HC Deb 19 February 1900 vol 79 cc447-93

"That a Supplementary sum, not

exceeding £1:5,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for additional expenditure, in consequence of the war in South

Africa, in respect of the following Army services, viz:—

Vote 1. Pay, & c., of the Army 2,400,000
Vote 2. Medical Establishments: Pay, & c. 70,000
Vote 3. Militia: Pay, & c. 250,000
Vote 4. Yeomanry Cavalry Pay and Allowances 5,000
Vote 5. Volunteer Corps: Pay and Allowances 15,000
Vote 6. Transport and Remounts 5,000,000
Vote 7. Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies 3,000,000
Vole 8. Clothing Establishments and services 500,000
Vote 9. Warlike and other Stores 1,600,000
Vote 10. Works, & c.: Cost (including Staff for Engineer Services) 150,000
Vote 13. War Office Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges 10,000
Total £13,000,000."

Resolution road a second time.


in moving the reduction of the Vote by £1:2,000,000, said he would not admit, having regard to the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, that the House was justified in giving the Government the odd million, but he only proposed to reduce the Vote by £1:2,000,000. It was because of the bravery, kindness, and courtesy of the Boers, as shown by the correspondence of General Joubert to Sir George White on the occasion of the death of the lamented soldier, General Symons, that the Irish Members protested against the war, and under the circumstances it was hard for the Irish not to sympathise with then). Under the Convention of 1884 they were given their freedom, and Great Britain through her Ministers admitted that she had no right to interfere with the internal affairs of the country. The franchise was an internal matter, but, even if it was not, before the war broke out an offer was made to Great Britain to reduce it from fourteen to five years, which was the same term which this country extended to aliens who desired to become citizens. But in Ireland the case was different: this country had for years and years denied the people the franchise, and they could not forget that Ireland once had a parliament and freedom like the Transvaal. That freedom was taken from them, and though they were not strong enough to regain their independence, they could not but feel for a brave people whose only crime was that they were fighting in defence of their country and their liberty. If the franchise was the grievance which had brought about the war, why was it not made a grievance by Germany and America, both of whom had many subjects in the Transvaal? They did not intervene to redress that grievance, for the simple reason that they had not the same ambition to possess the gold mines, which underlay the action of Great Britain. What would be the position of this country when the war was over, even supposing the Orange Free State and the Transvaal were annexed? How were we going to recoup ourselves for the expense? Were the people of those countries to be taxed for the war, and the tax collected by keeping an army there twice as large as it had been necessary to keep in Ireland since she had been robbed of her parliament? Ireland had been subservient to this country because she could see no way out of her difficulty. All her brawn and muscle had been driven from the land, but every one who had been compelled to seek a home abroad had multiplied, and for every ten they could now count in foreign lands—


The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to go into the history of Ireland to illustrate the state of South Africa.


only desired to illustrate the circumstances which compelled Irish Members to vote against the policy of the Government in the prosecution of the war. Although Ireland had been subservient to this country the Boers would not be. Men there had left their all in order to defend their country, and in many cases the women had gone to the front as well as the men, and there was no such splendid patriotism as that which prompted the women of a country to fight for its freedom beside their husbands and their sons. It was said that the war was entered into in order to obtain freedom, justice, and fair play. If that was so, there was an appendage to the British Empire much more nearly situated to Great Britain than was the Transvaal, which might well be given civil rights and civil liberty—


I must remind the hon. Member that there is a Standing Order against irrelevancy and tedious repetition.


My point, Sir, is that if this war is undertaken with the view of establishing equal justice and civil rights, and the platform of the Government is equal rights and civil liberty, that policy might be extended to portions of the Empire more nearly situated to this country—


And that is exactly what I pointed out was irrelevant.


I do not desire to pursue a controversial subject. I will merely point out that there are many hardships from which Ireland suffers which the Government refuse to redress, and therefore hon. Members who represent Ireland will protest by their voices and their votes against the sum asked for by the motion before the House being granted to the Government. The great danger to the British Empire is that it is like a long rope on which a continued strain will be kept. A breakdown will come at some time or another. As soon as those two Republics come under British rule, where arc you going to get compensation? If it be true that the inhabitants of the Free State and the Transvaal burghers have sold their rights in the mines to capitalists in France, Germany, and Russia, I ask the Government what position will they find themselves in when the war is over. Up to now no foreign Power has had any direct interest in those Republics. If Continental capital is invested there, is it not common-sense to believe that the moment you are victorious representations will be made by the ambassadors of France, Germany, and Russia to protect the interests of their capitalists who have invested in those countries? Then how will the Government get compensation for the war? I have only one opinion of the war—that it is unnecessary and unjust, that it is an inhuman war against liberty, and that it is a war which is carried on not to give equal liberty or civil rights to the inhabitants of the Transvaal, but to take away their independence, for the sake of capturing the gold there is in the country.


I rise to second the reduction. On this question of the war we have been absolutely straight; we have been against the war all the time, and will remain so. We in Ireland know what will be the results of the policy you are pursuing in the Transvaal. The policy you are now pursuing in the Transvaal is the policy you pursued in Ireland, and the same results will be achieved. I am afraid the policy of Her Majesty's Government will be to create another Ireland in South Africa. The purport of this Vote is to give £13,000,000 to the War Office to expend on men, armaments, and munitions of war. I ask hon. Gentlemen, do they think the War Office as it is managed at present is a Department to which they can safely entrust the expenditure of these millions of money? Are even hon. Members on the opposite side of the House satisfied the War Office has done everything it should do to prosecute the war? I join with the hon. Member who I has just spoken in thinking that the War Office is absolutely incompetent, and, instead of giving them £13,000,000, £1,000,000 is enough, and under the circumstances too much. The entire action of the "War Office in connection; with the arming of the troops who are under the British flag has been absolutely: wrong from beginning to end. Take the case of the different weapons put into the hands of the soldiers. It has been left for the Imperial Yeomanry to find out that the rifles were sighted absolutely wrong. Why did not the members of the War Office, who spend their time mostly in playing golf, polo, or cricket, discover this? Some official in the War Office must be responsible for this; and I hope the Under Secretary of State for War will tell us who was the official who had charge of the department in which the rifles were sighted, and who allowed the troops to lie sent to the front; with rifles which would not hit a haystack accurately at 700 yards. After all, we Irish Members and our constituents have to pay more than our share of this money, and we expect when you put rifles into the hands of Irish soldiers and send them out to fight your battles you will at least give them good tools. I pass from that to the question of the artillery. I have been reading the despatches of the generals, and I find it stated by Sir George White and General Yule that in the battles referred to by the correspondents your I artillery, on which you relied to wipe out i the Boers, has been outranged and out- classed by that of your enemy. This is a very serious question, and one which members of the Opposition have not raised properly. You claim to be the greatest manufacturing nation of the world, and yet when you are tested by these pastoral people, these peasants and farmers whom you describe as ignorant and lazy, you find that they have superior guns. Not only is your military prestige gone, but if your prestige as a manufacturing people is to rest on this question of good Artillery, your manufacturing prestige is gone also. You have been nearly five months at war, and the only thing you have been able to do is to relieve a city in your own territory. That is paraded as a great victory. Reference has been made by the war correspondents to one particular gun. They have referred to the quick-firing gun that fires one pound shells, the Maxim-Vickers gun. This gun has shaken the nerves of your troops, and has had a very material effect in preventing the British advance. Up to the present there has been nothing like this description of gun on the British side. It has been stated in the papers that the patents of that gun were offered to the War Office in 1892, and that they would not buy them. The result was that they were bought by President Kruger and his friends, who have shown more intelligence and far-sightedness than the British authorities. We are entitled to have a straight answer from the Under Secretary of State for War why the patents of that gun were rejected in 1892. I am anxious to know whether it was not a question of secret commission or secret royalties which led to the rejection of that gun by the War Office. We also find that you are out-classed in the matter of the larger guns, the Creusot guns. I have seen it stated that this, has not been so much a struggle between Briton and Boer as between British and French artillery. The Boers have secured the best French artillery, guns which they can move about and which have a range of 9,000 yards. From my reading of these technical matters, the great difficulty in connection with long-range guns is the question of the carriage. I believe the French workmen at the Creusot works, through their ingenuity, have discovered various mechanical means by which they can mount a gun on a light carriage that will carry an extra range. It has been stated in the Daily Mail that when the war broke out the Boer Government had an order at the Creusot works for 80 guns. The impression seemed to have got abroad that you would get hold of Delagoa Bay, and that these guns could not be sent to the Transvaal. It was stated that when the war broke out there were 80 of these guns for sale at the Creusot works, and that some private gentleman offered to buy them, but that the officials of the War Office—whether influenced by secret royalties or not, I do not know—negatived this, and did not allow it to take place. The Financial Secretary said there was no foundation for the statement of the Daily Mail, and I suppose I may take that as an absolute denial. I find further that it is stated in the papers that your Government has been getting Italians to buy Creusot guns for you, and that these guns will be used in the war. I think it would be a breach of the laws of neutrality to utilise another Government to purchase Creusot guns, and then use them against the Transvaal. It is very important that we should get some information on that point. Now I come to the question of the cordite powder which you are using in your rifles. Cordite is a recent invention. I believe smokeless powder first came out on the Continent, and that it was not until two years after it came into use in the Continental armies that the British War Office discovered there was such a thing. When the British War Office thought they would go in for smokeless powder, I believe they issued advertisements to and invited tenders from inventors. In reply to that advertisement seventeen or eighteen inventors sent in specifications for a smokeless powder. There was a committee of three experts appointed to examine these different specifications. These experts were Sir Frederick Abel, Professor Dewar, and Professor Dupné. This committee examined the specifications and tenders sent in by the inventors, and decided that none of them came up to their requirements. What happened? Six months afterwards we find Sir Frederick Abel, who was the head of this committee to examine the tenders sent in by foreign and home inventors, takes out a patent for a powder of his own. He was paid by the Government to examine these things. The present Financial Secretary of the Treasury, who deals without gloves with officials who are guilty of shady transactions, raised this question of cordite in the House, and said that cordite was a bad powder, and that Sir Frederick Abel was to get a royalty of 10d. per thousand cartridges and £10 per ton of guncotton. The Financial Secretary of the Treasury further said that Sir Frederick Abel picked the brains of these foreign and home inventors for the purpose of taking out the patent for this powder. If cordite was the useful powder it was claimed to be, at least it should have been kept a secret by the Government. But what did these experts do? They took out patents for this cordite in foreign countries. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that it was monstrous that men occupying an official position should betray this invention to foreign countries. The hon. and gallant Member for one of the divisions of Essex also declared that this was a scandalous transaction in which Sir Frederick Abel was employed. I may mention incidentally that sitting on a Committee upstairs in which we inquired into the question of petroleum, we found Sir Frederick Abel's action with regard to the Hash point of petroleum as shady and indefensible as his action in connection with cordite. I do not find the transactions with regard to the foreign patents have been very profitable. It was stated by foreign inventors at the time, and also by some inventors in this country, that cordite was inferior to the powders in use on the Continent, and that the first great war in which you came into conflict with people armed with modern weapons you would find your weapons inferior in carrying power. It has been stated that your rifles were not carrying within 800 yards as far as the Mauser rifles of the Boers, and that your artillery of equal weight will not carry the same distance One of the explanations of that is that you have this inferior powder, cordite. It is owing to these secret commissions and royalties that an inferior powder has been passed off on the people of this country. I say that is a shameful and scandalous transaction. We heard hon. Members tonight talking about Tammany, but I think you may search the annals of Tammany in vain for any such gigantic scandal or fraud as that which has been perpetrated on the taxpayers in the case of this powder, cordite. To show how far they are carrying these transactions I find that one of them, Professor Anderson, who claimed to have an invention for machinery in connection with cordite, was a member of the firm of Easton and Anderson, and when called on by the Government to resign his shares or give up his position, he resigned his shares. But how? By giving them over to his wife or son. That is stated on the authority of the Financial Secretary of the Treasury. You laughed and spoke a great deal about the French generals and officials who betrayed the secrets of the French War Office, but, viewed in the light of the history of this war, and putting the transactions of your own War Office side by side with those of the French War Office, you have not very much to be proud of. We object to this Vote of £13,000,000 not only as Irishmen, but also on its merits, and we ought not to be asked to place the money in the hands, of officials who have acted as have the officials in the War Office. There is also another powder for which you claimed extraordinary properties, namely, lyddite. It was expected that one lyddite shell would kill an acre of Boers. In fact, it was made a ground of rejoicing that General Joubert was said to have written to Sir George White, protesting against the use of this horrible explosive, and there wore also said to lie complaints with regard to its use at the first battle of that wonderful general and military genius, Lord Met linen. But as far as I have read about the war, various Boer generals, after seeing the explosion of these shells, have come to the unanimous conclusion that lyddite is no good. It reminds me of a story I have hoard in Ireland of a mail who had one son, "who," he said, "is the grandest son on earth; he has only one fault—he is no good." And so this lyddite; it is the grandest powder in the world, but it is no good. It was stated the other day that when on their first trip down the river, in their attempt to relieve Lady-smith, General Buller's army made one of the mountains absolutely black by the use of this lyddite. But a friend of mine who knows about, such things told me that when lyddite explodes as it should do it gives off little or no smoke; it is only when it is rotten it smokes so. If that is so we can understand the opinion of the Boer generals. You expect to get recruits in Ireland when the people know that they will get bad guns, bad artillery and rotten powder.

Yon might as well ask men with blackthorns to face Mauser rifles as to ask soldiers with inferior weapons to fight against the first-class equipment of the Boer Republics. As we have to pay more than our share of the expense of your mistakes in these matters, we have a right to protest against and to expose these blunders. I hope that some Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House will have the courage to say a word against these disgraceful transactions. The other day, in reply to a question by the right hon. Member for Bodmin, the Leader of the House plainly hinted that you were going to arm the Zulus so that they could be used in this war. ["No."] It does not require much intelligence to know the meaning of that statement. The one thing that can most excite the Dutch, especially in your own colonies, is the arming of the natives. To use their own words, it would be letting hell loose. I suppose to-night we are voting the money that will pay for some of those arms which are to be given to the natives who are then to be let loose on Christians, to carry the spirit of outrage of the worst and vilest kinds into the homes and families of these poor farmers who are defending their liberty. For five months the daily bulletin with regard to your soldiers has been "beaten, beaten, beaten." Now, as a final resource, you are going to call on these Zulus, arm them, and let them loose to uphold the honour of the Union Jack. On all these grounds I object to this Vote for the prosecution of this iniquitous and immoral war.

Amendment purposed— To leave out £13,000.000.' and insert '£1.000,000,"—(Mr. Flarin)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That £13,000,000' stand part of the Resolution.'


I have already spoken frequently on this question, and no doubt hon. Members might consider that I have protested enough. When the first Vote for £10,000,000 came before Parliament last session I spoke and protested against it on every possible occasion. Nothing fills me with greater gratification than that recollection, because everything that has occurred during the last five months has justified the course I then adopted, and has encouraged me to make at every stage during the present session an equally energetic protest against the prosecution' of this war. I have no doubt that, to say the least of it, it must be an irritating experience for British Members of Parliament to be called upon to listen night after night to speeches of the character made by Irish Members. We are subjected sometimes to a great deal of adverse criticism both inside and outside this House, but hon. Members must recollect that if they are obliged to listen to these continual protests it is after all but the result of the system under which this so-called United Kingdom is governed, and that if one portion of the Kingdom is governed against its will hon. Members must not be surprised, and really ought not to protest, if the representatives of that portion speak as their constituents desire, even though the sentiments expressed be not in accordance with English views. It is not a pleasant thing for anybody—not even an Irish Member of Parliament—to speak in an assembly of this kind, or, indeed, in any assembly, against the general sense and opinion of those whom he is addressing. If we do so it is only because we are fulfilling our duty to our constituents. It is often said that we oppose those Votes because of a persistent enmity towards England, which nothing can allay or destroy. Last session I heard an English Member of Parliament say, "Oh, we do not believe you are so sincerely upon the side of the Boers in this matter, because we have heard you make similar speeches in sympathy with other people with whom England has been at war. In every case you are against England. It is not a genuine sympathy with the Boers that compels you to take the course you have adopted, but rather an unaccountable, almost insane, idea of always opposing England." That is not the case. I represent one of the most national constituencies in Ireland, the people in which have always distinguished themselves by their devotion to the national cause—the constituency which vindicated the right of national opinion by returning to this House many years ago Daniel O'Connell, and which, when their representative was not allowed to take his seat because he refused to take the oath of allegiance, which cast aslur on the Catholic religion to which he belonged, returned him again. I say that the Nationalists of County Clare, whom I represent, in their present feeling against the war and in the sentiments they desire me to express, are not animated by any bigoted hostility against England, but simply by the merits of this case. They believe that no just grounds exist for this war, that it might have been avoided by ordinarily good diplomacy, and that if the Government had acted in a conciliatory way all this bloodshed and loss of treasure would have been saved. If England were at war in some just cause, such as the liberation of some struggling people from intolerable oppression, we, although our relations with England are strained because of the system under which we are governed, would give this country our cordial support. If at the time of the horrible o atrocities in Armenia this country had embarked upon a war and had used the sword in the cause of those persecuted Christians against the Turks, the Irish people would have been in sympathy with you. Even though nothing was done for the Armenians, when Great (Britain did take action to protect the inhabitants of Crete, the Trish people endorsed the Cretan policy because they believed you were in the right. It is in the nature of Irishmen to be always against England, but let England do justice and light for freedom in any part of the world and Irishmen will be ready to back her. We object to this Vote not merely because the war is waged by England—though, goodness knows, we in Ireland have no reason to wish for the: success of your arms or to desire glory to attend the progress of your Imperialistic designs—but because, having studied the history of South Africa, we have come to the conclusion that these small Dutch Republics have been treated with invariable injustice, not only lately, but from the very day when England first landed in the Cape of Good Hope nearly a century ago. That our sympathy with the Dutch in this matter is no new-formed growth is shown by the fact that nearly twenty-five years ago one of the strongest protests over made by an Irish Member in this House was made by the late Charles Stewart Parnell at the time of the annexation of the Transvaal. He it was who placed on the Paper a resolution affirming the inalienable right of the Dutch to rule according to their own ideas the land they had carved out for themselves, and it is only in pursuance of the policy then laid down of vindicating liberty in South Africa that Irish Nationalists Members stand up to-night to protest against this unequal and inglorious struggle which is so disastrously proceeding. I endeavoured to point out last session that a lamentable ignorance prevailed in this country with regard to the true state of affairs in South Africa. I have never set up to be a prophet, but on reading over some of the speeches I made last session as reported in Hansard, I really feel as if I had at that time had some sort of prophetic spirit. English Members seemed to think the war would be merely a matter of a mouth or so that an army corps would be sent out and after a little trouble all would be over. It was said that the population of the Transvaal was not as large as that of some of our large provincial towns, and there would be no difficulty in overcoming such a people. That was the spirit that animated the House of Commons, and how much more was it the spirit of the "man in the street," who had not the same opportunity of judging as to facts as Members of the House of Commons? But what did I toll the House? I said that in entering upon this war you had not merely to deal with the population of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, but that the first British gun that was fired would call into being the hostility, either latent or active, of every man of Dutch blood in the Cape of Good Hope from the Zambesi to Cape Town. I was laughed at then, but was I not absolutely correct? ["No!"] Oh, very well. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that that has not turned out to be true. Take up any newspaper you like to-day, and what will you find? You will find that in large districts the Dutch are either in open rebellion or in sullen disaffection against your rule, and that amongst them are smouldering the fires of discontent, which is only a natural state of things when their own kith and kin are subjected to the onslaughts you are making against them. If I had thought that such a proposition would have been denied, I could have brought down countless extracts from authorities to prove the truth of my statement. I will give one instance from the papers of this very day. When the news of the relief of Kimberley was received we are told that the people of Cape Town went mad with joy, that the British people of various places exhibited every sign of rejoicing. Rut while the British inhabitants decked their houses with flags and gave the High Commissioner an ovation to show their loyalty and delight, you have this remarkable fact—that no single sign of rejoicing came from any official source on the part of the Government of Cape Colony; there were no Hags over any public governmental buildings in Cape Town to denote rejoicing; nor were there any of those marks of exultation and victory such as would be seen in this country. Why? Because the Government is a Dutch Government because the Prime Minister is a Dutchman; because the majority of the Parliament are Dutch, representing a majority of the people who are Dutch. If you have a difficulty in carrying this war to a successful issue it will not be because of the small populations of the Boer Republics, but because, in striking the match of Ayar in South Africa, you have not only attacked the homes of the people of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, but you have aroused natural resentment and indignation in the hearts of the people of Dutch blood throughout the whole length and breadth of South Africa. What is to happen when this money is spent and you enter victoriously into Pretoria? As has been already said, you will create in South Africa another Irish nation, but one much more difficult to deal with than the one on the other side of St. George's Channel. Our country is a small country close to your doors, but yet you have had difficulty enough in ruling it century after century. In South Africa, be it not forgotten, outside the urban populations the people are almost exclusively Dutch. The British people have centred almost entirely round the towns where the mines were in operation and have occupied themselves with industrial pursuits. Leave Johannesburg, Pretoria, Durban, and the large towns of South Africa, and go into the parts of the country which really provide the backbone of the whole district, and what will you find? I challenge contradiction when I say that nine-tenths of the rural.

population are people of Dutch blood,, speaking the Dutch language. When you have taken the centres of population what are you going to do. This sum of £13,000,000 is but a flea-bite in comparison with the enormous amounts this country will have to vote year after year, not to prosecute the war, not to carry your flag to Pretoria, but to keep it there. These countries are mountainous countries; the people are largely mountaineers: they are naturally a guerilla force; and you will have to garrison those countries from end to end to keep rebellion from flaming out time after time. Some hon. Members seem to think that once Pretoria is taken everything is settled and there will be no further trouble. Once you have taken Pretoria your troubles will begin. Even though you kill every able-bodied inhabitant and leave no adult man alive in the Republics, I say that the boys and the children who are growing up will be taught by their mothers and will learn from the traditions and history of their country that their fathers were slaughtered and their land overrun by the British, and it is not the enmity of this generation, but of generation after generation of the Dutch that you will have to face. But the saddest and most miserable reflection about the whole of the transaction is the thought of how easily the conflict might have been avoided. I am not going into any discussion of the negotiations which immediately preceded the war, but I say that those negotiations were brought to a point when by a little conciliation and consideration the Government of the Transvaal could have been induced to give to this country everything that was desired. When make that statement I do not base it on the opinion of any mere Irish Member, but upon the opinion of such men as the late Member for Plymouth and the Member for Bodmin. Hon. Gentlemen opposite sneer and jeer at those names, but there is not one of those whom I noticed jeering who can ever hope to point to such a public record in the service of their country as can the two Gentlemen to whom I have referred. Both of them are statesmen, supporters of the Unionist Government, and opponents of the claims of Ireland; but I ground my assertion that those negotiations could have been brought to a successful issue on the statements of those two eminent and respected English statesmen, whose action, will be commended by the British people long after the authors of this war have been condemned. Of course, this money will be voted, and the war will go on. The only consolation we have is the conviction, amounting to almost absolute certainty, that when all this ginger-bread enthusiasm for military affairs, this beating of drums, these attempts to get recruits, and these military pageants have come to an end, when John Bull, having calmed down from his fit of militarism, comes to look at the bill, a serious verdict will be passed upon the gentlemen who have provided the entertainment. If there was one part of the British Empire where care and caution ought to have been exercised it was South Africa. It is the most vulnerable part of your Empire. I n every other portion of your Empire you have nothing to fear, because you have given them Home Rule. But deny one of those colonies what you deny Ireland, and see how many men they would then send to South Africa. But unhappily for you, when the moment of crisis came, when a strong hand was wanted, when a level head was required, you found at the head of your affairs not a statesman in whom the British people could have reliance, but a gentleman who has been everything in turn and nothing long, and whose very personality was obnoxious to the Dutch population in South Africa.The Dutch have a rigid belief—whether well-founded or not I do not know—that but for the Colonial Secretary's connivance there would have been no Jameson raid, and if there had been no Jameson raid there would have been no war. It is the opinion of Unionists opposite and throughout the country, that if Lord Salisbury or the Duke of Devonshire, or indeed any other prominent Unionist statesman, had been conducting the negotiations with President Kruger there would have been no war. ["No, no!"] But the negotiations failed because they were conducted by a man who could not keep his temper. ["No, no!"] I have been seventeen years in the House of Commons, and I have always noticed that when anything particularly true is said it is objected to. That probably accounts for the fact that my statements are very often objected to. I say that it is the popular belief throughout the country that if the negotiations had been conducted by any other man they would have been successful. It is an elementary principle that must be admitted, that if you are going to negotiate your representative should be a man whose past has been completely free from any suspicion; or of any conduct likely to arouse suspicion in the minds of those with whom I you are to negotiate. The one man in the whole British Empire of whom President Kruger and the Transvaal had most suspicion was the Colonial Secretary. The wisest suggestion that has been made in these debates was that of Sir Edward I Clarke, that even though this war be carried on there would be a better chance of a permanent peace after its conclusion if the Colonial Secretary was removed from his position and another Minister put in his place.* However, what is done cannot be undone. This disastrous war I will continue. Your big battalions will no doubt bear these men down. In the course of time you will sweep the country from end to end. You will do practically as you please with these two small nations. It would be strange if it were otherwise, seeing that you have out there an armed soldier for every Dutchman, Dutchwoman, and Dutch child in the two States. If I was an English Member I would protest against the war as being dangerous to the Empire, and as calculated to bring unnecessary expense upon the taxpayers of the country. But I do not look at it from the English point of view. The jingo feeling is so strong that, with two or three exceptions, even the strongest Radicals are stricken dumb. Those who ought to speak in favour of peace, retrenchment, and reform are silent, and the spirit of Mr. Gladstone has departed from them. It is a deplorable thing that no Member on the front Opposition bench should be found sufficiently wedded to Liberal ideas to stand I up and manfully protest against this war. Even if English Unionist Members are determined to give this money they ought to take the advice of my hon. friend the Member for South Leitrim, and see that those who will expend the money are properly qualified to do so. We are going to give £1:3,000,000 into the hands of the present War Office officials. There is not a country in Europe that would not have turned out every official at the War Office after the bungling of the last few months. Everything has been bungled; nothing has been right. Those officials See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxviii. p.494. have proved themselves to be absolutely incapable. That is not merely the opinion of an Irish Member. It is the view of every newspaper in London and the country, particularly of the great Unionist organs, such as The Times and the Standard. In leading article after leading article they have declared the War Office to be in competent, and denounced the plans and deficiencies of that Department. That being the case, it is a scandal and a shame that the spending of this enormous sum should be entrusted to such a Department. I object to this Vote because it is unfair to. Ireland, because it is unfair to the toiling masses of the people of this country, because it is un-Christian, because it is an, outrage upon Christianity, that when Members leave this House to-night, when the light is extinguished, and the cry, "Who goes home?" is heard, you will, after passing hundreds of miserable half-starved beings, sleep the sleep of the just, reflecting that while millions of your own countrymen are in distress, and you will not vote a penny for their relief, you lightly and freely in an hour or two vote £13,000,000 of the taxes of the people of the country, not to build up prosperity or to relieve distress, but to carry on an unholy, bloody, and cruel war, which is causing misery broadcast throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. That is a worthy action with which to wind-up the nineteenth century. We, at least, who represent Ireland, a small and weak nation, are proud in the face of the world to be able to say that when this infamy was sought to be perpetrated we had the courage and hardihood to stand up for what we believed to be the right, even though we were in a minority.

MR. DILLON () Mayo, E.

There are one or two questions I wish to ask the Under Secretary for War if he is going to speak in this debate to-night. First of all, we ought to have some details of the liablity of this country with regard to the colonial and Volunteer forces. I understand that a portion of the expenses of the very large body of colonial forces now serving in South Africa is found under this Vote. If that be so, I would ask, what is the scale of pay allowed to these colonial forces, and how does it compare with that of soldiers sent out from this country? I read the other day that the terms offered to troopers in a force known as Bailey's Horse were 12s. a day. Of course it must lie taken into account that each trooper had to provide his own horse, but even then 12s. a day is an enormous sum to offer these men who are called out primarily—and this is the only purpose I saw mentioned—for the defence of their own homes. When we hear so much talk and brag about the extraordinary patriotism displayed by what are called the loyalists of South Africa, I should like to know what is their daily pay, and also what is the pay of the poor unfortunate burghers who are defending their homes in the Transvaal. I venture to say that the latter get no pay whatsoever, and it seems tome to be an extraordinary thing that it should require 12s. a day to induce these loyal colonists to enlist. We are entitled to get much more detailed information as to the proportion of these charges to be borne by the taxpayers of this country and the proportion to be borne by the colonies. The next point upon which I desire information is as to the character of the troops which are being raised under this great scheme. We are asked to grant the War Office £13,000,000 to carry out this great military scheme. I do not propose, in dealing with the character of the troops, to use my own language. Very sinister rumours have been spread in Ireland—I do not know with what foundation, but I have heard them alleged as facts—as to the character of some of the men who are being enrolled by the War Office. I read in one of the chief organs of the war party in London, a Unionist newspaper, these words, speaking of the scheme for which we are called upon to vote £13,000,000— "These schemes, after all, are nothing more than a makeshift, and do not take us one step nearer to what we want in this country, a system that will give us what we have never yet had—a regular and constant supply of recruits. The War Minister does not seem to realise that ever since the introduction of a standing Army we have had to resort to all sorts or expedients with a view to raising troops. We have had to offer high bounties, resort to impressment, attract men from the Militia, and, as a last resource, to drain the hulks and empty the prisons…. " That is not my language, but that of the Globe newspaper. It is said in Ireland that convicts and prisoners in gaols have been approached and offered pardons if they will volunteer for South Africa. If that is true, there is no language too strong to condemn such conduct. I now come to another point. I read with feelings of intense indignation and regret a reply given by the First Lord of the Treasury on Thursday last to a question with reference to the arming of the natives. During the autumn session that question was debated, and the First Lord of the Treasury, in reply to a question of mine, gave an honourable undertaking that in this war no coloured troops would be used. In stronger language still, the Under Secretary for War took up the position that to use coloured troops would be a monstrous and indefensible action. The right hon. Gentleman took the position that it would be bad policy not only for the future of South Africa and the feelings of the people with whom the British must live as neighbours after this war is over, but that it would be bad policy as regards feeling in Europe and America, because it would outrage the conscience of the whole civilised world. The day is gone by when any nation, in my judgment, can with impunity use native or coloured troops against white men, and if you depart from that principle you will make one of the most ghastly departures ever recorded in the whole course of your history. What, however, was the position taken up by the First Lord of the Treasury the other day? He distinctly threatened that this rule would be departed from, and ho intimated that rumours had reached this country that the Boers had endeavoured either to attack the natives or to incite them against the English in this war. I protest against this statement; I protest against the crediting of these rumours. One of the most painful characteristics of the whole of these transactions has been that from the first day of this war there has been directed against the Boer people the greatest deluge of calumnies and lies ever directed against any people. Every form of outrage and cruelty and barbarity has been charged against them, and it is to the everlasting shame of the press of this country that some influential newspapers lent themselves to the dissemination of those charges. I have seen it stated over and over again that your troops had to face showers of Dim Dum and explosive bullets, and that English women and children have been fired upon, and dozens of other brutal charges have been made, all of which, however, have been disproved, and now it has been placed upon record beyond all question that no war has ever been conducted on principles of greater humanity and kindness than this war has been conducted by the Boers. I have a collection of testimony from British officers as to the personal and other kindnesses which they have received at the hands of the Boers. With reference to explosive bullets, it will lie seen in the deeply interesting accounts by Mr. Treves and Sir William MacCormac published in the British Medical Journal, that it is a constant subject of remark by these great English surgeons that the wounds are so amazingly small that the whole science of military surgery will be revolutionised by this war. That is testimony in reply to a few of these outrageous charges. What proof have you that the Boers are using armed natives? I have not seen the charge stated except by one correspondent, who declared that in recent engagement on one of the last hills from which the British were driven on the other side of the Tugela some of the officers said there were armed natives with the Boers. That is the only definite statement that has been made, and can anyone deny that the British have used armed natives? It has been stated over and over again and not attempted to be denied that Colonel Baden-Powell in the early days of the siege of Mafeking—I am quoting now from English newspapers, not from the remonstrance which General Joubert addressed to the various Governments of Europe—organised a corps of Cape boys and natives which did splendid service in one or two of the sorties from Mafeking. It is also not denied that Chief Linchwe, encouraged by the English and no doubt furnished with arms by Colonel Plumer and other military officers in Rhodesia, attacked the Boers. But as regards the future of South Africa, and the future position of this country in European and American opinion, the grave question of the use of natives, of the toleration of native interference in this war, stands at present in this position, that so far as I have been able to observe, from very close and constant study of the letters from British correspondents, only one allegation has I been made by one correspondent that there were armed natives with the Boers, and that was in the rush of battle, whereas on the other hand specific allegations have been made, not only by General Joubert but by British correspondents, that armed natives were used in the defence of Mafeking and that Chief Linchwe was encouraged to attack and did attack the Boers. I think, therefore, I am entitled to take this opportunity of protesting in the strongest possible manner against the use of any of this money for the purpose of arming the natives. I claim and desire at the hands of the Under Secretary a renewal of the pledge given by the First Lord of the Treasury, because after the right hon. Gentleman's answer the other day I have lost faith in his pledge, and I fear that the Bechuanas and the Zulus, with the invasion of their territory as an excuse, may be encouraged to take part in the war. It is no justification for encouraging the natives to attack the Boers that their territory is invaded, as long as they themselves are not attacked. The English are quite competent to meet the Boers in Zululand as well as in Natal. The logic of the case is perfectly clear. If the advance of the Boer forces into Zululand would justify the incitement of the natives to attack them, the advance of the Boor forces into Natal would be an equal justification, because the population of Natal is mainly composed of coloured people, consisting of one Englishman to about seven natives. Therefore, when the Boers advanced into Natal they advanced into a country mainly populated by natives. Was that held to be an excuse for inciting the natives to rise in defence of their own kraals? Therefore, there is no real excuse for inciting the natives to rise in Zululand and not in Natal, because for practical purposes the two countries are precisely similar, being both British territory and both populated mainly by natives. There is one point I desire to mention, and that is a question which has been raised in my mind by two remarkable incidents. The suffering produced by this war has been terrible both in this country and in Ireland, and in the Transvaal, of course, the suffering has been infinitely greater. I was very much struck by receiving yesterday a most remarkable document from the Associated Poor Law Boards of Great Britain—I saw no such appeal from Ireland—asking me to use my influence in this House to get some aid from the Imperial Treasury for the widows and orphans of the men killed in the war, who are now distressed and seeking out-door relief. I want to know from the Under Secretary before we vote this money what is to be done for the widows and orphans of these men? Many of the men who have been killed are my own countrymen, and we all remember recently the scene which occurred when an hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite made an outrageous charge against the Irish people."* Undoubtedly the Irish have suffered a great deal more in these fights than the English. When the last returns were made up, as far as my memory serves me, the proportion was nearly twice as many Irishmen killed and wounded in proportion in their number in South Africa as Englishmen. That is a remarkable incident, and of course it increases the amount of suffering in Ireland, and it made us rather irritable when we were informed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Irish never attacked in front. That is one incident which induces me to ask the representative of the Government what the Government mean to do to supplement the charitable funds being raised for the widows and orphans of the men who have been killed, and also for the men who have been maimed for life in this war. The second incident is very remarkable and striking, and is indeed nothing short of ' a public scandal. It was published in. the Irish papers the day before yesterday. A young Reserve man employed in the town of Tralee was sent out to the war, and arrived home recently maimed for life: he has a wife and two children and has to depend for the remainder of his life on 6d. per day, the same pension which he had before he went to the war, with the difference that he is now crippled. It so happened that in the same week an Irish policeman who had retired on a pension of £60 a year, in consequence of some slight injury he got, suddenly bethought himself he would apply to the county court judge for compensation for a malicious injury, and this worthy policeman got £670 compensation, having already a pension from the Imperial Government of £60 a year, whereas the poor man from South Africa after fighting the battles of your Empire is put off with 6d. a flay for the remainder of his life. I want to know if that is justice, and how you are going to defend it? What is there so sacred in an Irish policeman that he should get a pension of £60 a year, and £670 in cash for an injury which, as far as I can gather See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxviii., p. 534. from the newspapers, was much less than that suffered by the poor soldier in the war? I say it is monstrous, and if you induce these men to fight your battles in South Africa you ought at least to have the decency when they come home maimed for life to keep them out of the workhouse. I think it is not to be wondered at that you have difficulty in getting recruits when the treatment you give to these unfortunate men is placed side by side with the treatment given to a policeman. There is one ether matter on which I think too much cannot be said in view of the feeling in Ireland as to the pressure which has been put on some of the Irish Militia regiments to volunteer. I do not pretend, I cannot pretend to know the whole truth of what has happened in this matter, but we know that the impression in Ireland is that these men have been entrapped. It is perfectly well known that in the case of the North Cork Militia the men I were absolutely ignorant of what they were doing, and had not the slightest intention of going to South Africa, when they were packed into a train and carried off. I hold a very strong view on this matter. I think no man, as long as you profess to have a voluntary system, ought to be sent out of the country to war until he has consented, and I want to know from the Under Secretary what is the machinery by which a regiment is called upon to volunteer, and what security have the public that each man is allowed to express his own view. I say distinctly we are entitled to raise this subject again and again until we have some security that every individual Militiaman shall have a choice as to whether he shall go to the war or not. I think that is a fair and reasonable demand, and one to which no soldier ought to object. It is all the more necessary to insist on this matter, because I saw in one of the newspapers an article headed "Treason in the Hanks," which called on the Government to instantly take the most stringent measures against a corporal in the North Louth Militia, because he had advised some of his comrades not to volunteer for the war. We were told the other day in this House that instructions were given to the officers that no compulsion was to be put on the men, but if we are now told that it is treason for a man to advise another not to enlist for foreign service, I should like to know what the value of these instructions are. I think feeling in Ireland will demand some specific statement which will convince the people that these men have been fairly dealt with, and are going out of their own free will. In this war, as previous wars, you have found great difficulty in getting recruits. We have had speeches in this House, and also a remarkable speech in another place, which seemed to point directly at conscription, and really, judging from the advance of the military spirit in this House during tide last five or six years, I think we are within measurable distance of it. You have found that it is almost impossible, by the voluntary system, to fill the ranks of your Army with men of proper physique. I was reading yesterday in the Lancet a most interesting article on the physique of the Boers. The writer pointed out that taking the whole male Boer population between the ages of sixty-five and fifteen—and Mr. Winston Churchill, in his wonderful letters to the Morning Post, has told us that boys of the latter age have been picked up on the battlefield—it would, as regards physique, outdistance your Army of men picked in accordance with your standard. That is a pretty condition of things you have been brought to. I feel I would stray altogether outside the limits of order if I enlarged on a favourite subject of mine, namely, the abomination and infamy of the policy which has exterminated or driven out of Ireland, Scotland, and even England, the population which must be the basis of a real fighting force—namely, those who live in independence in their own country and till the land. You were never content until you had decimated the population, and you rejoiced when they fled by millions from Ireland. You would lie very glad to have some of them back now, and the time may yet come that when, in your extremity, owing to this same monstrous idea of Imperialism, which we hear on every side, you will have to make an ever increasing demand on the resources of the population to fill your Army, you will repent the brutal and savage way in which you destroyed the population of Ireland.


The hon. Member who has just sat down began his speech by asking whether I, as the Minister in charge, intended to speak in the course of the evening. I admit under ordinary circumstances and in any customary debate such a question might be put at a much earlier hour. I have, it is true, maintained my place on this bench from half past four until nearly half past eleven, but I think I have been amply justified in the course I have taken. I did not take that course in order to show any want of respect towards hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, who come here to express what, they tell us, are the views of their constituents, but I had to strike a, balance between what was due to the representatives of the Irish constituencies and what was due to the representatives of all the other constituencies in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for East Clare, who intervened twice in this debate, on both occasions frankly said he was well aware that he was out of touch with the sentiments of this House and of this country, but he claimed the right, since Ireland is represented in this Imperial Parliament, to give us what he told us were the views of his constituents. I admit the right of the hon. Member, but in my opinion the hon. Member is not entitled to demand that I should engage—if, indeed, I could hope to engage it upon such subjects—the attention of other hon. Members on such questions as Home Rule, the position of Ireland in the Empire, the Hon. Member's regret for the action in which we glory—of his own countrymen in South Africa, and many other kindred topics upon which he dwelt with regret, but upon some of which we dwell with exultation. It seemed to me that improper course was to listen with respectful silence to speeches which moved me to great pity. I cannot contemplate the position of Irish Members at this moment in the evolution of our Empire without feeling the greatest and most heartfelt regret, inasmuch as men of every religion and every race have found it possible—in spite perhaps of injustice, in spite perhaps of callousness on the part of the party which may have ruled at one time or the other in this country—subjects of the Crown in every part of Her Majesty's dominions have found it possible to take a corporate pride and joy in the gradual evolution of the Empire. I am not going into the reasons for this attitude, which seems so particular to Ireland. I note, however, that whereas we have over and over again gone out of our way to stand in the white sheet of penitence, and to say that no doubt there were mistakes in the past, I have never heard one Irish Member in this House assume even hypothetically for the purposes of argument that ho or his predecessors had ever made one wrong turn in this game which has lasted so long. The hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs in one of his admirable books said that too many good fellows would be in the wrong if Rousseau were always in the right, and viewing in hasty historical retrospect the relations which have obtained between Ireland and this country, I really think it is—well—impossible according to the doctrine of chances that the English, Scottish, Welsh, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, the feudatory Princes of India, the Volunteers of Hong Kong, and everybody is wrong, and that the Irish Members in this House—not the Irish people, still less the Irish soldiers or the Irish Militia—are in the right and alone in the right. Since that is my view, I felt it was more consistent with it, and with what was due to hon. Members, to listen to them in silence. But then the hon. Member for East Mayo rose and said that he was going to leave? wide fields and address a few pointed questions to myself on this Vote. I own I prefer the speeches of the hon. Member for East Clare to the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo. In the first place the hon. Member for East Mayo endeavoured to create a little difficulty over the rates of pay which were given to the colonial forces in South Africa, and he put forward some astonishing tale, of which I have no knowledge, that the members of some force arc in receipt of 12s. per day. I may tell the hon. Member that we are taking £52,000 for the payment of colonial troops in South Africa. It is difficult to give the exact particulars, since fresh troops are raised every day. A short time ago a thousand Colonial troops were raised in South Africa, and 5,000 to 6,000 troops came from other colonies, but both are increasing from day to day, and I cannot give the precise number at present.


Does the Imperial Exchequer bear the whole cost?


In the case of troops coming from other colonies we are paying them precisely the rates we give to our own soldiers. In the case of South African troops the question is more complicated because there have been in South Africa for some time colonial troops in receipt of different rates of pay, and it has been impossible and inexpedient to alter those rates at a moment's notice. As I have informed the House it seems to me we are approaching the time; when we shall be able to consider this question, which is one of the greatest moment to the Empire, calmly and dispassionately in consultation with the representatives of all our colonies. Upon that ground therefore, and on that ground alone, I decline to be drawn into logic-chopping over a difference of three-pence or sixpence as to the remuneration which men ought to receive who go to the front, or to affront people who offer troops, when troops are needed, by entering into long negotiations over the remuneration to be given to those troops. The hon. Member asked if we were reduced to such a state that we had to offer inducements to those who are incarcerated for their country's good to volunteer. What is the good of reading out highly-spiced reminiscences in a newspaper of the conditions which are alleged to have existed, not now, but a hundred years ago—a re-hash of passages from Macaulay and other writers who have themselves drawn a highly coloured I contrast between the past and the present? The hon. Member comes here and wags his head and tolls us on the authority of the Globe newspaper these things, and asks, "What guarantee can you give me that similar practices are not going on now?" The whole point of the article was to draw a contrast, and a just contrast, between the past and the present. I do not know whether I ought to follow the hon. Member in his attack on the press of this country. That is rather a wide turning movement. I do not think it will drive me from my kopje in defending the Vote. When the hon. Member goes out of his way to make that attack, I believe he will find that he has lost himself in the veldt. But the hon. Member did make an attack to which I am bound to reply. He was good enough to say that he had no longer any confidence in the pledge which I had given to this House, as to our actual intention of restraining the natives of South Africa from taking part in the war.


The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. What I said was that, after reading the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that under the present circumstances the Government might be compelled to reconsider, in the immediate future, the pledge they had given, I could no longer give them my confidence.


If that is a withdrawal, I will not pursue the argument, because I feel it is useless to give further assurances to people who attach no value to what T have said.


Nothing is further from my intention than to say that I could give no confidence to the hon. Member's personal statements.


Well, I withdraw that entirely; but the hon. Gentleman's, manner of presenting his case is rather difficult to understand. A distinct pledge was given in this House by myself that, so far from encouraging the natives of South Africa to take part in the war, the Government, through our Commissioner in Zululand and Basutoland, were doing their very best, under difficult circumstances, to prevent any such horrible occurrence taking place. I think it is within the knowledge of the House that that Commissioner, owing to his personal duty and to the influence he had acquired over the natives, had prevented a rising. It was; because the Boers were reported to be about to invade Zululand and attack the natives that a member of this Government replied to a question in the House that if the Boors did so it would be open to the natives to defend themselves. And what other statement could have been made? Yet the hon. Member, because of that statement, feels that he is entitled to say that he can no longer have any confidence in a pledge given some months ago. I am quite prepared to leave the matter where it stands. So long as we can keep the natives from taking part in this war we will spare no effort in attaining that object; but if the Boers, or, indeed, any other Power, attack the natives, we are not going to prevent those natives from defending themselves.


With the object of making the point clear, I desire to ask whether it is not the fact that the Boers made an inroad into Zululand because a British column had gone into that country previously.


I cannot answer the hon. Member on that point; but it is irrelevant to the answer I have given. My answer was, that if the Boers attacked the Zulus they were quite entitled to defend themselves. Then the hon. Member for East Mayo complained of the pensions and allowances to the widows and children of soldiers who had died in this war. I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to draw a distinction between the widows and children of Irish soldiers and those of English and Scotch soldiers.


No. No distinction was drawn.


I do not think the hon. Member should, because no distinction is really drawn. The whole case of pensions and allowances is, as the House is aware, governed by certain rules which are universal in their application. Most hon. Members who were present will recollect that we had recently an interesting debate on the subject of an attempt to reorganise the funds subscribed by charitable persons, both recently and in the past, for the benefit of the widows and other dependents of soldiers who died in war. The Government are about to appoint, even if they have not already appointed, a very strong Commission to inquire into the whole of this question, and we feel it would be a mistake to offer any pronouncement, or to make any promise on this subject, until we have had the advantage of hearing the conclusion at which these Commissioners have arrived. But should it prove to be the case, after the Commissioners have reported, that there is room for some subvention in addition on the part of the Government, that is a recommendation which the Government would consider most earnestly and carefully. The time has not yet come, however, to express any definite view on this question, but only to say it is one we regard as of great importance. The hon. Member concluded by bringing up again the question of pressure upon the Irish Militia. Well, I really despair of dis- cussing the question with the hon. Member; we approach it from such different points of view. Our assumption—and I can give him evidence that that assumption is right—is that the Irish Militia regiments, and individual men of those regiments, are as eager as other Militia regiments and men to secure what is, after all, the crown of a soldier's profession. (HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!) The assumption of hon. Members from Ireland is that Irish Militia regiments and Irish Militiamen, of all people in the world, are dying to enjoy ease at home, while their comrades m arms arc winning glory in South Africa.


Not at all. My assumption is that nine-tenths of the Irish Militiamen consider this war a most atrocious war.


A robbers war.


Oddly enough, I am in absolute agreement with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, although I differ very much from his application of it. The hon. Member for Kilkenny asked the other day if the Government did not think it very wrong to put any pressure upon the men in the Militia when they were making up their minds upon so grave a matter as to whether they should serve in South Africa or remain at home. I think that no pressure ought to be put upon the men, and, as far as the Government are concerned, we have done all in our power to see that no pressure is put upon them. Can hon. Members for Ireland say the same? Probably hon. Members have no knowledge of the documents that are now littered about the Militia barracks of Ireland informing the men who arc having an opportunity given them of joining their comrades in South Africa that they are "all marked down for murder"; and hon. Members will perhaps disbelieve it, but it is true, that in one circular I have seen the priests are appealed to "not to abandon thousands of the poor to death and mutilation in a war of hell." Let me read this passage— "The curse of Ireland's martyred dead be on the Irishman, priest or layman, who allows the wretched Irish Militia to be trapped into slaughter"— [Cheers from the Irish benches.] Hon. Members cheer that; then do not let them talk any more about pressure in this House. Sir, there has been no pressure on our part. That there has been pressure on the part of others I know, not only from these documents, but from a telegram I have received from an Irish regiment which, underpressure—under compulsion, I hold it—did not volunteer. [HON. MEMBERS on the Irish benches: What is the regiment?] I will not give you the regiment, but a telegram has been received from an Irish Militia regiment imploring us to allow them to re-consider their decision. But it is too late. This is not an unlimited opportunity. When all are striving for this great honour—[HON. MEMBER on the Irish Benches: Oh, oh!]—when the opportunity of accepting it is given as a reward for excellence in rotation of the regiments which stand highest in the credit of the War Office—when any regiment is over-persuaded, or compelled by those who agree with hon. Members opposite to refuse or miss their chance, that chance is not likely to return. Those Irish Militia regiments which have been deluded into missing their chance of going to the front now regret their action; while those regiments who withstood the seductive documents circulated amongst them, when asked to volunteer threw their caps up into the air with joy and cheered for the Ministry. I am persuaded that Irish soldiers, whether in the lane regiments or in the Militia battalions, need no guidance from hon. Members from Ireland when they are endeavouring to discover the path of duty, and that they, like many of their countrymen before them, have found the path of duty the road to honour and glory.

MR. JOHN REDMOND () Waterford

The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War has had this session an unparalleled opportunity for exhibiting, to the delectation of the House, his undoubted powers as a speaker. No one has witnessed the development of these powers with greater interest and admiration than the Irish Members. But I may be allowed, with regret, to say that I think it is a mistake for him to adopt the very lofty tone he has done to-night. When the hon. Member regards the attitude of the Irish Members and a great portion of the Irish people towards the war with nothing but pity, I must be allowed to say he is adopting an attitude which verges very nearly on the ridiculous. This debate has gone on practically on the same lines for over a week. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.] I am the first to admit it, and I take some pride in the fact that the opposition to this Vote has been mainly carried on by the Irish Members. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War, quoting Rousseau's witty saying and applying it to Ireland, declared that Ireland must be wrong because so many good fellows are of the other way of thinking, and he had the audacity to cite in support of his interpretation the case of Canada. What is the ease of Canada? Until Canada got such a system of Home Rule as we demand for Ireland, it was a country which seethed with rebellion and sedition. The French Canadian population were granted Home Rule when they were actually in arms against this country, and does the Hon. Gentleman ask this House for a moment to believe that if the system which still exists in Ireland had continued in Canada, the slightest tokens of loyalty or support would have been given to Britain at the present moment? It is not fair for the hon. Gentleman in applying that witty saying of Rousseau to confine his view solely to the British Empire. Why does he not extend his view to the civilised world? If he does so, he will find that every nation in Europe except Turkey is against England in this war; and not only the opinion of every nation in Europe, but the undoubted opinion of the great mass of the people of the United States of America.—[HON. MEMBERS: NO, no!]—and I apply that witty remark of Rousseau to the Government of England to-day by saying that "there are too many good people in the world who would be wrong if you were right." I do not intend to delay the House on this occasion. I have said the opposition to this money Vote has come almost entirely from the Irish. Members, and I am proud of it. I know that our power in this House is limited; but if it were in our power we would not permit the Government to get a single farthing of this Vote. We are hampered in our action, and all we are able to do is to make it perfectly clear, and beyond all doubt, what the attitude of the Irish Members and people is in regard to this war. I think we have succeeded in our object. For my part, I see no particular use in continuing this debate for another hour or two. The voting of this money is not the end of this matter. No one supposes that this thirteen millions will see us through this war, and therefore the subject will come up again and again before the House, and the Irish Members will continue at every step to make use at every power available under the Constitution to thwart the efforts of the Government to suppress the independence of the two South African Republics. The other day, when we asked that this war should be stopped, we were met by the argument that it was unreasonable to expect that the war should be stopped until the Boer invasion was repelled. I am sorry to say it is likely that that time may arrive soon; but when it does arrive I want to know what attitude other hon. Gentlemen will take? We Irishmen have been almost alone in the division lobby, and I assert that in the votes we have given we have been representing a considerable number of the Members of this House, who for one reason or another were either ashamed or afraid to vote in our lobby. I think there is very little doubt about that. If anyone looks through the division list he will see a remarkable absence of hon. Members. I hope when the time comes, it it ever does come, when the Boer invasion of British territory is repelled, that these hon. Members will take heart of grace, and join in our efforts to bring the war to a close on the basis of the independence of the two Republics. [HON. MEMBERS: No, no!] [Cheers and counter cheers.] I think it is rather unworthy of the House of Commons to deny assent to a statement of that kind. It ought never to be forgotten that the argument put forward at the commencement of this business was that the war was not a war of aggrandisement, but to obtain certain rights fur certain British subjects. But if hon. Members deny assent to my argument, then the character of the war is changed, and it becomes a war of aggression to seize the territories of the Republics. I know not what the future may have in store for us in this matter. My own belief is that this war, if you persist in your present attitude, will last a considerable time indeed, and that only when you begin the march to Pretoria the real trouble will commence. The taxpayers of the country will then find that, if the war is persisted in, it will cost not ten millions nor twenty-three millions, but more than a hundred millions, and that the loss of life will reach fifteen thousand or twenty thousand men. I am profoundly convinced that the whole of the Government policy will end in disaster, and that there will come a reaction against their policy. When that reaction does come, when reason returns to her place, and the war fever, which is swaying the minds of the people in this country, is abated, I believe that Ireland and her national aspirations will not stand any worse chance because of this crisis, or because,, in spite of odium and misrepresentation inside and outside this House, she has lifted her voice on every occasion in defence of the liberties of the South African Republics.

MR. JAMES O'CONNOR () Wicklow, W.

The Under Secretary of State for War displayed some ingenuity in his efforts to conceal the poverty of his arguments under the veil of pleasantry and good humour. I was very glad to find that the hon. Gentleman has a sense of humour, because it shows that he has at least a drop of Irish blood in his veins. The hon. Gentleman expressed great grief for the position which the Irish Members have taken up in this House in regard to the war in South Africa; but why should he lie surprised that the Irish Members are opposed to a war of this kind? Has he not read the history of Ireland, and does he know nothing of the condition of the Irish people for the last hundred years? Could he possibly imagine that the Irish people could join in approving the most iniquitous and atrocious war which ever England has provoked for the destruction of a free people? The hon. Gentleman also referred to that very delicate question of race against race in South Africa. When the First Lord of the Treasury and the Colonial Secretary plainly hinted the other day that the native races of South Africa would be instigated to fight against the Boers if occasion arose, I could not help being reminded of what you did during the War of Independence in America. You instigated and armed the Red Indians to-scalp your own countrymen because they were fighting for their own independence You would have done that in South Africa if your defeats had continued, and would have instigated and armed Zulu and Basuto savages to fight against the Boers. The only thing that would stop you would be if you gained a few victories. The hon. Gentleman referred to the question of pressure on the Irish Militia. It is not a question of pressure at all. We know very well that you have deluded them and deceived them. I am opposed to the Vote of £15,000,000 for the continuance of the war for two reasons. I say it is an atrocious waste of money to spend £13,000,000 on the continance of a war for the destruction of the independence of the Boers in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, when you have tens of thousands of people starving, and you can find no money to relieve their distress, and to provide better and more sanitary houses for them instead of the slums in which they are packed together in droves. My other reason is that you have 50,000,000 of starving people in India. What are you doing for them? They are your subjects You under took to govern them, but ever since your rule has been established in India, you have had famines almost every other year. These fifty millions are dying of hunger, and you are doing nothing to save them from starvation. You are fighting to give the franchise to the rapscallions and scum of all the nations in Johannesburg; have you given the franchise to the people of India, your own subjects? You go to war to give the seven years franchise to the Uitlanders of the Transvaal, but why don't you give representative government to the people of India, instead of a despotism, the result of which is periodical famines? When you have smothered the independence of the Boers of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State in their own blood, the Dutch race and the Irish race will have one common cause against one common enemy.

DR. AMBROSE () Mayo, W.

I wish to say a few words in support of the reduction of this Vote, and for this reason, that the Irish people from one end of Ireland to the other, except a few men who have gone to the front, are opposed to the war, because they believe that it is a most unjust war, and has been I brought about by fraudulent means. I also object to this money being voted, because one portion of it is to be spent in arming Volunteers and Yeomanry, while there are no Volunteers in Ireland. Another objection I have is, that Ireland is overtaxed already, and that you will saddle on Ireland a portion of the money which is being spent on this most unjust war.

*MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN () Kilkenny

I desire in a very few sentences to enter my protest on behalf of my constituents against this Vote, which is to be spent in the prosecution of an unjust war. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War wasted a good deal of charming eloquence to-night in saying little or nothing in answer to the charges of pressure brought to bear on the Irish Militia regiments to volunteer for the front. He ridiculed the idea that any pressure had been put upon the Irish Militia regiments, but I believe the public prints, which state that, at all events, some of the Irish Militia regiments stationed in England, having learned their legal rights, have changed their minds, and refused to proceed to South Africa, and not all the power of England will compel them to go on board ship. The hon. Gentleman says that the commanding officers are responsible persons, and above using any pressure on the men to volunteer, but he admits that the system adopted in asking the men whether they wished to go or not was not right. The whole regiment was brought out on parade, including the Reservists who were bound to go, and the question asked was—"Those not willing to go step out of the ranks." If that was not deception and pressure I do not know what is. But why should the Irish Militia be asked to go out to South Africa or to go to England. They are a military force for the protection of their own country. What is being done is that you are taking away these breadwinners from their families and sending to Ireland in their place British Militia. At this moment the garrison of Dublin is made up of British Militia; and the police courts are every day occupied with cases of the most discreditable character and of the violation of the law of property by these British Militiamen, brought in I suppose to improve the morality of the citizens of Dublin, as well as to protect the British Empire. Only last week there were several eases of burglary, and some of these British Militiamen are not now free to go to South Africa because they are sent to prison. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that it was a mistake from your point of view that you did not send these Militiamen out to South Africa, be- cause if they could not take Pretoria, they were rogues enough to steal it. But about our Irish Militia regiments, the mode of procedure with them was first to get them into English towns, then saturate and drug them with bad whisky in the public houses, and next, use your moral influence upon them to go and take part in a war, which, in common with their countrymen at home, they believe to be unjust, and whose only object is to rob the people of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State of the gold and diamonds they possess. The hon. Gentleman said that certain regiments were jealous because they were deprived of the honour of going out to fight in this war. Why does he not tell us his authority for that? Surely a Minister of the Crown is not going to get up beside that box and discredit what we say, and not give us the name of the sender of the telegram. Give us the

name and we will put it to the test. My hon. friend the Member for Clare asked a question to-day about an inmate of Doncaster Workhouse, named Bridget Gavin, who has seven sons in the Army. Such are the heroes of war—the unfortunate Irish soldiers who go out to fight for your flag. Only last week, in my own city of Kilkenny, another poor Irishwoman had to apply for relief, and got it, because her two sons, her only means of support, had been sent out to fight in this infamous war. I hope that these Irish Militiamen will be led by the spirit of their own country, and not by yours, and that they will not take part in a war so monstrous and of the expense of which they will have to pay too heavy a share.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 235; Noes, 31. (Division List No. 23.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready Gosclien, Rt Hn GJ (St. George's
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Gourley, Sir Ed. Temperley
Arnold, Alfred Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Graham, Henry Robert
Arhold-Forster, Hugh O. Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Cubitt, Hon. Henry Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Curzon, Viscount Gretton, John
Baird, John George Alexander Dalrymple, Sir Charles Greville, Hon. Ronald
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r) Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)
Banbury, Frederick George Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardig'n Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Barry, Rt Hn AH Smith-(Hunts Denny, Colonel Gull, Sir Cameron
Hartley, George C. T. Digby, John K. D. WingField- Haldane, Richard Burdon
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Bristol Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George
Beach, Rt. Hn. W.W.B. (Hants) Dorington, Sir John Edward Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Hanson, Sir Reginald
Bethell, Commander Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Hare, Thomas Leigh
Bill, Charles Doxford, Sir Will Theodore Haslett, Sir James Horner
Billson, Alfred Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-
Blakiston-Houston, John Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Helder, Augustus
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Emmont, Alfred Henderson, Alexander
Bond, Edward Faber, George Denison Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Mid'sex) Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)
Broadhurst, Henry Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Mane's Hobhouse, Henry
Brookfield, A Montagu Finch, George H. Holland, William Henry
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Horniman, Frederick John
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Fisher, William Hayes Hozier, Hon. James H. C.
Bullard, Sir Harry Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick
Butcher, John George Flannery, Sir Fortescue Jessel, Captain Herbert M.
Caldwell, James Fletcher, Sir Henry Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.
Carlile, William Walter Flower, Ernest Johnston, William (Belfast)
Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Kearley, Hudson E.
Causton, Richard Knight Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) Kenyon, James
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) Galloway, William Johnson Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.
Cavendish V. C. W. (Derbyshire Gedge, Sydney Kimber, Henry
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond. Lafone, Alfred
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Giles, Charles Tyrrell Langley, Batty
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore. Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. Laurie, Lieut.-General
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Goddard, Daniel Ford Lawrence, Sir E. D. (Corn.)
Charrington, Spencer Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Lawson, John G. (Yorks.)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Goldsworthy, Major-General Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Gordon, Hon. John Edward Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Phillpotts, Captain Arthur Strachey, Edward
Lewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a Platt-Higgins, Frederick Strauss, Arthur
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzon Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Provand, Andrew Dryburgh Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Lorne, Marquess of Pryce-Jones, Lieut.-Col. E. Talbot Rt Hn J.G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Lowe, Francis William Purvis, Robert Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Pyin, C. Guy Thorburn, Sir Walter
Lucas-Shadwell, William Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Thornton, Percy M.
Macartney, W. G. Ellison Kasch, Major Frederic Carne Tollemache, Henry James
Macdona, John Cumming Rentonl, James Alexander Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Maclure, Sir John William Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson Tritton, Charles Ernest
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Robinson, Brooke Wallace, Robert
M'Crae, George Robson, William Snowdon Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
M'Kcnna, Reginald Round, James Wanklyn, James Leslie
Malcolm, Ian Royds, Clement Molyneux Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Martin, Richard Biddulph Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham Webster, Sir Richard E.
Middlemore, J. Throgmorton Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Milner, Sir Frederick George Rutherford, John Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon
Milward, Colonel Victor Ryder, John Herbert Dudley Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Monckton, Edward Philip Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. M. Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)
More, R. J. (Shropshire) Savory, Sir Joseph Wilson, John (Govan)
Morgan J. L. (Carmarthen) Seton-Karr, Henry Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)
Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) Sharpe, William Edward T. Woods, Samuel
Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Moulton, John Fletcher Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) Wyndham, George
Muntz, Philip A. Simeon, Sir Barrington Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Gra'm (Bute Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire) Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Younger, William
Myers, William Henry Smith, James P. (Lanarks)
Nicol, Donald Ninian Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Nussey, Thomas Willans Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Stewart, Sir M. J. M 'Taggart
Penn, John Stone, Sir Benjamin
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Flavin, Michael Joseph Power, Patrick Joseph
Ambrose, Robert Hayden, John Patrick Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Austin. M. (Limerick, W.) Kilbride, Denis Redmond, William (Clare)
Blake, Edward Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Condon, Thomas-Joseph MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Crean, Eugene M'Dermott, Patrick Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Crilly, Daniel M'Ghee, Richard Tully, Jasper
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) Mandeville, J. Francis
Dillon, John O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.
Doogan, P. C. O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.
Engledew, Charles John O'Malley, William
Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.) Parnell, John Howard

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

MR. CREAN () Queen's County, Ossory

L know it is not a pleasant thing at this hour of the morning to address the House on the Vote before us, and under other circumstances I would not have done so. But I think it is absolutely necessary that each individual Member who represents an Irish constituency should use this and every other opportunity to protest against the action of the House in voting this thirteen millions for this unjust war. It is a double injustice to Ireland that not alone do you go to Avar without our sanction and consent, but you make us pay for it. No one can say that we who represent the majority of the Irish peo- ple have failed to protest on every occasion against this, the most iniquitous war of the whole century. What has taken place during the last few days has given hon. Members opposite a sort of Dutch courage, although they are silent enough about voting away this large sum of money. The curt answers we get when we try to obtain some information are not such as should be given in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: Divide, divide!] It is always the case to cry "divide" when an Irish representative wishes to express the opinion of; his constituents; and we voice the strong opinion of nine-tenths of the Irish people. The agitation in Ireland is not as it is in England; it is the free expression of I opinion. Corporations have passed reso- lutions against the war, and public meetings, attended by thousands, have protested against it; and we would not be doing our duty if we did not protest against you spending their money, and making them responsible for the infamy of prosecuting this war. Before you entered into it we protosted against it, and we will continue to protest against it; and that being so, on what moral ground do you tax the Irish people to make them pay for it? Thirteen millions would make the Irish people comfortable. We are looking for money for the evicted tenants, to pay half the, rates, for a land

purchase scheme, and for many other purposes; but we cannot get it, although our money is being spent, and the blood of our people shed for this, the most un-precedentedly wicked war in the history of the world.


rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes, 207; Noes. 30. (Division List No. 24.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Lawrenee, Sir E. Durning-(Corn
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Faber, George Denison Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)
Arnold, Alfred Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw H.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc. Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Baird, John George Alexander Fisher, William Hayes Llewelyn, Sir Dilwyn-(Swans'a
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.
Banbury, Frederick George Flannery, Sir Fortescue Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Barry, Rt. Hon. A. H. Smith- Fletcher, Sir Henry Lorne, Marquess of
Hartley, George C. T. Flower, Ernest Lowe, Francis William
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Beach, Rt. Hn. W.W.B. (Hants. Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) Luoas-Shadwell, William
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Galloway, William Johnson Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Bethell, Commander Gedge, Sydney Macdona, John Cumming
Hill, Charles Gibbs. Hn. A.G.H. (C.of Lord.) Maclure, Sir John William
Billson, Alfred Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Blakiston-Houston, John Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Arthur, William (Cornwall
Blundell, Colonel Henry Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. M'Crae, George
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Goldsworthy, Major-General Malcolm, Ian
Bond, Edward Gordon, Hon. John Edward Martin, Richard Biddulph
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Middlemore, J. Tbrogmorton
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Gosehen, Rt. Hn. G.J. (St.Geo.'s Milner, Sir Frederick George
Bullard, Sir Harry Graham, Henry Robert Milward, Colonel Victor
Butcher, John George Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Monckton, Edward Philip
Caldwell, James Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury) Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)
Carlile, William Walter Gretton, John Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Causton, Richard Knight Greville, Hon. Ronald More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)
Cavendish, H. F. (N. Lanes.) Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Cavendish, V.C.W. (D'byshire) Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Gull, Sir Cameron Moulton, John Fletcher
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. Haldane, Richard Burdon Muntz, Philip A.
Chamberlain, J. Austoe (Worc. Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo. Murray, R. Hon. A. G. (Bute)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm. Murray, Rt. Hon. Wyndham (Bath)
Charrington, Spencer Hanson. Sir Reginald Nicol, Donald Ninian
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hare, Thomas Leigh Nussey, Thomas Willans
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Haslett, Sir James Horner Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Penn, John
Cross, Herb, Shepherd (Bolton) Helder, Augustus Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Henderson, Alexander Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Curzon, Viscount Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan Hobhouse, Henry Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Denny, Colonel Holland, William Henry Purvis, Robert
Digby, John K. D. Wingfield Horniman, Frederick John Rentoul, James Alexander
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l
Dorington, Sir John Edward Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Johnston, William (Belfast) Robinson, Brooke
Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Round, James
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Kimber, Henry Royds, Clement Molyueux
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Lafone, Alfred Russell, Gen. F.S. (Cheltenham
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Langley, Batty Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Emmott, Alfred Laurie, Lieut.-General Rutherford, John
Ryder, John Herbert Dudley Strauss, Arthur Webster, Sir Richard E.
Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. Myles Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley Welby, Lieut,-Col. A. C. E.
Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Savory, Sir Joseph Sutherland, Sir Thomas Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)
Seton-Karr, Henry Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox'd Univ) Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)
Sharpe, William Edward T. Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) Wilson-Todd, AY. H. (Yorks.)
Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) Thorburn, Sir Walter Woods, Samuel
Simeon, Sir Barrington Thornton, Percy M. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart
Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Tollemache, Henry James Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Smith, James P. (Lanarks.) Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray Wyvil, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand) Tritton, Charles Ernest Young, Commander (Berks, E.
Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset) Wallace, Robert Younger, William
Stewart, Sir M. J. M 'Taggart Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Stone, Sir Benjamin Wanklyn, James Leslie
Strachey, Edward Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E. Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Malley, William
Ambrose, Robert Flynn, James Christopher Parnell, John Howard
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Hayden, John Patrick Power, Patrick Joseph
Condon, Thomas Joseph Kilbride, Denis Redmond, John K. (Waterford
Crean, Eugene Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'd) Redmond, William (Clare)
Crilly, Daniel MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) M'Dermott, Patrick Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Dillon, John M'Chee, Richard Tully, Jasper
Doogan, P. C. Mandeville, J. Francis TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.
Engledew, Charles John O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Furrell, James P. (Cavan, W.) O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided:—Ayes, 207; Noes, 31. (Division List No. 25.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Cross, Herb. S. (Bolton) Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Cubitt, Hon. Henry Goschen, Rt. Hn. G.J. (St.Geo's
Arnold, Alfred Curzon, Viscount Graham, Henry Robert
Ashton, Thomas Gair Dalrymple, Sir Charles Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)
Baird, John George Alexander Davies, M. V. (Cardigan) Gretton, John
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Denny, Colonel Greville, Hon. Ronald
Banbury, Frederick George Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)
Barry, Rt. Hn. A.H.S. (Hunts) Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill
Bartley, George C. T. Dorington, Sir John Edward Gull, Sir Cameron
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Bristol Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Haldane, Richard Burdon
Beach, Rt. Hn. W.W.B. (Hants. Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George
Beaumont, Wentworth C.B. Doxford, Sir William T. Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.
Bethell, Commander Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Hanson, Sir Reginald
Bill, Charles Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Hare, Thomas Leigh
Billson, Alfred Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Haslett, Sir James Horner
Blakiston-Houston, John Emmott, Alfred Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-
Blundell, Colonel Henry Faber, George Denison Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Fellowes, Hon. Ailvyn Ed. Helder, Augustus
Bond, Edward Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Henderson, Alexander
Bowles, Capt. H. K. (Middlesex Fergusson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Man. Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead)
Bullard, Sir Harry Fisher, William Hayes Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)
Butcher, John George Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. Hobhouse, Henry
Caldwell, James Flannery, Sir Fortescue Holland, William Henry
Carlile, William Walter Fletcher, Sir Henry Horniman, Frederick John
Causton, Richard Knight Flower, Ernest Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick
Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.) Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) Jessel, Captain H. Merton
Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich) Galloway, William Johnson Johnston, William (Belfast)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) Gedge, Sydney Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H. (City of Lond Kimber, Henry
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbt. John Lafone, Alfred
Charrington, Spencer Goddard, Daniel Ford Langley, Batty
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk. Laurie, Lieut.-General
Colomb, Sir John Charles R. Goldsworthy, Major-General Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn
Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow) Gordon, Hon. John Edward Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)
Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Stewart, Sir Mark J.M 'Taggart
Lecky, Rt. Hon. William E. H. Nieol, Donald Ninian Stone, Sir Benjamin
Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) Nussey, Thomas Willans Strachey, Edward
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Cunie Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Strauss, Arthur
Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swans'a Penn, John Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Phillpotts, Captain Arthur Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Platt-Higgins, Frederick Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Lorne, Marquess of Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ
Lowe, Francis William Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Provand, Andrew Dryburgh Thorburn, Sir Walter
Lucas-Shadwell, William Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Thornton, Percy M.
Macartney, W. G. Ellison Purvis, Robert Tollemache, Henry James
Macdona, John Cumming Rentoul, James Alexander Tomlinson, W. E. Murray
Maclure, Sir John William Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) Tritton, Charles Ernest
M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson Wallace, Robert
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Robinson, Brooke Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
M'Crae, George Round, James Wanklyn, James Leslie
M'Kenna, Reginald Royds, Clement Molyneux Warner, T. Courtenay T.
Malcolm, Ian Russell, Gen. F.S. (Cheltenham) Webster, Sir Richard E.
Martin, Richard Biddulph Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Middlemore, J. Throgmorton Rutherford, John Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Milner, Sir Frederick George Ryder, John Herbert Dudley Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)
Milward, Colonel Victor Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)
Monckton, Edward Philip Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)
Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants) Savory, Sir Joseph Woods, Samuel
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Seton-Karr, Henry Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
More, R. Jasper (Shropshire) Sharpe, William Edward T. Wyndham, George
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) Wyvil, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) Simeon, Sir Barrington Young, Commander, Berks, E.)
Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport) Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Younger, William
Moulton, John Fletcher Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Muntz, Philip A. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Abraham, William (cork. N.E. Flynn, James Christopher Power, Patrick Joseph
Ambrose, Robert Hayden, John Patrick Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Killbride, Denis Redmond, William (Clare)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Crean, Eugene MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Crilly, Daniel M'Dermott, Patrick Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) M'Ghee, Richard Tully, Jasper
Dillon, John Mandeville, J. Francis
Doogan, P. C. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.
Engledew, Charles John O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)
Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.) O'Malley, William
Flavin, Michael Joseph Parnell, John Howard

Resolution agreed to.