reported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past One of the clock.

reported from the Committee on Group No. 4 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve of the clock.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to again appoint a Joint Select Committee on Municipal Trading this session in order to complete the work of the Committees of 1900 and 1903. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I shall be very glad to see the reappointment

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is the intention of the Government to introduce this session a Bill to amend the Pharmacy Act; and, if not, whether the Government will afford facilities for the Second Reading of the Pharmacy Bill privately introduced this session. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) A Bill on this subject will be introduced in another place after Easter.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, having regard to the fact that sanction has been given to the scheme of the London County Council, he will now sanction the schemes proposed under Section 17 of the Education Act of 1902 by the municipalities of Swansea, Cardiff, and Newport. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) No, Sir. The local authorities of Swansea, Cardiff, and Newport desire to confine the membership of their Education Committees (except as regard two women in each case) strictly to their respective councils, and the Board of Education have raised no objection to this arrangement. The Board have, however, asked the councils to retain the powers of co-opting two or three persons in case at some future time they should be of opinion that without such co-option they would be unable to provide from their own body persons of experience in education and persons acquainted with the needs of the schools in their areas. It is obvious that the conditions of London are essentially different from those of the municipalities in question.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the rate of pay allowed to adult night messengers in Scotland, especially in view of the hours in which their duties are performed; and, if so, whether he will take steps to increase their pay, and with a view to their further encouragement allow them good conduct stripes for each five years' approved service. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) My attention has not been called specially to the rate of pay allowed to adult night telegraph messengers in Scotland; but I find, from Returns which were taken in July last, that the pay is quite as high as that given in other parts of the United Kingdom, and I see no reason, therefore, for increasing it. Good conduct stripes are not given to telegraph messengers, even if they be adults, and I am not prepared to make any exception to this rule.

To ask the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware of the reply sent to a telegraphist in the Post Office service in Ireland, describing that official as an agitator because he had suggested an improvement in the conditions of service of himself and others in connection with the Volunteer service; and, if so, will ho say whether his sanction was given to the terms of that reply; and will he cause inquiries to be made to ascertain whether the suggestions made by this telegraphist can be adopted in the interests of recruiting. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am not aware of the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member, but if he will furnish me with particulars I will have inquiry made into the matter.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before the Votes for Uganda, British East Africa, and Somaliland are taken, he will present to the House a statement of the position of the four African Protectorates, similar to that in [Cd. 1635], Africa, No. 9, 1903, brought up to the latest possible date. (Answered by Earl Percy.) A statement of the position of the four African Protectorates, in continuation of Africa, No. 9, 1903, will be presented in due course, but the final accounts of receipts and expenditure for the past financial year will not be available before July.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the names of the British officers who have been selected for duty on the staff of General di Giorgis, Inspector-General of the Macedonian Gendarmerie, and when it is expected that they will join their French and Italian colleagues at Salonica, Monastir, and Florina. (Answered by Earl Percy.) The names cannot be stated until the Inspector-General has decided the exact number that will be required. It is hoped that this may be done within a few days when the scheme has been finally settled, and the General is ready to start from Constantinople.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the third-class carriages of trains on the North London Railway are frequently so overcrowded that passengers are compelled to stand; and will he communicate with the railway company on the subject with a view to the provision of more accommodation on this line. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have communicated with the railway company on the subject of the hon. Member's Question, and in reply they say that the instructions to their staff are to prevent overcrowding, but that it is impossible at all times to prevent passengers forcing their way into full compartments. It is added that it is only in certain of the morning and evening trains that crowding occurs.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to diminishing the danger of life at sea, he is taking measures for the connection of all the lighthouses and lightships on the British and Irish coasts by wireless telegraphy. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Arrangements are being made by the Trinity House for the fitting up of wireless telegraphic apparatus on certain of their lightships on the east coast by way of experiment. The matter is being pushed forward, and an agreement for the use of patent rights has been drawn up, and is now being considered by the various Departments interested. Permission has been granted to Lloyds to establish a wireless telegraphic station at the Fastnet. I am unable to say at present to what extent the system will be applied to other light stations, many of which are already connected by cable with the shore.

To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been directed to the circumstances attending a recent outbreak of anthrax at Levenshulme, which resulted in the death of the owner of the affected animal, and the serious illness of the butcher by whom it was: dressed; and what steps, if any, have been, or can be, taken to prevent any such occurrence in the future. (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The lamentable circumstances to which my hon. friend refers were brought under our notice, and a special inquiry was at once instituted with respect to them. The serious results, not only to animal but to human life which attend the slaughter in the ordinary way, and the dressing of the carcases of animals infected with anthrax, are well known to us, and we have distributed upwards of 360,000 copies of a leaflet calling attention to the danger. We have also addressed circular letters on the subject to the various local authorities. We propose now to issue a further special notice to stockowners cautioning them against the dressing of the carcases of animals which have died suddenly until the cause of death has been ascertained. This notice will be issued to local authorities for posting on walls, and for direct distribution to farmers and others concerned.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that local authorities are now authorised to borrow money for the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, to be repaid during a period of eighty years, but that the Public Works Loan Commissioners are not able to lend money for such purposes unless it be repaid within fifty years, he will introduce legislation to remedy this inconsistency. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am not prepared to propose legislation for extending the maximum period of loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners.

To ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that there were 3,721 deaths from plague in Central India last January as compared with 92 in January, 1903, will he state what steps are being taken to check the spread of the disease. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) All possible care is taken to prevent the spread of plague throughout India. Speaking generally, the State Medical Officers of the Native States forming the Central India Agency apply in the territories of their respective States the preventive and remedial measures which are employed in British India. These comprise (1) the provision of hospitals and medical aid for the sufferers; (2) disenfection of infected houses; (3) evacuation of infected quarters in towns and villages; (4) refuge camps for the uninfected; (5) inspection posts and observation huts at railway stations and on main routes; (6) inoculation where desired. The Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897 is in force in the Indore Residency Bazaars, and in the Cantonments of Mhow, Nee much, and Nowgong, and sanitary rules made under it are enforced in those localities.

To ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the outbreak of plague at Allahabad, will arrangements be made for the approaching University Examinations to be held elsewhere. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have no doubt that the Government of the United Provinces will take all possible measures to secure the safety of the candidates appearing at the examinations of the Allahabad University.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give the number of pupils receiving instruction in the Irish model schools in 1903–4, and the amount spent on these schools out of public funds during the same period. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It is not at present practicable to give this information for the period stated. During the calendar year 1903, there were 6,584 pupils in average attendance at the model schools. The net cost to the Vote for Public Education of the model schools for the same year was £29,463. This includes the cost of matrons, doctors, servants, allowances for rent, and cost of pupil teachers, but does not include the cost of maintenance of the buildings by the Board of Works.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether ho intends to introduce legislation this session to give effect to the remainder of the recommendations contained in the Viceregal Report in connection with the Royal Irish Constabulary. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Such of the recommendations as do not involve legislation have been given effect to. I cannot, at present, undertake to fix a date for the introduction of the latter.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any restriction has been imposed by Parliament on the Irish Department of Agriculture against giving grants for building purposes; and, if not, whether he can state that grants for the erection or enlargement of technical schools will be made upon existing conditions, viz., that one-half of the cost shall be contributed out of local rates. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No such restrictions have been imposed. In reply to the latter part of the Question, the Department has no funds available for making grants for the purposes mentioned.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that first class teachers who were in receipt of full class salary at the time of grading as well as during the three previous years (the average incomes of which were taken as the basis for fixing the present salaries), and whose schools have now and had during those years the necessary average attendance for first division of first grade, have been placed in the second division of first grade simply because their consolidated incomes (exclusive of capitation grant) fell between the maximum income of the second division of first grade and the minimum income of the first division of first grade, he will say whether teachers so placed, although having the same satisfactory reports as those teachers who at time of grading were in receipt of the prescribed income for the first division of first grade, must now obtain for three consecutive years the report noted excellent before they can be promoted to the first division of first grade or before they can receive such an increase of salary as will bring their income to the prescribed minimum of that grade; and whether teachers placed, by the accident of salary, in the first division of first grade can qualify for increments of salary by obtaining reports lower than excellent. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed by the Commissioners that on the introduction of the present system of consolidated payments of teachers' salaries they allowed to each teacher his average income from State sources for the three years ended 31st March, 1900; or, if this arrangement operated inequitably, such a sum as in the judgment of the Commissioners was warranted by the circumstances of the particular case. The grade in which each teacher was then recognised was determined by the amount of his average income. The promotion of a teacher to a higher grade than that in which he was placed in view of his income was subject to the requirements of Rule 195 (g), (h), (i), (j), of the Commissioners' Code. This rule provides that promotion from a lower to a higher grade and from the second to the first section of the highest grade depends on (1) training; (2) position in school; (3) ability and general attainments; (4) good service; (5) seniority; (6) average attendance. I Excellent or very good reports in respect of a school must have been received from the inspectors for three years subsequently to the 1st April, 1900, in order to warrant the promotion of a teacher from second division of first grade to first section of that grade, and he must have been recommended for such promotion by the senior Inspector of his circuit. Increments of salary within the limits of the scale of salaries provided for each grade are awarded on satisfactory evidence of "good service" within the triennial period in respect of which the increment is granted; but the Commissioners do not require so high a standard of excellence to warrant the award of an increment of continued good service salary as they do to merit the selection of a teacher for grade promotion.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the prosecution of Mrs. Hays at Portumna, county Galway, on 1st February, for a breach of the licensing law and to the small fine inflicted, which precluded the possibility of an appeal; and, if so, whether he will introduce legislation which will provide for a right of appeal in such cases. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Legislation is not necessary. It was open to the defendant to appeal against the conviction under Section 52 of the Licensing Act, 1872.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say what was the nature of the order which Mr. Justice Ross made on the 9th inst., in the matter of the Batson Estate in the county of Galway; and whether the Estates Commissioners will inquire into the circumstances of the case with a view to the purchase of the estate by them for the purpose of resale to the tenants, in view of the fact that they alone are prepared to make an offer for the purchase of the whole estate, and that the offer which they are prepared to make comprises an offer of £1,000 more for the grazing land than that which has been made by the mother of the owner who proposes to purchase the grazing land only. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I stated on Monday last† that as a condition of the agreement entered into with the lessee of the grazing land to which reference is specially made, she undertook

† See page 986.

to purchase the same. This agreement was made a year before the passing of the Act of 1903, and the Land Judge has decided that it cannot under the circum-stances be disturbed. In respect of the other grazing lands on the estate, the Court directed the Receiver to prepare a scheme under which they will be distributed among the tenants in such a manner as to provide them all with substantial holdings.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what course do the Estate Commission propose to adopt in cases where estates are for sale in the Land Judge's Court, where estates consisting partly of small uneconomic holding and partly of considerable grazing tracts, and where it is intimated to them that the tenants of tenanted portion are willing to buy the untenanted portion. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It is not possible to give a general answer to this Question. Each estate and each individual holding must be dealt with on its own merits, having due regard to the entire circumstances.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Gold Coast Colony has repaid any part of the advances made to it in 1898–9 of £29,441 for telegraph construction, and in 1900–1901 of £400,000 for the Ashanti war, or any part of £97,768 still due on account of advances made for the Ashanti War in 1895–6, and when he expects that any such repayments will be made; whether he will present to the House a statement of the revenue and expenditure and trade of the Gold Coast since 1895–6, and of Lagos und North and South Nigeria since Nigeria was taken over from the Royal Niger Company, of the same kind as that relating to the Protectorates on the East Coast of Africa (Cd. 1635, Africa, No. 9, 1903), before the Votes for the Gold Coast and North Nigeria are taken. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The Gold Coast has not yet repaid any part of the advances referred to, and it is not expected that any such repayments will be made until the state of the money market makes it possible to issue the further Railway Loan, and so set free the balances which have been applied to railway construction pending the issue of the loan. A statement of the revenue and expenditure and the trade of the Gold Coast and of Lagos and Northern and Southern Nigeria will be presented as desired.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what advances have been made or sanctioned to the Gold Coast, Lagos, and Niger Coast Protectorate, for the construction of railways and harbours under the Colonial Loans Act, 1899; at what rate of interest; and will the whole amounts sanctioned by that Act be required by these colonies. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) No advance has been made or sanctioned, or is now likely to be made, to the Gold Coast or to the Niger Coast Protectorate, under the Colonial Loans Act, 1899. To Lagos the whole amount sanctioned by the Act has been advanced, viz.: £792,400, at 3¼ per cent.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that British trade, both in Northern and Southern Nigeria, is hampered by a premium of 1 per cent, levied by the Government on all silver coin imported into these colonies; and whether, having regard to the fact that the Mint deliver silver coin free into Gambia, Sierra Leone, Gold Coast, and Lagos, it will grant the same facilities to Nigeria; and, if not, for what reasons. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) In the Gambia, Sierra Leone, the Gold Coast, and Lagos, a bank is established which is responsible for the disposal of redundant silver coin and which is permitted, in view of that responsibility, to import silver coin from the Mint, free of freight and other charges, and to charge a premium up to the amount of 1 per cent, on the nominal value of silver coin which it supplies to its customers. In Nigeria there is at present no such bank, and the responsibility for the disposal of redundant silver coin rests on the local Government, which charges the premium of 1 per cent, on the nominal value of silver coin obtained from the Mint for importation into Nigeria in order to safeguard itself against the expense of repatriating redundant coin. In these circumstances I am unable to admit that British trade is hampered by the charge in question or to hold out any expectation that the charge will be remitted.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the result of the intervention of the High Commissioner of Cyprus in the dispute between the rival candidates for the Archbishopric of that Island; and whether His Majesty's letters patent have been, or will be, issued to the Bishop nominated by the Synod for the Metropolitan See. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I am not yet in a position to state whether the High Commissioner's offer of his good offices in the dispute has resulted in any improvement in the prospect of an early settlement; but I will inquire. There will be no delay in taking such action as may be necessary on the part of His Majesty's Government for the confirmation of the new Archbishop when duly elected.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the services of supply and transport under the control of the third Military Member of Council are to be directed as two separate and distinct departments, neither of which is to be directed by an officer of the Army Service Corps.

The organisation of these departments is not complete and I am therefore unable at the present time to give the information asked for by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is his intention to publish the Report of Lord Esher's Committee of March, 1902, upon the sub division of work in the Royal Engineers.

As the House has been informed on a previous occasion, this inquiry was departmental, and it was not decided to publish the Report. I am not aware of any reason at the present time of departing from this decision.

Has the recommendation of the Report been carried out?

I must ask for notice.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Royal Gunpowder Mills, Ballincollig, which were purchased some years ago by an English company, Curtis and Harvey, were closed last year and all work suspended and the work transferred to England; can he state if it is the intention of the present owners to reopen the mills; and, if not, would the War Office authorities consider the advisability of opening up negotiations with Messrs. Curtis and Harvey, with a view of buying out their interest, and working the mills under Government supervision and direction.

Nothing is known at the War Office of the purchase mentioned or of the intention of the alleged owners. It is not proposed that the War Department should purchase these mills.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to reduce the period of a three years commission for ships and men on the Mediterranean station.

The answer is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the number of Kaffirs at present in what are termed the unemployed shelters in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony; and whether he can give the number of the occupants of these unemployed shelters on the first of each month for the last six months.

No, Sir. I have not the information, but will make inquiry on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the sanction of His Majesty's Government must first be obtained before the issuing of the Proclamation by the Governor legalising the importation of Chinese indentured labour into the Transvaal; and, if so, for how long a period it is proposed to withhold such sanction.

The sanction of His Majesty's Government is not constitutionally or legally necessary. I cannot at present say when the Governor will be in a position to issue the Proclamation in question.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in point of fact the sanction of the Government will be given before this Proclamation is issued?

I have said, Sir, it is not necessary.

Am I to understand that in point of fact the Proclamation will be issued without further reference to His Majesty's Government, or is the House to understand that the Proclamation may be issued by the Governor without reference to this country or to the Government?

The right hon. Gentleman is not bound to answer. The Question can be put down if the answer to it is not included in the answer already given.

Does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to answer?

I do not refuse to answer, but I ask that proper notice should be given of the Question, as I have already had experience of the difficulty of answering off-hand hypothetical Questions.

I purpose, and deem it important, to put down this Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a small Commission to obtain information as to the use of white labour in gold mines elsewhere than in the Transvaal; and, if not, if he will take steps to obtain this information by some other means.

I am not prepared to appoint such a Commission nor to take other steps to obtain this information, which I have reason to believe will not be relevant to the problem under consideration in the Transvaal.

Did Lord Milner tell you that?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Commissioner of Police in Johannesburg has issued a notice prohibiting coloured persons from using the sidewalks; whether this prohibition applies to British Indians in the Transvaal; and whether the regulation; has been sanctioned by Lord Milner.

I have no information as to any such recent notice. By the law of the Transvaal no coloured persons are allowed to walk on the sidepaths in the towns; but I understand from Lord Milner that the Transvaal police are under instructions not to interfere with respectably dressed and properly conducted Asiatics making use of sidepaths.

asked if this applied to British Indian subjects.

was understood to answer, "Yes."

These are sons of the Empire.

Equal rights for all races.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state who has advised that no claim can be made to the indemnity for the Jameson Raid which the Chartered Company of British South Africa undertook to pay to the late South African Republic, now represented by His Majesty's Government.

His Majesty's Government received their advice from the Law Officers of the Crown.

Was the decision based on the supposed non-liability of the Chartered Company, or on the basis of this country taking over the assets of the late South African Republic?

That Question should be put to the Attorney-General.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of producing this valuable opinion?

Are there any Papers that can be laid?

The hon. Member must give notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state approximately when the Ordinance for the introduction of indentured Chinese labour into the Transvaal will be put into actual operation; and whether the recruitment of coolies in China for service under the Ordinance can be stopped until the Ordinance is in actual operation.

An approximate date cannot at present be given. His Majesty's Government cannot interfere with preliminary steps taken in China to engage labourers; but binding indentures of service cannot be made until the necessary conditions, precedent to the coming into operation of the Ordinance, have been fulfilled.

Cannot the recruitment be stopped until the Ordinance is in actual operation?

We cannot interfere with the preliminary steps taken in China.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the price charged for coal supplied to the Lagos Railway in 1903 by the Crown Agents; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the price and quality of this coal have been adversely criticised in the Lagos Government Railway Report, he will consider the advisability of instructing the Crown Agents to adopt a system of open tender by advertisement for the supply and transport of all coal required by Crown Colonies and Protectorates.

No coal was supplied for the Lagos Railway by the Crown Agents in 1903, but all the coal used was purchased locally.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the terms of the agreement between the Portuguese East African Territory and the South African Colonies as to Customs duties; and also state if there is any difference in duties levied oh goods coming into the Transvaal by way of Delagoa Bay and by way of Cape Colony and Natal, and, if so, what is the nature of the difference.

The hon. Member no doubt refers to the Agreement for a modus vivendi made between the High Commissioner for South Africa and the Governor-General for Mozambique on 28th December, 1901, by Article XI. of which it is provided that goods entering the Transvaal in transit from Lorenço Marques shall have equal treatment with and pay no higher duties than the same class of goods sent in transit from Durban, East London, Port Elizabeth, and Capetown. It preserves the provisions of the Treaty of 11th December, 1875, between Portugal and the South African Republic, and allows the importation free of duty into the Transvaal of any goods excepting spirits, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the Portuguese Province of Mozambique.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state whether any resolutions from any Colonial Board of Trade, Chamber of Commerce, Manufacturers' Association, or Agricultural Society, or from any Colonial Legislative Assembly, against preferential duties has been received at the Colonial Office; also whether any resolutions from Colonial Legislatures in favour of preferential relations between the Colonies and England were received by the Government prior to 1903, if so, from what country, who was the Colonial Minister at the time, and what reply was made by him to such resolution or resolutions; also, will he state whether any resolution or resolutions in favour of preferential relations have been passed by any Canadian Legislature or Legislatures during the years 1903 and 1904.

So far as can be traced in the books of the Colonial Office no resolution against preferential duties has been received in recent years, nor any resolution of a Colonial Legislature in favour of preferential relations, prior to 1903. If such resolutions have been passed by any Colonial or Provincial Legislature, they do not appear to have been communicated to His Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of Venezuela now imposes a 30 per cent. differential surtax on importations from the West Indian Colonies; into Venezuela contrary to the provisions; contained in Article IV. of the Treaty of 1825; whether frequent representations have been made by the Trinidad Chamber of Commerce to the Colonial Office on the matter; and whether, if the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Venezuela should be abortive, His Majesty's Government are prepared to retaliate against the Govern of Venezuela by the imposition of duties on importations from Venezuela into the United Kingdom.

The answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative; as regards the third His Majesty's Government have not thought it necessary to consider the course which they would adopt in the event suggested.

When do the Government propose to consider the question?

When the event occurs.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Bombay Chamber of Commerce has protested against the Cape Colony Immigration Act of last year, on the ground that British Indians should have the same rights enjoyed by all other subjects of His Majesty of going to and residing in any part of the King's dominions entirely unrestricted by legislation, and, if so, will he state what action in response to this protest has been taken by the Government of India or by His Majesty's Ministers.

I am aware of the protest from the Bombay Chamber of Commerce referred to in the Question. The Cape Colony Immigration Act was passed by the Legislature of a self-governing colony, and closely resembles legislation which is in force in other British colonies. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government did not consider it possible to take any action of the kind suggested in the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India has an order been sent to the Government of India directing hostilities to be undertaken in Tibet; and, if so, was the order absolute or contingent on events; what was the date of such order, if any, and when will a copy thereof be laid upon the Table of the House; has the consent of the Tibetan Government now been asked for to the entry of a Mission, with an armed escort and guns, into Tibetan territory.

No order directing hostilities to be undertaken in Tibet has been sent to the Government of India, but Colonel Younghusband has been instructed to defend the Mission should it be attacked. Having regard to the persistent failure of the Tibetan Government to negotiate, His Majesty's Government did not make the advance of the Mission dependent on their consent.

Then does my right hon. friend say that to send an armed expedition into that country is not a hostile act?

Order, order! That is a debatable matter of opinion.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state why Sir Ian Hamilton, late Quartermaster-General in England, has been appointed representative of the Indian Army with the Japanese Army, seeing that he is not an Indian officer; and was the Indian Council, by whom he is paid, consulted with reference to his appointment.

Sir Ian Hamilton, besides being an officer of great ability and distinction, has long experience in India, where he satisfactorily held several staff appointments. As he is already in Japan, his services were immediately available, and the Indian Government and the Council of India, who were consulted, agreed to the selection. Two officers of the Indian Army will join him.

Was the Indian Council consulted before he was sent? Why was not an Indian officer chosen?

Both the Indian Government and the Indian Council were consulted, and they agreed to the arrangement.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that 60,000 barrels of Norwegian herrings were lately imported into Archangel duty free; and, if so, whether Scotch herrings will be entitled to similar favourable treatment under the most-favoured-nation clause of our commercial treaties with Russia.

No, Sir; but the Vice-Consul at Archangel will be instructed to report on the matter.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the further Papers concerning Jubaland, promised by the Foreign Office last session, are yet ready; and when they will be published.

I am not aware that any pledge was given, nor do I understand to what Papers the hon. Member refers.

The late Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in the course of a debate, stated that Papers would be laid at the end of last session. I shall be happy to give the noble Lord the reference.

Perhaps the hon. Member will communicate with me on the subject.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having regard to the injury done to British trade in the opinion of the Chamber of Commerce of Liverpool and other bodies by the use of the words "Made in Germany" upon imported goods, in accordance with the regulations under the 16th Section of The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, and in view of the Report of the Select Committee of 1897 that the object would be substantially gained and British trade enterprise improved by substituting for the specification of the country of origin the words "Made Abroad," he will direct the regulations to be amended in this sense.

I am advised that I have no power to amend the regulation I in the sense desired, as statutory authority would be required to do so.

Will my right hon. friend introduce a Bill for that purpose?

I do not think there is any need for me to introduce a Bill; the Board of Trade should do it.

Will facilities be given for a Bill introduced by the hon. Member himself in order to repeal the Act.

That rests with the Leader of the House.

Were these words not purposely inserted in the Merchandise Marks Act?

Not by me.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state whether the final instalments of the Chancery Fund Annuities of £2,943,370 a year and of the Converted Annuities of £684,000 a year fall to be i paid in the financial year 1904–5 or in 1905–6; and whether it is proposed to follow the Budget precedent of 1899 in anticipating the falling in of these annuities I by a proportionate reduction of the Sinking Fund contribution for redemption of the National Debt.

The Chancery Funds Annuity was readjusted last year and its amount is now £2,324,516. The final instalment is payable in July, 1906. The final instalment of the Converted Annuities is payable in February, 1906. I have no announcement to make at this stage as to financial arrangements for the future.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the cost of supervising sugar refineries in bond is borne by the owners of the refineries or by the State; if the former, what is the amount charged, and how is the money collected; and if the latter, what the estimated cost will be for the years ending the 31st March, 1904, and the 31st March, 1905.

The cost of supervising sugar refineries is borne by the Crown, but refiners are required to bear the overtime expenses of officers who attend, at their request, to control deliveries of sugar, etc., either before 6 a.m. or after 6 p.m. The estimated cost of supervision for the period from the 1st September last (when the refineries were placed under bond) till the 31st instant is £9,000, and for the year ending 31st March, 1905, £16,020.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is compulsory for companies and others, who deduct income-tax from payments made by them, to furnish in all cases the certificate of deduction which the Income-Tax Commissioners require to be produced by persons claiming abatements; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of making such certificates obligatory whenever the person from whose income the tax has been deducted desires to obtain such a certificate.

There is no statutory obligation on companies or others to furnish certificates of deduction of income-tax; and if it were common to refuse such certificates, or to put taxpayers to expense in obtaining them, it would, I think, be necessary to impose such obligation by law. But the Board of Inland Revenue doubt whether in practice there is much need for legislation in that sense. Most companies issue with their dividend warrants a counterfoil containing a certificate of deduction of income-tax; and where a certificate is wanting its absence can very often be supplied by other evidence which the Commissioners will accept as establishing the fact of deduction of income-tax.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of Mr. R. Smellie, at the Miners' Conference on Friday, the 11th instant, that in Lanarkshire there were over 2,000 foreign workmen employed, who were brought into this country, and not being able to speak a word of the language, and never having seen a coal mine before a safety lamp was put in their hands, were sent to work in fiery mines; if these men are sent to a work in groups in contravention of General Rule 39; and whether he will take steps to prevent the introduction of these unskilled men into the mines in view of the danger to the lives of the miners.

I can only repeat what I have said in answer to a Question on the same subject on the 19th of last month,† and to previous Questions, that, after careful inquiry on several occasions, no evidence has been forthcoming to show that these foreigners are a cause of danger to the other

† See (4) Debates, cxxx., 446.

miners employed in the same mines. No complaint has reached me that men are being employed in contravention of General Rule 39, but I will make inquiry of the Mines Inspectors on the point.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the steamers carrying the mails have ceased to call at Abriachan Pier on Loch Ness; and whether, in view of the effect of this upon the postal arrangements in that district, he proposes to take any, and, if so, what, steps in the matter.

I understand that Abriachan Pier on Loch Ness can no longer be used with safety, and the steamer by which the mails for Abriachan have hitherto been conveyed has therefore ceased to call. Under these circumstances, it has been necessary to send the mails by postmen instead of by steamer, with the result that while the delivery at Abriachan is made earlier, the outward service is not so good as before. Until the pier is repaired, I am sorry there will be no alternative but to continue the present arrangement.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, having regard to the fact that sanction has been given to the scheme of the London County Council, he will now sanction the schemes proposed under Section 17 of the Education Act of 1902 by the municipalities of Swansea, Cardiff, and Newport.

No, Sir. The local authorities of Swansea, Cardiff, and Newport desire to confine the membership of their Education Committees (except as regards two women in each case) strictly to their respective councils, and the Board of Education have raised no objection to this arrangement. The Board have, however, asked the councils to retain the power of co-opting two or three persons in case at some future time they should be of opinion that without such co-option they would be unable to provide from their own body persons of experience in education and persons acquainted with the needs of the schools in their areas. It is obvious that the conditions of London are essentially different from those of the municipalities in question.

May I ask whether the provision insisted on is or is not in the London scheme?

We have not thought it necessary to ask the County Council of London to retain this limited power of co-option, as the case in which it is necessary is not likely to arise.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a summons was issued by order of the Registrar of Deaths against the Deputy Coroner of Belfast, and listed for hearing on 23rd February last, it was then adjourned till the 8th of the present month, when it was finally withdrawn; and, if so, whether he can state under what circumstances the summons was issued and for what reason, and by whoso authority it was withdrawn; and if he has any objection to laying upon the Table the correspondence between the registrar and coroner in this case.

In this case the inquest was held on the 30th January, and the certificate of the finding of the coroner's jury should have been sent forward to the local registrar at latest on the 4th February. It was not, however, sent until the 6th February. The Registrar-General directed a summons to be issued under the 29th Section of the 43 & 44, Cap. 13, against the Deputy-Coroner, who was absent through illness. The Deputy explained that the omission was due to his absence in Loudon where he had been required to give important evidence at a Home Office Inquiry respecting regulations for docks. He undertook to be more careful in future, and the prosecution was, at the suggestion of the Under-Secretary, dropped.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to laying the correspondence on the Table.

It is too trifling.

Was not the objection in regard to this trifling matter made by a professional colleague?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the request of the Kiladysert District Council that the Kiladysert Creek should be improved and rendered navigable; and whether, as this matter has been pressed on the attention of the Government many times, he will see that something practical is now done to meet the difficulty complained of.

The Department, to which I undertook to refer this proposal, will consider the question of making a contribution towards the cost of the works of improvement if the county council will instruct the county surveyor to prepare rough plans and estimates.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that several appeals have been lodged by tenants with the Head Land Commission for close on two years in connection with judicial rents fixed by the Sub-Land Commission on the Dunsandle Estate, near Loughrea; and whether he will explain the circumstances which made such a delay possible.

There are thirteen appeals pending from this estate, of which eleven wore lodged twelve months age and the remaining two recently. A sitting for the hearing of appeals will be held at Galway on the 31st May.

Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that in future general arrangements will be made for expediting the hearing of these appeals all over Ireland.

I believe that everything possible is being done.

You have said that over and over again.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any legislation in regard to the Charitable Loan Fund Societies (Ireland); and, if so, when.

I am prepared to introduce the Bill of last session provided I receive an assurance that it will be treated as a non-contentious measure.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are stationed outside the house in which the Lismore branch of the United Irish League holds its meetings during the time such meetings are proceeding; and, if so, will he state by whose direction this is done and for what purpose; and whether he will direct that this practice should be discontinued in view of the peacefulness of the district.

The police on duty in the vicinity of the house at which these meetings are held is the ordinary street patrol sent out to enforce the licensing laws.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this practice is continually going on?

No, Sir.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the practice of the police, when patrolling the streets, to station themselves close to where these meetings are being held?

My information is that the police are not stationed against a particular house.

They actually take the names of persons attending these meetings.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the limited mail delivery of letters at Longford Station at 9.13 a.m. and 5.5 p.m. is usually a heavy mail; and that the hand-cart on which the postmen are invited to drag the bags to the station is over 6 cwt. in weight; and, if so, whether he will direct that these two mail deliveries be included in the new contract just entered into.

The average weight of the mails at 9.13 a.m. is about 84 lbs., and at 5.5 p.m. about 56 lbs., while the hand-cart weighs 3 cwt. Under these circumstances I do not consider that it is necessary to convey these mails by horse and car.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I have given private notice, viz., whether his attention has been tailed to the statement of Chief Baron Pallas at the Cork Assizes on an occasion when jurors were ordered to stand aside, to the effect that they could go home for the rest of the Assizes, as it was of no use keeping them there when they were never allowed by the Crown to serve, and whether, after that protest by so eminent a Judge, the unconstitutional practice of ordering Nationalist jurors to stand aside by the Crown for political reasons will be discontinued.

replied that he did not think the words of the Judge could be correctly described as a protest. In any case, he had no announcement to make on the exercise by the Crown of the right of ordering jurors to stand aside.

Would not the national festival of St. Patrick be a convenient opportunity for discontinuing the practice?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to carry out the recommendation of the Steamship Subsidies Committee, that a subsidy for establishing direct British communication with East Africa should be favourably considered, in view of special Imperial considerations and the handicapping of British trade in that quarter by foreign subsidised steamship lines.

In principle the Government approve the policy of aiding further means of steamship communication with East Africa. We propose to appoint a Departmental Committee to consider the details of the question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the Out-Door Relief (Friendly Societies) Bill now on the Paper; and whether, in the event of the progress of the Bill being impeded, he will later on in the session give facilities for its various stages.

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers may I ask whether the blocking has not arisen from the action of the hon. Member in appropriating another Member's Bill against the general practice on both sides.

I do not feel at all qualified to enter into any con troversy which may have arisen as between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. friend, or as to the patent right which may exist in regard to their measures; but with regard to the Bill in itself and on its merits, the President of the Local Government Board has already in a previous session explicitly announced an approval of the measure. It passed last session, I believe after midnight, without opposition, and I do not see any reason why it should have a more troubled course in the present session. I can hardly be expected to answer the last part of the Question, though I would remind my hon. I friend of the difficulties—I have often had i occasion to point them out to the House—of giving special privileges to private Bills.

Will I the Government be prepared to introduce the Bill into the House of Lords as a Government measure, as that is the only chance it can have of passing.

I have no right to speak for what the House of Lords is likely to do with this or any other measure, but I should have thought that if it passed in this House it might have a happier fate than last year.

It has been twice thrown out by the House of Lords.

The Bill might have as much chance of being thrown out if introduced there as if introduced here.

Not if it were a Government measure.

I beg to; ask the First Lord of the Treasury has any decision been arrived at by His Majesty's Government for giving the House an opportunity to discuss the advisability of giving effect to the recommendation of the Committee on National Expenditure, that an Estimates Committee should be appointed each session for examination of and report upon one Class of the Estimates; and has the form of a Motion on which such a discussion may take place been now considered and decided.

I am afraid I have no satisfactory answer to give to my hon. friend. I hoped to have some conversation with the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the subject, and entirely through my own fault no opportunity has yet arisen.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that this Committee was appointed on his own initiative to provide machinery, supplementary and complementary, to his own Supply Rule and the new Rules of Procedure.

The hon. Gentleman is now entering into argument.

With great respect, Sir, I claim to finish by asking whether, having regard to the fact I have stated, the right hon. Gentleman will assign some day before which he may possibly find some opportunity of consulting with the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

I have no reason to believe that any opportunity for conversation such as the right hon. Gentleman could give me will be postponed to a late date. I must take exception to the argument which appeared to underlie the statements of the hon. Member, that we are specially bound to spare a day for the discussion of the Report of this Committee because of our initiation. If the Government acceded to the request to investigate, this does not lay upon us any special responsibility to find time to discuss the Report of the Committee. I believe I am not wrong in saying that the recommendations which my hon. friend is so anxious to discuss were carried in the Committee itself by a single Vote.

Will my right hon. friend endeavour to secure an opportunity for the consultation with the right hon. Gentleman after Questions; this afternoon"

I must say my hon. friend is trespassing on the individual liberties of both sides of the House when he endeavours to prescribe to us the precise hour at which we should come into consultation.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the difficulties which are attending the enforcement of the education rate in England; whether any such difficulties have ever been experienced in Scotland; and, if not, whether the Government will now take steps to assimilate the law in England to the law in Scotland.

As one of the chief objections felt by Nonconformists to the English Bill of 1902 arose out of the fact that, in their opinion, the rates are devoted to teaching denominational religion, and as that is the habitual practice in Scotland——

Public control.

That is a second objection. The first objection is that the rates are used to give denominational teaching. That is the Scottish system, which is objected to in England, and therefore I presume no peace would be attained by introducing the Scottish system into this country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the Nonconformists an opportunity of considering the question and think the matter over for himself?

Under the Scottish system is education not entirely under public control?

Yes, there are a great many differences between the Scottish and English systems. But I was making allusion to one difference which is relevant to the Question of the hon. Member, not to other differences which are irrelevant.

Is it not the fact that the objection of Nonconformists is to paying for the cost of education not under public control?

I understand that is an objection.

Is it not the main objection?

Well, I think it is not the main objection. The hon. Member has told us so. He is a passive resister. The reason that passive resistance is popular among the hon. Gentleman's friends is that they have a conscientions objection to the teaching of denominational religion with which they disagree.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman again whether it is not the fact that Nonconformists object to paying rates because there is not complete public control.

That may be the only objection of the hon. Gentleman, and in that case he is willing to support any plan for allowing the ratepayers of the country to teach denominational religion in board schools; but in that he is not in harmony with the great body of Nonconformist opinion.

rose again.

Order, order! I cannot allow an education debate.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the proportion of the expense of Parliamentary elections which is incurred through the charges of returning officers and their assistants; and whether with the view of facilitating the return of manual labourers and other persons of moderate means to serve in this House, the Government will, before the ensuing general election, take steps to place these charges on public funds.

The Government do not propose to deal with any subject connected with our electoral system during the course of the present Parliament, but I do not answer as to what we may decide to do in the next two or three years.

May I ask whether that answer includes the question of redistribution?

Is the decision due to want of time before the general election?

I do not know to what want of time the hon. Gentleman alludes.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of recent events, whether he is prepared to view favourably the House reverting to its former convenient hour of meeting, and the abolition of the dinner interval.

There are, of course, objections to any conceivable plan of allotting Parliamentary time; but if my hon. friend will cast his mind back to the objection felt to the old system he will agree, I think, that the new system, whatever may be the objections to it, is far preferable. I do not mean to go further than to say that we ought to have an important block of time for the discussion of public affairs in the afternoon, an interval for dinner, and afterwards the opportunity for further debate on new Motions. I do not believe the House will ever abandon that system, whether we meet a little earlier or later.

On behalf of the hon. and learned Member for South Leeds I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has any official information showing that the Russian cruiser "Dimitri Danskoi" has been making use of Suez as a naval base for belligerent operations, and that, after repairing and fitting out at that port, notwithstanding the protests of the authorities, she is now engaged in stopping and searching British and other steamers in the Mediterranean; and, if so, does he propose to take any steps to stop these or similar operations in future.

I quite admit the great importance of the Question put to me, but I must be allowed time to collect the facts to enable me to give a complete answer.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will afford a day for bringing forward the Motion in regard to the Labour Ordinance for the Transvaal.

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes a vote of censure on His Majesty's Government in connection with the course adopted in regard to yellow labour in the Transvaal. I will not too closely inquire whether I might not plead against that the fact that there have been, a few weeks ago, two days spent in discussing a Vote of censure in relation to this subject, but as we are as desirous as the right hon. Gentleman can be to bring this matter to an issue, and as we think we have nothing to gain by delaying an exposition of the reasons which have induced us to adopt the policy we have pursued, I shall ask the House to take advantage of the very first opportunity it is in the power of the Government to give and to take the Motion upon next Monday.

May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to undertake that the Proclamation which will make the Ordinance operative shall not be permitted to issue until the discussion has taken place.

I think the House will agree with me that we ought not to enter on business this afternoon without making some reference to the melancholy event that occurred this morning—the death of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge. The Duke, of Cambridge was not merely a distinguished member of the Royal Family; he was not merely the oldest member of the Royal Family in this country, a con temporary of our late Queen; but he was a man who devoted by far the larger portion, I may say the whole portion, of his active life to the earnest service of this country. He served his country in the field, he served his country in the high office of Commander-in-Chief; and, though I suppose it would be too much to hope that at any time of our political history questions connected with the War Office should be outside the pale of controversy, there is one thing in which every man will agree—namely, that the Duke of Cambridge devoted to this great office his whole time, his whole energy, his whole strength, and that he was intimately and profoundly acquainted with every question that affected the British Army, and that throughout his whole career he possessed the confidence of both officers and men. I am sure the House will feel with me that a great figure has disappeared from among us, and that not merely of a member of the Royal Family, but of a zealous and devoted servant of the State, and that it would not be fitting that we should pass the melancholy occasion by with out some expression, even though that expression be informal in character, of our sorrow for the event and of our deep sympathy with the illustrious family of which he was a member.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has taken a course which will meet the feeling of every Member of the House. I have nothing to add to what the First Lord of the Treasury has said of the Duke of Cambridge. It so happens that I perhaps have had a longer relationship with him in the administration of public affairs than almost any other Member of the House; and therefore I can bear testimony to the fact that the picture which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn has not been too highly coloured. The Duke of Cambridge was devoted, with an intensity of devotion beyond description, to the Army of which he was the Commander-in-Chief for many years. I may, perhaps, refer to the fact that it was while I was Secretary of State that he came to the conclusion that he ought to relinquish the high position he held. I can bear witness to the extreme reluctance and almost anguish which he felt in severing that connection, and, at the same time, to his loyal acceptance of the necessity of its being severed, as he felt advancing years telling upon him. I feel sure that during the few years that have passed since he retired from active life he has enjoyed the recollection of all the years of close association with the Army in which his life had been passed. Sir, the Duke of Cambridge was not only a conspicuous figure in the public life and society of this country, but he was the true friend of all his friends. He had a personal charm which drew to him every one with whom he came in contact, and both in that sense —in the sense of the personal feeling of affection which he created in all who knew him—and also as a notable and loyal, faithful and energetic public servant, he deserves, I think, all the eulogy which the right hon. Gentleman has passed upon him. I would associate myself, and those on this side of the House, with the expression which he has given to our regret and to our sympathy with the Royal house in the loss it has sustained.

said that they had discussed the Army Estimates in Committee under somewhat difficult circumstances; but at any rate they had tried to enforce on the Government that there must be a considerable reduction in the expenditure on the Army in the near future. That reduction might be secured by the abolition of the linked battalion system and the abominable Army Corps scheme—leaving the defence of the country more to the Auxiliary Forces. He was willing to take any pledge from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War that he would reduce the number of men during the current year. He hoped that the new system about to be introduced at the War Office would include economy as well as efficiency. To a certain extent the recommendations of the Reconstitution Committee had been accepted by the Secretary of State for War as representing the Government; but on all the points accepted there was not any sign of economy, which was an absolute necessity, as was patent to everybody. It was a self-evident fact that we could not go on spending the enormous sums we now were. He knew that the Secretary of State for War agreed on this point with the Army reformers with whom he had worked so long and whose opinions he still shared, that the linked battalion system and the Army Corps should be done away with, so as to get a cheaper as well as a more efficient Army than we had at the present moment. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had great difficulty in actually carrying out his ideas in consequence of the opposition of some Gentlemen who sat on the same Bench with him; but what was wanted was a pledge from the right hon. Gentleman that he would get the upper hand in this controversy and that he would do his best to carry out economic reforms. He did not wish to press any such largo reduction as he had put down on the Paper; and would be content with a reduction of 5,000 men. Not only was the good of the country at stake in this economy, but the interests of the Army itself and its popularity. He knew that some reduction had already been made on the present Estimates, but in his opinion these were not as large as they might have been, and something more should be done in the interests of economy. Moreover, that reduction was not real; because expenditure would speedily jump up by leaps and bounds in consequence of the necessary alterations in the armament of the Artillery. He moved the reduction of the number of men by 5,000.

said he did not propose to follow the particular line of reasoning on which the hon. Member for the Lichfield Division had embarked. He rather desired to draw attention to the more general question and elicit from from the Secretary of State for War a definite statement as to the attitude the Government were going to take up in regard to the scheme drawn up by the War Office Reconstitution Committee.

said it would not be in order for the hon. Member to deal with that question now. The only question before the House was the question of men.

submitted on a point of order that some portions of the Report bore so closely on the number of men that it could hardly be excluded.

said if the hon. Member dealt with the number of men he would be in order, but what he proposed to do was to call on the Government for a general statement of the attitude they intended to take up.

pointed out that one of the particular parts of the Report which bore closely on the number of men was that which stated that the linked battalion system must be got rid of.

On that point I will not stop the hon. Member.

said the question of the linked battalion system bore a very close relation to the question before the House, and the question was also, as he conceived, connected with the question of the reorganisation of the Army, because it bore upon the composition of the Army Corps and the relation of the Army Corps to the War Office. There were, in fact, so many parts of the Report that definitely related to the Vote before the House that there would be no difficulty in keeping within the terms of Mr. Speaker's ruling. When this subject was discussed before on Vote A some statements were made by the Secretary of State for War, who, amongst other things, told the House that with the Report of the Committee he had the greatest sympathy and that, although he could not pledge himself to any particular line of action, that portion of the Report had his entire sympathy, and he hoped the recommendations would be adopted en bloc. Circumstances had happened since then which had made those deeply interested in this matter very anxious, and he pressed the right hon. Gentleman to state what had been done and what he was doing in respect of this question. It would be a great thing for the House if the right hon. Gentleman could allay the natural anxiety which was being felt by the House as to the degree of energy which the Government were putting into this portion of the Report, by stating what had been done already and what it was intended to do in the future to carry out these recommendations. The Report which had been drawn up had received the support of a consensus of the best military opinion. It was an open secret that the general provisions and principles laid down in that Report embodied not only the best military opinion, but also the best civilian opinion, on this subject, which in many respects brought a rather wider criticism to bear on these military questions. Nobody suggested that any blame rested on the Government because they were asked to modify their previous scheme. All that was asked was whether in the face of the knowledge acquired through the War Office Commission the Government were going to modify their scheme. All the suggestions made by the Commission were intended to hang together, and the Government had shown their earnestness in the reforms by creating the Army Council, and abolishing the office of Commander-in-Chief, but if, having gone so far, the Government were going to turn away from the other recommendations, then the whole thing fell to the ground. The scheme was a coherent scheme and intended to hang together, and it was impossible if it was intended to be of any benefit to the Army that some portion of the scheme should be picked out, without other portions of it being applied. The country appreciated the fact that there was great necessity for a drastic change in the Army schemes of Army reorganisation, and, from the point of view of the Government and the Party, he could imagine nothing that would have a worse effect than that an idea should get abroad that the Government, having accepted one portion of the scheme, should falter and show some trepidation and some tendency to turn their backs on the rest of the scheme, which it was absolutely necessary to carry out as a whole if it were to benefit our Army. There was a large body of opinion, both in and outside the House, which was determined to thrust, as far as possible, on the Government the principle of this scheme. That body of opinion was not confined to one section of the House alone. Various sections had united to press this demand on the Government. All that body of opinion was centred on the adoption of the recommendations of this Report, and if the right hon. Gentleman, who had been very kindly dealt with on the presentation because of the feeling that the right hon. Gentleman himself was fully in favour of the Estimates, was pressed now it was because of the feeling that the right hon. Gentleman himself was fully in favour of these reforms. He wished if possible to strengthen the hands of the right hon. Gentleman in the Government, in order that he might be able to do what he thought right. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would state clearly and explicitly what had been done since they last discussed this subject, and what definite hopes he could hold out to them for the future that he was going to lay broad and strong the foundations of reform in the Army on the principles set forth so clearly in the Report.

said all were agreed that the country ought to be properly insured for defence. If it was necessary to keep 75,000 men in India then a like number of men must be retained in this country to maintain them. These men must be grouped in Battalions or in Depots. His own belief was that the present system of Battalions was the cheapest by which a force could be maintained abroad, and a sufficient Regular force maintained at home. The Militia, was the stand-by of the country; but if it were to be equal to a foreign army it would cost more than the troops in England at present. His opinion was that the Militia and Volunteers were the great potential Reserve of the country; and that the present system could not be much improved, except as to recruiting. It succeeded thoroughly during the South African war in sending out men and stores. He believed that the failures in the early part of that war were caused, as the Prime Minister stated, because they under-rated their enemy; but he did not agree with his right hon. friend as to what precisely they did under-rate. It was not a question merely of underrating the Boers as armed civilians; it was that this country did not appreciate the extraordinary effect produced by the rifle with its magazine and smokeless power, which led one to believe that there were twenty men where there was only one and enabled the man who fired not to be seen, and to the mobility the Boers derived from their ponies which enabled them to anticipate turning movements. When the British troops got out to a country of long horizons they found themselves exposed to a new phase of war; That was the origin of the failures in the early part of the war; and the House might depend on it that history would yet show that the sweeping condemnation of the Army in this country was a mistake. The same thing had happened before. In 1866 the Austrians did not appreciate the effect of the breech-loader in war, and the result was that they were wiped out in seven weeks. Yet, as allies of Russia, they had seen the weapon in 1864. The only country in which that effect was appreciated was England. Without depreciating the effects which had been produced by the late war, he hoped that the lessons learned would be applied to the Navy as well as to the Army. When a fleet possessed some chemical or mechanical appliance which its adversary had not it might be in a position of great superiority. They ought to be most careful in watching the Fleet in order that it might be free from the difficulties which confronted the Army at the beginning of the late war. He would sincerely and respectfully urge on the Government not to commit themselves to any change in the strength of the Regular Forces without very careful consideration.

said that the hon. Member for South Manchester began his speech by stating that the War Office scheme was one and indivisible and he concluded by pointing out to the Secretary of State for War that his Party was sub-divided into at least three sections on the subject. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken devoted his remarks to showing that the hon. Member for South Manchester was entirely wrong. It was not for him to reconcile such divergent opinions or to bring them together. But it was a noticeable sign of the times that the Government were reduced to threatening to drive the Secretary of State for War out of political existence, if he was not prepared to accept unconditionally the Report of the Reconstitution Committee. The Secretary of State for War, speaking in the City on the preceding day, said that he had to speak for seven days in the House of Commons, with the result that he was only able to devote two hours to his office work. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended that as a remonstrance against the principle of discussing the Estimates, but it was clear that all the office work for eight or ten months led up to the discussion in this House, and the more complete that discussion was, the more satisfactory it should be to the Secretary of State. He entirely deprecated the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman. The Army Estimates now amounted to £30,000,000 sterling, and they ought to be overhauled every few years from top to bottom and ransacked in order to see where economies could be effected. There was a third part to the Report of the Reconstitution Committee. It had been printed and was in the possession of the Secretary of State for War and other War Office officials. That part was germane, almost vital, to the discussion of the whole scheme, and the House of Commons should be given an opportunity of discussing it. It was quite improper to hang up such an important part of the Report and not submit it to the House of Commons, whose financial sanction was necessary for the carrying out of the whole scheme. The Secretary for State said that so unscientific and inadequate had been the system, that, if the Defence Committee sat day in and day out for six months, it would not be able to make up the leeway. But to what was that leeway due? The Party opposite had been in power for ten years, and during that period one scheme after another was thrown at their heads. The right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors in office were responsible for the affairs of the War Office.

That hardly bears on the question of the number of men. The administration of the War Office will arise on another Vote.

said he would not pursue the theme any further. He would take up the point laid down by the right hon. Gentleman that they had never considered whether the Army as now constituted was competent to do the work the nation required of it. That affected the number of men. The hon. Gentleman moved the reduction of the Vote by 5,000 men. Had he moved to reduce it by 10,000 men he would still have been justified, and if that Motion were carried greater economy would ensue and the Army would be equally efficient. As to Reserves, there were on the Vote 70,000, or nominally about 10,000 less than before the war, but in reality the number was much smaller. The large Militia Reserve which existed before the war, but which had now entirely disappeared, made the total Reserves, not 80,000, but 115,000, so that the Reserves, the cheapest and most efficient part of the Home Army, had dwindled by about 45,000 men. Under the scheme of the late Secretary of State the Reserves were to have been increased and with the continuance of the three years' service the number would eventually have been obtained and that would have made up for the disappearance of the Militia Reserve. But the short service system was to be discontinued, and the Reserves would drop again to about 70,000. The right hon. Gentleman held the theory that the Reserves could never be put into the first fighting line.

was understood to say that he had never made so positive a statement as that.

said the theory of the Continental armies was that when the troops were mobilised the recruits who had had only nine or twelve months service should be left at the depot, their place being taken by the older soldiers who had been called up from the Reserve. He understood the Secretary of State's view to be that the Reserve was an addition to the existing battalions of the line and not a substitute for the younger trained soldiers of the line battalions. That was a very important distinction, and one upon which the composition of the Army at the outbreak of hostilities would largely depend. The House was entitled to a clear and definite statement of the official views of the Government as to the future composition of the Reserve. In South Africa the Reserve, though looked upon at first with suspicion, proved to be the backbone of the force as long as it lasted, but the Artillery and Cavalry Reserve gave out very early in the campaign. The most difficult forces to create were the Cavalry and Artillery, and he desired to know what steps were being taken to increase the Reserves of both those forces. His last point was with reference to the garrison battalions which, originally numbering eight, had been reduced to five, of which four were stationed in South Africa. These were exceedingly expensive battalions to maintain, costing about £20,000 per battalion more than any other Infantry, and requiring a great deal of transport in consequence of the short service. The provision of men available for these battalions had evidently not come up to the expectations of the War Office, and he desired to know whether these men, who came back to the colours comparatively late in life, and who were not fit for much else than garrison purposes, were to be continued as an integral part of the Army system. He hoped they were not, as the battalions were not only exceedingly difficult to recruit, but they passed no men to the Reserve.

said that as this Vote was the only one upon which any reduction could be effected it ought not to be allowed to pass until the House knew exactly where the Government stood. Moreover, if the present opportunity were allowed to pass without the intentions of the Government being ascertained, it would be impossible to do anything in the matter for another year. Since this Vote was discussed last year there had been an increase in certain troops to which he could not do more than allude, because although they were in relief of this Vote they were paid out of Civil Service Estimates. There were 21,000 troops apart from the military police maintained at a cost of £2,250,000 a year, who were not under the control of he War Office at all, but whose services used to be performed by troops charged on this Vote. Therefore these 21,000 troops had to be added to the numbers on the Vote under discussion and their cost to the money on the next Vote to ascertain the actual expenditure on the Army at home. Altogether it would be found that the Army cost a much larger sum than the Fleet. The Indian Army was an essential part of the Army, and if the Naval, Indian, and Colonial expenditure were added to the expenditure under this Vote, and to the military expenditure on the Civil Service Estimates, the total would amount to the gigantic sum of £97,000,000 for the coming year, including the Military Works expenditure for the present and not for the coming financial year, the amount of which was not yet known. The land forces of the Crown were infinitely more costly than the naval forces, and this was the only Vote on which a reduction could be discussed or any prospect obtained, even for next year, of a substantial reduction of military expenditure. The Government were in a most peculiar position on this question. It was not the slightest use barking or growling at the Secretary of State; he was the wrong man; it was the Government as a Government who were pledged on this question, and they were committed in the most extraordinary fashion. In 1901 they proposed, and after debate carried, a Resolution in favour of the existing military system of which they were now understood entirely to disapprove; they had, in fact, come round to the views of those who criticised and voted against that Resolution. And yet the men the House was now asked to vote were the men required for that condemned system. The Resolution carried in 1901 was as follows—

"That it is expedient that six Army Corps be organised in the United Kingdom with the requisite staff and buildings."

He could not on this Vote discuss the question of the buildings. It was understood that the Secretary of State approved of the War Office Report in which the Army Corps system was condemned, and a new system substituted, but the House had not yet been able to obtain from the Government a clear and definite statement of their position on: the matter. Without going in detail into what had been said on previous occasions, the situation was this: — The late Secretary for War laid the six Army Corps scheme before the House and stated that it had the approval of the Commander-in-Chief. At the time he ventured to express the opinion that it was not Lord Roberts' scheme, but that it was the scheme of the then Secretary of State for War. They now knew that that statement was quite true, for they had seen by the evidence given before the War Commission by Lord Roberts that he only gave his assent to a scheme which he had not seen in detail. They knew now that it was the scheme of the Secretary of State for India. That scheme had since been condemned and a new one had been "assumed," under which it was stated they would be able to reduce the number of men. The Committee said that they "assumed" that the linked battalion system would disappear and the result would be a large reduction on this Vote. The Secretary of State for War had stated that he would make an announcement during the session, and added that he had not changed his view. Undoubtedly they saw a change in the attitude of the Government, but from past experience they had reason to be profoundly suspicious, and they had had no further explanation except from the Secretary of State for War as to the precise attitude the Government were going to take up. He implored the House not to part with this Vote until they had received something like a definite pledge from the Government that they really meant to reduce the number of troops in the Army at home. Last year it was the opinion of the Government that the Army Corps system was expedient, but it was the opinion of the Government now that it was not expedient. Only the Secretary of State for War appeared to have got a definite view upon this question, and Lord Lansdowne maintained the opposite view. Surely they ought not to part with this Vote until they had something more definite than the pledges made by the Secretary of State for War, who did not sufficiently represent the collective opinion of the Cabinet.