asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether searches recently made at or near Rawal Pindi have resulted in the discovery of any and, if so, of how many bombs; whether arrests have been made in connection with an anarchical conspiracy alleged to exist in the Punjab; and whether he has official information to the effect that Sir J. S. Meston, described as Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, and Mr. Gordon, described as a member of the Civil Service stationed in Bengal, narrowly escaped being the victims of bomb out rages?

A magisterial inquiry of the character described by the hon. Member is in progress at Delhi, and certain persons have been arrested. The Secretary of State does not consider that it would be in the public interest to make any detailed statement at the present stage of the matter.

May I ask if Sir J. S. Meston is Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal?

No, Sir.

asked whether two Bengali merchants were murdered and robbed at Backergunge; whether in the same district fifteen Mahomedans raided a house and carried off its contents; whether in Faridpur and Talpaiguri similar outrages have occurred; and, if so, will he say what steps are taken by the Government of India to deal with these and similar outbreaks of lawlessness in previously peaceful districts?

The facts appear to be as stated by the hon. Member. The conditions of administration in Bengal are being investigated by a Committee appointed by the local Government in October last, and I have not yet received the results of the inquiry.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the finance member of the Governor-General's Council, in introducing the Budget for 1914–15, said that cultivation of opium still continues in China in several of the provinces, and that there is still a large demand for opium and a considerable amount of local production; whether the Government of India has been constrained to revert to 13,200 chests, the formerly obtaining number, as against 9,000 chests ex ported last year to Far Eastern countries other than China, on the ground that the larger export is not in excess of legitimate requirements; and whether, in view of these facts, His Majesty's Government will advise the Government of India to proceed with deliberation in their present policy, to consider its effects in the substitution of cocaine, and to arrange for the speedy disposal of the stocks at Shanghai?

The Secretary of State has seen the passage in the Indian financial statement containing the remarks to which the hon. Member refers. He does not consider that instructions from him are required on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

Does the Secretary of State not agree with the statements made by the finance member of the Viceroy's Council, and is it intended in face of those statements to pursue precisely the same policy?

The Secretary of State confines himself to saying that he does not consider that the instructions which the hon. Member suggests are required.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State for India has been drawn to the fact that Messrs. Forbes, Forbes, Campbell, and Company, Limited, have applied for a concession from the Government of India, which would have the effect of granting them a monopoly of transit between Kashmir and British India; and whether, before granting such monopoly, he will order an inquiry to be made as to its effect on the public interest, and also as to the circumstances under which Messrs. Forbes, Forbes, Campbell, and Company ousted Mr. W. R. Shaw, late one of their servants in the Public Works Department, from all share in a project the origin of which was entirely due to his enterprise and technical skill?

The Secretary of State is aware of an application resembling the one mentioned by the hon. Member, but of narrower scope. The application has been very fully considered by the Government of India both on its merits and as regards the relations between Mr. Shaw and the company. In its latter aspect, it has also engaged the attention of the Secretary of State in Council, who satisfied himself that the matter in dispute was one for settlement between those two parties. He sees no reason to direct further inquiry.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether he can give the House any information regarding the outrages committed by a fanatic at Tonk on the 12th April?

The Secretary of State has received the following by telegram from the Viceroy, dated 13th April:—

"I regret to have to report that a Mahsud who, it is said, was orderly to the Political Agent at Wana, Major George Dodd, ran amok and shot this officer and also Lieutenant G. W. C. Hickie, R.G A., and Captain G. B. Brown. Captain Brown and Lieutenant Hickie have since died of their wounds. Major Dodd, who was hit in the left thigh, is progressing favourably. The constabulary turned out and shot the Mahsud, after losing one man wounded and two killed. These are the only particulars yet to hand."

The Secretary of State profoundly regrets the loss of two valuable officers and of the men who were killed in the discharge of their duty; and he greatly sympathises with Major Dodd in the injuries which he has sustained. The crime appears to have been the result of an isolated outbreak of fanaticism, and has no political significance.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether an insured female named Cock, of 46, Union Road, Leytonstone, Essex, in the area of the Essex Insurance Committee, has been refused permission to contract out of medical benefit by that committee, although she is subject to fits, and has for over two years been under a medical practitioner who refuses to join the panel; and whether anything can be done to induce that committee to assent to the father's request to be allowed to keep his daughter (the insured person) under that doctor?

My right hon. Friend is informed that the grounds stated in the application referred to were not, in the opinion of the committee, such as to justify them in giving their consent. It is, however, open to the insured person to renew her application, and to bring to the notice of the committee any facts not previously before them.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to make an attempt this Session to secure the passage of the Bill to extend medical benefits under the National Insurance Act to insured persons in Ireland?

I regret that in my right hon. Friend's unavoidable absence, I am unable to make any statement.

May I ask my hon. Friend when an answer may be expected. This question has been postponed once by request, and I think it is time we had the promise given to the House put into operation?

I apologised on behalf of my right hon. Friend for the postponement.

I will put the question down for next Monday.

asked if further legislation would be required to enable the reserve funds under the National Insurance Act to be utilised for rural housing schemes; and whether he will consider the practicability of using these funds to expedite the provision of satisfactory and adequate sanatorium accommodation by which urban and rural contributors might benefit alike?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. These funds can be applied for the purposes of housing schemes through the machinery of the Local Loans Fund, and Section 54 (3) of the National Insurance Act gives a preference to Local Loans Fund securities issued for the purpose of providing capital for housing as investments for insurance funds. The question of giving special facilities for loans from the Local Loans Fund for sanatorium purposes is under consideration.

asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, what proportion of deposit contributors are suspended from benefits through having insufficient funds to their credit?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dulwich on the 7th instant.

asked whether, at the last meeting of the Wigtownshire insurance committee it was reported that the income for administration was much too limited to carry on effectively the work required of it?

My attention had not previously been drawn to the report in question, but I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a similar question on the 18th February.

asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Com missioners, whether he is aware that the friendly societies object to the terms of certain clauses in provisional Regulations regarding the withdrawal of approval from approved societies proposed to be issued by the joint committee and to be brought into operation immediately on account of urgency; and whether he will afford the House an early opportunity of discussing those clauses?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Regulations referred to, which were considered by the Advisory Committee, have been published in draft and have not been brought into operation on account of urgency. The usual opportunities will be available for discussion on their being laid before the House.

asked whether the Perth insurance committee has so far neglected to provide domiciliary treatment for consumptives; whether this neglect has followed as a result of a conference with the Scottish Insurance Commissioners; and, if so, whether the Government will take steps to see that this necessary treatment is provided?

I am informed that there is no foundation for the statement in the first part of the question; both in the Burgh and in the County of Perth, as in all other parts of Great Britain, domiciliary treatment is provided for under the doctors' agreements with the insurance committee. No conference of the kind referred to by the hon. Member has been held, and the last part of the question does not therefore arise.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Jewish board of guardians have reported that there is no large increase in the total number of beds in sanatoria available for Jews?

The answer is in the affirmative, but no complaint has been made to me that the number is inadequate.

asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if he is yet in a position to state what is the total number of insured persons in Great Britain and Ireland who have been certified to be suffering from tuberculosis; the number of those who are receiving residential treatment in sanatoria; and the total number of beds in sanatoria which are at the disposal of insurance committees for the reception of such patients?

The Return to which I have previously referred in answer to a similar question by the hon. Member will, I hope, be laid in a few days.

asked the Home Secretary if, should the Government of Ireland Bill become law and an Irish Parliament be set up, the Imperial Government would be precluded, by the terms of the recent Army Order as to obedience to orders, from using the Army for enforcing the submission of Ulster; and if any such order has been or will be made by the Admiralty to deal with any similar question which may arise as regards the use of the Navy for political purposes?

I cannot answer a purely hypothetical question of this kind.

I have an Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1).

That seems to be a direct negative of the Second Reading, and I do not think that I could take an Amendment of that kind.

May I move in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "of the Protectorates of British East Africa"?

Would it be in order for me to move to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again? We have none of these Amendments on the Paper. The Second Reading of this Bill was only taken just before the Easter adjournment, and we are now being asked to proceed with the Committee Stage of a very important Bill as the first Order after we reassemble.

If the hon. Baronet had put down his Amendment it would have been more convenient. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has handed in a number of manuscript Amendments to Clause 1. Several of them will come in more properly on Clause 2, which deals with limitations, and any matter of that kind should be brought up on the second Clause. The first Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme in order is to leave out of Sub-section (1) the word "Nyasaland."

I think it would have the same effect if the hon. Member moved to leave out the word "Nyasaland."

I want to put in Sub-section (1), after the word "may," the limitation "within the next five years." It seems to me proper to make it quite clear at the very earliest point in the Bill that we are not tying Parliament's hands for an indefinite period; and this Amendment does not seem to me to be in the nature of the provisos mentioned in Clause 2. They are conditions which the Protectorate Government have to fulfil before the Treasury and the Colonial Office will consider the matter of a loan. In the first Clause, however, we are dealing with powers granted to the Treasury and the Colonial Office here, and I want to prevent them acting in this Bill, say, some twenty years hence, when Parliament has quite forgotten the circumstances which have rendered these advances necessary. I want to keep the finger of Parliament upon the pulse of the Colonial Office so that they shall not have an indefinite sanction to go on advancing moneys to British East Africa or elsewhere. I submit, therefore, that this is the proper place to insert this limitation.

In that case, it is a limitation on the whole Bill, and ought to be set out in a separate Clause. The hon. Member can move the next Amendment to leave out the word "Nyasaland."

I take it that a Clause moved subsequently would be considered when the first words of Clause 1 are "subject to the provisions of this Act"?

Those words are inserted, of course, in order to prepare the way for the limiting provisions which come up later in the Bill.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "Nyasaland."

By omitting this word we shall confine the Bill to the granting of loans to British East Africa and Uganda, leaving out Nyasaland. British East Africa and Uganda are, in the first place, one area. They adjoin each other, and any money spent in British East Africa will find a natural counterpart in Uganda. Even the main subject of this loan, which, I understand, is the extension of the railway to Uganda, will be expenditure of our money in both those Protectorates. Therefore, I do not quarrel with the idea that this loan should cover both these Protectorates, but Nyasaland is separated by a large distance from British East Africa and Uganda. The conditions there, moreover, are entirely different. British East Africa, we hope, will become a white man's country similar to Rhodesia, but Nyasaland can never be anything but a tropical country; it can never be a white man's country. For that reason I think we ought to hesitate before we start this new principle of granting loans of public money at extraordinary low rates of interest to a Colony such as Nyasaland. There might be some excuse for trying to force development at an unnatural pace in British East Africa. The demand for cotton goods and the demand for some dumping ground for our surplus population might perhaps be some excuse for spending £3,000,000 of money in those more salubrious climates, but none of those reasons extend to Nyasaland. There is a further reason why I really want Nyasaland out of the Bill. Most of the land in British East Africa is leased out for ninety-nine years to various landowners. They have only a temporary interest in the land, and at the end of ninety-nine years it will revert to the Colonial Government. That is some sort of ground for advocating the expenditure of public money in building railways which will send up the value of this land, because ultimately at the end of some eighty or ninety years the additional value will revert to the public, and not simply rest for ever in private pockets. That does not by any means cover the whole of the land in British East Africa. Unfortunately, before the present Colonial Secretary came into power—before, I think, the Liberal Government came into office—large areas in that country had been granted out in fee simple to people like Lord Delamere, the Eckstein group, and Lord Hindlip. Various large landowners got early rights in that Colony over very large areas indeed. Their land is certainly outside the general scheme of British East Africa, where, generally speaking, the land is held on a terminable tenure. In Uganda the land still belongs to the chiefs. Therefore, in both those countries the expenditure of money on railways or even on roads will ultimately benefit the Governments in those countries. Unfortunately, it is at such a distant date that the benefit is hardly one we may take into account, but there is that ultimate reversionary interest to be obtained in those countries.

There is no such consideration at all in the case of Nyasaland, because there, unfortunately, all the land is held now by white squatters in fee simple. They have an absolute title, and there is no reversion to the State. There is no interest in the land except that of the white settler, and we ought to hesitate a good deal before we advance British money at an artificially low rate of interest in order that the owners of all these plantations may get a bigger return for their investment. They have already got the land, but it is not our business to make that land more valuable than it is already. There is no doubt that if this £816,000, nearly £1,000,000, is voted by this House, every single estate in Nyasaland will rise in value some 10 or 20 per cent. by reason of the possibility of the expenditure of the money. The mere passing of the money without the actual expenditure will increase the saleable value of those properties, and I think we ought to be very careful before we make these loans to landlords, however estimable. I know that the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) is interested in the district, and, if I were interested, probably I should like to get the loan just as much as he does; but we represent the taxpayers, and we ought not to pick out particular landowners in particular countries and make them the recipients of our beneficent legislation. I know that the Colonial Secretary will say this is not a Grant, but merely a loan. That is merely playing with words. The money is lent upon terms which these Colonies by themselves could not possibly obtain. If they went into the market in the City of London to-morrow and tried to raise the money for financing this railway or developing these districts, or making new roads, they could not raise it at less than from 5 per cent. or 4½ per cent. In any case, it would be a rate of interest out of any comparison with the rate they would have to pay under this Bill. In the Bill the minimum rate of interest is to be 2¾ per cent. I expect we shall be told on behalf of the Government that that is not the rate of interest they propose to charge, that 2¾ per cent. is merely pro forma. That is all very well for this Government, but if we had a Government which would be representative of these big interests in British East Africa, if not under their control and influence, and if we pass this Bill there is nothing to prevent the Colonial Office in that case, or the Treasury, from reducing the rate of interest to 2¾ per cent. The last loan made to British East Africa, it is true, was made at 3½ per cent., and the presumption is that this money will also be advanced at 3½ per cent. and not at 2¾ per cent. Even if that be so, there is a great difference between getting this sum of over three-quarters of a million at 3½ per cent. instead of the 4½ per cent. or 5 per cent. which they would have to pay in the money market at the present time. It amounts to a direct bonus of from 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. on the total amount of money proposed to be advanced. That is to say, if this loan of over £800,000 is made on these artificially low terms we are, in fact, presenting to them about one-fourth of £800,000, or £200,000 cash down.

I have not been able to get the figures of the population of Nyasaland, but I should be surprised if the population of the country includes more than 2,000 white inhabitants. To give £200,000 to a country with only 2,000 white inhabitants seems to me to be little short of a scandal. I know the population of British East Africa is 1,855,000 and the white population is only 3,175. It is asking the House of Commons to do a great deal when it is asked to make a loan on these artificial terms to a white community which consists of very little over 3,000 inhabitants. I do not think the Committee should be misled by the Government calling this a Loans Bill. It is in fact a grant of public money. To lend people money at a low rate of interest really means presenting them with a certain capital sum. They could not get this money in the market at less than 4½ per cent. or 5 per cent., and if it is lent to them at 3 per cent. to 3½ per cent. you are giving them the difference between the amount of money that could be obtained at each of these rates. There is a big principle involved in this Bill which will not be confined to Nyasaland. If we once yield to the clamour of the different Protectorates such as British East Africa and Nyasaland the next claim will come as I rather hope from Nigeria. If you once agree to assist some of the Protectorates and Colonies in that way other Protectorates and Colonies will claim an equal right to the advance of money on artificially low terms. You will have created a precedent.

It is a new precedent. I do not think it compares at all with the Grant of £30,000,000 to South Africa after the Boer war. We advanced that, and I know it will be said it was a precedent, but that was after a war, and it was absolutely necessary that we should put our hands into our pockets to save many people from starvation. Similarly a Grant was made to Jamaica after the earthquake there, but in that case the country was ruined, and we had to make the Grant on artificially low terms. This, however, is the first time that British credit has been pledged to secure a loan to a Colonial Government which is not paying its way at the present time, and requires a subsidy from year to year, although I admit that Nyasaland does pay its way, and that there is a balance there between income and expenditure. But Nyasaland is not and never can be a white man's country, and there is no excuse in that case for forced development, whatever may be the case in British East Africa. There is a back belt of land which is still the property of the native chiefs in Nyasaland, but half of the total area is the property of white men in fee simple, and therefore just as in the case of British East Africa, the expenditure of this money will simply go to increase the value of the property of these people. For these reasons I do urge the Committee to reconsider the advance of this money to this very small, minute, and interesting Colony of Nyasaland.

I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken, but I think he was a little in error when he alluded to the rate of interest. I understood him to say that although the minimum rate of interest in the Bill was 2¾ per cent., that would not be the rate at which the Government would advance the money, and that another Government might come in, and there would be nothing to prevent them, if they were contaminated by the influence of landowners, from advancing the money at 2¾ per cent. I think he is mistaken. If he will look at the Bill he will see the words:—

"(4) Every such advance shall bear interest at such rate (not less than two and three-quarters per centum per annum) as the Treasury and the Secretary of State may fix as being sufficient to enable it to be made without loss to the Local Loans Fund. …"

Therefore, if the interest was reduced to 2¾ per cent. it must be without loss to the Local Loans Fund. The rate of interest at which money can be raised without loss to the Local Loans Fund at present is 3½ per cent. I do not know whether the hon. Member expects another Government soon to come into existence, and that when it comes into existence it will be much easier for that Government to borrow money at a lower rate of interest than right hon. Gentlemen opposite can do. No doubt that is true—

Do you anticipate that Consols will fall?

They will borrow money at a cheaper rate because the price of stocks must rise. I think the money could be borrowed at a cheaper rate. Prices would rise in the market because there would be greater confidence in the Government. I am glad to see that hon. Members agree with me on that point. The hon. Member moved this Amendment on the ground that there are only 2,000 white people in Nyasaland, and they are all landlords, and consequently no money should be advanced to them for the sake of improving the communications or trade facilities of the district. I do not quite know what "trade facilities" mean, and I have handed in an Amendment to leave out the words in order to ascertain what they actually mean, but I will not discuss that now. It is not a good reason to refuse to advance money to Nyasaland merely because a certain class of people will benefit. So far as I am concerned, if the money is really to be devoted to the benefit of Nyasaland, if it will tend to encourage people to go out there and to extend the Dominions of this country, I should be in favour of the money being advanced. Whether or not the right sum is advanced, or whether or not it is advisable to do it in this way, I do not know, but I presume that those questions would be more in order upon the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill, and I shall defer any remarks I wish to make on that subject until you, Sir, put that question. If the hon. Member goes to a Division on this particular Amendment, I am afraid I shall not be able to vote with him. He has made this point, if it is correct, that the number of white inhabitants in Nyasaland is only 2,000, and the sum of £816,000, which is the sum to be advanced, does seem to be a rather large sum to advance to a Colony which, apparently at present, is so sparsely populated with white people.

It is not advanced to the white men.

I never said it was. I said that it was advanced to a Colony which is so sparsely populated as only to have 2,000 white men in it at the present moment. No doubt it is advanced to encourage settlers to go there, to improve the means of communication, and for other purposes according to the Bill. I should like to have some further information as to what is the prospect of white settlers going to Nyasaland before we commit ourselves to this amount. I really know nothing whatever about that, and the Committee should have some information upon that subject While I am on that point, may I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he obtained both the Committee and the Report stages of the Resolution after eleven o'clock without any discussion whatever, owing to the foolishness of hon. Members on this side? Consequently we are justified in asking for full particulars upon the Committee stage of the Bill. I only mention that in order to remind the right hon. Gentleman that if I do have a few remarks to make I am perfectly justified in making them, because it was his persuasive eloquence which saved him on those two particular occasions.

I desire to make one or two observations somewhat on the lines of those of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury). When one remembers what a difficult matter it is in this House to obtain loans for the development of our own country and for the purposes of public works and improvements here, one is a little surprised at the rapidity and case with which great Loans and Grants of this description can be secured for Colonies which are not suitable at all to white people. The Secretary for the Colonies can take it from me as an outsider that that seems to be one of the most important elements in this case. If the contention of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) is correct, that under no circumstances can Nyasaland ever be a white man's country, I agree with the hon. Baronet that some definite and cogent reasons ought to be given by the Government for including Nyasaland in these Grants. If the statement of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is correct, there are only 2,000 white people there, and I understand a considerable amount of effort and money have been spent on this Colony already. When one considers that, in spite of that expenditure, there are only 2,000 white people there, and that there is no prospect, for climatic and other reasons, of the country ever becoming more thickly populated with white people, and also the remarkable fact, for which the evidences are overwhelming, of the way in which neglect to assist our own industries and people and our affairs at home, one would like to hear some justification for the Bill now before the Committee.

Evidently the unhappy landlord is not likely to get more justice in Nyasaland than in the United Kingdom. The remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood) were, I fear, governed by the prejudice he unconsciously nourishes against the landed interest.

No.

I am afraid he has unintentionally misled the Committee as to the facts. It surely is not the case that Nyasaland is not a white man's country. In point of fact, Nyasaland consists of a plateau and low country. I know that the low country is not what is generally termed a white man's country. So far as I am aware—I have not been there, but I have special means of knowing the facts—white settlers live well and have propagated their species and can Jive for several generations in the plateau, which is properly considered to be a white man's country. I will instance Sir Harry Johnstone, whom the Committee will accept as a good authority on the subject. Sir Harry Johnstone certainly always maintained that the higher part of Nyasaland, that is, the large plateau, was fit to be a white man's country. There is another point as regards the land upon which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has unintentionally misled the Committee. He said, in regard to Nyasaland, that all the land which was worth having was already alienated and in the hands of landlords. That is very far from being the case. So little is it the case that when the Colonial Office were under contract to pay for the construction of the Shire Highlands Railway, which runs from the lowland to the upland plateau, and when they were under contract to give some 3,750 acres for every square mile for making that line, the right hon. Gentleman declined to carry out that part of his contract and, by arrangement, substituted for it another form of remuneration to the railway, and he did that on the ground that this land, which, I admit, comprises a great deal of the best land in the Protectorate, was already occupied to a considerable extent by the natives. The right hon. Gentleman was anxious that they should not be disturbed in their tenancy, and arrangements were made for leaving that land in their possession and in the possession of the State, so that there should be no encroachment upon those whom hon. Gentlemen opposite might describe as the indigenous landlords—the natives who live in the place. I hope the hon. Member will accept that from me as a fact, because he has unconsciously misled the Committee. Then it was rather suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood) that this loan only benefited the white community. That is entirely a mistaken view. It is quite true that the white community are a very small proportion of the population of this particular Protectorate, and for that reason it is the case that any loan of this sort which is raised only upon the security of the Colony will benefit the natives of the country. They have already immensly increased in prosperity within the last few years. They are much less poverty-stricken than they were, and the further development of their communications would increase the cotton cultivation—such valuable cotton as is cultivated there.

Is that why you stopped them running away to Rhodesia and the Transvaal?

I did not stop them running away. The construction of this railway will be of greater advantage to the natives of Nyasaland than to anyone else. I really challenge contradiction upon that. It will also, for the reason given by the Colonial Secretary the other day, save the British taxpayer in the long run, and will also be of advantage to Lancashire in providing that particular kind of cotton which of all others it wants. I should hesitate to say anything about any company which operated in this area and abstained from doing so on the last occasion, but after the remarks of my hon. Friend I will say that I do not think it is a criminal act or an outrage on the part of British capitalists to expend £2,000,000 in this country, upon which they have not received a penny of return, in the development of Nyasaland. Really it is a very odd thing that they should be attacked for that. They are not buying up land. They are not extending their area. The lands which they at present own were acquired long ago by private individuals from whom they purchased them. In so far as the action of the British Government and the Colonial Office goes, I think they have not acquired a single acre. On the contrary, the policy of the Government has been not to alienate a yard of land in Nyasaland. The shareholders and debenture holders of the company who have expended all this money would naturally be entitled to participate pro rata in the resulting prosperity, and they would to some extent profit by any development of communications in Nyasaland, which is the case with all owners of any sort or kind in all countries of the world, and it is an amazing thing that those who are sufficiently enterprising to go to this distant country to build a railway there and to open it out should be really treated by the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood), whose zeal for single taxing rather runs away with his judgment, as if they had been guilty of some criminal act rather than of that enterprise which has built up the British Empire. Then the hon. Member said it was only habitable by coloured persons, but the plateau of Nyasaland, upon which sub-tropical vegetable products grow, comprises several clmates at different levels, some of which are admirably suited for European settlers, although the lowland tropical country is unfit for European settlers. I do not know where he gets his information about the vast quantities of land leased out by the Colonial Office on a ninety-nine years lease in Nyasaland.

In British East Africa.

In spite of the intervening distance to which he referred as considerable, the hon. Member leapt backwards and forwards from one Protectorate to another, so he must excuse me if I really failed to follow his argument in that particular. He said there were plantations all round Lake Nyasa. If it is so I am not aware of it. I believe there are very few, if any, plantations on the shores of Lake Nyasa. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) said he presumed that this money was to be loaned to Nyasaland for the purpose of encouraging settlers. I really do not know. If it is, that would be a good object, but it is not the sole object. I submit that no one stands to profit more than, if so much as, the native inhabitants, of Nyasaland by the opening out of their territories.

Are we to provide money to benefit the natives of Nyasaland?

If it is considered that this sum is being provided solely for European settlers I shall be very much surprised. It is a very rough and ready method of giving the substance of this Bill to say there are so many European settlers, and there are £816,000 and divide one into the other, and the House of Commons make a gift of so much to each European settler. That is not by any means the purport or the effect of this Bill. However, my particular object was only to call attention to particulars in which, I think, the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood) seriously, though unintentionally, misled the House.

My hon. Friend (Mr. Wedgwood) spoke of forcing development at an unnatural pace in these Protectorates. He really, altogether, misunderstood the situation with which I have to deal. I am not forcing development, but I am endeavouring to meet a development which has gone so far ahead of any reasonable anticipation which we could have had, and so far ahead of any communication which we are able at present to afford in order to get the produce to the coast—produce which is tending greatly to the benefit of the natives who produce it and greatly to those who employ it as raw material in this country. In Nyasaland it is most desirable that roads or a railway should be made northwards to the Lake in order to develop the trade of the northern part of that Protectorate and to develop it just as much for the advantage of these coloured inhabitants as of the white inhabitants, and I do not propose for that purpose to take a differential census between them. My hon. Friend talked as if we were imposing a charge on the taxpayers of this country, and he spoke of our generosity. We are doing nothing of the kind. All we are lending them is our credit. It is not going to cost the hon. Member or his constituents one farthing.

Our credit was once a valuable asset.

It is still so valuable an asset that I have to come to the House of Commons for permission to pledge it for the advantage of the Protectorates for which we are now responsible. There is no grant of money at all. There is no paying proposed to be done by the Treasury or by the taxpayers of this country. The whole of the loan is to be repayable as regards interest and sinking fund. The rates of interest will be regulated by what are the market conditions at the time that the local loan is issued. My hon. Friend said that this was the first time that British credit had been pledged for such a purpose as this to a Crown Colony except that he gave the instances of South Africa, after the South African war and the earthquake in Jamaica, but his usually accurate and fertile memory has betrayed him on this occasion. There was precisely a similar Bill to this in 1899—I admit not a year of very good precedent—in which loans were made for precisely similar purposes to Protectorates and Crown Colonies who were then receiving Grants-in-Aid, which East Africa and Nyasaland are not receiving—to the Gold Coast, the Niger Coast Protectorate, Lagos, Sierra Leone, Trinidad, the Malay States, Barbadoes, St. Vincent, the Seychelles, Cyprus, and Mauritius.

What is the total amount?

It was rather more than I am asking for—£3,351,000. It was suggested, I think, that the East Africa Protectorate was not paying its way. As a matter of fact it is this year out of a Grant-in-Aid from the Treasury. Nyasaland requires no further Grant-in-Aid, but it has contributed greatly to the industry of this country. It is doing great credit to the Government which has been carried on there under our ægis for many years, and it is producing large crops of tobacco, cotton, and coffee, most of which find their way to this country, and all of which contribute to the prosperity and the well-being of the natives there. I am convinced that Nyasaland is well entitled to the share which I propose it should have out of this loan which is to cost this country nothing, and I hope, therefore, the House will not contemplate for a moment omitting Nyasaland from the Bill.

I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we shall not have to spend any of our money in this country. Of course there is the question of security, and perhaps hon. Members opposite, if they had local personal knowledge of the Colonies, would not be so anxious as they are. The records of these Protectorates are such that they turn any sort of speculation into a very good investment. The hon. Member has moved to omit Nyasaland. Of all these three Protectorates, if any has a claim on the House it is Nyasaland. More work has been done in Nyasaland by individual enterprise than in either of the other Colonies, though it has never been so much in the limelight. Magnificent work has been done by white settlers, first of all, I think, by Scotch missionaries, in developing the country. I was there twenty-five years ago, when the position was very different from what it is at present. Since then it has developed entirely by the efforts of individuals, and with very little assistance from the Government. I think there is no question whatever that the Highlands there are as much a white man's country as many portions of East Africa. Of course there are swamps in the Lowlands where it is not so, but the Highlands and plateaux are just as healthy as perhaps most healthy places in East Africa. I know men who were there twenty-five years ago who have married and are still there, even in the swampy countries. Hon. Members have criticised the idea of this money being spent on a limited number of white men. It is not only for the white man that the money is being spent. Last year some 20,000 of the natives in these countries trekked down to South Africa to find work in the mines. They are a very thrifty and a hardy race, and are anxious to work, and they have a most fertile country. The natives do not like leaving their own country; they would very much prefer to remain there. Here you have a region where these men are anxious to work and to go ahead, and, of course, they want carrying facilities. They feel compelled to go, or it may be that they are sent by the chief, down to the mines of South Africa to bring back money to their own country. I hope that part of the money which the right hon. Gentleman is asking credit for will be used to run the railway up into the Angola country. If it were in order to do so, I would move that an increased amount of £500,000 should be asked for Nyasaland. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is asking enough if facilities are to be provided and if the country is to be properly developed. The country is simply an outlying State of the Home Country. I do not care to whom the land belongs; it is our interest to develop the land, not only on behalf of the natives, but on behalf of the home workers of this country. Every step we take in that direction is good for that country and good for us at home. If the hon. Gentleman opposite goes to a Division on the Amendment, I will vote against him. I wish the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to go further than he has done. I wish he would extend the money a little more, so as to provide adequately for the development of the country.

I am not persuaded by the reply of the Secretary of State for the Colonies that he has any case at all for taking this money. I do not think he has given any reply to my hon. Friend (Mr. Wedgwood) who moved the Amendment. I took a careful note of his two points, and I understand that he asks this House to give him over £750,000 because he is endeavouring to meet development in a land which does not belong to us, and that the development is to be met by the creation either of roads or railways towards the North. I am perfectly certain that there are a great many Members of this House who would suggest to him and the Government other districts in the North where roads and railways are required for similar purposes of development of lands that belong to us and over which we have got no Protectorate. The second point was that we were not lending, but simply lending credit. I should like to understand from the Colonial Secretary exactly what takes place when you lend British credit in a land that does not belong to you. I take it that there is some local authority on the spot which approves—some individual or some company with schemes for developing the country which does not belong to us. If the people in authority in this country which does not belong to us approve of the schemes for developing the country, they pledge our credit to the extent of £750,000 for the success of their schemes. Presume that one of these schemes fail, how are we to get control of the people who are developing the scheme in a country which does not belong to us, and over which we have no control beyond that of a Protectorate? How are we able to recover our money?

This seems to be a speech on the Second Reading of the Bill. That point was raised and fully debated on that stage. We are now dealing with the question as to whether Nyasaland should be differentiated from the other Protectorates.

I did speak on the Second Reading of the Bill, because I was opposed to any of this money being voted.

I thought it was the same speech.

I am quite aware of that, but if you will refresh your memory you will find that it is entirely different.

The Amendment is to leave out Nyasaland. I presume that it will be in order for the hon. Member to state his reasons for leaving out Nyasaland. If there is not much reason to think that Nyasaland would be able to meet its obligations, it might be that the other two Protectorates could meet their obligations if Nyasaland was left out.

The Amendment is to differentiate Nyasaland from the other Protectorates.

I shall endeavour to confine myself to your ruling. If I was out of order, I was betrayed into that in attempting to reply to the second point of the Colonial Secretary who elaborated the argument that we were not lending the money, but lending credit, and I was trying to conjure up what would happen in regard to Nyasaland in the case of our losing the credit behind us in connection with any of these schemes. I shall leave that point. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Grant) reminded us that recently there was a trek of some 20,000 natives from Nyasaland south to the mines in order that they might make, presumably, a livelihood. One would like to ask why it was necessary for 20,000 natives to leave their own land to find a livelihood elsewhere.

Because there was a famine last year.

The hon. Member suggests that there was a famine last year. If there was a famine, I should have imagined that a Gentleman like the hon. Member would have reminded this House of the fact, and would have sought relief for those people afflicted by famine last-year, just as he appears to be anxious now to secure this credit from the British public for that country. The real reason obviously is that these men were driven out of Nyasaland for the same reason that people are driven out of lands anywhere—because they have no access to their own lands, and because their own lands have been exploited or stolen by people who have no right to be there. The natives who were born to enjoy what we call their country are denied their rights by a Government which is supposed to be the pioneer of freedom all over the world.

I do not know that there is any property held by any white man in Angolaland at present. This money is to develop the country in order that the natives may get work at home.

There are two obviously different explanations of this trek. The hon. Member (Sir J. D. Roes) said it was because there was a famine last year, and the hon. Member (Mr. Grant) says that famine had nothing to do with it.

I did not say so. I know that these men go down to the mines to make money.

I welcome the second intervention for another obvious reason. The hon. Member (Sir J. D. Rees) said he had not been in Nyasaland, that he knew nothing about it, and that his hon. Friend next him had been there.

I did not say that.

The hon. Member said his hon. Friend knew all about it, but when his hon. Friend intervened, he pointed out that there was no such thing as a famine, thereby revealing the poverty of the argument of the hon. Member for East Nottingham. The hon. Member pointed out that there was a low-lying part occupied by natives and a high-lying part, or plateau, occupied by white people, and he informed the House that, so far as climatic conditions were concerned, there was no possible reason why white people should not live for generations on that plateau. It is interesting to surmise how many generations they could live on the plateau, and whether we could expect to find in Nyasaland descendants of the famous Biblical personages noted for longevity. The hon. Member also pointed out that this money would benefit the natives of the country. I take it that one of our objects in being in the House of Commons is to benefit the natives of our own country, and, therefore, we are bound surely to be extremely jealous of the pledging of British credit to such an ex tent as will preclude those of us who re present our constituents in this House from obtaining equally necessary loans. I hope I will keep within the limits of order in making only one reference by way of illustration to what I mean. For example, Scottish Members have been hammering at the Government for a sum of £3,600—

Now the cat is out of the bag!

The hon. Member is making a Second Beading speech. The House has passed the Second Reading of the Bill.

If the amount for Nyasaland, which is nearly £750,000, were left out as the Amendment proposes, then this would be an obvious object for which our credit would not be pledged. I do not mean to go into this at any length, but I wish to make the House cognisant of what was in my mind, and to show how we are putting up opposition to this Bill. In ordinary circumstances we might be in favour of loans to different parts of the British Empire if the thing were fairly done, but this is not fairly done. It has been pointed out that one reason for granting this loan is to open up lines of communication throughout Nyasaland and other parts of the Protectorate. I presume I must at present confine myself to Nyasaland alone. When these roads and communications are made in Nyasaland, who gets the increase? Is it the natives of Nyasaland or do we, as the mother Government who stand behind the credit for the money that is advanced? Do we get any advantage from these particular roads or communications that are to be laid down? My hon. Friend for one of the Divisions of Aberdeenshire is, I know, interested in lines of communication between England and Scotland—lines of communication which would yield a profit to the Government if they would open them up. Here is a proposal to advance money to a Protectorate thousands of miles away from this country which will enable them to open up facilities in their land which are denied to us here at home by our Government. For these reasons, and a large number of others which I could advance if I were in order, I am opposed to this particular proposal, and I will vote with my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division.

There is one particular reason why I should be opposed to the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I take it that there are certain cases in which this country is justified in expenditure of a promising kind on its Colonies, and in this respect Nyasaland occupies a peculiar position. So far as my reading goes, it is the only one of the tropical Colonies in which money has never been wasted on war. I cannot remember either any war or any punitive expedition in Nyasaland. These people have never counted upon the Government of this country for that kind of expenditure which is only wasteful and murderous. They have managed their country well, and I think that to give assistance to the local Government in a case of that kind is a good thing. I am not quite sure about our title in a Dependency of that kind, but there is no doubt that we are in control of that country, and I think on the whole that the Lest thing which we can do for the people is to assist them in making railways, which is one thing that they cannot do for themselves. In doing that we do a service not only to them, but also a service to this country, because the effect of giving railways and increasing communication in Nyasaland will be to increase the purchas- ing power of Nyasaland, and to make Nyasaland a better market for British produce. That is where the interests of the constituents of hon. Members will come in, and of all the British Possessions in Africa that for which I should be most inclined to vote money for the relief of existing authorities is Nyasaland.

I do not object to advancing money to improve the condition of the inhabitants of Nyasaland if the advance will in any way be of advantage to this country. But that is my difficulty. We have been told nothing about the existing volume of trade in Nyasaland or Uganda. We have not been told who will be responsible for the repayment of the money, or how we can be assured that the money will not be lost. No doubt the negroes in Nyasaland are very amiable men and were created for some wise purpose. But we always find that when we want money for ourselves, and for little extensions of railways or telegraphs, or something else, the British taxpayer is always trotted out; and yet we can have £20,000, £30,000 and even £800,000 for some distant place over which we have very little control. Can my right hon. Friend give any particulars as to what is the volume of trade, and what is the amount of cotton or coffee produced and as to whether the trade is sufficiently worth all this money? My right hon. Friend spoke about lending the money, but if the British Government will lend me their credit that is all I want. I can get the money all right. If Nyasaland does not belong to this country, the ultimate benefit of this expenditure will inure not to this country necessarily, but to the natives or settlers in Nyasaland. I think therefore that we want a little more information, before making this advance for improvements, as to what is the trade, both outwards and inwards, and what are the sources of revenue. We know very well that the principal source of income in Uganda is shooting licences. They keep a reserve of big wild game, and the biggest revenue comes from that. Before I make up my mind as to voting, I want to know what is the volume of trade in Nyasaland at the present moment, what is it is anticipated it will be, who is responsible for seeing that this loan is paid, and who will scrutinise the expenditure of it on the various contracts for laying railways?

I was not inclined to vote for this Amendment until I heard the speech of my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary. He convinced e that it was my duty to vote against the Government if this is pressed to a Division. I understood his principal point to be that this is a thriving Colony which is doing very well. I say, therefore, let well alone. I fail to see how, when a Colony, particularly Nyasaland, is going on so admirably, you are going to improve it by State meddling or State loans. It seems to be assumed by hon. Members opposite that for the State to put money into a given locality must surely do it good. In my opinion it must invariably do it harm, and that applies particularly to Nyasaland. If the Colonial Secretary is right and things are going on so well, and such progress is being made, that justifies us in waiting a little further before pledging British credit for this advance. But suppose that his facts are wrong, and that money is needed, that this Colony is not doing well, and, as the hon. Member for East Nottingham suggested, that even debenture holders can get no return, it is quite clear that this is not the right time to make a loan of £800,000. Hon. Members opposite again and again have said that we ought to have a business Government to develop the resources of our own property. I cannot, of course, at this point raise, what I raised on the Second Reading, and hope to raise again on the Third Reading, as to whether this is a British Possession or not. I do not know whether the Union Jack waves over Nyasaland or not. We can get no definite statement from the Treasury Bench on this point; but I do not think that £800,000 should be paid out for this territory with a vague political position which no one dares to define for fear of international complications.

Even if hon. Members are correct, and that it is the duty of a grandmotherly Government to give assistance to develop and encourage particular Colonies by huge State doles of money, we should do it on business lines. What would a business house do if it were developing a new scheme in Nyasaland? It would not primarily pledge its credit for a large sum of money, but it would send out a business man to administer the money that required to be spent. If we are to take a business view, and Nyasaland is in a deplorable state, as the hon. Member for East Nottingham suggests, and needs our help through a Grant of money, let us do it on business lines. The political position is so very indefinite in regard to this place that no light can be thrown upon it. Whenever a question is asked, it is evaded, because it is one of these troublesome things that bring the Foreign Office into conflict with the Colonial Office. But waiving that for the moment, because it is a Second Reading point, the business point in relation to Nyasaland is just as vague and unsatisfactory as the political position. Who are the people who are to be responsible for repaying the money? The loan is for forty years. Can anyone say what Nyasaland will be during the next forty years? Who can say what kind of Government will last for that period? We are making that loan now when there is a population of less than 2,000 whites. Are we prepared at this stage of development to pledge our credit for this Colony?

If we are to develop the country we should know more about it. If we are to send such a large sum of money there let us boldly place the country under the Union Jack, and administer it from some Department under this House. We do not know whether these settlers will decrease or not. Very likely the 2,000 settlers who are there at present will not stay there for ever. In a few years there may be 4,000 whites, or 40,000, or only 1,000; but there will be very different people there long before the forty years have passed. We do not know who is going to repay the money. We do not know what the future of this territory will be. Therefore, no case has been made out for retaining Nyasaland in the clause. The hon. Member for Egremont (Mr. J. A. Grant) suggested a very novel idea. The hon. Member suggested that some Scotch missionaries visited the place. Are we giving this loan to Nyasaland in order to further the Christian religion? If our desire is to spread Christian civilisation I want to know are we going to do what was done by Spain, in connection with its military conquests? Spain extended its conquests in the name of religion. Religious men accompanied its troops and were the protectors of the natives. The priest, as a rule, was the champion of the native population. He was the first to learn their language, and at times he made representations on their behalf to the authorities in Spain as against the local military chiefs; and in reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Egremont, I want to know are we going to do that in Nyasaland?

The hon. Member for Egremont (Mr. Grant) simply spoke a single sentence in allusion to the fact that Nyasaland owed much in its early days to a Scottish missionary, but I think that is a very small peg on which to hang an argument.

Although I may have attached too much importance to my point, it is not suggested that it is not in order. I want to make this point, that if we have the courage of our opinions we should plant our flag in Nyasaland, that we should have a definite Government, and that we should make someone responsible there for the administration of the money. The position at present is too indefinite. To say that this is in the interests of the natives is a thing that I do not believe for a moment. This money which is to be borrowed is not in the interests of the natives, nor do I know of any request from the natives for money. The natives in Nyasaland, as in other parts of Africa, do not want to be exploited. They have got their own ideals, and they do not want to bring in railways, and to be moved about by promoters from one place to another. That is not at all what the natives want. They do not want to be moved every other day like a Cabinet Minister. They want to settle down. I would rather, before giving my vote, hear some more full pronouncement from the right hon. Gentleman, whose ability and courage we all admire. I think the House is entitled to hear some explanation of why this £816,000 is necessary for Nyasaland, and if the money is to be advanced it should be done on business lines, with someone responsible and in authority in regard to the expenditure of the money.

I will answer the questions which have been put to me quite shortly. The loan will be raised by the Local Loans Commissioners in England. The Treasury will have to be satisfied as to the provisions made for its repayment. It will have full control through the Colonial Office and the British Government over the Protectorate, and over the whole of its finance. I have been asked about the finance and treasury of Nyasaland. I will give the figures to the House. The Nyasaland revenue in 1905–6 was £69,000; it is estimated for this year to be £139,000. The Grant-in-Aid in 1905–6, found by the taxpayers in this country, was £32,000, and last year and this year it has been nil. The exports from Nyasaland in 1903–4 were of the value of £27,000; in. 1912–13 they were of the value of £174,000. I cannot imagine a series of figures, taken over those years for which this Government has been responsible for the Nyasaland Protectorate, which can show a more progressive Protectorate or a better example of liberal administration for all the inhabitants of the country, irrespective of those which I have stated. They show what we have been able to do-for them, and what I think may be expected to be the still further advance and prosperity of that country by the loan which we propose to make for the extension of the railway, which has already been a blessing.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the expenses in Nyasaland were? I think the revenue was £69,000.

There was a Grant-in-Aid of £32,000 added to the revenue of £69,000, in order to meet the expenditure. That was in the year 1905–6, immediately after the hon. Baronet and his Friends had done with the country. We came into power in that year, and the result now is that there is no Grant-in-Aid, that there-is no deficit, and that there is a revenue in the country of £139,000.

I think the speeches which have been made by hon. Members on the other side this afternoon simply confirm the idea of their principles formed not only on this side, but among some Members on the benches opposite, that their policy is that of the Little Englanders—that money should be spent in our own country, and that we should not go out of our way to develop our own Colonies or those countries to which we have promised to give our protection. If hon. Members had considered the figures which the Colonial Secretary has given, or if they had been within the knowledge of those hon. Members, they would have shown themselves by their speeches more thoroughly conversant with the whole question of Nyasaland. The hon. Member for Egremont is one of those Members of the House who has a personal knowledge of the facts of that country, and I think his remarks made it perfectly plain that it was necessary for its further development that this assistance should be given, and that the produce of that country should be brought down, in order that it might be placed on ships for exportation. I should have thought that under those circumstances the great majority of Members in this House would have considered that the Government, at all events, for once are doing right in making this advance, or, at any rate, in standing behind the credit of Nyasaland in order that the necessary loan may be obtained. I could not help wondering at the figures which were stated by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). He apparently is unaware of the fact that the East African Protectorate has not been so financially successful as Nyasaland itself. He did not mind the fact that £1,855,000 is being granted to the East African Protectorate, but he did take exception to the fact that, considering Nyasaland has only 2,000 white people, the sum of £816,000 should be advanced to that country. I wonder if my hon. Friend knows that in the East African Protectorate there are only a little over 3,000 whites.

I told the House so.

If the hon. Member knows that there are only a little over 3,000 in the East African Protectorate, I cannot help thinking, though it was perhaps unintentional, that he was misleading the Committee, when he suggested that it was ill-advised in a case where there were only 2,000 whites, to make this loan. I submit that if we have taken under our care any Colonies or any countries in any part of the world, it is necessary that we should give them every attention in order that they may be developed, and may become the successes which we desire to see. I think the figures given this afternoon by the Colonial Secretary ought at all events to set at Test the minds of many of those hon. Gentlemen who are so carefully considering every penny that is to be expended because it does not happen to go to those parts with which they themselves are familiar. The figures which have been given prove that assistance heretofore has been money well spent, and I sincerely trust that Members of this House, by a large majority, will back up His Majesty's Government in this matter. It was rather amusing to hear from an hon. Member on the other side of the House that no definite statement can be obtained from Members on the Treasury Bench. I think there are many Members in this House who will endorse that observation. But it seems rather extraordinary that it should have emanated from one who, one would suppose, is at all events a strong adherent and follower of His Majesty's Government. I am rather anxious to see whether those hon. Members who have spoken against the policy of the Government in this specific case will, when the Division takes place, once more bring their minds to that degree of satisfaction which will enable them to support the Government, notwithstanding the fact that they have stated that this amount of money ought not to be advanced.

I do not desire to make a Second Reading speech, and I hope, therefore, Sir, to keep in order so far as your ruling is concerned in regard to the voting of this money, and unless the money is voted by the Committee you cannot go on with the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seems to think he has got over the difficulty by calling us names, because, apparently, we do not want the money of the people to go outside this country among syndicalists and promoters of companies, and in other ways all over the world. My hon. Friend from Ireland (Mr. Stephen Gwynn) spoke on the subject, and I am not surprised at his observations, seeing that he represents people who are to get £200,000,000 at a low rate of interest. I believe that Uganda, at any rate, has already had over £6,000,000 granted by this country, in grants and loans and whether or not we have got any return for it I do not know. My real objection to the proposal is that we want this money in the Highlands of Scotland.

I have no doubt all hon. Members could say something similar, but, if I allowed the hon. Gentleman to proceed on the line he is taking, I would have to allow the whole of the Members of the Committee to advocate the spending of money in their constituencies. That is clearly not in order.

I am surely entitled to give my reasons for voting against the advance of this money.

That depends entirely upon the reasons.

One of my reasons is that I want the money to be used elsewhere.

The hon. Gentleman will see what would happen on the Committee stage of a Bill if every hon. Member, in discussing its provisions, advocated the individual interests of his own constituency. That is a position which I cannot allow.

All I wish to say about the point is that I object to the Government making this loan, more especially when there are many parts of this country in which the money is wanted. I suppose we are attempting to do what is called "colonising East Africa." I want to do what Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman promised in 1905, namely, to "colonise our own country first." I have in my pocket and elsewhere many letters—

If I allow the hon. Member to continue, his example will be followed, I have no doubt, by others.

My constituents are asking for a similar advance at a low rate of interest, and all I am asking is that before the Government make this one they should attend to my Constituency, from which has come a lot of applications.

The hon. Member has tried three times to continue the point, and I cannot allow him to proceed with it.

I am sorry I cannot discuss the question. It is a matter of economy, and it is a question of doing justice to your own people in your own country first. I am ashamed of the Government, because they absolutely refuse to do justice to their own people in their own country. I am sorry we cannot give our reasons for voting against this, or for objecting to it. I am sorry I cannot promise that we shall vote against it, because we shall be driven to support the Government in any case; but that ought not to prevent our saying what we think about it. All I can say now is, that I am not allowed to discuss the question, or to give my reasons for objecting to this Grant. I say again that I am ashamed that the Government of this country—and a Liberal Government—should treat their own people as they are doing in the promotion of this Bill.

I listened with great attention to what fell from the Colonial Secretary. It was very impressive to hear of the progress of Nyasaland, how the conditions have been improving, and how the revenue has expanded. The question naturally occurs to one, if the prosperity of Nyasaland is growing at this rate, why should not the Protectorate, if it desires railways and other forms of development, come to the money market in the ordinary way, and obtain a loan from the financial magnates at rates which the money market can afford? That is a point upon which I would like further information. I know that if any one speaks in that way, he is at once told that he is a "Little Englander." But there are many people who say that. It very frequently happens that the financial magnates are called in to finance developments which are likely to pay, while the British taxpayer is called in to finance those which are less likely to pay.

That is an argument against the Bill, and not against the particular Amendment before the Committee. I must appeal to hon. Members to get a little more definiteness in their minds.

I desire to argue the question definitely, and still more definitely as regards Nyasaland, because we have heard a good deal about debenture holders who have not been receiving their interest, and things like that. I would like to know who these debenture holders are, and in what their money was sunk. Was it sunk in the development of the land, or merely in purchasing the land from the chiefs? That is a very important matter.

Shall I be in order in answering the hon. Member?

No.

I very much regret that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not give us this information. In all these countries the most important thing is to maintain the fundamental rights of the natives to the land. In far too many cases, by some juggling transaction with the chiefs, the natives have been deprived of certain fundamental rights, and have been forced to go and earn their living elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) spoke about land ownership. I understand from what has passed in the Debate that there is a considerable quantity of low-lying land which, for practical purposes, may be regarded as impossible except as a means of access to the higher lands. With regard to the good land, it was said—I have no personal knowledge of the subject—that a great proportion, nearly one-half, is in the hands of gentlemen whom we should be inclined to call in this country land speculators. Whenever you develop land you increase the demand for that land. If you construct a railway you send up the value of the land, and the cream of the benefit is skimmed off by those who hold the land. The hon. Member for Egremont (Mr. Grant) said that he did not mind who the landowners were. On behalf of my constituents, I very much mind who they are, because it seems to me that while there is a great deal to be said for the British Empire's developing its own estates, there is very little to be said for its developing the estates of other people. I do not intend to follow in the footsteps of my hon. Friend (Mr. Morton), but I should like to cite some instances along the West coast of Scotland and elsewhere, in which the Congested Districts Board has spent money in constructing piers and—

After the rulings you have given, is the hon. Member in order in discussing land in Scotland?

I have already said that hon. Members must not advocate the claims of other places.

I have no intention of advocating any claim whatever. If the hon. Member opposite had paused to hear what I had to say he would have seen that his intervention was really unnecessary. My object is to show what has been done in various parts. You have had roads constructed, piers built, and various places developed at public expense, and what has been the result? As soon as land in those places was wanted for any purpose it had gone up in value. It is the invariable experience everywhere. I do not see why that should happen in South Africa also. If we are to make railways and develop the land it is most important that we should know who will be the real beneficiaries. For that reason I hope that my right hon. Friend will give us a little more information as to the state of land ownership in Nyasaland. Before the House votes money for this sort of thing very full information should be given. We ought to know what the various companies are, how much land is privately owned, and on what conditions the land is held. Until we have that information I do not think we are justified in making advances of this speculative character, which I suppose the House is asked to make because the loan could not be obtained on satisfactory terms on the money market in the ordinary way. It is perfectly clear that certain individuals will benefit, but whether the British taxpayer will be making a good investment seems to me another matter altogether.