Commons Sitting of 22 February 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—
  St. David's Railway (Additional Powers) Bill.
  Ordered, that the Bill be read a second time.

  SOUTH EASTERN METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS BILL.
  "For conferring further powers on the South Eastern Metropolitan Tramways Company for constructing Tramways and widening and altering roads; for using mechanical power on their Tramways; and for other purposes," read the first time: and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  AIRDRIE AND COATBRIDGE TRAMWAYS BILL.
  "To incorporate the Airdrie and Coatbridge Tramways Company, and to empower that company to make and maintain tramways; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  DEVONPORT CORPORATION BILL.
  "To confer powers upon the Corporation of the Borough of Devonport with respect to the construction and working of tramways within and near the borough, for extending the powers of the said Corporation as to electric lighting, for extending the boundaries of the said borough, to make provision for the acquisition of Market Ferry and bridge undertakings, to confer further powers upon the said Corporation with respect to streets and other matters, and in regard to the health, local government, and improvement of the said borough, to make further provision for the collection and recovery of rates, for the borrowing of money; and for other purposes," read the first time: to be read a second time.
  SHANNON WATER AND ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  "For incorporating and conferring powers on the Shannon Water and Electric Power Company," road the first time; to be read a second time.
PETITIONS.
  GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (EXEMPTION FROM RATES).
  Petitions from St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petition from Linthwaite, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Barry, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON GOVERNMENT ACT, 1899.
  Petition from Camberwell, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Wath; Dysart; Moresby; Harrington; Cleator Moor; Frizington; Oatlands; Dunnikier; Hindley Green; Loftus; Huncliff; Guisborough; Eston; Digby; Lumpsey; Codnor; Slafrenath; Saxenby; Rockingham; Cadeby; Wharncliffe Silkstone; Eastwood; Marshay: Skelton; North Skelton; Ilkeston; and West Hallam Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  OWNERS' SITE VALUES.
  Petition from Poplar, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS (PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  Petition from Poplar, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from East Plum stead; and Leicester; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Plumstead; Hull; Merthyr Tydfil; and Colne; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL
  Petitions in favour, from Morpeth; and Southampton; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1900 1901.
  Copy presented, of Army Estimates of Effective and Non-Effective Services for 1900-1901, with Statements of the variations of the numbers of Her Majesty's British Forces, explanations of the increases and decreases in the Estimates, the Amounts included for the Colonies and Egypt, and the Amounts provided for
  776
  each Arm of the Service and for various Miscellaneous Establishments [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 67.]

  ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES ESTIMATE, 1900-1901).
  Estimate presented, of Charge for the year 1900-1901 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 68.]
  SOUTH AUSTRALIA (CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1899).
  Copy presented, of the Constitution Amendment Act, 1899, of South Australia [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
  Copy presented, of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education, dated 4th August, 1899, modifying Articles 15 and 15* of the Evening Continuation Schools Code, 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2382 [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
  MANUSCRIPTS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House a Copy of the Manuscripts of the House of Lords, Volume T. (New Series).—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  ARMY (MEMBERS OF EITHER HOUSE. OF PARLIAMENT SERVING IN SOUTH AFRICA).
  Address for "Return showing the names of Members of either House of Parliament at present serving, or under orders to serve. Her Majesty in South Africa, the capacity in which they serve, and the dates at which they sailed or are under orders to sail."—(Colonel Milward.),

  BREWERS' LICENCES.
  Return ordered, "of Accounts of the number of persons in each of the several collections of the United Kingdom licensed as brewers for sale, i.e., common brewers, victuallers, retailers of beer to be drunk on the premises, retailers of beer not to be drunk on the premises, and brewers of

  777
  beer not for sale, particularising each class in each collection; and stating also the quantities of malt, unmalted corn, rice, etc., and sugar, including its equivalent of syrups, etc., used by brewers of beer for sale, and of malt and sugar used by brewers not for sale, from the 1st day of October, 1898, to the 30th day of September, 1899.
  "Of the amount of Licence Duty paid and Beer Duty charged from the 1st day of October, 1898, to the 30th day of September, 1899, distinguishing brewers for sale from other brewers.
  "Of the number of brewers for sale paying for licences, from the 1st day of October 1898 to the 20th day of September 1899, separating them into classes: under 1,000 barrels, at 1· 055 degrees gravity; 1,000 and under 10,000; 10,000 and under 20,000; 20,000 and under 30,000; 30,000 and under 50,000; 50,000 and under 100,000; 100,000 and under 150,000; 150,000 and under 200,000; 200,000 and under 250,000; 250,000 and under 300,000; 300,000 and under 350,000; 350,000 and under 400,000; 400,000 and under 450,000; 150,000 and under 500,000; 500,000 and under 550,000; 550,000 and under (100,000; 600,000 and under 1,000,000; 1,000,000 and under 1,500,000; 1,500,000 and under 2,000,000; 2,000,000 barrels and over; showing separately in each class, the quantities of malt, unmalted corn, rice, etc., and sugar, including its equivalent of syrups, etc., used; and stating also the amount of Licence Duty paid and Beer Duty charged in each class.
  "And of the number of barrels of beer exported from the United Kingdom, and the declared value thereof, and where exported to, from the 1st day of October, 1898, to the 30th day of September, 1899, distinguishing England, Scotland, and Ireland (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 127, of Session 1899.")—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 69.]

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—NEWS FROM THE FRONT.
  SIR J. JOICEY (): I wish to ask the Leader of the
  778
  House whether he can communicate any further war news.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Yes, Sir; just as I was coming to the House the following telegram from Lord Roberts was put into my hands—
  "Paardeburg, Feb. 21, 6.5 a.m.—Yesterday afternoon I was satisfied by a careful reconnaissance in force of the enemy's position that I could not assault it without a very heavy loss, which I was most anxious to avoid. Accordingly, I decided to bombard him with artillery, and to turn my attention to the enemy's reinforcements. The result was most satisfactory. The Boers were driven off in all directions, losing a good many killed and wounded, and about fifty prisoners, who state that they arrived from Lady smith two days ago by railway. They say that it was our artillery fire which caused them to abandon the kopje they were occupying. Our loss consisted of two officers—Captain Campbell, 9th Lancers, and Lieutenant Houston, Royal Horse Artillery—and four men, all slightly wounded."
  MR. BROADHURST (): I wish to ask the Under Secretary for War whether he has any late official information as to the condition of General Hector Macdonald.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I regret I am unable to give any further details as to the nature of the wound unhappily received by General Hector Macdonald. As to its gravity, I think we may console ourselves with the reflection that it has not been described as dangerous. We may therefore hope that his services will soon be restored.

  TRANSPORTS—EMPLOYMENT OF BRITISH SEAMEN.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any regulations have been issued by the Admiralty insisting upon all vessels chartered as transports being manned by seamen belonging to the British Isles; and whether the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Shipping Company and the British India Steam Shipping Company's vessels, chartered by Her Majesty's Government, are manned by persons belonging to the British Isles or by Asiatics.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): No such regulations have been issued. As regards the vessels of the two com-

  779
  panics named, a portion of the crews are Asiatic subjects of Her Majesty, but the deck hands are European.

  THE TRANSPORT "PINEMORE."
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the transport "Pinemore," with troops for South Africa, which arrived at Queenstown with her propeller disabled and was taken back to Liverpool for repairs, will he explain why the more expeditious course of doing the necessary repairs in Haulbowline Dock was not adopted; whether Haulbowline Dock is fully equipped for executing such repairs; and whether it is intended, in view of the emergencies that may arise in war time, to fully equip this dock for the accommodation of the Navy, and to send vessels there for repairs to test its utility.
  MR. MACARTNEY: The answer to the first question of the hon. Member is that it was not practicable owing to the length of the vessel. I should have been glad if it had been possible. The answer to the second and third questions is in the affirmative, under the conditions which have been previously stated.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: is it intended to send other vessels there?
  MR. MACARTNEY: That is the very question I have attempted to answer.

  DELAGOA BAY—CONTRABAND GOODS—NEUTRALITY OF PORTUGUESE GOVERNMENT—POSITION OF MR. POTT—THE EMPREZA AFRICANA COMPANY—BRITISH SUBJECTS TRADING WITH THE ENEMY.
  MR. SCOTT MONTAGU (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that a Portuguese company, directed and controlled by British subjects, called the Empreza Africana Company, has been and is still importing and exporting materials for the Transvaal Government at Delagoa Bay; and, whether he will take steps to prevent British subjects from thus, in contravention of the law, directly or indirectly acting in conjunction with the Queen's enemies.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (MR. BRODRICK,): Her Majesty's Government are assured by
  780
  Sir Donald Currie that the Empreza Africana neither imports nor exports merchandise, but is solely concerned in the carriage of goods between ship and wharf, and that the Empreza Africana has not acted directly or indirectly in conjunction with the enemy.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether some time ago the British Consul at Delagoa Bay warned British firms against giving succour to the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, now in a state of war with Great Britain, by assisting in the shipment of wool the produce of either of those Republics; whether he is aware that such wool is being laden in large quantities at Delagoa Bay by the Empreza Africana Company; whether he is aware that the Empreza Africana Company is an offshoot of the Castle Line Company owned by British capitalists; whether he is aware that the Empreza Africana Company is directed from the office of Mr. Pott, the consul for the Transvaal at Delagoa Bay; and do Her Majesty's Government propose to take any, and, if so, what, steps in the matter.
  MR. BRODRICK: Such a warning was issued by Her Majesty's Consul. Her Majesty's Government trust that British subjects having interest in the Empreza Africana, which is a Portuguese company will not fail in their duty as declared in Her Majesty's Proclamation of the 27th of December last respecting trading with the enemy. Her Majesty's Government are assured by Sir Donald Currie that the Empreza Company is not directed from the office of Mr. Pott. Her Majesty's Consul at Lorenzo Marques has been instructed to report on the matter.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask whether the House is to understand the answer given to the second paragraph of the question to be an admission by the hon. Gentleman that the company named has loaded wool at Delagoa Bay.
  MR. BRODRICK: My reply was perfectly clear. In answer to the last paragraph, I stated that Her Majesty's Consul at Lorenzo Marques had been instructed to report on the second paragraph and on the whole question.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY (): I beg to ask the Under Score-

  781
  tary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any reason to believe that contra hand goods find their way into the Transvaal over Portuguese territory otherwise than through Delagoa Bay.
  MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government are not aware of the existence of any evidence to show that contraband goods are passing to the Transvaal through Delagoa Bay or other Portuguese territory.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have reason to believe that in respect of contraband of war the Portuguese officers at Delagoa Bay are loyally carrying out the instructions of the Portuguese Government.
  MR. BRODRICK: General allegations have been made that the local authorities fail to carry out as completely as might be desired the instructions of the Portuguese Government in regard to contraband, but no proof has been produced in support of those allegations.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the salary of the chief Portuguese officer is only £7 a month?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date did Mr. Pott, consul for the South African Republic at Lorenzo Marques, cease to be agent for the Castle Line Steamship Company or for Donald Currie and Co.: is Mr. Pott still acting as agent for the Portuguese Company known as the Empress Africana: is the Empress Africana active in forwarding into the South African Republic merchandise of various kinds which British subjects are debarred from supplying to the Transvaal: is the Government aware that the capital of the Empress Africana is so largely held by British subjects that the policy and actions of that undertaking are controlled by British subjects; are such British subjects or any of them known; and can their action in this matter be in any way restrained.
  MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government are assured by the hon. Member for West Perthshire that Mr.
  782
  Pott is not agent either for the Castle Line or for Messrs. Donald Currie and Company, and that he is not acting as agent of the Empress Africana. The hon. Member for West Perthshire also assures Her Majesty's Government that the Empress Africana is not, so far as he knows, doing anything contrary to Her Majesty's proclamation; and that the policy of the company is so far controlled by British subjects that its management has been withdrawn from any possible influence inimical to British interests. Her Majesty's consul at Lorenzo Marques has been instructed to report any deviation from these assurances.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer the specific question as to when Mr. Pott ceased to hold office?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot give the date.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Was it subsequent to the date of the last question asked on the subject?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Perhaps the hon. Baronet the Member for West Perthshire can toll us?
  SIR DONALD CURRIE ()rose to reply.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is not in order to ask a question of a non-Ministerial Member in this way.

  COMMANDS AT THE FRONT.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War how many general officers of each grade are now employed in South Africa, and how many in each grade belong to the artillery.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The general officers now employed in South Africa, according to their rank there, are—one field marshal, one general, nine lieutenant generals, twenty-three major generals, one brigadier general; total, thirty-five. Of these officers there belong to the Royal Artillery-one field marshal, two major generals, and one brigadier general. The Eighth Division, now mobilised at Aldershot is in command of a general who is an artillery officer.

  CONDUCT OF MILITARY OPERATIONS—DESTRUCTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to an extract from a letter from Trooper G. Benton, of the 12th Lancers, to his father (who resides at Whaplode, Spalding), in which, writing from Enslin Camp on 19th January, he says that they (the 12th Lancers) burn and blow up houses which the Free Staters have left behind, and that the furniture and pianos are set fire to and destroyed; and whether the attention of the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa will be called to the destruction by British troops of houses and property in the Orange Free State.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is no official confirmation of the statement referred to. The proclamation recently issued by Lord Roberts shows clearly that the troops are not permitted to interfere with the property of the inhabitants of the Orange Free State, provided they are peaceful and do not resist Her Majesty's forces.

  ENSLIN ENGAGEMENT—LACK OF ARTILLERY.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to that part of the official dispatch reporting that the fruits of victory could not be reaped for want of a battery of Royal Horse Artillery at Enslin; and whether, in view of the fact that the reduction of Royal Horse Artillery in 1887 was carried into effect against the opinion of the then Commander-in-Chief, he will now state the name of the individual or individuals responsible for that reduction, resulting at Enslin in the inability of a general to reap the fruits of victory gained at so much sacrifice of life.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second, I have to say that the distribution of the three arms on the occasion referred to cannot fairly be ascribed to an administrative act of the year 1887.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: Was anybody now at the War Office responsible for the reduction, or rather for the recommendation that the artillery be reduced?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not see the relevancy of the question. The hon. and gallant Member asks if my attention has been drawn to a certain despatch. I answer "Yes." Then he asks who was responsible in 1887 for the lack of horse artillery at Enslin recently. I reply that you cannot ascribe the lack of artillery in South Africa to an administrative act in the year 1887.

  DISAPPEARING GUN MOUNTINGS.
  GENERAL RUSSELL (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether our heavy guns now in South Africa have been provided with the disappearing mountings which are stated to have been used with so much effect by the Boers during General Buller's last advance across the Tugela; and, if not, whether similar mountings, will be dispatched from this country without delay.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. It is considered that the disadvantages attendant on the use in the field of this class of mounting more than counterbalance its. advantages.

  CYCLE CORPS.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any offer has been made to the War Office to raise a cycle corps; and, if so, whether the offer has been accepted or declined; and whether he is aware that a number of Boers are mounted on cycles and have proved of considerable service to the enemy.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Proposals to raise corps for service in South Africa have been made, but it has not been thought advisable to approve them. The subject is, however, being further considered. We have no knowledge of the Boers using cycles.

  PUBLICATION OF WAR NEWS.
  MR. BILLSON (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether arrangements can be made for important news from South Africa being communicated to the public without the delay which occurred on Friday, when the news of General French's entry into Kimberley is understood to have reached the War Office at 4.30 a.m., but was not given out until 9.45.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is impossible; to review and publish news at an earlier hour. The Press Lobby only opens at 9.45.

  IRISH MILITIA—ALLEGED COMPULSORY VOLUNTEERING.
  MR. DONAL SULLIVAN (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War how many men of the 3rd Leinster Militia Regiment, at present stationed at Woolwich, have volunteered for foreign service, and how many have declined.
  MR. WYNDHAM: All except two of those at Woolwich volunteered.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (): Was any disability or punishment put upon the men who refused to volunteer?
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, so far back as 2nd November, 1899, the 5th battalion of Royal Irish Rifles (the South Down Militia) volunteered for garrison duty, or such other duty as they might be called upon to perform. And whether their services have been or will be accepted. In putting this question may I express the hope that the House will wish many happy returns of his birthday to Colonel Baden-Powell at Mafeking.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. The battalion has offered its services, but, as in the case of other corps, it has not yet been embodied owing to want of barrack room.

  YEOMANRY—ALLEGED BOER SPIES.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what are the circumstances attending the arrest of two yeomen named Buck on a charge of being Boer spies.
  MR. WYNDHAM: These two men have been discharged from arrest and given the £5 gratuity which they would have earned on completing the period of their engagement.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the inquiry resulted in? Did it prove the guilt or otherwise of the men in regard to the charges made against them?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The inquiry resulted in their being discharged and being given a sum which, in ordinary circumstances, they would not have been entitled to until after completing a year's service.

  PRAYERS FOR SOLDIERS.
  MR. HAYDEN (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, before distributing amongst Roman Catholic soldiers serving in South Africa the prayer reported to have been composed by His Grace the Protestant Archbishop of Armagh and circulated by order of Lord Roberts, the military authorities have consulted, or intend to consult, the Roman Catholic chaplains serving with the Army in South Africa.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This is a matter entirely within the discretion of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in South Africa.

  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER (, Ilkeston): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that no recruit can be enlisted for the Royal Army Medical Corps if he is over 5 ft. 5 in. in height, however otherwise eligible he may be, this restriction, which prevents enlistment of men otherwise eligible in this branch of the service, can be removed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The maximum standard for the corps is 5 ft. 5 in., but a taller man, who might for special reasons be eligible, would be taken as "specially enlisted."

  NURSING ORDERLIES IN MILITARY HOSPITALS.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if the number of nursing orderlies employed in field and general hospitals in South Africa is only one orderly for every seven patients, and if, in the interests of efficiency, it can be increased to one for five patients.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The proportion of orderlies to beds is as stated—one to seven—and the Secretary of State is advised that that is sufficient. In a field hospital the bearer company can supply

  787
  additional orderlies as soon as an action is over; and as patients are always transferred as soon as possible to the base hospital the beds are rarely all full. In a general hospital many of the cases are always slight, and there is a regular staff of nursing sisters.

  NETLEY HOSPITAL.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it has been brought to his notice that the dining halls at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Netley, are supplied with wooden forms without any back support, which are unsuitable for invalids; and if he will consider the advisability of substituting barrack chairs.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Not long since the opinions of principal medical officers as to the requirements of military hospitals were collected and reported upon by a committee. The change suggested was not among those proposed. The question will, however, be considered.

  VACANT COMMISSIONS.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government intend to give any indication of the manner in which they propose to fill up the vacancies in the commissioned ranks of the regiments now serving in South Africa and in the forces to be raised temporarily for home defence.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; a scheme will be published very shortly.

  ARMY VETERINARY COMMISSIONS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has any objection to say how many Army veterinary commissions will be offered with increase of horse soldiers, and also how many the Department was short at the outbreak of the present war.
  MR. WYNDHAM: At the outbreak of war there were six vacancies. The number of commissions to be offered in view of the increase in the mounted troops is at present under consideration.

  POSTAL RATES ON GIFTS TO TROOPS AT THE FRONT.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Post Office authorities have demanded 7s. 8d. postage on half a pound of tobacco which a woman in Ireland desired to send to her husband, who is serving with the British Army in South Africa; and whether the War Office can make any arrangements with the Post Office, or otherwise, by which the relatives of soldiers in South Africa can send small parcels to them free of charge.
  'MR. WYNDHAM: I have authority to say that if the hon. Member will send particulars to the General Post Office inquiry will be made, and that if any mistake has occurred it will be rectified. The postage for parcels to South Africa up to 1 lb. is only 9d., and no duty is charged upon them.

  SEPARATION ALLOWANCES—MARRIAGES WITHOUT LEAVE.
  MR. GALLOWAY (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the family of a soldier whose marriage is ignored by the military authorities, and who is detained by the exigencies of war from passing to the Reserve although his time were about to expire, is ignored in the distribution of the separation allowances to the families of Reservists whose marriages, which are also without leave, are recognised by the War Office.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The wives of men married without leave cannot, as a matter of discipline, be considered in regard to separation allowance; and it is not practicable to discriminate between them in the way suggested in the question.

  LYDDITE SHELL CONTRACTS.
  MR. MADDISON (): I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that Messrs. T. Firth and Son, Limited, Sheffield, are not complying with the fair contract resolution of the House of Commons in executing their contract for 4· 7 lyddite shells, and that the men engaged in making them are paid at less than the recognised rates of the district, and less than those paid by other firms in Sheffield; and whether he will take imme-

  789
  diate steps to secure full compliance with the terms of the resolution in question.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The contractors have been communicated with, and it does not appear that they are paying less than the current rates in respect of the shells referred to: but if the hon. Member has any facts that he can adduce supporting the contrary view I will cause further inquiry to be made.

  PATRIOTIC FUND COMMITTEE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any member of the Committee appointed to inquire into the Administration of the Patriotic Fund is an Irishman or Roman Catholic; and if not, whether, considering that Irish Roman Catholics are taking such a part in the South African War, and that consequently their families are likely to be largely dependent upon this fund, he will see that an Irish Roman Catholic is appointed to look after their interests, especially as a large portion of the existing fund is invested for the benefit of Roman Catholic children.
  The following questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper—
  MR. M'KENNA (): To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the inquiry by the proposed Committee upon the Royal Patriotic Final and other similar funds is to be directed to the determination of some method of general organisation by which those funds may be turned to the best advantage, or whether the inquiry is to be more limited in its scope, and confined to the consideration as to how far these funds can be drawn upon and most advantageously expended in the present emergency.
  MR. M'KENNA: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether in view of the expression of public feeling upon the exclusion from the proposed Committee upon the Royal Patriotic Fund and other similar funds of Members of the House of Commons who have special knowledge of the matters to be inquired into, he will consider the advisability of adding one or more of such Members to the Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will, with the permission of the House, reply to the
  790
  three questions dealing with the Patriotic Fund together. As regards the first question I think the hon. Gentleman will see that there is no subject in the question referred to the Committee involving the distribution of the fund relating to the interests of different religious denominations. The hon. Gentleman may rest satisfied that no such distinction as he appears to suggest has ever interfered, or ever will interfere, with the adequate distribution of public subscriptions among the sufferers. As to the second question, I am unwilling to give the House a, special interpretation of the general reference to the Committee which I read to the House the other day, but I should conceive that the subjects mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's question come within the scope of the reference. As to the third question, I have already explained to the House that there are very strong reasons for keeping the Committee within narrow limits, and excluding from it persons who have taken a strong part in the controversies surrounding the subject.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (): I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that £35,000 are invested in this fund for the special benefit of Catholic children, and, if so, is it not reasonable that a Catholic should be added to the Committee?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware of the fact, but I will inquire if the hon. Gentleman so desires. But he may depend upon it that if £35,000 were so allocated they will be so applied.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The fact is as I have stated.

  WAR RELIEE FUNDS.
  MR. GALLOWAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, upon what information his statement was based that the funds which are being subscribed by the public have up to the present been even more than sufficient to deal with the widows and children of soldiers killed in South Africa; whether any return can be made of the money collected for this purpose by the various funds, both London and provincial, and also of the sums distributed by them; and whether he will request the Committee, which he has appointed to inquire into the administration of the various funds, to first consider what is the proper annuity that a

  791
  widow of a soldier killed in action or dying of his wounds should receive from all sources, in order that a minimum scale may obtain throughout the country.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think my hon. friend has misunderstood the purport of what I said the other day, and the misunderstanding is one for which I and not he is responsible. All I wished to say was that our experience, dating at least as far back as the Crimean War, seems to show that private benevolence is adequate to deal with the widows and children of soldiers killed in action. I said nothing of the adequacy of the funds now being subscribed in connection with the war which is still in progress, and which has unknown liabilities. I think the subjects mentioned in the second and third paragraphs would properly come under the attention of the Committee appointed, and I hope it will be able to deal with them.

  THE ARTILLERY SERVICE.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what military officer is, under the existing constitution of the War Office, individually responsible for the sufficiency and efficiency of the Artillery services, and to what arm of the Service does he belong.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member will find the information which he requires in the Order in Council of 7th March, 1899. It has been presented to Parliament.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: My question is, who is responsible under the existing constitution of the War Office for the sufficiency and efficiency of the Artillery service? Does the hon. Gentleman mean by his answer to cover the personnel as well as the maté riel?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The method by which advice is tendered at the War Office, and acted upon by the Secretary of State, is governed by an Order in Council, which I cannot explain by way of question and answer in this House.

  ARMY SERVICE CORPS ESTABLISHMENT.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State
  792
  for War whether any addition has been recently made to the establishment of the Army Service Corps: and if he can state the number of officers of various ranks on the permanent list (exclusive of supernumerary colonels and quartermasters) at present serving in Great Britain and Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir, the establishment was increased last year. The number of officers on the permanent list in the United Kingdom is as follows: Five lieutenant-colonels, six majors, three captains, twenty-seven subalterns. It must, however, be remembered that the thirteen supernumerary colonels and seventeen supernumerary quartermasters now at home are all officers of experience, who are engaged on the general duties of the corps.

  ARMY COMMISSIONS FOR SCOTTISH PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
  MR. HOZIER (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that nominations to commissions in the Army are to be granted to certain schools, the Secretary of State for War will keep in view the claims of Scotland, and will consult the Scottish Education Department in regard to the selection of Scottish schools suitable to participate in the privilege.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The claims of Scotland will not be overlooked, but the number of commissions so given must necessarily be very small, as it is desired not to take candidates at too young an age.

  OFFICERS' COMMISSIONS—WOOLWICH AND SANDHURST EXAMINATION.
  ADMIRAL FIELD (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the difficulty which exists in obtaining officers, and having regard to the number of candidates who were unsuccessful at the examinations in 1899 for entry into Woolwich Academy and Sandhurst, many of whom are the sons of officers and have spent years in preparation for a military career, he would consider the advisability of admitting to Woolwich and Sandhurst a certain number of such candidates as had

  793
  obtained, say, 4,000 marks or more to till vacancies as they occur between now and midsummer.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The colleges are now full; but if vacancies occur between this and June the admission of candidates who were unsuccessful at the last examination will be carefully considered.

  MILITIA OFFICERS—PAY, GRATUITIES, AND PENSIONS.
  MR. MALCOLM (): On behalf of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Carson) I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War will he explain why a gratuity of £100 made to Militia officers on the disembodiment of their regiments (in addition to their pay) is not granted to officers who have served in the Regular Army and have afterwards accepted commissions in the Militia; whether such last-mentioned officers whilst serving with the Militia only receive the same pay as Militia officers; and whether the War Office will consider the advisability of granting to all officers of the Militia alike the said gratuity.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Under existing regulations Militia officers who have served in the Regular Army are given a gratuity of £100 on disembodiment unless they are in receipt of a pension or gratuity on retirement from the Regular forces. They receive the same pay as the other Militia officers. It is now proposed to give the gratuity on disembodiment to all with one proviso: where the additional year's service would entitle an officer to a higher rate of pension he will have to choose between that higher rate and the gratuity.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the, Under Secretary of State for War if he can state whether a decision has now been arrived at with respect to the granting to ex-Army officers serving in the Militia the same gratuity as that given to Militia officers upon their regiments being embodied; and whether the case of retired officers of the Regular Army serving in the Militia being deprived of their pension dining embodiment has been considered.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have dealt with the first point in reply to the hon. Member for Dublin University. With reference
  794
  to the second point, the retired officer is allowed to draw his retired pay for twenty-seven days—being the equivalent of a yearly training in addition to his full pay; but after that period he receives only the full pay of his appointment.

  STATUS OF INFANTRY RESERVE OFFICERS REJOINING.
  SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON (Southampton: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether an Infantry Reserve officer who offers to rejoin for service at his depot, and is accepted, receives a sum for his outfit; if so, how much, and when is it paid to him; and whether an officer so rejoining then holds the rank and place in the Army List which he occupied on retirement, and what pay and allowances he would receive.
  MR. WYNDHAM: An Infantry Reserve officer rejoining the service at the depot is entitled to an outfit allowance of £100, payable after he rejoins. He will hold the rank which he held on retirement, but on rejoining he will be placed at the bottom of the list of that rank in the regiment. He will receive the pay and allowances of his rank, but will drop his retired pay, or if he retired on gratuity a deduction equivalent to it will be made from his pay.

  THREE YEAR ENLISTMENT.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in order to give the system of three-year enlistment that fair trial which the Inspector General of Recruiting has asked for it, the Government intend to propose for the. three-year men the extra 3d. of pay which is to be granted to the Militia.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This is a point which is receiving careful examination. The question is complicated by the necessity of securing full drafts for India.

  ENLISTMENT—UNDER-AGE RECRUITS.
  MR. NUSSEY (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a youth of the name of Maguire enlisted at Leeds in the 2nd Dragoon Guards in January last with-

  795
  out the knowledge of his parents, he being only seventeen years of age: that his parents applied for his discharge, producing a certificate of birth to the general officer commanding the North Eastern District of York, but that this officer declined to accede to their request; and whether, under the circumstances, he will direct Maguire to be discharged if he so desire.
  MR. WYNDHAM: If the man is over seventeen the settlement of the case rests entirely with the general officer commanding the district.
  MR. NUSSEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any steps are taken by requiring the production of a certificate of birth when readily procurable, by inquiries from relatives, or otherwise, to verify the statements made by recruits as to their age; and if he will state by what means, if any, the relatives of boys who have enlisted under the prescribed age can procure their discharge.
  MR. WYNDHAM: On attestation the medical officer certifies as to the probable age of the recruit. If the recruiting or approving officer considers that the man is not of the age which he states, due inquiry is made. If a soldier is claimed by his parents and is proved to be under seventeen he is discharged at once; if between seventeen and eighteen, the general officer commanding has absolute discretion as to his disposal.

  HUSH REGIMENTAL CANTEENS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Cork, I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in regard to the contracts for the supplies to regimental canteens in Ireland, and in view of his statement of the 15th instant that general officers have discretionary power to make district contracts when they consider it in the interests of the troops, opportunity will be given to local merchants and traders to tender for supplies; and whether in those cases where the conditions as to price, quality, and terms are satisfactory, the claims of local contractors will be favourably considered.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: As I have already told the hon. Member, the Secretary of State sees no reason for
  796
  interfering with the action of the general officers commanding the districts in Ireland, or elsewhere, in connection with supplies to canteens.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will preference be given to Irish traders in this matter?
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I have only this instant told the hon. Gentleman that the discretion is left in the hands of the commanding officer of the district.

  SWIFT ARMED SCREW COLLIERS.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the firm of Furness, Withy, and Company, of Hartlepool, sent to the Admiralty a design for swift armed screw colliers fully twelve months ago; whether this design of vessel was approved by the Controller; and whether such vessels should now be contracted for so as to follow any fleet with coal supplies.
  MR. MACARTNEY: A design for an armed screw collier was sent to the Admiralty by that firm, in July, 1898. The speed was 10¼ knots. The design was not approved by the Controller. There is no intention of contracting for a collier of that type and speed.

  NAVAL OFFICERS—RECORDS FOR PROMOTION QUALIFICATION.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the time spent by naval officers quartered in barracks on land counts exactly the same as regards qualification for promotion as time spent afloat; whether as regards qualification for promotion, lieutenants who, by keeping regular watch when afloat, gain experience in handling ships have any advantages over those classes of lieutenants who do not keep regular watch when afloat; and whether at the Admiralty such complete records are kept as to readily show how much time any particular officer has spent on shore, how much time at sea, and for what period of time he has kept regular watches.
  MR. MACARTNEY: The answer to the first paragraph is, yes, but not unless they have served the full period in a ship of war at sea required by the regulations. After they have done so, the time served

  797
  by naval officers in establishments in harbour or on shore, such as the gunnery and torpedo schools and depots, does count the same as service afloat. Of course promotion is always by selection. The reply to the second is in the negative. The reply to the third paragraph is in the affirmative, except that no special record is kept of the period regular watch has been kept by officers.

  MILITIA SERVICE IN BRITISH COLONIES.
  MR. YERBURGH (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in any, and, if so, in which of our self-governing colonies the law provides that all male British subjects between certain ages shall be placed on the roll of the Militia; and whether he can state what duties such Militia has to discharge, and the age during which liability for service continues.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): In Canada the Militia roll includes all male inhabitants between eighteen and sixty, who are British subjects and not specially exempted. The Militia may be called out for active service either within or without Canada. In the Cape Colony the burgher force includes all males between eighteen and fifty, with certain exemptions, and may be called out for service within the colony or beyond the borders. The defence forces of South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania include all British male inhabitants between the ages of eighteen and forty five in South Australia, sixty in Queensland, and fifty-five in Tasmania, and they are liable for service in any part of Australia or Tasmania. The New Zealand Militia consists of all male inhabitants between seventeen and fifty-five, and is liable for service in the colony. The compulsory powers in these colonies are not enforced, only those who volunteer being called out for training.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER (): Are we to understand that in New Zealand all inhabitants are liable, where only British subjects are so in the other colonies?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, no; of course it only applies to British subjects.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: Your answer was "all male inhabitants."

  CAPE CRIMINAL LAW
  MR. M'KENNA (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the statute 6 and 7 Will. IV. c. 57, enacting that laws in force at Cape Colony for punishment of crimes be extended to British subjects in adjacent territories up to 25 deg. south latitude, is still in effective operation, or whether it has been repealed or allowed to drop into disuse.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The law in question was repealed by 26 and 27 Vict, c.; 34, which re-enacted its provisions, but made offences triable in Natal as well as in Cape Colony.

  CRETE.
  MR. STEVENSON (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the report of H. R. H. Prince George, High Commissioner of Crete, upon the administration of that island, together with a memorandum by the financial adviser to the Cretan Government upon the revenue and expenditure and judicial and executive services during the year 1899, as well as any other information suitable for presentation to Parliament communicated to Consul General Graves by the High Commissioner.
  MR. BRODRICK: No general report on the administration of Crete has yet been received from His Royal Highness the High Commissioner, but when information as to the services named in the question reaches Her Majesty's Government it will be presented to Parliament.

  EVASIONS OE THE DEATH DUTIES.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to obtain power to prevent the evasion of the law relating to death duties in the case of estates of great values.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I think that, judging from receipts from death duties, anything that could properly be called evasion of the law is rare, but I have one point relating to this matter under consideration.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been

  799
  directed to the estate of the late Duke of Westminster?
  [No answer was given.]

  FEMALE FACTORY INSPECTORS.
  MR. TALBOT (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the report of the principal lady inspector in the Chief Inspector's Report on Factories and Workshops for 1898, which shows a considerable diminution in the number of visits of female inspectors to factories and workshops in 1898 as compared with 1895, such diminution being assigned chiefly to the excessive development of clerical work without clerical assistance: and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this state of things.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I am aware of the fact mentioned, but I may direct my right hon. friend's attention to other parts of the same report of the principal lady inspector, which show that a second clerk has been given to her department; and that changes in administrative methods have boon introduced which are calculated, and which she says she confidently expects, to lessen the strain of clerical work in this as well as in other branches of the Factory Department.
  MR. TALBOT: But there was a diminution of visits?
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: If my right hon. friend is good enough to read the later pages of the Report, I do not think he will have much fault to find.

  SCOTTISH REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will take the stops necessary to carry out the intention intimated last session of transferring to the Scottish Office the control of reformatory and industrial schools in Scotland.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have had a Bill prepared on this subject, and I hope to be able to introduce it within a very few days.

  CORONERS' INQUESTS—VIEWING BODIES.
  MR. JOHN WILSON (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has obtained information since 2nd July, 1897, concerning the opinions of coroners individually on the question of retaining the obligations upon jurymen to see bodies at inquests: and, if not, will he fake stops to obtain the opinions of coroners, either by application to them individually or inquiry through the Coroners' Society.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have nothing to add to an answer I gave to a similar question on the 28th February, 1898, which was to the effect that I had received the opinion of the Coroners' Society, which was opposed to any alteration of the law on this point, and that I did not see that I could with advantage take any further steps in the matter.

  OWEN JONES CHARITY, CHESTER.
  MR. ASHTON (): I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Thirsk Division of Yorkshire, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether it is proposed that the sum of £2,000 from the Owen Jones Charity at Chester is to he given as an endowment to the Queen's School at Chester, which is a denominational school of the Church of England, with a Conscience Clause: and whether it is the practice of the Commission to appropriate money left for undenominational purposes to denominational use; and if not, on what ground the money of the Owen Jones Charity, which is an undenominational charity, is to be utilised for the Queen's School.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): The Owen Jones Charity was founded for the benefit of members of the city companies of Chester and their children. The Commissioners propose to comply with the request of the representatives of the companies and of the trustees of the charity, that £2,000 from this charity should be applied in aid of the buildings of the Queen's School. In return for this £2,000, the companies will have the first right to nominate competitors for four scholarships in the school worth from £8 to £16 a year. No denominational restriction is attached to these scholarships or to admission to the

  801
  school. The Queen's School is largely attended by daughters of Nonconformists. The Commissioners do not consider this to be diversion of money left for undenominational purposes to denominational. A scheme to give effect to the proposal of the city companies has been duly published in Chester, and no objection has been made by anyone.

  INDIAN FAMINE.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government, in view of the present strain upon the financial means and credit of the Government of India, will consider the propriety of guaranteeing the Indian Loan which will have to be raised for famine purposes in connection with the coming Indian Budget.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): On the 15th instant I stated, in reply to a question from the hon. Baronet, that we have no reason to believe that either the financial means or the credit of the Government of India are insufficient to meet all demands that are likely to arise in connection with the relief of distress caused by the present famine in India. The Indian Financial Statement will be made towards the end of March, and till then I cannot say whether the hon. Member's assumption—namely, that a loan will be necessary for famine purposes—is correct or not.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the total number of deaths from the present famine in India reported up to date; and whether he will obtain and make public fortnightly telegraphic reports showing the number of such deaths.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am glad to say that hitherto very few deaths have been reported as caused by starvation. In the Central Provinces, through the numbers receiving relief are larger than in any other part of India, the death rate for last December was much less than the rate for December, 1897, and was not greatly above the normal rate. Monthly statements of deaths due to starvation are received, bat from the nature of the ease they must necessarily be incomplete, and any attempt to publish weekly returns
  802
  would be misleading, especially as no such returns could be obtained from the native States. I am not prepared to add to the labours of officers in the famine districts by calling for more frequent reports on this subject.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will grant a return, in the form standing on Friday's Paper, of remissions and suspensions of land revenue in India during the last two famines.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I do not think it would be advisable to ask the Government of India at the present time for the detailed statement which the hon. Member asks for. But I can inform him that the total remissions and suspensions on account of famine amounted approximately to 1,520,000 tens of rupees in 1876-7, and to 2,130,000 tens of rupees in 1896-7. In addition to these remissions during the actual year of famine, large remissions were on each occasion made during the following year, and as long as the effects of the famine required it.

  INDIAN RAILWAYS—CONNECTION WITH RUSSIAN RAILWAYS.
  MR. MACLEAN (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the activity with which Russia and Germany are pushing forward the construction of railways towards the Indian frontier, and seeing that this question has not been discussed by the House of Commons since the appointment of the Euphrates Valley Railway Committee in 1871, he will consent to the appointment of a Committee to examine and report upon the best method of connecting the Indian and Russian railway systems, and so establishing through railway communication from Calais to Calcutta.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this. The question of connecting the Indian and Russian railway systems is one in which many important considerations, besides that of the convenience of through communication, are involved. Any such connection must run through the territory of the Ameer of Afghanistan, and as his assent is a necessary preliminary to the consideration of any such undertaking I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the

  803
  appointment at the present time of such a Committee as the hon. Member suggests.
  MR. MACLEAN: Is it intended that Afghanistan shall always block the high road to civilisation?
  [No answer was given.]

  WOOLWICH COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTION—GOVERNMENT WORKMEN VOTERS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the County Council election at Woolwich on Saturday next, steps will be taken to afford to the men employed there by Government an opportunity of recording their vote, seeing that overtime is now being worked on Saturdays.
  MR. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Yes, Sir. Arrangements have been made for such cessation of overtime as may be necessary.

  AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD (): I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in view of the transference of the educational powers of the Board of Agriculture which may, under Section 2, Sub-section 2, of the Board of Education Act, devolve upon the Board of Education in April next, there will be established a department of the Board of Education to deal specifically with technical education, to which department such powers might be transferred.
  THE VICE - PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The question of transferring the powers of the Board of Agriculture is, as I stated a few days ago, now under the consideration of the Government. If transferred at all, they will be transferred to the Board of Education, and not to a department, and "will be exercised by the President of the Board of Education.

  ORGANISATION OF THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his atten-
  804
  tion has been called to the speech indicating a method of organising the Education Office, which was delivered on 1st August. 1898,* by the Lord President in introducing the then Board of Education Bill, and which was subsequently officially circulated: and whether the Departmental Committee for the organisa- of the Board of Education will be instructed to take, in connection with the terms of reference which were assigned to them by the Lord President, and were communicated to this House on the 12th inst., the method of organisation suggested by the Lord President, namely, that a Secondary Education Department proper should he established, which in its supervision of all secondary schools would necessarily also take over some of the duties at present performed by the Education Department, together with other duties at present performed by the Science and Art Department, and that another Department might be charged with the duties pertaining to strictly technical education.
  SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. No addition to the terms of reference to the Departmental Committee is at present in contemplation.

  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I beg to ask: the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education on what grounds the alteration of the instructions to Her Majesty's inspectors was made in the year 1891, according to which it is no longer required that entries should be made of all cases of corporal punishment inflicted in elementary schools; upon what representations the alteration was made; and whether Her Majesty's inspectors have reported the results to be satisfactory, or have they made any reports on the subject.
  SIR J. GORST: No record exists of the grounds on which the former instructions to inspectors respecting corporal punishment were omitted in 1891, nor upon whose representations this was done. No reports as to the effect of the omission have been received from Her Majesty's inspectors.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: Are we to understand that it was a mere accident then?
  SIR J. GORST: Things do not happen by mere accident in Government Departments.

  SCHOOL HOARD TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (): I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, where a school board superannuation fund is augmented out of the rates, a teacher who is in receipt of such a pension could, if he had also accepted the Treasury scheme, be eligible for both pensions.
  SIR J. GORST: The position of a teacher in relation to the Treasury scheme of pensions would not he prejudiced by reason of his receipt of a pension from a school board superannuation fund.

  ST. SIMON AND ST. JUDE'S SCHOOL, SOUTHPORT.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee on Education whether he will instruct one of Her Majesty's Inspectors to make inquiry into the alleged cases of corporal punishment at St. Simon and St. Judo's Church School at Southport, in October last, one of which is said to have resulted in a child remaining unconscious for several hours.
  SIR J. GORST: Yes, I will cause inquiry to he made.

  ABSENCES FROM ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. MIDDLEMORE (): I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in view of his recent statement that about a million children who ought to be in attendance at our public elementary schools were absent from them every day, it is his intention to introduce legislation to remedy this condition of things.
  SIR J. GORST: My suggestion was that the remedy for the state of things complained of was not to be found in fresh legislation, but rather in the more effective administration of the existing laws.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING—CRIMPING IN UNITED STATES PORTS.
  MR. HAYELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps, if any, have been taken by him to abate the practice of allowing crimps to use and frequent H. B. M. Consular Shipping Office at New York during the times that seamen are being discharged and engaged from and for British vessels: whether any correspondence has passed between the Board of Trade and H. B. M. Consul General at New York upon this subject, and whether such correspondence will be laid upon the Table of the House; whether he is aware that crimps and other undesirable persons are at present allowed the same free access to such office as heretofore; and whether, in view of the gravity of this complaint, he will recommend Her Majesty's Government to appoint a small commission to visit New York and other United States ports in order to report fully upon the actual conditions there prevailing and the best means of remedying the alleged evils.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): I believe the Consul General exercises great care in the management of the Consular Shipping Office in New York, but we are at present in correspondence with the Foreign Office, with a view of endeavouring to make arrangements to secure that undesirable persons are not admitted to the office.
  MR. HAYELOCK WILSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why the pledge he gave last April has not been carried out and stops taken to put an end to this unseemly condition of things?
  MR. RITCHIE: The matter is one of considerable complication. I believe there has been correspondence between the Foreign Office and New York going on for months past.
  MR. HAYELOCK WILSON: I shall call attention to this on the Estimates for the Board of Trade.

  P. AND O. STEAMERS—CREW ACCOMMODATION.
  MR. HAYELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of Asiatic able seamen and the number of

  807
  Asiatics engaged in the stokehold and engine-room of the Peninsular and Oriental steamship "Australia"; whether he can state the number of places provided for the accommodation and appropriated for the use of such persons; whether he can state the cubical space and the number of superficial feet measured on the dock or floor provided for each man; and whether he can state if the Peninsular and Oriental Company are now complying with the 210th section of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; and, if not, whether he intends to institute legal proceedings against the said company for such default,
  MR. RITCHTE: The number of Asiatic seamen employed on the Peninsular and Oriental steamer "Australia" is fifty-one, and the number of Asiatics engaged in the stokehold and engine-room is ninety. The number of places provided for these men is two, one on the starboard and one on the port side of the poop. The cubic space provided per man is in each case rather over 72 feet. The floor area per man is a little over 9 feet. As regards the cubic space, the Imperial Act is complied with, but, as regards the floor area there is a deficiency, which will require to be remedied if deduction from the registered tonnage is to continue to be allowed. I have already explained to the hon. Members that having regard to all the circumstances of the case I do not propose at present to institute legal proceedings.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to give the right hon. Gentleman notice; that I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

  SEAMEN'S DISCHARGES COMMITTEE.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to state if the Departmental Committee which he appointed last year to inquire into the question of seamen's discharges have yet finished their inquiries; whether it is his intention to publish the evidence given by witnesses before this Committee, and about what date does he expect the Committee to report; and whether such Report will be presented to the House.
  MR. RITCHIE: I am informed that the Committee to which the hon. Member refers has finished its inquiries, and may
  808
  be expected to present its Report at an early date. The Report and evidence will be presented to the House in due course.

  FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE REGULATIONS.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is in a position to grant the request contained in the resolution passed; on the 17th instant by the executive Committee of the Norfolk County Council.
  MR. SOAMES (): I beg at the same time, to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to state the modifications which he proposes to make in the order re foot and mouth disease in the county of Norfolk: and whether, in view of the fact that all the outbreaks have been confined to a very small area, he can now see his way to withdrawing the order entirely in the more distant parts of the scheduled district.
  MR. RITCHIE (for Mr. LONG): In reply to the hon. Member and to the hon. Member for South Norfolk, who has a similar question on the Paper, my right hon. friend asks me to state that under existing circumstances the entire withdrawal of the existing restrictions from any portion of the scheduled district could not but be attended with considerable danger of the extension of foot and mouth disease to other parts of the country. He proposes, however, to issue an order to-day permitting, under certain conditions, the movement of stock for the purposes of feeding, isolation, and lambing within the outlying portions of the district, and also the movement of stock into those portions in cases whore exceptional difficulty and hardship at present exist. The order will come into operation on Saturday.

  TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH SCOTLAND.
  SIR J. LENG (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state the length of time during which telegraphic and telephonic communication between London and the north of England and Scotland was interrupted in consequence of the recent storm; the number and mileage of the wires blown

  809
  down; the number of messages delayed; whether' there is any prospect of similar extensive and prolonged interruptions being prevented by the substitution of underground for overhead wires; and whether as, during the recent storm Scotland received its earliest messages and news of the war by undersea cables from Ireland via Dublin and Belfast, he will consider the expediency of establishing an under-sea telegraph cable, in sufficiently deep water to keep clear of anchorages, by the east coast from London to Edinburgh, Dundee, and Aberdeen.
  MR. CALDWELL (): I beg at the same time to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, considering the loss and annoyance caused through the absence of telegraphic and telephonic communication between Scotland and England during the recent storm, and which occurs at times throughout the year owing to the wires being carried overhead to-day just as they were twenty or thirty years ago, he will consider the advisability of providing an emergency underground circuit, similar to that in Germany, connecting London with the principal cities in the provinces, which, being impervious to all meteorological convulsions, could be safely employed under extraordinary circumstances.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): The period of interruption has varied considerably in the case of different towns, and it is impossible at present to give details in regard to the number and mileage of the wires blown down or the number of messages delayed. The storms have been of almost unexampled extent and severity. Until the recent storm there had not been a general interruption of telegraphic communication with Scotland since 1886. The want of any form of insulated wire which could be provided at a reasonable cost, and would give even moderately satisfactory results from a telegraphic point of view, prevented the Postmaster General for many years from laving down long underground lines; but he took steps to minimise as much as possible the risk of total interruption of the overground lines by erecting them along distinct and separate routes, and by providing reserve wires. On the introduction of a new form of insulated wire
  810
  at a moderate price, which gave promise of satisfactory results in telegraphy, he had it tried, and then proceeded to lay down a line of no less than seventy-six wires from London to Birmingham. This line, which has taken about three years to construct, is now on the point of completion. It passes underground through that part of the country which is subject to the most destructive gales, and it will give an increased measure of stability to the whole telegraph system. Notwithstanding the advantages which the new form of insulated wire possesses over the old, it is not free from defects; and some unforeseen electric difficulties have presented themselves. The Postmaster General is not prepared to entertain the suggestion that a submarine cable should be laid in the North Sea to maintain telegraphic communication between London and Scotland.

  OFFICIAL RECOGNITION OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES' ORGANISATIONS.
  MR. M'GHEE (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if his attention has been directed to the fact that the Postmaster General of New Zealand has acceded to the request of the members of the New Zealand Post and Telegraph Association, and decided that official recognition be given to their combination: and whether it is the intention of the Postmaster General to make a similar concession to the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association of the United Kingdom.
  MR. HANBURY: The precise meaning intended to be attached to the expression "official recognition" is not clear. The Postmaster General is at all times ready to consider any representations made, whether collectively or individually, by persons in the employment of the Department, and it is not necessary for any person, in order to obtain a hearing, to associate himself either formally or informally with others. But all classes of Post Office servants have full liberty to form themselves into associations for any legitimate purpose, and any representations from such bodies will be duly considered, if conveyed in suitable terms and through the usual official channels. All those by whom, or on whose behalf, the representations are made must of course be in the service of the Department and the

  811
  questions raised must be such as directly affect all those represented.

  LIVERPOOL FEMALE TELEGRAPHISTS.
  MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is in receipt of a petition, forwarded on 15th November, 1899, from the female telegraphists at Liverpool, in reference to the amalgamation of counterwomen and female telegraphists; and whether he is now in a position to reply to the same.
  MR. HANBURY: The petition has been received, and the memorialists have been answered.

  HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS COMMISSION-HOUSE OF LORDS' REPORTS.
  MR. CRILLY (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the fact that a volume of historical manuscripts, in continuation of those already issued by the Historical Manuscripts Commission, has appeared as an independent volume issued exclusively by the House of Lords, and that Members of the House of Commons have not received this volume; and whether he will make arrangements that this volume will be issued to Members of the House of Commons amongst their Parliamentary Papers, as previous volumes have been issued.
  SIR J. W. MACLURE (): I beg at the same time to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether copies of the House of Lords Manuscripts, Volume 1 (New Series), 1693-1695, will he made available for Members of the House of Commons in the same way as to Members of the Upper House.
  MR. HANBURY: Although these manuscripts are now being calendered and issued at the expense of the Vote for the House of Lords, the expenditure of the Historical MSS. Commission being restricted to documents in private hands, I think they are practically a portion of the general series, and I will arrange for their issue to Members in the same way as the other volumes.

  IRISH POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing
  812
  the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that inconvenience is caused to depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank in Ireland by reason of the fact that applications for withdrawals have to be made to London; and whether the Postmaster General can so arrange for withdrawals to be sanctioned by the Secretary to the Postmaster General, Dublin.
  MR. HANBURY: In most cases there is little, if any, greater delay in withdrawing money under the present system than if such withdrawal could be sanctioned from Dublin, instead of from London. On the other hand, if the Irish savings bank accounts were kept at Dublin, money could no longer with equal facility be deposited in or withdrawn from these accounts at the post offices in England or Scotland; and the loss of this convenience would give rise to much dissatisfaction.

  TELEPHONING CABLEGRAMS.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the hindrance to business experienced by merchants, especially in the American trade, from the postal regulations which prohibit the cables companies from telephoning cablegrams received after business hours to the addresses, though requested by them to do so, and which equally prohibit the latter from telephoning direct replies for transmission by cable, he has now made arrangements whereby the use of the telephone may no longer be denied to subscribers; and whether, if he has any fear that the revenue may suffer in consequence of such permission, he will communicate with the cable companies, the National Telephone Company, and the merchants interested, with a view to safeguarding any rights which the Post Office may possess in the matter.
  MR. HANBURY: As I promised the hon. Member last week, the Postmaster General is considering the whole question. The matter is, however, not free from difficulty, and an immediate decision is not practicable.

  FLINTSHIRE TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS (): I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as representing

  813
  the Postmaster General, what progress has been made in establishing telephone trunk lines and exchanges in Flintshire.
  MR. HANBURY: Telephone exchanges have been established by the National Telephone Company at five places in Flintshire, namely, Buckley, Connah's Quay, Holywell, Mold, and Rhyl. There is trunk communication with all these, except Holywell. A trunk circuit to Holywell is now being provided. Steps are being taken to open an exchange at Flint.

  COUNTY COURT JURISDICTION.
  MR. MONK (): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether the plea for time to enable Her Majesty's 'Government to consider and develop a proper system of jurisdiction for the county courts which would be satisfactory to the country, put forward by him on 28th February, 1899, as an inducement to the House of Commons to reject a resolution in favour of an extension of such jurisdiction, has resulted in the preparation of any such scheme; and whether he is prepared during the present session to bring in a Bill in furtherance of that object; if not, what are the obstacles to such course.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): I have communicated with the Lord Chancellor upon my hon. friend's question, and I regret it is not in my power to promise any legislation during the present session upon the subject of the extension of county court jurisdiction.
  MR. MONK: In consequence of the reply of my hon. and learned friend, I beg to give notice that I will to-morrow ask leave to bring in a Bill dealing with the subject.

  NEW LONDON MUNICIPALITIES.
  MR. WHITMORE (): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether, regarding the terms of Clause 2, Subsection 4, of the London Government Act, 1899, the mayor and aldermen of each metropolitan borough must be chosen from those who have a qualification within that particular borough, or whether they may be chosen from all those who have a qualification within the county of London.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The mayor and aldermen must be chosen from those who have a qualification within the particular borough.

  BELFAST FAIR RENT APPEALS.
  MR. MACALEESE (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the appeal fail rent cases listed for hearing by the Chief Land Commission at its last or present sitting at Belfast, whether he will state how many of these appeals have been disposed of; in how many cases have the fair rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners been reduced, confirmed, or increased, respectively; also the names of the Chief Commissioners who constituted the court at its Belfast sitting.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,) (for Mr. G W. BALFOUR): There were sixty-three cases for hearing by the Commissioners at their sitting to dispose of fair rent appeals at Belfast during the present month. In forty-eight of these cases the rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners were increased, in two they were reduced, and in seven they were affirmed. In four cases judgment was reserved, and in two cases the originating notices were dismissed. The names of the Commissioners who constituted the court are within the knowledge of the parties in the cases dealt with at the sitting, their solicitors, and the public generally. It is therefore apparent that the inquiry at the end of the question has not been put for the purpose of eliciting information, but with a view to marking an invidious distinction between different members of the Land Commission, and this being so I must respectfully decline to answer this portion of the question.

  IRISH CENSUS.
  MR HAYDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to authorise the taking of the census in Ireland in 1901: and, if so, when will it be introduced.
  MR. ATKINSON: A Bill is in preparation, and will be, introduced as soon as practicable.

  SHILLELAGH UNION NIGHT NURSE.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the guardians of Shillelagh Union have repeatedly advertised for a trained night nurse for their workhouse infirmary at a salary varying from £30 to £50 a year, with rations and a furnished apartment, and having failed to procure one, they appointed an untrained person as nurse; will he explain why the Local Government Board have twice declined to sanction her appointment on the ground that she had no experience, and have requested the medical officer of the workhouse to requisition the master of the workhouse, under the Nursing Order of 1897, to obtain temporarily a trained nurse, which entails a heavy expense on the ratepayers; and whether, as the guardians maintain that in their small institution a trained night nurse is wholly unnecessary, the Local Government Board will he requested to reconsider their order to the medical officer to have a trained night nurse temporarily appointed.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The facts as stated in the first and second paragraphs are substantially correct. It appears that there are at present under medical treatment in the infirmary about sixty patients, and the Local Government Board are of opinion that as there is no trained nurse in the workhouse, it is essential for the safety and care of the sick that the night nurse to be appointed should be a properly qualified nurse. The guardians should advertise again, and, if necessary, offer a higher-salary so as to secure the services of a trained nurse, and they should bear in mind that if they appoint a nurse possessing the prescribed qualifications, one half of her salary will be paid from the Local Taxation Fund.

  ANNALY ESTATE, CO. LONGFORD.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether' he can state the number' of tenants whose applications to purchase their farms on the Annaly (County Longford) estate were refused; whether he is aware that in 1894 a large number of tenants on this estate signed undertakings to purchase through the Land Commission on the
  816
  promise of the receiver that in two years the sales would be completed; and whether he will call for an inquiry into the conduct of the receiver, or can he indicate how these tenants can obtain redress.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): As regards the first and third paragraphs, I must refer to my reply to the hon. Member's previous question of Tuesday last on the same subject, to which I have nothing to add. The Land Judge has no information as to the second paragraph.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman personally inquired into this matter? I am told that the information he gave me is entirely wrong.
  MR. ATKINSON: No, I have not inquired, and I do not intend to.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Leave it to the Castle.

  CAVAN LAND APPEALS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can state the number of cases of appeal from decisions of Land Sub Commissioners now pending in Cavan county; whether any arrangements have been made for the sitting of the Appeal Court in Cavan during the month of March: and whether, considering the importance of expediting these cases, he will make representations to the Court to hold a sitting in Cavan at an early date.
  MR. ATKINSON: There are 468 cases in which appeals are pending from County Cavan. No sitting for the hearing of appeals from that county has been arranged for the coming month. The sittings of the Commissioners for the hearing of fair rent appeals after Easter have not yet been definitely arranged, but it is probable that a sitting for the County Cavan will be included among their fixtures after Easter. I have no power to interfere with the arrangements of the Commissioners.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Commissioners have fixed a sitting for Mullingar on March 14th? Will he not make representations to them to expedite matters?
  MR. ATKINSON: It is not the business of the Executive Government to interfere with the Commissioners as to the conduct of their business.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) ACT 1898 AMENDMENT.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can give the date on which he proposes to introduce the short Bill to amend the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898; and whether any statement will be made on the subject before the close of the current financial half year, or whether any change in the incidence of rates on town holdings will be included in the provisions of the promised Bill.
  MR. ATKINSON: I cannot at present fix a date for the introduction of the Bill in question, but it will be introduced at as early a date as possible. Pending the introduction of the measure I can make no statement as to its contents.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Can it be done before Easter?
  MR. ATKINSON: I cannot say.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May we assume it will be introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule?
  [No answer was given.]

  IRISH RATE RECEIPT BOOKS.
  MR. TULLY (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have failed to prescribe in tile new rate receipt books and demand notes any special column showing the ordinary sanitary expenses for the half of which the landlord is liable: and, if not. whether he can state if steps will be taken to remedy this omission.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): Special columns are provided in the prescribed form of demand note for showing the amount assessed in respect of every separate public health, charge. The county councils and their officers are responsible if there has been in any instance an omission to properly fill up these forms. The Local Government Board have held that the expression "Public Health Charge" in Section 54
  818
  (9) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, only embraces separate or excluded charges. "Ordinary," that is to say, general public health expenditure was taken into account in fixing the standard poor rate, which tenants under existing tenancies can deduct, and the tenants do not appear to be entitled to make any additional deduction on account, thereof from the rents paid by them.

  OGILBY'S ESTATE.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG ()I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether., with reference to the case of J. Bess borough, tenant, and the Trustees Ogilby's Estate, landlord, his attention has been called to the observations of Mr. Commissioner Murrogh O'Brien, being one of the Land Commissioners, before whom the case was heard: whether he is aware that the tenant at his own expense erected the buildings, and that he was charged an extra amount on the buildings, as they were an accommodation to the grocery and public house, but no evidence was given to show that the building increased in consequence the value of the holding as an agricultural farm, and that the Commissioner considered the extra charge contrary to law; and whether he will consider the desirability of having the law amended so as to protect the tenant from imposition of extra rent of his agricultural holding for any reason not applicable to the increased value of his agricultural farm.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The judgment of the majority of the Court delivered by Mr. Commissioner Fitz-Gerald, Q. C., as well as the observations of Mi-. Commissioner O'Brien, who dissented, in the case referred to, appear to have been reported in the public press of the 13th instant. The Act of 1896 contains provision adequate to protect the tenant from being rented on his improvements. If the law has been incorrectly interpreted by the Land Commissioners it is open to the tenant to appeal.

  IRISH AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Agricultural Department for Ireland, with reference to the utterance recently made at Glasnevin

  819
  Model Farm by the Resident Commissioner of National Education, whether any model farm or schools for teaching dairy or agricultural pupils will he established in the north of Ireland: and, if so, whether some of such model farms or schools will be placed in the counties of Antrim and Down.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKETT,): It is too early to say what course will be taken by the new Department, when fully constituted, for the development of agriculture in the North of Ireland. I can think of no reason why the two counties referred to by the hon. Member should be specially attended to or specially neglected by the Department.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (): Is it not the fact that the light hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence with certain county councils in the province of Minister in relation to the proposed agricultural institute for that province?
  MR. PLUNKETT: Yes. The sum of £10,000 was specifically allotted in the Act for the purposes of an agricultural institute in Minister, and that places it on a different footing from the other three provinces.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  MR. DUNCOMBE (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state when a Committee will be appointed to inquire into the Standing Orders.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The usual steps to appoint the Committee are being taken.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. BUCHANAN (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that it is the practice of the House that Estimates should be presented within ten days after the opening of Committee of Supply, he will explain why, although ten days have now elapsed, neither Army, Navy, Civil Service, nor Revenue Estimates have been presented.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Civil Service and Navy Estimates were laid in
  820
  dummy on the 8th and 9th of the present month. The Army Estimates have been laid to-day.
  MR. BUCHANAN: But according to the rule of the House the circulation of the Estimates is contemplated within ten days of the opening of Parliament. Vet none of these Estimates are in our hands.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not venture to say precisely what is the object of a resolution passed so long ago as 1821, but we have followed the practice constantly adopted by preceding Governments. It is actually impossible to prepare the Estimates and circulate them ten days after the opening of the session, when the session begins as early as in the present year.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Is there any case on record in which the House has been in session more than three weeks and yet the Estimates are not ready?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should think there are cases, but, as I said before, if the House, for exceptional reasons, meets exceptionally early, as was the case in the present year, it is absolutely impossible for the Departments concerned to get the Estimates ready at the time suggested.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (): I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what the business will be to-morrow and in the early days of next week; and also when the Civil Service Estimates will be in the hands of Members? By some mistake of the printers, I suppose, the Vote on Account was circulated this morning, and, of course, the Vote on Account cannot be considered until the Estimates on account of which the Vote is proposed are in the hands of Members.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (): Will the whole of the Estimates be delivered to this House at a reasonable time before the Budget? That is the material point.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the whole of the Estimates will be in the. hands of Members a reasonable time before the Budget is introduced. The Civil Service Estimates will be at the Vote Office on Saturday, and I suppose they will be circulated on Monday morning. I

  821
  think the right hon. Gentleman has committed himself rather rashly to the doctrine that we ought not to take the Vote on Account until the Civil Service Estimates are in the hands of Members. I am not sure there is any rule or practice to that effect.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is there any precedent for doing it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes. I believe there was a precedent in 1890. It is clearly not very important, when Members are discussing the Vote on Account, to have the precise Estimates for the year. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will not raise any objection to our taking the Vote on Account to-morrow.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think it is likely there will be objection.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If objection is to be raised I think I ought to take Bills to-night and put the Civil Service Estimates down for to-morrow. I should wish to meet the views of the House on this subject.
  MR. CALDWELL: How can it be possible to discuss the Vote on Account if the Estimates are not in the hands of the Speaker? How can he tell whether the subject upon which it is proposed to raise a discussion comes under the Estimates without seeing them?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Chairman of Committees will have to deal with that.
  MR. CALDWELL: Is there any precedent for taking a Vote on Account without the Estimates being in the hands of the Chair?
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes, there are precedents for taking a Vote on Account before the Estimates are circulated.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What is the business for next week?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We propose to take the Navy Estimates on Monday.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: And when will the Navy Estimates be in the hands of Members?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To-morrow evening. This arrangement is, I believe, strictly in accordance with precedent. They are constantly being introduced
  822
  with this amount of knowledge and notice. With regard to the business to-morrow night I am very anxious to get the views of the House. So far as the Government are concerned it makes no difference to us which course we take, but I think that probably the better plan will be to take the Civil Service Estimates to-night, and the Vote on Account to-morrow. I think we should settle this now.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: With regard to the Navy Estimates, which are to be taken on Monday, will the First Lord of the Admiralty make his statement with Mr. Speaker in the chair or after?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think my right hon. friend proposes this year to follow the precedent which he has himself set on more than one occasion, and to make his statement with the Speaker in the chair.
  SIR U. KAY - SHUTTLEWORTH (): I presume that under those circumstances there will be an adjournment after the First Lord's statement, as there was on the last occasion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that that adjournment was due to the fact that on that occasion the Estimates had not been circulated. On this occasion they will, I hope, be in the hands of Members in sufficient time to enable them to make a general survey of the questions raised.
  SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of varying the programme to-night by taking Bills instead of Civil Service Estimates. May I point out that, as no one expected these Bills to come on, such a course would be attended with the greatest inconvenience? In some of these Bills, such, for instance, as the Companies Bill, there is a great amount of interest, and many Members interested are not present.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (): Is not the right hon. Gentleman assuming that the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates will be voted in one sitting? Is it not the case that for several years past they have usually occupied more than one night?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is possible that they may occupy more than one

  823
  night, but even in that case I still think it desirable to take the Vote on Account to-morrow at the beginning of the sitting, so as to give the House the full licence of a whole night's debate for dealing with any topics that the Vote may suggest.
  MR. SOAMES (): Do the Government propose to take Tuesday next?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, I think we shall have to take it.
  An HON. MEMBER: The whole of it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
  MR. LABOUCHERE (): Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House if he intends to take Bills tonight? One of them, the Railways Bill, was only distributed this morning, while as to the Ecclesiastical Assessments (Scotland) Bill, I know absolutely nothing, and indeed want to know nothing, about it. But what does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: After the statement of the Leader of the. Opposition I shall not, of course, think of taking the Bills to-night. He says it would be unfair to the House, and I cannot go against his opinion. The original programme, therefore, stands.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Isolation Hospitals Act, 1893." Isolation Hospitals (Amendment) Bill [Lords].

  POINT OF PROCEDURE—STANDING ORDER 16 (TEN MINUTES RULE)—TITHE RENT-CHARGE (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. DILLON (): I desire to ask a question with reference to the Tithe Rent-charge (Ireland) Bill, which is down for introduction under the Ten Minutes Rule. In order to explain my question, I must read to you the concluding words of the Standing Order—
  "If such motion be opposed Mr. Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks fit, a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves and from the Member who opposes any such motion respectively, may, without further debate, put the question thereon or the question that the debate be now adjourned."
  824
  My contention is that the words by which the Speaker is invested with discretion to put cither of the two questions—the main question immediately, or the question that the debate be now adjourned—were specially inserted in that Standing Order with the object, first of all. of giving the Speaker' the discretion to decide whether a Bill or motion, in his opinion, is a fit one to be introduced under that Standing Order, and thereby of casting upon him the duty of making that decision. In support of that contention, I refer to what occurred on 7th March, 1888, when Standing Order 16 was first introduced. The Standing Order, as originally moved by the then Leader of the House, Mr. Smith, did not give the Speaker any discretion, hut required him to put the question immediately after allowing a short statement by the Member introducing the Bill. An objection was raised by Lord Randolph Churchill and other Members of the House that such procedure was an unfair infringement of the rights of the Opposition to any Bill, hi order to meet those objections Mr. Smith moved an addition to the Standing Order. He said*—
  "That in order to meet some of the objections brought forward by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington he would move to omit the words 'shall put the question thereon without further debate' at the end of the rule in order to substitute the words. 'may without further debate put the question there on, or the question that the debate be now adjourned.' "
  I contend that that substitution cither had no meaning whatever, or it must have had the meaning which I seek now and ask you to put upon it. There can he only one meaning attached to those words—namely, that the Speaker is invested with discretion, that he, therefore, is bound to exercise that discretion, and that if he selects to put the question, "That the debate be now adjourned," he thereby indicates his opinion that this measure or motion is of such; a character and so contentious that it ought not to be put down under this rule. I think that is perfectly clear. In confirmation of the interpretation which I seek to have put on this Standing Order and which appears to me to be beyond question to anyone who reads the debate and the language of the Standing Order itself

  825
  even apart from the debate—I turn to the authority to which we all how on questions of Parliamentary procedure namely, the book of Sir Erskine May, the last edition. What does he say?—
  "Pursuant to Standing Order No. 16, motions for leave to bring in Hills and for the nominations of Select Committees are set down at the commencement of public business. For the foregoing motions the Standing Order sets apart for the purpose Tuesdays and Fridays for unofficial Members, and Mondays and Thursdays for Members of the Government. Such Bills must be presumably non-contentious."
  That is the law as laid down in Sir Erskine May's book, and there is no qualification. "Such Bills must be presumably non-contentious." It is only within the last four or five years that the practice so clearly laid down in Sir Erskine May's book has been departed from, and gradually the Government have commenced to introduce contentious measures under this rule, and have done it more and more each session. I have asked the question because I desire to have your ruling in reference to this particular Bill, which is of a contentious character. It is an important Bill, raising great principles. It is a Bill to which the vast majority of Irish representatives are strongly opposed, and which will be fought in all its stages. I hold that it is in direct contravention of the authority of Sir Erskine May's bonk, and of the letter and spirit of the Standing Order as indicated by the debate and by the speech of the Leader of the House in 1888, that Bills of this character should be introduced under what is known as the Ten Minutes Utile. I desire, therefore, to ask you whether you will permit me to move the adjournment of the debate, and whether you will put that motion under the Standing Order.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (): I should like to be allowed to say a few words upon this subject. I took a very attentive part in the debates of 1888, and my impression is that the Speaker would have precisely the same jurisdiction in this case as he would have in regard to a motion for the closure being put. This is the third occasion within a session of a very few days in which this question has been raised, and in which Bills of first-class importance and highly contentious in their character have been introduced under this rule by
  826
  the Government. Perhaps I may recall to the recollection of the House what took place on Monday week. The Under Secretary of State for War made an important statement, and then two Bills—first, the Companies Bill and the Railway Servants Bill—every line of which were contentious, were introduced. I then raised this matter upon a point of order, and you ruled, Mr. Speaker, that the question of order did not arise. If these rules are interpreted in their present form, hon. Members on both sides of the House must see that the most valuable opportunity of discussing an important Bill is lost, and Bills of the highest importance may be got through in this way. By way of illustration, I may mention that the Companies Bill was introduced and read a first time simply upon a mere statement of the Minister who introduced it. Therefore, I think that the intention of the House in passing this order has been departed from.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am not in a position to lay down any rule as to the Bills which may or may not be introduced under Standing Order 16. I have already endeavoured, in replying to a question of the hon. Member for South Donegal, during the present session, to give what I conceive to be the true interpretation of the Standing Order, and I must adhere to the view I expressed on that occasion. It is not a matter for me to rule whether a particular Bill can or cannot be brought in under the Standing Order. There are a great many Bills which no Government would think of bringing in under the Standing Order, and there are a great many others of which nobody would say they ought not so to be brought in. There may be a number of Bills upon which opinions may differ as to the propriety of their introduction in this manner, and in such cases my view is that the Standing Order leaves the Member introducing the Bill to decide whether he will adopt that method of introduction, and to the House the decision whether the Bill shall then be brought in or not. There is no power given to me to decide the point; all I can do is to put the question of adjournment, and that I have found from experience is an unfortunate procedure, and I may say I am not disposed to make use of it. It does not, as some hon.

  827
  Members seem to think, imply any expression of my opinion, and I think it would be unfortunate if it did. For my experience is that Members who are in favour of the Bill vote against the adjournment, and I do not think it is desirable that the Speaker should be placed in the position apparently of having his view overruled by a Government majority. I do think it is an unfortunate method of inviting the Speaker to interpose. For my part I have expressed on two different occasions my view that the responsibility rests with those in charge of the Bill, to decide whether the Bill should be set down under the Order or not. I cannot undertake to decide whether a Bill is one which ought or ought not to be so brought in, for that is a duty which the Standing Order does not put upon me.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (): May I ask what protection there is for a minority, and a large minority, in the House against the introduction of an improper Bill under this method of procedure? The Government have the power, apparently, of putting down any Bill they like to be brought in this manner, although Bills so dealt with ought to be non-contentious. If a Bill, in the opinion of a, large minority of the House, is of a contentious character, has that large minority an opportunity of making a protest against it?
  MR. SPEAKER: There is a responsibility put upon the Government of the day by the Standing Order to which the Government must pay regard, but it is not for me to decide how the Government should exercise that responsibility. If the responsibility had been intended to be on the Speaker, that would expressly appear in 'the Standing Order. When it is contended that Bills introduced under the Order must be non-contentious it should be remembered that Bills of highly contentious character are introduced without deflate by private Members at the commencement of public business.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (): I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if, under such circumstances, you would be inclined to accept a motion for adjournment.
  MR. SPEAKER: There can be no question of a motion for adjournment;
  828
  and in the second place, it is quite irregular to ask me what I will do in a case where I can only exercise my discretion after hearing a short statement from each side.
  MR. DILLON: Your ruling has cleared up a question upon which a great deal of uncertainty prevailed. As you, Mr. Speaker, have indicated in your ruling—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member has already spoken upon this question.
  MR. DILLON: I was going to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question. Your ruling, Mr. Speaker, has cleared up a question upon which a great deal of doubt prevailed. You have indicated in your ruling—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! If the hon. Member simply desires to ask a question he is in order, but he is really making another speech.
  MR. DILLON: Then I will ask the: First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the statement which I have just read, that such Bills must be non-contentious Bills, he will proceed to introduce the Irish Tithes Bill without further notice under Rule 16.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (): I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman with regard to this Bill whether a measure which is strongly opposed by eighty Members on this side of the House—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not in order in carrying on a debate.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. Member has asked me whether in view of the opinion of Sir Erskine May it will be improper to introduce this Bill under the Standing Order. There is a higher authority than that, and it is the constant practice of this House. I believe successive Governments have never hesitated to introduce Bills of this kind under the Standing Order referred to. I think if I trespass further I shall be transgressing your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and making a speech instead of answering a question.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE (IRELAND).
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The Bill which I ask leave to introduce is identical with that introduced last session by the Chief Secretary, under the same rule as that under which it is now brought in. It has been printed and circulated, and is now in the hands of hon. Members. Most of it relates to the machinery for its operation, and its aim and scope can be explained in a few minutes. By the legislation which culminated in the Tithe Rent-charge Act of 1838 the interest of the estate out of which tithes of all kinds were payable was charged with a rent charge equal in amount to 75½ per cent. of the annual amount of the tithe compositions. But having regard to the fact that tithes represent a proportion of the produce of the land, the money value of which may vary from year to year, this rent-charge is not fixed and invariable. The contrary provisions are introduced by which the rent-charge is subject to revision every seven years, that revision being based upon certain weekly average prices of corn published in the Dahlia Gazette. This was a cumbrous and costly process, and according to a decision pronounced, as I believe, in 1898, and has broken down owing to the fact, amongst others, that the average prices of corn contemplated by the statute has not been kept or published in the manner required. It therefore becomes necessary to provide another system of revision. This the Bill proposes to do. It is considered by the Government that the proper and more reliable system would be to make the tithes rent-charge variable according to the variations in the rents of the lands out of which rent-charges issued as fixed under the Land Act. Accordingly, the Bill provides that on the 22nd August all tithe rent-charge payable during the fifteen years succeeding the passing of the Act shall be varied from the figure at which they stood on the 22nd August, 1884 (the last occasion on which proper corn averages were published), according to the average percentage of variation of rents for a first statutory term in that country, and so on during each succeeding period of fifteen years. This will result in an immediate reduction of rent charges, as the judicial rent in each county has been in the average reduced. Originally, all tithe rent-charges, whether
  830
  ecclesiastical or lay, were alike subject to revision. That was the law at the time of the passing of the Act of 1869 disestablishing the Irish Church, and continued to be the law down to the year 1872. Owing, however, apparently to the difficulty in estimating the capitalised value of a variable rent-charge and of carrying out the financial arrangement with reference to the property of the Church, an Act was passed in that year excluding ecclesiastical rent-charge from the operation of the revision system. It is quite certain that at the time that Act was passed the fall in the price of agricultural products and the reduction of rents which have since taken place was not and could not have been in the contemplation of the legislature, and it accordingly appears to the Government that it is only equitable that rent charges which represent a proportion of the produce of the land should be reduced in the same proportion as the rents received by the owners who have to pay the rent charges. The Government propose, therefore, to repeal that portion of the Act of 1872 which protects ecclesiastical rent-charges from revision, and to put them on the same basis as lay tithe rent-charges, making all tithe rent-charges subject to revision as they were under the old system anterior to 1872. In addition to the provision I have mentioned, the statutes of 1869 and 1872 contained other provisions enabling the persons liable to pay ecclesiastical tithes to redeem them in two ways. First by the payment in cash of a sum equal to twenty-two and a half years purchase of the tithe rent-charge after deducting poor rate, and secondly by the payment of an annuity for fifty-two years at the rate of £4 9s. per cent. on the purchase money so ascertained or at a higher rate for such less number of years as might be agreed upon. Under this arrangement £3 16s. 3d. per cent. is in effect charged for interest, and the balance, 12s. 9d. per cent., goes towards payment of the principal. This the Government considers an extravagant charge for interest. Mr. Gladstone, in introducing the Church Act of 1869, distinctly stated that the rate of interest to be charged in the calculation of these terminable annuities should be 3, per cent. On that supposition principal and all interest would be repaid in forty-five years, and not in fifty-two years, by the payment of £4 9s. per cent. per annum, so

  831
  that the owners who had been redeemed have been overcharged by seven years. It is proposed by the Bill to remedy that injustice in all cases by reducing the period from fifty-two to forty-five years. It has already been remedied by the Land Act of 1896 in the case of lands sold to tenants under the Land Purchase Acts, redemption being allowed on the basis proposed in the Bill, namely, the forty-five years system. The total amount of tithe rent-charge vested in the Land Commission under the Church Act is slightly over £400,000 per annum. Of this about £235,000 per annum has been sold, and £165,000 remains payable. Those changes will, no doubt, involve some loss to the Church Fund. We propose to counteract that loss to a certain extent by repealing the provision with regard to redemption. It will no longer be possible to redeem, save where the lands liable to the rent-charge are sold under the Land Purchase Acts. The result will be that the Land Commission will have a settled income, and considerable benefit will accrue to the fund. In addition we have introduced a clause with reference to poor rate. Under the 76th section of the Poor Relief Act, 1838, the tithe payer was able to deduct all the poor rate from the tithe. We consider that is an inequitable system where the tithe-payer is only liable for half the poor rate, and accordingly we have provided that only half the standard rate shall be deducted from tithe payable out of hereditaments in rural districts. In urban districts the tithe-payer will be able to deduct the whole of the standard rate. By that change we will obtain several thousands a year; perhaps about £6,000. It has not been possible to give the exact figures, or to balance the account as between the gain from the repeal of the provision for redemption and the poor rate and the, loss from the revision of the ecclesiastical tithes. According, however, to the most careful examination both by the Land Commissioners and the Government actuaries, it appears clear to us that the fund is solvent, and that an ample margin will remain to meet all its liabilities.
  MR. DILLON: Could the right hon. Gentleman give the net loss to the fund?
  MR. ATKINSON: f have said it is impossible to estimate the net loss, but I
  832
  should say at a rough guess it would be about £50,000 a year, certainly not more. I do not like to pledge myself to the exact figures; but at all events, according to the calculations which have been made, it is considered that there will be ample in the fund to meet all its obligations.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to Tithe Rent-charge in Ireland."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  MR. DILLON: I think if the House was in any doubt as to the justice of my protest against the introduction of this Bill under the Ton Minutes Rule, the wretched, lame, and hopeless attempt which has been made by the Attorney General to explain the extent and scope of this complicated measure would be ample proof. It is a most complicated measure, and I venture to say that no Minister, no matter how capable, could give an adequate explanation of this Bill and its effect in less than three-quarters of an hour. This is a Bill which is monstrous in its dishonesty; it is a Bill which raises great principles, besides being most complicated in its details. We were told by the Attorney General before he sat down that he proposed to take away, without a shred of justification, the remains of this fund, which were consecrated to the public good in Ireland, and which is a first charge upon the land of Ireland. He proposes to take away a sum which all the resources of the Government cannot make a rough estimate of. He said no one could tell what the amount would be. Why, this Bill is intended to raid the Irish Church Fluid, to mop up all that remains of it, in order to distribute it as political largesse among the supporters of the Government. I say without any fear of contradiction that a more dishonest and a more indecent Hill was never introduced into the House of Commons. We had a reference in the Attorney General's halting speech to the settlement of 1872. That settlement was passed through this House without any notice of protest from any Irish landlord, although at the time they held the representation of Ireland entirely in their own hands. If it was a settlement unfavourable to the landlords why did they not object. The Attorney General knows right well that the settlement of 1870 and

  833
  1872 was denounced by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and by Mr. Disraeli as scandalously favourable to the landlords; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Disraeli got up and denounced the Irish landlords for having sold their church for a mess of pottage, and now, after thirty years, the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh and his colleagues come forward, and although they called it a sacrilege to disestablish the Irish Church, they think it no sacrilege to divide among themselves in the most barefaced and outrageous manner what they call the remnants of the plunder. We are told by the Attorney General that it was impossible for the 'Government actually to decide what was the loss to the fund. I am perfectly sure that they will make certain to suck up every penny of the fund, but I extracted at last from the Attorney General that what he gives as a very rough estimate of the amount that this Bill proposes to take is, roughly, £50,000 a year, or nearly two millions of money. This Bill proposes to take that sum without a shred of justification, and divide it as a bribe between the political supporters of the Government in Ireland. We have been asking for years in vain for an endowment of higher education in Ireland. Here is a fund which would be quite sufficient for that purpose without appealing to the taxpayers of this country. But, no, the Irish landlords are on the track of the Government. One landlord wrote to the papers the other day to know whether the landlords ought to join the Boer party in Ireland or join in another Jameson raid before they got their share of the Irish Church Fund. The Government have come down, like the famous coon in the story, without waiting to be fired upon by the landlords, or without waiting for them to organise a Jameson raid, and they perpetrate this job. A greater outrage or a greater breach of public trust was never perpetrated on the people of Ireland. This fund was set apart for purposes of public utility. It has been used since the disestablishment for purposes of charity or education, or for general purposes connected with the public good, and now the Government propose to turn it to this abominable my hon. friend suggests the expression use, which it is impossible to describe within the rides of order in this House. In 1894, when the right hon. (Gentleman the Member for the Montrose
  834
  Burghs introduced a Bill proposing a charge of £100,000 on the Irish Church Fund for the reinstatement of the evicted tenants, what did the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury say? He said*—
  "I now come to the amount to be taken from the Irish Church surplus in order to meet the necessities of the Bill. I have two observations to make on that point. When I was in office and had official means of information on these points, I was assured that the Irish Church surplus was mortgaged up to the hilt. The number of charges upon it were such that, after we had taken the £.1,500,000 required for the Congested Districts Hoard, practically nothing would be left behind."
  That was the opinion of the First Lord of the Treasury in 1894, when we wanted £250,000 to reinstate the evicted tenants; and now it is proposed to seize two millions of that fund for which he can find no better use than to bribe the Irish landlords. This Bill is an infamous Bill, and it is the only Bill given to Ireland this session, it is a contentious Bill—it is difficult to imagine a more contentious but not only that, it is a Bill raising great principles, because it proposes to reduce by legislation what has been, by successive Acts of Parliament, made a first charge on the land of Ireland for public purposes. If that principle is not to stand but to be broken, where are you to stop? The landlords insist that mortgages should be reduced. And why not? These mortgages are charges on the land coming after the first or tithe charge. If you reduce the charge in which the public are interested and hand over a great portion of it to the landlords, what resistance can you make to the claim of the same landlords to reduce the mortgages on their land, which are the second charge? This is a Bill involving great principles, as I have said, and of enormous detail, as will be made abundantly clear in the course of its progress through the House; and therefore I say that this is a Bill which ought not to have been introduced at all on its merits, but which, at any rate, ought not to have been introduced by a back door under the Ten Minutes Rule, which was distinctly passed for a totally different purpose. Mr. Speaker has ruled that it is not in his discretion to decide which Bills should be introduced under that rule, but that it is in the

  835
  discretion of the Government. I hope if this course is to be enforced that it will be taken notice of by the Opposition, and that at some future time, when hon. Members now on the Government benches are sitting on the opposite side of the House, they will be deprived of two or three nights discussion on important Bills in which they take great interest. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I move, submitting to your
  ruling, Mr. Speaker, that the debate be now adjourned.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot move the adjournment. He can ask me to put the question of adjournment, but that I decline to do, and I therefore put the question that leave be given to bring in the Bill.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 209; Noes, 132. (Division List, No. 32.)

  Round, James

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

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

  Spencer, Ernest

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Rutherford, John

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (OxfdUniv.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wyndham, George

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arey

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—SIR William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)

  Smith, Abel H. (Christehurch)

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  AYES.

  Aird, John

  Doughty, George

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn)

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Douglas, Rt Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Doxford, Sir Wm, Theodore

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edw. H.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Leighton, Stanley

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Swans'a)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Faber, George Denison

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Man.)

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Finch, George H.

  Lowles, John

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Barry. Rt. Hon. A. H. S. (Hunts)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Flannery. Sir Fortescue

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Fry, Lewis

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Bethell, Commander

  Galloway, W. Johnson

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gedge, Sydney

  M'Killop, James

  Biddulph, Michael

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bill, Charles

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Melville, Beresford V.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas John

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir J. Eldon

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Butcher, John George

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Monk, Charles James

  Carlile, William Walter

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Cecil, Lord Hug, (Greenwich)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

  Morrell. George Herbert

  Chamberlain, J. A (Wore'r)

  Hanson, Sir Regmald

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mount, William George

  Charrington, Spencer

  Heath, James

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Helder, Augustus

  Murray, Charles J. Coventry

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Myers, Wm. Henry

  Colomb, Sir John Charles, R.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Nicol, Donald Niman

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

  Hobhouse, Henry

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Corbett, A Cameron (Glasgow)

  Howard, Joseph

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Howell, William Tudor

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzom

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Currie, Sir Donald

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Curzon, Viscount

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Purvis, Robert

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Denny, Colonel

  Kimber, Henry

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartle'pl)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Knowles, Lees

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lafone, Alfred

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Malley, William

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northum.)

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ambrose, Robert

  Gold, Charles

  Price, Robert John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Hammond, John (Carlaw)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Harwood, George

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hedderwick, Thomas Charles, H.

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Birrell, Augustine

  Holland, William Henry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Souttar, Robinson

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Steadman, William Charles

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Joicey, Sir James

  Strachey, Edward

  Burns, John

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Burt, Thomas

  Kay-Shuttleworth. Rt Hn SirU'

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Caldwell, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Thomas, Abel (Carmthn., E.)

  Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Thomas, Alfred (Glam., E.)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leng, Sir John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Carew, James Laurence

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tully, Jasper

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lloyd-George, David

  Walton, J L. (Leeds, S.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Weir, James Galloway

  Crilly, Daniel

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Davies, M. Vaughan Cardigan

  M'Arthur, W. (Cornwall)

  Williams, JohnCarvell (Notts.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Ewan, William

  Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

  Dillon, John

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

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

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Maddison, Fred.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Duckworth, James

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Yorks.)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Wood house, Sir J. T. (H'fl'd.)

  Engledew, Charles John

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Woods, Samuel

  Evans, SirFrancis H. (South' ton

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Farrell, James P. (Cavan. W.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Farrell, Thomas J. (Kerry, S.)

  O Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Bill ordered to he brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Gerald Balfour.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE (IRELAND) BILL.
  To amend the Law relating to Tithe Rent-charge in Ireland, presented, and read the first, time; to be read a second
  time upon Monday, 5th March, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT (1890) AMENDMENT.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,), who was very

  839
  indistinctly heard, in asking leave to introduce a Bill to amend Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, said that it dealt with one of the most important social questions at the present time. What was wanted with regard to the housing of the working classes was not so much fresh legislation as a more effective administration of the laws at present in existence. There were, however, two defects in the law at present about which complaints were constantly heard. The first defect was the difficulty by which in towns, and in the larger towns in particular, especially in London, local authorities were invariably confronted, namely, the difficulty of providing space and sites on which to build within the limits of their jurisdiction. This difficulty arose solely because among the powers placed in the local authorities there was no power which enabled them to acquire land beyond the boundaries of their own area. That was a power which he thought the local authorities ought to possess, and although the change would be small and extremely simple, he thought the effect would be very great indeed. Nothing which could be done would be more beneficial to the well-being of the working classes. It was impossible to suppose, in London for example, with a growing population, that the whole of the working population could ever be housed as they would like to see it within the limits of London itself. But, given a reasonable distance in the country outside London, with the modern means of transit, the improvement in the tramway service, now in the hands of the County Council, and, above all, an adequate service of cheap trains, he believed that the problem would be to a great extent solved.
  MR. TULLY (): Will the provisions of this Bill extend to Ireland?
  MR. CHAPLINsaid not at present. The experiment was one which the Government thought ought at least to be made. The Bill provided that where any council other than a rural district council adopted Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, it might supply the needs of its district by either establishing or acquiring lodging houses for the working classes under that Part outside its district. It was also urged that the restrictions which were
  840
  placed on Part III. of the Act in respect of rural districts were so cumbersome and intricate that in many cases it was practically a dead letter. In the first place, they had to obtain the consent of the county council, then the county council was bound first of all to hold a local inquiry, to grant and publish a certificate, and even then, except in cases of what was termed an emergency, the proceedings had to wait until after the next election of the local authority concerned. The Bill proposed to simplify that procedure. The consent of the county council would still be required, but the granting of their consent would be at the discretion of the county council subject only to this provision—that they must have regard to the area for which it is proposed to adopt the Part, to the necessity for accommodation for the housing of the working classes in that area, to the probability of such accommodation being provided without the adoption of the Part, and to the liability which would be incurred by the rates, and to the question whether, under all the circumstances, it was prudent for the district council to adopt the Part.
  SIR WALTER FOSTEE ()said he had listened to the opening of the light hon. Gentleman's speech with a feeling of fume which he regretted had been completely dissipated by his closing remarks. This was a question which, in the opinion of the country, was most important, and one which required the gravest consideration. It struck at the conditions of overcrowding under which hundreds of thousands of the people of this country lived, conditions which made decency impossible and morality a miracle. The Bill was satisfactory so far as it went, but in respect of the rural districts it did practically nothing. Indeed, the Bill could not be looked upon as in any way an adequate method of meeting a great national emergency. Any Bill which attempted to grapple with this problem ought to afford opportunities to the local authorities to reach the real owner of bad house property—to reach the man who was fattening on the miseries of his fellow creatures. It should also give power to local authorities to take over by a simpler and cheaper method all property declared to be insanitary at the bare price of land and materials.

  841
  Further, it should provide simple and inexpensive methods of taking land by purchase or by hire for this great public purpose in which the ordinary expense of taking land compulsorily ought not to be allowed. Power should also be vested in a central authority, or in a, large local authority, to supervise local areas and to force local authorities to do their duty. Means should also be provided by which money should be granted at the lowest possible rate of interest for the longest period in order to enable local authorities to carry out this work of housing the people without unduly adding to the rates. The measure introduced by the right hon. Gentleman was, in his opinion, totally inadequate to meet the demands of the country.
  Bill to amend Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chaplin, Secretary Sir Matthew White Ridley, Mr. Ritchie, and Mr. T. W. Russell.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT (1800) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend Part 3 of The Houisng of the Working Classes Act, 1890." presented, and read the first time: to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]
  MR. STEADMAN (): I was going to rise, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to ask if the Bill will be read a second time this day week.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I should think probably not.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Fifteen Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of—Mr. Gibson Bowles, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Victor Cavendish, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Duckworth, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Goddard, Mr. Banbury, Mr. Brodie Hoare, Mr. Grant Lawson, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. Pym, and Mr. Thornton.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.—(Sir William Walrond.)

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 1) BILL. [THIRD READING.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (): I would not have troubled the House with raising any objection in the present stage of this measure if it were not for the fact that on Friday, when we were considering the Supplementary Estimates dealing with the money mentioned in this Bill, the First Lord of the Treasury prevented me and other Members who had given notice of reductions from moving them and giving our reasons for so doing. I know that I cannot now move the reductions which I proposed to do. What I can do is to object to the third reading of this Bill. This Bill is for the expenditure of no less than thirteen millions of pounds for the expenses of the war up to the 31st March of the present year. The first thing I have to say is that I think this piecemeal plan of applying to Parliament for comparatively small Votes time after time is unsatisfactory. Last session we were called on for a Vote of ten millions, and some people anticipated that that sum would have been sufficient to see the war brought to a conclusion satisfactory to the Government. What has occurred in South Africa has necessitated the further application to Parliament for an additional sum of thirteen millions. We are expressly told in this Bill that the thirteen millions are only for expenses up to the end of the financial year closingon the 31st day of March next. That means that this sum, added to the Vote of last session, twenty-three millions in all, has already been spent in the progress of this war. It means that an attempt is made to blind the people of this country to the fact that the war is only being proceeded with at a most unexpected and extraordinary cost. I want to know from the Secretary of the Treasury if he can tell us when the next application will be made to Parliament for a further Vote to carry on this war, how much the amount of that Vote is likely to be, and whether any estimate has been arrived at by the Government as to what will be the probable cost of these proceedings in South Africa before they are concluded. We have heard from

  843
  time to time very flattering eulogies passed on the conduct of the various colonial Governments that have lent assistance in the prosecution of this war. Already a large number of men have gone from the colonies, but I have yet to learn that any very considerable sum of money has been offered by any of the colonial Governments to the home Government to defray the expenses of the war. It should be borne in mind that this Vote of thirteen millions is not merely to meet an emergency, but is, in a large measure, to meet a permanent increase in the British Army represented by 120,000 men who have been asked for. What you have to bear in mind, and what the people have to bear in mind, is that after the enthusiasm of this war is passed and the colonial troops have returned to their homes, the taxpayers of this country and of this country alone will be left to bear the enormous cost entailed by the permanent addition to the British Army. As an Irish representative, I object to this Vote, first, because it would be simply hypocrisy on our part if we allowed the statement in this Bill to go by without being challenged. The Bill says that this sum of thirteen millions is cheerfully granted to Her Majesty and that we humbly beseech Her Majesty to apply the money so cheerfully given for the prosecution of the war. I do not know how other Gentlemen feel about it, but I do not feel in the slightest degree cheerful on the subject. It is quite time this antiquated phraseology should be done away with, because, even though you vote this money, it is simply humbug to put in an Act of Parliament that it is cheerfully given, for no man in this House feels cheerful over parting with so much of the treasure of the taxpayer for such a purpose. From the Irish point of view the voting of this money is intolerable. It is an outrageous scandal, in my opinion, when a war is got up in South Africa of which the Irish people absolutely disapprove, that they should be called upon to pay a large proportion of the cost of the war. Ireland, neither directly nor indirectly, had any hand or part in the proceedings which led to this war. We had absolutely no means of influencing or controlling the negotiations which ended in the lamentable occurrences taking place in South Africa. If we had had a voice in this matter the enormous majority of the Irish people and their representatives would
  844
  have declared against the war. We can see nothing even now which affords sufficient reason for these gigantic military preparations, and above all—even if this war were just—we cannot see that anything possible in the shape of a return can be gained by the conquering of either of these Republics. We in Ireland arcs sometimes accused of complaining without reason. Is it not reason enough for us to see throughout the length and breadth of the land that Irish country industries are languishing, that our people are handicapped in the question of higher industrial and technical education, and hampered in every possible way because they cannot induce the Government to expend a reasonable amount of money to help and educate the people and prepare them for the battle of life and the development of their country? We cannot get anything from this House for any practical purpose in Ireland. We know that the result of an expert examination has shown that under the system prevailing now the Irish people are unfairly treated in the matter of Imperial taxation. There is a profound conviction in Ireland that the people are already called on to pay more than their fair share for Imperial purposes, and the people regard with despair the ineffectual attempts made to get money for the development of the country. Under these circumstances is it surprising if the utmost indignation is felt among the Irish people when the) ' are told, and know, that of every million that is voted for the carrying on of the war they will have to pay a share out of all proportion to what it should be? The, Irish Members would be wanting in their duty if they did not take every opportunity of protesting against this expenditure, and especially protesting against it in the name of the Irish taxpayer. I do not propose to go into any examination of the various items in the proposals of the Government upon which the thirteen millions are to be spent. In Committee I singled out items and gave notice of my desire to move reductions therein, but was not allowed to do so by the closure. Nor am I able to do so now. I do not go in detail into an examination of whether I think the expenditure unfair in the matter of pay, munitions of war, or transport. I confine myself to saying that the whole expenditure from beginning to end is unnecessary and unjust,

  845
  and will be absolutely unproductive. In the protest I have made at every possible stage of these proceedings, I venture to say I am voicing not merely the views of my own constituents and the popular opinion in Ireland, but also the opinion of tens of thousands of the taxpayers of England, Scotland, and Wales, many of whom have a rooted objection to seeing their hard earned taxes squandered in military expeditions for the suppression of liberty and the invasion of the homes of industrious and Christian people in South Africa. Although the masses of the English people here have not been heard to any great extent upon this expenditure, I am certain a day will come when there will be a great revulsion of feeling in this country, and when the present Government, the authors of this iniquitous war, will be swept out of office, and a Government installed in power which will return to the policy practised by Mr. Gladstone in South Africa a policy not of bloodthirstiness and tyranny, as is the present, but one of magnanimity and justice, recognising that if a man is born a Dutchman instead of an Englishman he has a right to have his national prejudices, feelings, and pride respected and considered just as much as has an Englishmen. Since this war commenced, after listening very closely to the debates, my feeling in regard to English character has undergone several changes. To find the vast bulk of the British representatives voting the money for this war convinces me of the truth of the estimate of England which we have held in Ireland for generation after generation. We have always been taught to believe that the English people will allow nothing abroad to check them when their own interests are at stake, that they will not consider the rights and interests of others, and that the only time at which a barrier is raised to the policy of Imperial expansion in England is when that expansion finds itself confronted by some strong and mighty power. But in quarters where the means of resistance are weak and slender, the Imperial spirit of England rides roughshod over the people, as is the case at present in South Africa. On the other hand, I confess I have more than once been moved to intense admiration while listening to certain speeches in this House, speeches delivered by men who have been sneered at, interrupted, and insulted
  846
  because they object to this war. The speeches of such men as Sir Edward Clarke, the right hon. Member for Bodmin, the hon. Member for Cocker mouth, and the hon. Member for Battersea have aroused in the breasts of Irishmen the feeling that, after all, there are some men in this House and country sufficiently brave to face popular disfavour and to be on the right side, though for the time being that side may be in a miserable minority. Do the hon. Gentlemen who vote this money so lightly and regard the prospects of the war with so much satisfaction and confidence, ever remember the expenditure indulged in by this country over one hundred years ago, when the colonial dependencies of this nation in America were attacked as the people of the South African Republics are being attacked to-day? Some of the most fervent and eloquent speeches ever delivered in this House by British statesmen were delivered against the policy of exasperation and brute force practised in America. It was predicted that the policy would lead to the loss of the American colonies, and that prediction was amply justified. The policy now being pursued in South Africa is the same in many respects as that which lost you the American colonies. The speeches then delivered by Burke and Chatham might have been delivered at this very day in regard to the war in South Africa. If this policy is pursued to the bitter end the result will be not only that you will fail permanently to subdue the people of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, but that you will in all probability ultimately lose your control over Cape Town. Natal, Rhodesia, and every single square yard of territory in South Africa. Why do I say that? Because the vast majority of the inhabitants of South Africa are Dutch, and unless you are going to instruct your soldiers to do the same as soldier's did not very long ago—to bayonet the women and children, and stamp out the breed of the Dutch by fire, sword, and persecution, the Dutch nation and the Dutch race will spring up in a new generation, and in a few years you will find yourselves confronted with the same difficulties as at present. There was no reason for this war. Negotiations could have been carried on which would have resulted in the granting to the subjects of the Queen in the Transvaal everything they could reasonably

  847
  require. One of the chief reasons I am so vehemently opposed to this war is that the whole matter could have been settled by arbitration. Was there ever in the history of the world such an exhibition of inconsistency—I had almost said such hare hypocrisy—as the action of the British representatives in this matter? At the Hague Conference the strongest advocate of arbitration was the British representative. In common with the representatives of the United States and the great European Powers, he signed the agreement with regard to arbitration. Yet we find that in a dispute where it was of the last importance that there should be a peaceable settlement, and where it was known that war if it did break out would be a dreadful and devastating conflict, almost before the ink of the signatures to the Arbitration Agreement was dry, the representatives of this country turned their hacks on their own resolution and ignored the principle of arbitration. When President Kruger offered to submit the whole matter to impartial arbitration and to abide by the award, he was insulted and flouted, and told that the representatives of the Queen could not consent to arbitrate with so petty and miserable a State as that composed of a few hundred men, represented by Paul Kruger. What does arbitration mean in the opinion of English gentlemen? Does it mean that you are to apply it only in the case of a quarrel in which you are confronted, not by President Kruger and 200,000 Boers, but by President McKinley with his 70,000,000' of population at his back? Arbitration was agreed to in the case of Venezuela, but refused in the case of the Transvaal. Therefore, we are driven to the conclusion that it was accepted in the one case because America was strong and powerful; but because the Transvaal was weak and isolated it was thought that the will of this country could be wreaked upon it. Arbitration would have been no dishonour to this country. If a strong and mighty power, in a dispute with a weak and small Power, says, "Well, come, we will submit these matters to arbitration," the conduct of that strong Power is calculated to create feelings of admiration throughout the world. You have had to spend all these millions, to submit to these terrible humiliations, and to put up with the loss of many valuable lives, all because the principle of arbitration was not acted upon. It must be a bitter
  848
  reflection that by a little conciliation and good feeling everything you could reasonably expect or really require in the Dutch Republics might have been granted to you, and your name and flag would have been kept untarnished, instead of being sullied by a series of disastrous and humiliating defeats. There is nothing astonishes me more than the light-hearted way in which the British people seem to take the progress of this war. We have often heard of British stolidity. We were taught at school that one of the chief characteristics of the, Englishman was that he was very stolid; that in moments, of success and triumph he was self-contained and quiet, and in moments of defeat, impassive and unmoved. It would be more to the credit of this country if a little more consideration was publicly exhibited in view of the terrific losses which have been inflicted on your armies. We are told that the second epoch of the war has now been entered on; that all the days that have been are past, and that for the future there will be nothing but glorious victories and triumphant marches to Pretoria. But in the midst of all this, when every glaring news bill tells us that General Cronje is flying, that the Boers, are terrified and overthrown, that Kitchener is on their track, when we open our newspapers at breakfast what do we see? A column of glorious and victorious news? No. A column of casualties, telling us that as a result of the operations of the last few days two of the bravest British generals are seriously wounded, and that no less than fifty commissioned officers are at this moment lying either dead in South Africa or suffering the tortures of bleeding and wounded soldiers in the hospitals. How many men have been killed and wounded? Why do we not get the news in some sort of completeness, so that we may know what is going on? We shall probably not hear of the killed and wounded of the rank and file for some days. As to the anxious mothers and fathers of the poor rank and file from the highlands of Scotland and the homesteads of Ireland, it matters not when they hear whether their relatives are safe. There may be hundreds of these men killed or wounded, and yet we are told the war has now entered on its period of victory. If the people of this country are stolid they have sufficient calmness and common-sense to bear

  849
  the truth, and they ought to be told the truth. There is not a newspaper correspondent allowed to send a telegram, not a line is permitted to be sent home, giving true and impartial accounts of the proceedings at the scat of war, and even the War Office only publishes fragmentary and piecemeal intelligence. The manner in which the news of this war is given out is on a par with the manner in which the Government prepared for the war. My hon. friend the Member for South Leitrim the other night made several criticisms with regard to the arrangements of the War Office, to which he did not get a single reply. I honestly believe the authorities could not reply. I cannot for the moment think of a Parliamentary phrase sufficiently strong in which to describe the incapacity of the gentlemen at present running the War Office. You may sneer at France or Germany, and think that your system is the best in the world, but there is not a nation on the face of the earth which would have allowed the constitution of the War Office to be the same to-day as it was at the commencement of the war. The authorities miscalculated and misdirected everything, with the result that you now have 1 1,000 British soldiers either killed, wounded, or prisoners at Pretoria. During the five months this war has been proceeding, the authorities have simply made a botch of it. They have had the spending of vast sums of money, and now we are asked to hand over to them another £13,000,000. As far as I am concerned, I certainly will not do it. There is not the organised capacity there ought to be in the War Office, and for that reason amongst others I object to this Vote. The Prime Minister in another place, in justifying this war, said that he had no means of judging that the Transvaal were making such large preparations, and that guns and munitions of war were sent there in piano cases. Was ever such language heard from the Prime Minister of an important country? You had your Agent at Pretoria; you had your spies at Pretoria—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The want of preparation for this war does not arise on this Vote.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Of course, I bow to your ruling, Sir, but my line of argument was to show that
  850
  this money ought not to be entrusted to the administrators of the War Office, because of the incapacity they have shown in failing to acquaint themselves with what is obvious to people of other countries as to the arming of the Transvaal. However, I will not pursue that subject any further than to say that, from the Prime Minister down, every member of the Government has been proved to be incapable. My opinion does not stand alone in that respect. The Times, the Morning Post, the Standard, and nearly every enlightened exponent of Unionist and Tory opinions in the press, have expressed the same view. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has come in at the fag end of my remarks, when it is too late for him to hear all the perfectly unanswerable things I have said. I will therefore conclude by repeating to him the statement with which I commenced my remarks, viz., that I would not to-day have opposed this Bill by more than my vote if last Friday at half-past ten he had not thought fit to apply the closure and to exclude me.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must know he is out of order in commenting on the application of the closure on a previous occasion. It is the act of the House, and it is quite improper to suggest that it is unfair.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I have no doubt the application of the closure on that occasion was in the opinion of the gentleman who moved it—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss it at all: it is out of order.
  MR. WILLIAM MREDMOND: I have not the slightest desire or intention to disobey your ruling, or to offer any remarks which you think out of order, but I conceive that I am perfectly entitled to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that my reason for interfering in this debate and speaking at this stage of the proceedings was that I was prevented from doing so by the application of the closure last Friday.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is in order in saying he has made these observations because he

  851
  had no opportunity of making them before, but he has no right to criticise the application of the closure.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I do not desire to criticise the application of the closure, but strictly to follow your ruling. I merely say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have intervened at this stage and made these remarks because, through a collection of untoward circumstances, over which I had no control, but the controlling of which did rest—
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will disregard my ruling I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Really I have no desire to disregard your ruling, hut I must say that I do not clearly understand what that ruling is. I am telling the right hon. Gentleman—
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he has said the same thing four or five times in different ways, and now he is repeating it again. It is tedious repetition, such as is forbidden by the Standing Order.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is within your recollection that the hon. Member for Stoke lectured the First Lord of the Treasury—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not a point of order.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Nothing was further from my intention when I rose than to enter into any discussion with regard to your Tilling. I was endeavouring to point out, and I maintain I am entitled to point out, that I have taken this opportunity of speaking—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman does not understand my ruling. What I said was that he was beginning to say for the fourth or fifth time that he has taken this opportunity of expressing his views because he had not the opportunity on a previous occasion, and now he is simply continuing to repeat it.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: All these little unpleasantnesses would have been avoided if the right hon. Gentleman
  852
  the First Lord of the Treasury had come in at the commencement of my speech. The moral of my intervention upon this occasion is that whenever I am interfered with I will make good such interference upon the first opportunity, and where perhaps ten minutes would have done if I had not been interfered with I will take as long as I can when I do get an opportunity.
  MR. TULLY (): I beg to support my hon. friend's objection to this Bill. We are asked to vote this £13,000,000 to the War Office to be spent by the officials who at present have the control of that department. I for one object to handing over these £13,000,000 to the present officials of the War Office. I do so on various grounds. One of the grounds upon which I rise to support my hon. friend the Member for East Clare is that when I made certain charges here the other night no answer was given from the Government benches to a single one of them. I think when we make strong and definite charges against the War Office we are entitled to some explanation, and to some answer to those charges. The hon. Member opposite asked the Under Secretary of State for War a question dealing with (me of the engagements that has taken place, during the march of Lord Methuen's force to the relief of Kimberley. He asked who was responsible for the present proportion of horses and of guns to infantry in the different battalions of the first army corps. That was a reasonable question, and he asked the Under Secretary to explain who was responsible. He practically got no reply to that question. I asked the other night for certain replies to straightforward and definite charges, and I think in important questions which are a matter of life or death to this country, when such questions are raised in this House, we are at least entitled to demand some explanation on these points from hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Government bench. Upon the question of the deficient armaments and munitions supplied to the troops, and upon other vital questions which have been raised, no answer whatever has been given. Upon such questions as the sighting of the rifles and the refusal of the War Office to purchase in 1892 the patent of the Maxim-Vickers gun we got no reply. We raised the question of the powder and

  853
  the cordite, and we got no reply with regard to that. On that question I quoted the opinion of some hon. Gentlemen who now sit on the Government bench, and I referred particularly to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I remember sitting upon a Committee of which the right hon. Gentleman was Chairman, and I remember the courage and determination he showed in dealing with certain scandals in connection with the Telephone Company. I ash, when the Secretary to the Treasury showed such a keen knowledge in matters connected with the War Office, why a business man like him was not put in charge of the War Office in order that he might root out the scandals connected with the administration of that department. On the question of cordite a greater scandal could not exist in the history of any country. It was stated in the debates which took place in this House that the so-called invention of cordite cost taxpayers £200,000. What was the so-called invention? A number of inventors were asked—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! These remarks are quite irrelevant.
  MR. TULLY: This money has to be spent by the War Office, and they deal with cordite—
  MR. SPEAKER: The fact that the War Office have to administer this money and have to deal with cordite does not entitle the hon. Member to discuss the history of the invention of cordite.
  MR. TULLY: I think I am entitled to show—
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)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, 255; Noes, 52. (Division List No. 33.)

  Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Helder, Augustus

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Monk, Charles James

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Holland, William Henry

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

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

  Howard, Joseph

  Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Spencer, Ernest

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Stanley, Ed Jas. (Somerset)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Johnson-Ferguson, J. E.

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Strachey, Edward

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Strauss, Arthur

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Joicey, Sir James

  Myers, William Henry

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox'dUniv)

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Tennant, Harold John

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Knowles, Lees

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Lafone, Alfred

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning (Corn)

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry)

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzon

  Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Ed. H.

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Price, Robert John

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunt'n)

  Leng, Sir John

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

  Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

  Llewelyn, Sir D. (Swansea)

  Purvis, Robert

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col.-A. R.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Rankin, Sir James

  Whitmore, George Algernon

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew W

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

  Woodhouse, Sir. J T (Huddersf'd)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Woods, Samuel

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Rutherford, John

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. (Stuart)

  M'Killop, James

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Wyndham, George

  Malcolm, Ian

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  AYES.

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J (Manc'r)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Finch, George H.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Charrington, Spencer

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Fison, Frederick William

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Flower, Ernest

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Forster, Henry William

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Fry, Lewis

  Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Bethell, Commander

  Curzon, Viscount

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.)

  Biddulph, Michael

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Bill, Charles

  Davies, Sir Hor. D. (Chatham)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Billson, Alfred

  Davies, M. Yaughan (Cardig'n)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Denny, Colonel

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Brigg, John

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Doughty, George

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Doxford, Sir William T.

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Drucker, A.

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Carlile, William Walter

  Dunn, Sir William

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord Geo.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derhys.)

  Faber, George Denison

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Ferguson, R. C. Monro (Leith)

  Heath, James

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Farrell, James P. (Cavan W.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Farrell, Thomas J. (Kerry, S.)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Ambrose, Robert

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eition)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Steadman, William Charles

  Blake, Edward

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'd)

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Caldwell, James

  Lloyd-George, David

  Tully, Jasper

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Crilly, Daniel

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  M'Ewan, William

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Dillon, John

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  Duckworth, James

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Engledew, Charles John

  O'Malley, William

  Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 274; Noes, 33. (Division List No. 34.)

  AYES.

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Doughty, George

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Arnold, Alfred

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Knowles, Lees

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Lafone, Alfred

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Drucker, A.

  Lawrence, Sir E.]) urnig- (Corn.)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Duckworth, James

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Elliot. Hon. A. Ralph D.

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Faber, George Denison

  Leng, Sir John

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swans')

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Colonel A. R.

  Barry. Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Beach, Rt. Hon. W. W. B. (Hants)

  Finch, George H.

  Lough, Thomas

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Bethell, Commander

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Flannery. Sir Fortescue

  Macartney. W. G. Ellison

  Biddulph, Michael

  Flower, Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bill, Charles

  Forster, Henry William

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Billson, Alfred

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  M'Ewan, William

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Fry, Lewis

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb., W.)

  Brigg, John

  Galloway, Wm. Johnson

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Garfit, William

  M'Killop, James

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gedge, Sydney

  Malcolm, Ian

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Gibbs, Hon. V (St, Albans)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Caldwell, James

  Goldsworthy, Major-Genera]

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Monk, Charles James

  Carlile, William Walter

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson

  Gourley, Sir Edward Temperl'y

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monmithsh)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshre)

  Green, W. D. (Wedneslmry)

  Morton. Ed. J. C. (Devonport)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Gull. Sir Cameron

  Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

  Myers, William Henry

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wor.)

  Hanbury, lit Hon. R. Wm.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Norton, Capt. Cevil William

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas, Seale

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Heath, James

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Holder, Augustus

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Columb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. Horace C

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Holland, William Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Price, Robert John

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Howard, Joseph

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cross, Herb. Sheph'd (Bolton)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Purvis, Robert

  Curzon, Viscount

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Pym, C. Guy

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Rankin, Sir James

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

  Davies, Sir Hor. D. (Chatham)

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

  Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l)

  Davies, M. Vanghan (Cardig'n)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Denny, Colonel

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Joicey, Sir James

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas, Thomson

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn. Sir U

  Robson, William Snowdon

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Blake, Edward

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Crilly, Daniel

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  M'De mott, Patrick

  Tully, Jasper

  Dillon, John

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Engledew, Charles John

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

  O'Connor, T. R. (Liverpool)

  Farrell, Thomas J. (Kerry, S.)

  O'Malley, William

  Resolution agreed to.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Welby, Lt-Col A. C. E. (Taunton)

  Hound, James

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

  Strachey, Edward

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Strauss, Arthur

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Rutherford, John

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Un.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E)

  Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)

  Seely.' Charles Hilton

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r)

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd)

  Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Woods, Samuel

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Wyndham, George

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke d'Arcy

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

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Warr, Augusus Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Spencer, Ernest

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Weir, James Calloway

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES), 1899-1900.

  CLASS I.
  1. £20,000, Supplementary, Revenue Buildings.
  MR. WARNER (): There has been very great delay in the completion of post offices all over the country. One case I know specially, namely, the Strand Post Office, in which I believe the agreement has been hung up for something like twelve months.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Unless the Strand Post Office is included in the Estimate it cannot be discussed.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): It is not included in this Vote. I will give the hon. Member the information privately.
  MR. CALDWELL (): It is stated in a note to this Estimate that the increase is owing to greater progress having been made than was originally estimated. We should like to know if a considerable portion of this sum is not due to increased wages, and whether the right hon. Gentleman will give us some of the principal items in which the work has proceeded more rapidly than was expected, and also whether any of these buildings are in Scotland.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The increase is not accounted for by the increase of wages only. It has occurred because the year being an excellent building year, greater progress has been made than was anticipated. No larger amount than was authorised will be required, but more money is wanted for the current year Some Scottish post offices are included in the Vote.
  2. £40,000, Supplementary, Public Buildings, Great Britain.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (): I should like to ask whether a sum is taken in this Vote to complete the alteration of Hertford House, and when the Wallace collection will be open to the public.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: My right hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury stated the other day, in answer to a question, that the collection would be open early in May. This Estimate does not include the whole cost in connection with the collection. We shall have to ask in the Estimates for 1900-1 for £2,000 for decorative and other work.
  3. £12,000, Supplementary, Bates on Government Property.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I am glad to see this addition to the original Vote, because it indicates the gradual reduction i if a grievance under which local authorities have suffered for a long time—namely, that the Government has not been paying a proportionate sum with other ratepayers in discharge of its local obligations. It is quite true that the whole of the grievance is not removed. The Government, being its own valuer, remains, but I am glad to see that by means of these Votes a great deal of the grievance is being removed and I think it is due to the Secretary of the Treasury that this has been brought about. There, are, however, exceptions. The local authorities at Portsmouth still retain the feeling that the ratepayers have to bear an undue proportion of the burden because the Government does not pay a sufficient sum in lieu of rates. On the other hand, in Islington and elsewhere I have the testimony of the various clerks and others that almost the entire grievance has been removed. I hope the two returns which are on the Paper for tomorrow will be assented to, and that they will show that no reasonable ground for complaint exists. I hope the present course of action will be continued.
  MR. CALDWELL: I admit, so far as England is concerned, that what the hon. Gentleman has said is perfectly true. In 1894, previous to the present Government coming into office, the amount England obtained was £214,800: the amount, including the Supplementary Estimate we are now asked to vote, which England will obtain for the current year is £368,000, making an increase of £153,200. Look at the case of Scotland. In 1894 the amount was £16,500, now it is only £19,000. In dealing with local rates we must remember what they are charged for. You have got museums and similar institutions for the benefit of the people in the Metropolis, and after the Government has paid heavily for the sites of these buildings the Metropolis says, "You must give us a very large sum in respect of local rates on account of these facilities which we and we alone enjoy." I think that is most dishonourable on the part of London. It has all the advantages of having these buildings in its midst, and I think it is very mean on the part of the Metropolis to require the Government to pay rates on them. The. Secretary to the Treasury tells us that this increase is made up of three items, an increase in the poundage of rates, contributions to new buildings, and increased valuations. Perhaps the light hon. Gentleman will tell us how much is to be expended under each of these heads. lam very glad that a return is to be moved for, which will show at once the great disparity existing between England and Scotland as regards Government rates. While Scotland contributes her fail' share to the taxation of the country she gets nothing to recoup herself in the shape of Government buildings or contracts. In the case of Ireland it may be said that she has the, benefit of Imperial money, lint there is nothing of that kind in Scotland. Of course this is only a Supplementary Estimate, and the whole matter will have to be discussed again. In the meantime, perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury would make an inquiry as to how far Government property in Scotland is being fairly valued. I think when this matter is brought to his knowledge he will at least see that valuation in Scotland should proceed on the same lines as valuation in England. There is this difference in Scotland, that

  863
  the valuations are made up year by year, and there is no need to wait for a quinquennial valuation as in London. In that way the right hon. Gentleman may be able to remedy a good deal of injustice.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: (Lynn Regis): Am I right in stating that the amount of the Supplementary Estimates consists entirely of contributions in lieu of rates?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. HANBURY,): Yes, Sir.
  LORD HUGH CECIL (): I hope my right hon. friend will not carry away the impression, from what my hon. friend the Member for South Islington has said, that those who feel this grievance are satisfied. That is not the case. I believe that many of the districts which have Government property in their midst feel the grievance that the Government values its own property and practically rates itself. There will not be complete satisfaction until an arrangement is made whereby Government property will be subjected to the ordinary operations of the rating law. I should be very sorry if my right hon. friend imagined that the grievance was completely removed, and accordingly put it out of his mind as a question that was settled once for all.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I distinctly stated that that was an objection which retained its full force, and that many local authorities contend that there ought to be some independent valuation.
  MR. HANBURY: As to Government valuations, it must be remembered that a large portion of Government property
  —such as arsenals, dockyards, and places of that kind—differs altogether from the ordinary kind of property, and it is certainly not advisable to let local surveyors make complete surveys of every nook and corner in such places. So far as we can, we have met the wishes of the local authorities; and there is the broad fact
  864
  that assessment committees everywhere without exception have been fully satisfied and have agreed to the re-valuation made by Mr. Griffiths. Mr. Griffiths has left the public service, and we have lost a very valuable servant in him. He did his work of re-valuation remarkably well. With regard to the com plaint of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Lanark, the whole of his speech was a complaint that there were not sufficient public buildings in Scotland, rather than a complaint against the present system of levying rates. In Scotland Government rates are paid on exactly the same principle as in England: but of course there is nothing like the? same number of buildings, and therefore the sum voted in respect of rates in Scotland has not increased in the same way as it has in England. I can assure him that a re-valuation has taken place for the whole of Scotland, and that the assessment authorities are very satisfied, and have taken the valuations and placed them on their own valuation rolls for the first time. We are steadily keeping our rates up to the local level.
  MR. CALDWELL: It is all very welt to say that Scotland has not got so many Government institutions, and therefore does not get so much out of this Vote. That in itself exposes the poverty of the argument. We do not enjoy the benefit of the institutions which England London especially—enjoys, but which are denied to Scotland.

  CLASS II.
  4. £4,150, Supplementary, Colonial Office.
  5. £300, Supplementary, Privy Council Office.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It does seem to me, on the face of it, that this Vote should not be made the subject of a Supplementary Estimate. The Committee will see, on reference to page 7, that the explanation given of this £300 is that it is an "additional sum required to pay the salary of the Registrar of the Privy Council appointed at the maximum

  865
  of the, scale (£1,500), provision having been made in the original Estimate for only the minimum salary (£1,200). Why was not proper provision made for the whole of this sum? Surely it most have been known when the Estimate was made up that this official would be granted the maximum salary, and therefore. I think this ought to be an original Estimate. One part of the Privy Council is concerned with education, although I belive it never meets; another part of it is engaged in defence, and a third part is engaged in judicial work, the latter being the sole representative of the Star Chamber, and it is to that part we are now asked to vote this £300. I presume this official was appointed at the minimum salary, and now in the course of one year we are called upon to give him the maximum salary. First of all this is not a proper item for a Supplementary Estimate: and secondly, it will require a very considerable amount of explanation to make this Committee agree to give a new appointee the maximum salary which is ordinarily only reached after a certain number of years. In this case, I look upon it with even more suspicion, because the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is concerned. I believe there is very considerable laxity as to the appointment of officials in that Department and also as regards salaries. There is a very special reason why, it seems to me, this Judicial Committee of the Privy Council requires special attention; and why its Registrar should get a maximum salary when only entitled to a minimum salary ought certainly to be inquired into.
  MR. HANBURY: The facts of the case are these. When the Estimates were framed at the beginning of the year, a gentleman was holding this situation who had only recently been appointed. He was, therefore, receiving the minimum salary of £1,200 a year and he could not have risen to £1,500 until he had served five years. Well, that gentleman received an appointment under the Viceroy of India, and, of course, a successor had to be provided. We were very anxious to reduce the number of Charity Commissioner's. There were three Charity Commissioners and one Endowed School Commissioner. That being so, we thought that the occurrence of this vacancy
  866
  offered an opportunity of reducing the number of Commissioners. The gentleman who had been appointed to this post had then, as a Charity Commissioner, a salary of £1,200 a year which would probably shortly have risen to £1,500 We were therefore bound to offer him some inducement to take this post where £1.500 a year was the maximum, the maximum salary of the Charity Commissioners being larger. The result was a clear saving of the salary of a Commissioner. The Endowed Schools Commissioner, a post which we wished to abolish, was made a Charity Commissioner, at exactly the same salary as he received as an Endowed Schools Commissioner, and the whole effect has been a saving of £900 a year at once, and £1,200 later on.
  MR. GIBSON BOWEES: This arrangement may be a very good one for the service all round, but it is a very bad one for this particular post.
  MR. CALDWELL: In order to prevent a possible misinterpretation of this being thought to be an increase of salary for a particular office, possibly the Secretary to the Treasury will make an entry on the Estimates that the salary is personal to the present holder, and that no change is made on the minimum and maximum salary in the event of a new appointment.
  MR. HANBURY: The Estimates for the coming year are in print, but the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman is quite reasonable.
  6. £20,000, Supplementary, Stationery, and Printing.
  7. £5, Supplementary, Valuation, and Boundary Survey, Ireland.
  Resolutions to be reported.

  CLASS III.
  Motion made and Question proposed—"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,440, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending

  867
  on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the salaries and expenses of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland and of the prisons under their control."
  MR. CALDWELL: I wish some particulars in regard to this Vote, but in the absence of the Lord Advocate it will be more convenient to postpone the Vote.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLASS IV.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge which will conic in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Department of Science and Art in respect of Science. Schools."
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I desire to address a question in regard to this Vote to the Vice-President of the Council, and it would be a great convenience if he could be present. I do not know what is the regular course in this matter, but I am not aware that the Science and Art Department is in a different position now from what it was last year.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLASS V.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £162,500, 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 grants in aid of the expenses of the British Protectorates in Uganda and in Central and East Africa."
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (): In the absence of the Minister in charge of this Vote, I would like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what course the Government proposes to adopt. I do not know whether they are content to adjourn the Vote: but I shall have to make an attack on the administration of Uganda.
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present (Lord HUGH CECIL). House counted, and forty Members being found present,
  SIR CHAPLES DILKE (continuing): This is one of the largest Supplementary Votes compared with the original Vote that has ever been put before the House. It is, moreover, impossible to say whether the expenditure concerns matters which have been passed over or expenditure incurred in the present year. The foot-note states that the expenditure was consequent on the disturbed state of the Protectorate of Uganda and neighbouring districts. Now, the recent insurrection of the Soudanese troops was completely suppressed before the beginning of the present financial year, but it is possible that we shall be told that the Vote now before the Committee is expenditure largely on account of that insurrection. When Uganda was occupied we were assured that the sum of £50,000 would represent the probable expenditure per annum in that province, and at a later period it was suggested that in the course of no distant time Uganda would pay its way. The Committee will see from the Vote to what an enormous sum that expenditure has grown. The defence which has been made by the Foreign Office for the large amount asked for Uganda is the plea that the Protectorate had been starved, that is to say that the difficulties of administration had been so great that we have not been able to have a proper Civil Service, and had not been able to pay for a sufficient number of recruits, and that that was the real cause of the insurrection. It was also said that a cause of the insurrection was the small pay of the Soudanese troops on whom we were forced to rely. We are in great difficulty in regard to this Vote being administered by the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office is not really intended to govern provinces of this kind. It cannot do so because it has no trained Civil Service to employ in the Government. We know the shifts to which the Foreign Office have been driven, when they had actually to employ a valet as a governor, although I believe he did make a very good governor. Here is an enormous Supplementary Estimate, signifying, on the face of it, a tremendous amount of waste and muddle in the case

  869
  of a Department where there is no proper Treasury control. We know that the Prime Minister complained the other day of Treasury control, but in this particular ease the Prime Minister is his own Minister, for he is not only Prime Minister, but Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; but we have not the ordinary constitutional control through the Prime Minister which in another Department we should have. A book has just been published which throws some degree of light on the causes of this expenditure in the Uganda Protectorate by the Foreign Office. Hitherto we have had full reports by Colonel Macdonald as to what took place in Uganda. We have now a statement of the other side of the account as to these same proceedings in the book I have referred to by the late Major Thruston. That officer had the confidence of the Foreign Office while alive, because he was Governor of the whole of the Unyoro province, was afterwards employed in Egypt, and then taken back again to Uganda, where he met his death at the hands of the Soudanese mutineers. Since his death he seems to have lost the confidence of the Foreign Office, because it is now stated that though he was a gallant and estimable gentleman, he was not an officer on whom reliance could be placed. Major Thruston in his book gives a complete account of the whole of the difficulties between Colonel Macdonald and the Soudanese mutineers. We alleged in this House that there were reasons to suppose that the Foreign Office was blameworthy in putting Colonel Macdonald in command of the Soudanese troops. He was an administrator of great ability, but not desirable as a commander of these particular troops. We said that after the previous troubles Colonel Macdonald had with the Soudanese, the Foreign Office was blameworthy in employing him again with these troops. The Foreign Office laid before us Colonel Macdonald's account of the proceedings in Uganda, as his exculpation; we have now the other side by Major Thruston. In spite of the enormous expenditure in Uganda, the Foreign Office now alleges that the administration had been starved; but it was starved in no degree more than in the reduction of pay and the alterations in the conditions of service of the Soudanese troops, which really caused the mutiny. The Foreign Office governs two provinces
  870
  on either side of an imaginary line—Uganda and British East Africa. In Uganda they pay their Soudanese troops at the rate of four rupees a month, not in money, but in calico goods, and these invariably in arrear; whereas in British East Africa they were paying twenty-six rupees a month for precisely the same service, and these were always paid punctually and in cash. That fact in itself, apart from the breaking of other conditions of service of the Soudanese engaged in Uganda, is enough to account for the troubles which arose. Then the Foreign Office was obliged to appoint officers in command of the Soudanese who were unable to speak any of the dialects, and consequently unable to communicate with their men in any language at all, and who did not know Arabic sufficiently to go beyond the mere words of command. Major Thruston has shown very clearly the extent to which we all were deceived in the matter of the Juba expedition, and we have brought before us, for the first time, the character of our contest with the Soudanese in Unyoro, and for which we are paying with this Vote. He tells us the army consisted exclusively of twenty thousand of the Uganda tribes, who are stated to have served in the expedition simply for the purpose of plunder and paying off old scores. What was the next service on which Major Thruston was employed? He was sent to fetch some 200 Sudanese troops out of a disputed territory, and found that to do so he had to fetch with then) a following of 10,000 people, mostly women and children, and Major Thruston informed the world in his book that 7,000 of these 10,000 people failed to accomplish the march, the great majority dying on the load. The road was marked by the skeletons of men, women, and children.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): From what source does the right hon. Baronet quote that statement?
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: From his book. Major Thruston stated in so many words that, sent out as a British officer under the Foreign Office, the work upon which he found himself employed was that of a Bashi-Bazouk, a raider, and an ivory thief. He so described his work to a general officer, whose name was not

  871
  expressly given, but whom it was not difficult to identify with a gallant officer who was now serving with great distinction in South Africa, and he quoted that general officer as having said that he would sooner be a slave under the rule of the Khalifa than a negro in one of our spheres of influence. Passing from that topic I must say I do not think that the achievements of the Foreign Office in trying to administer large tracts of Africa are calculated to strengthen the Empire. Are we ever likely to get any return for the enormous expenditure in that direction? The Foreign Office is not organised or equipped for the administration of territory, and the financial muddle shown by the present enormous Supplementary Estimate proves it. I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by £10,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Uganda Grant in Aid) be reduced by £10,000."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESdeeply regretted that the Foreign Office should have entered upon this adventure, which, as the right hon. Baronet had truly pointed out, was one in which they could not hope to approach the Colonial Office. We had the Colonial Office entering into negotiations with signal want of success; the Foreign Office undertook to administer and even to conquer territories with equal want of success; and he supposed we would have the Minister for Agriculture charged with the conduct of a war one of these days. He contended that the Department had not only cheated the troops, but it had provoked, by the errors of its officers, a mutiny which might have been avoided; while in the choice of its officers it had proved itself to be singularly incompetent to select the men to fill the posts they were intended to occupy. From the beginning it had been a warlike and strategic failure, and this Estimate showed it to be a financial failure. His belief was that the Foreign Office had never considered the character of the work in which it was engaging in Uganda, and he looked with alarm at the now responsibilities which were being assumed by that Department. If we should succeed in finally conquering, pacifying,
  872
  and developing the country, our responsibilities would be heightened in respect of the maintenance of the country and its people.
  MR. JOHN BURNS (): I trust the Under Secretary of State for the Foreign Office will not accuse me of making an attack on the Foreign Office, but I cannot refrain from making a complaint when we see the brutal way in which these expeditions have been carried out by the officers of the Foreign Office. I believe the Foreign Office made a mistake in beginning the Uganda expedition at all; but having decided to occupy that country they ought to have proceeded in a businesslike and proper way. The Colonial Office was the proper office to have undertaken this matter, simply because they have a number of civil administrators in all parts of the world who are inured to climate, know the natives, and are not bound by the same rules as military men. There is a good man in Sir Harry Johnston, who, under trying and difficult circumstances, has always acted with the tact, patience, and good temper which was not as a rule shown by military officers. Major Thruston in his book discloses a condition of things which proves that the Uganda Administration was a very great mistake in its earlier stages, and conducted with a singular disregard to the condition of the native races. Many of the men appointed to this expedition knew little of the languages or the manners and customs of the people, and could only convey their thoughts to the troops through an interpreter. In that mutiny five hundred were killed or wounded, and the wounded were left behind to die, which means being eaten by lions shortly after the expedition has passed away. I come to the way in which the natives have been treated in the building of the railway. Nearly every day, some months ago, we read in the London papers of coolies engaged in the making of this railway being deprived of the most elementary precautions that ought to have been given to them, the result being that many were devoured by lions. Native labour is cheap, but you have no right needlessly to sacrifice men in the way that has been done in connection with this Uganda railway.

  873
  The right hon. Baronet referred to the fact that out of 10,000 men who started on this expedition 7,000 died or were devoured by wild animals. The writer of the book to which I have referred is in the employ of the Government, and at page 182 he says—
  "We had now been eight days out. Food was running short. We were in a foodless country, and a great many of the women and children began to suffer."
  Further on he says—
  "Eighteen miles in a tropical country is a long march for half-starved women and children and some hundreds never saw the end of it."
  I complain of want of management and lack of adaptation to local circumstances, when women and children are dragged at the heels of Soudanese troops for eighteen miles, half starved and in this shocking condition. I am not personally blaming the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, but I say it is typical of nearly everything done with regard to Uganda since we entered upon that wild expedition. The blundering which has characterised this expedition with regard to the natives and camp followers has also characterised the treatment of the engineers and drivers and other men taken out from this country. I am one of the small band of men who objected altogether to the initial outlay for Uganda on the ground that the Uganda expedition was a mistake. But having entered upon it the Foreign Office should have shown greater discretion than they have done in the selection of their lines of route and of the officers in charge and the conditions under which the expedition should be proceeded with. We are amply justified by Major Thruston's book in every one of the criticisms we made against Uganda years ago. The Government would be wise if they withdraw those who are out at Uganda to their base as soon as they can. If they are intent upon proceeding they should take every step to avoid the initial mistakes, and the colossal and preventible cruelty imposed on white subordinates, native troops, and all men connected with the expedition. I protest against this expenditure of £162,000 because I believe it is indicative of a mad feeling on the part of the Government to extend its administration to all the wild coiners of the earth. We have to recog-
  874
  nise this fact, that in foreign expansion we are biting off more than we can chew, swallowing more than we can digest. Having had the pleasure, and experience of knowing in Africa how natives should be treated, and believing the Foreign Office; have not treated them properly, I protest against the incompetence of this expedition. With great pleasure I associate myself with tin; two hon. Members who have spoken, and I beg the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to go closely and deeply into this question. If he does, he will had he will have to revolutionise the whole method of proceeding in the neighbourhood of Uganda, and accept in the main the suggestions that Sir Harry Johnston, from a practical point of view, will make to him. Above all, I appeal to him to keep the soldier to his proper work, and let all expeditions be conducted by men who have experience of the tropics, who are tactful in their treatment of the natives, and are inured to the climate. It is because the opposite type of men has been selected that I hope the right hon. Baronet will press his motion to a division, and if he does I shall have much pleasure in supporting him in the Lobby.
  MR. BRODRICK: The light hon. Gentleman who moved a reduction of this Vote has asked, and I am not surprised that he should ask, for an explanation with regard to the very considerable sum now asked for the additional Grant in Aid for Uganda. All who have addressed the House have assumed that the increased Vote is due to some want of foresight and consideration on the part of the Foreign Office, for which they have severely censured that Department, and from which they have drawn the conclusion that it is quite incapable of dealing with these territories and Estimates. Perhaps I am to blame for not being in my place, but the Vote was called on very hurriedly in consequence of the postponement of other Votes; otherwise I should have at once explained the circumstances under which this additional sum is asked. Almost the whole of this amount is due not to any want of foresight on the part of the Foreign Office, but to the great distance at which we are dealing with these Intimates, and to the circumstance that we had to employ in the mutiny which

  875
  occurred in Uganda a regiment brought from India. Up to the moment that regiment arrived in Uganda the expenditure had to be provided on Indian revenues, and the Indian Government, till they made up their accounts, were not able to tell us the precise amount due from Uganda on account of this regiment, which came from Bombay, not returning there until four months after the Estimates of the current year were framed. The result was that the Indian Government did not make its claims until a considerable time after we had framed our estimates. This I think is a complete answer to those who consider the Foreign Office were in any way responsible for errors of judgement in the matter. The Indian Government gave us a claim to cover a certain period in regard to stores, passages, railway travelling, points which could not he taken out of the Indian accounts in a hurry. They made claims on us at different times, which, with other Bills drawn on us on the same account, amounted in the course? of the current financial year to nearly £120,000 out of the £147,000 comprising the total estimate now submitted. That in reality is the main substratum of this Vote. There are a few other points, one of which I might mention to the Committee. There is an item on account of transport by railway. That is due not to any tardiness on the part of the India Office, but to a decision for which the right hon. Gentlemen the Secretary of the Treasury is responsible, and in which the Foreign Office concur, namely, that to put matters on a business footing it was desirable that all the traffic on the Uganda Railway should be paid for by and charged on the Protectorate, and reappear as an asset of the Uganda Railway as being part of its earnings. I think tin; Committee will see that that is the only proper system to adopt. When once you begin in any part of the world to carry everything which people choose to send, the amount carried will, of course, largely increase. By this system the Protectorate pay the current rate of charge for everything carried on the railway, and on the other hand, the railway receipts show whatever work they do for the Protectorate. That covers some £20,000, and, without going into smaller items practically covers the whole of the supplementary estimates. I am not going to
  876
  labour this charge against the Foreign Office of want of foresight, want of financial control, financial collapse, and the other oratorical expressions used by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, but many important points have been raised to which I should like to refer. The real main question we have to consider in regard to finance is the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean when he referred to a speech of the right hon. Baronet opposite in 1895, in which it was stated that the Treasury estimate of the annual expense of the Uganda Protectorate was £40.000. The right hon. Gentleman states truly that the expenditure on the Uganda Protectorate has been very considerably above that amount. In the first place there is no question whatever that the progress of events precipitated operations in the Uganda Protectorate, as often happens when a barbarous country is taken over. You cannot always confine your operations within the immediate centre or sphere you may choose for yourself. Our experience in Uganda is not unique in that respect. If you look back on our experience in any part of the world where we have taken up the; work of government you will find that at one time or another in the early years of our occupation we have had to expend considerable sums and put ourselves to great trouble in order to conquer or to put on a more civilised basis the country we have taken up. That has been our experience in Asia, Africa, and Canada. It is also our experience in Uganda, and although I am far from saying that at this period of the nineteenth century we can but expect to repeat the errors made on previous occasions, yet I think it is expecting a great deal, considering the condition of Uganda when it was taken over in 1894-95, to suppose that we should be able to establish a peaceable administration in all those vast territories without any difficulties or disturbances. Undoubtedly, two years ago we underwent a very chequered experience. We had, at the same time a revolt on the part of the natives and a mutiny in our own troops. That mutiny was dealt with considerable difficulty at the time owing to the small number of Europeans there;, but so far from deserving the epithets of opprobrium which to-night have been heaped upon the officials I think the conduct of our officers in

  877
  Uganda under circumstances of exceptional difficulty and danger is highly to be commended. As regards the mutiny, there is no doubt it has caused heavy expenditure, and for the time it shook the whole fabric, but I am glad to say that since I spoke here last year we have had no signs whatever of a recrudescence of those troubles, and so far as I am aware every report we have had looks forward to a very much quieter time in the future than we have had in the past. But surely, in estimating the expenditure to which we have been put in Uganda, we ought to consider with regard to these African Protectorates what has been the experience of other countries in the same regions. I quite admit that £50,000, the sum mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, has been exceeded, but what has been the total amount we have had to expend, and, on the other hand, what has been the total amount expended by other countries in the same regions? I go back practically to the beginning and take Uganda and British East Africa, two enormous protectorates, covering a vast extent of territory, and with populations the number of which has not vet been ascertained. On those two British protectorates in the last five years, including this present estimate, we have spent about £1,500,000 all told. Then take German East Africa and German Southwest Africa, two protectorates or possessions which are not equal in size to ours, and certainly not in any respect less favourably circumstanced as regards expenditure, and what do we find? The expenditure on those two German Protectorates during the same period, taking only the estimates, for we have no record to which we can refer as to any supplementary sums winch may have been raised, was a little more than £2,600,000, or more than 40 per cent. over ours. If we take the two largest French Protectorates in Africa the French Congo and Senegal we find that even now, when the expenditure is. so to speak, normal, the sum is about £1,670,000. The Italian Government in Erythrea have spent some £5,000,000 in five years. I do not for a moment say that we are not bound to show a better result, but I do say that judged by these figures the expenditure on our protectorates is not an exceptional charge upon the Empire; whatever it is, it is not that bottomless abyss of expenditure about which so much has been
  878
  said to-night on the assumption that there is no control, and that we know nothing as to how we shall stand in the future. I think too much stress has been laid on that point. If this has been our experience in the past, the hon. Member for King's Lynn says we may expect heavier charges in the future. After the example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I certainly should not attempt to prophesy with regard to the Estimates for Uganda. But this I can say, that the Estimates for this Protectorate, which will be distributed on Monday next, have been carefully considered by Sir Harry Johnston in connection with the late Deputy-Commissioner, Colonel Ternam. The sum voted for the present year was £250,000, and the present additional Estimates of £147,000. Sir Harry Johnston has gone very carefully into the Estimates, and has come to the conclusion that we may look this year for a reduction of £50,000 on the original Estimate of £250,000 voted last year. That does not represent the whole of Sir Harry Johnston's views. That gentleman left this country last September and arrived in Uganda in November, and has been occupying himself by visiting various outposts in Uganda and forming his own ideas both for the administration and of the future prospects of the country. I am not in a position to lay Sir Harry Johnston's views before the Committee to-night. For those we must expect to wait for some time. We cannot expect a man., however experienced, to arrive on the scene and within a few weeks give us a complete review of the possessions upon which he has been asked to report. But I can say two or three things which. I think, will be of interest and of a reassuring character. In the first place, Sir Harry Johnston appears to be satisfied that, so far from the organisation of government in Uganda being of an unsatisfactory and haphazard character, it has been well planned and well administered, and that great progress has been made. Secondly, although he sees his way to decrease of expenditure, that decrease is not due to there having been an exceptional number of officials: and, moreover, Sir Harry Johnston is sanguine that in a very short time he will be able to show a large increase of revenue. One hon. Member' on the floor of this House has described the country as a

  879
  desert, but I will compare that with the opinion of Sir Harry Johnston, who is a very cautious observer, and he said he was greatly struck by its producing capacity, as also by the wealth of its flocks, and he was likewise struck by the great progress which had been made in establishing friendly relations with the tribal chiefs, which augurs extremely well not only for our pacific relation with the tribes, but also for the collection of the revenue in the future, and although that is not a subject which I will dwell upon at any length, I will say that Sir H. Johnston was further impressed with the way in which the Uganda Railway has been made and worked. We may, therefore, put aside the idea which had been sedulously advanced before the Committee that the organisation in Uganda is chaos, that there is no future, that our best chance is to clear out of the country, and that the men who have been sent out by the Foreign Office to administer the country have been incompetent for their task. I view with considerable regret—I might say almost with suspicion—the passages which have been quoted from Major Thruston's book, because the statements therein made cannot have been checked by that officer, and can only have been contained in private letters written in confidence. I demur altogether to the suggestion that any guilt or any liability is to be attached to Colonel Macdonald or to any of the officers in his expedition who, in circumstances of great difficulty, did the best they could.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I am sure that both to-night and upon former occasions when we have, had this matter before us, I spoke in the highest terms with regard to the able services and the gallantry of Colonel Macdonald. What I stated was that I simply blamed the Foreign Office for the part they took in putting him in a position of such serious difficulty.
  MR. BRODRICK: I confess that I am unable to understand why the circumstances under which a gallant officer lost his life, and under which other gallant officers did their best to rescue him, has been so much criticised. They had to meet a very difficult set of circumstances and they acquitted themselves creditably.
  880
  The statements of Major Thruston are very strong, and some of them I shall be very glad to investigate, although the time is past when any redress can be undertaken. I think such statements should be made with very great reserve until we see what is to be said on the other side. The main question which has been raised is, whether the Foreign Office ought to administer the affairs of Uganda at all, and the hon. Member opposite said he could not understand on what grounds the Foreign Office attempted to administer protectorates. The reason why the Foreign Office ought to administer these protectorates is that they continually involve questions of foreign affairs. In many instances the boundaries are not yet fixed, and there must be continually difficulties and friction arising which concern the Foreign Office. We have incurred so far considerable expenditure, in Uganda which, from all the information that comes to us, we do not expect will be continued in the future. I do urge upon the House to believe that so far from that expenditure which has been incurred having produced a system of government which is in any way a reproach either to the House or to this country, I believe that the progress made in Uganda is a progress which is quite out of proportion to the time we have been there, and is also exceptional even in comparison with other parts of Africa where the influence of Great Britain has been much longer established. The progress of the Uganda Railway has been a civilising work of the first magnitude. It has been suggested that we have undertaken in Uganda liabilities which will prove an incubus to this country, but I challenge that statement altogether. I believe, that, so far, the object for which these protectorates were first taken up were not merely that they should become civilising mediums, not because there was a mere desire to acquire territory for the process of expansion, but the considerable liabilities attaching to them were undertaken in the pursuance of a definite policy of securing territory which had to do with the head waters of the Nile, which are absolutely necessary for the control of Egypt and the Soudan. I regard it, therefore, not as a question of national advantage, but as a question of Imperial necessity. If we are to hold Egypt and be masters of the Soudan as

  881
  we are, it is absolutely necessary that the head waters of the Nile should be in the hands of the power which controls those two countries; and we have no intention whatever of giving way in the position we have taken up. Every year it becomes more and more obvious that the life of Egypt is the Nile. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Oh, oh!] The hon. Member jeers at that statement, but he jeers at every expansion which is made in that direction. He laughed at Uganda, and yet at this very moment and quite recently the process of cutting the sudd on the railway between Uganda and Khartoum is already being carried out
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the general policy of opening up Uganda is not open to discussion on this Vote. All that is open for discussion is this particular item.
  MR. BRODRICK: What has been said, and very strongly said, is that this expenditure has nothing whatever to do with the Empire at large, but I confess that that is not the view of the Government. Throughout the whole of these proceedings the Foreign Office have been guided solely by a desire to hold only that which was necessary to make our occupation effectual. I may remind the Committee that this Supplementary Estimate is, to a large extent, to meet expenditure which took place two years ago, and does not represent the normal expenditure under ordinary circumstances. As I stated when there were very few Members in the House there will be a considerable reduction in the Estimates for the coming year, and that reduction will be associated, we believe, with good government, with improvements, and with a thorough realisation of those objects for which the House originally sanctioned this Vote.
  SIR EDWARD GREY (): I have a few comments to make upon the speech which we have had from the right hon. Gentleman opposite and on the speeches of those who preceded him in the debate. Really I think we approach this Vote this evening with a desire to hear about the future
  882
  rather than to dispute about the past. We undoubtedly wish to know what the money has been required for, but we know that there is a, great deal which is unpleasant which is past and beyond recall, and we are anxious to have an assurance that the present condition of Uganda is improving and likely to improve still more. That assurance we have had from the right hon. Gentleman as far as it is possible to give an assurance with regard to the future, and we have had it given on better authority than it is usually possible to give an assurance on in a case of this kind. We have had it on the authority of Sir Harry Johnston, who is now on the spot, and who of all men is perhaps the best fitted to form an impartial estimate of what the future of Uganda is likely to be. It is easy for a man to go to Uganda, and to be favourably impressed by a country which he sees for the first time, but Sir Harry Johnston is a man who has had great experience of many parts of Africa. He has shown he has a special capacity for taking advantage of experience. The judgment he has formed of Uganda, is not that of a man attracted by novelty, but of a man who has a wide range of knowledge by which to judge, and as large a standard by which to compare the possibilities of Uganda as any man could have; and he says that the character of the natives of Uganda stands high as compared with that of the natives in other parts of Africa, and he sees great possibilities in the economic conditions of the country. That is the most favourable estimate that we can expect to have placed before the Committee; it is the most substantial thing we have yet had put before us. Now, there are one or two points on which we seem to be agreed. We are all agreed that there has been a certain amount of financial confusion, the result of which appears in this large Supplementary Estimate. That financial confusion, I have no doubt, has been the result of sudden emergencies in Uganda, which have required sudden expedients to be resorted to. I do not think that the confusion is to be run to earth entirely in the Foreign Office. The confusion is evidently the result of more than one Department having been called into play, and it will, no doubt, not exist in the future, now that the country has been placed under

  883
  more settled administration. There is another matter of agreement, and that is that we are not going to cavil with the conduct of any of the officers engaged in the mutiny. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean made an interruption just now with the object of saying that that was not his intention. That mutiny was a most trying experience for every officer on the spot. Two lives were sacrificed under most distressing circumstances, but I think that all the officers were in danger. They were all without the possibility of support or relief: they were obliged to deal with a great emergency and a great crisis with no help or resources at their command, and with no hope of having their resources increased. They were scattered in different parts of the country, and each man had to act upon his own initiative and responsibility in dealing with the emergency. It would be impossible to review what was going on while those men were in danger of their lives. They occupied a position which commands our sympathy, and which is absolutely beyond our criticism, and my own feeling on reading the account of the mutiny is that those engaged in it, and those who came through it successfully, deserve the appreciation of the House. But if we go back to the causes of the mutiny, I think there is room for criticism. The causes of the mutiny, no doubt, were the poor and unequal payment of the Soudanese and the fact that the payment was in arrear: and, I believe, above all, the fact that certain companies of the Soudanese were overworked. All that took place before Colonel Macdonald was on the spot. It may be difficult for Members of the Committee to fix definitely the responsibility for the causes which led to the mutiny, but there is a significant omission in Mr. Berkeley's report on the mutiny. That gentleman expressly declines to report as to how it was that certain companies of the Soudanese were overworked; he leaves the reason to be explained by the Foreign Office. It ought to have been within the power of the Foreign Office to have formed a pretty good idea as to what the causes of the mutiny were and as to how far they could have been avoided or not. I trust the Department has been in a position to find a reason in their own minds, though I do not wish to press the right hon. Gentle-
  884
  man to reopen the question now. We have had some very painful revelations read to us from the book of Major Thruston. I have not read the book, and I am not prepared to say more about what we have heard until I have had an opportunity of reading the book, except to say that I listened to the extracts with the greatest pain. They relate to past events, but even though those events are entirely past, and there may be no chance of their recurring, we cannot hear what is said to have occurred without great distress, but we have to remember that even if such things have occurred in the Uganda Protectorate, the state of that Protectorate has advanced immensely upon what it was when we went there. That is some compensation for the mutiny and for other undesirable things that may have happened under the stress of circumstances. Then, the slave trade has gone, and those who read books such as that of Sir Harry Johnston, and realise what the slave trade means—the calculated, persistent, cold-blooded brutality with which the slave trade was carried on generation after generation—must feel a relief that that has gone, and gone for ever. It is an enormous compensation for the trouble we have had. I pass now to deal more especially with the criticism which culminated in more than criticism—in positive attack—by the hon. Member for King's Lynn on the administration of the Foreign Office. The hon. Member is one with whom I am always anxious to agree, but the hon. Gentleman knows so very much, and he goes so very fast over so many subjects, that it is sometimes a little difficult for those who are less well informed to follow him. The hon. Member has one fixed idea, and that is a rooted disbelief in everything the Foreign Office does, and sometimes it leads him astray. I have heard him express a disbelief in the knowledge of French possessed by Foreign Office officials. That rooted disbelief has led him astray as to the cause of the troubles in Uganda. The Foreign Office should not be considered as an administrative body, but in this debate I have heard the Foreign Office attacked as if it were the only office in the whole world which ever showed any deficiency in administration, and I do not think that is quite fair. Whenever the question of Uganda is raised in the House we are told that Uganda

  885
  has gone wrong because the Foreign Office is quite incapable of administration, and more than hints are thrown out that had it only been in the hands of the Colonial Office it would have been entirely different.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Baronet, but what I did say was that the Colonial Office had a wider area to select from of men who were acclimatised. I have been to Africa, and I think I know a little more about it than the hon. Gentleman.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I was not alluding to anything which my hon. friend had said. I certainly have heard the Colonial Office exalted at the expense of the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office is some what hardly treated in this matter. The Foreign Office, from the necessity of the case, very often has to begin the administration in disturbed and undeveloped parts of Africa. It has to be so because the communications with foreign countries are so frequent, the boundaries are often so uncertain, that the whole thing must be kept for a time in the hands of the Foreign Office. After a time, I admit, when things get settled, it is desirable that the administration should be transferred from the Foreign Office; but do not let us forget that the Foreign Office has continually to bear the heat and burden of the day when administration is to be carried on under most imperfect conditions. While admitting that there is occasion for criticism in the administration of the Foreign Office though I think that Department has done no worse than any other Department would have done in similar circumstances it seems to me the deficiencies of the Foreign Office are not the real cause of the troubles in Uganda. You must take a wider view of the case. A great part of these troubles are inseparable from the conditions which forced this country to take over Uganda at the time we did take it over. I will not enter into the question whether we ought to he in Uganda. I am glad to be precluded by your ruling, Sir, from indulging in any argument with the hon. Member for King's Lynn as to whether it was wise to go to Uganda or not, because that subject is very fertile in argument if it is fertile in nothing else. We are there and we
  886
  must stay there. What is the cause of the Soudanese mutiny, and the various distressful things that have occurred in Uganda. The cause of these troubles is what has been the cause of so many troubles in South Africa, not only in our own territories. It is simply this—that the competition between European Governments for territories has forced their hands, has forced them to go too far, has compelled them to press on and occupy territories hundreds of miles from the coast before they were really in a position to occupy them effectively. Our hand has been forced. We ought not to have gone to Uganda until the railway was ready to take us there: but the competition was such that it was impossible to do what we ought to have done. Other countries have not more been able to regulate the pace than we have been. But now that the boundaries have been laid down and agreed upon between the different European countries, I trust we may be able to proceed more leisurely and be able to avoid many risks we have had to undertake in the past. The moral of the situation in Uganda is not that we should withdraw—that would mean the plunging of the country into disorder again but it is. first of all, to press on the railway as fast as possible, so that in the ease of trouble arising again we shall be able to bring support to the spot in a short time: and, secondly though perhaps this should come first to choose good men for the administration of the country. Von may have two men equally good soldiers, equally clever; you may have two civilians equally clever, equally good at administration; but one of these two men will have the gift of managing the natives and the other will not. They may be equally good men, but they will not be equally good in the same place. And what we want to make sure of in Uganda is that you may have men on the spot who have the gift of managing the natives and the tribes with whom you may have to deal. It is, of course, impossible without trial to find out who the best men are. But there have been men in Uganda for some time, and the Foreign Office must now be getting some idea as to who are the best men for this purpose. My advice to the Foreign Office is keep the best men in Uganda, put on them greater responsibility, and gradually build up in the country a service headed by

  887
  men who have shown themselves best fitted for the work. It is on the future that our thoughts are fixed. I am not prepared to refuse to vote this money, because I think the Foreign Office have taken the best steps they could to make things smooth in the future. I understand they are going to press on the railway. I think they have shown they are anxious to choose the best men, and I trust they will retain Sir H. Johnston. "What I believe is necessary for the future is that they should be guided very much by Sir H. Johnston's advice. He not only knows the natives, but is a good judge of the capacity of the white men he deals with. He will be a good adviser with regard to the measures to be adopted, and as to the men who are to be placed in responsible positions. It is because I believe the right stop has been taken in sending out Sir H. Johnston to Uganda, and because I gather from the appreciative way in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke of him that they have sent him there to have the benefit of his advice, that I am not disposed either to raise any contentious questions or to resist the Vote.
  COMMANDER BETHELL (): I should hardly have thought so much could have been done in the time to completely overthrow the slave trade in this part of the world. I am happy to think Uganda has been taken over, and in spite of a great many difficulties (such as the insurrection) a great result has been achieved. Persons who have studied Africa could hardly have supposed that a place like Uganda, teeming with people in a more or less advanced stage of savagery, could be taken over without insurrections occurring. They always do occur; they did in Burma and elsewhere. We may congratulate ourselves on the success which has been achieved. I remind the Committee that the very advantage to which my right hon. friend alluded that this place controlled the headquarters of the Nile—was not at first alleged as a reason for taking Uganda. That, of course, came into prominence later on when the Egyptian policy was developed. The hon. Baronet opposite said just now that as a matter of fact we ought not to have taken Uganda when we did, but ought to have waited until
  888
  the railway was there to take us to it. We should have waited a very long time.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I did not mean that we were wrong in taking Uganda when we did take it, the facts being as they were; but I deplored the necessity of having had to push on so rapidly.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: That is what I understood the hon. Baronet to mean, but if Uganda had not been taken when it was, we should never have had the railway, or achieved the good results we have achieved. Criticisms have been passed on the administration of the Foreign Office, but I do not believe it matters much whether the administration is in the hands of the Foreign Office or the Colonial Office. I agree that the wise policy is to find a good strong independent man with moderate views, who is not afraid of responsibility, and entrust him with full powers of administration. If the Foreign Office or the Colonial Office perpetually interferes with the administrator's judgment in small matters, the administration is bound to come to grief. I think the right steps have been taken in Uganda. So far as we know, Sir II. Johnston has been most successful in other parts of Africa, and we hope his labours will be rewarded with success in Uganda also. The heavy expenditure which the occupation of Uganda has caused is to be regretted, but it was almost certain to occur sooner or later. One hopes if will not recur, and I do not see why it should. So much has been done to pacify the country that there is hope that with a proper system of administration we shall be able to secure this important territory from further trouble.
  MR. BUCHANAN (): We have had from the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Baronet a strong testimony in favour of the present good administration of Uganda. With everything said by these two hon. Gentlemen about Sir H. Johnston I cordially agree. I would only put in this caveat Sir H. Johnston, after all, has only been in Uganda three months. The Foreign Office may have received certain communications from Sir H. Johnston.

  889
  but no communication has been made to tin's House, nor, so far as I know, made public with regard to Sir H. Johnston's action since he reached Uganda. There is no public expression of his opinion as to the condition or prospects of Uganda. Nothing has been laid before the House that I am aware of with regard to the condition of things in Uganda subsequent to the report published by Major Macdonald after his return to this country. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement he made with regard to Sir H. Johnston's opinion of the condition and prospects of Uganda is based on official communications received since Sir H. Johnston arrived there.
  MR. BRODRICK: Sir H. Johnston has written despatches containing certain personal impressions, but they do not represent his mature opinion, and I think we ought to have his mature opinion before we publish his report.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I hope we may rely upon it that when Sir H. Johnston does send home his report it will be submitted to the House in a Parliamentary Paper, and that it will confirm all the favourable anticipations held out to us by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Baronet who has just spoken. I take it most of us will agree that now we are in Uganda we must stay there. But the cost of our occupation of the country is increasing, and there is no prospect of it decreasing. There is nothing in the Supplementary Estimates' to show that the greater part of the £147,000 is for the use of the Indian regiment, and it is desirable that in the notes to the Supplementary Estimates we should get fuller and more accurate information. In 1896 or 1897 it was stated by the Secretary of State for India that the British Government would bear all the expense of the Indian regiment that was being sent to Uganda. Now it appears that nearly three years have elapsed before the Indian Government has been paid for the expense of this regiment. Which side is to blame for the great delay in this payment? I gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that he was inclined to blame the Indian Government for not presenting the account. If that is so it is contrary to
  890
  past experience. I am inclined to think the Foreign Office has caused the delay. The Under Secretary has given us the cost of the Uganda Protectorate, and compared it with what foreign Governments are spending in their African possessions. But the right hon. Gentleman did not include in his figures the expenditure on the railway, which was something like £3,000,000'. Surely this is the omission of the most important item in any estimate of what Uganda is costing us. Our expense in connection with Uganda is increasing year after year, and in geometrical progression, and I complain that we have got this Vote in the worst form for anything: like financial control. This year we started with a Vote of £250,000, and now we have a Supplementary Vote of £147,000. I say that is thoroughly bad finance, and the explanation of the Under Secretary makes it worse. We have had a difficulty in obtaining a balance sheet of Uganda. These accounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and the last account we have is contained in their report for 1895-6. The Auditor General has told us he had since that time got the account for 1896-7. Surely the Foreign Office ought to put some pressure on the authorities to induce them to render the accounts of the Protectorate at an earlier date than they do at present. It is extremely difficult to make out with any accuracy estimates for the future when you have not got the accounts for a more recent period than three or four years back. If the Foreign Office insisted on having the accounts rendered more quickly we should probably have fewer of these very huge Supplementary Estimates than we have at present.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean has quoted from that excellent book by Major Thruston. I have refreshed my memory by a reperusal of the official reports of Colonel Macdonald on the whole Uganda programme, and if the right hon. Gentleman reads these reports again he will find that Colonel Macdonald confirms Major Thruston on every score in regard to administration, finance, and the selection of officers for service in Uganda. We were told that our criticism in regard to finance was not justified, but we find that the cost of the admini-

  891
  stration had demanded 70 per cent. higher than the original Estimate. As to administration, the hon. Member for the Berwick Division said that the locomotive and railway department is in good order; but I find, in searching these reports, that it is in a shocking condition. Good management is always shown in the health of the employees; hut I discover that the death rate among the native and coloured officers employed on the Uganda Railway, which was fifty-one in 1896, mounted up to 168 in 1898, not including twenty-eight natives who had been devoured by lions. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was under the impression when I directed his attention to the brutal way in which the natives were treated—
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is nothing in this Supplementary Estimate about railway construction.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Well, I shall leave the lions in charge of the Under-Secretary till another occasion. On nearly every page of these official reports we find evidence that the administration is defective. There were very few medical stores, the medical dressings were deficient, and the ulcerated legs of the poor workmen got worse and worse. I hold that of the white men who have died in Uganda 90 per cent. of the deaths were due to the fact that the large majority were fresh military men from outside Africa, and not acclimatised civilians who had been rendered immune to tropical diseases. The medical staff requires reorganising, and the sooner the better. The hon. Baronet the Member for the Berwick Division agrees with every criticism of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean as to the financial confusion, the causes of the mutiny-—insufficient payment and arrears of pay and to the Soudanese being brutally overworked, so that nearly 7,000 had succumbed to over-work and disease or had been returned to their base. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affair's talks about all these difficulties being more or less inevitable, and that the progress of events rendered certain operations necessary. I do not believe these were inevitable. The right hon. Gentleman has not realised that there was not proper dis-
  892
  crimination in the selection of officers for this special work in Uganda. What is wanted for that work is not military fresh from the parade grounds of Chelsea, but civilians of judicial instinct and engineering talent. I venture to say, as one of the pioneers of the Niger, that you had more men killed or died in one year in Uganda than in the whole of the Niger territory for fifty years, because the soldier was relatively unknown on the Niger. In the Uganda you have put square men in round holes, and round men in square holes. There is no scope in Uganda for men from Chelsea barracks, whereas the Niger was singularly free from native troubles and revolt because the administration was entrusted to engineers, and men with some knowledge of law, who had managed that district with wonderful skill and ability. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary should not talk so irresponsibly to men who have been in Africa, and compare Uganda with the German administration in the Cameroons. Why, there are 600 troops in the Cameroons to look after two white civilians! Yon cannot compare that mode of colonising with the British. Then the right hon. Gentleman referred to the French administration in Madagascar-. We do not want, and I hope never will have, an administration like that which involved France in its colonial troubles. French and German colonial administrations are based entirely on absolute military rule which we ought never to sanction, as is proved by the experience and the testimony of men like Sir Henry Johnson, Livingstone, Moffat, and every one who knows Africa from Morocco down to the Cape. What we want as administrators are civilians, patient, long suffering, kind, but firm men who know the habits and idiosyncrasies and customs of the natives, and who will not resort to the military methods which has characterised the Uganda administration from beginning to end. It is because I have had some little experience that I want to make my country aware of the evils of military administration. If you get a specially good soldier who has administrative instincts promote him, but do not take as administrators guardsmen and other officers from their garrisons whose chief business, as evidenced by Macdonald's reports, seems to be writing glowing reports about each other's capacity and ability. I am all for civilians

  893
  for administrators, and it is because you selected the wrong men that you are now spending in Uganda half a million instead of £50,000 a year.
  MR. LABOUCHERE (): I was somewhat surprised when I heard the Under Secretary say that he had read and re-read my speeches on Uganda, and still more surprised to hear that he read them with greater pleasure every time. But The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to have understood or to have profited by them, ft' he had care fully read, marked, learned, and inwardly digested them, he would have seen that I had continuously and carefully pro tested against any annexation of Uganda, and I did so on the ground that it would cost us a very huge sum of money and would never bring us in any equivalent. I do so still on the ground that it is impossible to hope that even agricultural Englishmen would colonise that country. You have in Uganda at the present moment domestic slavery, and you do not dare to protest against it. You have there a lazy race, who are perfectly content with the mere necessaries of life, and will never exert themselves unless under the prompting of the stick. If there had been gold in Uganda, I have no doubt many Englishmen would have gone there, and we would have more progress. The only thing I rejoice at is that there is no gold there. The estimate was made by my right hon. friend the Under Secretary that Uganda would cost £50,000 a year, and he anticipated that in a short time it would be a paying Protectorate. Well, taking the Estimates of the year, and this Supplementary Estimate, we now find it costs about £400,000, and remember, that there is not a single word about the cost of the railway. How did the right hon. Gentleman justify that? He said that the German East African Colony cost more, and that the Italian colony of Erythrea cost more. But the Italians have come back to their senses, seeing that Erythrea was never likely to bring them in anything, and they have practically evacuated it. What is the excuse for the expense of £400,000 for administration, and a million and a half for the railway? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the progress of events
  894
  which precipitated operations. What were these operations? These were, that directly we got one portion of the country we immediately began to lust after and to take another, and I have no doubt that in future that would go on, as the appetite increases with what it feeds on. The right hon. Gentleman says: "We have reduced the country to civilisation"; just think of it, for one whole year there has been absolutely no revolt! Well, for that year we have spent £400,000, and it is very probable that we shall have a revolt soon and have to spend another £400,000. I want to know, and this is a very practical question, what, in the name of goodness, do you expect to get out of Uganda'? Will you get any sort of quid pro quto? I do not believe you will ever get real compensation. Sir Henry Johnson arrived in Uganda in the month of October, and he had been only two months there when he came to the conclusion that the administration was perfect and could not be made better. But we have had similar assurances from some who have been longer there than two months. Each year we have been told that in some early future a great trade would spring up. I remember I pointed out that Uganda would never be an outlet for British goods, at the time when the House of Commons was fed with assurances to the contrary. We were told that the Ugandese would take our manufactures, because they had already developed an enormous taste for beautiful little books—tracts, I suppose and for opera glasses, and for white donkeys, though how on earth we were to send them white donkeys I cannot understand. The right hon. Gentleman said that because we had Egypt we ought to have the Soudan, and because we had the Soudan we ought to have Uganda, in order that we might cut the sudd on the Nile. We are told what a wonderful administration this is in Uganda. But how many administrators have we there? Have we a hundred even? How in the name of wonder are we to talk of a country being well administered when its inhabitants number millions, and its administrators under a hundred? It is perfectly monstrous. I hope we shall evacuate Uganda some of these days. My right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean complained that Uganda was under the Foreign Office and not under the Colonial Office. Sir, I thank

  895
  God it is not under the Colonial Office. If it had been, and if some Hebrew gentleman had settled there, and called himself a Uitlander or a helot, we should have found ourselves engaged in war with France, Belgium, and Germany, which all happen to have possessions in

  AYES.

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Billson, Alfred

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hogan, James Francis

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Burns, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Burt, Thomas

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Caldwell, James

  Labouchere, Henry

  Weir, James Galloway

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Crilly, Daniel

  Leng, Sir John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lloyd-George, David

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Dillon, John

  Lough, Thomas

  Woods, Samuel

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Engledew, Charles John

  Maddison, Fred.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Buchanan.

  Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Fenwick, Charles

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  NOES.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Digby, Jn. K. D. Winglield

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

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

  Doughty, George

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hazell, Walter

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

  Duckworth, James

  Heath, James

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

  Bethell, Commander

  Fellowes, Hon. Ail wyn Edward

  Helder, Augustus

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Eergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man.)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Finch, George H.

  Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Holland, William Henry

  Carlile, William Walter

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson

  Flower, Ernest

  Howell, William Tudor

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Garfit, William

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gedge, Sydney

  Johnstone, Edward (Sussex)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Joicey, Sir James

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbt. J.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Colomb, Sir John Chas, Ready

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Keswick, William

  Cook, Fred Lucas (Lambeth)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Kimber, Henry

  Cooke, C. W. Radcline (Heref'd)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Lafone, Alfred

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Lawrence Sir E. Durning (Corn)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Goschen, Rt Hn. GJ (StGeorge's)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

  Curzon, Viscount

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accringtoh)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gretton, John

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillw'n (Swan'a)

  Denny, Colonel

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  that part of Africa. Although I cannot agree with my right hon. friend in that part of his speech, I will vote with him.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 51; Noes, 187. (Division List No, 35.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tomlinson, Wm Edw. Murray

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Purvis, Robert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Macdona, John dimming

  Rankin, Sir James

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Richardson, Sir Thos. Hartlep'l

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton)

  M'Killop, James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matt. W.

  Welby, Sir CharlesG. E. (Notts.)

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas John

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Morgan, Hon. F. (Monmouthsh.)

  Rutherford, John

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Murray, Rt Hn AGraham (Bute)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Wyndham, George

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Strachey, Edward

  Pease, J, A. (Northnmberl'nd)

  Strauss, Arthur

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON ()expressed his anxiety to obtain some information as to the statement which appeared in The Times of February 13th that a force of 800 Yaos had been sent to Mauritius without proper uniform and equipment. He desired to know who was responsible for sending these savages to a civilised community like Mauritius, with which they had nothing in common. They were sent there without their wives, with the inevitable result that after a time a mutiny broke out, and they raided a village and outraged the women. Had they now been sent back to Africa? Because, if they were interned in the quarantine settlement, it seemed a savage punishment for men who, in their condition, were only obeying the dictates of nature. The Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture of Central Africa had urged him to bring forward the necessity of railway construction in that region. This was not the time, with a war going on which would cost perhaps fifty millions, to ask for a, small grant; but he urged that the
  898
  Government should give careful attention to the whole subject, so that labourers might not be enticed away.
  MR. WEIR (): I beg In move the reduction of the Vote by £100. Our troops are still armed with the Snider rifle, whereas in the adjoining territories of other countries the troops are armed with magazine rifles. I should like to know if any portion of this £4,500 is to be expended in buying proper rifles for our troops. I should also like to know what amount is to be expended on the railway survey, and for what railway. There is a sum of £12,000 for the hut tax, which is an increase of £1,000 on the previous year. I want to know how this hut tax is paid. Is it paid in calico or labour. If in labour, how many day labour per head? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will furnish this information. I would prefer to have get it in the form of an answer to a question, but the right hon. Gentleman's answers were so unsatisfactory that I told him I should be obliged to raise the matter on the Estimates, and this is the first opportunity I have had. I beg to move, Sir.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item B (British Central Africa, Grant in Aid) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Weir.)
  MR. BUCHANAN: The report which the hon. Gentleman has quoted states that British Central Africa is suffering from the want of railways, and there is no doubt about it that that want is a great impediment in the way of development. I gather, from an answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to a question the other day, that the railway for the survey of which a sum of money is now asked has been abandoned. Then about the troops. In the report of the officer in charge of the Protectorate, he tells us that the Native forces were to be increased from six to eight companies, and that these extra companies are to do duty, not in British Central Africa, but in North Eastern Rhodesia. North-Eastern Rhodesia is under the control of the British South Africa Company, and there seems to be some sort of an arrangement or contract between the Central Africa Protectorate and the British South Africa Company with reference to the garrisoning of North-Eastern Rhodesia, about which this House has not had complete information. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to enlighten us as to the relations, both as to administrative and military matters, existing between the British Central Africa Protectorate and the British South Africa Company.
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not quite understand why the hon. Gentleman has moved the reduction of this Vote, because I thought when he asked a question the other day about the armament of these troops that he was thoroughly satisfied with the answer.
  MR. WEIR: I distinctly said the answer was not satisfactory, and that I would take the earliest opportunity of calling attention to the matter.
  MR. BRODRICK: I notice the hon. Gentleman has also addressed a question to the Colonial Office, and I can assure him that the representatives of the Colonial
  900
  Office, the War Office, and the Foreign Office are all ready to give him satisfactory answers. I do not know why he should suggest that the troops are not sufficiently well armed for Native troops; Native troops are not always given the magazine rifle at once, and these troops are armed quite adequately for the duties they have to discharge. The hon. Member for North Norfolk asked a question about the battalions which were sent out of Central Africa. I believe I would not be in order in discussing the question of the battalions which were sent to Mauritius, but I may be allowed to say that as long as these troops served under the Foreign Office I heard no complaint whatever of them. I believe that the War Office and the Colonial Office are prepared to reply on this question when the proper time comes.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us where the troops are now?
  MR. BRODRICK: They are going back to Africa. I may be allowed to say that I do not think that the circumstances which have caused their withdrawal from Mauritius prevent them being thoroughly efficient troops elsewhere. With regard to the railway, I should hesitate to answer at any length on that subject. At the present time the Committee would not expect the Government to provide funds for a railway in Central Africa. I am not saying that the railway is not necessary and desirable, but the demands on the Exchequer at the present moment are so great that it is desirable to keep expenditure as far as possible within moderate limits.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: If there is to be no railway—and I quite understand the impossibility of obtaining money for making a railway now—why go to the expanse of making a railway survey? I would wish to know how much of this £4,500 it is proposed to spend on that survey?
  MR. BRODRICK: £600,
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then are we to understand that we have got to spend £600 in making a survey for a railway when it is impossible to make the railway at the present time?
  MR. BRODRICK: My hon. friend will not dispute the proposition that if we make the survey the lands will not run away.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It is not a question of the lands running away, but of the railway running at all. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that there are circumstanees which at present make it impossible to build a railway.
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, circumstanees of the moment which make it undesirable to apply to the Government for money.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it considered proper, then, to vote money for a survey while the railway itself must, depend on the future?
  MR. WEIR: The right hon. Gentleman has not read his own report. The officer in charge of the troops distinctly states that the troops at the present moment are armed with the Snider rifle. The right hon. Gentleman also did not say a word about the hut tax.
  "THE CHAIRMAN: The but tax does not arise upon this Vote.
  MR. DILLON (): I wish to say just a word or two on the question of sending out these savage troops to Mauritius. It seems to me there is one aspect of that question which is in order on this Vote. Surely the administrators of British Central Africa must be responsible for sending those troops out of British Central Africa, and it appears to me most monstrous that savage troops should be sent into civilised parts of the Empire, inhabited by comparatively civilised races. I did not gather from the answer of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that he appeared to be
  902
  impressed with the gravity of this action. For all we know these gentle Houssas may next be despatched to garrison the Transvaal. If they are good enough to garrison the Mauritius, why not the Transvaal? This is a most important subject. It is part and parcel of a greater and wider subject against which some of us have protested again and again in this House and that is the increase—the most dangerous and mischievous increase—of this system of taking great hordes of savages and arming them with deadly weapons. If we are to understand that the Government are not only determined to persist in taking these large forces of savages anil training them as soldiers, but also in transferring them from their native country to other countries, then I say we are face to face with a development—one of the most mischievous and one of the most disastrous—ever entered on in pursuance of this Imperial expansion idea. I read myself in The Times, which is certainly a paper which one would expect not to exaggerate in matters of this kind—of what occurred in Mauritius. These gentlemen are in the habit of having five or six wives. [An HON. MEMBER: And more.) I make no complaint of that. That is the proper, ordinary custom of their country, but they were transferred to Mauritius without any women at all, and the natural result was that a short time after their arrival they broke out of barracks, set their officers at defiance, out raged women and generally played havoc. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs treats this in a most gay and festive manner, as if it were rather amusing and funny, and not in the least to be ashamed of. I was not surprised to read in the report to which I have referred that the proceedings of these savages caused the most intense indignation in Mauritius. They are now transferred back to Africa, but we have heard nothing from the Under Secretary that would indicate that the Foreign Office or the administration of British Central Africa were impressed with the idea that this experiment: was a failure and one not to be repeated. We have no security that these or similar troops may not be transferred to the Transvaal or the Orange Free State or

  903
  other parts of Her Majesty's dominions where troops are necessary. I certainly shall vote with my hon. friend as a protest against this practice.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (): I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. I have not asked him one this session. I want to ask him who is responsible for sending these armed savages to Mauritius. Is it not the Foreign Office? Then I want to know why Mauritius has become such a victim of conspiracy. Sir Graham Bower was sent there, and now these savages are sent there also, and the first thing they do is to make a pandemonium of the country. The Under Secretary states that those troops have now been removed, and that they have done nothing to impair their efficiency as British soldiers in the maintenance of the British flag and the glory of the British Empire. Indeed, they contrast favourably with Mr. Cecil Rhodes. All the Under Secretary said was that these savages having broken loose, burnt houses, outraged women, and conducted them selves generally as British soldiers con ducted themselves a century ago in Ireland; they were now to be sent back to their own country, to maintain the British Empire. I never heard such a sinister avowal. I do not think I could find in all Lord Salisbury's speeches even six passages to equal it. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain who sent these savages to Mauritius? Had the Colonial Secretary anything to do with it?
  MR. BRODRICK: The troops were sent by the authority of the Government, but as I am precluded by the Chairman from giving an explanation of what occurred, I cannot go into the matter now. I said nothing about upholding the honour and glory of the British Empire. I said that nothing had occurred to impair the efficiency of those troops for the work they would have to do in Africa. With regard to the, general question it is desirable that we should have a number of native troops in these Protectorates, not necessarily for employment elsewhere, and so far in every other case that has been a success.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I do not understand why we are discussing this
  904
  question on this Vote; but we are now placed in the most unfortunate position of having had a partial discussion on it. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman did not rise to order when the matter was first mentioned; but the discussion has been allowed to go on, and it would be very difficult for some of us to avoid voting for the reduction, because we feel very strongly on this matter. I will try to bring the matter to a point. I should like to ask, as the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to some extent the defence of this policy, whether the Foreign Office was consulted by the War Office in this matter. If they were, I will vote with the hon. Member who moved the reduction, although he moved it on a different ground, because a greater mistake of policy than sending these troops into a French-speaking colony I cannot conceive.
  MR. DILLON: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman to kindly reply to my question—namely, whether he approves of the policy of transferring these troops from Protectorates to civilised colonies?
  MR. BRODRICK: With reference to the point raised by the right hon. Baronet when the hon. Member opposite went outside the Vote, I did not like to arrogate to myself the function of the Chairman. The right hon. Baronet's first speech was, in my opinion, very much out of order, but I did not call him to order upon it, and I think his latest question is absolutely outside the Vote. If I replied to him f should have to go outside the Vote also.
  THE CHAIRMAN: As some question has arisen as regards the respective functions of the Chair and Ministers, I may state that it is perfectly impossible without the assistance of Ministers for the Chairman to know whether a. particular matter is or is not in order. The heading of the Vote under discussion is, British Central Africa. Grant in aid to meet cost of re-arming troops, railway survey, etc.," and the only person who can know what "etc." means is the Minister in charge. If the Minister in charge of the Vote docs not rise to a point of order, and does hot say that the subject matter

  905
  of the discussion is not included in the Vote, it is impossible for me to intervene.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: This obviously is a question which must be discussed some time or another, but I must say it did not appear to me that it could have been raised on this Vote. In order that the Committee may have a clear under standing, would it not be possible for someone on the Treasury bench to let us know under what Vote the discussion on this matter can take place?
  MR. DILLON: I did not suggest that the Foreign Office should be held responsible for the conduct of these troops in Mauritius, but what seems to be absolutely clear is that the Foreign Office, as being responsible for the administration of British Central Africa, must be responsible for permitting these troops to go out of Central Africa, and what we wish to know is whether the Foreign Office approves of the policy of allowing these savage regiments to be. transferred as an ordinary administrative matter from their own country into the midst of civilised communities.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The question which the Member for East Mayo has just suggested is not really within this Vote at all. The policy of allowing certain troops to be sent out of Central Africa does not come within the Vote; all that is included in the Vote, as far as I am able to judge, is a grant in aid to meet the cost of the re-arming of certain troops. If the re-arming of these troops was carried out for the purpose of sending them to Mauritius then the discussion might be within the Vote; but I understand—I have received no help in the matter that the re-arming does not refer to these particular troops.
  MR. BRODRICK: The proper time to discuss this matter would be on the War Office Estimates, which are about to be laid on the Table of the House.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR (): The Foreign Office report states that in January, 1899, in accordance with tele-
  906
  graphic instructions, "the formation of two battalions for service out of the country was commenced." The report then goes on to say that the two battalions from British Central Africa were expected to embark for two years service in Mauritius in June next. That evidently refers to the battalions we are now discussing. I understand, however, that the policy of the Foreign Office in this matter cannot be now discussed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am perfectly clear it cannot be discussed on this Vote, which refers to another matter. So far as I am able to judge from the facts which have come before us, I think the discussion would arise on the War Office Vote.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I only wish to know whether the Foreign Office was responsible, or whether it was mixed up with the War Office or the administration on the spot.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (): I think we are entitled to an answer from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The right hon. Baronet wished to know whether the Foreign Office was in any degree, great or small, responsible for sending these troops to Mauritius. We have not had a clear answer to that yet.
  MR. BRODRICK: After what the Chairman has said I cannot be expected to go into a question which I am unable to go into fully. It has been ruled by the Chairman that the question of the policy of the War Office cannot be discussed. I am perfectly ready to explain the policy on which the Foreign Office acted.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I would ask the Under Secretary for War whether the War Office is entirely responsible for sending these troops to Mauritius.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think that is outside the scope of the motion now before the Committee.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: I was very anxious to bring this question for-

  907
  ward at the earliest possible moment in order to obtain the immediate release of these men from an unjust and cruel position.
  MR. MADDISON (): I am very sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not answered the very pertinent question of fact put by the light hon. Baronet. He has not attempted to answer it, but has sheltered himself behind the authority of the Chair. But the Chairman has allowed the question to be put, and therefore he will allow an answer to be given.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will see that I cannot stop a question being put, because I cannot know whether it is in order or not until it is put.
  MR. MADDISON: All I can say is that it is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs that we are not able to get from the representative of the Foreign Office an answer to a question not ruled out of order. The refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question confirms the worst fears of many of us with respect to these Protectorates. I wish that the account which has been given by my hon. friend of the manner in which this wretched corps was turned loose in Mauritius—
  THE CHAIRMAN: It has just been decided that that question does not properly arise.
  MR. WEIR: The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything about the Snider rifles. Perhaps the Under Secretary for War would be able to give us some information.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I told the hon. Gentleman the other day that these troops are not armed with Snider rifles.
  MR. WEIR: The hon. Gentleman evidently docs not know anything about it. In the consular report for the year 1898-9 issued by the Foreign Office in August, 1899, the officer in command of the armed forces of the British Central Africa Protectorate says—
  "The force is at present armed with the Snider rifle, with the exception of the last party of Sikhs, who brought with them Martini-Henrys ft is to be hoped that shortly the whole of the troops will be re-armed with the Martini-Metford rifles."
  It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.
  Committee also report progress; to sit again to-morrow.
  House adjourned at three minutes after Twelve of the clock.