asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to the intentions of His Majesty's Government with regard to the ratification of The Hague Convention of the 18th October, 1907, relative to the proposed establish ment of an international court of naval prize, which was to be ratified by the 30th June, 1909, and of the Declaration of London of the 26th February, 1909, which assumed to set forth the principles by which the decisions of this new international court should be informed; whether it is intended to submit either the Convention or the Declaration to the consideration of Parliament before proceeding to its ratification; and whether it is proposed to ratify the Convention in question before or after the ratification of the Declaration of London?

His "Majesty's Government will propose to Parliament in due course legislation for the purpose of giving effect to the stipulations of the Prize Court Convention of 1907, which will now not be ratified till June, 1910. The House will, as I have already stated, have the opportunity of discussing the provisions of the Declaration of London of 26th February, 1909, Till there has been an opportunity for such discussion, His Majesty's Government do not intend to advise the King to ratify either the Convention or the Declaration.

Reinstatement.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have refused to take any steps towards effecting the reinstatement of Denis floody and Patrick Joyce in the holdings in the townland of Anny, county Monaghan, on the Wood, wright Lucas estate, from which their parents were evicted, notwithstanding the fact that it was a condition of the sale by the landlord to the tenants of the estate, agreed to in writing by both parties, that these two tenants should be reinstated; if he is aware that the persons in occupation of these holdings have expressed their willingness to give up possession if the improvements which they have made on the farms are considered and paid for; if he will state how many visits were made by inspectors of the Estates Commissioners in reference to these cases; whether they reported the fact that the occupiers were willing to give up possession of the holdings; and will he now direct the Commissioners to give effect to the agreement made between the landlord and all the tenants on the estate that these two men should be reinstated in their parents' holdings if the estate was sold under the Land Act?

The Estates Commissioners have not received any application for reinstatement from Patrick Joyce. They have inquired into the applications of Denis Floody and Patrick Coyle, whose parents were formerly tenants on the estate, and have received communications on their behalf making the statements contained in the question. Both cases were reported on by inspectors, but the Commissioners are not in a position to say how many visits were necessary for the purpose. The Commissioners, in the exercise of their discretion, have decided not to take any action in either case, and the Irish Government have no power to interfere with that discretion.

asked whether a working agreement has been come to between the Post Office and the National Telephone Company with regard to the Glasgow telephone area; and, if so, whether such agreement contains any provisions safeguarding the existing staff who may be displaced by reason of its operation; and, if not, why the precedent recently set by the Board of Trade in the matter of working agreements in the case of private railway companies has not been followed by his Department?

My hon. Friend is, I think, under a misapprehension in regard to this matter. The arrangement concerning the Glasgow area, which will, I hope, be very shortly concluded, has for its main object to facilitate the expansion and efficient working of the telephone system in Glasgow, and to remove the obstacles to free development which would otherwise exist during the period of transition between now and 1912. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that it will lead to a reduction in the total staff employed. On the contrary, I anticipate that it will in all probability lead to increased employment, on the two systems taken together, both of construction and of maintenance staff, in order to carry out the changes proposed, and for the subsequent development of the service. I have already informed the National Telephone Company that it is my intention to provide for the additional work on the Post Office system which may arise from the transfer of exchange lines from the company's system, by employing on it operators and maintenance men whose services the company may no longer require. My hon. Friend will thus see that the arrangement now in question differs entirely in kind and in purpose from the arrangements for working union between railway companies, to which reference is made in his question. Those arrangements have primarily in view the reduction of working expenses, while the aim of the arrangement between the Post Office and the company is to enable the extension of the telephone system to proceed on sound lines with advantage both to the staffs engaged in operating, maintenance, and construction, as well as to the public who use the service.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he and his Department realise that it is in the interests of the Post Office that these experts be not. scattered?

I realise that to the full, and I have explained to the House on several occasions that I am endeavouring to do what he suggests. I have already come to an arrangement with the Telephone Company in Glasgow, and I hope to be able to come to an arrangement in other parts of the country in order that construction should be carried on consistently and efficiently, and that the staff to which my hon. Friend refers may not be scattered.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state by what agency the Northern Nigeria Railway is being constructed; and whether steel trestle-bridges are being constructed throughout or in certain sections of the line?

The BaroKano Railway is being constructed departmentally by the Government of Northern Nigeria, under the supervision of the Governor, Sir Percy Girouard. Various particulars in regard to the bridging of the first section of the line will be found on pages 32, 135, 136, and 153-154 of Parliamentary Paper No. Cd. 4523.

Is the work being done under the supervision of the Crown or that of an agent appointed by them?

No. It is under the supervision of the Governor, Sir P. Girouard, who, as my hon. Friend knows, has great experience of railway construction in many parts of the world.

May it be taken that steel trestle-bridges are sanctioned by the Government for African railway construction on behalf of the State?

It is a very wide question. It varies in different places. If my hon. Friend refers to the Paper I have given him he will see that there is a great deal of explanation given.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now state what will be the constitutional position of the Orange River Colony Land Board if and when a constitution is granted to South Africa; and whether it will remain under the Imperial Government, be controlled by the South African Parliament, or be absorbed in the administrative functions of the provincial councils I

The Secretary of State has now been informed by the High Commissioner that in his opinion and that of the South African Convention there is nothing in the draft South African Constitution Act as it stands which will alter the position of the Land Boards except that in virtue of clause 15 of the Act the Governor-General will be charged with the powers now exercised by the governors of the respective Colonies during the period which may intervene between the establishment of union and the expiry of the five years prescribed by the Transvaal and Orange River Colony Letters Patent. The Union Parliament could, of course, legislate respecting the Land -Boards, subject to the right of veto, but the Colonial Parliaments have the same power at present. The Provincial Councils could not legislate unless power to do so were delegated to them under clause 85 (XII.) or (XIII.), but the Secretary of State is informed that, in Lord Selborne's opinion, no such delegation is in contemplation.

Am I to understand from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that at the present time the Legislature of any individual Colony might, as it were, legislate the Land Board out of existence. because that seems to me quite contrary to the constitution?

I cannot add anything to the answer, which I think is quite explicit. All such legislation will be subject to veto.

Is it not the case that under the constitution that it is not possible, except with the assent of the Land Board itself, Jor any arrangement to be scene to for terminating the existence of the Land Board, and that the Legislature of the Colony has no power at all, if I read the constitution aright, to legislate that Land Board out of existence?

I think it is an academic question.

No.

Yes, because there is no such proposal, nor could any such proposal be in contemplation with regard to the present Parliament. It would be possible, theoretically, no doubt, for such action to be taken subject to the veto of the Crown, but there is no likelihood of its being done..

The lion. Member may resume the Debate later, on the Motion for adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now considered the position of certain typewriting offices in relation to the Factory Act, as he promised to do on 25th February last; and whether he proposes to institute a test prosecution?

The Secretary of State fears he can add nothing to the reply which he gave to the hon. Member's previous question on this subject, namely, that the processes carried on in these offices are not, in his opinion, manufacturing processes within the meaning of the Act. If the Act were applied to these processes in typewriting offices it would have to be applied to the same and similar processes when carried on in ordinary business offices. He does not propose to institute a test prosecution.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary at the time promised to reconsider the whole matter, and whether, in view of that reconsideration, he has any reason to change his opinion in that respect?

I do not think my right hon. Friend promised a reconsideration. He promised consideration as to the possibility of taking a test prosecution, but the question has been very carefully considered, and the result has been to confirm the previous opinion that there would be no power under the Act to secure penalties.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can inform the House as to the number of visits to factories and workshops paid by factory inspectors and their assistants in the metropolitan area on Good Friday last, as to the number of offences reported, and the number of cases in which proceedings were instituted?

Except where special circumstances require it, duty is not required of the inspecting staff on Good Friday; 194 visits were, however, made in London on Good Friday last; 83 contraventions of various kinds were reported, and proceedings have been authorised in three cases. Other cases are under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to a recent inquest conducted by the borough coroner of Oldham touching the death of a man named Thomas Boyle, who died at the Oldham infirmary as a result of scalds sustained whilst working in the Pearl Mill on 26th April last, such scalds being the result of leaving the taps of boilers in steam open whilst repairs were going on, and the remarks of the coroner thereupon to the effect that the tap should have been closed, and had it been so the accident would have been avoided; have accidents of a similar character been reported; if so, will he issue a new regulation making it compulsory to disconnect boilers in steam from others while repairs are going on?

Yes, Sir, the Secretary of State has received a Report of the proceedings at the inquest. The -cause of the accident was the omission by the person preparing the boiler for the repairers to take a known and necessary precaution. The number of similar accidents in the past is not known, but there is no reason to believe that there have been many such. The Secretary of State understands that none has occurred in the Old- ham district during the last ten years. The Secretary of State has caused the point to be noted for consideration, with others that are engaging the attention of the Department at the present time in connection with the use of boilers.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can state by whose authority obstacles have been placed across the bridle path joining the two Appleshaws, near Andover,' Hants; whether this path has for some years been kept in repair by the Andover Rural District Council at the public expense; and what action he proposes to take to remove the obstructions and protect the rights of the public?

The Board have no information as to this matter, and they have no power to intervene with regard to it.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether the Board will inquire into the delay which is taking place in providing Thomas Willson, of Watford, and other members of the Watford Land Club, with land; and whether the Board will communicate with Mr. F. B. Brown, of 104, High Street, Watford, who is acting as secretary to the local applicants for land, and arrange for an inquiry at an early date?

There is great difficulty in obtaining land at Watford at reasonable rents on account of its value for building purposes. The Board are, however, sending an inspector down to inquire and report on the general position there. He will see Mr. Brown.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether the Board w ill inquire into the delay which is taking place in supplying land to applicants at Ide Hill, in the parish of Sundridge, Kent, and particularly into the case of Mr. C. Lears, of Goathurst Common, ide Hill, who, after prolonged negotiations with the parish council, has been advised to transfer his application to the county council?

We are informed that the county council have only received one application for a small holding from Ide Hill, and it was not approved: The council have not received any application from Mr. Lears nor are they aware of the negotiations mentioned. If my hon. Friend will supply me with particulars of the delays to which he refers, I will have inquiry made.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset what is the general position at the present time of applicants for small holdings and allotments in West Kent; whether any schemes have yet been submitted to the Board by the county council, and, if so, how many; whether any applicants at all have yet been supplied with land; and, if so, how many?

We have received nine schemes for the provision of small holdings in West Kent. Forty-nine applicants have been supplied with land.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset, whether the Board is aware that at Redhill, Westerham, and other places misunderstanding and disappointment have arisen owing to applicants for small holdings having formed registered land-holding societies under rules supplied by the 4ricultural Organisation Society, and approved by the Board Of Agriculture; whether, seeing that a member of such a society would, in case of obtaining land have, besides taking responsibility for his own rent and providing sufficient capital For cultivating his holding and further undertaking a joint responsibility for his fellow-members' rent, also to provide conjointly with his fellow-members six months' rent in advance, and that such an applicant is in a worse position than those applicants who apply as individuals, the Board will repay to the men the cost of having formed such societies when created under a misapprehension of the facts, and will instruct their inspectors to advise men to refrain from forming these societies except for co-operative business purposes until land has been definitely offered?

The Board regret that any disappointment or misunderstanding should have arisen on the part of any persons desirous of occupying land as small holders, but the Board themselves are not in any way responsible for it. They are unable to adopt the course suggested in the question, but conference either with the officers of the Agricultural Organisa tion Society or of the Board themselves might enable the difficulties which have arisen to be overcome.

May I ask why the arrangements are not adopted which are suggested by my hon. Friend?

Because we cannot do so. We have no power to compel county councils to transfer land to land associations; they can only transfer to individuals.

Have not the Board of Agriculture power, if they cannot compel the county councils to take this action, to direct their own commissioners to do so?.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset how many applicants for land in Surrey have been provided with land up to the present time?

Eleven.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether he is aware that the practice, of which the Board strongly disapproved when it existed in Kent, of appointing local agents in connection with the finding of land suitable for small holdings, who also represented the principal local land-holders, still exists in Hertfordshire; and whether the Board will take steps to ensure that this practice is everywhere discontinued?

In the opinion of the Board the employment of a salaried agent, giving his whole time to the work, is the most desirable arrangement, but in some cases county councils have found it to be more expedient to employ local agents. If the work is efficiently carried out the Board would not be justified in offering any objection.

Is it not the case, as we were informed recently, that the Board considered it undesirable to strengthen the practice of appointing men as agents to county councils who are also agents of the local land-owners, and did not great difficulty arise on that ground in Kent recently?

It may not be a desirable arrangement, but we do not feel justified in forbidding it..

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can say why the inquiries to be held into the circumstances attending accidents to railwaymen at Wigan on 3rd February, Glasgow, Queenstreet, 4th February, Birmingham, Midland Railway, 10th February, and other places, are being delayed, while other similar cases of accident of a more recent date have been held?

further asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange to have inquiries into the causes of accidents to railway men on duty held as fax as possible in order of date of occurrence, in order to give those employés who have to give evidence a fair opportunity of doing so?.

It is the practice, as fax as possible, to group the accidents into which inquiries have been ordered, with a view to saving time and expense, and I have no reason to think that such delays as may be caused thereby render it more difficult to obtain the necessary evidence. In one of the cases specified by the hon. Member, the man injured was not sufficiently recovered to be able to attend the inquiry on the date originally fixed, and the inquiry had, therefore, to be postponed. I will, however, ascertain whether there has been any avoidable delay in these cases, and I will see what steps can be taken to expedite the holding of inquiries.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these cases are three months old, and that when an inquiry is appointed the men only get notice the night before or on the morning of the day of the inquiry?

I was not aware of what the hon. Gentleman tells me, but I accept his statement.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if orders have now been placed for gun-mounting of the two capital ships to be built in Government yards.

Invitations to tender for the mountings of these ships will be sent out shortly.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has done anything to carry into effect the pledge given during the Debate on the Navy Estimates that trial orders would be given to another' firm besides the two supplying the Government?

The expression "whether anything has been done to carry into effect "covers so much ground that I would like to have notice of this question.

The right hon. Gentleman says that invitations are about to be sent out. Will they be sent to the third firm?

I think I would rather not say to whom they are to be sent.

Can the right hon. Gentleman now state whether Woolwich is to have a share in these orders for gun-mountings?

No; Woolwich is not at the present moment equipped with the necessary machinery.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the impossibility in the limited period available, except in case of embodiment, of training Yeomanry to act as cavalry, and the difficulty of changing the whole principles of their training at time of embodiment, he will consider the advisability of prolonging their teaching?

The period of training has been fixed at what is considered to be the maximum practicable.

May I ask whether its possible for the War Office to consider the question in addition to arming them with rifles?

That hardly arises out of this question.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the presence of two Territorial mounted brigades on Salisbury Plain, he will direct the Regular Army remount authorities to make a careful individual inspection of the horses of the two brigades, ageing them and classifying them as sound and fit for war service or the reverse; and whether he will cause such Reports to be printed as some guide in estimating the quality of the horses available in the United Kingdom on mobilisation?

It is a part of the duties of the officers commanding the brigades to inspect all the horses and satisfy themselves as to their fitness for the duties required of them. It is not, therefore, considered necessary to send remount officers to make a special inspection. Further, in view of the small number of horses concerned, it is not thought that the Report suggested by my hon. Friend could afford any reliable guide as to the quality of horses available in the United Kingdom on mobilisation.

asked the Prime Minister whether, for the convenience of Members who are interested in the subject, he can state whether the Welsh Church Disestablishment Bill will be carried as far as a second reading this Session; and, if so, whether he will state approximately when the second reading Debate may be expected?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; and to the second, soon after Whitsuntide.

asked the Prime Minister if he has now satisfied himself that the capacity of our shipbuilding yards is sufficient for the laying down of the four "Dreadnoughts" in addition to the four ships already ordered this year without prejudice to the building programme of 1910–11?

There has never been any question of the capacity of the shipbuilding yards of this country to undertake any reasonably conceivable number of orders.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now state what arrangements have been made, and what progress has been effected in the matter of orders for gun-mountings in respect of the four "Dreadnoughts" which may shortly he ordered, in addition to the four ships for which provision has already been made?

As explained in the Debate on the 29th March last, arrange ments were made for such an extension of the plant of the gun-mounting manufacturers as would meet the requirements referred to.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice, whether his attention has been called to the fact that letters other than those which have already been brought to the notice of the House, and which are injurious to the loyalty and comradeship of the Navy, have been printed at the public expense and circulated by the Admiralty during the time the present Government has been in office, and whether, in view of the importance of restoring the prestige of the Board of Admiralty and maintaining the traditional spirit of the Navy, he intends to make a statement on this subject '?

I only received the hon. Gentleman's question as I entered the House, and the only answer I can give is that my attention has not been called to the circumstances..

The Questions on which I wish to address the House as to certain matters of administration are of such importance and so pressing that I make no apology for rising. They concern the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office. The Colonial Office Question was raised to-day in an answer circulated this morning to an unstarred question of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, formerly Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Lyttelton), in which he inquires as to the speeches made by Lord Selborne, a speech on general Native policy, which we understand to express the views of the Government, and views which, I think, are shared in all quarters of the House. There was also a speech to which reference was made just now in an answer as to the future of the Protectorates and in reference to Swaziland. There has been complete unanimity in the House with regard to the matters those speeches covered and the policy which they described. Another question put to-day was concerned with the working and exact meaning of the South African Constitution as it affects certain engagements with this country. I think we have an opportunity of knowing from time to time in the great willingness of the Colonial Office to receive deputations expressing views held in this House, and of discussing these questions in private, which is an advantage when the extreme delicacy of the matters concerned is held in view. But it is the opinion of some of those who are most weighty in such matters in South Africa, and widely held that it would be well on this occasion very briefly to find out from the Government the exact course of procedure they propose in reference to a matter which is, I think it will be admitted, of almost transcendent importance. The draft of the South African Constitution has been already laid before this House. It has been altered since it was land before the House, and no doubt it will shortly be laid before this House in its altered form. But although those changes have been made in private sittings of the Convention the Debates in the Parliaments have been public, and their speeches and their replies made in Parliaments where the views of all parties in the House have been expressed. We gather that the changes made in the Constitution do not touch the questions to which I am about to refer. The Government accepted last year, and the House carried unanimously the Resolution of l3th May last year, which leis since been quoted by the Government speakers as representing its policy, and which is similar to the policy expressed by Lord Selborne, as High Commissioner, in the speeches to which I have referred.

There is a disposition, and a very natural disposition, to treat this draft South Africa Bill as one which can be settled by South Africa for itself, but there are portions of it which on reflection by anyone in this House cannot be so settled finally. The absolute responsibility of the Imperial Government and Parliament for this Measure I think can very easily be proved. For instance, in this document which was circulated will be found a Schedule as to future arrangements not yet actually made, but which can afterwards be made at a moment's notice without further legislation dealing with Protectorates as to which our responsibility stands very high indeed, and which is purely Imperial responsibility. The House somewhat wearily, and I think very unwillingly, felt itself forced to accept almost without protest in the Constitution of the Transvaal and Orange State the provisions barring native franchise which had, the House felt, been practically given up in the so called treaty of Vereeniging. These arrangements were temporary in their form, but the Government took the view, and was supported by the House in so doing, that they should be interpreted in the widest fashion. With great regret Parliament concurred in that view, and inserted an absolute colour bar in this Constitution. It cannot for one instant be contended that the arrangement of Vereeniging, by which the House felt bound on that occasion, affected the present Constitution. This is a Constitution for the Cape Colony, because, although nominally the powers of the Cape Parliament are not directly touched and its Constitution is not altered, yet the future Dominion with which the Empire will deal will be the new Union; and not only will many of the powers of the Cape Constitution be, as it were, merged in the new Union Parliament, but we shall know nothing of the guarantees conceded by the Cape Constitution—the oldest and largest Colony, and one which is more advanced in its views of the future treatment of South African problems than can be the case with some of the newer States. For example, there is in the Cape Constitution, for which we are responsible here, an absolute prohibition of a colour bar. That stands definitely in the Constitution. Although nominally it will remain, yet it cannot for one moment be contended that the transfer of powers to the new Parliament, with which we alone shall have to deal from here, will not affect that position. As regards all the great portions of South Africa which lie outside the actual Colonies at the present, the theory is that of the Cape. That is to say, in Rhodesia, for instance, the Cape Constitution is the existing Constitution, so far as there is one there; and, of course, it covers the future of a large portion of South Africa.

Here we have this document. Many of those in South Africa who have hitherto disliked interference by this Parliament or by the Colonial Office on this occasion recognise that non-interference might be carried too far, and might involve even greater dangers than were involved in the old clays by the policy known as "interference." At all events, to avoid interference in the future, it is necessary that we should put forward quietly and calmly our views at the present time, and this is the occasion on which to do it. I want to ask the Government what are the steps they propose to take with regard to the possibility of any amendments that may be required in the Bill. Are they going to follow the Australian precedent? In that ease there was very long delay caused by the negotiations with a view to certain Amendments proposed by the Government, of which some were finally made in an altered form by consent. The practical importance of the colour bar in eligibility is not great. I frankly admit that. But there is so wide a feeling in favour of the principle often quoted by Mr. Rhodes of "equal opportunity to all civilised men," and there is such a feeling that there are in South Africa some who will be excluded by the words of the new Constitution (from eligibility), that absolutely to close the door without consideration here would, I think, be deplorable. We have all seen certain men who are excluded from membership of either House of the Union Parliament, who are not excluded now the Cape, but who are not now as a fact sitting in the Cape, some of whom are exercising great public functions with universal praise and respect. The words "Not of European descent" have been differently interpreted in different places, and they are very dangerous worth. For instance, Dr. Abdurrahman, who speaks English and Dutch, who exercises great functions at the Cape, who has four generations of Cape descent, whose race was originally from the Arab shores, is one whose name occurs to all of us as being one who would be excluded by these words. What I wish to press is that if only on this account the Act must be our Act of Parliament, considered by us, and, as far as anything outside the Orange State and Transvaal goes, an Act made with our knowledge and on our responsibility. The main effect of that lies not so much in the Cape Constitution, which I have named, as in the Protectorates. The case of Swaziland is fully covered by Lord Selborne's words; the case of Bechuanaland is familiar to many Members of this House; and the case of Basutoland is one which I am sure has the attention of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, who knows it well. We took over Basutoland because South Africa had made a mess of it. Two great wars had.

occurred in the course of an attempt to disarm;,he Basutos, and the Government had to take it over for the sake of South African peace. My hon. Friend (Colonel Seely) has described to this House the success of that experiment of the Government. Basutoland lies at the very heart of the new Union, and it is one of the territories contemplated for its growth. I need not waste the time of the House by extending the argument in any way. It is clear on the face of it to every Member. When we entered upon the war, those who made it thought—the famous speech of Lord Lansdowne is often quoted—that the result of the war would be to raise rather than to lower the status of African natives, who form an overwhelming majority of the people and all the labour of South Africa—a fact which differentiates this Constitution altogether from the Australian, where we can safely trust to white opinion. In this case, of course, we have a very influential minority, at all events in the Cape, who are rather shocked at any risk on this Question. We have also the fact that we are bound to provide for the whole future of a South Africa far larger than those portions which are at the present time mainly concerned in the active government of the country.

Sir William Harcourt prophesied the difficulties which would arise. They are now upon us. Although those of us who hold strong opinions are willing to act with the whole House of Commons and the Government, and to express our views with the deepest sense of responsibility and the greatest possible moderation, still we feel that it is our duty to show that the Act of Parliament is our Act, made upon our responsibility, and not accepted blindfold from a South African Convention. The Basuto Council have been sitting during this month in secret session considering possibly very reasonable and moderate proposals for Amendment, which will be addressed, no doubt, through the High Commissioner, to the Government. On the consideration of the Territorial schedule of this document it is obvious how very delicate are the questions that arise, and how carefully the Government, with the assistance of Lord Selborne, will have to scrutinise that schedule. The risks which we run by not providing carefully for the future of 13asutoland are very great. They are risks, I believe, to South Africa as well as to the Empire. That they are very grave risks no one can doubt. For instance, paragraph 19 of the schedule raises questions which evidently might be so interpreted as to override the safeguards inserted in other portions of the schedule. I will not press the point, which is a delicate one, and my hon. Friend knows how anxious those of us who hold these views, and who cannot but raise these questions, are not to add in any way to the difficulties of administration. I simply ask my hon. Friend, therefore, before I come to the other matter which I wish to raise, to tell us what is the course of procedure that the Government propose? What opportunity will be given in the first place by the Government to consider their own Amendments that they may have to make on the draft and in the Bill, and what course they propose to bring those matters before the consideration of the House of Commons?

The other matter which I wish to name concerns the Foreign Office. On the Debate on the Foreign Office Vote last year certain doubts were expressed by some of us as to the risk of our policy being misrepresented and exaggerated in such a way that its correctness would not be appreciated by the other Powers. On this occasion I shall not attempt to anticipate the Debate upon questions that will come up on the Foreign Office Vote again. But there can be no doubt that it is only necessary to remember the speech of the Secretary of State in the Vote of Censure Debate on the Navy of 29th March to show that these dangers have arisen and that the Government are very sensible in regard to them. The policy in this case is one of continuity —a policy developed by Lord Lansdowne and continued by the present Government. The language we have all admitted has been correct. As to the policy, some of us have doubts. But that it has been distorted and exaggerated abroad there can be no doubt. One of the results of that distortion has been the undue state of nervousness, and the undue friction which at present exists in European affairs. I fear there is also certain nervousness here on the part of all of us leading us to suspect trouble where trouble is not likely, and where a firm and prudent persistence in our own line of policy, previously declared, is the right line for this country to maintain.

The two matters which seem pressing, and where there is some doubt, are: Firstly, Crete. One of the doubts expressed by some of us last year on the Foreign Office Vote was whether it was wise for us to pursue in the Balkans, in relation to Turkey—after the Young Turkey Revolution which had then occurred—a policy which appeared to be Russian-French—the policy described as that of the New Triplice, and a policy, therefore, which seemed to be anti-Austrian and anti-German. In the case of Crete, Germany withdrew, in friendly fashion, from the Concert of the Powers. The four Powers who had their troops in Crete had promised formally to withdraw those troops. The answer given to me immediately after Easter was that this would be in July. From the answer it seemed clear that that promise would be observed. There has lately been some suggestion that we were the most backward of all the four Powers in this matter. The German Chancellor had said: "I lay down my flute in the European Concert." The German ships have left Crete. Italy, France, and Russia remain there with ourselves, and what I ask, what I assume, is that there can be no doubt that we, with our traditions towards Greece. shall not be the most backward Power in withdrawing; that we shall not conjure up dangers where Italy, so deeply concerned and so full of knowledge of the facts, sees none. It is understood that Italy is willing to take the lead in this transaction. With a certainty that Germany is willing that the withdrawal should take place, and nobody sees danger in that withdrawal, surely we who are supposed to be specially friendly to the Young Turk movement can offer advice which will be taken by every reasonable young Turk. [A slight interruption.] Well, of course, the history of seventeen Turkish wars in Crete is not an encouraging matter to those who desire to revive some vestige of Turkish rule. It is not encouraging. The withdrawal of Turkish troops was accomplished very unwillingly. Our English Admiral Noel took the leading part in procuring that withdrawal. At all events. I am willing to assume, even if no reply is made to this delicate question, that nothing should 1pr, said, and shall continue to assume that we are not to be the most backward Power in fulfilling these arrangements, which, if not fulfilled, are more likely to produce a war.

There is another matter which will be raised by other speakers on this occasion. It is also one where some belief exists that hesitation has been caused by some fear arising out of the existing nervousness of Europe—the nervousness with regard to a supposed desire of Germany to cause trouble, but the existence of which I, for one, do not believe in. It is a case of our own policy and that of the United States in the matter of the Congo. There has been no recession on the part of the Government from the policy which they have consistently pursued, but there has been a great deal—I cannot but fear—of over-caution which accounts for this delay. We are only in the position that we have been in for the last five years. When we accepted the policy of annexation we saw all the difficulties and dangers which we have seen from that time to this. It was decided that we should overcome those dangers. The policy went forth, although dangers were foreseen. Five years have elapsed without a change in the destruction of "the system differing only in name," in the words of the Secretary of State, "from slavery." When the principle of annexation by Belgium was adopted every difficulty was foreseen, including that of the Consular exequatur, before satisfaction and recognition. But difficulties have arisen in other cases before, and they have been brushed aside. Some words in reply to a question by myself referred to the Law Officers being consulted, it was hoped only on direct breach of treaty, and not on the larger issue." The reply, which I am bound to say seemed satisfactory to me, has been otherwise interpreted. It has been thought that We had expressed a willingness, inconsistent with our previous declarations, to refer this whole question to the arbitration of The Hague. That is not what we intend. That is not want Parliament meant. That is not the policy which successive Governments have given adhesion to.

In a state of Europe far more disturbed even Lord Castlereagh several times took in similar matters far stronger action than now necessary. For instance, when "the Four," i.e., the Allies who upset Napoleon, were divided two to two, and on the brink of war, in which Napoleon's army would have been commanded by the Duke of Wellington, with the support of Austria against the two Northern Allies, Lord Castlereagh took strong action at that moment in the case of France. The state of things in the Congo, the dominion for which we are responsible, is tantamount to slavery. That they have declared, and I venture to suggest that no fears that we may conjure up or any real reasonable fears as to the state of European relations Can affect the policy pursued by ourselves and the United States in this matter. It is impossible for us to submit to the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown the great questions and issues that have been at stake. No doubt any matter of our own treaty rights may be submitted, but to submit the larger questions which have been put—questions on outside matters—the right to submit these to our own Law Officers of the Crown cannot for one moment be conceded by us.

I should like to say very briefly, in reference to the admirable speech to which we have listened, that I endorse most cordially what my right hon. Friend said about the position that will accompany the withdrawal of the international flags next July from Crete. I served as a war correspondent with the Turkish forces in 1898, and from my own knowledge of that island and the towns of the interior, and despite my warm admiration for the Ottoman people and the ideals of the Young Turks, I think it is inconceivable that the island could possibly under the circumstances incur any retrogression under a definite form of Turkish rule. But that is not what I rose to speak about specially. I want to refer to the subject too briefly alluded to in the speech we have listened to—I mean the present position of affairs on the Congo. I deeply regret that after a lapse of years it is still necessary in this House to allude once more to this dreadful topic of Congo misgovernment. The necessity for alluding to it is greater to-day than at any other time in the Parliamentary history of this matter. I personally—and I speak also for others—never believe or expressed my belief in the value of the Belgian annexation as providing a solution of the difficulties in the Congo. Others were more optimistic, and that optimism was apparently shared by our Government. If anything stands out as a self-evident fact it is this, that our difficulties in regard to the Congo have not been lightened by annexation, but have been intensified to a very considerable degree. What is going on in the Congo at the present moment? Despite Ministerial pronouncements in this House, despite the spirited and unselfish work of Mr. Morel and the Congo Reform Association, backed up by the organised religious efforts of the country and strong resolutions forwarded from cities and towns; despite, too, the repeated assurances with regard to reform made in the Belgian Chamber, the old abuses are continued with unabated force at the present moment. We have the same absolute refusal of the Belgian Government to acknowledge the economic status of the natives, to acknowledge his right to the produce of the soil. We have the monstrous exactions under the guise of taxation. We have the same hunting of natives like wild beasts in the forests, the hostage camps, the floggings and brutal murders, and the whole system of cruel oppression which has been going on for years. These charges are in no way exaggerated. They are amply borne out by the reports of our Consuls and Commissionaires in the Congo. In a report which was received from Mr. Whiteside, he uses these words:—

"I have no hesitation in declaring that the conditions tinder which the people of this district exist are worse to-day than at any time during the past 12 years."

It is worth while to recall very briefly the diplomatic negotiations immediately preceding the transfer of the Congo to Belgium. In March His Majesty's Government refrained, at the earnest request of the Belgian representative, from demanding definite guarantees as a preliminary to annexation. The Foreign Secretary hoped against hope that the Belgian Government was sincere in its promises, and merely laid down certain axiomatic conditions which he trusted would accompany the act of annexation. These necessary concomitants were (a) The abolition of forced labour which "in name only differed from slavery "; and (b) "a radical alteration in the economic system of the territory." As a quid pro quo for the right hon. Gentleman's acquiescence in Belgium's demand and his refraining from pressing for guarantees, the Belgian Government formally undertook that such reforms should immediately follow when the annexation was accomplished. That could be proved by the words used in the Belgian Parliament.

"It is necessary to add that the Government of the King will set about. putting them in practice as soon as the transfer is complete. An immediate amelioration in the moral and material condition of existence of the inhabitant= of the Congo."

These promises were repeated in July. Late in July the Belgian Government said it "could only repeat its promise with the same earnestness and sincerity as before."

What is the result? Absolutely nil. The annexation took place on 20th August. Nine months have now elapsed. Nothing has been done. The abuses are perpetuated, and are becoming stereotyped. Once more our Government has allowed itself I hope I am not saying anything disrespectful—to be bluffed by the insolent and brutal slave drivers who control the Congo policy of the Belgian Government. If any- one requires any proof they will find it in the figures showing the output of rubber, provided by the Belgian Government itself, In 1906 the rubber brought to the ports of Belgium was 4,848 tons; in 1907, 4,346: in]908, 4,262. There is practically no diminution in the supply of rubber in 1908, and this shows that, pari passu, as there is no diminution of the output there is no diminution in the system of slavery which alone makes such an output possible. As to the forced labour on the railways. which, of course, are not built for the benefit of the inhabitants of the Congo,. but as mere channels for the extraction of snore rubber, for the capitalists who, exploit the country, there is no change whatever. On 6th January of this year a decree for the forced recruiting for the railway of 2,225 labourers was issued. We know by this time what this recruiting of forced labour for the railways in the Congo means. Consul Mitchell writes as follows:—

"There labourers arc hunted in the forests by soldiers and are brought in bound by the necks like criminals."

Consul Thesiger speaks in this strain:—

" Police raid, arc being carried on with the greatest energy in the native villages, and deserters and such prisoners as can be taken are rent in chains to work on the railway."

In the three years from 1906 to 1908 no less than 6,500 of these forest dwellers have been dragged from their homes to work on the railway. By October, 1908, 2,000 of them had disappeared through desertion or owing to death, and in January of this year a fresh decree was issued for 2,225 more recruits to be seized in their homes for this work on the railway. In short, the whole vile system continues with all its revolting details, and nothing is changed. Meanwhile the Belgian Government is again trying on its old game of bluff. Monsieur Renkin, that staunch apologist for slavery and outrage, has been sent to the Congo, and he is to return in October. Possibly by next spring he will have proposed another code of perfectly useless, superficial reforms, and then it will be claimed that at least a year must be conceded in order to test the working of those reforms. Every-one can see that this is the same old game of trickery and interminable delay which is being tried on once more.

I do not know whether the Secretary for Foreign Affairs is content with that state of things but I am not. We cannot wait further because the limits of our national endurance and national honour have been reached in this matter. What can be done? My right hon. Friend has alluded to the subject of arbitration. May I point out that in Article XII. of the Berlin Conference arbitration is suggested, but as far as I remember it is arbitration only with regard to certain matters such as the extent of Free Trade areas, questions of fact with regard to commercial interests and negotiations on such facts as, e.g., the justice or injustice of certain schemes of taxation for mission sites. But no arbitration is possible or conceivable on any of the great ethical principles which underlie the whole case against the Congo system of Government. I say this advisedly, because sinister rumours have been afloat recently that the Law Officers of the Crown—I do not credit the rumours myself—have been requested to draw up some scheme of arbitration by which our whole case against the Congo regime may be submitted to arbitration. I can scarcely credit the story, it is almost inconceivable. In regard to such basic questions as to whether the natives of the Congo should have the elementary right to buy and sell freely the produce of the soil, or whether the natives should or should not be compelled to give their labour against their will for the benefit of private individuals, it is inconceivable that the British Government can submit questions like that to arbitration when they are already specified in the treaty. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do you want war?"] The news that any such step was even contemplated would come as a severe moral shock to all interested in this Question, and to some of those connected with the Congo Reform Association who, like myself, are strong supporters of Liberal ideals and the present Government, it would come as a bitter disillusionment and a bitter disappointment.

What can we do? We can go on refusing to acknowledge annexation. Surely that is simply a counsel of despair, and it is merely playing with the question. Does anybody believe that this attitude of merely refusing to acknowledge a fait accompli is going to absolve us from our definite obligation to insist upon carrying our undoubted treaty rights? The Belgians do not care a button whether we acknowledge annexation or not. If any hon. Member has any doubt upon this point, let him take lip any Belgian paper and read the article on Congo reform. I will translate an extract from the Independance Beige" of 2lth May:—

"The Congo Reform Association recalls that Sir Edward Grey affirmed (November, 19(16), that England would not give her support to Congo Annexation by Belgium, unless the system of the Government of the Congo was entirely changed. England is nit called upon to give this support which nobody asks her for; she has merely, both in law and in fact, to acknowledge, the notification of the transfer of the sovereignty Of the Congo State to Belgium. The question or recognising or not recognising does not even exist."

I do not think that is an effective remedy for the present state of things, and the only effective remedy is force. I have seen too much of war to speak of it lightly. On several occasions in recent history the employment of that strangely-named method of coercion called a "peaceful blockade" has been found singularly effective. More than one instance might be recalled, but I only need to mention the despatch of the Italian battleships and the occupation of the Custom House at Mitylene, which quickly brought the Ottoman authorities to a different frame of mind. A single British cruiser sent to the mouth of the Congo and the occupation of the Boma Custom House would probably end the vile system of Congo misrule once and for all. If the United States would join us in this policy so much the better. Why should we hesitate to use force? Is it from fear of some Continental Power? Is it from fear of Germany? Does anybody believe that Germany would deliberately declare war upon this country if we established a "peaceful blockade" at the mouth of the Congo to guarantee the carrying out of a treaty to which Germany was a cosignatory'? I will only say that there have been periods in English history when vague alarms did not deter England from using her armaments to defend desolate and oppressed nationalities.

I am sure that if the Government take up a strong line of action on this point they would have the support of every right-minded man and woman of this country, irrespective of politics. At any rate, if force cannot be employed, it is better to know exactly where we stand. It is better that we should recognise the fact that, despite our treaty rights and the claims of humanity, we are really impotent in this matter, and have to acknowledge the painful and humiliating fact of our complete impotence in the face of Belgian opposition. At any rate, if we did that, we should refrain from making ourselves any longer the laughing-stock of Europe and an object of contempt and ridicule to Belgian journalists.

I will only occupy the attention of the House for a few minutes, and I do so because this is the only occasion on which I can discuss this Question. If it were raised upon the ordinary Foreign Office Vote it would perhaps be wide and too little germane to allow it to be discussed. Upon this occasion we can have a wider discussion, and I will take this opportunity of laying very briefly before the House what I regard as the cardinal difficulties upon this Question of the Congo. There is no use mincing words. Whereas this House has practically a right to discuss every line of a Bill brought before it, it has no right to criticise treaties. Treaties may involve, and do involve, international obligations, and they may involve the lives or deaths of individuals, but they are not brought in the slightest degree before this House. Treaties are executed without the knowledge of this House, and behind the backs of the people of England. This is ridiculous. It may be a question of life or death, of peace or war, but treaties are executed by the Foreign Office without let or hindrance on the part of this House. That was not the case in what are called the good old times. The Constitution of England is so full of curious anomalies that we really do not know where we are. Formerly the power to make peace or war was a pre negative exercised by the Sovereign; but the prerogative has passed through a whole series of circumstances into the hands of the Executive—into the hands of the Foreign Office. In former times the King could make war without coming here. This power is now invested in the hands of Ministers, who do not consult Parliament before making the treaties or taking action. The House of Commons in these matters used to control the Executive. In the old days, at the close of the eighteenth century, it was the practice of Ministers to ask the sanction of Parliament in reference to international affairs. No doubt the power given to the House of Commons and the House of Lords with reference to treaties is this: when a treaty affects a change in our law, both Houses of Parliament may move an Address to the Crown expressing disapproval, but all this can take place only when the mischief has been done.

I cannot repeat too often that we have not got treaty-making powers in this House. Those powers rest with the Foreign Office. For practical purposes the House of Commons, so far as foreign politics are concerned, need not exist. I do not want to say even a word trenching on controversial matters. This is not a controversial Question that I am dealing with. I will take two treaties made in recent times—one by the late Government and the other by the present Government. In both cases Parliament was deliberately precluded from dealing with those treaties. The first was the Japanese treaty. It was agreed to on 20th August, 1905, and as Parliament was prorogued on the 12th it was kept from the criticism of the House of Commons. The treaty between Russia and England with reference to Persia was signed three days after Parliament rose, in order that there should be no discussion in this House on it. These things may be all right, and they may be approved by Parliament, but still, in these matters, the people are not allowed to manage their own affairs. The greater the trust in the people in foreign affairs the greater the confidence reposed in them, the less fear there will be of international complications. Such complications are generally brought about by the rich for the benefit of the rich at the expense of the poor. Mr. Cobden said that he did not object to a contract between the people of one country and the people of another, but what he objected to was a contract between one Government and another, because it might be for evil. The people of the United States are able to direct their own foreign policy. It might be said that irritating topics about treaties might be raised in this House, and might produce mischief abroad. It is a bad tendency, and is as likely to do harm as any discussion brought before the House of Commons in reference to a treaty or anything else. I thank the House for allowing me to make this protest, which I intend to renew whenever I have an opportunity. I wish to place before the public what I believe to be the undue secrecy of the Foreign Office. It is an uncalled-for and bad secrecy. We all recollect what is known as the Dinshawi massacre in 1900. Three or four young officers who were stationed at a certain place in Egypt went out shooting, and quite unintentionally shot some sacred pigeons. There was great popular indignation, and one young officer unfortunately lost his life.

He was killed.

Yes, he was killed because he was killing pigeons that were as sacred to the natives as the hon. Gentlemen's religious emblems are to him, and possibly these people have not the self-control which the hon. Gentleman may exercise under such circumstances. But What occurred? Vengeance was inflicted on these people, a vengeance which, in comparison, really presents the Congo people denounced by my right hon. Friend in the light of Christian men and philanthropists. A Professor of History at Oxford once said that the English people were the most conscientious people of all—in seeing the faults of others, but they never saw their own. What occurred in this particular case 1 There was a drumhead court-martial on the prisoners, and crowds of people were forced to witness the flogging and execution of the accused men. Fifteen, I believe, were flogged, and with almost an ingenuity of torture these poor creatures were carried to the scene of their execution. The facts were kept from the Press, but eventually some accounts arrived in this country, and questions in this House were asked. At that time the House was just rising, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Foreign Affairs promised that a full account should be obtained of the circumstances. We asked whether it would be obtained by telegraph, and he replied in the negative, saying that it would be received in writing, although it was surely quite as easy for the despatch to be sent by wire as by post. As a result the House of Commons was prevented discussing this question when the facts were fresh in its mind, and it could only be raised at a later period, when the probability was that the facts were forgotten. Yet the author of this transaction, or, rather, the man who was responsible for it, was, in consequence of the Foreign Office keeping back the information, granted a handsome subsidy in addition to his large pay. He was voted £60,000 by this House at a time when the people were starving. That shows what the secrecy of the Foreign Office can do, and it shows that Englishmen belonging to all parties ought to be free in this House in order to manage their own affairs. You will not have Home Rule so long as it is possible for the Government to arrange your relations with Continental Powers in matters which may involve the most of Europe and have serious effects on this country.

The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean said he did not anticipate there would be any discussion on general foreign policy on this occasion. He merely referred to the danger of mis representation and misunderstanding of British policy, which, in. his opinion, had been intensified of late, and he deprecated what he considered to be undue nervousness, not in this country alone, but in Europe generally, in regard to foreign politics. I, too, will not anticipate any discussion on general foreign politics, but at the same time I do deprecate any undue nervousness, especially at this moment. During the past six months we have been through a period when there have been times of nervousness owing to the complications on certain questions—nervousness not in this country merely, but in Europe generally. Now we have passed into a period of comparative quiet, and I should be sorry to think that that nervousness should be increased, when undoubtedly there is no reason for any such increase. If there has been undue nervousness at all it must have been due to the fact that there has been too much and too frequent discussion of the relations of European Powers to each other, and it is a question in my mind whether we should supplement these very frequent discussions by a Debate in this House. It is a very good thing, no doubt, that a man should from time to time feel his own pulse. For the present I am glad to think there is no European question which is likely to give rise to future difficulties, either between us and any other Power or between any of the European Powers. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean was followed by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, who made a speech which undoubtedly might revive nervousness in Europe and produce misunderstanding and misrepresentation of British policy in the very highest degree. I am anxious to say nothing which shall give rise to any European nervousness, and I will, therefore, pass at once to the question of Crete, and I will say that we have not been more backward with regard to the withdrawal of our troops from that quarter than any other Power. The four Powers in occupation of Crete came to an agreement before the revolution in Turkey to withdraw their troops at the end of July, and it is still their intention to carry that out. We, as one of the four Powers, will carry it out, and I think it is very undesirable there should be any discussion as to whether any individual Power is more forward or more backward than any other in this matter. However, that does not settle the Cretan question. The question of the status of Crete still remains. It is a very difficult one, and it must be considered by the four Powers and by the Turkish Government. The solution is one which offers considerable difficulty. During the last six months we have been confronted at different times by at least three questions connected with Crete, which have produced a complete impasse. Still, I hope a satisfactory solution will be found, and I do not think it at all impossible for the four Powers, in conjunction with Turkey, to find that solution. As to the offering of advice on our part, which the right hon. Baronet urged upon us, I must say that we have not been backward in recent years in offering advice. We shall do our best to contribute to a peaceful solution of every question which arises, but if we should be too frequent and too insistent in offering advice, it might be a, cause of some of those misunderstandings and misrepresentations of British policy which the right hon. Baronet deprecates. With regard to the Congo the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Bennett) spoke as one of those who do not approve of the policy of Belgian annexation.

What other solution has ever been suggested? Of course I accepted it, but I am one of those who never regarded it as a final solution of the difficulty.

What solution is to be found? The hon. Member for Oxfordshire said that resolutions were passed and sent to the Foreign Office on this subject. It is quite true that those resolutions expressed, very naturally, indignation at the state of affairs in the Congo, but they did not offer suggestions with regard to a solution. The right hon. Baronet stated that he assumed that there had been no recession from anything that we had said with regard to the Congo, but he thought we had been over-cautious. It is quite true that we have not receded from anything that we said, but I do not think we have been over-cautious. but if this question were rashly managed it might make a European question, compared with which those with which we had to deal in the last few months might be child's play. Take, for instance, the question of peaceful blockade which the hon. Member urged. It is no use talking about peaceful blockade. Blockade is blockade. It is the use of force, and if you are to have blockade you must be prepared to go to war, and a blockade at the mouth of the Congo means the blockade of a river which is not the property of the Congo or the Belgian. Government. They have one bank of the riper. It is a river which by international treaty has been opened to navigation, and if you are to blockade with any effect you must be prepared to stop every ship from going in and out of the Congo, whether under the Belgian, the French, the German, or whatever flag it is. Surely if you are going to pledge yourselves to take steps of that kind and to accept responsibility for them, it is not too much to say that you must be prepared to raise a European question, and that would be of the gravest kind. I do not say that there are not circumstances which justify a question of that kind, but do not let the House think that by smooth words, such as by applying the adjective peaceful to blockade, you are going to minimise what would be the ultimate consequences of the step you are taking.

The hon. Member was afraid that we were going too far with regard to arbitration. Certainly some questions connected with the Congo must be the subject of arbitration. Nobody can read the arbitration clause of the Berlin Act, to which we are a party, which binds us to refer questions of difference to arbitration or mediation, without seeing that, if you are to show any regard to treaty obligations at all, there are circumstances and commercial questions in connection with the Congo in regard to which we must admit that arbitration is the only honourable solution_ Therefore there are questions in the Congo which ought to be referred to arbitration. I agree when you come to the question of slavery it would be impossible for any civilised Government, having made up its mind that it was dealing with a state of slavery, gravely to draw up a case for an arbitration tribunal, and to submit to that arbitration tribunal whether such a system was a legitimate one or not. In that I agree. We have had the Belgian reply in our hands for some time. The reply is satisfactory in regard to general principles, but it is inconclusive with regard to what measures are to be taken to change the Government of the Congo. Most of the reports we have had from the Congo at the present moment refer to a date anterior to the Belgian annexation. Such reports as we have received, which refer to a later date, do not show that the abuses have diminished. Under these circumstances what we must look to, I think, is not so much a question of principle as a question of fact. What we want in this matter is results. What we are anxious about is to arrive at a state when the reports which we receive from the Congo will show that the abuses in connection with forced labour and the treatment of natives have come to an end. Facts are what we really care for.

We are now drawing up a reply to the Belgian Government. The Question his arrived at the stage when it must be carefully considered by the Government. Until the reply has been considered by the Government it is impossible for me to say more about it. But I can safely promise that it will not compromise our previous declarations with regard to the Congo, and it will observe the pledge I have given in Parliament that we will not take any positive steps with regard to the Congo until the Cabinet has had the papers before them and an opportunity of discussing them. I hope that our reply to the Belgian Government will be sent off in the course of next month. As soon as it has been received by the Belgian Government I should propose to lay it before the House, with the Belgian note to which it is a reply, and as soon as it is before the House, it will, of course, be in the power of the House to discuss it, on the Foreign Office Vote, for instance, on the reply of the Government. Pending that reply being made, which I will expedite to the utmost of my power—pending that reply being made defining the position of the Government, I do not think I can usefully say more with regard to the Congo Question at the present time. I will only say that I will endeavour to get that reply laid as soon as I can, anti the reply itself will define the attitude of the Government, and it will be so guarded that it will not commit the country to any positive action until Parliament has had an opportunity of discussing this Question.

Lastly, in reply to the hon. Member for Donegal, I must express my regret that when he was raising a Constitutional point which lie is perfectly entitled to raise, he should, after having raised that point, have gone on to give a version which I thought most unfair, of incidents which undoubtedly gave rise, and naturally gave rise, to considerable controversy some time ago, but which had been closed for some long time. He accused the Foreign Office of undue secrecy, but, as regards the particular Question to which he refers, there was no undue secrecy. The telegrams that I received were made public as soon as I received them, and with regard to the trial and evidence it was impossible to get any Report of that by telegraph' which would enable me, the House, or the Government to form an opinion as to the trial itself. As soon as that could be obtained it was laid. In the case of the Russian agreement I did all I could during the progress of the negotiations to hasten it in order that it might be published before Parliament rose; but one point after another came up in the course of the discussions, and I had to remain in London and see Parliament separate and still stay at the Foreign Office for a little time afterwards in order to get it complete, and when it was signed it could not be published. The hon. Member was mistaken in saying it was promulgated three days after Parliament rose. It was signed, but it could not be published, because the Persian Government and the Afghan Government had to be communicated with for some three weeks afterwards. It would be sheer pedantry, because Parliament had separated, to have said that the treaty must remain unsigned and unpromulgated for months.

With regard to treaty-making powers, of course, the hon. Member there raised a Constitutional question. The last time he spoke on the Motion for the Adjournment I think his complaint was that, owing to my stay-at-home sedentary habits, I broke the practice of the Constitution in not going abroad. This time he wants me to pledge the Government to alter the Constitution, because there is no doubt whatever that, as regards treaty-making powers, the Government has always maintained the Constitutional practice. Whenever Mr. Gladstone was asked, he was perfectly firm about maintaining Constitutional practice, and for Parliament to insist that treaties should not be ratified until they have been submitted to Parliament for decision would be a great Constitutional change.

As the right hon. Baronet has mentioned Mr. Gladstone's name in this connection, what I said in reference to the practice of Parliament in the eighteenth century was word for word a speech delivered by Mr. Gladstone in this House on 19th March, 1886.

If the hon. Member can produce evidence that Mr. Gladstone ever expressed the opinion that treaties ought to be submitted to Parliament before they were ratified I shall be very much surprised, for such recollection as I have of what he said is that he always declined to give way on that point, and to give way on that point would be a departure from all Constitutional practice. As a matter of fact, I think the House of Commons really exercises more constant control over foreign policy than is usual in foreign Parliaments. What happens in foreign Parliaments? Two or three times in a Session, as far as I can judge, on a set occasion, on a day which is carefully chosen, the Foreign Minister makes an announcement on foreign policy. That happens comparatively seldom during the Session. In this House there is much greater freedom in raising foreign questions than I think there is in other Parliaments. First of all there are daily questions. I am sure there is not another Parliament in Europe where the Foreign Minister answers some 20 questions a week. These are supplemented very often by other questions to which impromptu answers are given, every one of which, if it is of importance, is reported in foreign newspapers, and taken there as a easefully considered utterance of the Foreign Minister. When the Foreign 'Office Vote comes on all sorts of questions may be raised. Generally the Foreign Secretary has had notice of the important questions. There is no restriction on the questions which may be raised, and the number of occasions in which in one way or another the House of Commons can ask questions and discuss matters of foreign policy I should think is greater in the House of Commons than in other Parliaments. So far as we are concerned we have no desire whatever to withdraw foreign questions from discussion in the House. When the House is sitting as soon as a Treaty is concluded I have it published in order that, if the House desires, it may discuss the question before it rises, and with regard to such questions as we are asked this afternoon about the Prize Court Convention and the Declaration of London, though the Declaration of London may not necessitate any legislation—I am not quite sure about that, but I do not think it will—yet the Prize Court Convention will necessitate legislation, and as legislation will be required I have carefully observed what has always been the practice that where legislation is required treaties and agreements should not be ratified until that legislation had passed the House of Commons. Though the Declaration of London may not require legislation, it is so closely connected with the Prize Court Convention that in the answer I gave this afternoon the hon. Member will realise that the ratification of the Declaration of London will not be given until the ratification of the Prize Court Convention, so that the rights of the House of Commons will be guarded.

I am sorry the right hon. Baronet rose so early in the De-late, because I shall not have the advantage of a reply from him. With the general proposition advanced by the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. MacNeill) I find myself in complete agreement, and I cannot say that the words which were used by the Foreign Secretary in reply to that speech convinced me, and I do not think they convinced the House of Commons. The right hon. Baronet spoke of the Anglo Russian Agreement, and he said this House was not kept in obscurity, but was kept well informed in that matter, and in fact had nothing to complain of. But what are the facts? Shortly before the House rose in the autumn I was informed in reply to a question that this agreement with Russia would have reference to questions connected with districts adjoining the frontiers of Russia and Great Britain and Persia. When the House rose and the agreement was published it was found to deal not only with questions relating to districts adjoining the two frontiers, but with districts many hundreds of miles from those frontiers, and indeed with the whole of Persia, in a comprehensive manner. I am perfectly certain that if this House and if the public opinion of the country had been given even general information as to the scope and nature of that agreement before Parliament rose it would have received very much criticism and I think opposition both in this House and in the country.

Then as regards the matter of questions and answers, the right hon. Baronet contrasted this House with other Parliaments, and he said this House enjoyed a great advantage over other Parliaments in the freedom which was given to Members in putting questions. Yes, but what is the nature of those questions? They are put mainly for the purpose of conveying information to the Foreign Office, because the answers as a rule are framed in such a manner as to impart very little knowledge. It may be urged that the publication of these answers in foreign newspapers necessitates great care in the framing of them; but, at all events, it cannot be said that these answers as a general rule form a satisfactory channel for communication between the Foreign Office and this House. What we need in this matter is what all, or nearly all, foreign Parliaments adopt, including the youngest of them—the Turkish Parliament—namely, a Committee of the House on Foreign Affairs. That Committee might be confined within reasonable limits, and it would enable the House to obtain a general idea of what is passing in the foreign diplomacy of the country, and so keep us informed of the important matters in which I think we all suppose we sent to this House to represent the country.

There are two questions on which I should like to say a few words. I must apologise to the House if I speak on them without sufficient preparation of the material which has been collected in answers to questions or in Debates, because I only last night returned from Constantinople, where, at all events, I have enjoyed the advantage of being in close communication with first-hand information. The first of these questions is that of Grebe. That is a question which was raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir Charles Dilke), and which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Woodstock (Mr. Bennett). I was delighted to hear the Foreign Secretary declare that the removal of the international troops from the Island of Crete would not necessarily solve the Cretan Question. We are inclined to treat this Question of Crete as if no change had come over one of the Powers, which is the principal factor in all these transactions. The hon. Member for Woodstock (Mr. Bennett) spoke in this sense. He said that he hoped there would be no retrogression of Crete under the Turkish yoke, but surely the hon. Member knows that language of that kind is absolutely foreign to the true circumstances of the case. Where is the Turkish yoke? The Turkish yoke has been abolished. Turkey has removed that yoke from her own shoulders by the removal of the late Sultan and his Government. This country joined in congratulation to the men who brought about the overthrow of the old régime in Turkey, and we in this House and in the Press extended our warmest sympathy to the leaders of the movement. in Turkey you have now a Constitutional Government. You have a Parliament there which has in many respects even greater powers than we possess in this House. You have men there endeavouring to do all they can to bring the affairs of Turkey into harmony with Western ideas. I ask this House—Is this the moment for us, who have expressed all these platonic sentiments towards the new movement in Turkey, to take part in any endeavour to lessen the area of Turkish emancipation? Just think of what the effect of such action of ours would be on the Young Turks, who are waging a serious fight with the forces of reaction in their own country. We do not yet know which side will win. We have on one shore of the Bosphorus the Young Turks, who are endeavouring to carry out Western ideals and civilisation all over the Empire. We have on the other side of the Bosphorus the whole of Asia Minor and Arabia, instinct to a great extent with the spirit of the old régime and with the old ideas. That is the situation. Does it not strike any Member of this House that if these Young Turks, the leaders of the new movement, are deprived of any part or of any attribute of their Empire it would be open to the reactionaries to throw it in their teeth that the loss of Crete, the loss of their position in Bulgaria, and in Bosnia and the Herzegovina, are the direct results of the incoming of Constitutional Government? Therefore I do trust that the Foreign Secretary will be very careful how he deals with this question. I also venture to say a word to the Greeks who are pressing for the annexation of Crete. The Greeks form a large number of the inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire. We are pressing the Government of Turkey to grant complete equality between the Mussulman and Christian elements. One of the most important elements numerically is the Greek element, and I think it would be sound policy, and a sign of reciprocal good feeling on the part of Greece, if they were not to press at this moment the question of annexation, and if they were to wait until it could be seen how the new Turkish Government is going to administer the affairs of Turkey as a whole.

I should like now to come to another question of greater and more pressing importance, namely, the question of Persia. in this connection I wish to congratulate the Secretary for Foreign Affairs upon the success of his efforts in persuading the Russian Government that the best policy for Persia is the restoration of the Constitution. We know there has been considerable diplomatic correspondence over this matter, and I gather that the end of it has been that the Russian Government have come to see eye to eye with us, and that they have joined us in representations to the Shah to restore the Constitution, and that the Constitution has, in fact, been, restored. There can be no manner of doubt that if the Constitution in Persia has not merely on paper but in fact been restored, the state of things in Persia will return to the normal condition of tranquillity. The question I want to ask is this: Has the restoration of the Constitution been made in fact as well as on paper I have read in the newspapers of a loan that has been given. I do not know whether it is true, and perhaps the Under-'Secretary will inform me if a loan has been made to the Persian Government by the Government of Russia. It is one of the fundamental articles of the Persian Constitution that no loan shall be made to Persia without the consent of the Persian Parliament. if, therefore, the Constitution has been restored, obviously such a loan:as that is quite illegal until the consent of the Persian Parliament has been obtained. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, speaking a few months ago, said:—

"His Majesty's Government have informed the Russian Government that should a loan he considered necessary later on, the conditions would require careful consideration, and that they would not consent to any advance until approved by an elected assembly"

Surely it is a very grave matter if the Russian Government have now on their own initiative made a loan to the Persian Government before Parliament reassembles, which would seem to be in direct contradiction of the assertion made by one of the parties to the Anglo-Russian Convention, namely, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. We know that a considerable force of Russian troops is still in occupation of Northern Persia. I do not wish to cavil at that in the least. I am quite prepared to admit that some force—I should have liked to have seen a Turkish as well as a Russian force—was necessary in order to relieve Tabriz and the Europeans in Tabriz from imminent massacre, but I should like to know upon what grounds that occupation is being maintained. As the House knows, we were, obliged to land marines in South Persia. When we found that the conditions no longer required that force it was withdrawn, and I trust that the Under-Secretary will be able to inform us that the Russian Government contemplate an early withdrawal of their troops from the North 'of Persia.

As regards the reality of 'the Constitution should like to ask the Under-Secre tary whether he could give us an idea of what is being done by the Government there. Let me explain exactly what I mean. I think it was the Prime Minister who stated at the Guildhall last year, in a clear enunciation of British policy, that the requirements of the situation in Persia were, first of all, that the Shah should dismiss the evil councillors who surrounded him; and, secondly, that he should call to his council men possessing the confidence of the Persian people; and, in the third place, that he should restore Constitutional Government. 'It seems to me that the Shah has done the last of those three things, namely, proclaimed Constitutional Government; but I can see no evidence whatever that he has either dismissed the evil councillors or that he has recalled to his counsels men possessing the confidence of the people of Persia. The councillors who surround the Shah just now are members of the old Carnarilla. Who was the principal leader of that Camarilla? It was, as the House knows, a gentleman with a name perhaps difficult to pronounce —the Amir Bahadur Jang, and the Amir Bahadur Jang has always been known as the greatest reactionary in all Persia. He has not been dismissed from the Shah's counsels, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is now one of the leading members, I believe, of the Government, does not, I am told, possess the confidence of the masses of the Persian people. In fact, I cannot find that any of the evil councillors who have been guiding His Majesty these last years have been dismissed from his service. What I want to know is this. How is it possible to introduce Constitutional Government into Persia if the men who are going to conduct the elections are the instruments of the reactionary party in Persia? As regards the second condition, which, I understand, has always been put forward by the British Government, namely, that men possessing 'tine confidence of the people should be called to the Shah's counsels. Have they so been called If so, where are they? The leading statesmen of Persia—there are not many of them, but such as there are—art still in Europe, either in Geneva or Paris, or other European centres. They have not gone hack to Persia. What I want to know is: How are you going to have a Parliament, representing the opinion of the Persian people. when the posts and the telegraphs and all the machinery of conducting the election are in the hands of the old reactionary gang?Why, a Parliament summoned under those conditions would be a mere mockery of a free Parliament, and it is certainly not in this way that you will get the public opinion of the Persian people represented. Therefore I do trust that the Under-Secretary will be able to reassure us at least on these points. I do trust that he will be able to tell us that the Shah either has dismissed or is about to dismiss those men who have been in his council during the recent untoward events; and I trust that he will be able to tell us that the Russian and British Governments have joined in earnest representation to His Majesty that those statesmen who are now in Europe, and who possess the confidence of the Persian people, should return under a distinct and definite guarantee from His Majesty that nothing will be done to endanger their personal security. I should like further to hear from the Under-Secretary that the Prime Minister, whoever he may be, who may be chosen by the Shah to conduct the elections, shall be a man possessing the confidence of the Persian nation and of the Constitutional party; and that he will be given a free hand.

I not wish that a very important question with regard to South Africa, which was raised by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke)at the beginning of this Debate with great ability and distinct moderation, should be lost sight of. The right hon. Baronet referred to a question I asked of the Under-Secretary as to whether he would be willing to lay upon the Table of this House the speech lately delivered by Lord Selborne at Cape Town with reference to the native question at large. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of the Colonial Office has taken the view that that is not an official document. It was obviously a speech made with the greatest possible consideration, and which has had, I understand, a very widespread influence in South Africa, and has been received with far more general agreement here than even, I think, the most sanguine of us ever expected, and I think myself that it is desirable that this document should become at the earliest possible moment a Parliamentary Paper, open to the inspection of all the Members of this House. The right hon. Baronet alluded in his speech, so far as it referred to South African matters, to the question of Protectorates, and especially of Basutoland, and although my disposition is with regard to internal questions of natives to rely, if unification takes place, upon the combined intelligence and wisdom of the combined States, yet I do not think that that is an attitude which can possibly be taken up with dignity by this country in respect at any rate of Basutoland. The reason I say that is, we have direct responsibilities towards Basutoland, and however highly we may think of the combined government of the four Colonies which are proposed to be unified we have no right to delegate our responsibility to them in respect of the natives of Basutoland who are under our Protectorate not by virtue of conquest by any means, but who voluntarily surrendered themselves to the control of this country, and who selected Basutoland themselves as a country where they could themselves develop their own laws and institutions, and who have of late years shown very remarkable evidence, not merely of civilisation, but of self-control.

As an instance of this, I may mention that during the late war it was anticipated that some breach of neutrality might be made by the Boers in Basutoland, and Sir Godfrey Langton sent down a Commissioner to Cape Town asking for 5,000 rifles to arm the Basutos, and undertaking on their behalf that he would hold himself as bail, that not one single shot would be fired, and that no act of hostility of any sort should take place unless the neutrality of the territory was invaded. That was a signal testimony to the absolute faith and confidence which the Government had in the native population. That they could make that request was a still greater warranty of Lord Milner's faith in Sir Godfrey Langdon and in the Basutos. The rifles were sent and the Basutos were armed, yet there was no act of violence or of incorrect behaviour in any respect alleged against any one of the natives. In regard to Basutoland, therefore, I certainly desire to confirm as strongly as I can the statement of the right hon. Baronet that we have a direct responsibility and that we cannot divest ourselves of it by delegation to anyone else. My opinion is that the Basutos are progressing both in civilisation and in self-control. I desire to say, however, that my position is not similar with regard to the Question of the native franchise in the four States.

I did not raise the Question of the franchise, but the Question of colour bar and of ineligibility.

I understood the right bon: Gentleman, but I was not quoting him. I was drawing a distinction as to my views on the internal native question. so far as I am concerned—I speak with diffidence on this point, it is a delicate point, but one to which I have given a good deal of thought—I think that our best plan will be to leave this question of the native franchise to the wisdom of the four States when they are united. I do not fear myself that they will exercise that responsibility otherwise than well; but, even if I had not that confidence, I should feel that any interference by us after the Union is brought about would probably result in turning opinion into a less desirable channel than it at present occupies. I agree with the right hon. Baronet that Mr. Rhodes's famous dictum is that we should put forth in South Africa "equal rights for all civilised men." I think that was his expression. Of course, the difficulty always must arise for a long time as to what precisely is the test of civilisation. We have only to remember, as Lord Selborne once pointed out, that we have had representative institutions in this country for 600 years, and that it is only within the last 50 or 60 years that the working men of this country have got the Parliamentary franchise. Therefore it would appear to be extravagant in the highest possible degree to say that the natives, who certainly are a thousand years behind us in civilisation, should at this early stage be granted the franchise, as has been suggested in some quarters. I trust His Majesty's Government and the authorities in South Africa will introduce, or at any rate consider, the question of an education test which might possibly be made the beginning of a native franchise in some of these States.

There is only one other matter to which I wish to ask the attention of the hon. Gentleman representing the Colonial Office. It is with regard to the reports which have appeared in the newspapers in reference to the dismissal of three school inspectors in the Orange Colony. It has always been my view that since responsible government has been granted to these two colonies we cannot, of course, interfere with their domestic affairs. But that does not make it impossible or undesirable for His Majesty's Government, or any Members of this House, calling attention to a matter which is consequent on or following upon the grant of responsible government, and which has resulted in injustice to British subjects who were citizens of that country before the grant of responsible government. In that case it would not be undesirable to call attention to it, and to ask His Majesty's Government to see if anything could possibly be done with a view to securing justice. Speaking for myself, I must guard myself against assuming that any of the facts stated in the telegram which has appeared are fully or even accurately stated. I think until we have got accurate official information we are not entitled in this House, as against the Government, which is the responsible authority, to postulate that any injustice has been done. I particularly desire to hear whether His Majesty's Government have any information on this matter, and, if it be the fact that these three inspectors have been summarily dismissed, what is the reason alleged, and whether any judicial or other inquiry had been made before that action, so hostile to them, and, as I understand, so much resented by the British population, had taken place. I feel particularly impelled to ask these questions at this moment, because in the very delicate condition of things in South Africa, almost all well-wishers of the country agree that after the union takes place that it will be far better if there is an explanation to be given on these matters that it should be given at once, rather than that a natural and legitimate feeling of bitterness should be entertained between any portions of the British population.

In regard to the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean and by my right hon. Friend, I desire to say a few words; but first I may be permitted to refer to a question in which we on this side of the House are all deeply interested, and upon which we have had a declaration from the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. I regret that I did not hear the whole of that statement, but as the matter of the Congo has never been one on which the two sides of the House have differed, the House will realise that I would not in the very least twist any statement which has been made to me concerning what the Foreign Secretary has said to any particular controversial advantage. I did hear a portion of the statement of the Foreign Secretary, but I am bound to say that I heard it with intense regret and anxiety. We have had on the question of the Congo probably the most unanimous opinion that we have seen on any great public question that has arisen in this country over a period of generations. The whole country, irrespective of party, have given its support to Lord Lansdowne when Foreign Secretary and to the present Foreign Secretary in the position which they have taken up, and there has been absolute unanimity in regard to that policy up to the present time. The present Foreign Secretary said:—

" I think it is not too much to say no external question for at least thirty years moved the country so strongly, so vehemently, as this in regard to the Congo."

That was the opinion of the Foreign Secretary, it has been the opinion of the people of this country, and up to the time when Belgium, through her Parliament, annexed the Congo territories to the statements, appeals, and questions asked by this Government the Belgian authorities gave every assurance that the reforms that were asked for would be granted. The Belgian Government in a despatch on 12th July said:—

"The Cabinet of Brussels intends to issue and to give effect to the said measures for improving the lot of the waives as soon as ever the annexation of the Congo and the Colonial Law have been voted by Parliament. It has promised the Chamber of Representatives to do so on more than one occasion; it has confirmed this promise to the British Government in writing; it can Only to-day repeat its promise wills the same earnestness and sincerity as before,"

I have a number of quotations here which I might read to show that the repeated promises of the Belgian Government were that just as soon as the Colonial law was passed and the territories taken over that reforms would be instantly instituted. They expressed satisfaction almost at the attitude taken up by the British Government. They were friendly, sympathetic, and amenable, but what happened a little later? As soon as annexation was accomplished by the Belgian Parliament, as soon as the Colonial law is passed, there comes a change in the attitude. Immediately there is a new spirit begotten in the Belgian legislature and in the minds of the authorities of Belgium. They—in reply to protests made and questions asked by our Government in which there occurred the words:—

"We ask for a radical alteration in the economic -system of the territory."

assured us that there could be no question of their adopting radical measures. On 14th November last, as has been mentioned this afternoon, the Foreign Secretary said that some immediate amelioration should be introduced into the lot of the natives. The reply to that was on the part of the Belgian Government that the present condition was satisfactory. There has been a most absolute change of policy on the part of the Belgian legislature Mince annexation was achieved by their Parliament. To our previous protest there were promises upon promises, but instantly the Belgian legislation became responsible, then began a policy of resistance to any British demand or British representation based on their Treaty rights. Now, we who gave the support from both sides of the House to the Foreign Secretary during all those troubled years were moderate in our statements, were consistent and persistent in supporting this policy, and we have to face the fact now that since last November, when he asked for some definite action on the part of the Belgian Government, we have had nothing. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Woodstock in a speech which was replete with information, and based upon accurate knowledge, we had it shown to us that the position of the Congo so far as the natives were concerned was as bad as it was three years ago, or five or seven years ago, when we made our protest.

It must be abundantly clear that this state of affairs could not go on unless there was a feeling in the Congo among the officials there that they would not be interfered with if they pursued the methods that had been pursued for a course of years. It is not sufficient to say that there has not been time to institute reforms. If those responsible for the collection of labour, and for the treatment of natives, and for the commercial development of the Congo, though I use the word with a note of satire, if they believed that the intentions of the Belgian Government were to produce radical reforms, those reforms would have been produced without regulation and without active coercion on the part of the Belgian Government. The fact of it is that the evidence goes to show that there is apparently no intention on the part of the Belgian Government, and that those who are in the Congo who are doing the work for the concessionaire companies and for the Belgian company have realised that two countries in the forefront of civilisation, the United States and this country, have not been able to effect that determined reform to which they committed themselves for a number of years. That determined reform was that annexation should not be approved of until there was a change in the condition of the natives of the Congo. That change has not come about, and there is apparently no intention of it being brought about.

The Foreign Secretary this afternoon has said that while this Government is considering arbitration that that arbitration would be confined to matters of details in connection with commerce and trading, and with difficulties which may arise under the rights which we have through the Berlin Treaty and our own agreement made in 1884. That is satisfactory. We understand then that the Government do not intend to allow the large question of principle to be considered by any Board of Arbitration or The Hague Tribunal or any other Tribunal. The United States has said even more strongly than we have ever said that the system pursued by the late Government of the Congo was a system intolerable in the eyes of civilisation. The United States Government presented a Memorandum to the Belgian Government expressing itself far more strongly than the present British Foreign Secretary has ever done. What I want to ask the House is this: Does the Government feel that, with another great Government representing over 80,000,000 of people, in the forefront of civilisation with itself, it must now, as it were, mark time, stand still, and wait developments in the vague hope that things may improve? No one in this House desires what might be called a rupture with any other country; but if England and the United States were to express themselves presently as strongly as they expressed themselves last November, and repeated their statement that they meant what they said, with the understanding that all other countries have of the condition of things in that country, does anyone think that England and the United States would not be supported by public opinion throughout the whole of Europe? If they presented their case once again, not with smooth words, in diplomatic language certainly, but with the same decision, determination, and precision with which the Foreign Secretary spoke three times last year, and again at the Easter adjournment perhaps with less vigour, but with the same decision—today we have not had, as I think, the same decision, and it is a matter of regret to all of us—I say that the Government will do well. If they once again invoke the public opinion of this country and of the United States, and again make a statement to Belgium as firm as the statements they have made in the past, they will have behind them the general assent of the people of this country, and, I believe, of the whole civilised world.

I apologise for speaking so long upon this particular question. May I now ask the attention of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies to one or two matters upon which there has been some discussion this afternoon. In his very careful and—he will understand how I use the word—astute speech my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir Charles Dille), who always treads carefully on Colonial and foreign questions, knowing the consequences that ensue from careless words, raised one or two points which were also dealt with by my right hon. Friend below me (Mr. Lyttelton) with equal care and caution, on which, perhaps, I may be permitted to speak a little more bluntly, since I am not official or ex-official. But, whilst speaking bluntly, I hope at the same time to speak with decent consideration for the difficulties which surround the question of the Constitutional development of South Africa. The native question raised by the right hon. Baronet is one to which the gravest perils are attached if there should be on the part of this Government or on the part of the Governments of South Africa any lack of clear policy, firmness, and decision. I am one of those who think that the Constitution as it stands does not offer any solution of the native problem. I view with anxiety the Bill which will come before this Parliament, embodying the authority of the Governments of South Africa to deal with the natives in their respective Colonies, with differing policies for each Colony, and trying to evolve from those different policies one clear and' general policy which will solve within those territories the native question for unified South Africa. But there is another very difficult position. We stand outside with our territories, with Basutoland, Swaziland, and Bechuanaland. We know generally what our policy is concerning natives. On the whole we are fairly agreed as to what our policy should be. We agree with my right hon. Friend below me (Mr. Lyttelton) that we cannot give the franchise in a hurry. Our civilisation would represent nothing if we were going to give it to the natives as it was given to the negroes. The negroes themselves in the United States have recognised that the franchise was given too soon, even after they had had a hundred years of industrial development and technical education. We believe that the natives should be kept in a position of patriarchical administration, with opportunities to develop industrially and socially. and with an opportunity to acquire the privileges of the franchise under certain restricted conditions. What I see in regard to the future is this: Perhaps it cannot be helped: I am afraid it cannot be; and I am afraid it could not be The only way you could have had unification at the present time was to leave the native question out. Perhaps that is so; but I want to point out that we are going to be faced by two possibly distinct native policies in South Africa. You may have this country with its territories, with a policy of its own, clear and distinct, and you will have under the Constitution the right of the unified Government to make laws to control the natives and to control the entrance and passage of natives from our territories into theirs, which laws might in times of difficulty with this Government be repressive measures intended to provoke a difficulty between this country and the South African Governments in order get what they believe to be a proper solution of the native problem. Their proper solution would be the control of the natives throughout the whole of South Africa south of the Zambesi. That may occur. It may happen that the South African Government will desire that. See what a situation will then ensue. Whenever that was the case it would be impossible for this Government to take up an attitude of severity, of bitterness, or of strenuous opposition. Eventually, I believe, rightly or wrongly, the Government of unified South Africa will control the natives of the whole of South Africa south of the Zambesi. But before that conies there will be grave difficulties. Of that am assured. It is one of the drawbacks of the attempt to develop South Africa constitutionally through this draft Constitution that this question remains unsettled—much less settled han it is at the present time, because the issues involved will be so much the greater.

There is only one point more in the Bill as drafted to which I wish to refer. That is the question of the Supreme Court. I regret extremely that any tie between the Colonies and this country should be loosened or refined away. I believe it is the case there will be no appeal from the Supreme Court of South Africa to the House of Lords, or, rather, the Privy Council, which is the highest tribunal of the Empire. That I think is regrettable. There is one point more which has been raised by my hon. Friend below me. That is in relation with the dismissal of inspectors in the Orange River Colony. We have passed for the moment outside the range of bitterness in connection with discussion of questions concerning South Africa. What I am going to say is absolutely free from any taint of bitterness, or from any taint Of criticism which has behind it any re- membrance of past conquest. You have at the present time in the Orange River Colony an education system which has been embodied in the Bill lately passed. I am not sure whether I am right, but I believe that when that Bill was finally passed and received the assent of the Government, that the Government had not seen the Bill in all its details. They had only seen the draft of the Bill which was altered in the Orange River Colony Legislature. That Bill received the assent of the Government in its final form, and has not been submitted to this House. Briefly the position is this: that you have in the Orange River Colony a dual language established. That is to say, that both languages may be taught; that both languages shall be taught. Some of us pointed out when the Bill was passed that the result — not intended — would be that racialism, the effects of racialism, would ensue. The position now is that in the Orange River Colonies the British children are compelled to learn Dutch. This applies to three subjects—geometry, geography, and Latin. Just imagine British children being compelled to learn geography, geometry, and Latin in a Dutcb language ! [An observation was here made by an HON. MEMBER.] Well, Dutch is a medium of introduction to the Latin. Of course, any hon. Member who has just arrived on the premises, having taken a deep interest in this discussion, will be able to seize upon any slip of the tongue which the speaker for the time may be guilty of. My point is this, that Dutch covers the three subjects. Someone said it holds good for both races. Yes, but that is the unfortunate part of the thing. You have now the extraordinary experience of the Dutch in the Orange River Colony joining in a public meeting and protesting against their educational system because their children are compelled by the authorities to learn Dutch when they want them to learn English. I believe it is the case that two of the chief schools which I visited in the Orange River Colony, which were most successful and of which nine-tenths of the pupils were Dutch, have steadily declined since the passing of this law. I say this Government should make representations. as my right hon. Friend very properly said, that these were questions which had not solely passed out of our consideration, in view of the fact that there had been until lately such acute controversy over them, and that therefore we were entitled—as we are entitled—to make comments upon these things which were lately with us subjects of such delicate and acute consideration. I am quite satisfied that the hon. Gentleman, standing so well as he does with the Government of South Africa and with his own Government, which say that they have given blessings untold to South Africa—well, the hon. Gentleman would not put it in such illiterate language as that, but he would say the same thing in different words, that they have given great things to South Africa.

Let us grant it for the purposes of argument. I say the duty of this present Government did not cease then. These things should not be, ought not to be, withdrawn from purview when the Government granted the Constitution. I ask the hon. Gentleman if it is not a case that this Act was insufficiently considered by his Government and by the Colonial Minister 4 I think that a final draft of that Act was never in the hands of this Government until their assent had been given to it by the Governor of the Colony. The hon. Gentleman will know whether I am correct in that suggestion or not. One thing more. I did intend to say something about Somaliland, but I will not. I would like to ask how the question of settlements stands. What is the position of the Land Board, to which we, whether Members of that side or this, attach the greatest importance, since they secure the British settlers from any possible interference—perhaps they would not have interfered—on the part of what may be called an unsympathetic Government for the space of five years. I put a question on this point, and asked what will he the position of the Land Board if this Constitution is granted. The reply of my hon. Friend was that it would remain still under the control of the Imperial Government, but then he said something which I am bound to say startled me. I have since read the Act, and I almost regret to say that my hon. Friend is correct in his interpretation. I almost regret that because it raises a difficulty. I see that under the Constitution that a law passed by the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly may repeal or alter any provisions. The hon. Gentleman said this afternoon that the Government of South Africa could alter the law, and by it could alter the position of the Land Board, and by law take it over; but he said, however, that the Government would have the right of vetoing: the night to refuse assent to that law if passed.

It is automatically reserved. Read on.

Of course, we cannot throw our soft heads against these hard stone walls of the Constitution, which has been given by this country. But it does raise a very great question. Suppose that the unified Parliament of South Africa should decide to override, should find, perhaps, that it was incongruous to have a Government within a Government, an Administration within an Administration, a Land Board acting absolutely independently — suppose the Parliament say: "We will have no agreement with the Land Board, which is not provided for under the Constitution," what will happen '1 Suppose the Legislature of the Colony says: "We will pass a law taking over the Land Board." We have only the assurance now of the hon. Gentleman—well, we have not got it yet—that the Government may reserve their assent to that law. We have assurances that the Government will reserve its assent, but there is no certainty that the position of the settlers might not, in a possible case, be injured. It has only got 31 years to run, and then perhaps they will be able in that time to recover themselves from the losses which they have suffered and from the difficulties which they have had to encounter. But I would like—if I might press the hon. Gentleman to give me a clear statement of the case this afternoon —I would like him very much to do so because, after all, it is a question that concerns the settlers out there. A deputation waited upon the hon. Gentleman himself and Lord Crewe in connection with this matter. These people, with their families, are vastly concerned as to what their position is going to be under the new Constitution, and it will be a satisfaction to great numbers of the people in this country and of the settlers of South Africa and in the Colonies generally if the hon. Member will make an explicit statement and define for us what the position of the settlers will be under the new Constitution. With every apology to the House for having detained it so long, I leave the matter now with the hon. Gentleman.

As one who rejoices as much as any loyal subject in and out of Parliament that the King won the Derby yesterday, I think we ought to have an extra holiday. I do not intend to postpone, except for five minutes, the all too brief period of holidays which we are to have. I must leave, therefore, unanswered the whole speech of the hon. Member for Woodstock alluding to the Belgian Government and his condemnation of that Government as under the domination of slave drivers, which I deny, and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon suggesting that foreign affairs should be committed to the care of a Committee of Parliament, which would render impossible the conduct of business, which is already sufficiently difficult. But I will come to the subject about which I wish to ask the immediate attention of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies and that is the North Nigerian Railway. It seems there is some new system of carrying out railway work by the Government in Africa, because Sir Percy Girouard is carrying this out without the usual intervention of the Crown Agents. I do not regret their absence, but it is a new system, and I should like to know whether this is the form of model upon which the construction of railways in South Africa will in future proceed on behalf of Government.

I also particularly want to know—my intervention is interested, as my hon. Friend knows perfectly well, there is no secret—I want to know whether since trestle steel bridges are approved for Nigeria by Sir Percy Girouard, a famous expert, since they are good for that part of Africa I trust he may, should there be a railway constructed in any other part of Africa, remember that what suits in one part of Africa may be good for another, and that the elevation of this railway throughout is not so great as some hypothetical line of railway with which he may be acquainted. I would also remind him that one of the most famous viaducts in Burmah, a tropical country swept with rain and storms, is of the trestle-bridge character. I submit to him and to the Colonial Office that that type of bridge in America and other parts of the world has been found admirably suited for pioneer railways and that in Northern Nigeria, where there exists granite and stone suitable for masonry works. such work has very properly not been insisted upon when trestles sufficed. I say that this particular type of construction suits Africa extremely well, and if there was time I could refer my hon. Friend to the fact that similar bridges in other parts of Africa have also stood tropical Hoods exceedingly well. But I do not consider that a Member is justified for the special reasons I gave, and also because, of all the work that has been done and which has to be done, in browsing at large over a wide field of subjects on a day like this, occupying further time, and having brought this subject to the attention of my hon. Friend, who always gives them most careful attention and consideration, for which I take this opportunity of tendering him my grateful thanks, I will abstain from further taking up the time which the House, I am sure, is anxious to spend at this moment in any other manner rather than sitting here.

I will reply at once to the appeal made to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery Boroughs (Mr. J. D. Rees). I do not think I will explain to the House the technical points?is to the different types of bridges in the different countries about the world, but I bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said, and I will bring it to the notice of the Secretary of State. I might remind my hon. Friend that if he will turn to the Parliamentary Paper which was issued on the subject he will find full information—

I have read it.

If that be so I can supply my hon. Friend with some further Blue Books which he could read during the Recess.

I will forego that pleasure.

I turn now to other matters raised by two speakers, and if I may I will deal first of all with points of detail, and then come to the more important matter—the effect the Union of the South African States may have upon the native races. As to the question about settlers and the Land Board, it appears that the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Gilbert Parker) has, for the first time, discovered that it is possible for the Parliaments of the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal, as indeed for nearly every Parliament with which I am acquainted, to vary its Constitution. Of course the hon. Gentleman ought to have made his protest some time ago, because if he looks at the Act he will see plainly by Article 39 of the Transvaal, and Article 41 of the Orange River Colony Acts, that the Constitution may be varied, and of course, if Parliament so desires, they may vary any resolution in regard to the Land Board.

When did the hon. Gentleman discover that?

Ever since I have been at the Colonial Office. It is not remarkable that that is so, and I think the lion. Member is alone in this House in supposing a Parliament cannot vary its Constitutions, subject to higher authority, upon any matter within its charter. The hon. Member will see that by Article 39B of the Transvaal and 41 (C) of the Orange River Colony any such proposal is automatically reserved. In the case of the ordinary laws, although they have not received the Royal Assent, they come into operation, and in due course the Royal Assent is given. The law, however, comes into operation before the Royal Assent is received. In the case of such a law as this the Governor reserves the law automatically for consideration, and that is the technical aspect of the case. How will that be affected by union? I made a very full reply at question time upon this point. Lord Selborne has consulted the South African authorities, and he says the Land Board will be under the Governor-General. It will be possible to delegate powers affecting the Land Board to provincial councils, but in many cases it would be unlikely, and we have the assurance of Lord Selborne that no such course is contemplated and would not be of any advantage.

My point was that the Land Board is not under the Orange River Colony or under the authority of any South African Government. Could any South African Government deal with a matter which is solely in the control of the Imperial Government?

I have explained how we stand with regard to the Land Board or any other matter which the Government of a Colony can deal with, subject to reservation. It is extremely unlikely that any such attempt will be made, and we should know if there was any possibility of such a thing happening. In the case of union, the only difference will be that, instead of the Colony being the responsible administrator, the Governor-General of the new union of South Africa would be the responsible person. With regard to the possibility of them desiring to put an end to the Land Board, that power will be no greater than the power is at the present time, and no whisper or suggestion of such a course has come to us Clearly it would be the last thing a United Parliament would wish to do, when the Land Boards have only a year and a-half to run. Upon that matter the hon. Mem ber may rest satisfied and feel sure that no such state of affairs will arise.

With regard to the dismissal of school inspectors, which has been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lyttelton) and the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker), I may say that I saw the report in the papers, and I received a telegram on the subject about one hour ago. It appears that there is no definite information as to how the whole matter arose, but the Governor informs me that the Minister of Education in the Colony is going to make a full statement next week, and then he will telegraph to us further information. I think, therefore, it will be better that we should defer till after Whitsuntide any further statement on my part until we have heard what the Minister for Education has to say on the whole matter. No doubt it arises owing to difficulties connected with education. Although it may be true that the people of the Orange River Colony find it difficult to settle the education problem, at any rate they have found it easier than we have done in this country, and it is not for one side to lecture the other. I think we had better accept lectures from that Colony rather than give them lectures from this end. I will undertake, as soon as I have the information as to what the Minister for Education has said—assuming it has not all been published in the papers—to make the fullest statement I can as to the facts if the hon. Member will put down a question on the Paper. I think I have now dealt with all the comparatively minor questions, although they are important.

I come now to the question raised in a speech characterised with great restraint by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. The right hon. Gentleman has taken a life-long interest in the welfare of native races, and he never misses an opportunity of bringing to our notice the fact that it is our bounden duty at all times to endeavour to raise the status of the black races confided to our rule, and he now raises the question whether the natives will he raised or lowered in status should a union of the South African States take place. I think the right hon. Gentleman has clone well even at this late period of the Session to bring this matter to our notice, because it is almost certain that some proposals for union in some form or other will be presented to this House or the other House for our consideration before Parliament rises for the Recess. Of course I think most of us look forward some day to a union of all the King's Dominions in South Africa under some strong central Government. Most of us believe that by that means the greatest security will be given not only for South Africa as a whole, but also to the native races. The House will appreciate the fact that under the draft Act which is corning over it will be possible for any two colonies to unify themselves and join in union. The indications are so clear that at least two of the colonies will wish to come to closer union that we may say with certainty, or well-nigh with certainty, that proposals for a closer union of some of the States will he brought before this House before we separate for the Recess.

The question will be asked what will be the result of this unification upon the natives? Possibly there will be a unification of four, but under the Act a unification of two States may take place. What will be the effect of unification following the Australian and Canadian precedent, and then following on to a full union of all the States, which most of us look forward to with hope? I think we may say it is a broad rule that the stronger a Government is the more just and considerate it is. We are often told that this House takes a more generous view of native problems than the Governments of Colonies who have native populations to administer. That may be true, but if it be true it is not because of any inherent virtue in ourselves, but because in regard to the danger to which we are exposed we can easily give full play to cur generous sentiments without any corresponding danger. Exactly the same thing must take place when the Governments of South Africa come into union and become stronger, and are themselves less liable to suffer from any fear of the consequences or the action they may take. Broadly speaking, I submit to the House as being true that any scheme of union must render the Government stronger, and by making it stronger must render it more likely to be just and more considerate. My right hon. Friend asks me what opportunity this House will have of discussing Amendments to the draft Act. As I understand it, the Draft Act cannot be brought in here in identical terms. A fresh Bill will have to be drafted. There will also be Amendments proposed by His Majesty's Government. We have settled "upon broad principles, but there are certain principles between this country and South Africa which will have to be discussed. After these discussions have pro- ceeded for a little time a Bill will have to be brought in. It is proposed as more convenient that the Bill should be introduced into the other House, but, of course, it will also be brought in here. The Amendments which we have agreed upon will also be brought in here, and it will be competent for any Members to move fresh Amendments, but it is unlikely that a great many Amendments will be proposed. I wish to refer to two aspects of the native Question. It is provided "that it shall not be lawful to alienate any land in Basutoland or any land forming part of the native reserves in the Bechuanaland Protectorate and Swaziland from the native tribes inhabiting those territories." The sale of liquor shall he prohibited in the territories.

What about Natal?

It is embarrassing to reply to the question without implying blame, which I am anxious not to do, but so far as the unification of South Africa is concerned I do not think there will be any going back on the work that has been done. The custom, where it exists, of holding pitsos or other recognised forms of native assembly shall be maintained in the territories. No differential duties or imposts on the produce of the territories shall be levied. The laws of the Union relating to Customs and Excise shall be made to apply to the territories. As I have said, the sale of liquors to natives will be prohibited. I think that the South African statesmen are most enlightened on the question of native subjects, and that they are at one with us. We will not pursue a policy of distrust of South Africa, for we are confident that the more we trust the people of South Africa the more likely it will be that the result will be satisfactory. The Cape retains its native franchise under the proposals, and it is fair to say, I believe, that any attempt to ram down the throat of South Africa any plan of our own for dealing with the native races would be foredoomed to failure. We must safeguard the native races, but the more we trust the people of South Africa with their own destiny, the more likely are they to be just to the native races. I look forward with confidence to a unified South Africa, which should not only make that country a more prosperous place for white men to dwell in, but a place where the native may maintain all his rights and progress to higher things.

An hon. Member seems to think that there is more information in the questions which have been addressed to my right hon. Friend than in the answers, but I think that the answers will compare favourably with the questions. He asked questions with regard to certain movements in Persia. As to the advance made by the Russian Government, for the purpose of paying off the arrears in the pay of the troops, and for disbanding those troops, as well as for the purpose of paying the arrears of salaries of diplomatic officials, and for other urgent purposes. We are aware of the purposes to which this advance has been put, and are being kept informed of the way in which the money is being applied. The hon. Member referred to the presence of a large force of Russian troops in Tabriz.

In North Persia.

There is, no doubt, a large force of Russian troops at Tabriz, and the hon. Member himself admitted the necessity for their intervention. In fact, he went a long way towards saying that the European troops ought to be there to prevent massacre and starvation. Still, we have the assurance that these troops will be withdrawn as soon as a governor has been appointed to take over the administration of Tabriz. I hope that will be satisfactory to the hon. Member. He said there were three things which the Persian Government ought to do in order to prove that they were really sincere in reintroducing the Constitutional movement. The first was the dismissal of evil councillors, and I think he specially mentioned Amir Bahadur Jung, a late War Minister, as one/ of the worst, in his opinion, of the councillors of the Shah. As a matter of fact, that Minister has been dismissed with two other Ministers. As to the new advisers of the Shah, which I think was the hon. Member's second point, Ain-ed-Dowleh is in control of affairs and Nasr-ul-Mulk is to be Grand Vizier if he returns to Persia, although he is at present in Paris. If he returns to Persia there will be a guarantee of safety.

Why is it that all the leaders of the Constitutional party are still in Europe and are not returning?

It is most unreasonable to ask me that. We have urged this particular gentleman to return, but it is a question for him to consider whether the attractions of the high office to which he is called are sufficient to outweigh other considerations. The third point raised was the question of amnesty. I do not think the hon. Member put it in that way, but I can assure him that we are informed there will be an amnesty for all political offences. The hon. Member for Gravesend raised the question of the Congo. I quite admit the extreme gravity of that question, and that almost universal public interest is taken in it in this country. I realise the responsibility which is placed on the Government in connection with it, and I regret that the hon. Gentleman did not hear the speech of my right hon. Friend, because I can add nothing to what he said. He told the House that arbitration was not, in his opinion, applicable to a question which involves slavery. He also told the House that the Cabinet was considering what reply should be given to the Belgian Note, and as soon as that has been decided upon both the Note and the reply would be laid on the Table of the House.

There is one matter on which I should like to have a little more enlightenment. It is a subject on which I have put several questions in this House recently, and the answers have not appeared to me to be altogether satisfactory. I allude to the arrangements made by the War Office with the Army bankers, Messrs. Cox and Co., an arrangement by which the War Office hands over to that firm the pay of Army officers who distribute it to them. It is quite obvious that this is an extremely valuable monopoly. The official answer to my questions has been that there is no monopoly. No doubt two others firms, Messrs. Holt and Messrs. McGregor, have a share in the business, but they only pick up the crumbs that fall from Messrs. Cox's table. I believe Messrs. Cox have an arrangement with over 100 regiments, while the other two firms have only 13 regiments between them. Therefore it is a practical monopoly which the War Office have bestowed on Messrs. Cox and Co. It is an ancient monopoly, dating from long ago, and someone has declared that a sacred veil should be cast over the beginnings of Government; in the same way I think a sacred veil might be cast over the beginning of the connection of Messrs. Cox and Co. with the War Office. I say the monopoly is extremely valuable, and for this reason, that officers are practically compelled to bank with Messrs. Cox and Co., and, that being so, that firm have a very large amount of money which they can use for ordinary banking purposes, especially as in a case like that of the South African War. They also have another advantage by being in a position somewhat to control the pay of the officers. Why this valuable monopoly has been given I do not understand, but I have been told that there are firms who would pay a considerable amount for this privilege. I have the names of highly responsible firms, well known in the banking world, who state that they would give as much as £10,000 a year for the privilege. Twenty years is the term for which the privilege is granted to Messrs. Cox, and that multiplied by £10,000 gives a total sum of £200,000, which in these hard times should prove a source of revenue which ought not to be entirely neglected by the Government. I very much regret that they do not invite tenders from other firms for this valuable privilege. I have been told that no tenders have been sent in, but, as a matter of fact, other firms have not had the chance of tendering, and for some reason or other, I have not been able to understand why, this contract, which expires at the end of the year 1911, was renewed by the War Office in the early part of this year. Other firms never heard that it was to be renewed, and consequently they never tendered, but one firm did ask for information, and received the reply that the matter had been already settled, and that Messrs. Cox had received the contract for another 20 years. When I asked the Minister of War the other day the reason for that, he said it was in order to secure continuity. I do not think that that is an adequate reply, because, after all, it is only a matter of the engagement of a dozen clerks, and I am pretty certain that any firm, in order to secure this extremely valuable monopoly, would quickly make those engagements. It was also stated as another reason that Messrs. Cox did the work extremely well, but, again, I would suggest that any firm would ensure that the work was well done if only they got in return a valuable privilege, worth £10,000 a year, for nothing. A suggestion has also been thrown out that the arrangement is a popular one with Army officers. Since I first raised this question I have had a good many letters from officers now in the Army and from those who have retired, and I must confess that they are not always couched in terms of extrava- gant laudation of Messrs. Cox and Co. Still, while assuming that nothing is to be said against that firm, I want to know, as a taxpayer, why should this valuable monopoly be given away for nothing l Why should it be given away three years before the expiration of the contract'? If the representative of the War Office will give me a satisfactory answer it will be a great relief, not only to the House, but to the outside public, and to a great many officers of the Army, who are extremely interested in this matter, which vitally concerns them.

I do my best to answer the question which the hon. Member has so reasonably and briefly put. I do not understand what he said about the desirability of drawing a veil over the early history of the relations between the War Office and Messrs. Cox, because historically Messrs. Cox are not the agents of the War Office, but of the different regiments. There have been representative agents ever since there was a standing Army, and in the old days the colonels of regiments appointed the agent, Then there were a great variety of agents instead of three, and no doubt a great deal of complication arose, but they were appointed simply and solely by the colonels of the regiments, who were responsible for them, and not the War Office at all. They were paid for doing the work of distributing the pay of the officer in whatever part of the world he might be by the officer himself. When in 1881 the colonelcy of a regiment was made an honorary appointment, it was considered quite naturally that it could no longer be laid upon the colonel to be responsible for the agent if there were any defalcations or shortcoming in regard to the money, and from that time colonels have been relieved of responsibility, and the responsibility of appointing the agents has been taken over by the War Office. At that time it was also laid down and decided that the agents were to be expected to do the work they did without being paid for it, as they had been up to that time. The work they do is of considerable value to the War Office, and does save us a very considerable amount of expense, and if it was not for them we should have to do a great deal of accounting through our own staff. They also relieve us from any possible loss owing to being unable to recover officers' pay after an officer's death. We pay officers in advance, and that is the system. Therefore it mad quite often happen that an officer is paid for a period after which he has ceased to be alive, and Messrs. Cox or other agents are required to refund to us the pay from the date of the officer's death or of his leaving the service, and they themselves take the risk, which is no light one, of not being able to recover money paid to the officer's account from his family or executors. The system of having agents for the regiments is one which was started by the regiments themselves, and now continued also by the regiments themselves, because of its convenience to them. Its convenience to the officers, I imagine, lies chiefly in the fact that they have automatically a banking house in London, to which their pay is given, and they have not the difficulty of having it transmitted to them in any part of the world where they are and transmitting it back again to a London bank.

It is not the case that these agents have a monopoly, that officers are compelled to keep their accounts with them, however much they dislike it, and that Messrs. Cox are unpopular. If any officer requested us at any time to deliver his pay to his account at any other bank we should at once do it on being assured that that bank has his power of attorney, and on being convinced, before the money was paid, that that officer was still alive and that the money was due to him. At any moment any officer can have his pay paid to any bank, or alternatively he can have it paid to the district paymaster and by him direct to himself, and as we hardly ever receive requests of that kind, I do not think the unpopularity of the agent system, and the desire of the officers to be free from the agent system, can go as far as the hon. Member has led us to believe, because it would be perfectly easy for any officer to change the arrangement at any time he desired. That system would no longer be possible—that alternative would no longer he possible so soon as we accepted from the agent a money payment in return for the privilege he has. We could not accept payment from them for doing valuable work for us, unless we can give them some sort of guarantee that the officers would, as a fact, bank with them, and would as a fact keep their accounts with the firms after they had ceased to be officers in the Army. As soon as we took annual sums of money or a lump sum of money down, we should be unable to give the officers the same position which we do now of having their money paid to Messrs. Cox or to any other bankers.

This arrangement was continued at the beginning of this year for a further period, although the previous contract was not due to expire till the end of 1911, but the agents were able to satisfy us that they were contemplating the extension of their premises, as they had rather inadequate premises for the business concerned. Not only in the case of Messrs. Cox, but in other cases as well, we satisfied ourselves that that was true, and that it was necessary for them to extend their premises to deal properly with their business, and we then made careful inquiry to see whether this renewal of the contract in view of the necessity for the extension of the premises was or was not justifiable. We did not hear from any source any complaint of Messrs. Cox, and the regiments of which they were originally appointed agents were perfectly contented to continue the arrangement, and therefore the arrangement was continued. Surely, if there had been this great desire to share in the business of the agency, we should have heard about it before now, but, with one exception, we have not had a single offer to share in this business, and I therefore do not think there can be quite as much of this desire to get a share of the business as the hon. Member thinks. The officer is now free to transfer his account where he likes, but as soon as we begin to take money from these firms, which could not possibly be justified for anything which we do for them—on the contrary, they do a great deal of valuable work for us—we should have to give them some guarantee that the officers' accounts must under any circumstances be kept with the agents, and that might perhaps lead to abuse. We should practically say, "We are going to take money from you for work you do for us. We will insist that the officers shall keep their accounts with you, and we license you to get back out of the officers' accounts, by treating them any way you please, enough to pay the annual or the lump sum which you offer to us in return for this work." I do not think that would be possible. We are very lucky in getting so much of our work done for nothing. The regiments are perfectly content with the arrangement, and the three firms of agents are firms of great repute and position. We hear no complaint in regard to their action at all, and I think we are justified, therefore, in continuing the system as it is at present.

I asked a question this morning of the Prime Minister with reference to a letter which appeared in the public Press this morning, and which was read at a public meeting last night. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister had not had his attention drawn to the letter, and was, therefore, not able to answer my question or to give us the statement which I hoped he would be able to give us, namely, that he regretted the incident very much, that he repudiated the letter, and that he would see to it that there would not be a recurrence of the matters which he complained of in connection with this and other letters. On those grounds, and although I look upon it as a very unfortunate occasion on the adjournment of the House to bring forward a matter of this kind, yet, on consultation with some of my Friends, we have come to the conclusion that this matter ought to be brought before the House to-day for the reason, if for no other, that it is more than probable that another occasion will not arise during the present Session for bringing the matter before the House, because there are only two more days on which Naval Estimates will come before the House, and it is more than likely that both those days will be given up entirely to the discussion of the expedition of the shipbuilding programme.

The letter to which I wish to draw attention is written by Admiral Mann to the First Sea Lord, Sir John Fisher. My attention has been drawn to the fact that, with reference to certain other letters of a somewhat similar nature, a Motion has been put down on the Paper of the House of Commons which will preclude me from in any way discussing these letters. The writer of the letter which I am precluded from alluding to is mentioned in this letter, but I do not suppose I shall be out of order in mentioning that officer's name. The letter is as follows:—.

May I ask whether it would be in order to criticise the tone of the writer of a private letter? After all, so far as Admiral Mann was concerned, it was a private letter. I submit that it would hardly be in accordance with the custom of the House to criticise the contents of a private letter, which has come by accident into the hands of the hon. Member.

The matter ceases to be private if it is printed and circulated.

The letter was certainly printed, but circulated never. It was not printed by the wish or to the knowledge of the writer. I only say that in regard to the writer of the letter it is a private letter.

May I say I am personally aware that the letter was circulated, and that naval officers among whom it was circulated at the proper time are prepared to come forward.

I do not see how I can interfere. The hon. Member must use his own judgment how far he goes in criticising it.

Of course, if the letter was not of a more or less objectionable nature we should never have brought it before the House at all, nor would it have been quoted at last night's meeting. I do not desire to criticise it further than to draw the attention of the House to one or two statements or expressions which I think are highly improper, and the impropriety of which is proportionately increased by the action of Sir John Fisher in printing and circulating the letter. In the second paragraph of the letter we object very strongly to such an expression as—

"Capital. I agree with every word. and am glad to think Beresford and La/111)ton have not poisoned his mind."

I say that is a most vicious remark to snake. It is tantamount to this: This letter was written at a period when the new system of training was initiated in the Navy; and what we are to gather from that expression is that the writer of the letter, and presumably Sir John Fisher, considered everybody's opinion in this matter of training, or on any other matter in which they disagreed from him, as poisonous. I maintain that that is a most unnecessarily offensive term to use, and it shows a very bad spirit. The same spirit is carried right through the letter, and anybody who differs from Sir John Fisher must be treated as a person who is administering poison. The letter also contains this statement:—

"For I feel with him that opposition to the new scheme as a whole is no more than ignorance."

That is to say that everyone who disagrees with him in the slightest degree on this matter—and I may remind the House that there was the acutest disagreement on this matter among the officers of the Navy —is taking a course which is due to ignorance. At another place he calls everybody who disagrees with him on this matter "noisy objectors." I say all these expressions are most improper, and they ought never to have come out, but having been circulated, as we know from the hon. Member's interjection they have been, even among naval officers, we cannot help taking cognisance of them in this House. I do not desire to say anything mare 'than to express the hope that the First Lord of the Admiralty will tell us that he has put his foot down on this sort of thing in the Admiralty. Such letters as that which I have quoted produce a very bad feeling indeed in the Navy. We all know that it was by such effusions that the system of opposition and of two parties in the Navy have grown up. During the past two years there has been a great schism in the Navy which never existed before, and it cannot be for the good of the Navy that it should be allowed to continue. I shall not trouble the House further on this subject, but I hope that the First Lord of the Admiralty will be able to tell us that neither Sir John Fisher nor any other officer at the Admiralty over whom he has any control will be allowed to print and publish at the public expense letters of that kind. They would never have been printed and published at all except for one of two objects—either for his own self laudation or to injure those who do not agree with him.

I do not think it is really necessary to say any- thing to impress upon the House the importance of the case which has been brought forward by my right hon. Friend. The matter appears to me not only a disagreeable one, but it seems to me one of very real importance. I, for my part, have never joined, and, on the contrary, I have always refused to join, in the campaign, which, as everybody knows, has been going on more or less for a long time against the First Sea Lord, Sir John Fisher. First of all because I have always taken the view up to this moment certainly that the First Sea Lord, as First Sea Lord was, after all, only the servant of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and that it was the First Lord of the Admiralty who must be held responsible in this House for all that he does in his official capacity. That view I hold strongly, and that is one of the reasons why I have always refused to join in any attack on the First Sea Lord. Secondly, I have refused because I recognise quite well that, whatever may be the mistakes and defects of Sir John Fisher—we all make mistakes, and I think the mistakes he has made are very great, and some of them very serious—certainly no one can doubt that in many of the changes and reforms carried out owing to his influence great service has been done to the Navy, and that the Navy will be found to owe much to him in many respects. But all that being true, everybody knows that allegations have been made now for a long time, that as a matter of fact neither of these two suppositions were in this case well founded, and that as a matter of fact the First Sea Lord had become virtually the master and the autocrat at the Admiralty. That has been suggested, and it has been suggested that many of the mistakes which the First Sea Lord may have made in this policy have been mortal mistakes, which it may be very difficult for the Navy to recover from. It has been said—and this is the real complaint—that Sir John Fisher has been conducting throughout the country and in the Navy a campaign of a character which would not bear serious inspection, in order to promote the scheme of reform, though be may have done so in a public-spirited manner, which he desires to effect in the Navy. That I have always hesitated to believe, but I do not see how anybody can refuse to believe that there is a great deal of truth in the allegation in the face of letters such as that which my hon. Friend has read. What can such a letter as that mean? Taken in conjunction with other letters, which it is not in order to refer to now, it appears to me that the only meaning that this great officer, the First Sea Lord, has, as a matter of fact—departing altogether from the traditions to which we are accustomed, so far as I know, in the action of great officers—been conducting actively a personal campaign, not only among retired officers, but among officers in the Service itself, and that in order to further a particular scheme. It. appears to me to have been extremely badly conducted. I cannot imagine anybody employing an officer who would write such a letter as that to further any scheme in the world, and I cannot understand why Sir John Fisher, or any other human being, should have taken the trouble to have it printed and, as I understand, circulated in the Service, and certainly in the Department. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I hope he will tell us what on earth was the object with which this letter was printed, and whether, as a matter of fact, it was or was not circulated in the Navy or elsewhere 7 I cannot take the view that Sir John Fisher chose to have this letter printed merely to keep 50 or GO copies in a drawer. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman himself will accept that reason. Officers in the position of the First Sea Lord do not have letters like this printed merely to have them as a reference. Something must have been intended. What was it? I think we are entitled to know, in view of what has happened. It does seem to me that if facts of this sort are continually being brought to the notice of the public and of the service it may result in very serious injury to the service itself, because it is a very disagreeable and disquieting thing for officers in a service like the Navy, when they open their papers, to find that there is going on a sort of campaign, which appears to me to be of a very serious character, and obviously must strike at the very roots of confidence in the Navy if it is to continue to go on. Nobody can tell how many other officers may be writing letters of this character. Nobody can tell how many more such letters the First Lord will consider it to be his duty to publish, and nobody knows but that sooner or later every one of these letters will leak out of Admiralty, and go on producing this sort of unpleasantness. It does seem to me that this sort of thing is likely to breed a very bad spirit, and I hope that the First Lord will be able to tell the House that he for his part, and the Government for their part, regret that this letter should be thought necessary to be printed, and that they will give us some assurance that this kind of spirit which obviously must he engendered by things of that sort will be put an end to so far as the First Lord is concerned.

The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Bowles) has spoken in a perfectly fair and reasonable manner upon the facts as they have been presented to his mind. Let me put my view, which in this matter has been entirely overlooked. It is said that a violent personal attack has been conducted by Sir John Fisher. It was not said by the hon. Member, but the hon. Member said that it is said that a violent campaign has been conducted by Sir John Fisher, who has got a number of people connected with the Navy to write to him about methods of maintaining the Navy, and that he has had numbers of these documents circulated in the Navy, and the hon. Member.. for King's Lynn (Mr. Bellairs) is prepared to produce naval officers to whom they have been sent. It is perfectly obvious, as the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Stewart Bowles) said in his speech, that Sir John Fisher has had for some years a great many detractors and enemies. That is perfectly notorious, and is probably within the knowledge of every individual Member in this House. Will the House observe this strange and curious fact: These letters, we are told, which have been circulated through the Navy, and which are undermining the spirit of comradeship, and this violent campaign, were all three years ago; and the only evidence that can be produced three years afterwards of this widespread personal campaign and conducted through the Navy, is the production of a letter three years old.

Surely if it were true that letters of this kind were being scattered broadcast through the Navy something would have been produced later than the month of April. 1906. We should have been confronted with something that had been done during the time I have been in office, but amongst all the millions of documents which are to be circulated through the Navy, not a letter has been produced, except individual letters, individual specimens dated three years ago. Surely that will give the hon. Gentleman opposite pause and make him consider that probably this great personal campaign, about which we have heard so much, has very little foundation in fact. Let me explain to the House briefly once again exactly what happened. I wish to make no secret of it. Sir John Fisher makes no secret of it, and so far injury has been done to no one but the hon. Member for King's Lynn. I was invited by Sir John Fisher to express his personal regret. I did so in this House on the very first opportunity, and therefore I trust, so far as that incident is concerned, it may be considered closed. We come to the question of printing the letters. Two points arise. First of all the letters were printed at the public expense, and, secondly, these letters, being in the nature of private letters, ought not to have been printed at all. I do not know whether I am called upon to defend every single incident of the smallest importance that takes place in a great office. In 1906, the House knew that a new system of naval education had been introduced. That was a subject of controversy in the Navy and among the public. It was one on which men's minds were agitated, there was a heated controversy, and every letter which bore on the controversy, appeared to them of importance. I have no doubt that if Sir John Fisher read those letters at this moment he would see that many of them were of no importance.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a mistake. The scheme was introduced in 1903, and not in 1906.

Pardon me. Though the scheme was introduced in 1903, the great controversy over it was raging in 1906. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that 1906 was the year in which that scheme was being first brought to the test.

No.

Yes, in 1900, and it was. then that the controversy over the scheme was most violent. What does the whole case amount to? An error of judgment was undoubtedly made, and a number of letters were printed—a great number. I have read a good many of them, and they appear to me to be remarkably good letters, aptly bearing on the subject of controversy at the time. Some of those letters, reading them three years later, I do not think I would print, and I do not think Sir John Fisher would print them now; but when a man is working day and night, as Sir John Fisher was at that time, with a great many things on his mind and great responsibility upon him, he might then have given an order for printing a number of letters, the great majority everybody will agree ought to have been printed for the purpose of record. Surely it is not much to make a case of, that individual letters can be found, can be ferreted out three years afterwards. By hunting up hill and down dale they can just discover a letter amongst all the documents that have been circulated in the Navy. I do not know how they were obtained or what money was being paid to get them. These letters have all been produced through the efforts of one man. He pursues his own political methods in his own way. The House is familiar with some of them. I wish to say nothing with regard to them. All the letters that have been produced have been produced through his efforts only. Is this all they can find out of the great mass of letters of this sort that have been supposed to have been circulated/ Is the House seriously going to be asked to condemn a great man because, at a time of great labour, he has ordered to be printed a number of letters—two, three, perhaps half a dozen of which, amongst a great many ought not to have been printed—it would have been better, I would say, not to have been printed at all?

The House must, remember that this sort of attack is doing a cruel injustice to the First Sea Lord, who has had the unreserved confidence of four successive First Lords of the Admiralty. It must not be forgotten that Sir John Fisher was appointed First Sea Lord by the Government representing hon. Gentlemen opposite. Two successive First Lords of the Admiralty, both of whom have retained the confidence of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and are regarded by them as most successful administrators, two of those First Lords approved of the whole of Sir John Fisher's conduct and gave him their unreserved confidence. Sir John Fisher was appointed a member of the new Board when the present Government came into office, and two successive First Lords of the Admiralty have found in Sir John Fisher a valuable public servant, and I appeal to the House not to be misled by any such trumpery matters as these into censuring in the slightest degree a man who has given the very best service to the public that any man could give as in the case of Sir John Fisher.

I have heard, with some regret and disappointment, the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. McKenna) about this matter. This was not an attack on the name of Sir John Fisher. There was no desire on the present occasion for making such an attack. We are quite willing to admit, for the purposes of argument, Sir John Fisher may be a very valuable servant of the. country. The point is, Is this letter a proper one to have been printed and circulated by a very high Government official under the circumstances which have occurred? The right hon. Gentleman says that this letter is the only one, amongst other letters, which, after ferreting up hill and down dale, and with a suggestion of bribery and corruption, have been produced. I do not know what justification the right hon. Gentleman has for that statement. It may be true or not. He has not given any justification for that statement. I do not think it is a statement that ought to be made by a Minister unless he is prepared to justify it. But the real difference that lies between us is that the right hon. Gentleman regards this as a question of very small importance. I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. What does it amount to? That really is the issue which I venture to submit to the House. Here is a letter written by a retired admiral, which shows quite clearly he has been the recipient of other letters. of a similar character, and which have been circulated by him. He writes a letter reflecting in strong terms upon a fellow officer and a Member of this House. That letter is received by a very high official of the Crown, and he thereupon orders. it to be printed at the expense of the Crown and circulated amongst those. people who would be most likely to be affected by the receipt of such a letter. It is an attack by one naval officer, printed' and circulated by the authority of almost the most powerful naval officer in the service, and circulated among other naval officers. No one can defend that, and I cannot understand how any Minister can refer to it as a matter of slight importance.. It may have been an isolated instance. There are circumstances to which we are not allowed to refer on the present occasion which make it doubtful to many of us whether it was at all an isolated instance, and whether it was not much more accurately described as a typical instance. Could anything be worse for any organisation or service, public or private, than that the head or one of the chiefs should be-circulating among those under his command attacks written by one member of. the service upon another? It is impossible to imagine anything which would do more harm to the spirit of the naval service.

I hope the Noble Lord will forgive my interrupting him; but I really think he has no ground for using the words "circulating among naval officers." Had these letters been so circulated it is -obvious that they would have been known of long ago. I absolutely deny that they were circulated. An individual Dopy, perhaps two copies, perhaps three, may have gone out, but as regards the rest they were at the Admiralty, and were destroyed. There is no question of the letters having been circulated.

The right hon. Gentleman may be right, but he must bear in mind the paragraph of this letter which refers to another letter of a similar character. "I return Bacon's letter." I will not read the rest of it; I do not wish to give unnecessary publicity to the rather foolish vapourings of a retired officer; but he had evidently received a previous letter and returned it, apparently by request, to the First Sea Lord.

When Admiral Mann happened to call on Sir John Fisher, Sir John at that moment had received Captain Bacon's letter. It was not printed. It was the original letter that Admiral Mann saw. It was a long letter, and he asked, "May I read it?" Sir John Fisher said, "You may." Admiral Mann took it away with him to read and then returned it. The letter which he returned to Sir John Fisher was the original letter written by Captain Bacon. That is the exact history of all that occurred.

I am glad that in this particular case we have been able to obtain more authentic details than we were able to get with reference to some of the other letters. But I do not think that the explanation the right hon. Gentleman has given really affects the matter. It is quite plain that one of these letters was returned by the request of Sir John Fisher. There is no reason why they should not all have been returned. The point is not whether the letter was circulated to two or three, or four or five, or 20 to 30. The whole system is utterly objectionable, and I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman did not say perfectly frankly to the House, "I am not making any attack on the First Sea Lord, but this particular incident in his career it is impossible to defend; I will take care that no such occurrence shall take place in the future; the greatest possible precautions shall be taken against it." The right hon. Gentleman said that all this—I have but a few more observations to make—took place three years ago, and that no statement of the letter has been produced. I do not know at all how that may be. I do not know whether any other letters may be in existence, or may be produced later on. What I do know is that these letters have been issued, and that this letter has been brought up for the consideration of this House, and I feel it is a very serious matter. The right hon. Gentleman considers it entirely a personal matter between Sir John Fisher and the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bellairs). He says, since personal regret has been expressed to the hon. Member that that should close the incident. That is not the point at all. I am not here to protect the character of the hon. Member for King's Lynn. If he should feel it worth while, he has other methods of appeal.

My point is that the whole question is a. public question; why letters of this description, written to an official who occupies a distinguished position of responsibility like Sir John Fisher, should have been printed and circulated among other naval officers. From that point of view, it appears to me that only one possible opinion can be held. I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that is a matter either trivial or trumpery, and a matter not worthy of consideration.

The First Lord of the Admiralty made an appeal to this House not to criticise the First Sea Lord. I agree with that, and should have been more ready to fall in with that advice, partly because I think it is always undesirable that officers of the rank and position of the First Sea Lord should be subjected to criticism on the Floor of this House, and partly because I regard it as subversive of discipline in the naval service. The First Lord, however, does not make it much more easy to the Members of this House to take that view by the very curious attitude which lie has adopted. The accusation that he put forward was that Sir George Armstrong had obtained these letters by corruption. I am not acquainted with Sir George Armstrong. All I know of him is what may be read in the daily papers. But, so far as I can understand from what has happened, Sir George has not been actuated in what he has done by any party motives or intentions. So far as I can judge, he seems entirely to have acted from considerations which he thinks good for the service to which he formerly belonged. He believes that the present system is working untold harm, and thinks it his duty, so far as he is able, to show un what is going on and to try to get it put right.

I do not think any man who has been an officer, and who is working with motives of that sort should be exposed to the criticism of the First Lord. It is most injurious. I should like to ask the First Lord why, when appealing to the House of Commons, he does not—I think the far simpler method—say definitely and plainly to the House that this system, which I do not believe he himself defends, should be put an end to for the future. His defence was of a most modified kind. He gave us a very plain hint that he himself did not approve of this letter, that he regarded it as a letter not at all worth being printed—an opinion in which I should say every Member in this House will agree. For it is quite inconceivable to me what policy should have dictated the printing, or why so distinguished an officer as Sir -John Fisher should have desired the support of a letter of that kind. It would have been far better and far simpler if the First Lord, instead of making these excuses and of quibbling as to whether this letter was a circular or not, could have said that it should cease. I think it is plain to everybody that letters have been printed, or have been sent round in manuscript, to various officers.:No one can defend the system which has caused a most widespread feeling of dismay in the Navy. The First Lord attempted to right all by putting forward Sir John Fisher's eminent services. He represented him as an injured man and a martyr. I think that is a very absurd pose to put the admiral in. For my part, the alarm which has been spread is not that undue attacks have been made upon Sir John Fisher, and that he is an injured man, but that many officers of the Navy, simply because they do not find themselves in agreement with all the proposals that he has made, consider themselves marked men, who risk losing promotion and advancement in their profession. I join in the appeal made my by hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Stewart Bowles) and my noble Friend the Member for Marylebone (Lord Robert Cecil) to the officials of the Admiralty responsible to this House and to the country to give some assurance that they will exercise their authority to put an end to that system which is so disastrous to the Navy and so bad for the country..

I wish to leave the more exciting topics of the Navy, and to turn to the cooler and calmer fields of agriculture, in order to call the attention of the House and the Government to the treatment meted out by the Board of Agriculture to a certain farmer in the East Riding of Yorkshire and to the East Riding County Council. It is a case, I think, of considerable importance, because it shows the methods of the Board of Agriculture in administering this Small Holdings Act. I am sorry to have to raise it on this Motion, but I endeavoured to raise it on the Board of Agriculture in this House, but was not successful in bringing it forward on that Debate. I am sorry I was unfortunate then. I know the hon. Member for Somerset, who represents the Board of Agriculture in this House, thought I was out of order in endeavouring to raise it on that Vote. I must apologise to him for raising it on this occasion and for bringing him away from his holiday, but I am told that this is the only opportunity, as far as I can see, of raising this particular case in the House of Commons. It was already raised in the House of Lords by Lord Onslow, who I do not think was entirely acquainted with all the particulars of this peculiar case. The reply then given by the President of the Board of Agriculture was one of a most unsatisfactory character, given in that flippant style which generally characterises his remarks. The case to which I refer is that of Mr. Clerk, of Welbech village, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, who is a tenant of the Crown, and has been dismissed from his farm for the purpose of having it split up into small holdings. I say at once that the action taken by the President of the Board of Agriculture with regard to this man is intolerable and unjust, and I go so far as to say that when the House realises what happened they will agree with the view I take. First of all, I should like to say that this gentleman is a most highly respected fanner in the East Riding and one of the best and most capable farmers—a man of whom it is impossible to speak too highly. He is a man who is deserving of some sort of consideration, for he has done good work for his country. When we raised the regiment of Yeomanry after the South African War this man joined with us and on his own initiative raised a troop of Yeomanry. He has been a tenant upon a farm of 320 acres for the last 16 years. When he took that farm 16 years ago it had been in an extremely bad state. During his tenancy, by his hard work and by a lot of money which he put into the land, he has immensely improved the farm—so much so that it is unquestionably as good, if not better, than any other farm in that particular district. I know the hon. Member —in reply to a question of mine the other day—stated this farmer was farming two farms. I do not know what argument he founds upon that. Does he contend that a farmer who is farming two farms ought to be expatriated from one of them? I do not think there is anything in that, particularly as this man has a bon who is just growing up, and as it is his intention to place the son upon that farm in the course of the ensuing year, the Crown have no complaints to make against this man — in fact, upon their extensive property in the East Riding he was one of the very best tenants. And yet in spite of all this the President of the Board of Agriculture selects this man to evict from a farm in order to split it up into small holdings. In April last year this man was given notice to quit, and this April he has been compelled to leave his farm without compensation for disturbance of any sort whatever. How can the Government possibly justify their action? Could any private landlord have behaved in the same way in which the Crown has treated this man? If they had attempted to do so I know the outcry there would have been in that district and probably in this House itself. It does seem absurd to act in this way when one recollects that this Government has passed an Act of Parliament, one of the main objects of which is to secure fixity of tenure. When one sees the Government behaving in this manner to a tenant farmer it makes one feel that that Act is a hollow mockery. I know what the hon. Member's reply on behalf of the Board of Agriculture is going to be. It will he that there was a very great demand for small holdings in that particular district, because that Ns as the reply given to me in answer to a question asked in this House, and the same reply was given by the President of the Board of Agriculture in the House of Lords in reply to Lord On slow. I dispute that entirely, for there was practically no demand in that district for small holdings, and I may say that the East Riding County Council are in entire agreement with me on that patricular point. The land in that particular district is very heavy, and utterly unsuitable for small holdings. This particular farm is about four miles from a railway station, and over 20 miles from the nearest market town. Under these circumstances I ask what prospects are there of small holdings being made to pay, unless they are let at absurd prices, on land such as that?

I will continue the story. Having been given notice in April, 1908, Mr. Clark, the tenant, waits for several months and hears nothing further. He does not see the small holders applying for small holdings on his farm, and in the month of November he writes asking the Crown what they intend to do with his farm, and whether he will be allowed to continue his tenancy. Out of ordinary civility one would have thought the Crown would have replied to that letter, but no response whatever was received until 31st December of last year, nearly nine months after Mr. Clark had received notice to quit. On 31st December last the Board of Agriculture wrote to the East Riding County Council telling them that this farm was to let. On receiving this letter the county council took the precaution of sending down their agent to report on the situation. He did so, and reported that there were only one or two applicants for small holdings, that the land, in his opinion, was utterly unsuitable for the purposes for which the Board of Agriculture had acquired it. Upon receiving this report the Board of Agriculture took a rather extraordinary course, because, after all, that Board and the East Biding County Council have worked amicably together in endeavouring to administer the Small Holdings Act, and the county council have clone their best to provide all the small holdings which are necessary. The Board of Agriculture, instead of accepting the report made by the county council inspector, sent down a man to find small holders in that district, and with the utmost difficulty he managed to get seven or eight names. I can assure. hon. Gentlemen that several of those names are not the class of men we wished to benefit when we passed the Small Holdings Act. Having obtained these names the Board of Agriculture proceed to write to the East Riding County Council, sending them the list of names of future. tenants, and telling them they have got to take over this farm, and if they do not do so the East Riding County Council will be placed upon the black list. Such dictatorial methods as these are most arbitrary, and also most unnecessary, and under threats such as these the East. Riding had no other course to pursue than to take up this farm and let it out for these small holdings. They did let it out, and let it at a loss. I shall be interested to know how the hon. Gentleman can justify the action of the Government in this particular case. The charges which I make against the Government and the President of the Board of Agriculture are these: the hon. Baronet's conduct has been cruel and unjust. He has turned a man off his farm, in which he had invested a great deal of money, and against whom the Board of Agriculture had no complaint whatever. I say that the way in which he was dismissed entitles him to reasonable and just compensation. The Board of Agriculture have behaved with discourtesy to the East Riding County Council, who have endeavoured to administer the Small Holdings Act with fairness and with justice. They have endeavoured to co-operate with the Board of Agriculture in the administration of this Act. Would it be possible for a private owner of land to act in the way in which the Board of Agriculture has acted? The administration of the Act is not likely to increase the popularity of the Act or to increase the popularity of the present Government.

I wish to refer again to the administration of the Small Holdings Act. I have to urge the importance of this subject. It is of importance not merely to the applicants themselves, but to the movement in the country, and also to the character of this House. There has been great delay in the administration of the Act. That we all anticipated. It was inevitable. The way in which it has been administered has caused bitter disappointment to the applicants themselves. Thousands of men find themselves at the end of 16 months without a prospect of getting any land whatever. They have not merely to complain of the delay; they have not merely to express disappointment. They have a more serious charge to bring against the Government. There has been a very serious error in the administration of this Act, a great deal of which can be traced back to the Board of Agriculture, whose conduct in carrying out the provisions of the Act has not been satisfactory. It is not a mere question of detail, not a question as to the manner in which the discretion given to the President of the Board of Agriculture has been exercised, but I shall endeavour to show that the administration has been fundamentally wrong, and that the Board of Agriculture has evaded and disregarded—no doubt with the best intentions—the conditions laid down by this House, and contained in the Act itself, and that they have thus caused injustice and hardship not only to county councils, on whom, in my opinion, an undue burden has been thrown, not merely on ratepayers, who have to bear far more than their share of the expenses, but also on the applicants themselves, many of whom at great risk to themselves made application, and are still without any assurance that their applications will be dealt with in a proper way. The Act undoubtedly contemplates a certain cooperation between the central authority set up for the first time and the Small Holdings Commissioner and the local authority—that is tit, county council. That is an essential feature of this Act—they are to work together, and their duties are distinctly laid down in Sections 2 and 3.

How have the Board of Agriculture carried out their share? How have they performed the duties laid specifically upon them? Take first the question of inquiry, which is in one sense the most important part. Have they obtained accurate information as to the demand for land. I suppose my hon. Friend will admit that the responsibility for inquiry rests with the Small Holdings Commissioners. It is quite true that they may confer with the county council; indeed, they are to do so. They may also confer with other persons with a view to ascertaining what is the extent of the demand in the several counties, and how that demand is to be met. I have here a pamphlet written by the hon. Member for the Rugby Division, which is, I believe, with the exception of one unfortunate slip, the best description we have had of the legal effect of this Act. The pamphlet has, moreover, the advantage of a foreword by Earl Carrington of a most laudatory character. It is laid down by the book that the new body called the Small Holdings Commission under the control of the Board of Agriculture is to inquire as to the extent of the demand for small holdings in each county and how far it is reasonably practicable to meet that demand in each county, and for the purposes of the inquiry the Commissioners are to confer with county councils and other authorities and are to take such steps as they may think necessary. What I want to know is how far these inquiries have been really carried out? I quite agree that roughly the Board of Agriculture have this information. Roughly speaking, they are able to tell us that there have been a certain number of applications, that a certain amount of land has been got; but they have no knowledge how these applications are distributed and what are the parishes and the quantity of land, still less can it be said they have any knowledge of how far it is reasonably practicable to satisfy the demand.

I must say that, as far as I have been able to tell, the Board of Agriculture know precisely as much as the county councils choose to tell them, and no more. They simply send down their inquiries to the county council, and they make no independent inquiries, and they hold no detailed inquiries of any sort or kind. I know that my hon. Friend thinks that that may be enough, but if he takes the trouble to read through the Act, and especially sub-section 4 of section 2, he will see that it must be a more detailed and more independent inquiry which was contemplated when the Act was passed, because under that section it is said that if in the course of their inquiry the Commissioners receive information as to the question of the demand for allotments as opposed to small holdings they shall communicate the information to the county council, and if these inquiries are made solely through the county council it would be obviously absurd for them to communicate the information as to allotments to the county council. It must show that when that Act was passed it was contemplated that in the course of their inquiries they were to make inquiries as to the demand for small holdings, and they were to satisfy it. I would say this, therefore, as to this first duty, that although it has been carried out to some extent it has not been carried out in a very complete and satisfactory fashion.

I must remind the hon. Member for Holderness (Mr. Stanley Wilson) that it is contrary to order to read newspapers.

I will refer to the next duty. It is the duty of a report which is clearly referred to in the Act. and which is clearly described in this book of the hon. Member for Rugby in his admirable exposition of the law: "After this inquiry the Commissioners are to make a report to the Agricultural and Fisheries Board in respect of each county, in any case in which they think there is a demand for small holdings. They are to state in their report that a scheme should be made to provide small holdings, and they may—if they choose—say in what manner they think this should be done. If the Board consider that the scheme should be made, they are to forward the report to the county council." That, it seems to me, is as clear a duty to be placed upon a public authority as can well he imagined. They are to get information, and, having got information, they are to make reports and forward those reports to the county council, and there is no question of default power here. They are not to wait until the county councils are in default, they are to make inquiries and report at once.

The duty is immediate, as I read the Act. On 6th May I addressed a question to my hon. Friend "Whether any case had yet occurred in which a report has been prepared and forwarded to the county council under the provisions of this Act 1" The answer was, "No, Sir, no such case has yet occurred." Ever since that no report, so far as we know, has been prepared or forwarded to a county council. Of course, I know the answer is that the President thinks he has a discretion, and he thinks these are in the nature of default powers, coercive powers, ginger some people call them, which are only to be applied in certain cases where the county council has behaved badly. Can my hon. Friend point out a single line in the Act which justifies that interpretation? On the contrary, I think it is perfectly plain, both from the book I have read and from the words of the Act itself, that when the Act was passed it was contemplated that the Commissioners should exercise a supervision over the whole administration of this Act by county councils, and that they should give the county councils the assistance which they required, help them to ascertain the demand, and help them, by means of these reports, in showing how the demand is being met and what schemes ought to he prepared. It seems to me that it is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell me what is the official reason of the Board of Agriculture for not having made these reports. The only reason contemplated by the Act is that the Board of Agriculture do not think it desirable that schemes should be prepared. Considering that we have these 20,000 people waiting for the land, considering that in many parishes nothing has yet been done, that in some counties, I think in Surrey, for instance, the schemes include 10 acres, it seems to me it is preposterous that the Board of Agriculture should still consider it is not desirable that schemes should be prepared, and I cannot believe it is really the reason why these reports have not been prepared and forwarded to the county council as required by the Act.

What is the result of this default on the part of the Board of Agriculture? In the first place, it is that no time limit has been set, because until the report is sent down there is no time set by the Act as to when the scheme should be prepared. If the report is forwarded to the county council then, within six months it becomes the duty of the council to prepare a scheme in accordance with the report, and in case they fail to do so the Board of Agriculture is in a position to take action. But no time is set, no definite task is put before the council, and, above all, as it seems to me, the applicants themselves have no guarantee—these men who have risked so much in reliance upon the duties and powers entrusted to the Board of Agriculture—that their case will be met. I do not want to use strong language. I was going to say I do not think the Board of -Agriculture have kept faith with these men, but I will say at any rate that they are not carrying out the Act in the way that was expected by these men that they would carry it out. There is, I admit gladly, a certain sign of repentance on the part of the President of the Board of Agriculture. At present it is no bigger than a man's hand, but there is just a sign. It consists of two special Commissioners, who were promised at the end of last year, and who have now been sent down to the counties of Wiltshire and Lancashire to carry out the Act and prepare a Report, and carry out the Act according to the terms of these sections. Six were spoken of first of all, and publicly announced at the end of last year. They have now been reduced to two, and these two counties are to have the benefit of this improvement of policy on the part of the Board of Agriculture. But why two only, and why special Commissioners? We never heard of special Commissioners in the Act. These gentlemen are only going to carry out the duties laid on the Commissioners themselves. At any rate, there is no suggestion that two counties alone ought to have the benefit of their assistance. I am at a loss to understand, though I have tried once or twice to ascertain from my hon. Friend, what was the reason for the selection of these two counties. Is Surrey less anxious in respect of land hunger than Wiltshire? Is Kent less deserving of help? Is Oxfordshire more forward? I have compared the number of approved applications in Wilt- shire and Oxfordshire and I find the number in both counties is exactly the same. It is 422 in each case, but in Wiltshire the county council has obtained schemes for twice as much land as the county council of Oxfordshire. It cannot be that we are less entitled to help. If backwardness alone is to be the test it cannot be said that we are less entitled to the benefit of a Commissioner than the more fortunate Wiltshire. I do not believe that any standard of selection has been employed in picking out these two counties. It is simply an instance of the haphazard and hand-to-mouth way in which the Act has been administered from the first. It is typical of the want of policy we have all through. A little pressure is put on here and there, and then you have a little activity, but I do not think it is possible to trace any real method in the administration of the Board of Agriculture. I will give one quotation from a gentleman who cannot be accused of being unfavourable to the Liberal Government. Mr. Fred Home has been making inquiries in various parts of the country, and he says that in every district he visited he had not found a single place where through the action of the Board of Agriculture and the Commissioners land had been more promptly obtained, and the answer to the question as to whose fault it was that the modest aspirations of the agricultural labourer were not realised was that the blame must be laid on the Board of Agriculture. It is not yet too late to have a change in the policy of administering this Act. The time is running out, and I do implore my hon. Friend to make representations to the Board of Agriculture to see that at least the provisions of this Act are carried out in the spirit in which the Act was passed, and that assistance is given to the willing county council and pressure put upon the unwilling county council as contemplated by those who passed the Act.

The hon. Members who have addressed the House this afternoon thought it necessary to make some apology for standing between us and our departure to various places in search of fresh air and holidays. I do not think in any case, in view of the interesting speeches to which we have listened and the importance of the subjects dealt with, that such apologies were needed. I certainly venture to think that the House, far from requesting an apology, will welcome any effort made by any of us present this afternoon to attract not only the attention of the House, but public attention, to any aspect of the important question of the revival of rural life in England. It is quite true that no one can accuse the present Parliament of neglecting agricultural questions, but it must be remembered that we have a great deal of lost time to make up. I think it was at Red-bill, in my own Constituency, Lord Onslow stated a few years ago that during five years the late Parliament only devoted some six hours to the discussion of agricultural questions. For that reason if we stayed here many hours when an opportunity arose many of us feel that we should riot be doing more than was needed to make up for lost time. Whether we shall succeed in our hope of revivieg rural life in. England depends at the moment very much upon the success or failure of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act of 1907. Suppose the Act proves a failure and our hopes are falsified, even then we should not despair. We should have to find out other means of making the best of our own country. But., for my own part—and I think I can speak for Members on these benches, and probably on the benches opposite—we could not feel it possible to go away on our holidays with a clear conscience without taking this occasion to point out any weaknesses that may have occurred to us in what we have seen of the administration of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, and to offer suggestions for what they may be worth, and in doing so to afford the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Strachey), who represents the Board of Agriculture, an opportunity of renewing on the part of the Board those sympathetic assurances which have been so often given to us, and, what is much more important, of furnishing the House and the country with information in regard to the recent progress of the Act, and in regard to the steps that are to be taken, because I am sure they must be taking steps at the present moment to press matters forward, after the promises that were made to us about a month ago, when we last discussed the question of small holdings in this House. I quite understand, as my hon. Friend below me stated just now, that we cannot expect that the great changes which the Act will bring about in the whole relations of the different classes of people in the country could take place very rapidly or without a certain amount of friction, but while a great deal has been done in some counties very little has been done in others. Why cannot the Board of Agriculture come forward frankly and give their assistance to the backward counties to enable them to advance more rapidly. I should just like to say a few words about my own county, Surrey, of which I represent the South-Eastern Division. In answer to a question asked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe Division on 19th of April, the hon. Baronet provided the House, for the second or third time, with an up-to-date and interesting list of the conditions of the progress made under the Act. The Surrey figures are as follows: We have had 265 applicants for small holdings, and we require 2,948 acres. Out of these applications 104 have been approved, and to meet their case 1,273 acres of land will be required. Up to 31st March we are told in answer to questions that schemes involving 10 acres of land had been submitted by the Surrey County Council to the Board to meet the approved applications for 1,273 acres. About a month ago the hon. Baronet informed us, in the course of his interesting speech that only 10 acres of land altogether had been secured for small holdings, not merely in Surrey but. in Surrey and Sussex taken together, and out of that land so far as Surrey is concerned none had been supplied by the county council.

This morning, in answer to a question, I was informed that 11 of the Surrey applicants had got land. A month ago seven had received land through private sources, and it may be that the remaining four have also received land through private sources; at any rate, the Surrey County Council cannot have been able up to the present to have provided land for more than four applicants. It is quite clear that this county council, as well as -the Kent County Council, the Sussex County Council, and several other county councils are labouring under special difficulties. I do not wish to place any blame upon the Surrey County Council, because I know they have great difficulties. In the first place, the county council was elected by the people of Surrey, but the Small Holdings Act had not been passed at the time of the last election, and it is quite possible that different men might have been elected if it had been known that one of the most important parts of their duty would be to carry out the adminstration of an Act of this sort. There they are for what they are worth, and we have no right to say that they are altogether unsympathetic. I do know that most of the members of these county councils are drawn necessarily from the wealthier and more socially important classes of the community, and it is probably very difficult for them to appear to interfere in any way with their neighbours. It is very difficult for a county councillor living in any district in Surrey to come forward and say that they ought to take a piece of land of his neighbour, who, perhaps, dislikes the idea of small holdings altogether. Most of our land in Surrey is said to be building land whenever we want to buy. It may be land let at a very low rent, or it may be land with a low assessment for rating purposes, but it is called building land when required for public purposes.

I believe that under these circumstances the Surrey County Council, and, indeed, other county councils, would really welcome a little less timidity on the part of the Board of Agriculture in using the powers which they have under the Act, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for the Henley Division (Mr. Morrell) referred already this afternoon. It would really assist county councils such as the Surrey County Council if the Board would direct their Commissioners to prepare reports and send them on to the county councils in order that they might get out a scheme. I believe that then the council would find their hands strengthened, and they would be able to go as individuals to their neighbours up and down the country and say: "We have got to get out this scheme; you must not think we are interfering with you or your land in any spirit of hostility because we are preparing schemes, but the Board of Agriculture says we must do so." I believe that action on the part of the Board of Agriculture would clear away a great deal of friction. The Board, after all, are the experts, and we want their help. I think they might show a little more enthusiasm with their investigations of individual cases.

From time to time various Members in this House have asked them to send down Commissioners to investigate sonic cases of hardship, or apparent hardship, that had arisen. I remember the well-known case of David Nicholl in Kent. This man had applied for a small holding. He was approved, and then, suddenly, he received notice to quit his cottage. It was, as always in these cases, quite impossible to prove that he was turned out of his home simply because be was an applicant for a small holding. There is no doubt it was generally said by people in that district who were against small holdings that that showed the result of applying. At any rate, that man is still without a small holding, although lie is an approved applicant. The Board of Agriculture sent down an inspector to inquire into his case. This Gentleman came down, and instead of first going to the man and getting from him all particulars of his case he went straight to the farmer who had evicted the man from his cottage, and asked him what the position of affairs was. It seems to me not a very wise thing to have done. The farmer said, I suppose: "Oh, come along with me and see him, and I will soon show you the man has no complaint against me."

You can quite imagine that when the gentleman from the Board of Agriculture went down and saw the farmer, and, accompanied by the farmer, went to the man, who at different times had been employed by the farmer, the smaller arid the lesser man would naturally think that this gentleman coming clown from the Board of Agriculture was on the side of the great and not of the poor. He was thoroughly confused, and only able to say he had no complaint to make. Immediately afterwards he came along to the secretary of the local land club, and told him he was afraid his case was not understood. One does not want to rake up these series which are always full of unpleasantness and bad feeling, but it seems to me that the Board might have been a little less easily discouraged. From that day they have looked on the case of David Nicholls as anathema, and one that should not be mentioned, and as showing that every complaint is wrong. They never thoroughly probed the case, and one thing which has done the Board more harm in the eyes of people of the South of England who should have been their strongest supporters, is their readiness to take an interested explanation in a difficult case of this sort. I can understand how difficult it was for the Board really to prove anything, or for anyone to prove anything, and I do not believe they could have done much in any of these cases, but at least they might for their own sakes have shown that their sympathies were thoroughly impartial, as I believe they really were I do not want to recite a number of tragedies. It is an easy thing to do, because there are none of us who in our own constituencies have taken an interest in the working of this Act who have not conic across many sad cases. There are general cases of disappointment of those who, without any actual tragedy, are still waiting for the land. I had a letter a few weeks ago from a man in God-stone, a village in my Constituency, in which he said:—

" We are still apparently without any chance of small holdings; we have collected together implements and something in the way of stock for the land we hope to get; can nothing be done?"

It may be that they expected too much of the Act, and expected things to be done too quickly; but that does not take away from the suffering in which they are involved by delay and disappointment. There are many cases of people who either have been afraid to apply for laud or have become themselves marked persons in consequence of having done so, and do not find it so easy to obtain employment as previously.

The land clubs, which are now formed into a league, in which I have taken great interest, have investigated cases in some twenty typical villages, and in nearly every instance they have found avoidable failure to administer the Act. I have most of the cases here, but I will not weary the House at this hour by reading them out unless I am desired to do so. Hon. Members may ask what these land clubs are. They are simply organisations of countrymen and women having in view the revival of village life. Their object is to do all that lies in their power to obtain land and homes for the people of the villages and to encourage independence. The land clubs have received a good character from people in high authority. Lord Carrington, addressing a land club deputation in December last at the Board of Agriculture Offices, complimented the club members on the careful way in which they had presented the evidence in support of their case, and said that it appeared to him that they had acted with great fairness and consideration. Again, the hon. Baronet who represents the Board in this House (Sir Edward Strachey), speaking here on a previous occasion, said:—

" We shall watch their development with interest.

The Dean of Durham has said:—

"I am a small farmer myself, and know the great need in country places of something corresponding to, and yet quite different from, the trade unions of the big manufacturing towns. I think your scheme of land clubs will till the big empty space well."

These extracts from remarks by responsible persons will be sufficient to show that these clubs, which have been investigating cases and doing what they can to help small holders, are not organisations without an intelligent purpose and common-sense. In spite of the progress which has been made—progress which I fully recognise in various parts of the country—there has been profound disappointment in other parts. I myself, in my own Constituency, in the hope of trying to do something for these people, made application for a farm, in order that I might reflect it to these snail holders. The landlord from whom I tried to get the farm apparently did not care for me as a tenant. For that I do not blame him. But I do think the reasons he gave were not very strong ones. If he had said that I was an undesirable tenant I should have entertained no ill-feeling about it. I feel no ill-feeling about it as it is, for, from what I have seen of him, he is what you might describe as a charming, typical, English country gentleman.

For instance, in the first place he told me that it was not desirable to have as a tenant of his farm someone who was not a practical farmer. I do not pretend to be a practical fanner; but I imagine it would not be difficult to draw up a lease which should ensure that there should be no deterioration of any kind. In the second place, I was told that it was contrary to the spirit of the Act that one individual should let out small holdings. Yet lately a Conservative neighbour, presuming to speak on behalf of that same 'landlord, declared that many months ago lie was perfectly willing to let the land to anyone who wanted it at quite a small rent, if they applied to him personally. I only know that in that neighbourhood at present there is no single holding. But I agree these private efforts should not be necessary. The Act provides for the public provision of land—and land should be procured.

I venture, in conclusion, to suggest two or three remedies which have been previously brought to the attention of the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Strachey). He will perhaps forgive me if I bring them before him again. In the first place, I would ask him to endeavour to persuade the President of the Board of Agriculture to appoint more Commissioners. We really require one Commissioner for Surrey, Sussex, and Kent. If for the next year we could only have, say, Mr. Cheney all to ourselves, I believe that progress would be made. In the second place, why cannot the hon. Baronet endeavour to persuade the President of the Board of Agriculture to carry out the valuable sug- gestions of my hon. Friend the Member for South Oxfordshire (Mr. P. Morrell), and instruct Commissioners to report to the counties and invite them to prepare schemes? Then, in six months' time, if nothing is done, the Board of Agriculture will be able to prepare. schemes themselves. In the third place, I would suggest the establishment of experimental holdings. We were told when this Act was passed that a considerable amount of money would be furnished in order to oil the wheels. Why cannot something be done in these backward counties in the way of experimental holdings? They would give the local landlords and the local farmers an insight as to what could be done in the small-holding way, and I think that would very much diminish the opposition, which comes largely through ignorance at the present time. Again, I suggest that the Board of Agriculture should endeavour to do something to clear up the confusion that exists as to the rule under which co-operative societies should acquire land. I joined one of these small-holdings allotment societies in my own Division, and we really found that. instead of being a help, it simply acted as a block. The county council seemed to be demanding more from the co-operative societies in the way of guarantees than they do from individuals. If the Board would make suggestions to the county councils in this respect I believe it would be a very useful remedy. There arc three more things that I might also suggest. One is that we should endeavour to obtain some security in his cottage for every person who has applied for a small holding.

I think we shall never get an Act of this kind to work properly unless those people who apply for small holdings, or who desire to apply for them, feel that they are secure in their cottages until the new plot is secured for them. Possibly that will need a new Act of Parliament. Possibly the hon. Baronet would suggest a clause which might. be inserted in the Housing Bill of the President of the Local Government Board, ensuring that if a man has applied for a small holding and a piece of land, he should not he turned out of his cottage without special compensation until his new plot is secured. Then again, I do think that the Board should adopt the suggestion made from the Benches opposite this afternoon to look much more closely into the question of compensation. I think it is quite natural some farmers should be against the Small Holdings and Allotments Act if they are asked to leave their farms for the good of their fellow countrymen perhaps without any special compensation. I think it would be right for this House to vote considerable sums of money in order that there should be generous compensation tie farmers who are unwilling to give up their land in order that it should be cut up into small holdings. Finally, if after adoption of these suggestions, and of others which will occur to the hon. Baronet, it is found that the Act does not work much more rapidly, and that greater progress is not made, one would be forced to believe that there is something that stands between the President and the hon. Baronet and their Commissioners, and their intention to carry out the Act. I am perfectly confident that the Board and those in authority as far as they are responsible to Parliament are fully desirous.. of carrying out the Act passed in 1907. There does seem to be some malign influence at work. For myself I look back sometimes to the village meetings held on village greens and in the cottage kitchen during the month preceding the general election, and the months after that election and preceding the passing of the Act. I remember the hopes and expectations. which were aroused at the meetings in those homes. Personally, I was most careful in pointing out the difficulties in the way, and I did what I could to prevent. those expectations becoming too great. This, however, does not alter the right of these poor people to the land, which Parliament has promised they should have if they are considered suitable applicants. I, for one, certainly shall not rest until everyone of the 104 approved applicants in the. county of Surrey and throughout the country have received the land to which they are entitled.

I should like to emphasise one or two of the points to. which the attention of the lion. Baronet has been drawn. I am not going to quarrel with the Board of Agriculture, because they have appointed special Commissioners for Wiltshire and Lancashire. If they have thought it necessary to appoint special Commissioners for those two counties we thank them for it, but I think that fact has demonstrated the necessity for appointing special Commissioners for other counties which are not in so good a position for acquiring land for small holdings as Wiltshire and Lancashire. I hope the hon. Member representing the Board of Agriculture will inform the President of the Board of Agriculture that we desire him to go and do likewise in other counties. I endorse all my hon. Friend has said in regard to the necessity of having these reports. For a long period we have been impressing upon the Board of Agriculture the necessity of having such reports, and I hope something will be speedily done in this direction.

I think it is time something was done regard to the recommendation made to the Board of Agriculture last year as to the necessity of a general circular being issued defining the administrative position of, county councils. There are one or two points which some members of county councils do not seem thoroughly acquainted with, and one of those points is as to whom is qualified to have a small holding,. Some councils seem to think that a man like the village blacksmith is not entitled to have a small holding. My opinion is that the blacksmith is given that right under the Act, and I think county councils would do well to let in such men. I believe the Board of Agriculture would perform a useful service by sending out a circular pointing out this fact, and also pointing out that the man who possesses an allotment to-day is not by that fact debarred from becoming a small holder if he so desires. Those are some of the points I wish to impress upon the hon. Baronet. I want to come to an individual case with regard to compensation to farmers. We are all, I think, in favour of that, and private Members of this House are trying to obtain facilities in this direction. Unfortunately while there is a generous desire on both sides amongst county Members in favour of an alteration of the law in that direction, nothing as yet been done. [An OPPOSTION MEMBER: "We moved it in the Committee upstairs."[At the present time one or two hon. Members are unfortunately preventing private Members availing themselves of facilities to get legislation of that kind passed. I know a vast majority of the county Members are strongly in favour of it, and the necessity for such legislation is fully demonstrated by the working of the Act of Parliament. In conclusion, I should like to ask the hon. Baronet whether he will look after the case in which 100 acres were offered in Kent to the county council. These acres are not in my Constituency, and. therefore, I can speak impartially. It was a voluntary offer. All the conditions may not have been right. On that subject I will not speak, but the acres were within a reasonable distance of small towns. The offer has not been accepted by the Kent County Council. I hope that the hon. Baronet will investigate all offers of this description, and the case which I have mentioned shows the necessity of having a special Commission..

, who was indistinctly heard: Mr. Clark is not a tenant farmer, but is a gentleman farmer, farming 1,197 acres of land. But there is a much stronger case indeed. This was a farm occupied by a bailiff, and it was some considerable distance from the farm on which Mr. Clark had resided a good many years. Therefore Mr. Clark may fairly be described as an absentee tenant, and while it is undesirable to have absentee landlords, it is still more undesirable to have absentee tenants. The hon. Member said there was no demand for these holdings in the East Riding.

Not in that particular district.

The hon. Member says there is no demand in that particular district. But it turns out that the county council showed by their action what the real position is. Evidently they were not coerced or compelled by the Board of Agriculture to take this farm at a considerable loss to themselves. The fact is that the Board of Agriculture were pressing the East Riding County Council to take land, and this farm was offered by Lord Carrington, as Commissioner of Woods and Forests, to the county council, and when it is considered that the county council actually took from the Crown 311 acres, at a rent of £360, on a 21 years' lease, we may assume that the county council would not have taken it on those terms if it would have involved considerable loss to themselves. Surely, they would have taken it for only a year or two, at the most. What has really happened is that the county council has taken this farm of 311 acres, and divided it into eight small holdings. In addition to this, 69 acres of adjoining land has been let directly to tenants.

But none of these small holders are living on the land. There are no houses on the farm, and I may say a man has 50 acres and his wife another 40 acres, and these are specimens of the small holders on the farms.

it has been suggested that the action of Lord Carrington in regard to Mr. Clark was cruel, because he turned him out. But, as I have shown the House, it was no question of turning him out, because he did not reside on the farm, which was let to him as a temporary measure. It is well known it is considered bad agricultural policy to let several farms together to one man, and in this case it was only done for temporary purposes. I do not think that Lord Carrington can justly be described as a tyrannical landlord. Of course I will not labour the point, because I feel that there is not another man in the House who would make such a charge against the Noble Earl. Then, in regard to the charge of incivility, Lord Wenlock, the chairman of the county council, in a speech in another place, said that the council had not been treated with incivility by the Board of Agriculture, 'hut, on the contrary, that that Board had clone everything they could for them. I think that disposes of the charge of incivility which is brought against the Commissioners. Turning to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Henley Division (Mr. Morrell) he said there were a large number of people out of land. I do not think that anyone could expect that all those people who were out of land would he provided with land within a year. My hon. Friend further says that there was a serious error in the administration of the Act. He said the Department had gone outside the Act, and disregarded the duties of the Act. I can see what was in his mind—it was the Noble Earl whose duty it is to administer the Act, and I think he will agree with me that he was attacking Lord Carrington and not the Board, and Lord Carrington is entirely responsible for the action of the Board, and of the Com missioners. Of course my hon. Friend has a perfect right if he likes to say that the present Board of Agriculture has not properly interpreted the intentions of Parliament, or properly interpreted the letter of the Act itself; but, on the other hand, I think the great majority of the House will agree with me, and so I think will people outside the House, that the Noble Earl is certainly as good a judge, if not better, of how best small holdings can be provided, from his great personal experience on his own estate, and of how they can be carried out and worked, than even my hon. Friend himself, if he will allow me to say so. I think that must be the general opinion, and I think he will admit that the great experience the Noble Earl has had qualifies him to deal with these matters.

I am equally as good a judge of the meaning of English and the interpretation of an Act of Parliament.

I am not going to argue what the Act means, and whether there might be another interpretation put upon it, because we know, and my hon. and learned Friend knows, that if Acts of Parliament were not capable of different constructions there would be very little business for the profession which he adorns. The Noble Earl has taken the view that the right way, and that was certainly the intention announced by the First Commissioner of Works, was to work through the county councils, and so long as the county councils were willing to carry out the work with due expedition it was not the business of the Board of Agriculture to take proceedings. As I have said previously, if the county councils had become passive resisters instead of their being some 33,000 acres of land acquired or about to be acquired, we should practically have no land at all acquired in the country. I do not mean to labour this point, because my hon. Friend says what he desires is not for the Board to work with the county councils, but that Commissioners should be appointed in every county in England, who should draw up their schemes and act independently of the county councils and make their reports to the Board.

I said I particularly desired the co-operation of the county councils, but the only way in which the Commissioners can co-operate with county councils is under the terms of this Act.

That is certainly not so. What they are doing is to communicate with the county councils and help them when it is necessary, and schemes are being submitted every day. Only this week a county council submitted a scheme for taking a large number of acres.

Then as regards the Oxfordshire County Council, if it is not doing its duty in any particular case, the hon. Member ought to bring it before the Board of Agriculture, who will at once look into it. It is no good making vague charges against the Board and saying they are not doing their duty. if the hon. Member will bring a distinct case before the Board as regards the county council not doing its duty in a particular case, or, more generally, that they are not inclined to meet the wants of applicants in that county, I can assure him that the Board will at once send down an inspector or a Commissioner to look into that particular matter. Again, on the other hand, my hon. Friend always seems very jealous about Wiltshire. I should think there would be no difficulty if a county council, in the same way as Wiltshire, was so anxious to have a special Commissioner, in complying with their wishes.

The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Brodie) referred again to the working of the Act, and also admitted that there were great difficulties, though he did not say what the difficulties were. But I think he will agree with me that the real difficulty is the value of land in Surrey for building purposes. When the county council desire to buy land they are told they can only buy it at such a price that the applicant will be unable to pay the rent it will be necessary to charge. Then it is said: Why do not they lease the land? But there the difficulty is that the land /night soon be wanted for building, and he tenant in six or twelve or eighteen months might have to give it up. One of the great objects of the Act is to give security of tenure. I can assure the hon. Member that the Board are doing what they can to keep this matter to the front, and I shall be glad if he will come to the Board and make suggestions, in which case we may be glad to take some further action. The hon. Member himself admits that there is enormous difficulty, and that in some cases hopes had been unduly raised, and therefore there has been disappointment.

There are rim approved applicants, so one can hardly say their hopes have been unduly raised.

As to the facilities for acquiring land it is an easy matter. The difficulty is that a rent would have to be charged greater than they would be able or willing to pay. I am very much surprised at my hon. Friend being considered an undesirable tenant. I wish he would migrate from Surrey, and come to my county, and I should be only too delighted. Then, again, there is the question of experimental holdings in backward counties. The, object of experimental holdings is not to encourage a county which is backward. It is past contradiction now that small holdings are profitable and can be made to pay with a proper and fair rent. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. J. Rowlands) was in favour of compensation for farmers in case of disturbance. I need hardly say I entirely agree with him, and always agree with him on this matter. The President of the Board of Agriculture, speaking in another place, gave his blessing to the Bill of the lion. Member for Rugby (Mr. Corrie Grant), and I hope we may see that Bill go through without any opposition in this House.

I come lastly to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford as to a circular being sent out. I think one has already been sent out, and I rather understood him to wish that it should sent out again, calling attention to the fact that tradesmen, butchers, blacksmiths, and village shopkeepers have the right of acquiring land under the Act. That policy has been acted upon as a general rule. I know that in my own county small plots of land have been given to saddlers, butchers, and other tradesmen, and it is agreed that it is thoroughly desirable that they should have land. I shall inquire whether it is desirable to send out the circular again. The hon. Member referred to an offer of land which was made to the Kent County Council, which they refused to accept. The reply of the county council is that they had no applications for small holdings in that particular locality, and that it was no use buying land when it was not wanted. If that is not so, and if the hon. Member will communicate with me the county council will be once more communicated with.

There were applicants a little way off.

There may have been applications a little way off, but we have found that applicants will not go a few miles out of their particular parish. If the hon. Member will say that they are. willing to go to other localities, I will communicate with the county council and ask whether land could be acquired for them.