the chief question between ourselves and our colonies was that of Imperial defence. The self-governing colonies were daily and yearly increasing in population and in wealth; they stood in the proportion, he believed, of one to four, and if they continued to increase at their present rate—if to their number were added the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony—the numerical proportion would be largely altered. The first fact that stared them in the face was that the United Kingdom has expressly undertaken to defend—with its Army and Navy—all those self-governing colonies, and while they did that, the annual charge on their Votes was increasing by leaps and bounds. The self-governing Colonies practically contributed nothing to the cost of services the benefits of which they shared equally with ourselves. That very fact was the raison d'é tre of the Conference. Since the; original Estimate for the cost of that Conference was passed, the Conference itself had been held and had become an accomplished fact. They had the results before them in a Blue-book, which he might be permitted to say—although it was not very artistically or systematically arranged—was of enormous interest, value and importance. He wished to ask the Committee to consider the action of the Government in the management of the Conference, and their possible action in connection with its results. In the Blue-book they had, in the first place, the deliberate and formal statements carefully made by various members of His Majesty's Government in respect of matters of policy, while in the second place they had the results of the Conference in the Resolutions passed by the Premiers. But unfortunately they had not one single word of the speeches made or the reasons given by the Colonial Premiers in answer to the statements on the other side, and in that respect the Blue-book was deprived of much of its value. It was always possible for them to elicit the views of the Government on questions of policy, but they had no power of getting at the opinions of the great self-governing colonies, and the ground on which they based their views on the various questions discussed at the Conference.

Order, order! In this matter I am guided by a great number of precedents, in which it has been laid down that questions of policy should not be discussed on a Supplementary Vote.

said he had no desire to discuss questions of policy. He wished simply to direct the attention of the Committee to the results of the Conference and to the adminis- tration by the Government of the expenditure in connection with it. He was commenting on the imperfect and defective nature of the Blue-book, in so far as it failed to give the speeches and opinions of the Colonial Premiers. He took it, however, that the resolutions passed at the Conference were the resolutions of the Colonial Premiers, and that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who presided, was in no way committed by them. But they had a right to know what action the Government proposed to take in consequence of the resolutions. There was a preliminary question of great importance on which he desired information. A very important resolution touching the political relations between the self-governing colonies and the mother country was unanimously adopted on the Motion of the representative of New Zealand. It was to the effect that it would be to the advantage of the Empire if conferences were held, as far as practicable, at intervals not exceeding four years, at which questions of common interest affecting the relations of the mother country with her dominions over the seas could be discussed and considered by the Colonial Secretary and the Premiers of the self-governing colonies, the Secretary of State being requested accordingly to arrange for such conferences after communication with the Prime Ministers of the respective colonies. He was not proposing to discuss that question, but he did want to know if the Government had considered the point, and at what conclusion they had arrived in regard to it. It was a proposal that these conferences should become a permanent element in the constitution of the Empire, and once this country authoritatively declared that it wished it should be so it made a very important step towards the consolidation of the Empire. The only other point on which he wished to say a few words was as to what was the net result of that important Imperial experiment as revealed to them by the Blue-book. What were the great points considered by the Conference? The first was the question of naval defence and the contribution of the self-governing colonies towards the cost of it. Next came the question of the military defence of the Empire, and the proposed colonial contribution, and thirdly there was the question of the commercial relations between the mother country and the self-governing colonies. In regard to the Navy most clear and specific declarations of policy were laid before the Conference on behalf of the Admiralty. It was pointed out what was the real function of the Navy in Imperial defence, and how it served the whole Empire—the self-governing colonies as well as Ireland, Scotland, and England. A suggestion was made without any hesitation on the part of the Admiralty—in the clearest possible terms—that the self-governing colonies should make some proportionate contribution to the expenses of this enormous and mighty Imperial armament. The Admiralty took up exactly the same attitude as many hon. Members had taken in years past, and had been severely censured for it, but he had nothing but praise for the Admiralty statement. He might, indeed, be allowed to go further and say that it had been a source of the greatest gratification to him to read what had occurred at the Conference on that point. The net result of the Conference, he gathered, had been a suggestion that the self-governing colonies should contribute something like a proportionate part of the cost of naval defence. The Capo Premier proposed to increase the Cape contribution to.£50,000 a year, without condition, while the Natal Premier in the same spirit proposed to increase his colony's contribution to £30,000.

£35,000.

said he gladly accepted the correction; but he gathered from what he had seen in the newspapers that communications which had passed since the Conference had indicated a desire on the part of those in authority in Capo Colony and Natal to increase the figures mentioned at the Conference, and he would like to know if the right hon. Gentleman had any information to give the House on that subject. The second point he desired to raise was as to the Australasian squadron. He understood that it was to be increased, and that the payments both of this country and of the Australasian Colonies were to be increased, while the conditions as to localisation were to be mitigated to some extent. Still it was to remain a local squadron; it was to be what in the opinion of naval philosophers was a naval heresy; it was to be more or less detached from the British Navy to which it properly belonged. Had the Government been parties to the draft agreement which appeared in the Blue-book, and were they committed to it? He trusted that they were. Nest, he had to ask if the Government had any information as to the course of the proceedings in the Australian colonies with reference to that draft agreement. The proposals shadowed forth in the resolutions of the Colonial Premiers had been under discussion for some months: had the Government any information as to the likely course of legislation on the subject? On that point he thought the House and the country might be interested to have further and better information. The appeal to Canada had met with no response. On the first and most important head of the subjects submitted to this great Imperial assembly there was a small increase on the part of the South African colonies, a small conditional increase on the part of Australia, but nowhere near a pro rata proportionate contribution, and there was nothing whatever on the part of Canada. In point of fact, from the figures submitted in this paper itself it was calculated that the contribution of the self-governing colonies to the Imperial Navy, which cost this country something like 16s. per head, was 4d. per head, and that, he thought, was a fabulous 4d. because it took into account the Australian contribution, which was not a real contribution. He would now say a word on the question of military defence. So far as he was concerned he could not venture to express in the same terms as he did in the case of the Admiralty his assent to the statements made on behalf of the Army. He could not reconcile the statement made on behalf of His Majesty's Government by Lord Selborne with the statement, equally made on behalf of the Government, by the Secretary of State for War. They appeared to him to be founded on wholly different theories and ideas. The question he wished to put on that head was this: when this Conference was called upon to discuss Imperial defence, was it in any way inspired, or regulated, or governed, or guarded by the Committee of Defence, which they had been told so often had special care of Imperial defence? What part did the Committee of Defence take in the proceedings of this Conference, and if it took any part how did it explain the discrepancy—the logical discrepancy at all events—between the theories of defence on behalf of the Army and those on behalf of the Navy submitted to the Colonial Premiers? This much was clear from the statement made by the Secretary of State for War, that whether under the old system or under the new system—whether under the Army Corps system or under the previous one—a very large proportion of the Regular Army of this country was held not for the purpose of the local defence of those islands at all, but for the purpose of Imperial defence in the possible benefits of which all the self-governing colonies were entitled to have a share. That was true no doubt, and it was certainly clearly to be inferred from the statement made. If so, obviously the same question of the colonial contribution arose in regard to the Army that had for so many years arisen in regard to the Navy. If we had, or were going to have an Imperial Army on Navy lines for the defence of the Empire, then the question immediately arose, ought not the self-governing colonies to pay any proportionate share of the very enormous expense of that Imperial Army? Proposals were made by the Secretary of State for War—he was referring to the contents of the Report simply—not in the same form as the naval demand, but they were really the same in substance. He asked them if they would guarantee a certain portion of their own local Militia—if they would undertake to set that aside.

Order, order! I think the hon. Member is directing his remarks to matters outside the Conference.

said he was dealing with the proceedings of the Conference, which they were paying for now.

I understood that the hon. Gentleman was referring to certain remarks made by the Secretary of State for War.

said he was referring to the Report. "Remarks" would he a very derogatory word to apply to the great State paper which was now laid before them, He did not wish to dwell upon it, but he thought that for the information of the House he might be allowed to say that what the Secretary of State proposed was that instead of making any contribution in money, which was the Admiralty demand, the colonies should undertake to set aside part of their local force under the name of an Imperial Reserve, with a fee of so much per head, which this country was to contribute. Whether it was due to the unfortunate terms in which the case of the War Office was presented, or whether the colonial representatives were confused and dazzled by the contradictory representations made to them he did not know, because the Report did not tell them, but the proposals were rejected. That was why he emphasised at the beginning the fact that they had before them statements made on behalf of his Majesty's Government in full detail, but they had no corresponding statements on behalf of the colonial representatives. It was a great misfortune that the Committee had to content themselves with the bald statement of the results of the Conference as expressed in the resolutions of the Premiers. These were to be found on page 32 in regard to the Army. They would find from these resolutions that the proposals of the Government on this point were substantially rejected by the Premiers; but the Committee did not know the reasons. There was one reason mentioned, but they did not know the detailed reasons. They had not a report of the speeches in which the colonial Premiers put forward their views. The Secretary of State for War failed more completely than the first Lord of the Admiralty did. He seemed to have failed entirely to carry the Conference with him, and the result was nothing less than what he regarded as the positive rejection of all his proposals to induce the self-governing colonies to come into the scheme of Imperial defence so far as the Army was concerned But there was just room for a little doubt which the right hon. Gentleman might possibly be able to remove. The Members of the Colonial Conference refused to pass any resolution in favour of the scheme proposed, but they referred each colony to the Secretary of State for War to see if any agreement special to it could be come to. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether anything had followed from this—whether any proposal had been made on behalf of any colony apart from the Conference altogether. Had any single colony come forward and said "Although the whole body will not come into the scheme we, as an individual colony, are willing to come into it, and are willing to make our local militia part of the Imperial defensive force?" He thought the Committee ought to have some information from the Government on that point. One of the most interesting papers contained in the proceedings of the Conference was to be found on page 43. That paper was laid before the Colonial Premiers by the Government. It was called the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand contributions to the war. The complaint he had to make about it was that in this House during the summer of last year some Members of the House, he himself certainly for one, endeavoured to obtain this information from the Secretary of State for War, and it was repeatedly refused on behalf of the Government. But although it was refused to the House it was given voluntarily to the Colonial Premiers. Apparently it was pressed upon their consideration in the form in which it appeared in the Blue-book. At the time this paper was prepared the total expense of the war to this country was £222,000,000. That had been vastly increased since the time when the Conference met. He was quite sure that the people of this country did not realise that, in spite of the almost official manner in which many of these great colonies took up the policy of this country, and denounced all those in this country who disapproved of that policy, their contribution to this great Imperial War for which we had paid £250,000,000 was less than £2,000,000 altogether.

I am obliged to remind the hon. Gentleman that the cost of the war cannot possibly be discussed on this Vote.

No, no, what I was discussing was the paper.

I understood the hon. Gentleman to be discussing; the cost of the War.

said he was discussing the results of the Conference, and this was one of the papers which had been laid before the Conference. He would not pursue the matter, but he wished to know why that was given to the Conference which was refused to the House. He hoped he might be in order in asking that. He thought he was entitled to ask further—was any proposal put before the Conference that they should pay an increased contribution to the War? If that was not part of the proceedings he failed to see why this paper was produced. Surely he was entitled to ask why this formidable document was laid before the Conference on the part of the Government. Was it to support an appeal that they should pay for this Imperial war in South Africa in proportion to their strength, numerically or otherwise? There was one other point on which he wished to touch, and he trusted that he would not go beyond the limit assigned by the Deputy Chairman in discussing those Estimates. He asked the Committee to consider for a moment what the resolution of the Conference was on the subject of their commercial relations with this country. It was not known what they decided about the Navy or the Army, or what they said about the war; but on this question of commercial relations there was not the slightest dubiety. And the matter was so grave and so important that the Committee was bound to have some explanation from the Government as to their attitude with regard to these proposals. The net result might be stated thus: the Colonial Premiers, whom he was distinguishing all through from the Colonial Secretary, on matters of trade laid down the rule, first of all, that there should be no Free Trade within the Empire. Their second proposition—and this they made promise to recommend to their people—was that the various self-governing colonies should give preferential treatment to the goods manufactured by the mother country. And, in the third place, they prayed the Government of this country to give a corresponding preferential treatment to the goods from their respective colonies. There was to be no Free Trade, but mutual preferential duties between the mother country and the self-governing colonies. And that was the line taken in The Times by a gentleman who was not a political representative, but a certain representative of public opinion in Canada. Of course he was not entitled to discuss that as a matter of policy, but it would be a tremendous reversal of our historical policy on matters essential to the well-being of the United Kingdom; and he thought there ought not to be any doubt at all as to the attitude of the Government on that point. This was a Conference appointed by the Government themselves, and here was the result, and the House of Commons was left in doubt as to whether the Board of Trade was a party to this resolution or not—on. which the Colonial Premiers were most serious and most emphatic. He thought that they ought to have, as far as possible, some declaration on behalf of the Government as to whether they had in any way assented to these propositions. He hoped he had kept within the ruling of the Deputy Chairman, but he was certain he had not alluded to anything but what was of the greatest and most material importance in the report.

said that the strict question under discussion was the desirability, or otherwise, of the prolongation of this Colonial Conference, but it really seemed to him that it opened up a very serious matter. These Conferences were rather dangerous experiments. Let the Committee consider what they were. They had no official power, no official form; their decisions amounted to no more than pious opinions, and whatever resolutions they might come to had no binding effect whatever on the various colonies. Under these circumstances he failed to see the use of them. The discussions might have been instructive if only the Committee had had full reports of what had been said, but if they had only a report of the formal utterances of the Colonial Secretary, the Secretary of State for War, and the First Lord of the Admiralty, and not a word of what, after all, was the only interesting point of the proceedings, the speeches made by the Colonial Premiers, then the instructive value of the whole thing entirely disappeared. The Conference, as such, had no power, no authority to bind any one of the colonies. Each Premier had no power to bind his own colony, much less had all of them power to bind all the colonies. It was impossible, therefore, for the Conference to come to any coherent plan, or any plan at all. He thought that, although these Conferences entirely lacked the serious element of a formal body, there was considerable danger that the Colonial Premiers should come to them, and that the colonial people who read of them might take them seriously, and might imagine them to be a kind of Imperial Council or Imperial Parliament capable of coming to conclusions, and of having those conclusions carried out. That was a great danger. They could not put up an imitation body like this Conference and pretend that it was something real. He would not traverse ground already covered, which referred to very serious and very important matters; but in regard to the subjects of defence and trade, he would point out that no conclusions of the slightest importance were reached by the Conference. Suggestions were certainly made, and opinions, diverse opinions, were expressed; but on account of the character of the Conference, no conclusions could be reached. It was said that by these Conferences they might always come to an entirely separate treatment between each separate colony and this country; but it required no Conference for this country to adopt one treatment of one colony, another treatment of another colony, and a third of a third colony. On the contrary, a Conference interfered with that mode of treatment. What had they got? In the case of defence the colonics did not contribute a fortieth part of the cost of the Navy. There was a contribution for the Navy from the Cape and Natal, but what was £75,000 out of £30,000,000? It was true that if the colonial contribution were capitalised, it would amount to the cost of an iron clad; but then our contributions were not capitalised. As a matter of fact the contribution of South Africa was infinitesimal; and the contribution on the part of Australia was no contribution at all. He had a number of papers from Australia which showed that they were very much occupied with the question of the Fleet and said—

"We do not like the conditions under which we make a small contribution to the British Navy. What we mean is to have a Navy of our own, and to have nothing to do with yours."

This sentiment was put in a very crude form by one of the Australian papers—

"Australia means to order now a cock-hat of her own."

The contributions from the colonies did not amount to much; he would go further and say that it could not amount to much. We must take upon our own shoulders the whole cost of the Navy, for we would never get any material contribution in cash or in meal or in malt to our expenses for defence from the self-governing colonies. Their conditions were different from ours. They were forced to put very heavy duties on imports, and we could not expect to have contributions from them for the Navy, the Army, or in any other form. [An HON. MEMBER: You derive from Canada a contribution in the shape of preferential tariffs.] Yes, but he should like to know what that amounted to?

said he hoped the hon. Gentleman would respect the ruling he had given. He could not go into questions of policy on this Vote; that could be done when the main Estimates came on a short time hence.

submitted that he was strictly dealing with the policy of prolonging the Conference—the business of which was to discuss whether we could or could not get contributions from the colonies. His argument was that the Conference was useless, and its prolongation was worse than useless. His point was that these Conferences were not harmless, as they were represented to be, but that there was an element of danger in them. If ever they were to have another Conference, they should have a full report of what took place, and not a one-sided report of what the Colonial Secretary or the Secretary for War or the First Lord of the Admiralty said.

said that in regard to the ruling which the Deputy Chairman had given, that the Committee could not discuss questions of policy on the Supplementary Estimates, was not it a rule that the Committee could not discuss questions of policy which might have arisen on the original Estimates? but, if between the original Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates a new question arose such as the result of the prolongation of the Conference, could not the policy arising out of that prolongation, as shown in this particular document, be discussed?

said that the sum for the Colonial Conference in the original Estimates was £3,000, and an additional sum of £1,500 was asked for to make up the cost of the Conference, on which a new discussion on policy did not arise.

said that all he would point out was that this was the first time that they had had the Blue-book before them, and therefore its contents could not have been precedently discussed.

said that the Blue-book had been printed after the original Estimates had been issued, but according to all the precedents the policy of which the Blue-book was the subject must be discussed when the main Vote came before the Committee.

said he wished to ask whether on the Vote they were asked to pass that day it was or was not competent to discuss the contents of the Blue-book.

said he should like to ask the Deputy Chairman specifically whether the debate would be in order if continued at the point raised by the hon. Member who opened it—viz., on the declarations made by the Government at the Conference. He submitted that the Committee would not have an opportunity of discussing these except on the present occasion. He submitted, on a point of order, that there would be no further opportunity of discussing the declarations of the Government themselves.

The proper time for the discussion of the question of policy is on the Vote for the Colonial Secretary's salary. Then the whole question of policy can be discussed. I am very reluctant to lay down a ruling of my own, but, by the rulings of my predecessors, I am quite clear that the question of policy cannot be now discussed.

said the policy of the Colonial Secretary could no doubt be discussed on his salary, but the declarations made by the Secretary of State for War and by the Admiralty could not be discussed except they were discussed separately on different items, which would be extremely inconvenient.

said he would remind the Chairman of the ruling of Mr. Speaker Peel, which was that although on Supplementary Estimates the policy underlying the original Estimates could not be discussed, nevertheless a Supplementary Estimate might be such as, from its amount, or from any other circumstance, to raise in itself a question of policy.

That is not quite a similar case. All Ministers have salaries, and, therefore, any question affecting them can be discussed on the Votes for their salaries.

said he put his suggestion as a matter of convenience.

said he would strictly observe the ruling of the Chair. He thought the Committee would see that there were obvious difficulties in discussing in the Conference held last year the policy of the Government in relation to both the Naval and Military services, the whole trade relations of the Empire, and the administration of the Colonial Office at large. Many matters of great importance were raised at the Conference; but he thought the questions which were really germane to the Vote were not so much the views expressed by the Colonial Premiers who attended, or of Members of His Majesty's Government who were present, as the questions raised by his hon. friend the Member for Kings Lynn as to whether such conferences should be held, and that raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee as to whether they should be repeated. He would begin by clearing away one misapprehension which he thought existed in the minds of some hon. Members who had spoken, and which could only have arisen from an imperfect reading of the Blue-book. The hon. and learned Member for Dundee and his hon. friend made it a matter of serious complaint that the views of Ministers were printed at length, although they had little or no interest for his hon. friend [Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Not at all.] while the matter which would have interested him, namely, the arguments put forward and the language used by the Colonial Premiers was not reported in the Blue-book. It would have been the wish of the Secretary of State and of His Majesty's Government to have published the whole proceedings of the Conference if they could; and, for himself, he thought it would have been useful, not only for the information of the people of this country but also for the information of people in the colonies, if the views expressed by the Colonial Premiers had been fully published in the official report of the proceedings. At the commencement of the Conference, in accordance with precedent, it was agreed that the proceedings should, for the time being, be treated as confidential, in order that everyone might be at liberty to express with perfect freedom his opinions, and discuss with absolute fulness and care the various questions which might arise, and that no publication should take place without the assent of those who had taken part in the proceedings. This was stated in the very first page of the summary of the proceedings. When the Conference came to an end the question of the publication of the proceedings was discussed, and it was feared that some of the members of the Conference were adverse to that course being taken. If there was lurking in any hon. Member's mind a suspicion that the Government had suppressed for purposes of their own—

said that nothing was further from his intention than to suggest anything of the kind.

said he was extremely glad to hear it; but he had in his mind a complaint which was made by a journal, for which of course the hon. and learned Member was not responsible, that the Government had kept back that part of the proceedings. He thought that the great stress which was laid by the hon. and learned Member on the absence of the speeches of the Colonial Premiers was calculated, though not intended, to renew or perpetuate a misunderstanding which would have been mischievous in this country, and infinitely more mischievous in the colonies, if it were thought the views of the representatives of the colonies had been suppressed.

said he never saw the suggestion.

said of course he would accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that there was no misapprehension in his mind, and that it was very far from his intention to convey such an opinion to anyone else. But he thought the hon. and learned Member would not blame him, as there had been such a misapprehension, for stating in the clearest and most emphatic terms that the Secretary of State and His Majesty's Government would have been very glad to have published full reports of the whole proceedings, and that the somewhat truncated form in which the report was published was due, not to the wishes of His Majesty's Ministers, but of other members of the Conference. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked him what were the intentions of the Government as to calling such a Conference on a future occasion If he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman aright he thought that the periodical recurrence of such Imperial Conferences would have the best effect, and would form a new link in our Imperial chain. His hon. and learned friend the Member for Kings Lynn thought that the Conferences were dangerous, and fruitless of good result, and that the summoning of any future Conference had better be avoided. In that matter, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and not with his hon. friend. He believed that view to be generally shared by all who had most closely followed the recent history of our Imperial relations; and he believed that those Conferences contained a germ which might blossom into the most fruitful possibilities in the future. They offered an opportunity for bringing together those responsible for the administration of the King's great self-governing colonies and responsible Ministers or the day in this country for a personal interchange of views on all the great questions which arose between the colonies and this country, and questions which affected the harmonious relations of one part of the Empire with another, upon the satisfactory and amicable settlement of which depended the future of the Empire itself. That was the opinion of the Government, and, without committing themselves to the specific period of four years, His Majesty's Government were certainly of opinion that periodical Conferences of this kind should be summoned regularly to discuss matters of common interest to the whole Empire. They could only be productive of great good, and they bore with them great hopes for a closer and more intimate connection between the Empire at large, a greater assimilation of our Imperial interests, and a better understanding between all parts of His Majesty's dominions. He said that, in spite of the fact that, as his hon. friend pointed out, the resolutions of the Conference were binding on no one. They were the opinions of those present on certain subjects which had been discussed, and were undertakings by certain of the Colonial Premiers present that they would make definite pro- posals to their own Parliaments. Of course they had no more authority to bind their own Parliaments than His Majesty's Ministers had to bind this Parliament; but they involved an indication of what the Premiers thought might fairly and properly be submitted to their respective Parliaments, and of what they might hope their Parliaments would agree to. He was referred to certain newspaper paragraphs which, if he had seen them, he had not in his mind at the present moment. He was asked whether he could add anything to the statement of the results as regarded naval and military contributions contained in the Blue-book. Communications had been passing between the Ministers concerned hero and some of the Colonial Governments on this subject, but he had nothing to add to the statements which were summarised in the Blue Book; and he had at present no reason to suppose that further contributions were likely to be offered, though, of course, they would be the first to welcome them if such action were taken spontaneously by the Governments concerned. The two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken had each of them, in respect to the domain of naval and military expenditure, rather belittled the results of the Conference, and had emphasised how small a proportion of Imperial Naval and Military expenditure was represented even by the increased Colonial contributions which the Premiers undertook at the Conference to recommend to their respective Governments. He deprecated the spirit in which both hon. Gentlemen looked at the matter. The great Colonies with their own representative institutions were in truth sister nations practically independent of the country and bound to it by a tic of which it might perhaps be true to say, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that if viewed by a lawyer through a lawyer's spectacles it was extremely slight; yet it was a tie of sentiment and affection which had proved of great value to them in recent years, and which he believed, if met by a similar spirit in this country, would stand any strain that future events were likely to put upon it. He thought first of the assistance of all these great self-governing Colonies in the great Imperial War that they had just waged. After they had found troops from all the King's dominions fighting side by side with the troops sent out from this country it was a bad moment to choose to seek to minimise the service they had performed. He did not wish to be understood as expressing an opinion on behalf of the Government that the proportion of expenditure which this country bore to that which the Colonies bore could always, or ought, always to be maintained, but if there was a change it would have to come as a free and spontaneous offer from the colonies and not from any attempt upon our part to impose a greater contribution upon them. The Colonial Secretary had never hesitated to put this subject clearly and frankly before the Colonial Governments and the colonial people themselves, both in and out of the Conference. But applications upon this subject were, he ventured to think, better made direct to the colonies than in the form of a complaint to that House of how little the Colonies were doing, or in the form of a grudging criticism of what they had accomplished. What had resulted from the experience of recent years, due in no small degree to these Colonial Conferences, had been a better appreciation on the part of the colonies of the great burden which rested on the shoulders of the people of Great Britain; a greater appreciation of how Imperial, in the truest sense of the word, was the task we were discharging and how intimately in that respect were the best interests of the colonies bound up with ours. If a proper appreciation of those things was spreading that was no small achievement in itself and gave good ground for hope that if the results attained were not great in quantity or equally spread over all the great self-governing colonies, yet what had been hitherto achieved had been in the right direction, and they might look forward with hope to a still greater extension in the future. He would not say more—in fact, within the ruling of Mr. Deputy-Chairman he could not say more upon the subject of naval and military defence. So far as those subjects required any further discussion they would have to be discussed on the Naval and Military Estimates, and the policy expounded by the Ministers at the Colonial Conference must be defended by those Ministers in that House. There was one specific matter to which, perhaps, he ought to refer. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had referred to the trade relations of the Empire, and had asked whether His Majesty's Government was bound by that resolution. He had already told the Committee what the effect of that resolution was generally with regard to all the Governments concerned. Any Government, from whichever side of the House it was chosen, would have to deal necessarily, most conscientiously and with the utmost consideration with any resolution coming from a body of the character of the late Colonial Conference, but this resolution was not binding on the Government, and the particular clause to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred was expressly put forward in the names of the Prime Ministers of the colonies and not in the name of the Conference as a whole. He had now dealt with all the points which had been raised, so far as they could be dealt with within the limits of that debate and he was certain the Committee at large would be of opinion that these Conferences were not without valuable results with regard to our future relations with our colonies.

thought the Committee would endorse the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman as to the attitude which that Committee ought to adopt with regard to the proposals contained in the Blue-books. It had to be remembered that great delicacy and caution was necessary in dealing with matters of that kind. There was one striking illustration of the arguments brought to bear by one of our colonies years ago when it was sought to make them pay a larger contribution to the Imperial expenditure than they were willing to bear. It would be as well, perhaps, to bear that in mind. In the last few months there had been most authoritative expressions of opinion by the Premiers of our self-governing colonies. It was perfectly true that the Colonial Secretary was not a party to the adoption of the resolution. The right hon. Gentleman's real position was that of President of the Conference to enable others to inculcate their views, and he very properly took no part in the vote for this resolution. But the resolution was unanimously adopted, and as an authoritative expression of opinion from the highest authorities concerned deserved a little more consideration with regard to the question of preferential trading. The question of how much we should endeavour to obtain in the way of a cash contribution towards the naval and military establishment was a very delicate matter to touch on. The Colonial Premiers resolved that a system of preferential trading should be carried out by which colonial produce should receive favoured terms, and that they should give in return these services. Canada gave 25 per cent. preference to British goods, and after a brief experience extended that preference to 33⅓ per cent. That was a bonâ fide Government act which showed that Canada was earnest in her convictions, and he was sorry to see that a tendency had been developed to mimimise and detract from the important success of that attempt. The result was that we had been receiving one-third of the duties and giving nothing in return. He had told Sir Wilfrid Laurier that this was like a man who constantly dined out six or seven nights a week, but never gave even a mutton chop in return. All the other colonies had unanimously concurred in the general principle. The criticism that Canadian trade with countries other than the British Empire had relatively increased to a larger extent was by no means as conclusive as some assumed it to be. The tariff, of course, applied in the case of the United Kingdom and the—

The right hon. Gentleman is transgressing the ruling I gave just now. He cannot go into the policy of the trade relations with different colonics.

said he would confine himself to the contents of the Blue-book.

It would not be in order to discuss the Blue-book at this stage. That must come on when the Vote for the Colonial Office is under discussion.

said he would not pursue the subject further, as the present afforded an opportunity for only a truncated discussion on the document which had been placed in their hands.

called attention to the item of £1,000,000 as a grant-in-aid of the local revenues of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony. The note attached to the Estimate stated that the sum was required

"To meet the cost of maintenance of South African Constabulary in excess of 0.000, until the strength of the force can be reduced to that number."

The original Vote was for 6,000 constabulary, at a cost of £1,800,000, or at the rate of £300 per man per annum, so that the Committee were now apparently asked to vote the money for an additional 3,300 men for the whole year, or for a proportionately larger number for a shorter period. He did not object to the number of the men. It would no doubt be satisfactorily explained that the increase in number was counterbalanced by the withdrawal of so many military, and the more the force in South Africa was assimilated to a civil police force the better it would be. What he wished the Committee to notice was the great disparity between the pay of these men and the cost to the country. The pay at 5s. a day amounted to £91 per annum, so that, allowing a substantial addition over the whole force for the higher pay of the superior officers, the amount required in pay could not be more than £110 or £120 at the outside. But the amount this country had to pay was £300 per man per annum. The reason for this difference was doubtless the immense cost of living in South Africa. According to a Memorandum placed before the Colonial Secretary a few weeks ago by the mine owners in Johannesburg, the average wages paid to a skilled white labourer in the mines was £34 10s. 9d. per month, while the cost of living, if the man was married, amounted to £24 10s. He had no doubt that the cause of the great discrepancy between the pay of the men and the cost to the country was the fact that with the settlement of South Africa had come the time of rings and combines. Probably not more than one - third of this £1,000,000 would go in wages, the balance being required for clothing, the food of horses and men, and the necessary articles for the maintenance of the force. It was well known that great financial corporations had taken advantage of the settlement of the war to form rings in the supply of necessaries. The Committee heard some time ago of a certain cold storage company. That company, after paying a dividend of 1,000 per cent., had dissolved, but its place had been taken by an even more powerful monopoly.

said it would be out of order to discuss the causes of the high prices of food. All the Committee had to discuss was the extra money required for the maintenance of the South African Constabulary.

said the additional cost was due to the maintenance of 4,000 men beyond the 6,000 required for police purposes, until they were disbanded.

said the right hon. Gentleman had stated that this £1,000.000 was for the pay and expenses of these men, and he submitted that he was entitled to argue the question. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the Vote was not for pay alone, and he submitted that he was entitled to argue why the pay was such a small item and the expenses on the other hand were such a large proportion of the Vote.

There is a note that the extra money is required for the extra 4,000 men of the constabulary. The hon. Member would be in order in discussing that.

said his whole point was, what was the reason why these men cost the heavy sum which was indicated on the Estimate, and was it not a question as to whether so many men were required or not 2

The hon. Member would be perfectly in order in discussing that on the ordinary Estimates, but on this Supplementary Vote it is not in order.

said this was something which had arisen since the original Vote was passed, and it was actually part of the £1.000,000 which they were now asked to approve.

The extra money is asked for on account of the extra men, and on that point the hon. Gentleman would be quite in order.

pointed out that the £1,000,000 was for the extra men.

thought there was some misapprehension upon this point. An Estimate was originally taken for 4,000 men and they were raised, and the estimated cost of that force was on an average, with horses, outfit and keep, £250 per man. Nothing had occurred since the war or in recent experience to increase the cost per man, as the hon. Member opposite seemed to suppose, since the money for the original 6,000 men was voted, but His Majesty's Government had felt that this additional 4,000 men were no longer required for police purposes, and they ought not to be charged upon the colonies but should be paid for out of the Imperial funds because they had been raised for Imperial purposes. The cost was exactly the same per man, and nothing had since happened to increase that cost.

said that hardly seemed to him to cover the point.

I cannot allow the discussion to go on after my ruling and after what the Minister in charge has said. Therefore, it will be out of order to discuss this point further.

said that all he desired to do now was to express his surprise that on a vote for £1,000,000 the rules of the House did not allow them to discuss the matter.

It would be out of order to discuss now the procedure of this Committee.

said he did not quite understand to what the additional cost was due. The original Estimate was for 10,000 men at £750,000, and he wanted to know if there was no additional cost of maintenance; if the number was the same as the War Office originally estimated, how was it that they were now asked to vote this additional sum. The sum put down now was £1,000,000, but £750,000 was printed in the Budget as asked for some months ago. He understood that the numbers had not been altered, and the cost of maintenance remained the same.

said that when the organisation of the permanent police force was undertaken Lord Roberts was of opinion that 10,000 men would be required. Even at that time Lord Milner thought a smaller number would suffice, but it was decided at that time that it would be desirable to raise 10,000 men, or an additional 4,000 beyond what Lord Milner thought would be required. After the conclusion of the war the Secretary of State for War felt some hesitation about putting on his Vote any part of the payment for the South African Constabulary, which were, after all, a civil force. His Majesty's Government entered into communication with Lord Milner as to what force would be sufficient as a permanent constabulary for the new colonies After bearing Lord Milner's views, and in accordance with his advice, the force was fixed at 6,000 men. That in the opinion of the local authorities was a sufficient force to secure the proper discharge of all the duties which fell upon the constabulary force in those parts. The 10,000 constabulary had then been raised, and they could not at once disband in South Africa 4,000 out of the 10,000 men raised before the conclusion of the war. Accordingly it was arranged with Lord Milner that he should stop all recruiting for the constabulary force and fill up no vacancies; and that, as opportunity offered and as he was able to do so without inflicting injustice upon individual troopers or upsetting the labour market and thus causing distress in South Africa, he should diminish the number of the constabulary until they reached 6,000. That was to be a gradual process and the reduction had to be spread over the whole year. His Majesty's Government now asked the Committee to vote the cost of those additional 4,000 men from Imperial funds on the ground that they were no longer required for the purposes of the constabulary force in South Africa. The reduction of the extra force was now going on and it was felt that this was an operation which could not be properly charged to the two colonies. The hon. Member opposite had asked him why the expense was so large. The reason was that this process of getting rid of the extra 4,000 men could only be done gradually and would not be complete probably until the end of the next financial year, namely, the 31st of March, 1904, so that the expenditure included in this Vote really covered something like one and a half years.

pointed out that last June in the amended Budget the Estimate was for £750,000 and £1,000,000 was now asked for. He wished to know what was the explanation of the extra £250,000.

said that £750,000 was the estimated cost from July, 1902, to March, 1903. Meanwhile the 4,000 men had been from week to week further reduced, but they would not be wholly got rid of before the 31st of March, 1904. The extra sum was for the cost of maintaining the men while they were being reduced to the number of 6,000, and it was the cost of maintaining the smaller number for the longer period.

asked with respect to the 3,000 or 4,000 men who were not wanted, whether they were employed and what they were doing.

said that so many as were retained in the service were still there. They were used during the war mainly as a military force. Now that the war was happily over the constabulary was being organised. It was not possible to dismiss those 4,000 men without causing terrible hardship, and without throwing on the labour market a large number of men who had no resources. The forces would be diminished as rapidly as opportunity offered.

said nobody complained of the men being properly treated, but he wanted to know what they were doing. Were the men at present drilled and organised as constabulary in these two colonies?

Yes, Sir.

But they are not wanted.

said he was exceedingly unfortunate in endeavouring to make himself understood on this subject. He would try to use plain language. The permanent force was not required above 6,000. It would be reduced to 6,000 as opportunity offered, but in the meantime so many as were retained were serving as constabulary. He was by no means prepared to say that the whole of that force could be disbanded at once. He hoped they would be disbanded before the end of the next financial year.

What is the cost per man of those who joined the constabulary?

£250 per annum.

said he knew that was according to the Estimate, but he had reason to believe that the Estimate was not being fulfilled, and that the cost greatly exceeded that amount. His hon. friend on that side of the House had referred to the cost of living as an argument why the constabulary had cost so much. He had said it cost £24 per month for a man living in South Africa. The hon. Member begged to point out that the cost before the war for an unmarried man was £6 to £7 per month. That was the charge made by all the mines where men were clubbed together. There was considerable discontent among the constabulary in regard to the question of pay. The cost of the constabulary per man was £250 per annum, and he thought the Committee ought to have some explanation, on behalf of the Government, how that amount was made up. The men there were quite unable to live on their pay. In the speech the Colonial Secretary made in July last he stated that Lord Milner had informed him that he trusted the revenue of the Transvaal would be able to meet all the expenses of the administration of the country. He would therefore ask whether that estimate was wrong and why, in view of the fact that the Transvaal returns showed a very much increased revenue as compared with what it was before the war, the whole of this expenditure was being thrown on the Imperial exchequer?

said everyone must sympathise with the statement that proper consideration should be given to these men. What had happened? The Government took money for 10,000 men.

No.

Well, they raised 10,000 men, and if they did not take money for them he thought they ought to have done so. When they reduced the number from 10,000 to 6,000 he thought they would have asked for £1,000,000 less. The second remark he had to make was that this money provided for £260 per man and horse. Were they going to keep the horses also? Otherwise the sum they asked was too large. He had no desire to do any injustice to the men or the horses, but was it necessary to keep the horses for a year? He had another remark to make on this item which he hoped the Committee would attend to, for it was a very important one and affected a great many millions of money. There was the following note near the bottom of the page:—

"The expenditure out of this grant-in-aid will be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General, but no surrender will be made of any balance unexpended at the close of the financial year."

If there was to be no surrender what was the use of the audit?

said he would explain that. If there was to be a surrender at the end of the present financial year it was quite clear that there would be no money available to pay the men during the next financial year. There would be an audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and any sum not required for the purpose for which the money was voted would be ultimately returned. The Auditor General would control the expenditure of the money and see that it was spent on the purpose for which the House voted it, but that portion which was not spent on the 31st March this year would not have to be surrendered at the end of the month. The money would run over into next year for the purpose to which it was proposed to devote it.

said the right hon. Gentleman had avowed a financial misdeal of the most alarming description. The Committee were asked to vote money for the year ending 31st March which the right hon. Gentleman was not going to use in that year. That was a destruction of the whole financial system of this country. It was a circumstance which he would commend to the attention of the hon. Member for Oldham who was sitting behind him. He hoped that when the Postmaster General was examined before the Committee on accounts he might attempt to justify this system of finance. He doubted whether the Committee had the power to vote the money in face of the avowal they had just heard. This grant-in-aid of local revenues, amounting to £2,842,500, was, they were told, to be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General, but no unexpended balance was to be returned. The whole purpose of an audit was to see that the money was properly expended within the year, and that the portion of it not expended should be surrendered. If that condition did not obtain there was no purpose in the world for having any audit at all. He said that was calculated to deceive the House of Commons. If they were going to make this grant-in-aid a gift out and out they shonld not pretend that there was to be an audit at all. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that the sum would probably be expended partially in the next year. He very much doubted whether the Comptroller and Auditor General would have any authority over that. It was not a proper proceeding to suggest that there was to be an effective audit when they were at the same time told that there was to be no surrender of the unexpended balance.

said the point raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn was one of considerable importance. When the money was asked in the form of a Supplementary Estimate it was understood that it was a supplement to what had already been voted for that year. What was now proposed was practically a very novel departure.

No.

Said he was sorry to hear that there were precedents. That demand of the Government for this money was based on the supposition that no part of that sum of £2,800,000 was contributed by the Transvaal or Orange River Colony. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could lay before the Committee a statement of the actual receipts and outlay of the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal. When they asked to know what was the state of the accounts of those colonies and if there was an annual deficit, it might be found that instead of that being a land flowing with milk and honey it might involve a serious and heavy outlay on the part of this country. Under whose supervision was this money to be applied? Was the Colonial Office itself to keep the supervision, and would it satisfy itself, in order that it might satisfy this House, that the money would be applied to that particular purpose for which it was voted? He hoped it would not be applied to any kindred purpose.

said that the hon. and learned Member seemed to think that he had been guilty of some novel financial heresy which would lead the Committee into most dangerous paths where they would be able no longer to safe-guard the financial interests of the country. He was treading the beaten path, often trod before, and pursuing the ordinary and usual practice in regard to grants-in-aid for Colonial Services or Protectorate Services, or for Civil Services at home. The hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, and the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken, had asked him for further explanation as to whether the estimates formed of the financial condition of the Transvaal had been realised. He had no idea that such a question would be asked and accordingly had not provided himself with the figures; but he believed that these expectations had been fully and completely realised. He had no doubt that the resources of the Transvaal would be sufficient in the present financial year to meet the whole of the current expenses of the Transvaal administration, and the Government were not asking the Committee to vote this money because the resources of the Transvaal had fallen below working expenses, but because this money would not be a fair charge on the Transvaal at all. These men were raised for Imperial purposes and were used to relieve the troops and to make up the diminution in the number of soldiers that would otherwise have been required. Now that the war was over they had to consider what the permanent position was to be. Clearly what constabulary was necessary for colonial purposes the Transvaal ought to pay for; but it was not right that we should impose this burden on the Transvaal. It was the opinion of the Government that these 4,000 men were not required for colonial constabulary purposes and therefore they proposed to pay for them until they were got rid of. That operation would be spread over some time. Of course the men joined under a contract, and the contract was binding on the Government; and it was only as the men were willing to remain in the Transvaal in order to take advantage of opportunities of other service under the Government or elsewhere that they could be got rid of.

asked if the remaining 6,000 would be paid for by the Transvaal.

said that they would, and that the sum he was asking the Committee to vote was an adjustment which he believed, on the whole, to be fair between the conflicting claims of the local administration as representing the taxpayers of the Transvaal, and the Government as representing the taxpayers of this country. The final adjustment between the two would include all sums that the Committee would be asked to vote in connection with the administration of the Transvaal.

said that the right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that this. Vote was asked for in the process of making the reduction of the South African Constabulary from 10,000 to 6,000, and that the reduction was to be spread over a period which began before this debate took place, and which would not terminate until the end of the financial year 1904. During that period they would be paying at the rate of £250 "a year per man—the total number, estimated in thousands, being admittedly not wanted for the greater part of that period. The right hon. Gentleman said that these men joined under contract and that that contract could not be broken. No one suggested that any contract should be broken; but the contract only referred to pay and allowances, and it seemed absurd to keep men under arms and under semi-military conditions for that considerable period when, probably by some arrangement for the payment of a lump sum, the amount could be considerably reduced. He would point out that the extra expenditure would amount to £150 per man during the greater part of the year and a half for between 2,500 and 3,000 men. He thought it would be admitted that the Government were dealing very generously, if not lavishly, with this question. In England, when men in the Government dockyards were dispensed with they were not treated in that fashion. It had always been held that the Government ought not to adopt any charitable view in that regard, even in dealing with public money; that they ought to deal with such money only in the public interest.

wished the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee if any attempt had been made to ascertain whether these 4,000 extra men would not accept a small sum to be discharged at once. If some of them were to remain for a year that would mean £250, and he ventured to say that there was not one who would not accept half the amount to go at once. Why was not that done? It would save the country £500,000 at least.

said it was perfectly clear from the extremely lucid statement which the right hon. Gentleman had given the Committee that this was not a grant-in-aid. It was really an Imperial service payment for Imperial services for Imperial purposes. It was only as a matter of convenience that it had been put in the form of a grant-in-aid, part of which was being expended for this financial year and part to be expended in the next financial year. But no one ever asked the House of Commons for a distinctly Imperial service in a Supplementary Estimate not for this year but for the next year. He knew that the Comptroller and Auditor General in former days would have demanded, if this had been a grant-in-aid made for the purposes of the present year, the surrender of the surplus which was not expended. He did not think that any grant-in-aid had ever been given for a service which was specifically not a service for the year in which it was granted, but for the succeeding year. If the Committee passed the Vote, Parliament would lose control over the money. As had been suggested, Parliament next year might desire to make some arrangement with those men: but that would not be in their power if they now voted all the money required for this particular purpose up to the 31st of March 1904, as they would have parted with the power over the money which they now possessed and which they ought to retain. They ought to be in a position in the ensuing year to attach such conditions to the expenditure as might be required; and he was quite sure that if the financial principles which his right hon. friend the Postmaster General had advanced were adopted, they would have filched from them a power which they ought to retain.

said he was rather astonished to hear the Postmaster General state that it was impossible to surrender whatever balance might be left, because that balance, after the 31st of March, would be used to pay the constabulary for the next year. He understood, however, it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Vote on Account before the 31st of March, and any money required for the purpose could be included in that.

said his hon. friend the Member for Oldham suggested, he thought very properly, that it might have been well to have offered these men a lump sum to terminate their service instead of keeping them on for a longer period.

said that he had carefully guarded himself against the suggestion that the whole of this force was unnecessary at the present time. He believed it was not possible to allow all the men to go at once, if they were willing; but even if that were possible, there were contracts that should be observed. He had already assured the Committee that the local authorities would take every opportunity to reduce the strength of the force, according to the measure of the possibilities of the case. They were, however, in a transition period.

asked if he were right in understanding that none of these men could be dispensed with at present. The question he wished to ask was whether any efforts had been made to ascertain on what terms the men would terminate their service at once. He had a similar case in mind. List year a considerable number of yeomanry were employed, and he knew from his own personal experience that the large bulk of them, on being brought down to Capetown in September or the end of August, 1902, would have gone home and terminated their service, had they been offered a fortnight's furlough and their war gratuity. This, however, the Government refused, and was thereby put to the expense of housing and feeding them till January, 1903. An enormous and unnecessary expense was thereby cast upon the country. This was a parallel case, and he wished to know whether steps would be taken to avoid a similar waste of public money.

said that as far as he understood, and his information was not very full in regard to this matter, such means as his hon. friend suggested would certainly be taken to assist the disbandment of this force. He quite appreciated the point raised by his hon. friend, and he would see that inquiries were instituted as to whether all that was possible was being done, in the manner suggested, or whether anything further could be done.

said the Vote was in aid of the local revenues of the Transvaal and Orange River Colonics, and after what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman, he hoped it would be the last grant for that purpose. He should be glad to have a statement as to the total amount granted during this year under that head; and he thought that they ought to have a more formal balance-sheet than they had. The right hon. Gentleman almost admitted that the Vote was in an unsatisfactory form, but not a word had been said by the right hon. Gentleman as to mixing up the expenditure of this year with the expenditure of next year. Two hon. Gentlemen had spoken, each of whom had held the office of Secretary to the Treasury, and they both disapproved in the most emphatic way of the Government asking for money, not only for the year ending 31st of March, but also for the following year. The Constitutional practice was that the expenditure for each year should be kept within the year, and that money should not be taken for expenditure after the 31st of March in any particular year. On that ground alone the Estimate ought to be withdrawn. It had further been made clear by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there was extravagance connected with this matter, and the hon. Member for Oldham suggested that with care £200,000 or £300,000 might have been saved, but that the Government lost the opportunity of effecting that economy. The suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was that if a conciliatory spirit were shown, and if a gratuity were offered to these men, they might be disbanded in a much shorter time than was contemplated by the Government. The Committee should remember that those 6,000 or 10,000 men—they never had the exact number—were not the only forces main tained in the South African colonies. They had there from 30,000 to 40,000 soldiers; and, therefore, the matter might be dealt with in a quicker and more satisfactory way. He thought he would be expressing the views of many hon. Gentlemen if he moved the reduction of the Vote by £100 on the two grounds he had mentioned; first because it was very unsatisfactory to take money for an ensuing year, and secondly because there had been extravagance. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.

said he thought that the Postmaster General had put himself into a more serious situation than he had any notion of. He had stated the most amazing financial heresy of which any Minister could be capable. He who had been Secretary to the Treasury suggested that an unexpended balance should not be returned. The Comptroller and Auditor General, however, distinctly laid it down that such balances should be returned. Further, they did not know whether the money would be expended for the purpose for which it was intended or whether it would be spent for some other purpose; and at the same time they had the amazing, incredible and unprecedented avowal of the right hon. Gentleman that the money was to be expended, not in the course of the current year, but in the course of next year. The Votes of this House were always framed with a view to expenditure for the current year. That was the whole foundation of the financial system, and at the end of their financial year unexpended balances were surrendered and went into the Treasury in alleviation of the National Debt. He should not have expected from the right hon. Gentleman such an avowal.

said that under this Vote, if passed in this shape, there was no possibility of the Government getting back the unexpended balance which was obtained. What were they going to do with it? Was the House of Commons going to give a blank cheque to the Government to spend money in any way they desired? He could not understand the Government proposing this enormous vote without giving the Committee an opportunity to discuss it on the revised Estimates. Only a few months ago this Vote was asked for in the shape of £700,000; now it came before the Committee in the shape of £1,000,000. That in itself showed that these Estimates were a of the vaguest description, and an opportunity ought to be given to discuss them at least once a year. Yesterday, when a small Vote was being discussed, the Secretary to the Treasury by his remarks had almost compelled the view to be taken that when there was likely to be a surplus the Treasury rather suggested to the Departments that the Supplementary Estimates should be as large as possible in order that the charge should not be paid in this year. This Department had evidently said, "Very well, take our £300,000 and make it.£1,000,000." The right hon. Gentleman representing the Colonial Office had stated that grants-in-aid were of common occurrence, but he had subsequently stated more than once in the debate that this grant was not drawn to any particular colony at all; it was rather a grant to ourselves, and in our own service, and if that were so the same system of surrender ought to be adopted with regard to this Vote as to others.

said that, although it had been stated that no balance would be surrendered at the end of the year, he took it for granted that when the accounts were audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and it was found there was an unexpended balance it would be surrendered to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could not contemplate for a moment such a thing as the Secretary to the Treasury or the Postmaster General refusing to surrender it. He had sat for many years on the Public Accounts Committee, and they did not like these grants at all. Now the Government were going a step further. He could not understand why the Postmaster Genera], as representing the Colonial Secretary, had not presented an estimate up to the end of the year.

desired to have the matter made quite clear. What date did the Colonial authorities take for the expenditure of this money? These were grants-in-aid of local revenues, but was it not the fact that Cape Colony took over all liabilities such as this? With regard to horses and all accoutrements there was such an agreement, and to make a precedent in this case would be disastrous. It was a great pity the Government would not take the Vote back and properly estimate it. This was a part of the dreadful extravagance from which they had suffered during the war. To put a cool million down as a Supplementary Estimate in this way was a very serious matter, and he thought that they would be well advised if they withdrew this Vote and. brought it into the ordinary Estimates when it could be fully discussed.

said that, although as was stated in the footnote to the Estimate, any unexpended balance of this grant-in-aid would not be surrendered at the end of the financial year, the expenditure would be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and any balance found by him to be unexpended when the transaction was closed would be surrendered.

When?

Possibly in the course of next year.

said he was glad to hear that when the, transaction was closed any unexpended balance would be surrendered, because, so far as he knew, there was no Act of Parliament by which that was required to be done, except at the end of the financial year. But even though, formally or informally, any such unexpended balance was to trickle back to the Treasury, the other matter to which reference had been made, remained. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was common precedent in the case of grants-in-aid for the money to be granted for a coming year. Was there really any precedent for a transaction such as that now proposed? This was supposed to be a Supplementary Estimate "of the amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1903," but it extended not only past that date, but for an indefinite period beyond. He was not acquainted with the ways of the Treasury further than to know that they required to be constantly watched and controlled by the House of Commons, but if it was their practice to ask the House in a Supplementary Estimate of the amount required before the conclusion of the financial year, for money required not for the financial year at all, but for a subsequent year, and possibly two subsequent years, it was a very bad practice, contrary to the ancient usages of the House, and one of those dangerous innovations which ought to be checked at once. For his own part, he would have no hesitation in voting, not only for the Amendment, but against the whole Estimate, on the ground that it was an unconstitutional demand, and a violation of the fundamental principle on which Parliament voted money.

wished the Committee to realise the point at issue.

in order that the Committee might vote on the whole Question, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.