To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether reports are periodically made to the Admiralty by the coastguards as to the erosion of the sea cliffs around the British coast, and as to the removal of shingle and other material from the beaches; and whether any, and if any what, action is taken upon such reports. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The coastguard officers report to the Association for the Advancement of Science observations of coast changes; and to the Board of Trade the removal of shingle and other material from the beaches; but no periodical reports are made as to erosion of sea cliffs around the British coast.

To ask the Postmaster-General if he can give the names and populations of the towns in the county of Derby which are classed as head post offices, excluding the county borough of Derby; and state how many of these towns exceed in population the borough of Ilkeston, which is classed as a railway sub-office. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Some towns with head offices in Derbyshire and many elsewhere have a smaller population than Ilkeston; but this is not a reason for giving Ilkeston a head office, since the population of a town is not the principal consideration in determining whether a head post office should be placed there. I do not think, therefore, that any useful purpose would be served by giving the detailed information for which the hon. Member asks.

To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the regulations providing for a speed limit of ten miles per hour for motor-cars proceeding through the London parks have been ratified by Parliament; and, if so, whether he will issue instructions (the limit of speed outside the parks being twenty miles per hour) to warn drivers by means of a large placard or danger signal to slow down to the regulation speed on entering the parks. (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The Answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative; the rules under which the regulation limiting the speed of cars to ten miles per hour is made having been duly laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament. A notice has been posted at the entrances to the parks warning motorists of the limit of speed.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the Wolseley Estate, Cloneygowan, King's County, offered to purchase their holdings at nineteen years purchase for first-term and non-judicial rents, and twenty-one and a-half years purchase for second-term rents; that this offer was accepted at the sale of the estate in the Land Judge's Court on the 27th of October last; and that when about to sign the final agreements some of the tenants were called upon to agree to terms in excess of the Land Judge's Court's decision by from one year's to two years purchase; and, if so, whether he will take steps to secure that the decision of the Court shall be binding on the vendors. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Land Judge, when approving of the sale to the tenants, directed that certain sums should be paid by them in respect of arrears of rent, and indicated that application should be made to the Land Commission to increase the advances accordingly. The Land Commission are prepared to increase the advances to the required, extent if the tenants make the necessary application.

To ask the Financial Secretary to-the War Office what sum of the £325,000 devoted to rifles and bayonets in the Estimates it is proposed to expend at the Enfield Factory; and why is the Estimate for rifles and bayonets £6,000 in excess of the amount spent last year, when so many men have received notice of discharge at Enfield and Sparkbrook. (Answered by Mr. Bromley Davenport.) The amount available for rifles and bayonets next year is £443,000, as compared with £606,000 for the current year. In both years additions to the amounts shown in Estimates have to be made for orders from India, the Navy, and the Colonies. It is not possible to state at present what orders will be allocated to Enfield.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state on what basis was the land tax fixed on agricultural land in 1798, and what amount it was calculated to bring in per acre to the revenue then; how much land tax has been redeemed since that time, in what sum has the National Debt or other Government stock been reduced thereby, and what does this redemption money represent as paid per acre for the agricultural land redeemed; what amount does the land tax bring in now; and what does this represent per acre of unredeemed agricultural land. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) For the year 1798 the sum of £2,037,627 was directed to be raised by a land tax to be charged upon (1) Personal estate; (2) Salaries of public officers, etc.,and (3) Houses, lands, and all other hereditaments. The total amount obtained from houses, lands, and other hereditaments for that year was £1,905,077. The amount of land tax payable by each parish or place for the year 1798 in respect of houses, lands, and other hereditaments therein, became fixed by the Act of that year as the amount to be paid by such parish or place annually in perpetuity in respect of the houses, lands, and other hereditaments therein (which were directed to be assessed by a pound rate), subject, however, to redemption. The total amount redeemed up to the 31st March, 1904, was £934,523; and resulting from such redemption the National Debt has been reduced by about £33,000,000. The amount unredeemed is £970,554; but, under the provisions of the Finance Acts of 1896 and 1898, about £230,000 thereof is remitted annually, so that the amount brought in by this tax is now about £740,000. It is not possible to give any details of the amounts charged or redeemed in respect of agricultural land alone, as the tax is not confined to agricultural land, but is charged upon all hereditaments, and contributed by each parish as a whole.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a meeting of the Congested Districts Board, under, the chairmanship of Sir Antony MacDonnell and including the Roman Catholic Bishop of Raphoe and the Rev. Denis O'Hara and five other gentlemen, was held at the Irish Office, London, on the 15th instant; whether, seeing that every one of the gentlemen present is ordinarily resident in Ireland, he will say for what reason or to suit whose convenience was this meeting held in London; and what is the extra cost involved thereby. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It has been the Board's practice for many years to hold in London the meeting at which their annual estimates are discussed and prepared, the object being that the Chief Secretary may be able to preside without interruption to his Parliamentary duties. I was unavoidably prevented from attending the recent meeting. The extra cost involved was about £50.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Belmullet District Council have repeatedly impressed on the Local Government Board the necessity of supplying seed oats in that union; and whether, in view of the almost total failure of the crop in Belmullet Union last year, he will urge the Local Government Board to reconsider their decision with a view to granting the request of the Belmullet Council. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Two resolutions of the Belmullet guardians to the effect mentioned have been received by the Local Government Board. The Board are satisfied that no necessity exists for including seed oats in the seed supply operations of this year.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will take into consideration the resolution recently passed by the Belmullet District Council asking that the repayment of the cost of seed potatoes issued this year may be collected in four instalments instead of two as formerly. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The two instalments of the seed supply loan in this case will not be collected until after 1st April, 1906, and 1st April, 1907 respectively. Inasmuch as the rates to be struck in each year are collectable in two moieties, the repayment for the seed will practically be made in four instalments.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the grounds on which Mr. Michael Munnelly and Michael Gaughan were relieved of their positions as local supervisors of the parish committee works under the Congested Districts Board in the parishes of Belmullet and Binghamstown, county Mayo; and why their work was transferred to an official already in the Board's service. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The persons named were not relieved of their positions as supervisors. The Board objected to their appointment as such in the first instance, in the case of Mr. Munnelly because he was a district councillor and therefore ineligible, and in the case of Mr. Gaughan because an officer of the Board was available for the work. Mr. Munnelly has since resigned his district councillorship, and both he and Mr. Gaughan have been appointed supervisors.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state any reason why Mr. Michael Munnelly, rural district councillor, of Carramore, Bangor, Erris (Belmullet Union), has been refused a licence to carry a gun. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The question of the issue of an arms licence is one for the consideration of the resident magistrate, who is the licensing officer of the district. It would be contrary to the invariable practice to state the reasons which actuated the licensing officer in declining, in the exercise of his discretion, to grant a licence in any particular case.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can see his way to putting the military road between Winchelsea and Rye in proper repair and handing it over to the local authority so as to get rid of the tollgate, which is a hindrance to trade and communication between the two towns. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The whole question is at present under consideration.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Return relating to systems of graduated and differentiated income-tax in British Colonies, ordered on 11th August, 1904, will be presented before the Budget discussions begin; and whether this Return can be published simultaneously with the similar information relating to foreign countries which the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs undertook, on 10th August, 1904, that the Foreign Office would endeavour to obtain. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) Replies to the circular despatch asking for these Returns have been received from some of the Colonies, but several of the more important, including Canada, New Zealand, and some of the Australian States, have not yet answered. I am consequently unable to say when these Returns will be ready, but I am telegraphing to ask that they may be sent to me as soon as possible. I fear that there is no probability of their reaching me in time to be published with the Foreign Office Returns

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the cost of the infantry soldier quartered in England in the items of pay, clothing, rifles, accoutrements, ammunition, and rifle ranges; and also the total additional cost per man of barracks, rations, barrack services, churches, schools, workshops, medical attendance, married quarter, and all establishments necessitated by our present system.

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the Questions addressed to the War Department to-day. The pay, clothing, arms, and accoutrements for an infantry soldier at home represent a money value of £40 3s. The other items referred to in the Question amount to about £28. No separate figures are available for infantry as regards this part of the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to certain statements made by the Comptroller - General in regard to the 1st Regiment of Scottish Horse, according to which it would appear that overpayments have been made to the officers and men of the regiment; and whether it is intended to take any steps to recover these amounts.

Every effort was made to effect any possible recoveries before the loss was written off. The officer acting as Corps Paymaster, who was responsible for the loss, was deprived of his war gratuity, but, in view of his inexperience, it was held that no further penalty should be inflicted.

:Does the hon. Gentleman not know that a very large sum was lost, and does he think that a sufficient penalty?

Not so very large, Sir. I think about £180.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Comptroller - General that he requested the War Office to tell him what were the terms of certain contracts in regard to jam for the troops in South Africa, and to his further statement that to the inquiries which were addressed to the War Office on April 26th, 1904, he had, up to the present, received no reply; why there was this delay in replying; and whether he will communicate to the House what were the terms of these contracts.

The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is open to convey an impression which I am sure is not intended. It is true that a final reply is only now being sent, but intimations that the question was receiving consideration were sent to him. I regret the long delay, which was mainly due to the necessity of correspondence with South Africa, and with the representatives of the Colonies concerned.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has observed the statement in the Report of the Comptroller - General, recently laid upon the Table of the House, in regard to the Royal Yeomanry embodied during the late South African War, that out of the total sum granted, £1,265,000, it appears that for more than one-third (£460,000) no details or vouchers were produced; and, if so, will he explain why this money was paid by the War Office without vouchers or details, and whether this is the usual practice of that office in regard to such payments.

Will the hon. Member kindly refer to the reply which my right hon. friend gave yesterday† to a Question put on this subject by the hon. Member for North Camberwell.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has noticed the statements of the Comptroller - General in his Report, recently laid upon the Table of the House, that the deficiency on the final pay list of the Rhodesian Regiment was £7,096 19s. 6d., and will he say

† See page 636.

The three corps first mentioned in the Question were raised or called out for Imperial purposes and were paid from Army funds. Any deficiencies in their accounts which were attributed to war exigencies were therefore borne by Army funds. Every effort has been made to recover the monies due, which were, generally speaking, overpayments to men. The Rhodesian Regiment did not form part of the forces raised by the British South Africa Company. The greater part of the deficiency in this case arose through the loss of the pay lists of one of the squadrons covering a period of six months. In the case of Marshall's Horse, the Cape Volunteer corps mentioned, the officer acting as paymaster was dismissed the service for neglect of duty. As regards the last part of the Question affecting the British South Africa Company, all payments to the company were duly vouched. The documents missing were such as were required to trace the disposal of the stores after they were received. The total expenditure was £1,681,818. Store vouchers were lacking to account for the subsequent disposal of stores to the value of £76,444.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the practicability of allotting the orders for small arms in such a way as will enable the workmen employed at Sparkbrook and Enfield Government factories to work three-quarter time, thus preventing the necessity of discharging so many men, and keeping the machinery of the nation in use.

After the discharge of the 500 men now under notice, it has been arranged to work three-quarter time until it can be ascertained whether any further orders can be given to the small arms factories, but, short time can only be justified as a temporary measure when there is a prospect of being able to resume full work in a reasonable time.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what has been the expense of the printing and publishing of a large illustrated volume of dress regulations issued by the War Office; how many copies of this work have been printed; to whom are the copies to be presented; are they for sale or distributed gratuitously; who is the author of this work; at whose discretion was it compiled; and under what War Office Estimate will it be included.

The cost of the book was £642. Seven thousand copies were printed. Copies have been distributed gratuitously to the various units and offices of the Army. Officers and others desiring copies obtain them by purchase. The book was compiled under the direction and in the office of the Quartermaster-General. The cost is borne by Stationery Office Votes.

Can we have copies of this precious literature in the tea and smoking rooms?

I will put a copy in the tea-room if the hon. Member likes?

Yes, please.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when it is proposed to make a grant to rifle clubs as foreshadowed in his speech last session; and what will be the amount of such grant.

It is not possible to give any grant to rifle clubs at present, nor am I in a position to state when it is probable that financial considerations will admit of such a grant being made.

May I point out that a grant was definitely promised, and many rifle clubs find it very difficult to make both ends meet.

I do not quite admit that the promise was definite.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the difficulty in obtaining officers for the Militia owing to the state of uncertainty as to the future of that force, he can state when it is proposed to make a definite announcement on the subject.

With regard to the organisation of the Militia I have nothing at present to add to the proposals already set forth in the Memorandum on the Estimates for 1905–06. I am not, however, aware that there is any increased deficiency in the numbers of Militia officers due to the reason alleged in the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it was a condition of the agreement with the guarantors of the £30,000,000 Transvaal Loan that any premium resulting from the issue of the loan should be paid over to the Transvaal Government.

The undertaking of the guarantors extends only to the first instalment of £10,000,000. With this exception the Answer is yes.

Was it not a condition that any premium on the whole £30,000,000 should go to the Transvaal Government?

I must ask for notice of that.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that Answer quite consistent with his speech the other night?

It is a correction, but not a very important one.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the recently published review, by the Director of the Geological Survey of India, of the last six years progress in the development of Indian mineral wealth; whether he is aware that the annual production of minerals during this period is valued at less than £5,000,000; and whether the Government of India propose taking practical steps in the immediate future to secure the further development of Indian industries.

I have seen the Report. The Report brings out the fact that, though the average value for the six years is under £5,000,000, there has been a steady progress in production, representing an increase of 44 per cent, in the period. There is reason to hope that this progress will continue. The development of mineral and other industries in India will have the attention of the newly created Department of Commerce and Industry.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state on what day the Budget will be introduced.

I propose to introduce the Budget during the week beginning with Monday, April 10th, and probably on that day.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the recent increase of grants to University colleges in England and Wales, it is proposed to augment the provision made for the Scottish Universities.

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this. Only one Scottish University college, that at Dundee, has hitherto participated in this grant, and in agreeing to increase the grant in response to representations made to me by the University Colleges I said I would invoke the services of a Committee to advise me with regard to its distribution. Accordingly the Treasury appointed a Committee, consisting of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Haddingtonshire, Sir F. Mowatt, Mr. Cripps, M.P., and Dr. Woods, who in advising as to the allocation of the increased grant said—"We agree with all previous Committees in regarding the inclusion of University College, Dundee, as anomalous, as the college is now part of a Scottish University which is provided for under a separate statutory grant." It is not proposed, therefore, to give this college any share of the additional grant. Up to the present time, notwithstanding the Reports of various Committees, it has received its own grant of £1,000.

The present grant to Dundee College will be maintained.

I cannot commit myself to that in view of the opinion of a Committee that the grant is anomalous. The matter is being considered.

pointed out that his question was whether, in view of the increased grants to the University colleges in England and Wales, the provision made for the Scottish Universities would be increased.

replied in the negative, and said he regarded the increase to English University colleges as the first equivalent grant to England for grants which had long been enjoyed by Scotland.

And is there to be any augmentation of any sort or kind of the grant for higher education in Ireland?

My answer to that is that this is an equivalent grant for England alone.

Equivalent for what?

This Question does not relate to Ireland, and of any further inquiry in that direction notice must be given in the ordinary way.

Is there any precedent for promising a grant of this kind without first obtaining the approval of Parliament?

Yes. Sir, an exact precedent.

Is any subvention made out of local rates in aid of these colleges?

In certain cases contributions from the rates are made by the local authorities to the Universities of which the colleges form part, but I must ask for notice of the Question whether there is any direct subsidy from the rates.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can say what proportion of the total number of persons assessed to income-tax had paid their tax before the 1st of March in 1904 and in 1905.

I am advised that the figures in question could not be obtained without immense labour extending over a long period and at considerable expense (as the collectors would have to be paid extra for making out the Return). I may remind the hon. Member that a Return has already been ordered on the Motion of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, which will give the percentage of the charges collected before the 1st of March in 1904 and 1905, and this, I hope, will be sufficient.

When may we hope for that Return?

It asks for the figures up to March 1st in the present year, and I hope it will not be very much longer before it is presented to the House, but I cannot fix a day.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will issue his proposed scheme of improved scales of pay for the postal service at least two weeks before the discussion on the Post Office Estimates is taken, that time may be given for the consideration by the staff of his proposals.

I hope to announce the new scales of pay in the course of a few days, probably on Monday or Tuesday. As the next two weeks are already allocated, it is clear the matter cannot be debated for some time.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the names and localities of all conventual laundries in the United Kingdom, the number, names, and localities of those under Government inspection, together with the number of times they have been inspected for the past five years.

All I can do is to lay on the Table of the, House the list referred to in the Answer given to the hon. Member on Thursday last,†with an explanatory note. This I shall be happy to do.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that magistrates throughout the country place different constructions on the term "conscientious objection," as defined in the Vaccination Act, 1898, cases having recently occurred in which a man who has been granted a certificate of exemption for one child his been refused a certificate for another, although he has, in each instance, raised precisely the same conscientious objection to vaccination, will he state when he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House the Circular issued by the Home Office calling attention to the remarks made by the Lord Chief Justice relative to the principle on which the Act ought to be administered; and will he consider the expediency of so amending the Act as to remove the difficulty experienced by magistrates.

If the hon. Member will move for this Circular in the form of a Return I shall be happy to grant it. The question of legislation on the subject of vaccination is one for the President of the Local Government Board.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state for how many years the contract for the supply of clothing to the sergeants and constables of the Metropolitan Police Force has been held by the present contractors; the prices paid for tunics, great coats, serge jackets, and trousers; and since what time tenders for these articles have not been invited from other firms.

The present clothing contract was made in September, 1890. It is a "running" contract, and contains provision for reviewing from time to time the prices of the articles supplied. I do not think it would be

† See page 193

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that the North Eastern Railway Company adopted the system of electric traction last March on their own responsibility and without obtaining specific statutory powers, involving preliminary inspection on behalf of the Board of Trade, and that, although only thirty-three miles of the line is at the present time thus worked, as many as twenty-eight accidents have occurred through contact with the electrically charged rail, five fatal, will he take steps to warn other railway companies that they should obtain specific statutory powers before adopting this system of traction.

No, Sir, As I explained to the hon. Member in my reply of March 14th,† the Board of Trade are not able to take the steps suggested. With regard to the figures given by the hon. Member, I should perhaps explain that, while twenty-eight accidents have occurred from the use of electrical power on the railway in question, seven of these were not due to actual contact with the live rail.

Then I take it that any railway company is entitled to adopt a system of electric traction on its own responsibility, without first obtaining statutory powers.

The hon. Member is, I think, under a misconception. We have considered the question from a legal point of view, but I am not prepared to say that they have not such powers.

:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will state the number of

†See (4) Debates cxlii., 1378.

The number of boy sailors enrolled up to the 18th instant under the scheme referred to by my hon. friend was 4,373.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can state whether he has any official information showing that the increase in the number of foreigners in the British mercantile marine is due, in a large measure, to shipowners drawing up the articles of agreement between themselves and their crews in such a way as to provide that the final port of discharge shall be a port on the Continent; and that the reason for this practice is that the wages payable at Continental ports are lower than those paid at British ports; and, if so, whether he will take steps to put some check on the discharge of seamen on British ships at ports on the Continent.

The increase in the number of foreigners employed in our mercantile marine is due to a variety of causes, and I have no official information showing that the cause indicated by the hon. Member is the chief one. The Board of Trade have no power to prevent or check the practice of discharging crews at foreign ports.

May I ask whether the accommodation, or cubic space, for foreign seamen differs from that provided for British sailors?

I must ask for notice of that Question.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he is aware that the Official Receiver, in his report on the Nelson's Widows Pension Scheme, has stated that, in his opinion, fraud has been committed in the company's business; and whether he has taken, or intends to take, steps to put the Public Prosecutor in motion with reference to this case.

This case is still under investigation by the Official Receiver and the Court, and I am not at present in a position to express an opinion upon it.

Will you give a guarantee that the rule in Whitaker Wright's case will not be adopted here?

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when he proposes to repair the asphalted roadway of the bridge in St. James's Park and the paths leading thereto, to which his attention was drawn last summer.

Some repairs were done last autumn; but nothing short of complete renewal will be satisfactory, at a cost of ome hundreds of pounds. It has not been found possible to make provision for the whole cost this year; but it is hoped that some portion may be undertaken in the autumn, the rest being deferred until 1906–7.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if it is contemplated placing a statue of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria in Westminster Hall.

This matter has been under consideration. There are difficulties in regard to it which can be more conveniently stated verbally than in an Answer in the House; and the First Commissioner would be happy to explain the circumstances personally to my hon. friend.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate, whether the invitation of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland to provide for the maintenance of twenty boys from the congested districts to be trained in seamanship at Liscard Institution, Liverpool, has been responded to; and, if so, will he state from what parishes applications have been received, and the number from each parish.

Up to the present no applications have been received. The Lews Local Committee, however, represent that sufficient time has not yet been given for due consideration of this scheme.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state the conditions under which the Congested Districts Board for Scotland undertake to place girls from congested districts in the institution under the control of the Aberdeen Educational Trust for training in domestic service, and the number so placed.

In answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question I may refer him to a letter from the Under-Secretary for Scotland to Major Matheson, chairman of the Lews (Balfour) Committee, a copy of which has been sent him. Twenty-one applications, including twelve from the Lews, have been received, but the Congested Districts Board do not get possession of the Home till Whit-Sunday.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Kilkenny, I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland is he aware that in the revision lists sent to the City Council of Belfast on March 1st by the Commissioner of Valuation for the present year there do not appear on the lists showing his decisions those cases of appeals in which he made no alteration; and, a those apellants have the right of further appeal to quarter sessions, will he see that these cases are added to the lists before the 28th inst., the last day for appealing further.

The Belfast Valuation Roll, which is amended by the revision lists issued on March 1st, contains every rateable valuation in that city. But to prevent any question as to right of appeal, the Commissioner will issue the supplemental lists asked for before the end of the week.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the committee of the Kerry County Council have repeatedly during the past five years recommended a grant of £80 to the Technical School, Presentation Convent, Cahirciveen; and can he state for what reason the Department of Agriculture has refused To sanction this grant.

The Department declined to sanction a grant for the equipment of a hosiery industry in this institution because they were of opinion that the capitation grant of £2 per head, payable under the county council scheme of technical instruction, would afford adequate aid.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what has been the loss in official income from all sources to the Catholic clerks lately transferred from the veternary branch to the fisheries branch of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland.

One clerk only was transferred, and there was no loss of official income in his case.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he state when the terms of settled wages already granted to the staffs of the South Kensington and Edinburgh Museums will be granted to the attendants of the Science and Art and National History Museums, the School of Art, and Royal College of Science in Dublin.

The matter is under consideration, and will, it is expected, be dealt with in the course of the present year.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he state whether the alterations of the landing facilities at Roads, county Kerry, have been satisfactorily carried out by the Congested Districts Board; and, if not, can he state when the works will be completed.

Progress has been made with these works, but it is not expected that they will be completed until the summer.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the O'Donnell property in Erris, county Mayo, has been purchased by the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, how many years purchase have been paid for it; and, if the property has not yet been purchased, will the Board, in any future negotiations they may have with the owner or with the solicitors to the mortgagees, with a view to purchase, have regard to the price paid for the adjoining estate, the O'Reilly Digby Estate, now in the hands of the Board.

No, Sir, this property has not been purchased by the Board.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the Coyne Estate in Erris, county Mayo, has been purchased by the Congested Districts Board or by the Estates Commissioners; and, if not, whether negotiations for its purchase are proceeding between either of these two bodies and the owner.

The Answer to both of these inquiries is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any negotiations are proceeding between the Congested Districts Board and Mr. E. C. Walsh for the purchase of the Island of Inniskea, the property of that gentleman; and, if so, whether the Board will consent to buy unless the mainland portion of the property is included in the sale.

The Board have purchased the Inishkea Islands, but not the mainland portion of the estate.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the agent for the Somers Estate at Bally-cowan, near Tullamore, who is also agent for the adjacent Bury Estate, has refused the proposal of the Somers Estate tenants to sell direct to the Estates Commissioners, and has threatened them, failing their compliance with his own proposals, to sell a portion of the Somers Estate to another person for whom he is also agent; and, if so, will he say what action he will take in the matter.

No originating application in respect of this estate has been received by the Estates Commissioners, who have no information as to the allegations contained in the Question. No action on my part is called for.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a planter named Owen, who, for the past sixteen years, has occupied two evicted farms on the Somers Estate at Ballycowan, near Tullamore, under special police protection alleged to be necessary and costing the King's County at least £3,000, has been allowed to purchase these farms under the Land Purchase Act of 1903, although the tenants on the estate made it a condition of negotiation for purchase that the evicted tenants of the farms held by Owen should be restored; and, if so, will he state what steps he proposes to take.

Proceedings for the sale of the King's County portion of this estate have not yet been initiated before the Estates Commissioners. The cost of Mr. Owen's protection, of the amount of which I have no information, has been defrayed from moneys voted by Parliament, and has entailed no charge on the ratepayers.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that candidates for the public service are not allowed to take up appointments unless they have been vaccinated; and, seeing that this regulation penalises candidates who have a conscientious objection to vaccination, will he so amend the regulations as to make it competent for such persons to secure their appointments under a certificate of exemption granted under the Conscience Clause of The Vaccination Act, 1898.

I think the hon. Gentleman must be under some misapprehension. I never heard that any objection felt by candidates to being vaccinated themselves would constitute conscientious objection. The conscientious objection is to the vaccination of their children.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of his declaration as to the impossibility of placing a permanent protective and preferential duty upon foodstuffs, he will communicate this determination to the various Colonial Premiers prior to convening the proposed Colonial Conference.

My desire is that the Conference should be a free conference and there should be no declaration on this subject on either side before the Conference is convened.

May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury on what date it is intended to issue the invitations to the Colonial Conference in 1906, and, as a supplementary Question, whether the taxation of imported raw material will be excluded from the reference.

No date has been fixed for the issue of the invitations.

Can the hon. Gentleman not answer the supplementary Question.

Evidently, until the date has been fixed, it would be quite premature to mention the terms of reference.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the amount of British capital invested in Baku and the district of which it is the commercial centre, the Government will, for the protection and promotion of British interests, establish a British Consulate at that place.

This matter has been considered by the Government, but so far no satisfactory arrangement has been come to with Russia.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the attention of the Government has been called to the importation for consumption last year of upwards of £110,000,000 worth of articles wholly or mainly manufactured in foreign countries, and to the fact that one-half of these imports consisted of finished articles, giving no employment to British artisans, and if, in devising schemes for the relief of the distress prevailing from want of employment, His Majesty's Government will consider the influence of this foreign competition with the staple industries of the masses of the people.

I am informed that the figures of the importation of manufactured and partly manufactured goods is somewhere over £100,000,000 a year. So much for that part of my hon. friend's Question. As to the Question which deals with the whole problem of protection or non-protection, I think my hon. and gallant friend will agree with me that I can hardly deal with it in answer to a Question across the floor of the House.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is his intention to reappoint the Select Committee to inquire into the question of Registration of Nurses.

I understand that the Committee will be reappointed in a few days.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Cabinet have now had for some time under their consideration certain of the most pressing difficulties connected with the manufacture by Government Departments, and in particular the relation which such manufactures have to the cost of living and the concentration of population in the metropolitan area, he will extend the consideration and inquiry to like difficulties which exist in regard to Government workers in dockyard centres.

I do not deny that possibly the subject to which the hon. Gentleman refers might be submitted to a Committee; but I think the particular Committee to which he refers had better deal with the rather difficult and complicated problems already submitted to them, and until they have done that I should hardly like to give any specific pledge as to their next labours.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that for the last three years the salaries and fees of the Law Officers of the Crown, which amounted in that period to nearly £100,000, have been voted by the House without discussion; and whether he will take any steps to secure that in the present year these salaries and fees will be subjected to Parliamentary criticism.

I am informed that the hon. Member's figures are not correct, and that the total should not be £100,000, but somewhere about £75,000, for the three years. I have no objection to this Vote coming up for discussion if the House so desires. Whether it would not exclude the discussion of more important Votes it is not for me to determine, but for the Opposition and those who usually advise me on the manner in which the Votes should be distributed.

The right hon. Gentleman had no objection last year, but he deliberately guillotined that Vote.

; When the hon. Member says I deliberately guillotined that Vote, I suppose he means that it was, as a matter of fact, closured at the end of the allotted days.

I charge him with having prevented discussion.

Well, then, the charge is incorrect.

I adhere to it.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury why has not the legislation, which he promised on the 19th February, 1903, would be introduced as soon as possible, for an amendment in the law, providing adequate remedies for the frauds disclosed in the case of Whitaker Wright and the Globe Finance Company, been introduced; and what explanation, if any, has he to give with respect to his failure to perform his promise to the House of Commons more than two years ago to take steps for the carrying into effect of this legislation to amend the law.

The hon. Gentleman is misinformed as to the facts. In accordance with the pledge to which he refers, a Bill was introduced last year. It was opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Government are anxious to proceed with it this year, and my hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General has got the measure prepared and is quite ready to proceed with it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make this a Government measure? The right hon. Gentleman gave a distinct pledge that he would make the law conform to a broad view of commercial morality.

I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman. It was a Government Bill last year. It will be a Government Bill this year. What more does he want?

I want it passed, and not obstructed by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends.

I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if an opportunity will be given to discuss the Army Clothing Vote?

That does not rest with me. It is a question whether under the Order recently passed the Votes can be rearranged. If they can, the Government have no objection to giving effect to the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman.

reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure:—Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Bonar Law; and had appointed in substitution, Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas and Mr. Solicitor-General.

said he listened with some astonishment, and he confessed with considerable regret, to the speech of the Colonial Secretary the other night. The whole of the Government policy in South Africa had been a failure, and the right hon. Gentleman had made one of the greatest confessions of failure he had ever listened to. In May, 1903, the late Colonial Secretary, in speaking of the arrangement of the loan, said, "It is a final arrangement. After three years we shall hear no more about it." But on Monday last the present Colonial Secretary informed the House that there was an excellent chance of our obtaining the £30,000,000, because there had been a discovery of diamonds in the Transvaal. Therefore, we were to speculate for our £30,000,000 on receiving something from the diamond mines. What an excellent prospect for the British taxpayer! He was sure no one wished to press the right hon. Gentleman in the direction of saying that the loan should be issued at a time which was unfavourable for the purpose, because, if that were done, there would be a loss to the Transvaal in future years; but what he thought had been made clear was that, practically, this guarantee was not only waste paper, but that it could not by any possibility have ever thrown any liability of any sort on those who gave it. And this was the great diplomatic triumph about which they had heard so much! These capitalists were going, they were told by the right hon. Gentleman, to make a great sacrifice for their country; and now it appeared that the right hon. Gentleman was altogether mistaken. What were the reasons advanced for not issuing the loan? One was that the war had left great devastation in the Transvaal, another was that the taxation was very heavy, and thirdly, it was urged that the process of development might be delayed if the loan was at once issued. But he would point out to the Colonial Secretary that every one of the arguments and objections he urged the other night as reasons for not issuing the loan were present at the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham made this arrangement. Indeed, they were present in far greater force then than they were at the present moment, for the whole financial condition of the Transvaal had very much improved since this bargain was struck. In the matter of labour, for instance, the natives had returned to the mines in greater number, as was expected would be the case under improved conditions of working. Put the blame where they liked, there was no getting away from the fact that there had been a breach of faith somewhere. This was, he repeated, one of those deplorable failures which had marked the policy and action of His Majesty's Government in South Africa before, during, and since the war. The more this was discussed the better, and he hoped the Colonial Secretary would take into consideration what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol the other night, viz., that in any arrangement or negotiation with regard to the future government of the Transvaal this claim should not be lost sight of. That was the only way in which this breach of faith could, in any sense, be condoned.

pointed out that every year the payment of the loan was delayed, the taxpayers of this country were suffering to the extent of £1,000,000. If this £30,000,000 were paid our National Debt would be reduced by that amount, and the interest upon it would be decreased to the extent of about a million a year. He did not complain of the Transvaal mine-owners as guarantors, but he complained of them as taxpayers. If the mineowners, on the one hand, guaranteed to underwrite £10,000,000 as the first instalment of the loan, and to bear the loss, if there should be any, in the issue of the loan, and if, on the other hand, they stipulated, and the Government agreed, that the loan should not be issued unless the market was favourable, it was no guarantee at all. It was as taxpayers of the Transvaal that they had the right to complain of the mineowners, for it was as taxpayers that the mineowners would have to bear the burden of the charge for this sum. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be unfair to lay on the people of the Transvaal, a small population, so enormous a dead-weight as this loan of £30,000,000 would be in addition to the £35,000,000 already charged on them. In the first place, that ought to have been considered before the pledge was given. In the second place, he would point out that the £35,000,000 already charged on the Transvaal was by no means all dead-weight, because a great deal of it had been used in the purchase of the railways, which brought in revenue. It was not a debt in the sense in which our National Debt was a burden round the necks of the taxpayers. He would point out, also, that in the case of the Transvaal it was not fair merely to take into account the number of the population without taking into account the immense mineral wealth which lay buried in the earth there. The circumstances now were different from what they were when the pledge was given, but the difference in every way was in favour of the Transvaal. In the first place, no one, at that time, had the slightest idea that the Premier Diamond Mine would yield £450,000 a year to the Transvaal, and if the mineowners could give the pledge at a time when it was not yielding anything, surely there was all the more reason now for the pledge to be fulfilled. At that time the Chinese labour question had not come prominently forward, and it was since then that there had been an enormous increase in the labour force of the Transvaal, both in Chinese and Kaffirs. The right hon. Gentleman said, a year ago, that if we wanted to have our £30,000,000 we must give them Chinese labour. We bad given them Chinese labour, and now they refused to fulfil the pledge. Now the right hon. Gentleman would have them believe that the Transvaal was only to be charged for the £30,000,000 loan if it involved no increased taxation in the Transvaal. Was that so?

I think the terms are that no increase should be made on the 10 per cent. tax on the mines.

Surely there are other sources of taxation. You have the taxation now from the Premier Diamond Mine. Are we to understand that we are to receive no portion of the loan of £30,000,000 until there is a normal surplus in the Transvaal of £1,000,000 a year?

I do not like to make a general pledge, in advance, of that nature, but as a general rule you do not issue a loan unless there is a sufficient surplus revenue to provide for it.

Then what is the value of the resolution passed and the pledge given that the £30,000,000 loan should be raised and the interest charged on the revenues of the Transvaal?

If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Premier Diamond Mine will be of such value, of course there is considerable revenue to be anticipated; but the hon. Gentleman is aware of the somewhat speculative character of diamonds.

Have the Government taken any steps to make this debt of honour a first charge?

It is not usual to take security for a debt of honour.

said he only hoped that the faith of His Majesty's Government would be justified by the result. At the present time they had a definite refusal of those who composed the Legislative Council of the Transvaal—not a definite expression of refusal, but the Government had reason to understand that if they introduced this measure it would be met with considerable opposition in the Legislative Council and would not be passed without the use of the official vote. The right hon. Gentleman said that was so. Apart from the official vote it was the mining interest that dominated that Council. They had a majority in it. Therefore, the House must clearly understand that the mineowners themselves refused to permit any further increase in the taxation of the Transvaal in order to carry out a definite obligation to this House, for which they had not only got Chinese labour, but also secured the guarantee of a loan of £35,000,000 for the development of the colony.

said he was anxious that they should not live in a fool's paradise in regard to this payment from the Transvaal. He believed we had not the slightest chance of getting the £30,000,000 or any part of it. He quite sympathised with the view of his hon. friend that they should make those who were responsible for the war, namely the mineowners, pay some part of the cost of the war. That was a feeling which was not confined to his side of the House. He had heard it expressed strongly by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and if there was any means of making them do it he would rejoice to adopt those means, believing that the money was being properly exacted from them. The Colonial Secretary pointed out with perfect truth the other evening that there was really—these were not his words, but in substance it came to this—no risk taken by the mineowners at all when they underwrote the loan. There was no real guarantee. If there had been a guarantee it was practically of no value. It involved no risk to the guarantors, because it was a guarantee of a loan at 4 per cent. behind which, as the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the House, the honour of this country was committed. The idea of these, people having given themselves up to feelings of generosity when they underwrote a loan at 4 per cent. which was practically guaranteed by this country was absurd. There was in point of fact from the beginning no risk on their part. The proposal was brought forward in a speech of extraordinary eloquence by the then Colonial Secretary in, he thought, May, 1903, in which he painted an extraordinary picture. If the right hon. Gentleman had not been above suspicion at that time, he should have thought the speech was made for the purpose of bulling on the Stock Exchange. It was one of the most powerful speeches he had ever heard in the House. This promise of £30,000,000 was part of the inducement held out to the House, in the most conspicuous terms by the late Colonial Secretary, to consent to give a guarantee for the sum of £35,000,000. They gave the guarantee and they were befooled in giving it. That was the first use made of the promise. He was not saying that it was done disingenuously. He believed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was a creature of impulse. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman in his own mind believed that this was an El Dorado. The £30,000,000 was a perfectly worthless asset. The second use made of the promise was when they were asked to assent to the Chinese Labour Ordinance. Those interested said, "We are under this guarantee, which everyone says is an onerous guarantee. Are we not to have Chinese labour to earn money to enable us to discharge our obligations." His object now was to prevent a third use being made of the promise. This House and the country had endorsed the war and on them must rest the responsibility. He was not going to talk of the rights or the wrongs of it now, but do not let the people of this country imagine that they were going to get this £30,000,000. They would get nothing, and the Colonial Secretary had shown plainly that it was impossible to get it. Why? There were difficulties in the way of putting taxes on the land. The country had been described by Lord Milner in more than one despatch as having been reduced largely to the condition of a wilderness. All the agricultural stock had been destroyed, and nearly all the houses had been burned. How could we expect to get much, even if we were at liberty to put taxes on them? What was the other resource? The other resource was to tax the profits earned by the mines. Why could we not do that? Because that admirable man of business the late Colonial Secretary when he made this bargain that we were to guarantee the £35,000,000 loan, and that we were to get the £30,000,000 contribution, made a third bargain, and it was that there was not to be more than a 10 per cent. tax on the profits of the mines. We were absolutely prevented by that bargain so long as it was operative—he was glad to say that it was possible it might not be long operative—from getting any part of this £30,000,000. The resources were all dried up by the arrangement which the late Colonial Secretary went out to make. When he came back his friends boasted of it as one of the greatest achievements of his magnetic influence. The people of the Transvaal completely got the best of the late Colonial Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman went out there, no doubt, full of compassion, pity, and kindliness towards the people of that country, and with strong Imperial ideas. They were looking after business, and the men of business got the better of the patriot on this occasion. The final reason why we need not indulge the vain hope that we were going to get this money was that the country could not afford to pay it. The Colonial Secretary told them with perfect truth that the market would not permit of this loan being placed at par. The reason it was not done last year was because the market was not suitable. Very well, that objection had disappeared. The market was now suitable. The Colonial Secretary, in substance, had told them—he believed perfectly rightly—that the country could not bear the burden of this taxation. That was the plain English of it; and the whole scheme put before the House two years ago, when they were induced by a Parliamentary bargain—if it was a Parliamentary bargain—to guarantee a loan of £35,000,000 on the footing that they were to receive a contribution from the Transvaal of £30,000,000—was a scheme based on air, worth nothing, was a delusion from beginning to end, and was now a delusion. He agreed in substance and in spirit with his hon. friends in their arguments, but he could not agree with their conclusions when they pressed on the Government and on the Transvaal for payment of this loan. If it were true, or anything like true, that the Transvaal could not bear that extra burden of £30,000,000, how unworthy it would be for this great country, in the few months or weeks that still remained while there were no representative institutions in the Transvaal, to fix on it liabilities which it could not bear? He thought the Colonial Secretary was perfectly right; but he believed the House of Commons had the strongest reason to resent the manner in which they had been hoodwinked in this whole transaction. Had they not been more credulous than they should have been two or three years ago, they would never have been deceived by this vain and hopeless story.

I cannot say that I complain of the discussion, though I fear that I can do little but repeat the arguments I used a day or two ago. I think it is possible and natural that hon. Members should feel warmly upon this matter if they do not have a perfectly clear conception of the facts. I endeavoured the other day to place before the House all the facts of this case. I really think the House saw what the situation truly was as the result of my statement. It is perfectly true that, on the day of the Colonial Vote, the Colonial Secretary has to be ready to deal with a great multitude of topics, and in the comparatively short discussion, from the Marshall Islands to Ceylon, and from Ceylon to the Constitution of the Transvaal it is perfectly true that I made one slip which I put right at the first moment. I made a slip which I was bound to put right in the interests of the mineowners to whom I had done an injustice. I represented erroneously to the House that they might make a profit out of this transaction. This was a slip, or at any rate an incomplete statement, because the underwriters had offered that any premium should go to the Transvaal Government. I was bound to make that clear.

On the whole £30,000,000?

My reading of the bargain is that they can only prescribe the destination of the premium in the first £10,000,000; on the subsequent £20,000,000 the Transvaal Government would have the right to keep any premium that might arise. While I say, I regret them, I do not complain of these discussions. We have paid £250,000,000 of money, and we have sacrificed God knows how many lives. Yes, I will not go back upon it, but everybody who hears me knows it is true that it was with the assent of the vast majority of the people of this country, and of hon. Members of this House, that we made that tremendous sacrifice. We have done it in order to preserve the British Empire in South Africa, and in order to give to our fellow-subjects in the Transvaal equality with the Boers. I do not wish to speak in the slightest way harshly in the matter, but I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries Burghs was one of the few who differed from that policy, and who had the manhood to say so.

was understood to say "disgraceful," with reference to some interruption from the Opposite side of the House.

I rise to a point of order. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order, order!"]

The hon. Member for Oldham is perfectly in order. The hon. Member for Gravesend has said "disgraceful." He had no right to use such a word.

I heard neither the interruption nor the comment. If the word "disgraceful" was used it ought not to have been used, and it ought to be withdrawn.

On a point of order the hon. Member for Gravesend did in fact use the word "disgraceful," and that word is very much resented on this side of the House.

It is quite true I used the word, but I did not wish to use the word offensively. I am afraid I meant to say it to myself rather than aloud to the House; and at the same time I wish to withdraw the expression.

I was pointing out that this country had made immense sacrifices of men and treasure in order to acquire this colony and in order to preserve our ascendancy in South Africa. I venture to say, with a strong sense of responsibility, that in the action the Government are now taking in forbearing to force through a nominated Assembly an acceptance of a voluntary contribution made by the Transvaal towards the cost of the war within three years of it, we are acting, as we believe, in the highest interest, both of this country and of that country; and I believe that the hon. Member for Dumfries really agrees with me. I am perfectly certain any person who thinks of this matter at all would regard it as absolutely deplorable that, after this tremendous sacrifice, we should jeopardise its fruits for the sake of accelerating a few years the issue of this loan. I think, really, I have the assent of the House in that statement. Let us understand where we are. If I have the agreement of many Members to that proposition, do not let us jeopardise, for the sake of money, the good feeling which exists between ourselves and the Transvaal. Well, now, I say to take, as the hon. Member for Cleveland says we should, a security for a debt of honour is, in my mind, a very un-English proceeding. I do not think when somebody makes you an offer voluntarily, [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no!"], offers a voluntary contribution, it would be very worthy to take security. But if this is too nice or refined a way of looking at it, I wish to put this to the House. Do they think it likely that issuing this loan at the present moment and forcing it through a nominated Assembly, will make it more or less likely that we should obtain the £20,000,000 subsequent to the £10,000,000. I venture to say that it would imperil, and naturally imperil, that £20,000,000. [MINISTERIAL Cheers.] And more than that. Would it be a right thing to do, when you are setting up a representative Assembly on a low franchise, such as roughly obtains in most Colonies, and when that Assembly would be in being in a few months. Does this House and hon. Gentlemen opposite think it would be right to go to a nominated Assembly—which is only of course representative so far as it could be made so, and even by the use of the official vote, or by the use of strong pressure upon nominated members—and say, "Give us this" when the bargain was for a willing and voluntary contribution. Surely hon. Members must see that that would be precisely to break those conditions made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and which hon. Gentlemen have never read; it would be to enforce by the act of a superior Power on the Legislature the performance of this undertaking, and it would be to do it in such a way as, I say, would arrest the due progress and the development of the country; and in the last place it could not be done without departing from all precedent. I defy any financial expert of experience to draw up the prospectus of such a loan without departing from all precedent, unless it were being raised upon a surplus revenue. That is the state of things which exists at this moment. The figures show about an equilibrium; there is an estimated deficit of, I think, £120,000 in June. Therefore, you have a situation in which at present there is only equilibrium between revenue and expenditure in the Transvaal, putting it at the highest. You have the treaty obligation not to put a tax upon land, and you have the right hon. Member for West Birmingham's obligation not to tax the mines beyond 10 per cent. Yes, I have got to treat with facts as I find them. I do not intend, nor do hon. Gentlemen opposite, I believe, intend, though the words "breach of faith" have been used, to break the conditions which my predecessor made, and which he stated in the most specific and lucid terms to the House. I know the hon. Member for Dumfries is a fair-minded man, and I would point out to him that it is grossly unfair to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham to read part of his speech and not read the rest, which is really germane to this matter. It is grossly unfair to him, and ought not to be done. I do not mean the whole of the speech, but all that part which treats with this particular bargain, and the conditions under which it was made. It was unfair to my right hon. friend to say that the guarantee of £35,000,000 was conditional upon the loan of £30,000,000, without stating the terms upon which the £30,000,000 were promised. To summarise those terms, they were that the £30,000,000 should be voluntarily and willingly given, that it should not involve taxation beyond 10 per cent. upon the mines, and should not arrest or unduly impede the development of the country. I say, and I really cannot see any answer to it, that if I take all these three conditions, for the present Government to bring forward this war contribution at this present moment would be a breach of all three of the conditions which the promisers of that £30,000,000 attached to that undertaking. How in the world can hon. Members opposite ask the Government at the present moment to begin the treatment of this most difficult and delicate subject by breaking the conditions which were solemnly made by the late Colonial Secretary. [Oh!] Were these conditions not made?

The right hon. Gentleman's bargain was what they were willing to give then, and they willingly made it then, and the right hon. Gentleman has no right to speak of willingness now two years afterwards.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman; but supposing for the sake of argument he was right, does he think it would be right to break even two conditions instead of three? Does he think we are entitled to do that? Whatever his view is, I do not think we are. But far above that, or at any rate an argument equally strong is that we are giving representative government with the assent, I believe, of everybody here. Will it be right to exact this from a moribund nominated Assembly when next year there is going to be a representative Assembly which can take on this debt of honour and which can ratify it and give it legislative sanction?

They will not do so.