Commons Sitting of 6 April 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  AIRDRIE AND COATBRIDGE TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  HOYLAKE AND WEST KIRBY IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Queen's consent signified; read the third time, and passed.
  WIDNES AND RUNCORN BRIDGE BILL.
  Queen's consent signified; read the third time, and passed.
  HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
  As amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  WOLVERHAMPTON, ESSINGTON, AND CANNOCK CHASE JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL ELECTRIC EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL.
  Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Bredbury and Romiley, Bridlington, Cheadle and Gatley, Hebburn, Kendal, Long Eaton, Lytham, Ormesby, Sleaford, and Tunstall (with Goldenhill and Chell), ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Bredbury and Romiley, Bridlington, Cheadle and Gatley, Hebburn, Kendal, Long Eaton, Lytham, Ormesby, Sleaford, and Tunstall (with Goldenhill and Chell)," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 171.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 5).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Bishop Auckland, Caterham (with Warlingham), Cowpen, Grantham, Nuneaton and Chilvers Coton, Ogmore Valley, Redruth, St. Helens (Isle of Wight), South Blyth, and Weybridge, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Hanbury.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 5) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Bishop Auckland, Caterham (with Warlingham), Cowpen, Grantham, Nuneaton and Chilvers Coton, Ogmore Valley, Redruth, St. Helens (Isle of
  1388
  Wight), South Blyth, and Weybridge," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 172.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Aberavon, Burslem, the Chesterfield Gas and Water Board District, Colne, Fenton, and Kendal, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Aberavon, Burslem, the Chesterfield Gas and Water Board District, Colne Fenton, and Kendal," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 173]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Barnsley (Rural), Featherstone Hambledon (Rural), Lutterworth (Rural) Ossett (Rural), St. Helens, Wigan, and the Wirral Joint Hospital District, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Barnsley (Rural), Featherstone, Hambledon (Rural), Lutterworth (Rural), Ossett (Rural), St. Helens, Wigan, and the Wirral Joint Hospital District," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 174.]

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B).
  Mr. OLDROYDreported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills, That the parties opposing the Gas Light and Coke, Commercial Gas, and South Metropolitan Gas Companies Bill had stated that the evidence of Professor Vivian Lewes was essential to their case; and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the inter-

  1389
  vention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Professor Vivian Lewes, of 18, Lower Whitecross Street, London, do attend the said Committee To-day, at Three of the clock.
  Ordered, That Professor Vivian Lewes do attend the Committee on Group B of Private Bills this day, at Three of the clock.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  ABERDEEN CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

  PRIVATE BILL (GROUP A).
  Sir WILLIAM HOULDSWORTHreported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills, That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday, the 2nd May, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  Colonial Bank Bill, without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to empower the Eastern District Committee of the County Council of the county of Stirling to construct waterworks and to supply water within their district; to authorise the County Council of the county of Stirling to acquire lands and servitudes for the purposes of such water supply; to authorise and require the said County Council to levy assessments and to borrow money; and for other purposes." East Stirlingshire Water Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Newport for the construction of a bridge over the River Usk, and of tramways and other works; and for other purposes." Newport Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to authorise the Paignton Urban District Council to construct additional waterworks; and for other purposes." Paignton Urban District Water Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company; and for other purposes." London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to empower the Urban District Council of the Urban District of Newtown and Llanllwchaiarn to supply gas, and to purchase the undertaking of the Newtown and Llanllwchaiarn Gas and Coke Company, Limited; and for other purposes." Newtown and Llanllwchaiarn Urban District Gas Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill intituled, "An Act to empower the Cork, Bandon, and South Coast Railway Company to stop up certain level crossings and substitute bridges; to divert and alter certain roads; to construct an aerial ropeway; to acquire additional lands; to consolidate their debenture stocks and amend their Act of 1888 as to the consolidation of preference stocks; to subscribe to the Bantry Bay Steamship Company, Limited; to confer further powers upon the Company; and for other purposes." Cork, Bandon, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords].
  And also a Bill intituled, "An Act to empower the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to construct a pier at Valencia; to abstract water from the River Suir and lay pipes to their Thurles station; to acquire additional lands; to vest in the Company the undertaking of the Mitchelstown and Fermoy Light Railway Company; to subscribe further sums to the Southern Hotels, Limited; to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." Great Southern and Western Railway Bill [Lords].

  EAST STIRLINGSHIRE WATER BILL [Lords].
  NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  PAIGNTON URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL [Lords].
  LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  NEWTOWN AND LLANLLWCHAIARN URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL [Lords].
  CORK, BANDON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Auchterarder, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Liverpool, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LUNACY BILL.
  Petition of the Metropolitan Relieving Officers' Association, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from West Kirby, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Coventry; London; Prestatyn; Wakefield; Hartlepool (two); West Hartlepool; and Blairgowrie; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (No. 2) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Tynemouth; Uxbridge; Swansea; Swalwell; Sheffield (five); Willington-on-Tyne; Chester-le-Street; Sleaford; South Benwell; Cornwall; Meigle; and Wallasey; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Chester-le-Street; Messingham; East Butterwick; Sleaford; Wakefield; Cornwall; Swansea; and Bradford; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  RIFLE RANGES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 12th March—Mr. Radcliffe Cooke]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 129.]
  GOVERNMENT INSURANCES AND ANNUITIES.
  Account presented, of all Moneys received and of the disposal thereof, and of all Contracts for the grant of Deferred Life Annuities and for Payments on Death made, during the year 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 130.]
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Copy presented, of Proclamation issued by the High Commissioner for South Africa on 19th March, 1900, relating to Alienations of Property by the Government of the South African Republic or Orange Free State made subsequently to the date of the Proclamation [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Minute of the Board of Education, dated 6th April, 1900, establishing Higher Elementary Schools [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1889.
  Copies presented, of Minutes sanctioning the subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of The Technical Instruction Act, 1889, for the following county and district:—

  County of Buckingham (Eighth Minute), dated 23rd February, 1900;

  District of Beckenham, dated 13th March, 1900

  [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—BOER PRISONERS—PLACE OF CUSTODY.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will state the grounds on which it has been decided to

  1393
  remove General Cronje and a number of Boer prisoners to St. Helena; what is the legal sanction for keeping these men in custody in St. Helena: and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any correspondence which has passed between Mr. Schreiner and the High Commissioner, or with Her Majesty's Government, on this subject.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The grounds for the removal of the prisoners were based on the question of safe custody. I am not aware that any special legal sanction is required in removing them to St. Helena. No correspondence between Mr. Schreiner and the High Commissioner has as yet reached this country.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state the number of cases of illness amongst the Boer prisoners in Simons Town, and the number of deaths; whether any inspection of the prisoners and their quarters has been made by independent medical men; and, if so, whether he will lay their reports upon the Table of the House; and why the Boer prisoners have been kept on board ship instead of being kept under conditions similar to those enjoyed by the British prisoners in the Transvaal.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The information asked for in the first paragraph was given in full detail by my hon. friend the Under Secretary yesterday.* We have no information about the second paragraph, but I may state to the House—what I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware of already—that no distinction is drawn between Boer and Briton in the matter of medical treatment.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is there an abundance of pure spring water at Simons Town?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no reason to doubt that there is.

  PRISONERS OF WAR—STATISTICS—SUGGESTED EXCHANGE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can give the number
  * See page 1254 of this volume.
  1394
  of prisoners of war held by the Transvaal and British forces respectively; and say whether, in the interest alike of the prisoners on both sides, the Government would consent to an exchange of prisoners.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The total of Transvaal and Orange Free State prisoners on the 23rd March was 5,000. The total of British prisoners cannot be accurately ascertained, but the total of missing and prisoners up to the 31st March was 3,466. It is not considered that the time has come for raising the question of an exchange of prisoners.

  BOER PRISONERS AT SIMONS TOWN.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any instructions have been, or are to be, sent to the military authorities at Simons Town as to any change of treatment of the Boer prisoners which may become necessary owing to the outbreak of fever among the prisoners; and whether a portion or the whole of them can be transferred to quarters on the mainland; and what arrangements are being made at St. Helena for adequate medical treatment in case of further serious extension of fever among the prisoners to be transferred to St. Helena.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The Boer prisoners who are suffering from enteric fever have been transferred from the ships to quarters on shore. Every arrangement has been made for adequate medical treatment at St. Helena.

  DURBAN NAVAL VOLUNTEERS.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what, if any, is the official relationship between the Durban Naval Volunteers and the Royal Navy; and whether this force has any recognised status under the Admiralty; and, if so, why the names of the officers of this force do not appear in the Navy List. I beg also to ask the First Lord whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that while General Buller's despatch, dated 17th December last, relating to the action fought the previous day, makes special mention of the admirable manner in which the naval guns were served by the

  1395
  Naval Brigade and Durban Naval Volunteers, under Captain E. P. Jones, Royal Navy, this officer in his despatch to the Admiral reporting in detail and at length proceedings on that occasion omits any mention of the Durban Naval Volunteers; and what is the explanation of this omission.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The Volunteers in question, though called naval, are, it appears, trained as garrison artillery, and are practically for military rather than naval defence. They do not form part of the naval defences, and thus do not appear in the Navy List. I was glad to notice the paragraph in General Buller's despatch in which he refers to the good services rendered by these Volunteers, who were serving under the orders of the General Commanding in the Field. I cannot undertake to say why Captain Jones omitted any mention of these Volunteers in the Report alluded to. In a later Report he has referred to them as having been attached to 4·7-in. guns, and to the officers as being efficient.

  LORD ROBERTS'S PROCLAMATION AGAINST LOOTING.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the terms of the Proclamation which Lord Roberts is understood to have issued under the instructions of Her Majesty's Government against wanton destruction of property in the South African Republic and the Orange Free State.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The following are the terms of the Proclamation issued by Lord Roberts on 26th March:—"Whereas it is necessary that all State and private property in the South African Republic and Orange Free State shall be protected from wanton destruction and damage. Now therefore I hereby give notice that all persons who within the territories of the South African Republic or Orange Free State shall authorise or be guilty of the wanton destruction or damage, or the counselling, aiding, or assisting in the wanton destruction or damage of public or private property, such destruction or damage not being justified by the usages
  1396
  and customs of civilised warfare, will be held responsible in their persons and property for all such wanton destruction and damage."

  WAR MEDALS.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with regard to soldiers dying in South Africa in the course of the present campaign, who, if they had survived, would have been entitled to a medal, whether it is the custom of the War Office to forward such medals to the soldiers' next of kin; and whether this course of procedure will be adopted in the case of Volunteers and Colonial troops, and whether this custom is optional or is laid down in any of the Regulations for the Army.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. The reply to both questions is in the affirmative. There are, however, considerable difficulties in tracing the relatives of colonial soldiers. The custom has always been followed, but has not hitherto been embodied in any Regulation. The new Queen's Regulations will contain directions on the subject.

  ARMY VETERINARY DEPARTMENT.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the questions in the examination of officers of the Army Veterinary Department for promotion to the rank of veterinary lieutenant-colonel are both framed and also looked over by the Director General; and whether this is the only branch of the service in which an independent board is not assembled for the purpose of examination.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. The examinations are carried out by a board of veterinary officers.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Director General, Army Veterinary Department, forwards his recommendations for promotion to the War Office on the result of the examination; and whether he is aware that, at the last examination, no questions were asked on subjects connected with administrative duties, although it is laid down in the veterinary regulations that the questions should be chiefly based on administrative duties.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. As regards the last examination, my hon. and gallant friend has been misinformed; some of the questions dealt with important administrative subjects.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to recent statements as to the loss of horses in South Africa owing to the insufficient number of Army veterinary surgeons employed, and that these officers are everywhere overworked and not able to attend to more than a small proportion of the cases of sickness; and whether any retired officers of the Department, who are still available for service through not having reached the age limit, have been employed either at home or in South Africa; if so, could he state the numbers employed at home and abroad, and also how many civilian veterinary surgeons are employed.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: We have no information confirming the statement referred to in the first paragraph. In regard to the second paragraph, twelve retired veterinary officers are being employed. There are forty-six officers of the Army Veterinary Department in South Africa, five abroad assisting in the purchasing of animals, and thirteen at home. There are eighty-nine civilian veterinary surgeons in South Africa and nine abroad assisting in the purchase of animals. Twenty-one Yeomanry and Volunteer veterinary officers are also in South Africa.

  MILITARY TRANSPORT—HAULAGE MACHINERY.
  MR. WARR: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the losses which have recently taken place in the animals of the transport service in South Africa, the War Office are providing any of the modern forms of steam or mechanical haulage engines, so as to test whether they can supplement or supersede animal haulage for military transport service.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The importance of mechanical haulage has not been lost sight of, and there are more than
  1398
  twenty traction engines now successfully employed on transport purposes in South Africa. Lord Roberts will consider to what extent additional means of traction of this character can be usefully adopted, regard being had to the nature of the country.

  INDIAN ARMY CAMP FOLLOWERS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to state the result of his inquiries as to the camp followers in the late Indian frontier campaign having been deprived at the close of the campaign of the warm clothing issued to them; and whether, inasmuch as this clothing was sold for small sums, these men, many of whom are now serving in South Africa, will be allowed in future to retain it.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The Government of India have reported that, under the rules in force during the frontier campaign of 1897–8, followers who served until the end of the campaign were allowed to retain their field service clothing, except leather belts, haversacks, water-bottles, and waterproof sheets. But for the future the Government of India have decided that they shall be allowed to retain their clothing, with the exception of leather belts and waterproof sheets only.

  ROYAL MARINE ARTILLERY AT THE FRONT.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty will he explain why the Royal Marine Artillery serving in Naval Brigades in South Africa are employed as infantry escorts to naval guns, for the service of which they have been specially trained.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The responsibility for the distribution and allocation of the duties to be performed by the several sections of the forces in South Africa must rest with the officers, whether naval or military, who have to conduct the operations, and the Admiralty are not prepared to interfere with the arrangements made on the spot to meet the conditions of the moment.

  MILITARY TRAINING—THE AUTUMN MANŒUVRES.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing the importance of training troops for home defence upon enclosed and difficult country, the Government purpose taking immediate steps to obtain suitable ground for the training of small bodies of troops during the proposed manœuvres for the present year.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: This question is now receiving careful consideration.

  VOLUNTEER "WAITING COMPANIES."
  MR. RADCLIFEE COOKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, having reference to Army Order 29, of 1900, paragraphs 14 and 15, men of Volunteer "waiting companies," who have been passed to the Reserve, are supernumerary to the establishment of their Volunteer battalions during the period prior to calling up for service and departure from England, or whether during such period they are to be included in such establishment; whether, with reference to paragraph 12a of the said Army Order, arms are to be issued to men of waiting companies when in waiting or only when called up for service; whether it is intended that Volunteer commanding officers should clothe and equip the men of waiting companies when called up for service; and whether it is intended that men of waiting companies should drill with the battalions until called up for service.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: The waiting companies are not supernumerary to the establishment until actually called up. Like other Reservists, they will not have arms issued to them until called up; arms are lent to Reservists to do their drill or training. When called up they will be equipped in the same way as the service companies. As regards drill, they may be considered as Volunteers for all purposes and may drill with their battalions, but they incur the ordinary liabilities of a Reservist.

  VOLUNTEER TRAINING GRANTS.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether arrangements can be made whereby the special grant of two
  1400
  guineas will be allowed to any Volunteer battalion, one-half of the total strength of which are present in the camp at Aldershot or on Salisbury Plain for fourteen days by separate composite companies of over eighty rank and file each, attached for training with Regular troops; and whether, if this cannot be done, any special grant will be allowed per man; and whether, in any event, the actual cost of travelling to and from the camp of training will be allowed.
  *MR. WYNDHAM: In view of the necessity of giving the Volunteers a training in battalions, and not in detached companies, the rules laid down in the Army Order must be adhered to. If there is anything in the circumstances of any particular corps to justify special treatment, application should be made by the commanding officer, through the general officer commanding the district, to the adjutant general.

  VOLUNTEERS—POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the concessions granted to civil servants volunteering for the front in the way of granting them the difference between their pay and the cost of providing a substitute and handing it over to their dependent relatives at home, will also be extended to unmarried Army Reserve men called from the Postal service to rejoin their old regiments for active service.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The concession applies to the unmarried Army Reservists as well as to the Militia and Volunteers.

  CIVIL SERVANTS AND VOLUNTEER TRAINING.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether those civil servants who, being Volunteers, respond to the invitation of the War Office and spend three or four weeks in camp will be obliged to count the whole period as part of their ordinary annual leave; or whether under the special circumstances they may be allowed not to deduct from their leave more than the usual period of

  1401
  seven to ten days during which Volunteer regiments are normally encamped.
  MR. HANBURY: Subject to the discretion of the heads of Departments, special leave will be given for the whole period that a Volunteer may spend in camp. Those spending a full month in camp will receive civil pay for half the time, and military pay for the remaining half. Those who spend less than a month will receive military pay only. Volunteers who prefer to take the whole or part of their ordinary leave in camp will receive full civil and military pay for the period corresponding to such ordinary leave, and for the remainder of the time spent in camp will receive half civil and half military pay if they spend a full month in camp, but military pay only if the period is less than a month.

  RIFLE RANGES IN HEREFORDSHIRE.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that excellent rifle ranges exist at Leominster and Ross, in the county of Hereford; and whether any regiments of Regulars or Militia are to be sent to either of the above-mentioned places for training during the coming spring and summer.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Secretary of State is aware that there are excellent ranges there, but no regiments will be sent there this year, as the intention is to assemble the troops in large camps.

  THE LATE FIELD MARSHAL SIR DONALD STEWART.
  MR. FABER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the remains of the late Field Marshal Sir Donald Stewart were transported in one of Her Majesty's ships from Algiers, where he died, to Gibraltar, for the purpose of being brought to England; and whether the coffin was disembarked at Gibraltar; and, if so, where was it deposited; and whether arrangements have been made for one of Her Majesty's ships to bring the body of the deceased Field Marshal to England.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes; the remains of the late Field Marshal Sir Donald Stewart were carried by Her Majesty's ship "Juno" from Algiers to Gibraltar for the purpose of their conveyance to England
  1402
  by mail steamer. No information has reached the Admiralty with regard to the arrangements carried out by the military authorities in the reception and custody of the coffin. It was not considered advantageous for the public service to specially detach one of the ships of the Squadron to convey the body of the late Field Marshal to England, a question of a public funeral having, so far as I am aware, not been mooted.

  SUBMARINE TORPEDO BOATS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps, if any, are being taken with reference to submarine torpedo boats, seeing that other maritime countries are devoting increased attention to this question, and that America, after long experiment, is said to have an efficient boat of this type in the "Holland."
  MR. GOSCHEN: Close attention has been given by the Admiralty to the subject of submarine boats. The submarine boat, even if the practical difficulties attending its use can be overcome, would seem, so far as the immediate future is concerned, to be essentially a weapon for maritime Powers on the defensive, and it is natural that those nations which anticipate holding that position should endeavour to develop it. The question of the best way of meeting its attack is receiving much consideration, and it is in this direction that practical suggestions would be valuable. It seems certain that the reply to this weapon must be looked for in other directions than in building submarine boats ourselves, for it is clear that one submarine boat cannot fight another.

  ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE, GREENWICH—NAVAL HISTORY LECTURES.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty is there any lecturer on naval history at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich; and, if so, what salary or fee does he receive: and how many lectures on naval history have been given at the College in each of the last ten years, and does he propose to make any alteration in the arrangements for these lectures.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Professor Laughton has been engaged to deliver eight lectures on naval history in the course

  1403
  of the present session, for which he will receive fees at the rate of £5 a lecture. No such lectures were given between 1889 and 1899.

  ENGINEER OFFICERS TO THE ACCOUNTANT BRANCH ROYAL NAVY.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is in contemplation to extend the concessions recently granted to Engineer officers to the Accountant branch of the Royal Navy.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am unable at present to answer the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

  BRITISH GUIANA—BANK NOTE ISSUES.
  MR. BRODIE HOARE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies by whom and under what restrictions and conditions bank notes are issued in British Guiana, and whether those conditions have been complied with in all cases; and, if not, whether he will take steps to have them immediately enforced.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Bank notes are at present issued in British Guiana by the Colonial Bank (under Imperial Charter and Imperial Acts of Parliamant) and by the British Guiana Bank under certain local ordinances. The Colonial Bank may issue notes in British Guiana and the West Indies up to £500,000, or, if the Bill now before Parliament receives Her Majesty's assent, up to £600,000, and is required within six months from date of Act to deposit as security a sum in coin or securities equal to 25 per cent. of its note issue and to pledge its uncalled capital as further security. The British Guiana Bank under existing ordinances may issue notes to three times the value of its paid-up capital, without further restrictions. I have no reason to believe that these conditions have been infringed. A new ordinance for the British Guiana Bank is now under consideration.

  CABLE COMMUNICATION WITH THE CAPE.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer will he explain on what grounds the offer to lay an all-British cable from England to Cape
  1404
  Town by Gibraltar and Sierra Leone for a subsidy of £20,000 a year, to connect with the Cape Town-Australia cable, to be laid without subsidy, has been refused by the Government, with the result of the cable now being taken by a route passing through two Portuguese stations; whether the company which made the offer was requested by the Government to lay, maintain, and work a strategic spur cable between Ascension and Sierra Leone at an estimated cost of £150,000, in consideration only of the Treasury finding it unnecessary to oppose the grant of landing rights in Cornwall at a spot where other cables of the same company are already landed with Board of Trade permission; and what precedent there is for refusing landing rights in the United Kingdom to British cable companies.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I cannot give a full answer to the first paragraph (which does not, I think, state the position quite accurately) without going into the history of negotiations, extending over several years and involving other questions besides this, between the Governments of the United Kingdom, the Cape, and Australia and the cable company. But I may say that one reason for refusing the subsidy of £20,000 a year was that another company had applied for landing rights for a cable to be laid by the all-British route without a subsidy. I think there is now ground for supposing that an all-British communication with the Cape will be obtained in another way. The statement in the second paragraph is correct. So far as I know, no steps have hitherto been taken by Government in this country to obtain any return from telegraph companies seeking landing rights; but the Cape Government have recently obtained substantial concessions as the price of landing rights for this new cable, and it seemed to me that the grant of new landing rights in this country was a valuable concession, for which it was my duty, in the public interest, to try and obtain in this and other instances some return in such a form as the circumstances might indicate to be most desirable.

  BUDGET FIGURES—THE YEAR'S REVENUE.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the total revenue of the year

  1405
  ending the 31st March, returned at £119,839,905, includes all the receipts of the last week of the year, or whether several items have been taken at the same amount as shown for the weeks up to and ending the 24th March; and whether the total revenue included for the week ending 31st March was only £1,626,000 against £4,124,000 in the week ending 24th March; and, if so, how he accounts for this difference.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The total of £119,839,905 includes all the receipts of the last week of the financial year just closed. Two consecutive weeks are not in the least comparable with one another. The receipts of the week ended 24th March included a payment into the Exchequer by the Post Office of 1¼ million, while in the following week there was no payment on that account. The receipts for the week ended 31st March, 1900, are more than the receipts of the corresponding week of the previous year, which were £1,217,000.
  MR. LOUGH: Was there any payment whatever made through the Post Office or Telegraph service in the last week? Is it not true the last week is generally the largest week for payments?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir; it is not true.

  MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICERS' CERTIFICATES.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the chief officer of the steamship "Daniel" (which stranded at Mosquito Grove, Nova Scotia, on 1st November last), whose certificate was suspended by the Court of Inquiry for three months from 7th December, which three months expired on 7th March last, has been and still is unable to obtain the restoration of this certificate; whether the officer in question was entitled to have this certificate restored to him on 7th March; whether he has considered the hardship inflicted on this officer by the delay in returning his certificate, the effect of which is that, in addition to the enforced three months idleness caused by the sentence of the Court, he has been since 7th March and still is deprived through the want of his certificate from obtaining employment; whether the
  1406
  failure of the Board of Trade to return the certificate on the 7th March has arisen through delay arising in Canada, or through other causes beyond the control of the Board of Trade; if so, whether he will at once issue to this officer either a duplicate certificate or a provisional certificate such as will enable him to resume his calling; and whether he will consider what provision can be made for dealing with cases of a similar nature that may arise in future.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): The facts of the case are as stated in the question, except that the certificate was suspended for three months from the commencement of the inquiry—namely, 27th November last. Although application was made to, and a promise given by, the Canadian authorities that the certificate should be sent to this country, it has not yet been received. In the meantime, in order to avoid any possible inconvenience, the Board of Trade issued instructions that the officer in question might be allowed to sign articles without producing his certificate. There is some objection to issuing duplicate or provisional certificates except in cases of great urgency; but, in all the circumstances of this case, I have given instructions for one to be at once issued to Mr. Milne, and I will consider whether any steps can be taken to avoid in future the delay that has arisen in Canada in this instance.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON SALMON FISHERIES.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Royal Commission on Salmon Fishery is finally appointed; and, if not, whether he would consider the advisability of appointing on that Commission a water engineer.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The Commission has been appointed and has already met.

  DOG LICENCES—CASE OF ARIES.
  MR. ORR-EWING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a working man named Aries, who had taken into his house a dog which had been run over in the street and had its leg broken, and who after curing the dog in five weeks found a home for it, but was fined 10s.

  1407
  and 2s. costs for not having a licence by the magistrate, who remarked that Aries should have turned the dog out; and whether he can see his way to recommend a modification of this sentence.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): The Secretary of State is informed by the magistrate that the defendant stated that he had taken the dog in with a broken leg and had refused to take out a licence because he thought it hard on him to be required to do so, and that on being pressed to take out a licence he got rid of the dog, which gave rise to the remark of the magistrate that he should have got rid of it before. The humane intention of the defendant is not disputed, but the penalty was the smallest that could reasonably be imposed, and it does not seem to be a case for advising the remission of the penalty.

  INSPECTORS OF TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS AT LIVERPOOL.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why, in the recent appointment of six inspectors of telegraph messengers at Liverpool, no fewer than fifty men, well qualified and of good character, in the postmen's department, were passed over.
  MR. HANBURY: It is in contemplation to create six appointments to the class of inspectors of telegraph messengers at Liverpool. The duties are being performed temporarily by six postmen who have been selected as best qualified for them. As the appointments do not yet exist, the question of filling them by promotion has not arisen.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND FREE POSTAGE.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, having regard to the great and increasing expense entailed upon Members of the House of Commons in replying through the post to communications on political affairs, he can see his way to letters in envelopes embossed with the badge of the House of Commons, addressed and signed in the left lower
  1408
  corner in the handwriting of a Member, and handed in by him at the post office in the Lobby, whilst the House is sitting, being stamped "Official Paid," as in public offices, and thus passing post free throughout the United Kingdom.
  MR. HANBURY: My hon. and gallant friend's suggestion goes a good deal beyond the practice of the public offices which he quotes. Letters sent out from the public Departments only pass free when they refer to the public business of the Department. The privilege of franking which Members of both Houses had previously enjoyed was expressly abolished by Act of Parliament in 1840. There is nothing in my hon. friend's suggestion which would obviate the undoubted abuses to which such a system is necessarily liable.

  OFFICIAL RECOGNITION OF POSTAL ORGANISATIONS.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to a memorial, dated 16th February, 1900, and signed by Messrs. Lickford, Ray, Nevill, and Smith, officially docketed Mem. 1/6/288, in which it was intimated to these officers that the Postmaster General declined to receive them on the grounds that they did not appear to be directly interested in the matter on which they desired to be recived as a deputation; whether the Postmaster General was aware that these officers are now in the service, and were representatives of the Sorters' Trade Union (the Fawcett Association), duly elected for the purpose of the interview in question; and whether such refusal is not at variance with the assurance given by the Postmaster General in the official document known as Registered No. 234,768/99, which states that in future he would receive delegates of Postal Trade Unions, provided they were in the service of the Post Office.
  MR. HANBURY: The course adopted was strictly in accordance with the recent assurance given by the Postmaster General. Deputations must consist only of those who are themselves affected by the question at issue.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION—DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education when the Report of the Departmental Committee regarding the work of the Board of Education will be presented to Parliament.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): I am sorry I cannot answer the question to-day, as my noble friend the President of the Council is in attendance on the Queen.
  MR. BRYCE: May I take it that the Report will be presented?
  SIR J. GORST: I cannot say without consulting my noble friend.
  LORD BALCARRES: Has the final Report yet been finished?
  SIR J. GORST: Yes, it has.

  MONAGHAN POST OFFICE.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, has the tender of a suitable site for the erection of the proposed new post office in Monaghan been received by the Department; and, if so, will it be accepted; and when may the erection of the new building be expected to commence.
  MR. HANBURY: Several offers of sites have been received and are under consideration; but it cannot yet be said whether any of them are suitable.

  BELFAST TELEGRAPH OFFICE—MANTURIN'S CASE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why a telegraphist in the Belfast office named Manturin has been stopped at the efficiency barrier, and why, seeing that on his appeal to the secretary it was decided that he should have opportunities for attaining proficiency in several duties which had previously been denied him, the local authorities have since made a practice of placing him upon the hardest instrument duties in the Belfast office; and whether the Postmaster General will investigate the circumstances of this case.
  MR. HANBURY: The reason why Mr. Manturin could not pass the efficiency bar was that he was unable to perform the highest duties of his class—a condition specially prescribed by the Tweed-mouth Committee. No further report has been received concerning him, and the question of his ability to pass the bar would not—under the regulations—be again considered until twelve months from the previous report—namely, in August next.

  COMPENSATION TO INJURED IRISH POLICEMEN.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether it is in the discretion of the Treasury to compensate policemen who may be injured when on duty; and, if so, why are Irish ratepayers saddled with a burden in this respect which is not cast upon English ratepayers.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): Every policeman injured in the discharge of his duty is entitled, irrespective of the length of his service, to a pension, the amount of which is determined by the Treasury according to the character and degree of the injury, in conformity with the scale prescribed by the Act 46 and 47 Vict., cap. 14. As regards the second part of the question, the reason why Irish ratepayers are liable to pay compensation in such cases is that an Act of Parliament, sixty-four years old, expressly re-enacted in the year 1898, and extended at the suggestion of several Nationalist Members to Belfast and Dublin, makes them so liable.

  EVICTED FARM AT ERRIGAL TRUAGH.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, as representing the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that much excitement has been caused in the parish of Errigal Truagh by the alleged renting by the Protestant rector of that parish, as a site for a national school, of a portion of an evicted farm; and whether application has been made to the Commissioners of National Education, or any of them, for the customary grant and sanction for the erection and maintenance of this proposed school, and are the Commissioners aware that the site chosen is on an evicted

  1411
  farm; and, if so, what reply have they given to the application.
  MR. ATKINSON: The police report that Lord Rathdonnell has given to the Protestant rector of this parish a free site on an evicted farm for the erection of a Protestant national school. This has caused some irritation not amongst the Protestants, but apparently amongst those who have either entered into an illegal or possibly criminal conspiracy to boycott this evicted farm, or who approve of the action of such a conspiracy, and is, it would seem, due to the apprehension that the rector and Commissioners will act in such a way as to defeat to some extent the object of the conspiracy. The Commissioners report that the usual application has been made, but they have no information as to whether the farm is boycotted or not. They have not yet replied, but it is to be presumed that they will take such action as becomes public officials of the State in such circumstances.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to satisfy himself that this is a criminal conspiracy?
  MR. ATKINSON: I take it from the police report that it is a conspiracy to prevent by intimidation the exercise of a legal right.

  BELFAST POOR LAW MEDICAL OFFICER.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, as representing the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware that the medical officer of health under the poor law guardians of Belfast Union is an alderman of the Belfast County Borough, and in the latter capacity is also a member of the board having control over the asylum management; and is it consistent with the rules of the Local Government Board that officers of the ratepayers in any capacity in receipt of salary should be permitted to act as honorary representatives of the same ratepayers, and take an active part in advocating and supporting increase of official salaries.
  MR. ATKINSON: The facts appear to be correctly stated in the first paragraph. As regards the second paragraph, the gentleman in question being a paid officer of the board of guardians would
  1412
  seem to be disqualified by the terms of the Local Government Board's Order of the 17th January, 1899, but the question is one to be decided in a court of law upon the validity and construction of the Order, and is not a matter for the decision of the Executive.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what will be the business before the House during the first few days after Easter. Perhaps I may ask a further question with regard to one of the motions standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman. I presume that when he refers to the "Proceedings on the Agricultural Holdings Bill" he meant the proceedings on Monday only. The motion does not say so.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in supposing that the notice refers to what we do on Monday. We propose before separating for the Easter recess to take the Second Beading of that Bill, and to refer it to the Grand Committee. With regard to the question on the Paper, I may say we hope to be able on Thursday, the 26th, to take the Votes in Class 3, and on Friday, the 27th, the Revenue Department Votes. In the unavoidable absence of the Home Secretary I cannot give a definite pledge as to Class 3.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: And as to the following Monday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can say nothing as to that. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will ask again on Monday next.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: Will the Revenue Department Votes include the Post Office?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I presume the right hon. Gentleman will not take the Irish Estimates without due notice to the Irish Members, and that at any rate during the first few days after the holidays he will not take either of the two Bills—the Tithes Bill and the Charitable Loans Bill—in which the hon. Member for East Mayo takes interest.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman also undertake not to put down the Undersized Fish Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe that Bill has wholly disappeared, and that in its place we have another Bill, called the Sea Fisheries Bill. I am afraid I cannot enter into the pledge asked for by my hon. friend, for there is a limit to the number of pledges I am able to give. In reply to the hon. Member for Waterford, I may say I shall certainly desire to consult the convenience of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland with regard to the day on which Irish Estimates are to be taken. The two Bills to which he referred will certainly not be put down until the Monday after the holidays.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend the same consideration to Scotch Members with regard to the Votes in Class 3?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am always glad to consult the convenience of Members from both Ireland and Scotland, and if hon. Members object to the Scottish Votes being taken immediately after the holidays, I will accede to their wish.

  RAILWAYS (PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS) [EXPENSES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the remuneration of any persons employed by the Board of Trade, under any Act of the present Session for the better Prevention of Accidents on Railways, and of the Expenses incurred by the Board under such Act (Queen's Recommendation signified), upon Monday next.—(Sir William Walrond.)
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Ordered, That the other Government business have precedence this day of the Committee of Supply.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour).

  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE (EASTER).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House at its rising on Monday do adjourn till Thursday, 26th April, and that at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Agricultural Holdings Bill Mr.
  1414
  Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—TERMS OF SETTLEMENT—TREATMENT OF PRISONERS—MARTIAL LAW—CHARGES AGAINST BRITISH TROOPS.
  MR. COURTNEY: The motion just moved by my right hon. friend covers an unusually long period of time, for the House is about to separate under circumstances of a very serious and even unprecedented character. It appears to me, therefore, that the time is not unfitting to enter into a discussion, which may be conducted without exciting heat or feeling or party passion, on the situation in South Africa, and on the possible conditions under which the war may be brought to a close. ["Oh!"] I am quite aware, from the sounds that are being emitted around me, that there are dangers attending such a discussion. I should not have proposed to enter upon it without very grave consideration, and I hope I shall conduct it in a manner not to prejudice any of the interests of the country, and not to excite any feeling derogatory to the traditions and character of the House. I am well aware of the perils of the subject. I should have thought that in the present situation anyone who is conscious of the dignity and responsibilities of Parliament and his own position as a Member of Parliament would not have thought it unbecoming to have entered on a discussion such as that which I have described. But I find I am debarred from entering on the main purpose of the speech which I had contemplated delivering to the House. An hon. Member in the exercise of his privileges has put down a motion for an Address to the Crown praying that no conditions of peace shall be agreed upon which do not satisfy certain conditions set forth in the notice. The notice was given for an early but indefinite day, and probably I am not very far wrong in thinking the hon. Member was not very eager to bring it on. At any rate, the result is that even the House itself, if it desires by a majority beyond computation to enter on the discussion of this subject, which must be admitted to be one of paramount importance, is absolutely debarred from considering the question. The notice of motion prevents attention being called to the subject on any day of this session, and this deprives hon. Members

  1415
  of an opportunity of fulfilling the duty they are sent here to perform. It is especially unfortunate that this should happen at the present time, when this House is regarded as the single refuge where free speech can be possibly relied upon. The press is in great measure closed—["No!"]—the fact cannot be denied—to the minority, in some places a considerable minority, who hold views which are opposed to those of the majority. The power of assembly in public halls even for private discussion after notice given is practically interfered with and taken away in many parts of the country. It becomes of all the greater importance, therefore, that in this House the privilege of free speech should be maintained—that the House should not be debarred from the possibility of expressing its opinion on the most important question of the day. I have nothing to do but to submit; but I am not sorry that attention should thus be called to what has frequently been described by the right hon. Member for Thanet as "an injurious exercise of the irresponsible power of a single Member." There are, however, two matters of subsidiary importance on which I will crave leave to speak for a few minutes. One has been the subject of a question and answer to-day, and I will say at the outset I was rejoiced to hear the answer given by the Under Secretary for War with respect to the treatment of sick Boer prisoners. I am sure nobody wishes to add to the horrors of the war which is being waged in South Africa by any unnecessary infliction of sickness on the unfortunate prisoners who have fallen into our hands. It is not surprising they should develop a great amount of fever, especially enteric fever. Those who have realised the horrible pit in which Cronje and his men were placed before they were driven at last to surrender, and who understand the conditions of life to which they are accustomed, cannot be surprised to find that a large number of the prisoners who were brought down to Cape Town are suffering from fever. But they have been dying of late at a rate which will become serious if the present conditions are permitted to be maintained. I am, therefore, glad to hear from the Under Secretary that steps have been taken to prevent the further development of the sickness. So far as I know, no sickness has arisen among our own prisoners at
  1416
  Pretoria or elsewhere, though comparisons have been made between the treatment of colonial prisoners and the treatment of prisoners belonging to the Regular Army. Those comparisons do not seem to me of great importance1, but they have been made. But there has been no suggestion whatever as to neglect being in any way found in the treatment of our prisoners. On the contrary, there is very considerable evidence to show that care and kind attention has been paid to their wants. My hon. friend has treated the cases among the Boers as cases of enteric fever only, but everyone knows how easy it is for fevers which are infections to be confounded with those which are not. I assume that the greatest precautions have been taken to prevent any such confusion, and I hope that before the prisoners are landed care will be taken to see that no other infectious disease is developing itself. The other subject to which I wish to call attention is one in which, perhaps, there is not the same spontaneous interest which has been developed in the case of the sick prisoners; I refer to what has been done in the northern portion of Cape Colony and the colony of Natal in the way of the proclamation of martial law and the action there under. Very little is known as to what martial law is. One of the highest authorities, the late Lord Chief Justice, in a celebrated charge, practically declared that there was no such thing, that it was a negation of the law, which cannot be recognised as law at all. Of course, I am not prepared to deny that necessity might arise for action which might be roughly described as putting martial law in force, but I would suggest with reference to what is taking place in South Africa that the zone within which it should have force should be very largely decreased. It surely cannot be necessary for the assistance of the army in the field that martial law shall be carried down to Durban. The extension of the zone of martial law, an extension into which it is easy for an Administration to lapse, ought to be watched with the greatest jealousy. There is some reason to fear that the steps taken under martial law have not always been carefully instituted. There is the case in which three farmers were arrested in a district near the seat of war. They were taken to Cape Town, and there application was made to the court on their behalf, and after that application

  1417
  had been made they were moved back into the district into which they were arrested and in which martial law had been proclaimed, so as to escape from the jurisdiction of the civil court. The farmers have since been released, but I must say that the spirit which animated the military authorities in taking these men from Cape Town to the seat of war after an inquiry had been ordered by the High Court must be condemned. These men were in custody for a considerable period, and in the end they were discharged, because there was no evidence against them. And that case does not stand alone. A gentleman in Kimberley was kept in custody for three months and then discharged because there was no evidence against him. We all have experience of the way in which prisoners get lost sight of. The late Mr. Roebuck once drew attention to the case of a man who had been in custody in Ireland for years, and whose case had been lost sight of. It requires great attention to prevent such abuses. In some cases, too, the punishment inflicted seems to have been excessive, the evidence against the prisoners being unsubstantial in character and resting entirely on two or three native servants, who produce nothing which would be admissible in a court of law. If the records are true, this is a matter which requires serious attention. I would suggest that care be taken that no one shall be detained under martial law beyond a short time without his case being inquired into, and that no sentence extending beyond a certain period shall be inflicted by a court constituted under martial law without its being subject automatically to revision by a court of civil jurisdiction. Some such safeguards as these would, I believe, be acceptable to the officers administering martial law, as likely to prevent the risk of injustice, to which they themselves would be the first to acknowledge they are liable. Now I come to another question. As everyone knows, there is a censorship established at the Cape. I have heard of perfectly innocent communications being stopped by the censor. A resolution arrived at by a committee here in Westminster was communicated to a gentleman in Cape Town. A committee with which I am not myself associated passed a resolution of sympathy with the Dutch in South Africa. It
  1418
  was sent out to Cape Town. Large sums were paid for the cost of transmission, and a fortnight afterwards the telegraph company returned the message to the person who sent it. [An HON. MEMBER: A good thing, too.] It is the hon. Member's opinion that it is a good thing to prevent people in Westminster telling people in Cape Town that they have their sympathy. But is it a good thing that a message to a gentleman in Cape Town which involves no conceivable danger to the public interest should be stopped by the censor, the irresponsible censor? For to whom is the censor responsible? I have said all I have to say. I could have spoken at greater length if I had had the freedom I desired, but, under the operation of the rule to which I have referred, I have been stopped from pursuing a course which I believe I could have pursued without injury to the public interest.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Upon a point of order I desire to say that the notice of motion to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin has referred stands on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for West Cumberland. In view of the fact, which is now notorious, that the hon. and gallant Member sailed from England more than a week ago for South Africa to engage in service at the front, I wish to know whether this notice of motion placed on the Paper by the hon. and gallant Member precludes this House from discussing certain phases of the war until he comes back. Suppose he never comes back at all. I assume that I am correct in saying that the House has power to order the discharge of a Bill, and I wish to ask if there is a similar power to order the discharge of a motion from the Order Book which is plainly there for blocking discussion and for a mischievous purpose, and which cannot be moved. The notice on the Paper is in the following terms—
  "That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty not to make terms of peace with the Presidents of the South African Republics on any terms which do not provide for the annexation of the two Republics to Her Majesty's dominions."
  I also wish to ask to what extent a motion of that kind can prevent debates in this House on the question of the settlement of this war.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish to ask whether it is not an ancient rule of this House that hon. Members who leave this country for a lengthened period have to obtain the leave of this House; and whether, on such leave being obtained, all the motions in their name do not necessarily lapse.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not know of any such rule as that to which the hon. Member has just referred. It might, or it might not, be a reasonable course, but there is no rule to that effect. As regards the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny, I cannot take any notice of whether an hon. Member who has set down a notice of motion is in South Africa, or Scotland, or England. Then as regards the question which he asked me as to whether there is power in this House to discharge a notice of motion, I can only speak from precedent, and I am not aware that such power in a case like this has ever been exercised. I do not know whether the hon. Member can show me any precedent. As to the extent to which a debate is limited, I can only say that it is impossible for me to give an exhaustive definition beforehand. If an hon. Member trespass upon the ground covered by a notice of motion it is my duty to call him to order.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will it be open to me, in face of this motion, to argue that the British Government, in case they get the power to do so, ought to give back the independence of these States? Can I go that length?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Certainly not.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not propose to enter into the questions which my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin has raised in the latter part of his speech, but I would ask the leave of the House to say a word on the subject which he dealt with at the commencement of his speech—the difficulties placed in the way of the action of this House by the rule, Mr. Speaker, which you have just laid down. I can give an example of the operation of this rule, as it happened when I was responsible for the conduct of the Opposition some years ago. There were then
  1420
  very serious questions affecting the policy of the Government in Crete, and I always, as I think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will acknowledge, abstained from bringing on a motion which might be detrimental to the public interest at that period and on this subject. I came to an understanding with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House that it was expedient and proper that that question should be brought on, by leave, on a motion for adjournment. With the consent of both sides of the House I came down to make that motion, and I found that there was a motion on the Paper, put down by the hon. Member for East Mayo, who wished the motion to come on, and who had no idea that his notice would obstruct it. He desired to withdraw the notice that day, but he was told that it was impossible, and the whole object of both sides of the House was defeated by the operation of this rule in a matter of very great public importance affecting the interests of the country generally. We had a discussion at that time upon the subject.* I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was as anxious as I was that the matter should come on, and we were absolutely defeated by the operation of a rule which, I venture to say, in the manner in which it operates, makes this House absolutely impotent. It may be that some very great public crisis has arisen, and there may happen to be, accidentally or intentionally, a notice of motion upon the Paper of this House, and though it may be the highest duty of the House to discuss that subject, though the Government desired it and the Opposition desired it, yet you have a rule which reduces you absolutely to impotence. A man may have a Bill introduced in the earliest days of the session without the smallest chance or intention of ever prosecuting it, and if that Bill refers to a subject which may be of the greatest possible importance, by no possibility can a motion be brought on in reference to that subject. Now, Sir, that is a situation which I think the House ought not to allow to continue. It does not depend upon any Standing Order of the House at all. It has grown up quite recently within my own memory. It was originally what may be called an obiter
  * 1st March, 1897 (See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xlvi., page 1,347).

  1421
  dictum of Mr. Speaker Peel,* and no doubt the original intention was to prevent a man, when there was a genuine motion intended to come on, and which should come on, from taking advantage of a motion for adjournment in order to anticipate that motion. It has now grown up into a totally different thing. It has grown up into a system of blocking public business, of excluding matters of the highest possible importance, and of making this assembly ridiculous. It leaves it in the power of any single man to defeat the whole House of Commons by the operation of this rule. The circumstances of to-day add to the ridicule, as was stated by the hon. Member behind me. A Member puts down a motion—I dare say in perfectly good faith. He goes abroad, and we may not see him again this session, or after this session, and yet by the mere fact of his having put down that motion on the Paper the whole question of the settlement of South Africa is excluded from the consideration of this House. It is intolerable that such an absurdity can be allowed to continue in the House of Commons. I know it has been called common law of the House of Commons, but it is common law of very recent origin, and though it was very good in its intention originally, it has been abused to such an extent that I think we ought to take notice of it. By resolution, at any moment, this practice can be abolished, and I do hope that some measure will be taken at a very early period to deliver the House of Commons from this ridiculous restraint upon its freedom of speech.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite is mistaken in speaking of
  * In May's Parliamentary Practice (Tenth Edition, page 264), references are given to many decisions on this point; but the earliest definite pronouncement under the present Rules of Procedure is not noted. On the 17th February, 1887 (see The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol. cccx., page 1,777), Mr. Speaker Peel gave a very distinct ruling, which he expressly founded on a ruling of his predecessor in 1882. The latter is reported in Vol. cclxxv of the Debates, at page 26. Mr. Speaker Brand said: "An hon. Member is debarred from discussing on a Motion for adjournment a Motion which stands on the Order-book of the House." This, apparently, has no specific reference to the (then) new Rules, for Mr. Speaker Brand proceeds:" That is an established and fundamental Rule of Debate."
  1422
  this rule as a rule of the House. When the subject arose in connection with Crete a question was put to the Chair, I think by myself, as to whether it was in the power of a Member by putting down a motion of this kind to restrain the House from exercising the right which any Member possesses under Standing Order No. 17, to which the right hon. Gentleman just now referred—namely, in regard to motions for adjournment at the end of questions having precedence. I remember that the Leader of the House took part in that discussion. That was not a question of the rule of the House, but it was a ruling of the Chair in the time of your predecessor, which I am bound to say was a ruling in which a good many hon. Members of the House well versed in the usages of Parliament were not able to concur. I remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton cast some doubts upon that ruling. What took place upon the occasion I am now referring to was that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire on the 1st of March, 1897, told the House that he found himself precluded from bringing on a motion for adjournment upon the question of Crete. I then asked the Leader of the House—
  "Whether it would not be the more convenient course that the House should modify the Standing Order which applies to cases of this kind. Because I would remind my right hon. friend that I, for one, have a perfect right, if I think fit, to put down a notice on all fours with the notice of the hon. Member for Mayo, which would land the House in the same fix as to-day. Therefore, I venture to ask whether it would not be desirable that some modification of this rule should be adopted, whereby if, in the opinion of the Chair, any question arises which he considers of sufficient urgency, it might he brought forward, notwithstanding the interposition of any motion of the kind referred to."
  The Leader of the House expressed sympathy with my suggestion, and went on to say—
  "We have not in practice found that much difficulty arises, for the good sense of Members on both sides of the House has hitherto, in my experience, always prevented any such impasse, or such insuperable difficulty as in theory undoubtedly might arise at present, although in practice it has not arisen."
  In reply to that I went on to say—
  "I am afraid I cannot associate myself with my right hon. friend's experience as to no inconvenience having occurred in the past. I have known cases of considerable importance—"

  1423
  Here Mr. Speaker called me to order, as there was no question before the House, and I proceeded—
  "I will then ask a question. Do I understand that my right hon. friend will take steps with a view to the modification of the rule, because, if not, I must consider whether another object lesson should not be forthcoming?"
  Then, on another point of order, the Speaker said—
  "The ordinary rule of the House is that when a motion such as that of the hon. Member has been put on the Paper it operates, so far as the question of anticipation goes, until it ceases to appear on the Paper."
  Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton asked, on a question of order, whether there was any Standing Order of the House that laid down this rule, or whether it was not the practice that had grown up without any sanction from the House. The Speaker said, I think, "There is the Standing Order."
  *MR. SPEAKER: It must be a misprint if the report states that I said, "There is a Standing Order." What I said was, "There is no Standing Order."
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I assume it must be a misprint. The Speaker then proceeds—
  "It is a practice of the House which has been acted upon, and the practice of the House, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, when acted upon for years is as binding upon the House as a Standing Order."
  Then the Speaker also proceeded to say—
  "Of course it is obvious that there are occasions when the practice would operate inconveniently. It is not for me to say whether, on the whole, it operates inconveniently or not. Certainly if the House thinks fit to alter the rule I shall not offer any advice to the contrary."
  Then I asked—
  "What course can the House adopt? Would it be by way of resolution to move a modification, or by Standing Order?"
  To which the Speaker replied—
  "Where you want to alter the practice of the House, it would be more convenient to do so by Standing Order. At the same time, the House has sometimes acted upon resolutions. It is a matter for consideration what course should be followed."
  Whereupon I said—
  "As far as I am personally concerned, having regard to the assurance that the matter shall
  1424
  receive consideration, I shall not take action in the direction of an object lesson."
  It was upon that distinct assurance that I refrained from putting on the Notice Paper that very night a motion which would stop throughout the whole of the session anything being said about Crete, and I shall be quite prepared to take the responsibility of putting down one of these sham blocking notices with a view to exposing the outrageous character of our system. It seems to me perfectly preposterous when a subject is brought forward which in the opinion of the speaker is a definite matter of urgent public importance, that the House should be precluded from discussing it because some individual Member who may be in South Africa or elsewhere had put down a motion, and that our privileges should be interfered with by an absurd system of this sort. I believe the original ruling to have been wrong. That is, of course, a matter with which I cannot deal now, but I venture to hope that my right hon. friend will give us an assurance that this matter shall be seriously considered by the Government, and that he will propose such a modification, whether by Standing Order or resolution, in the practice and procedure of this House as will restore to the House that freedom of debate it has always freely exercised.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The debate on the adjournment for the holidays has taken a somewhat unexpected turn owing to the difficulty in which my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin finds himself by being precluded by a motion on the Paper from making a speech he intended to deliver upon the terms of peace, or Lord Salisbury's message to the two Presidents, or some analogous subject. While I always listen to the right hon. Gentleman with the greatest pleasure, I am not sure that this is a very convenient time or a suitable occasion on which to discuss the settlement which will have to be made at the conclusion of the war, which, I am afraid, has some length to run before that happy termination is reached. Without going into the propriety of a discussion such as my right hon. friend wishes to initiate, I suppose the House desires that I should express an opinion on the more abstract and general question

  1425
  which has arisen on the present occasion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth and my right hon. friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet have, not for the first time, called attention to the inconvenience the House is put under by having its freedom of debate, so to speak, limited by its own rule or, at all events, by its own practice in this matter. I do not feel at all disposed to minimise that inconvenience, but at the same time I do not remember that in fact, during the last few years, it has produced any serious limitation of the power of debate. My right hon. friend has mentioned an instance, the only case apparently that occurs to his memory, in which a debate upon Cretan affairs was prevented from coming on on a certain afternoon. No doubt, at the time, the inconvenience was felt to be considerable, but no one who remembers the events of that session can assert that the affairs of Crete were inadequately discussed during its progress, nor can any Member of the House recall a single case in which any question of public policy interesting to any large section of the House was prevented from coming on by the operation of this practice or rule.
  MR. LOUGH: There was the instance, the other day, with reference to the employment of foreign seamen aboard British ships.*
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think there can be a better illustration of what I mean. I do not think that anybody can pretend that that particular subject was not adequately discussed.
  MR. LOUGH: The blocking motion was removed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; the motion was taken off and did not operate to prevent discussion. The statement I ventured to make was that in the recollection of the House no question of public policy had in fact been precluded from discussion by the operation of this practice, and the only case the hon. Member can call to mind proves to be an illustration of the very proposition I am making.
  MR. COURTNEY: There were several cases during the period when the right
  * See page 680 of this Volume.
  1426
  hon. Gentleman was Chief Secretary for Ireland when discussion on the conduct of the Royal Irish Constabulary and other questions was prevented.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend's appetite for discussion must indeed be great if he thinks that the conduct of the Royal Irish Constabulary was not sufficiently discussed at that period. I really think that a less fortunate instance of the gagging of the House could hardly be mentioned than that my right hon. friend has happened to hit upon. I was about to say, when my right hon. friend threw in his pointless interruption, that if Members like the right hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet are going about on a kind of piratical expedition to prevent any subject in which the House is interested being discussed, by means of bogus notices of motion, I do not for a moment doubt that serious public inconveniences might arise. Let me point out that the Standing Orders, at all events, provide an outlet—I do not think a sufficient one—even from that serious state of affairs. Nothing can prevent discussion on the Estimates, on the salaries of Ministers, or any relevant point on any Vote; and especially I will venture to say, under the new rules of Supply, any considerable demand for the discussion of a particular matter at a particular time is always agreed to by the Government. I have admitted that there is undoubted difficulty, though it has been accentuated and exaggerated; and let me now only ask the House not to rush too hastily to the conclusion that the whole of that inconvenience can be abolished by a resolution such as has been suggested without danger of some other difficulty, perhaps not so serious, but not to be lightly disposed of, arising in its place. It has been pointed out that it may be impossible to avoid dragging the House into a double discussion, under most inconvenient circumstances, and it has been suggested by my right hon. friend that it should be left to the Speaker to decide whether a matter is of urgent importance. That may be the proper course, but it will be throwing a new burden on the Speaker, who as I understand, has not now to decide whether a matter is one of immediate public importance. That has to be determined by the fact that forty hon. Members rise in their places. [Several HON.

  1427
  MEMBERS: No, no!] My view is that the Speaker judges of the definiteness, but the urgency and importance are decided by the House. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if we know how the matter stands, and on a point of order I would appeal to you, Sir, for a ruling as to how we stand and what are the duties thrown upon the Chair by the Standing Order in relation to motions for adjournment.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Standing Order presents some difficulty in interpretation. When I came to the Chair I found the practice of the Speaker had been to deal with the question of definiteness himself, but as regards the urgency and public importance of the subject they have practically always been left to the decision of the House by the rising of at least forty Members in their places. I say "practically," for certainly I do not understand that the Speaker is bound to put a question as one of urgency and public importance if it is obviously ridiculous or frivolous, or so obviously unimportant that the Speaker ought not to put it. Subject to that limitation, that the question is obviously one that the Speaker ought not to submit to the House, the practice has been to leave the question of urgency and public importance to the House in the manner proscribed by the Standing Order.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In order to clear our ideas on this matter, let me take a concrete case. Let us suppose there was some very important question of foreign policy about which some Gentleman had put a notice on the Paper, and upon which, by common expectation, a discussion of importance must arise. Suppose that a few days before that some private Member got up, with the assent of forty of his friends, and called the attention of the House to the subject as a matter of definite and urgent public importance. The whole arrangements of the House would be upset by this premature discussion, by the action of a small minority. I am disposed to say that that is not the least of two evils. I only mention this because we ought not to interfere with our practice in these matters without considering the pros and cons of the policy we pursue. We ought not to fly from evils that we know to evils that we know not of. I am not sure
  1428
  it might not be a good plan to refer this matter to the Committee on Procedure, which will have to sit later in the session—soon after Easter—and they may perhaps give the House some counsel in the matter. In the meanwhile, I hope my right hon. friend will abstain from putting down a series of burking resolutions, and will be content to leave this discussion to bear its natural and legitimate fruit in the minds of Members. The case has been put before the House both by the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. friend. I have endeavoured to set forth the pros and cons for the suggested alteration in our practice. If the general opinion of the House is that that alteration should take place, I do not desire to oppose it.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is one respect in which I think the House has not yet fully sounded the extraordinary depths of this question, and I will endeavour to explain it to the House. The origin of this practice was that, as has already been explained, in old days, which many of us remember, it was in the power of any Member of the House during Question time, or at the end of Question time, to proceed, founding himself possibly upon the reply to a question he had himself put, to deliver an address of any length he chose, and he could always say, "I will put myself in order by concluding with a motion for the adjournment of the House." The result was that in a most irregular and irresponsible way the time of the House was occupied sometimes on the most trivial subjects. It was, I imagine, in order to prevent that abuse that the new rule was established, confining the power of moving the adjournment of the House in this irregular way to cases which had been formally submitted to the Speaker for approval more or less, the Member also showing that he had support from a certain considerable contingent of Members of the House. I think that the object was to regularise that form of procedure. The object of the new rule was to prevent a man, from a good or bad motive, from jealousy or vanity, or from over eagerness or too great a desire to benefit the public, rushing in and taking the water, as it were, of some honest, hard working, thoughtful man of foresight and intelligence who had secured an opportunity some weeks in advance of

  1429
  bringing forward a particular subject. That is an evil which must be guarded against. But let me point out to the House that, while the new arrangement was aimed at those more or less irregular adjournments of the House moved by individual Members, that is not the case with us to-day. My right hon. friend did not rise to move the adjournment of the House. This is one of the stated occasions during the session when it has been by immemorial practice considered the right and privilege of the House to discuss anything connected with the conduct of the Government. And that is why it is made such a formal business that it cannot be moved in an off hand way or at the end of a sitting. Notice has to be given, so that when it is done there shall be full opportunity for debate. The motion for adjournment for the Easter holidays has been made at a time of great public anxiety, and my right hon. friend is prevented from discussing a matter of the very gravest moment by the accident of an hon. Member having put down a motion. I venture to say this is a much more important thing than a mere question of a Member getting up with a few of his friends and throwing the whole of the business of the House into confusion in order to bring forward something in which he and they are interested. The new practice has come to be a direct infringement of the traditional privileges of the House on the motion for adjournment for the holidays to discuss the whole gamut of public policy.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he seems to think it is the invariable practice to put down the motion for the adjournment for the holidays as the first Order, so that there can be a long discussion. I assure him he is incorrect. It is not absolutely necessary to give notice at all. The motion has constantly been put at the end of the Government Orders of the Day, and not at the beginning, so that if a discussion were to take place at all it would be in the small hours of the morning.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members generally will agree with me, if they search their memories, that the making of the motion for adjournment for the holidays has always been
  1430
  regarded as an opportunity, not to appropriate the whole sitting, but an opportunity when anything urgent can be dealt with. It is such an opportunity that is being invaded at the present moment. My right hon. friend wished to call attention to a very delicate and difficult question. I have a high opinion of the sagacity of my right hon. friend, but, for my part, I should not have thought that the present is a very opportune moment for any such discussion as he proposed to raise. But that is a matter of personal opinion. I do not complain because I have been shut out from making a speech. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is not my motive. But I do think there is more involved than the mere preventing the abuse of an irregular mode of discussing matters by a spontaneous moving of the adjournment of the House. What is involved is an invasion of an ancient privilege, which I think is one deserving of the respect of the House.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: The proceedings to-night have taken a very extraordinary and, I think, a very unfortunate turn. We have been deprived of an opportunity which many of us wished to avail ourselves of, to discuss, as we have a right to do, the position in which we find ourselves in regard to the war. And now we discover we are unable to do so on account of a bogus motion put down by an hon. Member on the other side of the House. I do not know whether even yet the Speaker might not exercise his authority. Look at the position. The blocking motion is for an "early day." Now, how is it possible for an hon. Member who is now in South Africa to bring on his motion on an "early day"? Could you, Mr. Speaker, not rule that this is a bogus motion and enable us to go on in the usual way? It is a great pity if we cannot. My right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition has said this is not an opportune time to discuss the South African position. I think it is an opportune time always to protest against the injustice and the wrong that is now going on. There is another point. What has become of free speech in this country? We are driven about from pillar to post, unable to get a hearing, and we thought to find refuge in this House; but we are met by a bogus

  1431
  motion even in this House. This question of free speech is becoming rather serious. Some hon. Members may have observed that we managed to have a dinner the other night in a certain place of resort in London. But what do we see to-day? Why, that the man who holds the establishment says that he did not know what our dinner was about, and if he had known he would have swept us out. I point out that as a proof of the difficulty of getting free discussion now. Another incident has happened. My hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is going down next week to address his constituents, and what is the intimation that he has got? He is told by his agent that the speakers at his meeting will not be interfered with except by the missiles which will be thrown at them as they enter and leave the hall. That is a pretty sort of thing: we are to travel out of England before we can obtain the right of free speech. An hon. Gentleman just said to me, "If you want to speak against the war come over to Ireland." Fancy being driven out of the House of Commons, the old home of free speech, and being obliged to go to Ireland for the purpose of making a speech against the war. It is a sad state of things, and all arising out of the spirit of militarism which is becoming predominant in this country, and which, if not checked very shortly, will deprive us of many of the rights and privileges we so highly value.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this Conciliation Committee is a little misplaced, and that if he wants to produce any effect with it he should transfer it to the Transvaal, and see if he could get any terms of conciliation from the Boers out there? I am not surprised that the constituents of the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs should promise him a warm reception, because he went down to my constituency to speak against me. Now I want to say a word with regard to the rival claims—the urgent motion for an early day for the discussion of this war, and the motion which is blocked by that motion. My suggestion is that both the urgent motion and this motion should be allowed to go on, and I submit that to the consideration of the First Lord of the Treasury. The settled and considered motion can
  1432
  be debated when its time comes on, and this motion can be debated now. These blocking motions have taken upon themselves a very formidable character. We have thirty-three Members of this House away without leave soldiering in South Africa. [An HON. MEMBER: Ask for a call.] Yes, but the time has gone by for calls of this House, otherwise I, for one, should be very glad to see a call. Now one of those hon. Members before he went put a blocking motion on the Paper, and the subject cannot be debated in his absence. It is an abuse of the privileges of this House to put down such a motion, and it only arises from the fact of right hon. Members on the front bench giving hon. Members leave to serve in South Africa. If hon. Members had to obtain leave of the House before they went, then motions standing in their names would lapse, so that it is entirely in consequence of the irregularity of hon. Members going away without obtaining leave of absence that this unfortunate state of things has arisen. My right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury tells us that there is to be a Committee appointed to consider the procedure of this House. It is not before it is wanted. There are some Standing Orders which most urgently require amending, and I hope those Standing Orders will be referred to that Committee. Am I to understand from my right hon. friend that they will be referred to the Committee?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; my hon. friend is not to understand anything of the kind. I am not at all sure that there ought not to be a Committee appointed to revise the Standing Orders, but that is a very big order, and I certainly must not be taken to make any proposal on so large a scale.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I think if the right hon. Gentleman would consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would find that there are several which very much require to be amended.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: If the hon. Gentleman proposes to take action on this matter, I suggest that he might do so by opposing the adjournment for the holidays, on the ground that we ought not to leave here until we have discussed this motion. If the hon. Gentle-

  1433
  man will do that I will tell with him. I would also venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that there is a way, to a certain extent, of meeting this matter. In olden days when Bills were blocked by a notice, the notice once put down lasted the whole session; that was subsequently modified by the hon. Member who put the notice down being obliged to renew his notice every week. It seems to me that we might meet a motion of this kind by laying it down that a motion does not hold good unless the hon. Gentleman who puts it down is in his place to renew it every week. Then if one hon. Gentleman went away and another hon. Gentleman desired to move a similar motion, we could deal with it. We have to deal with the fact that an hon. Gentleman who has gone abroad has put down a motion, and this prevents us discussing what is best to be done under the circumstances of this war. That cannot be fair or proper, and we want to do something. My right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin asked two or three questions which have not yet been answered. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War is going to answer them or not, and I call attention to the fact that they are questions which demand an answer. One is with regard to the Transvaal prisoners; we have a large number of prisoners, and as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, our prisoners are well treated in the Transvaal, and the Boers are under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the prisoners we have taken are not so well treated. I asked the hon. Gentleman yesterday,* and he told me that there were some cases of illness, and some deaths. We want thoroughly to understand that something is being done and some care is being taken in order to mitigate and improve the position in which these unfortunate men are placed. There was another question which was pressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin; he asked what the law was, or what was our action with regard to martial law at the Cape. He pointed out that three men who were taken under martial law were sent down to the Cape, and when they arrived at the Cape it was discovered that they
  *See page 1253 of this volume.
  1434
  were outside the jurisdiction of martial law, and that they were then sent back to the place from which they came, where martial law did exist, where they were released without trial. I think that we should know something about this. I have always urged that it is difficult to say whether in a self-governing colony the military commander has a right to administer martial law without the consent of the governor of the colony. I do not think he has. There is another point that I should like to have some understanding about, and that is with reference to the proclamation read by the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary. As I understood it, anybody who want only damaged property is to be held responsible for such damage in his person and his goods. I do not think that we had any right to issue such a proclamation; our being at war with the Transvaal does not give us a right to interfere with its laws, unless we are in military occupation of the country. Then there is another proclamation issued by Sir Alfred Milner himself that we shall not recognise any transfer of property, though carried out with the full concurrence of the courts, after the war is over. We have no right to issue such a proclamation as that. A third thing which I should like to know is, what is the status of a Free Stater in that part of the Free State occupied by our troops. What are the Free Staters at the present moment? Are they Free Staters or are they British subjects? I cannot make out myself. I presume that in the view of Lord Roberts they are British subjects, because he has, without any right or authority whatsoever, deposed, as you may call it, the President of the Free State Republic. President Steyn he spoke of as "ex-President Steyn," and I saw here yesterday that there was a question put by an hon. Gentleman on that side to a Gentleman on the front bench asking something—I forget exactly what it was, but the words used were "ex-President Steyn." I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury or the Under Secretary for War whether we do recognise President Steyn as the President of the Free State or not, and whether we still recognise the authority of the Orange Free State as an independent Republic at present. I am not questioning as to whether there is to be annexation or not.

  1435
  I wish to know what is the status of the Orange Free State at present internationally, and what is the status of the inhabitants of the Free State toward us.
  MR. CHANNING: The First Lord of the Treasury suggests that the main difficulty occupying us this afternoon would be to some extent met by referring this matter to a Committee of Procedure. Well, of course, even this method of inquiry will take time, and probably will not result in the mitigation of the situation in which we are placed for some time. Therefore, unless some practical step is taken the suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury will not relieve the House from the difficulty of dealing with the question at all for a very long time. The question I have to ask the First Lord of the Treasury is whether he will not communicate with his hon. friend who has this motion on the Paper, and take such steps as may be desirable, and communicate also with other Members who may wish to place similar motions on the Paper, so that when reasonable occasion does arise in the course of the present session for dealing with this question the House may be able to discuss it. I think after the discussion we have had to-day we ought to have some assurance from the First Lord of the Treasury that he will make an effort to free the House from the difficulty of discussing a question which up to the present moment may not be ripe for discussion, but which within a few weeks may become eminently ripe for discussion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will telegraph.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The hon. Member for Northampton referred to two subjects which were raised in the first place by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin. The hon. Gentleman put the case in such a pointed manner as to require an answer from me with reference to the prisoners of the South African Republic, and also on the subject of the administration of martial law. In regard to the case of the Boer prisoners in our hands and the treatment of the sick and wounded I have given a certain amount of information to the House, and I think all I can add to that information is that no distinction
  1436
  whatever is drawn in South Africa between the wounded and sick of the enemy and the wounded and sick of our own men. A sick or wounded Boer, like a sick or wounded Englishman, is carried into one of our hospitals, field or stationary, and is treated without any kind of discrimination, just in the same way as any person run over in the streets of London would be treated if carried into a hospital. All that can be done to alleviate the necessary horrors and distresses of war is done, and I may say always has been done. I say with confidence that one of the outcomes of war has often been the touching commiseration shown for the victims of war, and that has always been characteristic of the officers who have commanded in the British Army. Now I pass to the question of the procedure under martial law.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: What I wanted to know was whether it was consistent with the health of these prisoners that they should all be shut up together in the hulks.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member is aware that we have made arrangements for their removal from the hulks, and either confining them on shore at the Cape or sending them to St. Helena. Prisoners who were taken at the earlier stages of the war expressed a preference to go to St. Helena. The question of the safety of the prisoners must be paramount. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin quoted a definition of martial law as no law at all. I think that goes a great deal too far. There is some confusion in the minds of hon. Members as to the difference between martial law and military law. Military law only applies to soldiers and to persons amenable to Army discipline. Martial law is a wholly distinct matter. It is the best substitute which can be contrived by those commanding an army of occupation for the civil law which has been dislocated and impaired by the very fact that warlike operations are being prosecuted, and it is in that spirit that martial law is administered. That general statement, I think, completely answers the criticisms the right hon. Gentleman has offered. The hon. Member for Northampton has asked what is the status of the Free Staters in

  1437
  the portions of the Free State occupied by our Army. The Free Staters have the status that the French had when the army of Germany occupied a portion of France, and that the Turks had when the army of Russia occupied a portion of the Turkish Empire—that is to say, they are persons living in an area occupied by a preponderating military force. The duty of the officer commanding that force is twofold. He must, by the immemorial consent of nations, take all necessary steps for the safety of his force, and he is expected to take all the steps he can to provide a substitute for the civil law which has been destroyed owing to the fact that the army is there. Take the other case referred to by the hon. Member. Take the case of a portion of Cape Colony where martial law has been proclaimed. We have been reading in the newspapers that magistrates have in some cases been prisoners for weeks and months surrounded by rebels in arms. That is an illustration of my point. Civil law has become impossible, and in such a case the military commander is the only one who can supply a substitute. Lately detailed instructions have been issued to guide officers who administer martial law. They are instructed to follow as far as possible the rules of evidence and to model their proceedings on the proceedings of civil tribunals, and their attention has been specially directed to any charges, the presumption of which might not be well founded, urged against persons of Dutch nationality; and in respect of the more serious charges of high treason, which would carry with them the extreme penalty of the law, it has been provided that a judge of the Supreme Court of Cape Colony shall preside over the trials, although conducted under the provisions of martial law. Beyond that I do not think it is possible to go. The best guarantee that we can have in this House is in the character and record of the officer who, in the last resort, administers this law in South Africa—Field Marshal Lord Roberts. As far as I am aware, the only scandals which have occurred under martial law were when the personal character of some commander—I am speaking of centuries ago—was such as to make him negligent of the duties falling upon him. Under such circumstances I am convinced that Lord Roberts, with all the facts before him, is better able to temper justice
  1438
  with mercy than we are, and that he will lose no opportunity of doing so.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: The only rule of the House with respect to the point in dispute is that which was announced in 1897. Practically, the House has no option in the matter. If at that time the Speaker misconstrued a rule, and adopted one for which there is no warrant in the Standing Orders, the House has practically no means whatever of disagreeing with that ruling. Therefore it is rather hard to say that the practice of the House has followed that. It is not the practice of the House, but the practice of the Speaker who gave the ruling. I wish to ask as a question of order whether the rule obtains in this House which obtains in courts of law, that every Speaker is bound to follow the ruling of every previous Speaker as to the meaning of any particular Standing Order. If that be the case, it seems to me that the House is absolutely at the mercy of any Speaker who may be in the chair at the moment—that he may give a ruling on a Standing Order which every subsequent Speaker will be bound to follow, as it is practically impossible for the House to rescind it. The only way in which it could be rescinded, so far as private Members are concerned, is by balloting, but according to my experience you may ballot for years and years without success. If you do succeed in gaining a chance it is probably taken away from you. The result is most deplorable. Free debate on the part of private Members has been completely abolished within the last twelve or fifteen years, not by the action of the House, except in a very slight degree, but by rulings from the Chair, over which the House has absolutely no control whatever.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing the rulings of the Chair. Moreover, he is altogether wrong in saying the House has no remedy. The House can always deal with such rulings by a substantive motion.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I will not proceed any further with the subject. What I meant by saying the House had no remedy was that the private Members have practically no remedy, because it is

  1439
  absolutely useless, unless the Government take the matter up, to endeavour to obtain by ballot any change in the Standing Orders of the House. With regard to the position of the Government, the fact is that no matter who, whether the Conservatives or whether the Liberals, are in power, they are always in favour of the restriction of the rights of private Members, and therefore they will never move in the matter. They can always—and properly—count on the support of the Chair in the carrying on of business, and therefore they never take any steps for the purpose of recovering the lost liberties of the House in respect of debate. I hope that private Members will take this into consideration, and that, irrespective of party—and I may now appeal to the Conservatives—they will put pressure on the Government in order that some of this lost liberty of debate may be recovered. To pass to the other matters which have been discussed, I think the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for War has rather misapprehended the complaint in regard to the exercise of martial law. It is not that the ultimate decisions have been unjust. I have been carefully through the newspapers, and I do not find any great complaint of the ultimate decisions. As a rule the cases in which complaints have been made are cases in which persons have been kept under martial law for long periods without examination or trial, or even the formulation of charges against them, and when charges have been formulated they have been proved to be unfounded. Our suspicion is that under martial law private individuals are enabled to wreak their vengeance upon other private individuals in the district. That is an evil which obtains in all countries in times of agitation and especially in times of panic. It was so in France at the time of the 1870 war. At that time it was dangerous for almost any foreigner to travel in France, for fear of being denounced as a spy. I am afraid there is a similar danger now with regard to the state of affairs in South Africa in the districts in which military operations have taken place, especially in Cape Colony, where we find that respectable Dutch people have been incarcerated for weeks, many of them being subjected to the same rules of imprisonment and diet as are imposed upon convicts, and afterwards liberated without
  1440
  conviction. There are not merely one or two, but a large number of these cases, and they lead us to believe that there has been a gross abuse of this power, not in the higher officers who decide these matters, but in the underlings. There certainly ought to be some investigation of this matter, as there is great danger that feelings will be emibittered and the pacification of the districts made more difficult if such injustices are perpetrated. I wish also to refer to the treatment of the Boer prisoners. The complaint is not that the wounded are not properly treated. We know that our medical men are absolutely above any petty revenge of that kind. There has never been the slightest hint or suspicion that they were in the least degree tainted by any partiality in their treatment of the wounded. But there certainly has been some feeling with respect to the treatment of the unwounded prisoners. That has now been recognised, and we are told that they are to be brought ashore. It is humiliating enough for Englishmen to be beaten in the field by our enemies, but it is more humiliating to be beaten by the Boers in magnanimity of conduct towards opponents. We certainly have been beaten in that respect. ["No!"] How have they treated prisoners? They might have sent them to underground mines under the pretence of securing safety, especially as they had the excuse that several prisoners have escaped, and that they have very few men to guard the remainder, practically all the able-bodied men being at the front. But they did nothing of the kind. On the other hand, we have thousands and thousands of men in South Africa who could without difficulty be put in charge of the Boer prisoners on shore, but instead of that the prisoners are being sent to St. Helena. The two newspaper correspondents—Mr. Winston Churchill and another—who have been taken prisoners have been most strongly impressed by the Boer conduct in this respect. It seems that as soon as correspondents come into personal contact with the Boers, their sense of honour, honesty and truth obliges them to give our opponents the highest character. The Boers have also beaten us in magnanimity to helpless men and men crying for quarter. There has not been a single complaint against the Boers of having refused to give quarter when asked. On the contrary, they have gone further

  1441
  than the rules of warfare and the practice of soldiers demanded. On the other hand, we have correspondents and privates writing home after the battles of the Modder, Elandslaagte, and others, priding themselves on the fact that the Boers were falling on their knees praying for mercy, and receiving the reply, "Remember Majuba Hill," and then being bayonetted or shot. I am eager and willing to believe that these stories are somewhat exaggerated, and I cannot believe that there are many men in our Army who have fallen so low; but the fact that these reports were sent home by soldiers and newspaper correspondents shows that among a section of them, at any rate, a depraved state of things exists in respect to this matter. It is not a noble and manly or a soldier-like thing to kill a man who is begging for mercy, and I wish that our commanders would take care that a proper feeling should be cultivated amongst the troops, although I believe that that feeling animates a large majority of our men. We should also see that that feeling extends to this base minority who have not acted according to the rules of war, and have evidently declined to give quarter to the enemy when asked to do so. [Cries of "Divide!"] This is a matter of great importance, and this is the only opportunity we shall have of discussing it, so I do not see why hon. Members should be in such a hurry to divide. I think some trouble should be taken by those in charge of our troops to see that the laws of warfare are not abused by our troops.
  *SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I am astonished at the speech of the hon. Member for the Eifion Division. It seems to me that the hon. Member is willing to believe every story against our Army—
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I desire to say that—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member has no right to interrupt unless the hon. Gentleman who is in possession of the House gives way.
  *SIR HOWARD VINCENT: It appears to me that the hon. Member is ready to credit every possible story against our own troops, and to give credit to the Boers where no credit whatever is
  1442
  due. I was present at the capitulation at Paardeberg, and I can tell the hon. Member that the treatment of the Boer prisoners by the English soldiers was admirable to see. Our soldiers did everything they could to relieve the distress of the Boers. The hon. Member complains that our men did not give them water. I can assure him that our soldiers went amongst the prisoners, giving them both food and water, not only after the capitulation, but also on their way to the Modder. I had no intention of speaking, but I could not possibly sit and listen to a statement of this kind and not say a word in refutation of it. Something has been said about the treatment of the Boer wounded. I have seen a great many Boer wounded in a great many hospitals in different parts of South Africa, and I can bear testimony to the most undoubted fact which was stated by the Under Secretary for War that no difference whatever has been made in the treatment of the Boer wounded and the English wounded. In the hospital at Wynberg I conversed with many Boer prisoners, and I also spoke to Commandant Pretorius, and I asked him if they had any complaint to make or any suggestion for better treatment. Commandant Pretorius said that nothing could exceed the kindness of our troops and the Army Medical Corps to the Boer prisoners, and gratitude was depicted on the face of every Boer prisoner I saw. I desire to say one word in regard to the admirable work which has been done by the Royal Army Medical Department in Cape Colony, Natal, at the front, at the stationary hospital, and at the base hospital. Nothing could possibly exceed the kindness, the skill, and the zeal with which they have done their work, and one is gratified to know that the recent changes made in the Royal Army Medical Department have not only been a great improvement, but they have given great satisfaction to the officers of the Army itself. I should like to thank Her Majesty's Government for having appointed some of the leading surgeons of the day to proceed to the seat of war, and I also desire to thank those eminent surgeons who have sacrificed their practice and gone out to the front in order to render the best possible service to our troops. The hon. Member opposite and the hon. Member for Northampton have spoken of the treatment of unwounded

  1443
  Boer prisoners. I saw the Boer prisoners at Simons Town, and I saw them in camp myself. Their camp is organised on exactly the same principles as the camp of a British regiment. The prisoners are divided into battalions, they are fed in the same way, and are tended and camped in exactly the same way as our own men. When, scarcely four weeks ago, I was in the Boer prisoners' camp at Simons Town, it was a pleasure to me to see how happy and merry the Boer prisoners were, playing football and other games, and to see what sources of recreation were [provided for them. I think I should add a word or two about the administration of martial law. I have been in Natal, as also in frontier provinces, and from no source have I been able to obtain any evidence that martial law is administered in a rigorous or harsh way. On the contrary, in Durban, for example, under the administration of martial law by Captain Percy Scott, many of the inhabitants said to me that they had never seen the town so quiet and so well ordered, or so much peace and liberty prevailing. The only other matter I desire to allude to is as to Lord Roberts. My hon. friend the Under Secretary of State for War stated that he was quite sure that it was the desire of Lord Roberts to do everything that was possible to minimise the racial feeling which, unfortunately, undoubtedly exists in South Africa. It is impossible to exaggerate the extraordinary tact with which Lord Roberts has acted throughout this campaign, not alone concerning our own Army, but concerning the administration of the occupied districts. There are many people who, without knowledge of the facts, think that Lord Roberts may have gone too far in his desire to extend sympathy to those who have now been placed in an unfortunate position in the occupied districts. I was present when Lord Roberts received General Cronje, and I was cognisant of all the arrangements he made for the conveyance of the prisoners to Simons Town, and I can say that there is no single Dutchman in Cape Colony, or in Natal, or in the occupied districts, or in any district in which martial law prevails, who does not realise that the Commander-in-Chief of the British troops in South Africa is not only doing all that he possibly can to bring the campaign to a successful conclusion, but
  1444
  he is also doing all he can to minimise those horrors of war which are absolutely inevitable from its pursuit. I will not detain the House further, but I could not remain seated and hear the statements made by the hon. Member for the Eifion Division, which are calculated to do great harm to Her Majesty's forces, who are doing their very best in South Africa for their Queen and country. Such a statement cannot fail to cause pain to honourable and gallant officers, who are doing their utmost to administer the law and the responsibilities confided to them in the most humane and admirable manner.
  MR. BARTLEY: I only wish to say one word on this subject in regard to the rule which has hampered the House. No doubt there is a great deal to be said from the standpoint of inconvenience; but, I think, we ought to remember also that this much-abused rule has its advantages. This rule has prevented to-day a debate which I consider would have done a good deal of harm in South Africa, because any remarks made by the hon. Member for the Eifion Division would have been telegraphed over to South Africa and they would have done a great deal of mischief. Therefore, this rule has tended to save us from having a debate upon the arrangement of the terms of peace, upon which question the expression of the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin and others would have done immense mischief at the present time. In altering this rule we must remember that there is a good side to it, and no stronger instance of its utility can be found than the proceedings of this afternoon, whereby this rule has prevented a most mischievous and dangerous discussion, and one which, if it had taken place, would have done immense harm in this country. In regard to this war the time seems to have come when a certain number of hon. Members of this House do not mind what they say or how they abuse our own men. Not only this, but they seem to delight in believing everything that is said against us whether it is true or not. The hon. Member said with regard to one of the statements he made that he did not think it was true, and that it was mere hearsay, and yet he has repeated it in this House, and no doubt it will be telegraphed to South

  1445
  Africa, where it may do incalculable mischief. I saw instances of this when I was in South Africa at the beginning of the War. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite do not restrain themselves, and are inclined to think that the only nation in the world that is criminal to the root is our own country. I think it is a grand thing that this rule has prevented a very mischievous debate from taking place.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I desire to make a protest against the hon. Member for Central Sheffield coming here and accusing my hon. friend of saying things which he never said. If the hon. Member had been present during the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for the Eifion Division he would not have made those remarks.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I was here the whole of the time.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: It is not fair to accuse my hon. friend of things which he did not say. The whole statement made by my hon. friend was with reference to the prisoners on board ship, and if the hon. Member thinks he disputes that complaint by speaking of the camp, he is very much mistaken. Then the hon. Member for North Islington repeated similar slanders.
  MR. BARTLEY: I rise to order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Member in order in using such language?
  *MR. SPEAKER: No; the hon. Member should withdraw that expression.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg leave to withdraw those words.
  *MR. WEIR: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what he intends to do in view of the Return which has just been issued in regard to the sea fisheries of the United Kingdom, which shows a falling off in the fishing population of Scotland of 25 per cent. This is a very serious matter, for there is no such falling off either in England, Wales, or in Ireland. In the year 1894 the number of persons employed in the fishing industry in Scotland was 50,589, but in 1898 it had fallen to 38,508, or a decrease of 12,081. I wish
  1446
  to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government propose to take any steps to inquire into this matter. I have repeatedly brought the question of illegal trawling under the notice of the Lord Advocate. I have no doubt illegal trawling is largely responsible for this state of things, and is simply ruining the line fishing. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen stated the other night, fishermen are being driven from the fishing villages into the large towns. The First Lord of the Admiralty knows what a fine body of men these Scotch fishermen are, and we are fast losing a very valuable class from which the Naval and Marine services may be recruited. The Lord Advocate has treated this matter very lightly, and he has not the courtesy to come and take his seat while the subject is being discussed. The registered number of fishing boats in Scotland in 1894 was 11,217, but in 1898 it had fallen to 10,485, or a fall of 732. There is no such fall in England, Wales, or in Ireland, where the number of fishermen are increasing, and it is only in Scotland that there is this tremendous diminution, which I attribute to illegal trawling. This subject does not receive the attention of the Government, and I would urge the First Lord of the Admiralty to see if he cannot send down some of the cruisers which are now lying idle to do police duty, so that this great Scottish industry may be protected, and not allowed to go to ruin. With regard to the unsatisfactory harbours we may be told that they were good enough fifty years ago, but they are unsuitable now owing to the increased size of fishing boats; moreover, no fund is provided for their upkeep and extension. I should be glad to have the attention of the First Lord of the Treasury to these matters, seeing that they are treated with such indifference by the Lord Advocate. The First Lord of the Treasury claims to be a Scotsman, and I think he might show a little sympathy to those of his countrymen who are now in such a plight in regard to the fishing industry. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give his attention to this subject, and not allow this terrible depopulation of the fishing villages in Scotland to go on. I am sorry to have to occupy the time of the House on such an occasion; but it is a matter of very serious importance to the Scottish people, and I deplore the want of courtesy shown by

  1447
  the Lord Advocate in failing to be in his place when such questions are laid before the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.

NEW BILL.
  BANK HOLIDAY ACTS AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Bank Holiday Acts, 1871 and 1874, and to make provision for an additional Bank Holiday, to be called Empire Day, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Faithfull Begg, Sir Howard Vincent, Lieutenant-Colonel Pryce-Jones, Mr. Hedderwick, Mr. Scott Montagu, Mr. William Johnston, Mr. Bainbridge, and Mr. Price.
  BANK HOLIDAY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Bank Holiday Acts, 1871 and 1874, and to make provision for an additional Bank Holiday, to be called Empire Day," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 23rd May, and to be printed. [Bill 175.]
  FINANCE BILL.

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I undertook, in moving the Third Reading, to give to the House some information with regard to the details of the revenue and expenditure of last year, and the influence which the great increase in the revenue last year may have upon the revenue receipt of the year in which we now stand. Hon. Members will see from the Paper which has been presented* that the total receipt from taxation in the past year amounted to as much as £129,757,000, or £11,900,000 in excess of the revenue of the previous year. Of this sum £9,917,000 went to the Local Taxation Account, £396,000 more than the previous year; and £119,840,000 was received by the Exchequer, an increase of £11,504,000 over the receipts of the previous year. I do not suppose that so enormous an increase as that for
    * See Appendix I. to this volume.
    1448
    one year over its predecessor ever happened before by the purely automatic effect of taxation. I think that out of the revenue of the year only £800,000 was due to increased taxes, and therefore practically the House will see that the revenue of last year increased by no less than £10,700,000 over the revenue of its predecessor purely by the automatic, increase of existing taxation. Now, I should like for a few minutes to detain the House by an inquiry as to how that extraordinary increase has accrued. Hon. Members will recollect that in forming my estimate of the yield of the revenue for the year just closed, when I introduced the Budget on March 5th,* I stated that my calculations were based on figures arrived at a few days before I spoke, and that since then there had been remarkable clearances of dutiable articles by which those figures might be largely disturbed. As a matter of fact, the disturbance was very much larger than I had anticipated, and this will appear from a brief examination of the receipts from Customs and Inland Revenue last year. The total receipts from the Customs revenue by the Exchequer last year were £23,800,000; my original estimate of these receipts had been £21,770,000, and my estimate of March 5th was £22,130,000. The actual receipts were £2,950,000 in excess of the revenue of 1898–99. Such an increase obviously cannot be accounted for in any ordinary way. The great bulk of this increase was due to clearances in anticipation of increase of duty. Those began as far back as January 25th last, but they culminated on the two days after the announcement of the date when the Budget would be introduced, between March 3rd and 5th, and I may state that in those two days there was an excess of receipt from Customs of as much as £1,975,000 over the receipt of the two corresponding days of the previous year. £380,000 of that excess came from tea, £1,250,000 from tobacco, £245,000 from foreign spirits, and £100,000 from other dutiable articles. In the same way, between March 1st and 5th, the excess of receipts from British spirits was £1,473,000 above that of the corresponding days of the previous year. If I go into the details of the customs revenue I think this will
    * See The Parliamentary Debates. [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxx., p. 53.

    1449
    come out even more clearly. Foreign spirits were originally estimated to produce £4,310,000; the estimate of March 5 was £4,680,000, and the amount which was actually produced was £4,910,000. After carefully calculating how much of that revenue was really due to last year, my advisers assured me that £240,000 of it were receipts that ought to have come into the present year and had been a wrongful gain to the year that has closed. My original estimate of receipts from tea was £3,970,000; on March 5th I estimated them at £4,200,000, and they actually produced £4,750,000. My advisers considered that out of that the sum of £625,000 was really due to this year, and ought to have come into this year's accounts. Nearly as much as one-seventh of the total consumption of tea for this year is tea that paid duty last year, and the duty on it, therefore, does not come into this year at all. Tobacco has been rather a failing revenue. My original estimate of the yield of tobacco last year was £10,840,000; the estimate of March 5th was £10,700,000, and the actual receipts turned out to be £11,510,000. That was solely due to the great clearances on the 3rd and 5th of March, as much as £760,000 of the proper revenue of this year being put into the revenue of last year. The original estimate of the receipts from wine was £1,680,000, and the actual amount produced was £1,740,000, of which it is estimated that £80,000 properly belongs to the receipts of the present year. Even those concerned in dealing with dried fruits were so alarmed at a possibly increased taxation that as much as £20,000 was paid by them in anticipation of increased duties, which went wrongfully into the receipts of last year. The total Exchequer receipts from Excise last year were £32,100,000, or £2,900,000 more than the receipts for 1898–99 and £2,250,000 more than my original estimate. Beer, of course, was not affected by anticipatory clearances, the duty being levied in a different way, and the receipts from beer amounting to £11,890,000, were very slightly above what I had originally estimated them to be.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the total figures?
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: On spirits the total receipts were £19,632,000, or
    1450
    £2,212,000 over my original estimate, and £1,132,000 over my estimate of March 5th. Spirits had begun to be cleared in anticipation of an increase of duty as soon as the middle of January, and that culminated on the first five days in March. The total result of the figures I have detailed to the House is this—that there was something like £1,700,000 of Customs receipts gained to the year that has passed at the expense of the present year, and £l,500,000 of Excise. There have been some other increases in the revenue beyond my anticipations, due to other causes. Stamps produced £100,000 more than I expected on March 5th—£8,500,000 in all. I stated then that as the income-tax was almost entirely paid in the current quarter it was too soon to tell how much the income tax was likely to yield. It actually did yield £150,000 more than I expected—£18,750,000 in all. But the death duties defeated me again. I put the death duties on March 5th at £13,300,000 to the Exchequer, and £4,171,000 to the Local Taxation Fund—£17,471,000 in all. Then I remember there was some wonder at the extraordinary increase of the death duty yield for the year. But, as hon. Members will already have seen, their yield amounted to even more than that. A sum of £14,020,000 went to the Exchequer and a sum of £4,453,000 to the Local Taxation Fund—£18,473,000 in all from death duties. There was a very great increase in the total amount both realty and personalty that paid estate duty last year. In the previous year the amount of realty paying estate duty was £49,395,000; the amount of realty paying estate duty last year was £57,760,000. The amount of personalty paying estate duty in 1898–99 was £198,801,000; last year it was as much as £229,600,000. With regard to the yield of these duties, I may say that February had been a very good month, and it was considered, and I think rightly considered at the time, that March was not likely also to be exceptionally good. But in March the personalty paying estate duty increased no less than 50 per cent. over the corresponding month of last year. There seemed to be a sort of feeling during the last quarter on the part of solicitors that if wills were not brought in for payment during the quarter there might be some increased taxation, and during March no less than £440,000 was received from estates

    1451
    paying high rates. These are reasons why my estimate of the total yield of the death duties has been so much exceeded. With regard to expenditure, I have little variation to make from the Estimates which I gave on March 5th, but that variation is on the right side. The ordinary expenditure of the year is £110,505,000; the war expenditure, £23,217,000; total, £133,722,000. Against this there is an Exchequer revenue of £119,840,000, leaving a deficit of £13,882,000—nearly four millions better than the Estimate I present on March 5, when I stated to the House that there would probably be a deficit of over £17,770,000. That deficit is met by £8,000,000 of Treasury Bills, by £2,550,000 first instalment of the War Loan, and by a temporary draft on our balances of £3,332,000, which will be repaid on Tuesday next from the second instalment of the War Loan. There is only one matter with which I have now to detain the House, and that is a matter which concerns the future. What effect is this illegitimate gain of nearly £4,000,000 in the receipts of last year likely to have on the probable receipts of the year that is before us? I am afraid we shall lose in two ways. We shall lose, of course, to some extent by failing to receive from those goods that were cleared with such ardour on March 3rd and 5th the increase of duty which the Committee sanctioned on March 5th. I made allowance for that loss in my calculations on March 5th, because—I do not know whether it escaped the notice of hon. Members—I took no credit at that time for the receipts from the increased duty between March 5th and 31st. I practically had put those receipts against the loss from anticipating clearances which I felt sure would occur, and I balanced one against the other. Now, owing to this great amount of clearances there has been a greater loss under that head than I expected, and I think there will probably be a loss of Customs on the coming year, by reason of the increased duty having been escaped, of something like £215,000. But that is a small matter compared with the loss of the original duty which properly belongs to the year and which has gone into the receipts of the previous year. The effect, of course, is to transfer the proper revenue of 1900–1 to the revenue of the year 1899–1900, because a considerable part of the dutiable goods which will be consumed during the
    1452
    year have already paid duty and will not produce any revenue this year. On the other hand we may fairly consider that some gain may be expected from the increasing prosperity of the country. Every year that passes really seems to show a greater improvement in our trade and a greater power of consumption; and, although I have shown the House that we have practically lost for the year that is to come £1,700,000 from Customs and £1,500,000 from Excise—£3,200,000 altogether—yet I do think we have in the reason to which I have just referred a set off against a considerable portion of that loss. I think, Sir, that if I reduce my estimated Customs receipts for the year in which we now are from £25,017,000, the estimate of March 5th, to £23,620,000, I shall make a fair estimate of the probable receipts from Customs in the year before us. The House must remember that the Customs revenue is not as growing a revenue as the revenue from British spirits received by the Excise. In spite of these anticipations there has been a very considerable clearance of British spirits during March and up to the present time, and I think we may safely say that if we reduce the estimate of Excise revenue from £34,350,000 to £33,550,000 that will be a fair estimate of what we are likely to receive. Then I am bound to admit to the House that there is another matter in which I think it necessary to make a change. I think some surprise was expressed at my estimate of the receipts from the income tax, and I have seen various calculations to prove that I have put them much too low. I think those calculations did not sufficiently take into account the certain effect of a large increase in the rate of income tax upon the receipts. In the first place, there is a much greater temptation to evasion and to the return of smaller profits than a man has actually received, when the tax is a shilling instead of eightpence in the £. In the second place, there is also a greater risk of bad debts owing to non-collection of income tax; and, further, there is a much greater tendency, when the income tax is high, and a very proper tendency, on the part of those entitled to exemption or abatement, to make claims for relief which they would not have thought of making if the tax stood at a lower level. For all these reasons I considered in March that a shilling tax would probably

    1453
    yield about £85,000 less for each penny of the tax than it had yielded when at 8d. But, on the other hand, I have to consider the fact, and it is a very gratifying fact, that the yield of the income tax at 8d. increased by £750,000 in 1898–99 over the previous year, and by £750,000 in 1899–90, or £1,500,000 in two years; and I think we may be confident that that increase is still going on. Therefore I propose to raise my estimate of the receipts from income tax from £25,300,000 to £25,800,000. I think, too, that the present aspect of the stamp revenue would justify an increase of £150,000 on my original estimate. Now I will give to the House the detailed figures of the probable revenue. I have explained that the receipts from the larger estates under the head of death duties during the year were entirely unexpected, and I do not think I should be justified in increasing that estimate. From Customs I expect £23,620,000, Excise £33,550,000, estate duties £13,000,000, stamp duties £8,550,000, land tax £800,000, house duty £1,650,000, income tax £25,800,000, being a total of £106,970,000. Adding to that £20,550,000 of non-tax revenue, which I think should be left at the same figure I gave on March 5th, there is a total estimated revenue of £127,520,000. On the other hand, as to expenditure, there are Consolidated Fund charges, amounting to £21,360,000, after allowing for the suspension of £4,640,000, the repayment of capital wrapped up in terminable annuities, which the House has practically agreed to accept, and to that I have to add £619,000 for interest on the War Loan, making the total Consolidated Fund services £21,979,000. The Supply services amount to £128,082,000, making a total of £150,061,000 expenditure. The revenue being deducted from that the deficit will work out at £22,541,000. Add to that the actual deficit of last year, £13,882,000, and there will be an aggregate deficit for the two years of £36,423,000, and this will be provided for partly by Treasury bills for £8,000,000, and the remainder by the proceeds of the War Loan, which will leave, after replacing the amounts temporarily taken out of balances, a margin of £1,127,000, besides, of course, the further borrowing powers of £5,000,000 which are included in the War Loan Act, and which have not
    1454
    yet been exercised. I stated on March 5th that we should no doubt require a considerable portion of that sum, quite apart from war expenditure, for the purpose of increasing military and naval reserves, of guns, ammunition, stores, and so forth. I have to thank the House for the patience with which they have listened to what I am afraid has been a dry statement; but I thought it right to put before the House, what I was unable to do on March 5th, details of the actual receipts of the past year, and, of course, it was necessary that I should make the corrections which followed from the increased revenue we have received, both in the general financial situation and in the probable result of the revenue of the year to come. I hope the House will consider that, as a whole, the result of last year has been most satisfactory, and that our prospects for the future are by no means bad.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman has laid before the House with his usual frankness, clearness and ability the situation as it now stands; but I do not think we can possibly pass this occasion by without recognising, whether we look at expenditure, or whether we look at revenue or debt, that it is one of the most momentous financial events which has happened in the last half of this century. I do not find fault with the right hon. Gentleman, because I know the circumstances which have led him to make what would otherwise be regarded as a premature Budget statement; but the result has been that we have not been able to give to the actual financial situation even the ordinary consideration which would be given at a time much less important than the present. We are now on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, and for the first time we are receiving the true account of the condition of our monetary affairs in the past year and the estimate of what we are to expect in the future; and that at a time when the revenue of the country has been beyond comparison greater than at any former period, when we are imposing taxes I think to a larger amount than any man now in this House has ever known, and

    1455
    increasing the Debt by an amount which has not been known since the great war. That is a situation which certainly ought to demand from the House of Commons very mature consideration, as regards both the past and the future; but we are not able—I am not complaining of that—to give it the consideration we might expect it would receive, and which we ought to give to it, because it has always been a standing rule, founded on common sense, that when we hear the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the first time we must take time to consider the bearing of that statement on the finances of the future year. Therefore we have never hazarded an opinion on a statement such as we have just heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer without taking some days to master the figures, but we are now going, practically speaking, to-night, after a discussion necessarily brief, to dispose of the greatest question of revenue, of expenditure, of taxation, and of debt that has ever been brought before the House certainly in my life time. That is a warning, I think, against early Budget statements, and I hope there will never again be occasion for it. Our minds have been very much perplexed by what is called the provisional Budget. We have just mastered that and now we find that the expectations formed by the authorities of what the revenue was likely to be were out to the amount of £4,000,000. We used to reckon in the old days that to be out a million in the year was rather bad, but when you come to have upon a single year a surplus of £9,500,000, you may call that a very large order indeed. I cannot help looking at this matter as I have looked at it before, and asking myself what would have been the situation if there had been no war with a realised surplus of £9,500,000. What could you not have done with a surplus such as that. You are contemplating a mass of reforms in this country. Such a surplus might have given you old-age pensions or a system of secondary education. It might have given you many things for which money is sorely needed, but instead we have increased taxation and a great accumulation of debt. It is not only the mouth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that must water at such a prospect as that—a realised surplus of upwards of £9,000,000.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: This surplus, to the extent of more than £3,000,000, is due to anticipatory clearances which would never have existed but for the necessity of increasing taxation.
    *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That only shows the difficulty created by being obliged to deal with these figures at a moment's notice. I had no idea until this moment that the right hon. Gentleman put the result of the anticipatory clearances at upwards of £3,000,000. At any rate, that would leave a surplus of £6,000,000, and that is a comfortable surplus which gives great hope for the future, because if you can get apart from these exceptional circumstances a surplus of £6,000,000 you may expect an additional million from the increase in the population and in the ordinary contributions to the revenue. The £6,000,000 you have realised would have gone to the liquidation of the debt instead of their being an increase of debt. The surplus of £6,000,000 in the year that is past would have given you the expectation of a very large revenue in the next year—probably larger than the present. This would have been the prospect you would have had but for the war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted that, whereas he put the deficit on the past year, including the war expenditure, at £17,000,000, it will now be only £13,000,000. The consequence is that the resources he requires to meet the expenditure of the present year will be £4,000,000 less than he had anticipated in his provisional statement. Now, I desire to ask what is going to be done with those £4,000,000? Of course, what you are looking to is the operation of what would have been a surplus upon the debt, and I do not know whether I am right in suggesting that, if you have a deficit of £4,000,000 less than was estimated, it would be reasonable to expect that you would require only half of eight millions of Treasury bills that you raised for the purposes of the year which is just concluded. If that be so, I would submit to the right. hon. Gentleman that it might be possible to diminish the addition to the Treasury bills which he has already proposed.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I intended to intimate that our position is better, no doubt, though not to the extent which

    1457
    I think the right hon. Gentleman suggests, and I think that possibly I may not require to raise some of the five millions of Treasury bills which I still have in reserve. But, of course, the future, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is most uncertain.
    *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am speaking really from the final Paper of the right hon. Gentleman where he puts it in figures that his deficit is now, according to present calculations, thirteen millions as against seventeen millions which appeared in the provisional Estimate.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: But a considerable portion of that gain is a loss to the revenue of this year.
    *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: After all, the foundation of all our finance is in dealing—whatever may be the causes of shifting revenue—with the actual expenditure. The keystone of the whole is that each year should be complete in itself; and that therefore you cannot, unless you go into that vicious system which in foreign countries goes by the name of virements, and transfer the revenue of one year to another. You must treat the revenue and expenditure of one year as complete in itself. Therefore, I am looking at the present revenue of the year 1899–1900 by itself. The right hon. Gentleman has so treated, and properly treated, the matter, and has given us the figures of the expenditure and revenue of that year; he has drawn a balance and shown a deficit in his provisional statement of seventeen millions, but now, in the final account, it is reduced thirteen millions. If it had been a surplus he would have been obliged to apply it to the National Debt; at any rate, the accounts must have been kept separate. I only say this by the way. What I was urging upon the right hon. Gentleman was that he must have benefited in some form or other by getting £4,000,000 more of revenue in the past year than he expected; and I venture to say that he had better apply those £4,000,000, whether he has got them in in meal or in malt, to the diminution of the Floating Debt, rather than to any other purpose. The figures of the whole revenue are certainly most astounding. It is impossible that anybody could have apprehended that the wealth of the
    1458
    country should have developed itself in the degree it has done in the last two years. I only hope that we shall not abuse the willing horse by treating that revenue in the way that people do of whom it is said, "Money easily got is easily lost." I come now to the question of what is going to happen in the year which is to come. I never venture to challenge the estimates of a Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has sources of information which are open to nobody else, but we cannot regard him as infallible. And certainly of late there has, it seems to me, been a very much greater difficulty in forming an opinion upon the probable revenue of the country than used to be the case. That may arise from various causes. It has happened, no doubt, in the present case to the exceptional conditions of this rush upon dutiable articles. But that is a thing to which you are always subject. Even without any war, there may be circumstances which suggest the necessity of increasing the revenue, and, remember, it was not only on March 2nd that this rush took place. The right hon. Gentleman has told us in his speech that it began as early as the middle of January.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: On tea.
    *SIR WILLIAM HARCOUBT: That is so, but people in the month of January begin to think of what the liabilities of the country are likely to be, and of the consequences which will follow from those liabilities. Therefore, this is an element which is not confined to the present year, though, certainly, it has probably never assumed the startling proportions it has done in this year of war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the clear statement which he always gives to the House, has not given that which I should like to have seen—that is, his estimate of the revenue of the future upon the basis of existing taxation, because that is the real basis on which every estimate is, and ought to be, formed. First of all, knowing the revenue of the last year, you form your estimates upon what you expect to be the revenue of the next year on the basis of the present taxation, and according as there is a deficit or a surplus you frame your taxation. The right hon. Gentleman has not given us his estimate of Customs on the basis of the present taxation. This makes it an

    1459
    extremely difficult thing for us to examine his figures. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have only a modified confidence in the continued prosperity of the country. I see he makes no alteration in the death duties. He has put them down at £13,000,000, which is lower than the actual result of their yield in the year which has just concluded by something like £1,000,000. Has he put it down a million on account of one particular death?
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I did not want to repeat myself. I explained in my previous statement the very exceptional amount we have derived from the estates of millionaires, beyond the single one to which the right hon. Member refers.
    *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I know that the right hon. Gentleman talked of a windfall that was not likely to be repeated. I do not know, but there may be a large quantity of east-windfalls in the present year. With reference to that particular windfall of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, I think it is common knowledge that there accrue in this year two of the greatest London estates that have ever fallen or are likely to fall in. No man can criticise the calculations upon which the finance for the coming year is based upon a statement of this character. I think this statement and the conditions of its finance ought to have more mature consideration than we can bestow upon it to-day. I was about to ask, What of the balances? According to the last Return they are lower than I have ever known them—three and a half millions.
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: We shall replenish them on Tuesday with four and a half millions from the War Loan.
    *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Is that loan to be used to steady the balances?
    *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes.
    *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have endeavoured to shorten the observations I had to make on this complicated statement, and I have endeavoured to deal with it, I hope, in no captious spirit. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the magnificent revenue which he
    1460
    has had at his disposal, and I hope there may be happier times in which he may be able to dispose of a revenue equally great for what I will call happier ends.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I agree with many of the observations of the right hon. Member for West Monmouth, all the more as, as he says, that these figures are entirely new. They are the most serious figures ever put before the House of Commons, and it is impossible to deal immediately with them. Therefore, I am merely going to pass over them in the lightest possible way. The first thing that occurs to me is the extraordinary increase in the error of calculation. It is sometimes called a surplus, but whether it is a surplus or a deficit, it is always an error. The Budget estimate of revenue for the year 1899–1900 was £111,200,000; but the realised revenue was £119,800,000, so that the total error amounted to £8,600,000. That was the amount by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was out in his calculations for the year 1899–1900. The right hon. Gentleman has explained part of it; but the larger part of that error arose out of the miscalculation of the death duties, in which there was a mistake of no less than three millions of money in a gross total of eighteen millions, or something between 25 and 33 per cent. Up to 1894 there was no item of revenue that could be so closely calculated and which left so little margin of error as the death duties; but from 1894 there has been no item of revenue that has given rise to so many errors in calculation. There has never been a less mistake than a million, and this year it is three millions.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is an increase.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I do not care whether it is an increase or a decrease. When the right hon. Gentleman says that he is satisfied so long as it is an increase, and that so long as the Chancellor of the Exchequer under-estimates his revenue by three or five or eight millions, he is content, does he realise that it is quite possible that the error may be, one of these fine days, on the other side? I believe that it is just as likely that it may be. The truth is that the death duties are placed on such a basis that you rely

    1461
    on a very small number of persons for a large amount of this revenue. That is a very dangerous basis, because if one or two of these persons fail to die within the year you lose an enormous amount of revenue, and your calculation is thrown out. A tenth of the number of estates pay nine-tenths of the whole duties, and if that tenth failed the whole of your calculations would be thrown out. I must say that I think the right hon. Gentleman has under-estimated the probable revenue from death duties next year. This year they produced fourteen millions payable into the Exchequer, besides four and a half millions payable to the Local Taxation Account. That is a total revenue of eighteen and a half millions. I cannot suppose myself that the death duties will show a diminution in the present financial year, as compared with the last, of so much as a million. It is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman had a considerable number of millionaires last year, but these millionaires are steadily on the increase. Moreover, there are two enormous estates that are going to be paid for this year, as is well known. In addition to that there is that great ally of the death duties, and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, probable disease. The right hon. Gentleman knows that in the influenza year his revenue went up enormously, and if we have another influenza year the revenue will grow up steadily. I cannot suppose any circumstances which will justify an anticipation that the death duties which gave us fourteen millions this year will only yield thirteen millions next year. This brings mo to another point. I complain that the right hon. Gentleman is in the habit of under-estimating his revenue.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: A very good thing, too.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: My right hon. friend says, "A very good thing." I am not sure that it would not be a matter of consequence if you had a surplus of eight or nine millions which would go towards the diminution of the National Debt. But the right hon. Gentleman always lays his hand on the surplus, and puts it to something else. Therefore it amounts to this, that you are being taxed higher than you need be in order to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer more
    1462
    than he actually requires. I want to call attention to the extraordinary falsification of the national accounts which results from the habit of interception. If the intercepted amount had been added to the 148 millions, the nominal expenditure of last year, there would have been a total expenditure of 156 millions; and if the expenditure of next year were treated in the same way it would amount to 173 millions. So that there is a gross total of £156,000,000 for the year that is past and of £170,000,000 for the year to come. There was once a party in this House which made itself the apostle of peace, retrenchment, and reform; the derelicts of that party are still, cast up by the winds and waves, on the opposite side of the House, but they have given up their old cry. I do not know anybody now who is for peace; I do not know any party that is for retrenchment; and those who are for reform are for Socialism. I am glad to recognise that there is one consistent advocate for retrenchment, and that is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, and as he is in earnest, I will tell him the only way, in my opinion, to insure retrenchment in this country. It is a fact that at present the country is bursting with prosperity, and people do not care how much taxes they pay, or how those taxes are spent, or what is done with them. The reason is that the vast majority of voters who send representatives to this House do not pay taxes at all, or they do not know that they pay them; and the way to raise in the country again a party interested in expenditure, and anxious to bring about retrenchment, is to make people pay taxes and make them know that they pay them. The incomes of this country amount to 1,600 millions, and a 4d. income tax upon that would give £26,000,000. If you leave out 800,000,000 of people who have less than £160 a year, 8d. on the remainder would give £26,000,000 also; but as you only levy income tax on 500,000,000, you have to put on a 1s. tax and you get the less sum of £25,000,000. If you made every man feel that he was paying his quota of taxation, then you would be forming a force which would not be long before it would produce in this House a party in favour of retrenchment. That is a suggestion which I make to

    1463
    hon. Gentlemen opposite who have no cry. This is the first real Budget that has been given to us, because the other was only a temporary Budget; but, as we are told, the circumstances of this year are quite exceptional, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has under-estimated the estate duties, and has not been quite sound in some of his financial calculations, we must forgive him, and we must take it that he is justified in taking exceptional measures to meet an emergency. Being above all anxious for retrenchment, I say, impose taxation all round in the interests of the national Treasury and economy of expenditure.
    *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I can cordially agree with what the hon. Gentleman said in his concluding remarks, I being one of the only Members who, in season and out of season, have protested against the want of support this House now affords to any suggestion of retrenchment. The present expenditure, of course, is distinctly exceptional, and that being so I shall not deal with it. It is the automatic and steady increase of expenditure which I think the House would do well to consider. Of course, the supplemental statement which my right hon. friend has now made it is idle to criticise at this final stage of his financial scheme. No good can come of criticising the figures, which we are bound to take as he gives us. But I think, as this House is about to part with this Finance Bill, I should be justified in drawing the attention of hon. Gentlemen to the dangerously narrow basis on which our financial system rests. I do not wish to take this opportunity of putting forward any views which may be said to be of a pessimistic nature, and I am not going to suggest remedies of a protective character, but I hope my not suggesting them will not be taken as evidence that I have abandoned my views on that subject. But without reference to any system of that kind, I should like to see our financial system placed on a sounder basis. Exception has been taken to my speaking of this as a Little England Budget; but I do call it so. It is a Budget framed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer essentially without having regard to, or any idea of meeting the wishes of, the other component parts of the Empire. The great self-governing colonies have suggested
    1464
    time after time, and have taken steps recently in the direction of, preferential treatment being accorded to trade within the limits of the Empire. It has not been put forward by persons without authority, because these steps were founded on resolutions passed at a conference held at Ottawa in 1894, to which representatives were accredited from all parts of the Empire, and which was presided over by a special representative of Her Majesty's Government. The resolutions were adopted practically with unanimity, and are an index of the direction in which colonial opinion has moved. This was the resolution—
    "That provision should be made by Imperial legislation enabling the Dependencies of the Empire to enter into agreements of commercial reciprocity, including the power of making differential tariffs with Great Britain and with one another."
    The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, I am sorry to say, never concealed his dissent from those views, and has always adopted a frigid attitude with regard to them.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: And the Colonial Secretary, too.
    *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: The right hon. Gentleman opposite says, "And the Colonial Secretary, too," by which he means, I take it, that he also has adopted the frigid attitude which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has always displayed in the matter. We have heard a good deal from the Colonial Secretary of drawing closer the ties which connect the colonies with the mother country, and I certainly think that the right hon. Gentleman opposite is doing the Colonial Secretary an injustice if he says he sympathises with the frigid attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Colonial Secretary said—
    "There is a universal desire amongst all parts of the Empire for a closer union between the several branches, and in their opinion it is desirable, nay, it is essential, for the existence of the Empire as such. Experience has taught us that this closer union can be most hopefully approached in the first instance upon its commercial side."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: You should have heard what he said the other night.
    *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Then I presume the right hon. Gentleman means

    1465
    that the Colonial Secretary has reversed his opinion on that subject, but I do not read the remarks of the Colonial Secretary in the sense in which the right hon. Gentleman has done. I rather understood him to express his idea of a system on which he was emphatic—the abolition of all duties between the various portions of the Empire, but at the same time putting a tax upon all imports from countries not British. That, however, is altogether impracticable, because there is not a single colony which would fall in with such a system. The colonies depend to too large an extent for their revenue upon the levying of customs and import duties, and therefore no colony would be likely to fall in with any such system. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day* took exception to my referring to this subject in connection with the duty on tea, and my right hon. friend went so far as to say that there was not one of the self-governing colonies whose representatives had adopted the resolutions I quoted which was a producer of tea; but I took the liberty of correcting my right hon. friend, because, as a matter of fact, the tea-growing industry of Natal is one of which very great hopes are entertained, and one to which its Government attaches great importance. Now I might remind the House that the principles embodied in the resolutions of the Ottawa Conference were urged with still greater emphasis at a conference of the Colonial Premiers held in this country during the Jubilee celebrations in 1897. The Colonial Premiers in conference in June, 1897, passed the following resolution—
    "That in the hope of improving the trade relations between the Mother Country and the Colonies, the Premiers present undertake to confer with their colleagues with the view of seeing whether such a result can be properly secured by a preference given by the Colonies to the products of the United Kingdom."
    Notwithstanding my disclaimer in connection with direct taxation I might remind the House that the colonies have in some instances given effect to this resolution. One is the Government of Canada, the head of which within a few days of the passing of the resolution was personally decorated with the gold medal of the Cobden Club; this recently decorated gold medallist, who was a party
    * See page 387 of this volume
    1466
    to this resolution, who I believe in fact took the chair at the meeting at which that resolution was unanimously passed, has given effect to that resolution, the Finance Minister of Canada having this very year introduced a Budget under the provisions of which products of the United Kingdom, and of such colonies as conform to the resolution, were to be admitted not only at an advantage of 25 per cent. less than foreign goods, which advantage was accorded two years ago amidst lively demonstrations of patriotic feeling amongst all parties in Canada, but are from the present time to be admitted at an advantage of 33⅓ per cent. For every two dollars paid on imported British goods three dollars would be paid on foreign. That is the Budget of the gold medallist of the Cobden Club, and I am bound to say from an Imperial standpoint that it is a very great improvement on the Budget of my right hon. friend, who might, I think, with advantage go to the shrine of the Cobden Club, and if he follows this example need not despair of being decorated with the gold medal. This is a question which has made enormous strides throughout the Empire during the last few years. When it was first brought forward in the Canadian Legislature it was a party matter: the Liberal party of that day did not identify themselves with it. What has happened since? All parties are so enthusiastic in its favour that when the recent Budget was brought in members of all parties rose in their places and joined in the National Anthem. Moreover, the House must bear in mind that Canada is by no means alone in this patriotic financial action, as the principle in question was recognised by all the Premiers of the colonies assembled in London three years ago. During the same time the Government of this country have not been altogether inactive on the question, and I should be doing them a wrong if I did not remind the House that the Government have abolished the treaties with Germany and Belgium which precluded our entering into these reciprocal relations with our colonies. The Government has removed the shackles from our hands, and we are free to move, and my right hon. friend would find the whole of the Empire at his back if he were to make a step in this direction. It was unfortunately, as we know, not so long

    1467
    ago the fashion to treat the colonies as if they were no concern of ours; we went our way and left them to go theirs, and if those ways led to different courses it did not matter. That is not the view held now. When even gold medallists of the Cobden Club come forward and identify themselves with this movement what ground can my right hon. friend have for holding aloof from it? It may be said that the exceptional circumstances of this year are not favourable to embarking in any departure from our financial system, but I cannot recognise that. I believe it would be well received throughout the Empire, and I hope further time will not be allowed to go by without some step being taken in regard to it. If further time is allowed to go by great disappointment will be raised in the colonies, and great temptation offered by other communities who are notoriously desirous to enter into fiscal relations with portions of the colonial Empire, to the prejudice of the mother country. I hope that this niggling and peddling system of finance, without any reference to the promotion of trade between this country and its colonies, or the growth of food in this country, will be abolished in future. The present Budget is one without grasp; the right hon. Gentleman has put burdens on the backs of the people, and is raising money in the old way without any regard to national opinion, and I hope that we have seen the last of these peddling Budgets.
    *MR. LOUGH: We cannot fail to recognise that we are in a most serious situation as regards the financial system of this country when such a statement as that presented to us to-night has to be made in a great hurry on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill. I am glad to see that a great many hon. Members have recognised what struck me at the commencement, that this Budget was brought in, and that great burdens were thrown on the public without due consideration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a greater under-estimate than has ever been made before. I think this is a very serious matter. One conclusion that arises from it is that last year we had a peddling and unsatisfactory Budget, disturbing trade and imposing many fresh burdens; we had a number of new taxes raising about a million, and we now find that the revenue was
    1468
    under-estimated by £6,000,000, and that all the new taxes were unnecessary. I do not think that the figures we have had placed before us to-night really rest on a sound basis, and to illustrate that I point to one matter. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that these payments of duty commenced in the month of January, and he mentioned tea particularly. I wish to call attention to one incident which occurred in that business which really accounts for a large anticipatory payment, and at the same time does not justify the Chancellor in drawing the conclusion he has drawn. There is a fashion among certain tea companies of rivalling each other in regard to the amount of the duty cheques they paid on tea. One was £85,000 because a rival trader had paid £75,000 before. These large cheques were merely anticipations, and this was done for the purpose of advertisement, although it seems to me a very foolish practice. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is, therefore, not justified in saying that the payments were made merely to anticipate the Budget. When we compare the amount paid into the Exchequer in the last week of the year ending 31st March with the week before we cannot help being struck by the fact that a very much smaller amount was paid during the last week of the year. No money was paid in from the Post Office or the Telegraph Office, and a very small sum from Customs and Excise, while £4,750,000 was paid in the week before. That makes me think that we have carried over, from the year ending 31st March, quite as large an amount of revenue that will give benefit to the next year as any of the anticipatory payments of Customs and Excise to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has alluded. If this be true, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is greatly miscalculating his revenue.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is not true.
    *MR. LOUGH: I now come to a firmer basis of fact. We have had nearly £10,000,000, one way or another, of taxation revenue more than was expected in the year just closed. I have stated on this subject before that with such a gigantic revenue the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have been much more sparing in the imposition of new taxes. I said then that the only new

    1469
    tax required was 2d. on the income tax. No one made the slightest response to my suggestion. I am strongly of the same opinion, that with such an excess revenue the Chancellor should have hesitated before imposing the new taxes he has imposed. We can now see that we ended the past year with £10,000,000 available for the war without a single new tax, and there would have been £11,000,000 probably available next year, so that without any new taxes we might have £30,000,000 in three years available for the war. What is the spirit animating the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter? The House appears to think that the taxpayer makes no sacrifice if he is not called upon to pay new taxes. This is a great fallacy. It is one of the many financial fallacies that have become common in this country. The taxpayer will in the first place have to sacrifice the relief to which he would have been entitled. The right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor alluded to the splendid relief that might have been given if £6,000,000 or £9,000,000 had been applied to the relief of taxation. The taxpayer has lost that. Everybody has to make a great sacrifice in connection with the war. There have been large subscriptions to provide for the dependents of those who have been killed or wounded in the war. There has been a sacrifice of money in the country in the withdrawal of breadwinners who have fought the battles. There is scarcely a family in the land that has not made a sacrifice, and in such a year it would have been a far more excellent thing to have avoided an increase of taxation rather than add to the many burdens to which I have alluded. Practically every trade in the country from which revenue is raised has been disturbed by this Budget. The Chancellor has promised to take off these taxes as soon as he can. There is a great disturbance to trade in the way of taking off taxes—perhaps it is nearly as great as in putting them on. These important industries should, I think, receive more attention from the right hon. Gentleman than they have hitherto done. I desire to make a protest against the ready way in which the Chancellor has put heavy burdens on the country, when I think they might to a large extent have been avoided. I desire also to allude to the protest made by many of my hon. friends from Ireland.
    1470
    In regard to Ireland I think the protest made against everyone of these taxes forms one of the most extraordinary incidents in the finance of this country. Nine-tenths of the hon. Members from Ireland opposed the imposition of any one of these taxes, and I think there is a great deal to be said for the contention that they are unnecessary. They protested, on grounds which seemed to them very good, against the imposition of these burdens. No British Member paid the least attention to the Irish Members. It is sometimes said that taxation without representation is a great evil; but there is a greater evil than that—and that is the paying no attention to the constitutional complaint and protest of people who appear to enjoy constitutional and representative rights. All the hon. Members devoted their attention to was their own country, and their voice was not heard in regard to it. That is a very serious situation. I would like to put this question: what do you think that, within the limits of the Constitution, Irishmen should do next? They practically represent the whole country unanimously, and no attention has been paid to them. I desire simply, for my own part, to protest in conclusion, as I did in the beginning, against this Budget. I think a great deal more money is to be raised than is necessary. It has caused a great disturbance of the commerce of this country, and I think it will prove very oppressive to many who have quite sufficient burdens to bear.
    *MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I rise to ask if the Government will consider the important question of the graduation of the income tax. I made a similar appeal some three years ago to the Chancellor, and it received a favourable response. The Chancellor of the Exchequer extended the principle of graduation by exemption in a manner that gave satisfaction, I believe, to both sides of the House as far as it went. But now that the income tax has been raised to 1s. in the £ the question has become more urgent than before. I have from time to time received a considerable number of letters on the subject from people all over the country who are interested in it. It has been stated over and over again by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and I make the same complaint, that the larger

    1471
    incomes are not taxed in proportion to their ability to bear taxation. I admit that considerable steps in that direction have been taken within the last few years, but the disproportion still remains, and it is that disproportion which it is the duty of the Government to remove or minimise as far as possible. An income tax of 1s. in the £ bears very hardly indeed upon persons with small incomes. I make that statement taking into account the deductions now allowed in respect of them. But there is a further question which affects the bulk of the nation. If a careful inquiry were made into the amount which a man receiving wages of £1 a week has to pay in taxation, and if what he has to pay were compared, let us say, with what is paid by persons receiving salaries of £100, £200, £300, and £500 a year, it would be found that the working man in proportion to the salary he receives, pays taxation enormously in excess of that which is paid by persons in a better financial position than himself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has done a little to remedy these inequalities of taxation, and I am grateful to him for
    what little he has done, but there is still a vast field for the exercise of his reforming talent in that direction. I recognise that everything cannot be done at once in this regard, but I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, as I appealed to him on a former occasion, to consider whether, in the event of his being in the position in which he now finds himself twelve months hence, he will not propose to the House of Commons a very different system of taxation indeed from that which now prevails in regard to its incidence upon different classes of the community. I would ask him to distribute the burden more equitably. I agree entirely with the principle that every class in the community ought to bear its full and equal share of taxation. All that I ask is that its incidence should be proportionate to the means of the taxpayer, and in making this appeal I believe I have, although I only speak as an individual, behind me a large body of opinion and sentiment.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 103; Noes, 16. (Division List No. 99.)

    AYES.

    Arrol, Sir William

    Finch, George H.

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

    Baker, Sir John

    Fisher, William Hayes

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Foster Colonel (Lancaster)

    Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Purvis, Robert

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

    Garfit, William

    Pym, C. Guy

    Bethell, Commander

    Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond.

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

    Bond, Edward

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

    Gordon, Hon John Edward

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Brodrick, Rt Hn. St. John

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Caldwell, James

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

    Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

    Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Hazell, Walter

    Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Heath, James

    Steadman, William Charles

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Helder, Augustus

    Strauss, Arthur

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Houston, R. P.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Colville, John

    Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Cooke, C W Radcliffe (Hereford)

    Kimber, Henry

    Ure, Alexander

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Knowles, Lees

    Webster, Sir Richard E.

    Curzon, Viscount

    Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn

    Weir, James Galloway

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

    Whiteley, George (Stockport)

    Dewar, Arthur

    Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

    Williams, Joseph Powell- (Birm

    Doughty, George

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Wyndham, George

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

    M'Killop, James

    Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Faber, George Denison

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Molloy, Bernard Charles

    Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Doogan, P. C.

    O'Malley, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Kilbride Denis

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Captain Donelan and Mr. James O'Connor.

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    M'Dermott, Patrick

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Bill read a second time and committed to a Select Committee of five Members, three to be nominated by the House, and two by the Committee of Selection.

    POLICE RESERVISTS (ALLOWANCES) BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.

    NAVAL RESERVE (MOBILISATION) BILL.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [2nd April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    *MR. CALDWELLobjected to the practice of the Government moving important Bills after midnight, or as on a previous occasion with this Bill, within a few minutes of that hour, without offering any explanation or affording any opportunity for discussion Under the system of party Government, the duty of criticism constitutionally devolved on the Opposition, not in their own party interest, but in the interests of the country, so that no legislation should be passed which had not been well considered and carefully criticised. The Bill had reference to the calling out into actual service of the volunteer forces of the Naval Reserve. By the Act of 1859, the number of such forces is not to exceed 30,000, whilst the number actually authorised by Parliament for the year now current is 27,700, being an increase of only fifty over the past year, notwithstanding that the number of officers and men of the Fleet have been increased this year by 3,499, and now stands at 82,821. They were thus dealing not only with a large body of men, but with a body of men which had not yet attained the maximum of forty-one years ago, which was not increasing proportionately to the increase of the Fleet, and which was a force which should be strictly reserved for being called into actual service only at a time of great emergency or national danger.
    1474
    The Bill had nothing to do with the annual drill and training, which were left entirely, as at present, to the Admiralty. The calling out of the Naval Reserve Volunteers to actual service meant a considerable sacrifice to the men. It was a great loss to wives and families, and, in many cases, the loss of permanent situations. The power ought not, therefore, to be lightly exercised. By Section 4 of the Act of 1859, the sole power and prerogative of calling out the Naval Reserve Volunteers is vested in Her Majesty, which, of course, means the Cabinet as a whole. Her Majesty may call out as many or such part of them as she may deem necessary. But before even Her Majesty may call them out, the occasion must first be communicated to Parliament if Parliament be sitting, or be declared in Council and notified by Proclamation if Parliament be not sitting or in being. Once the Volunteers are so called out, the Act of 1859 devolves upon the Lord High Admiral the duty of making all the necessary arrangements for collecting the men and utilising their services. The important point to observe is that it is Her Majesty who fixes the number which, in her opinion, is necessary to be called out for the particular occasion, the Admiralty having no discretion but being bound to call out the number so fixed. If it should be necessary to call out more Volunteers, the same form has to be gone through, the prerogative of calling out and the duty and responsibility of fixing the number of the additional men to be called out resting with Her Majesty. Nor is there any reason why the solemnity, publicity, and responsibility of calling out the additional number should not be observed. Indeed, it was the more necessary in the case of the additional number, as, obviously, the crisis must have become more acute, whilst the country will be drawing more largely on what is a force reserved for a time of national danger or great emergency. Nor is there anything in the slightest degree cumbrous in the

    1475
    calling out the additional number required. If Parliament is sitting, Parliament has to be acquainted with the fact, an operation not only extremely simple in itself, and involving no unnecessary delay, but a most proper thing to do. If Parliament is not sitting, then the additional number of men are declared by an Order in Council, very easily obtained, no matter where Her Majesty may be, and is made public by Proclamation. In fact, so far as publicity and notice to the men are concerned, the Proclamation would appear in the press all over the country the next morning, before any call or summons to the service by the Admiralty could possibly reach them. The present Act had been in operation for forty-one years, and up to the present no difficulty had been felt, nor had any complaint been made with the existing law. The change proposed by the Bill would seem to have suggested itself owing to the fact that under the Act of 1882 calling out the Army Reserves, Her Majesty has power by the Proclamation to order a Secretary of State—
    "From time to time to give, and when given to revoke or vary such directions as may seem necessary or proper for calling out the forces or force mentioned in the Proclamation, or all or any of the men belonging thereto."
    Finding this power of delegation in the case of the Army, the Admiralty evidently discover for the first time that they require this power in the case of the Navy, and that it is impossible longer to get on without it, although no difficulty has been known or felt during the last forty-one years. The Admiralty wish given to them the powers which are given to the War Department; but are the Admiralty willing to have the restrictions placed upon the calling out of the Naval Reserve Volunteers which are imposed in the case of the Army Reserves? Therein lies the difference between the two cases, and accounts for the difference in powers. As he had pointed out, Her Majesty can call out the Naval Reserve Volunteers "on such occasions as she deems fit." On the other hand, by Section 12 of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, Her Majesty can only call out the Army Reserves "in case of imminent national danger or of great emergency," and the occasion must not only first be communicated to Parliament if Parliament be sitting, or declared in Council and notified by Proclamation
    1476
    if Parliament be not sitting, but by Section 13—
    "Whenever Her Majesty orders the Army Reserve and Militia Reserve, or either of them, to be called out on permanent service, if Parliament be then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within ten days, a Proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of Parliament within ten days, and Parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by such Proclamation, and shall continue to sit and act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day."
    Obviously there is a great difference between the delegation to a Secretary of State to call out all or any of the Army Reserves called out by Royal Proclamation in a time "of imminent national danger or of great emergency," and when, if Parliament be not then sitting, Parliament must be called together within ten days, and the necessity for any such delegation in the case of the Naval Reserve Volunteers whom Her Majesty may call out, to whatever extent she pleases, "on such occasions as she deems fit," without being limited to times "of imminent national danger or great emergency," and without being under any obligation to call Parliament together.
    Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Mr. STEADMAN, Tower Hamlets, Stepney). House counted, and forty Members being found present,
    *MR. CALDWELL (continuing)said it would be absurd to have to call Parliament together every time that it might be found necessary to call out any additional number of men. Delegation as regards numbers, whilst thus appropriate in the case of the Army Reserves is not appropriate to the case of the Navy Reserves, not fenced with the same restrictions, and under no necessity to call Parliament together. Parliament has wisely imposed upon Her Majesty the prerogative, duty, and responsibility, not only of calling out the Naval Reserve Volunteers, but of fixing the number which should be called out from time to time, a new proclamation being required every time an additional number of men are called out. The calling out of any additional number by Her Majesty, however, is encumbered with no unnecessary formalities, and produces no delay, whilst it is but right and proper, wherever an addi-

    1477
    tional number is called out, that the fact should be intimated to Parliament and to the country by Royal Proclamation, and not left to be carried into effect by any secret orders from the Admiralty. At present no more than the number which, in the opinion of Her Majesty, is actually required can be called out, and the Admiralty has no discretion but to call them out. The Bill, however, would enable Her Majesty to call out the whole of the Naval Reserve Volunteers, or any large portion of them, even although the occasion might not require a call out of more than 5,000 or 1,000 men. It would always be explained that, although a larger number were nominally called out than might be deemed necessary at the time, yet it was not intended actually to call out the full number, but only a very restricted number, which the Admiralty had power to do. What he feared might be done in practice was that the whole Naval Reserve Volunteers might be called out in the Royal proclamation, even although a small number only were considered necessary, and that once such a proclamation had been issued, the Admiralty would thereafter have unlimited power from time to time to call out additional numbers as they might think fit without acquainting Parliament or the country, thus depleting that part of the naval defence of the country which was intended to be used only in a time of imminent national danger or of great emergency. He protested against giving such a power to a mere Department of the State. Circumstances of late years had shown that we ought not to give unlimited power to the Admiralty by, first of all, getting an order from the Queen to call out the Reserve forces, and then allowing the Admiralty to call out as many as they please, because the Fleet might at any time be used without the knowledge of Parliament for many purposes, and sometimes for making a demonstration. An Emperor might send a telegram, and then the fleet might be mobilised and the Volunteers called out; something might take place in China, and all the Admiralty would have to do would be to get a proclamation from the Queen, and then they would have the whole thing in their hands. It was in the interests both of the Reserves and the country that a chock should be kept upon the Admiralty, and that is why he objected to this Bill and insisted upon
    1478
    keeping the power where it was. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
    MR. COLVILLE: I beg leave to second my hon. friend's proposal.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): This Bill is brought forward in order to enable the Admiralty to call out such a number as they may require. The object of the Bill is precisely to prevent that which the hon. Gentleman supposes will be its result. This Bill is simply to give to the Admiralty the same power as is already possessed by the War Office in regard to the calling out of the Army Reserve. It is simply this, that after the Queen with all the responsibility provided by section 4 of the Act of 1859—not one jot of which responsibility will be removed by this Act—has directed the Naval Volunteers to be called out, the Admiralty may give directions as to the number to be called out, so that it will not be necessary to bring all the Volunteers away from their work, and send them back again when they are not all required. I can assure the hon. Member that the Act of 1859 will not be abrogated by anything contained in the Bill before the House but it will apply in exactly the same way as before, the only difference being that the Admiralty will have discretion as to whether they will call out 10,000 or 15,000 men.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am indebted to my hon. friend the Member for Mid Lanark for the industry and acumen he has brought to bear on the elucidation of this Bill. It appears to me that two points arise in connection with it; firstly, the intention of the Bill; and secondly, whether the intention is expressed in the language of

    1479
    the Bill. The intention of the Bill as explained by the Attorney General corresponds very much with what was laid down by my hon. friend. The law according to the Act of 1859 is that the Queen after signifying her intention by message to Parliament or by proclamation may call into active service the whole or any portion of the Royal Naval Volunteers called in the Estimates the Naval Reserve. The Queen having called out the whole or any part of these Volunteers the Admiralty is then authorised by the Act of 1859 to call them into active service. What is intended now, I understand, is that instead of the present system the Admiralty are to be empowered within, I assume, the limits of the Queen's proclamation or message to Parliament to call into active service such portion of the Naval Volunteers as may seem to them to be required, and at a later period may call, always within the limits of the I proclamation or message, a further portion if required. So that instead of there being only one order and one proclamation declaring the number to be called into active service, there will be a governing order, which naturally will take the largest margin possible. In other words, instead of calling out 20,000 men power may be taken to call out the whole of the Reserve, and then the Admiralty can call out 10,000 to-day and 5,000 or 10,000 six months later. That is the system now proposed instead of the system established by the Act of 1859, which has remained unchanged and uncriticised all these years. What is the reason for this change? We on this side are supposed to be a party favourable to legislative change, but on this occasion we are opposed to a legislative change for which I am bound to say the Attorney General has not given any adequate reason. Perhaps it was only his duty to describe the nature of the change, but I cannot myself discover why this change should be brought about, and my hon. friend has suggested many reasons against it. There is one further point not mentioned by my hon. friend which occurs to me. Assuming that I am correct in describing this Bill as one to give power to the Crown to make a governing proclamation which the Admiralty may administer in detail by instalments, I would ask the House to consider that we are not dealing
    1480
    with the same class of men as the Army Reserve. The Naval Reserve is composed of seafaring men, and we are by this Bill putting on them a burden which they may not have to bear, because their services may not be required. Under the present system 10,000 men are called out by proclamation, and the Admiralty proceeds to call them out. The remaining men are under no obligation except that contained in the Act of Parliament. They are under contingent liability if you like; but under the system now proposed the men will be under special notice, which must necessarily affect the conditions of their employment. That appears to me to be a practical objection outweighing any good I can see in the proposal. Perhaps the First Lord of the Admiralty will be able to tell the House the practical reasons for this proposal. I can conceive one good reason, namely, that it is just as well to have a margin, that the number of men wanted is not actually known, and that, although only 5,000 may be wanted, it is just as well to have power to call out a greater number. That would appear to be the main reason for this change, but I do not think it overweighs the considerations against it. Subject to anything that the First Lord of the Admiralty may say, I should be inclined to agree with my hon. friend in offering opposition to this Bill; but looking at the Bill, I am obliged to say that I am not clear that it affects any alteration in the law whatever. It is a very curious Bill, and there are many things in it which will have to be looked after in Committee. The phrase "called out" appears to me to be new in a Bill, but I will not detain the House on that question now. If we compare the Bill as it is with the Act as it stands, it is a little difficult to see that any important alteration of the law is made at all. The Act of 1859 says that the Queen may by proclamation call out all or any of the Naval Reserves, and a subsequent section orders the Admiralty to call them out. The Bill simply says that when the Queen has declared that all or any of the Naval Volunteers shall be called out for active service, then Her Majesty may authorise the Admiralty to call all or any as may be required. Instead of the Queen ordering all or any of the Naval Volunteers to be called, and the Admiralty as a mere matter of machinery calling them out, the Bill provides that the Admiralty

    1481
    may give directions as to the calling out of the men, always within the limits of the proclamation. That appears to me to be a perfectly fair and proper interpretation of the Bill. The Attorney General's explanation was characterised by his usual clearness and candour, but it does not lie with him to say why the change is proposed, and I am sure the House will be glad to hear the reasons for it.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I shall be very glad to give the House the reasons why this Bill is introduced, and as I will prove to the House, the object of the Bill is the very opposite to that suggested. It is for the convenience quite as much of the Royal Naval Reserve as of the Admiralty. Suppose that the country were in such a position that we wanted 5,000 men certain, under the existing law there is scarcely any doubt that we would call for a much larger number, because otherwise if we wanted another 5,000 men we should have to have a new proclamation and we should have to trouble Her Majesty and to have Councils at a time of national emergency, which would be very inconvenient in every way. Therefore, under the present Act a very much larger number of men than is actually wanted at a particular moment would be called for in the proclamation which Her Majesty would be advised to make. For any Government to be constantly admitting, with all the pomp and ceremony of a proclamation, that they want 5,000 men more, is not desirable at a time of national emergency. It would be far more convenient to have a larger number in the proclamation, and then to call them out as they are wanted—5,000 at a time or 3,000 at a time—sparing the men, which, under the present system, we are not able to do. Under the present system it has, indeed, already happened in one case in the Army—in the Army Reserve Department—that when there was a possibility of a certain number of men being wanted, the men were called up and put under immediate liability, and then, as they were not wanted they were sent home again. It is precisely to avoid that inconvenience that we have introduced this Bill. It is that we may be able to call the men up as they are wanted, and not according to the
    1482
    necessities of a proclamation, which cannot be final. I think the House will see that the constant issuing of proclamations is very undesirable, and that the liability put on the men by these constant proclamations would be as great and greater than the liability under this measure. If I were a Naval Reserve man I am quite certain I should prefer this Bill—I will not say its theoretical action, but its certain application in practice. I can assure the House that that is the only object of the Bill. It may be asked, the old system having gone so long, why change it now? Because we have been looking most carefully into our system of mobilisation, and we have found that more men are called out under proclamation than are wanted at the moment, and we want to avoid that. We do not want to avoid any communications with Parliament, because Parliament will be notified by the usual methods. We are anxious not to be obliged to call out a greater number of men than is wanted at the moment, thereby causing unnecessary inconvenience to the men themselves. Therefore, although theoretically there may be something in the argument put with great ability by hon. and learned Members opposite, in fact I can assure the House that the Bill will be better than the old Act. With reference to the wording of the Bill, it is rather a matter for lawyers to decide, but the Attorney General assures me that the language is perfectly correct, but if it is not correct it will be altered. I hope the House will not refuse to pass this perfectly innocent measure, both for the convenience of the Royal Naval Reserve and for the easier administration of our Reserves in time of emergency.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I look with great jealousy on any Bill connected with the Royal Naval Reserve, because I have always taken a special interest in that body; but having looked at this Bill I am bound to say that there is no real ground for the objections advanced on the other side of the House. Let the House look at the present situation. Section 4 of the Act of 1859 states that it shall be lawful for Her Majesty to call into active service so many of the Naval Volunteers as Her Majesty may deem necessary. Under the Act there is

    1483
    power to call out all or any of the Royal Naval Reserve, and, the "all or any" having been called out, it then rests with the Admiralty to carry out Her Majesty's instructions. This Bill does not substitute any other authority for that in the Act. It simply provides that when Her Majesty has done the act contemplated by the section power is given to the Admiralty, which, however, does not come into existence until what is contemplated by Section 4 of the Act of 1859 has been actually effected. When that act has been done by Her Majesty, and when the order has been communicated to Parliament, if Parliament is sitting, then this Bill will come into operation. Anything which has to be done now will not be unnecessary after the Bill passes. All that has to be done now will have to be done in the future, and the only effect of the Bill will be that instead of making it absolutely necessary for the Admiralty to call out the exact number of men named in the proclamation, the Admiralty will have power to call out the men in such numbers as may be convenient to the Admiralty and to the men. Is that unreasonable? It must stand to reason that the Admiralty will not call out more men than are required, because the First Lord of the Admiralty has a wholesome dread of the hon. Gentleman opposite and his Scotch colleagues, and is not likely to propose higher estimates than are required. It may be desirable to call out 5,000 men now, 5,000 more in three months, and another 5,000 in six months. How much better that would be than calling out the whole 15,000 at once, thereby preventing a larger number of men from shipping for distant voyages. Is it unreasonable to give this power to the Admiralty, which is exactly analogous to the power possessed by the Secretary of State for War? All who love the sea and wish to magnify the Navy should join together in claiming from time to time for the First Lord of the Admiralty and his Board of Naval Advisers equal powers to those given to the Secretary of State for War. That is practically what this Bill proposes. I came to the Bill with jealousy; it seemed to me in one of its aspects as though it would somewhat curtail the powers of Parliament, and as likely to inflict some disadvantage or inconvenience on the Naval Reserve men which I should strongly resist; but really having looked
    1484
    into it I see it is for the convenience of the Admiralty, and for increasing the dignity of the Admiralty by giving it power now given to the Secretary of State for War, who always considers himself superior to the First Lord of the Admiralty, whereas he is far inferior in connection with the national defence. Seeing that the Bill is for the good of the State and for the convenience both of the Admiralty and the Royal Naval Reserve, I have entirely divested myself of any suspicion I had, and I do think the House ought to pass this Bill.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I cannot agree that the Bill is quite the innocent measure it is reprepresented to be, and I can quite imagine that it may inflict great hardship on Naval Reserve men. I have an idea why this Bill is being brought forward, and I do not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Why not? I have stated the truth.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I do not deny that. I make no suggestion to the contrary. What I say is this, that the Admiralty have some considerable difficulty in getting firemen and stokers at the present time. I know they can get plenty of men who are not accustomed to stoking work on board vessels, they can get the raw material, but they have some difficulty in getting trained stokers. If this Bill is sanctioned by the House of Commons it will be possible for the Admiralty to call on the stokers alone without interfering with the able seamen's section at all. Again, there is no mention in the Bill of the matter having to be brought before Parliament, whereas the Act says that that must be done, and therefore Parliament could have something to say to it.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The hon. Gentleman is quite under a mistake. The reference to Parliament is just the same as under the Act.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I understand this Bill repeals the Act of 1859. If that is not so, I do not see why the Bill is brought forward at all, because the Admiralty have already sufficient power.

    1485
    I can see that some hardship will be inflicted on the Naval Reserve men if this Bill passes. The Naval Reserve is not divided into sections like the Army Reserve, and I should therefore like to know how a section can be called up. There will be a general proclamation issued that the Naval Reserve is to mobilise, and a large number of men, not knowing what section is to be called up, will be delayed in getting employment, because many of the men go on long voyages, for twelve or eighteen months, and they may have some difficulty in getting ships, as they may be told that their services may be required by the Admiralty. For that reason I strongly oppose the change, and as an ex-Naval Reserve man—I have served five years in the Reserve—I should resent the conditions on which I joined being altered by Parliament without being myself consulted as one of the men. I do not think any substantial reason has been given for this change, and I cannot get away from the impression that it is for the purpose of giving the Admiralty power to call up an additional supply of stokers.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the question of the supply of stokers never entered my mind, or the minds of any of my advisers, for one moment. The point is absolutely without foundation, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept my explanation that that is not the cause of the introduction of this Bill.
    *SIR JOHN COLOMB: I really cannot understand the objection which is being raised to this Bill, because it appears to me to be simply a matter of convenience. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough said it would inflict great hardship on the men, but he did not give a single scrap of evidence in support of that statement. I think the Bill will be an advantage to Naval Reserve men. The Act states that any man called out is liable for a year's service, and if the Admiralty call out more than they want many men will imagine that they are required for one year, when, as a matter of fact, they are not required at all. I see no objection whatever to the measure.
    MR. STEADMAN: I would like to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is not the fact that at the present time there is a difficulty in manning the ships of the Fleet either with seamen or stokers?
    MR. GOSCHEN: No, Sir.
    MR. MADDISON: I have tried to listen as carefully as I could to the right hon. the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I gather that the Act of 1859, and all the machinery required by the Act, is left untouched, and that as a matter of fact the only change is when you come to the question of direction by the Admiralty. This is a point that I want cleared up in my own mind. As I understood him, the First Lord of the Admiralty said that under the present Act the number of Naval Reservists which Her Majesty is advised to call out must be called out; and then the First Lord said that as a business matter you should always call out more than you actually want; you must always allow some margin. My fear is that under the present Bill there might be a tendency on the part of the Admiralty, at certain times, to call out a very much larger number of men than they actually require, as a kind of demonstration against other naval Powers.
    MR. GOSCHEN: It is just the opposite. Under the present Act the tendency would be to call out more men than we wanted. Under the new proposal the Admiralty would only call out those men whom we really want. That is our object.
    MR. MADDISON: One does not like to differ from the First Lord of the Admiralty as to what he would do; but I still adhere to my opinion that under the present system you might call out, as a business matter, a larger number of men than you want. Seeing that the total number you require can be called out by instalments as you require them, I cannot see how the First Lord can say that the system operates in the opposite direction. I am bound to say, however, that to the Naval Reserve men it does not make much difference which system is in force.
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I agree that the new system proposed by the Bill under discussion will lead to administrative benefit in the Admiralty, and be a convenience to the men themselves. My hon. friend behind me seemed to be a little afraid that if a proclamation was issued by Her Majesty calling out the Reserve and Volunteers for active service, the Admiralty might, for some purpose with which Parliament was thoroughly acquainted, call out a small force, and then, when some totally new question or some difficulty had arisen with a foreign Power, call out a larger portion. I think if my hon. friend will look at the wording of the Naval Volunteers Act he will see that Her Majesty is to communicate the occasion of calling out to Parliament, if Parliament is sitting, or declare it in Council if Parliament is not sitting. And therefore it would not be possible to call out the remainder of the Reserves without either a declaration in Parliament or in Council.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Hear, hear!
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: There is one point which I would ask the First Lord to carefully consider, as it occurs to me there may be some force in it. After a proclamation has been issued calling out the whole of the Reserve, whereas the Admiralty only require a small portion, it may be only a small squadron, the rest of the Royal Naval Reserve having been called into actual service by proclamation might have some difficulty in obtaining employment at sea, and so of pursuing their ordinary avocation. I think that is a subject worthy of the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty, although I do not see how they would be in a worse position than they are now. Before I sit down I venture to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman contemplates further legislation this session in regard to the plans for strengthening the Reserves which he foreshadowed in his speech in the early period of the session, or whether those plans can be accomplished without further legislation.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: There is a lingering suspicion on this side of the House that this Bill dispenses with
    1488
    the notification to Parliament. I will put it directly to the Attorney General, "Does it?"
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I have already answered that question twice; but I have no objection to state for the third time that it does not.
    MR. GOSCHEN: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe, I may say that a plan in regard to strengthening the Naval Reserve is developing. It is difficult to express myself without showing what the plan is, but I may say that it may require further legislation.

    LAND CHARGES BILL [Lords].
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    *MR. CALDWELL: This Bill relates to England only, and is of a highly technical character. Although consisting of only six clauses and a schedule, it deals with and repeals, in a greater or lesser degree, no fewer than ten different Acts of Parliament. The present Bill was a great improvement on the Bills introduced by the Government in former years, thus illustrating the advantage of not rushing legislation, but of having a preliminary discussion in one session, and of framing and passing a new Bill in a subsequent session, in the light of the criticism which a former Bill may have received. Whilst the Bill of last year left the transference of the business of the registrar of judgments to be carried out by Order of the Lord Chancellor, by the present Bill, Parliament makes the transfer itself, leaving to the Lord Chancellor, by Order, to make the necessary changes. Consequently, the schedule contained the abolition of the office of registrar of judgments. A question might arise whether the new arrange-

    1489
    ments under Clause 1 do not involve an additional burden on the Exchequer, requiring a money resolution in Committee, and whether an addition to Clause 1 is hot required that the expenses are to be provided out of moneys to be annually voted by Parliament. The Bill of last year dealt also with charges on land in respect of land improvement, but the present Bill does not deal with these, the same having been dealt with in the Land Improvement Act of last session. Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the operation of a judgment or recognisance as a charge upon land. In considering the effect of this clause, it is necessary to review the law on the subject which existed prior to the passing of the Land Charges Registration and Searches Act, 1888, and as the law presently exists consequent on the changes made by that Act. Section 18 of the Judgments Act, 1838, enacts that all judgments entered, or to be hereafter entered, in Her Majesty's Supreme Courts at Westminster, shall operate as a charge upon all lands which the debtor shall at the time of entering up such judgment, or at any time afterwards, be seized, possessed, or entitled for any estate or interest at law or in equity, and the same shall be as binding as against the person against whom judgment is entered, and all persons claiming under him after such judgment, as also against the issue of his body, and all other persons whom without the consent of any other person, he might cut off or debar from any remainder of such lands. The judgment creditor is to have such and the same remedies in a Court of Equity against the lands as if the persons against whom judgment was entered had by writing agreed to charge the same with the amount of such judgment debt, and interest thereon. There are two provisoes—first, that proceedings in equity are not to be taken until the expiry of one year from the time of entering up the judgment; and, second, that the judgment is not to operate as a preference in bankruptcy unless such judgment shall have been entered up one year at least before bankruptcy. By Section 18 of the Act of 1838, decrees and orders of the Court of Equity are to have effect as charges upon land in the same way as judgments; by Section 21 of the same Act, the like effect is to be given to judgments of the Court of Common Pleas of the Counties Palatine of Lancaster
    1490
    and Durham; and by Section 2 of the Judgments Act, 1855, the like effect is conferred upon the decrees and orders of the Court of Chancery of the Counties Palatine. Judgments of the inferior Court when removed to the Supreme Court also have the like effect. The foregoing sections of the Acts of 1838 and 1855, so far as the effect has been described, were not repealed by the Land Charges Registration Act, 1888, nor are they repealed by the present Bill. Whilst judgments and decrees and orders of the Supreme Courts of Law and Equity in England, including those of the Counties Palatine, had and are still to have the effect mentioned of a charge upon land, it was provided by Section 19 of the Judgments Act, 1838, that no judgment, decree, or order was to affect real estate, otherwise than as before the Act, as against purchasers, mortgagees, or creditors, until the same had been registered. Registration is proscribed as the entering of certain particulars in a memorandum or minute which is left with the Senior Master of the Court of Common Pleas at Westminster, who enters the particulars in a book arranged in alphabetical order in name of the person whose estate is to be affected. A similar registration in a book to be kept by the Senior Master of the Court of Common Pleas was necessary under Section 8 of the Judgments Act, 1839; the Law of Property Amendment Act, 1860; the Judgments Act, 1864; and the Crown Suits, etc., Act, 1865; in order to make effectual as against bonâ fide purchasers for valuable consideration, or mortgagees or creditors, any judgment for debt in favour of the Crown and other persons, and of hereditary titles or acceptance of office from or under the Crown. To be effectual as against purchasers, mortgagees, or creditors, in the case of land situate within the Counties Palatine of Lancaster and Durham, a similar registration had to be made in a book kept by the prothonotary of each county in which the lands were situated. The fee for registration is fixed by statute at 5s., and in some cases 2s. 6d. in the case of the books kept in the Court of Common Pleas, and at 2s. 6d. in the case of each of the Courts Palatine. The effect of the Bill in sweeping away the statutory limit of the fee of registration will have to be

    1491
    considered in Committee. Meantime, it is important to observe that, in order to make judgments of the Supreme Courts effectual as charges upon land in England, it was necessary to register the same in different books or registers in the Court of Common Pleas, and in each of the Courts Palatine of Lancaster and Durham—seeing that the judgment affected not merely any lands possessed by the debtor at the time of entering up the judgment, but also any lands or interests in land which he might thereafter acquire or become possessed of. Registration was only effectual as against purchasers, mortgagees, or creditors for five years, but there might be re-registration from time to time, which had effect for five years from the date of the last re-registration. The practical effect of registration was, and at present is, that it is notice to intending purchasers, mortgagees, or creditors. So much has registration merely the effect of notice that doubts were at one time raised as to whether registration was necessary in the case where a purchaser, mortgagee, or creditor had notice. To set these doubts at rest, Section 2 of the Judgments Act, 1840, enacted that registration was necessary, "any notice of any such judgment to any such purchaser, mortgagee, or creditor notwithstanding." It is important to observe that the efficacy of judgments in operating as a charge upon land rests upon Sections 13, 18, and 21 of the Judgments Act, 1838, and upon Section 2 of the Judgments Act, 1855, and that a judgment entered up is effectual as against the debtor himself, the issue of his body and all others deriving right from him otherwise than for a valuable consideration, without any registration whatever. Registration was only necessary under the older Acts to protect a judgment creditor against purchasers. By the Land Charges Registration and Searches Act, 1888, from and after 1st January, 1889, the commencement of the Act, there is (Section 5) to be kept at the office of the Land Registry a register of writs and orders affecting lands, and there may be registered therein, in the prescribed manner, any writ or order to enforce any judgment. Registration is to cease to have effect at expiration of five years from date of registration, but may be renewed from time to time, and if renewed to have effect for five years
    1492
    from date of renewal. Registration is to have the same effect as, and to make unnecessary, registration thereof in the central office of the Supreme Court of Judicature in pursuance of any other Act. Section 6 enacts that every such writ and order in Section 5, and every delivery in execution or other proceeding shall be void as against a purchaser for value (defined in the interpretation of terms to include mortgagee or lessee, or other person, for valuable consideration), unless the writ or order is for the time being registered in pursuance of that Act, the Act of 1888. Then follows a proviso that where, at the commencement of the Act, a writ or order is registered in terms of the Judgments Act, 1864, the Act of 1888 shall not affect the operation of such writ or order until the expiry of the period for which it is so registered; and, as registration is effective for five years only, this means at the very latest 1st January, 1894. The result is that, since the latter date, all registrations of judgments, to be effectual as against purchasers for value, must be registered in the Land Registry. The Act of 1888, however, as also the previous Acts, did not interfere with the operation of judgments as a charge upon land without registration in a question with the debtor himself, the issue of his body, or those acquiring right from him without valuable consideration, as enacted under Section 13 of the Judgments Act, 1838, which the Bill does not repeal. Clause 2 of the Bill, however, would seem to take away all operation of a judgment as a charge upon land, even in a question with the debtor himself, unless and until it is registered—
    2—(1) A Judgment or Recognisance, whether obtained or entered into on behalf of the Crown or otherwise, and whether obtained or entered into before or after the commencement of this Act shall not operate as a charge on land, or on any interest on land, or on the unpaid purchase money for any land unless or until a writ or order enforcing it is registered under Section 5 of the Land Charges Registration and Searches Act, 1888.
    The clause seems absolute in its terms, and not restricted, as in the case of the Act of 1888 or the previous Acts, where registration is only made necessary in a question with purchasers for value, mortgagees, or creditors. As since 1st January, 1894, all registrations of judgments, writs, and orders in order to be effectual as against purchasers for value

    1493
    require to be registered in the Land Register, the registers kept under the Acts of 1838, 1839, 1860, 1864, and 1865 have ceased to be effectual for registratration purposes, and the Bill proposes to repeal these statutes, so far as relates to registration in these registers. The effect of this repeal will be to leave these registers with only historical interest, and not with any validity as registers. But registration in these registers may affect the validity of existing titles to land, and, in repealing the statutes it may be necessary to reserve their efficacy so far as anything done or rights may have been acquired under them in respect of registration or non-registration there-under. These old registers being public registers, and forming an important link in existing titles, it seems a strong step to close them against search without an order of the High Court, which might mean an expensive and disputed application. Besides, a man asked to credit a landowner might wish to ascertain from the public register to what extent that landowner may in previous years have been denuded of any part of his property in virtue of any judgment, so that he might determine how far to give credit. If the intending creditor had to apply for an order of the High Court intimation would doubtless have to be given to the intending debtor, which, of course, would prevent such an application being made. There seemed no reason why what was or had been a public register should be closed against the public who had not an order of the High Court, even although the register only possessed historical interest. He thought the Bill was not clear as regards registration of lis pendens. Section 7 of the Judgments Act, 1839, prescribes that purchasers are not to be affected by any lis pendens, unless such suit is duly registered in terms of that Act. Section 4 of that Act, relating to registration every five years, is imported into Section 7, but the section so imported is by the schedule to the Bill repealed, without any reservation of the clauses repealed remaining effective as regards any enactments which may continue in force. In the Statute Law Revision Acts there is such a reservation, which, however, seems only to apply to that Act, and not to repeals in statutes generally. Indeed, if there was a general declaratory Act reserving the effect of such repeal
    1494
    as regards enactments which are not repealed but still continue in force, there would seem to be no reason for annually repeating the reservation in the Statute Law Revision Acts. Section 3 of the Judgments Act, 1855, is by the schedule to the Bill repealed, except so far as it relates to lis pendens, but the schedule to the Bill repeals everything in that section except the reference to Section 7 of the Judgments Act, 1839, which, as has been pointed out, can only be read by reading in Section 4 of that Act which the schedule of the Bill repeals. He thought it would be better, instead of attempting to keep lis pendens alive under the existing Acts, rather to put a couple of clauses into the Bill defining the manner and effect of such registration, and if the Attorney General found any difficulty in framing the clauses, he (Mr. Caldwell) would be glad to give him assistance. In repealing the Sections in the Act of 1855 the schedule said "Sections four to eight." He did not know whether Section eight was meant to be included in the repeal. He rather thought it was. The schedule, however, did not include it, and if it were meant to include it the word "inclusive" would have to be added. The concluding proviso of Section 2 of the Judgments Act, 1855, has been omitted to be repealed. He thought for simplification the Middlesex Registry might now be transferred to the Land Registry. These, however, and some other points were more matter for Committee. He congratulated the Attorney General on the effort which he was making to simplify and perfect the registration of titles to and charges on land. Much still remained to be done in that direction, but it was a great step to concentrate the registration of all writs and orders creating a charge upon land under one system in one register. He had gone thus technically into the subject, because he considered it was the duty of Members of the Opposition carefully to consider and criticise a measure which, although it had nothing of a party interest about it, was nevertheless a measure which had for its object the giving of greater simplification and security to the ever increasing value of land rights in the country.
    MR. BONDasked the Attorney-General to give the House

    1495
    some explanation of Section 3 of the Bill. There was an apprehension that the changes introduced would have a prejudicial effect by making the registration of these charges different to what it was at present, and that a fresh burden of expense might be imposed.
    *MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid the Bill was of a very important character, and in order to understand the proposals it was necessary to refer to a large number of old statutes. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark had given the House a very clear explanation of an obscure and complicated measure.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): I do not think I need apologise to the House for not having spoken first upon this Bill, for the reason that it has already been twice before the House, and I thought it would be better that I should wait until my attention was called to those points on which elucidation was required. This is not at all a case of legislation by reference, but a case of repealing and simplifying the process. In the Bills of 1896 and 1898 there were provisions for the simplification of the mode of enforcing judgment against land, and it was thought better, because this is partly a Registration Bill, to leave those provisions out. We do not propose to affect the operations of judgments, we simply deal with the land charges, which include judgments. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark drew my attention to the fact that we are closing the register, and raised a question of some importance as to whether the fact of closing the register and repealing the Act under which the registration is made would have any legal effect which would prevail upon the subject of interest in the registration. We do not consider it will. With regard to the closing of the register itself and requiring an order for a search, I think, where it is for any reason desirable to give facilities for search, although the register would become in a few years obsolete, there is no reason whatever why it should not be given. The Bill carries out and improves the land charges which are already made subject to registration by the second part of the Act of 1888. The only
    1496
    effect of this Bill is to facilitate by transferring the whole matter to one office. The hon. Gentleman also pointed out that we had omitted from the operation of this Act the Middlesex Registry, and he evidently thought that that registry existed independently of the land register. That is not so. It was transferred to the land register by the Act of 1891. It is not usual where it is a question of repeal to incorporate the Acts or sections which are repealed, but if it is thought that it will be an improvement I shall be glad to put in the schedule a short résumé of the repealed sections, and show that they are no longer required when this Bill is passed. In this particular case there is no idea of keeping the Acts alive for any purpose, nor any idea of legislating by reference. Ail these sections are repealed in order to simplify the procedure. At this stage I might notice the point put by my hon. friend behind, me. There is no danger of any difference arising with regard to the point he raised. The reason why Section 3 was put into the Bill was that there are certain charges which affect the land through private and local Bills. Those have not been recognised as land charges by the present Bill, but it was thought ready these inquiries had to be made by a solicitor. The hon. Gentleman thinks it may result in extra expense. I do not think there need be any such apprehension. I think if there is any charge at all it will be of a very nominal character. Everyone will agree that where encumbrances do exist there should be a ready means of finding them out with as little expense as possible. I am quite sure from the observations that have been made that the Bill is a considerable improvement on those which have gone before it. The great object of it is to simplify, so far as we can, at once the mode of registration, the Acts under which registration takes place, and the system whereby the searches for charges should be carried out. We have brought into this Bill certain charges not previously land charges in order to make the registration as complete as possible. I shall be happy to consider any Amendment put down, and I am quite sure if we are able to get this Bill passed through the House it will be a security and protection to those who desire to purchase property.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the object of the Bill is extremely desirable. At the present time you have two or three different registers to which you have to refer in order to discover charges on the property, which makes it both difficult and expensive; but I am not certain that there is absolute confidence in the registers established a year or two ago. Solicitors have not absolute confidence in the registers as they are being worked at the present time. The legal profession is exceedingly conservative, and it may take years to establish confidence in this Act. There is no doubt that the registration of the courts does give complete satisfaction. It never creates difficulties, is worked with great care, and there is never a mistake.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I think the hon. Gentleman is confusing two registries. The Land Registry has been in existence many years.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That being so, I shall make no further observation.

  LAND REGISTRY (NEW BUILDINGS) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): I ask that this Bill be read a second time. Its object is the acquisition by compulsory purchase of property adjoining the present Land Registry Office, new buildings being necessary, the present building being entirely inadequate, inconvenient, and a constant source of difficulty and expense. It is proposed to acquire the property adjoining the present offices. I do not think the House wishes me to urge this point too strongly, because we always feel that when we have to acquire property compulsorily for the purposes of the nation, if we insist too much upon the necessities of the case, the price of the
    1498
    property goes up. The other clauses in the Bill are in exactly the same form as in all these Buildings Bills.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Akers Douglas.)
    *MR. CALDWELL: I thoroughly approve of the object the right hon. Gentleman has in view. I quite approve of what he says as to the inadvisability of laying too much stress upon the necessities of the case. This Bill will go before a Select Committee, and after it has been carefully considered by them there will be another opportunity of discussing it upon the Third Reading if it is thought necessary. It is premature, therefore, to make any remarks on the matter until it comes up in a more definite form.
    Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
    Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That three be the quorum.—(Mr. Akers Douglas.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said: The purpose of the Bill is to change the law with respect to the election of parish councils. By the existing law the election of parish councils takes place on the same day as the election of

    1499
    town councils. That is the effect of the section of the Act of 1894 which I propose to repeal. This Bill proposes that the election of parish councils should take place on a different day. That is the whole object and scope of the Bill. I will only add that it has been drafted and brought before me at the instance of the Association of Burgh Officials of Scotland.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
    *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): It is my fate really to preserve the legislation of the late Government, of which the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken was a member. This, as the House will remember, was a debated question in the Committee upstairs on the Bill of 1894, and it was really one of the provisions—the provision for having both classes of elections on the same day—which Sir George Trevelyan, who had charge of the Bill, thought was a great feather in his cap. The matter was debated, and a division taken upon it, and the overwhelming sense at that time was that the provision was a good one. Subsequently we at the Scotch Office were bombarded with applications to undo the legislation of my right hon. friend and to make some arrangement whereby the elections should take place on separate days. All sorts of disasters were prophesied if we allowed the matter to stand as it was, and allowed the elections on the same day. The view the Government took was that it would not be fair to try to undo what our predecessors had done without good reason, and that it should be put off to give the arrangement a trial. Accordingly we resisted these demands. The term of three years ran out, and now there has been an actual election. What was the result? The result was that all those disasters that were prophesied did not come to pass. As a matter of fact the arrangements made in the original Bill were found to work very satisfactorily. That being the case, I really cannot feel it consistent with the duty of the Govern-
    1500
    ment to give a Second Reading to the Bill, because although the hon. Member is correct in saying that it represents the feeling of certain burghs, I am not prepared to assent to the proposition that it represents the feeling of most of the burgh officials. I do not think it represents the feeling of most of the burghs, and I should never think it right to overturn the legislation of another Government unless there was some very good reason for it. The truth is that the experiment has been found to work very satisfactorily, and therefore I am not prepared to agree to the Second Reading of the Bill.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I was about to ask one or two questions about the Bill, but the speech of the Lord Advocate has to some extent answered them. In England we have got nothing like the uniformity of elections on one day which many people desire. When you have attained that to some extent in Scotland, this Bill would seem to be a somewhat retrograde stop, and going back from the ideal previously placed before the Committee upstairs which we sought to attain. On the other hand, there may be a certain amount of inconvenience felt in certain burghs. My hon. friend, in placing the Bill before the House, says there is a desire to have a change, and not to have these elections running at the same time as other elections. I think the House will be guided by the amount of evidence my hon. friend and others are able to bring forward on this subject. If there is a large amount of evidence in favour of the change, I should not be on academic grounds inclined to oppose it, but if there is not that evidence, I think the position taken up by the Lord Advocate is the position one would feel bound to sustain.
    Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present—
    The House was adjourned at a quarter after Eleven of the clock, till Monday next.