Naval Dockyard Workmen Selected for Cape Service and not Sent. MR. LOCKIE (Devonport): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that certain shipwrights and machinemen in His Majesty's service were lately selected for service at Cape Town; that after they had purchased their outfits their appointments were countermanded; and whether, under these circumstances, they will be compensated for the expense to which they have been put. (Answered by Mr. Arnold- Forster.) Twenty one workmen in the Home dockyards were recently selected for service at the Cape of Good Hope naval yard, but as the result of further communications with the Commander-inChief on the Cape Station the numbers to be sent out were reduced to eleven. The Admiralty have no information to the effect that the other ten men had already purchased their outfits. If it be the case that they have been put to expense in this way, the proper course is for them to represent the facts through their superior officers, in order that each case may be considered on its merits. Education Bill-Rating of Parishes Maintaining Private Schools. MR. MORRELL (Oxfordshire, Woodstock): To ask the Secretary to the VOL. CXVI. [FOURTH SERIES.] SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secre that in a War Office circular letter to tary of State for War whether, seeing general officers commanding volunteers, dated 15th May last, it was stated that the names of Volunteer officers upon whom honorary army rank had been conferred for their services in South Africa, and who subsequently resigned, would be shown as officers with honorary rank in the alphabetical list of officers retired from the Army in the Quarterly Army List, he will explain why, in the Quarterly Army List for October, no names of Volunteer service company officers are shown in the list of retired officers, although many had resigned before it was published; and whether he will take steps to have this omission rectified in future quarterly lists. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The hon. Member has been misinformed. The officers concerned are shown in the Quarterly Army List on pages 20722074 (b), to which the circular specially refers. E ADJOURNMENT-RIGHT TO RAISE WEEK-END ADJOURNMENT. (12.10.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at the rising of the House this day, do adjourn till Monday next." (Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.) *MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): I desire on this Motion to raise an urgent and important question. This Motion, I may point out, is only necessary because of the exceptional circumstances under which we are met. When Committee of Supply and of Ways and Means is open, the House under Standing Order 18 adjourns automatically from Friday to Monday, but it not being now open, Standing Order 18 does not apply, and we come back under the old Rule which enables Members to call attention on the Motion for adjournment to any matters they deem. of importance or urgency. I am not, however, going to detain the House at any length. The matter to which I wish to call attention *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I am not aware of any Rule under which the Motion for adjournment from Friday to Monday may be made the subject of discussion. It is not like a Motion for adjournment over Easter or Whitsuntide, or any unusual period. But this is quite an ordinary proceeding. *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I should like to point out, Sir, that Sir Erskine May, in his own last edition, dealing with the Standing Order of 1861, says "Considerable laxity has prevailed in allowing irrelevant speeches upon questions of adjournment, which are regarded as exceptions to the general rule. In 1849 the Speaker endeavoured to enforce a stricter practice, and called upon Members to confine their observa tions upon such Motion to the question properly before the House-viz., whether the House should adjourn or not. But the House has not since acquiesced in any limitation of the supposed privilege of Members to speak upon every subject but that of the colourable question of adjournment. In moving an adjournment, how ever, during a debate upon any Question, a Member must confine his remarks to that Question. Until the discontinuance of the weekly question of adjournment from Friday till Monday, in 1861, an inconvenient latitude of discussion was also permitted. Nor did the House deprive Members of this opportunity of raising general debates, without an equivalent; but required the Committee of Supply to be the first Order of the Day on Friday, when there is the like freedom of discussion." Will you allow me to say that, in addition to the Standing Order which I have read, there was Standing Order 11, now repealed, which was as follows: "That, while the Committees of Supply, and Ways and Means are open, the first Order of the Day on Friday shall be either Supply, or Ways and Means, and that on that Order being read, the Question shall be proposed, 'That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.' I submit as a point of order that while during continuance of the Committee of Supply or Ways and Means, the House is, under Standing Order 18, automatically adjourned from Friday to Monday, yet, when, as now, Committee of Supply is not the House and under the old practice, open, we are still under the old Orders of which there is nothing to impair or affect. That being so, I submit that I am within my rights in calling attention to a matter of importance on this Motion. *SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean): On the point of Order, may I suggest that the power of raising debate on the Motion is similar to that of calling attention to questions on the Motion for adjournment at the conclusion of the day's sitting? We often do that. *Mr. SPEAKER: My impression was that this was an obsolete practice. But I am very anxious not to interpose where any doubt can exist with regard to any opportunity of debate which may belong to the House, and therefore I will call on the hon. Member. BRUSSELS SUGAR CONVENTION. *Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I think the House will agree that this which I am about shortly to raise is an extremely important subject, and precisely one of those matters which show the extreme value of the privilege that has fortunately been retained by the House. I sent word this morning to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs of my intention to raise a question on this Motion at noon, and I had hoped that he would be in his place to hear what I had to say, because it mainly concerns his Department. This is my point. Ten days ago the House approved of the policy of the Sugar Convention, and practically gave power to the Government to ratify the Convention. Since then new facts of the most alarming and unexpected nature have been revealed, as is indeed avowed by 1 done so on Tuesday, because the noble Lord did not mention it in reply to my Question. THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CRANBORNE, Rochester): I never denied it. *Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Really, that Mr. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet): But you suppressed it. LORD CRANBORNE: I was never asked the question. *Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I am not anxious to detain the House, but if the noble Lord persists in his denial I must quote his words. I asked the noble Lord— "Whether, in view of Article II. of the His Majesty's Government. These facts, I submit, ought to cause the Government to reconsider their position; and it behoves them to dispose finally of all the grave doubts that have undoubtedly arisen in regard to the Convention, before ratifying it. It is admitted, first of all, that the translation is incorrect. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has had to admit to the House, for the first time in the, is too bad. history of the Foreign Office, that a wrong translation has been issued. I submit that this alone should cause the Government to pause before they ratify the Convention. Now, the binding text of the Convention is in French, and, therefore, whether the translation is good or bad, we are bound by that text. The noble Lord has had to admit that in a most important Article of the Convention -the Article which concerns its duration, and the method of putting an end to it-the translation is incorrect. It is to be regretted that there does not seem to be any one at the Foreign Office who knows either French or English; for I could show that in many other respects the translation is incorrect. I have reason to believe, however, that mistranslation is not so much the fault of the Foreign Office as it is the fault of the Treasury, which refuses to supply experts for these translations. But the effect is that the House has decided the question on a false translation and an incorrect statement of the facts before it. But there are two other points far more important even than that. Doubts have arisen since the debate as to the effect of the Sugar Convention on other treaties containing the most favoured - nation Clause. The noble Lord told me the day before yesterday with regard to Russia that the affair had been settled in 1899, that the question was raised by Russia, and that we had then taken up the position that in our view such a Convention as this was not affected by, and did not affect, the most favourednation Clause. He also said that Russia had made no reply to our representation, and it followed, consequently, that we retained our opinion and Russia hers. But yesterday the noble Lord told the House an entirely different story. He said, in reply to the hon. Member for Mid Armagh, that Russia had protested that this Sugar Convention was a violation of the treaty of 1859 with her. When did she protest? She had not Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with Russia, of 12th January, 1859, which binds this country not to place other or higher duties on any articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of Russian dominions than on those of any other foreign country, and not to and of Article X., which binds this country to prohibit the importation of any such articles, grant to Russian subjects every privilege, favour, and immunity granted to subjects of any other Power, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to give notice of the expiration of that treaty in order to place itself in a position to carry out the Sugar Convention, Brussels; and whether, in view of Article XXII. of the Treaty of 1859, which stipulates that the treaty shall remain in force until 12 months after either party thereto shall have given notice to the other to terminate the same, such notice has already been given by His Majesty's Government; and, if not, how His Majesty's Government propose to place themselves in a position to give effect to the Sugar Convention as therein stipulated on 1st September, 1903." In reply the noble Lord said : "The Russian Government were informed in 1899, when the Government of India had imposed countervailing duties against sugar imported from Russia, that this was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government and that agree in this view Her Majesty's Government were prepared to denounce the Treaty of Commerce of 1859. No reply was made to this communication.” if the Russian Government were unable to I am sure the noble Lord-intended to be candid, but was it a full statement in reply not to state the fact that though of 1899 there nevertheless had been the there was no reply to the communication statement quite recently on the part of Russia that this Convention was infringement of the most-favoured-nation an Clause in the very treaty of 1859 to which he had been referring? It was not until yesterday that this information was given to the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh. It is, therefore, a new fact which has transpired since the debate on this Sugar Convention, that Russia not only declares that the Convention is an infringement of her treaty, but it is so important that she actually proposes that we should go to arbitration upon it. But it is not a case merely of Russia; there are other nations, not parties to the Convention, with whom we have a mostfavoured-nation Clause. If it is true of Russia it is also true of all these other treaties as well; and it is clear, therefore, that most serious doubts hang over the effect of the treaty in this respect. On referring to the procès-verbaux, I find that even before signing the Convention the Government were aware that doubt hung over the question. On January 23, 1902, Mr. Phipps, the delegate for Great Britain, declared that the British delegates could not definitively adhere to Article IV., which imposes the obligation of countervailing duties without an understanding being established as to its application to this most-favoured-nation Clause. But, notwithstanding that declaration, when the delegates came to Art. IV., although they raised other questions upon it, they did not raise this question again; they signed the Convention on 5th March without any such understanding being arrived at, and recorded in the procèsverbaux. That is not all. To the two points of serious doubt and question already mentioned, I have to add a third, even more serious. The Finance Minister of Holland declared two days ago that in his view and, if I may say so, it is my own opinion also--the Convention does oblige Great Britain to put countervailing duties, not only on sugars, but on all sugar products, such as biscuits containing sugar; it does oblige great Britain to put a countervailing duty on these products when coming from any one of our selfgoverning Colonies-I am not speaking of our Crown Colonies-which gives in any way a bounty on the manufacture or export of sugar or sugared products. Yesterday the noble Lord admitted to me in answer to a Question that it is not Holland alone that takes that view, but that it is also held in other quarters. Other Powers have declared the same thing, according to the avowal of the Mr. Gibson Bowles. noble Lord. We, however, flatly deny this and take the contrary view, and he admits that a correspondence on this disagreement is proceeding; but he does not say with what Powers. I ask, therefore, with whom is the correspondence going on, and with how many Powers? I am quite certain from what is in the procès-verbaux that Belgium, and I think probably Germany also, holds the same view. But since this is the case, are we to proceed with the ratification of a Convention of this kind, on which there is so much disagreement and which is so vital to us and to our Colonies? It would be absurd to do so; no man fit to be out of Bedlam would ratify such an agreement if he were told before doing so that the other signatories were in entire disagreement with him. It is quite clear that there is a complete disagreement as to the meaning of a most important article between some of the signatories to the Convention. Will the noble Lord lay the correspondence on the Table of the House? Will the Government undertake to arrive at an agreement before it ratifies the Convention? Will it find out whether there is an obligation to impose countervailing duties upon sugar coming from our Colonies Queensland gives a bounty; Ontario also gives a bounty by lending capital for the building of refineries at five per cent. interest. It may be said that that is only a temporary arrangement, but still it may be renewed. Any Colony may give a bounty in the future, and this Convention is made for the future. These facts must be borne in mind. Ten days ago the House was induced to pass a Resolution approving the Convention, and to pass it after a debate which was almost entirely monopolised by the Government and those of its supporters who are capable of making long speeches, and which debate was then ruthlessly closured without hearing many who of the new facts, the doubts and had claims to speak to it. But in view disagreement that have since transpired-it would, be monstrous to ignore the gravity of the position or to proceed to ratify a Convention as to the effect of which both signatory and nonsignatory Powers wholly disagree with us. I therefore ask the Government to give an undertaking that before the Convention is ratified on the 1st February THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I consider that the course taken by the hon. *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: This morn MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But that is not the gravamen of my complaint against the hon. Gentleman. The complaint I make is that he has chosen to use this survival in our Standing Orders to raise a subject of debate, absolutely, as far as I know, without precedent. MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.): We Gentleman is one not only absolutely often make precedents. without precedent, but one most be in the power of any hon. Member to interrupt the ordinary business of this House by raising, on a purely formal Motion, a Motion which has been regarded as formal for at least a generation, a debate on any subject, however important, however difficult, and however delicate. improper to be taken on such an MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Precedents occasion. Let me remind the House should not be made in this way. Nowhat precisely is the opportunity which thing can be worse than that it should the hon. Gentleman has selected for raising these delicate international questions. The House is perhaps aware that among the obsolete survivals in the Rules, which in face of the opposition of the hon. Gentleman I have been attempting to amend, there is one which lays down that when Supply is set up the House shall adjourn from Friday till Monday without Question put. That means that for the greater part of every session the adjournment till Monday is automatic, but during the debate on the King's Speech and in an Autumn Session when Supply is not set up, the Motion comes on; but in the whole of my Parliamentary experience it has invariably been treated as an absolutely formal Motion. The hon. Gentleman did not even give notice. *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I could not give notice, because some of the facts to which I have referred did not transpire till last night. MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not discussing objections to the course which the hon. Gentleman has taken, although I think that is open to the gravest animadversion. I think he might have sent notice to my noble friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs or to the President of the Board of Trade. MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid): The right hon. Gentleman forgets that we have this privilege every night on the Motion to adjourn. MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no analogy between the two cases. I certainly should suggest to my hon. friends, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the President of the Board of Trade, that they should not lend themselves to this most unfortunate proceeding by taking any part in the debate which the hon. Gentleman has initiated. SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs): If the admonition or expostulation of the First Lord is addressed to anybody, I am afraid it is to Mr. Speaker. because he has ruled. that this is a perfectly proper opportunity for the hon. Member to seek the information he desires to have. I agree with my hon. friend the Member for Mid Lanark that this is absolutely analogous to the daily Motion that this House do now adjourn. It would, of course, be absurd if on frequent occasions that Motion were used, but it is sometimes used for the purpose of extracting information from the GovernLORD CRANBORNE: At what time? ment. The Sugar Convention is a most *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: That is exactly what I did. I sent notice to the noble Lord this morning as soon as I was able to do so. |