Commons Sitting of 19 February 1901

PRIVATE BILLS.
The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS reported, That, in accordance with Standing Order 79, he had conferred with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Private Bills should be first considered, and they had determined that the Bills contained in the following List should originate in the House of Lords, viz.:—

1. Aire and Calder Navigation.

2. Albion Steam Coal Company.

3. Alfreton Gas.

4. Arlesey Gas.

5. Aspatria, Silloth, and District Water.

6. Barrow-in-Furness Corporation.

7. Bath Gas Light and Coke.

8. Belfast Harbour.

9. Bethlem Hospital.

10. Bideford and Clovelly Railway (Abandonment).

11. Bideford and Clovelly Railway (Extension of Time, etc.).

12. Birmingham (City) Tramways.

13. Bolton Corporation.

14. Bournemouth Corporation.

15. Bridewell Hospital.

16. Bristol, Clifton, and West of England Zoological Society.

17. Bristol Corporation Cemetery.

18. Bristol Corporation (Docks and Railways, etc.).

19. Broadstairs and St. Peter's Water and Improvement.

20. Brompton and Piccadilly Circus Railway.

21. Cardiff Railway.

22. Central London Railway.

23. Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway (No. 1).

24. Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway (No. 2).

25. Charing Cross, Hammersmith, and District Electric Railway.

26. Chester Corporation Tramways.

27. Chesterfield Improvement.

28. Chester Gas.

29. Christ's Hospital (London).

30. City and Brixton Railway.

443

31. City and North East Suburban Electric Railway.

32. City and South London Railway.

33. Cork, Blackrock, and Passage Railway.

34. Cowes Ferry.

35. Doncaster Tithe Trust.

36. Dover Corporation.

37. Dover Harbour.

38. Dover Gas.

39. Easton and Church Hope Railway.

40. Elland Gas.

41. Faversham Water.

42. Finchley and Hendon Tramways.

43. Folkestone Corporation.

44. Freshwater, Yarmouth, and Newport Railway.

45. Great Southern and Western Railway.

46. Handsworth Urban District Council.

47. Harpenden District Gas.

48. Harrogate Corporation.

49. Harrogate Water.

50. Henry Diaper and Company (Delivery Warrants).

51. Hey wood and Middleton Water Board.

52. Islington and Euston Railway.

53. King's Norton and Northfield Urban District Tramways.

54. King's Road Railway.

55. Leeds Churches.

56. Leeds Corporation (General Powers).

57. Leeds Corporation Water.

58. Llanelly and Mynydd Mawr Railway.

59. Llanelly Harbour.

60. London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway.

61. London (City) School for Orphans of Freemen.

62. Lowestoft Corporation.

63. Lynton and Barnstaple Railway.

64. Manchester and Liverpool Electric Express Railway.

65. Manchester Corporation.

66. Manchester (Market Street Area) Improvements.

67. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.

68. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Canada Dock Works, etc.).

69. Milford Docks.

70. Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas.

71. Newport (Isle of Wight) Gas.

72. New Swindon Gas.

73. Nitrate Railways Company.

444

74. North East Loudon Railway.

75. Nottingham Corporation.

76. Oakham Water.

77. Omagh Gas.

78. Otley Gas.

79. Piccadilly and City Railway.

80. Portmadoc, Beddgelert, and South Snowdon Railway.

81. Poulton-le-Fylde Gas.

82. Prestatyn Water.

83. Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water.

84. Ripon Corporation.

85. Royal Exchange Assurance.

86. Rugby Water and Improvement.

87. St. Bartholomew's Hospital.

88. Salford Corporation.

89. Sheffield Corporation.

90. Sheffield District Railway.

91. Shields Bridge.

92. Shrewsbury Gas.

93. Smethwick Corporation.

94. South Eastern, London, and Chatham, and Dover Railways.

95. South Essex Water.

96. South Lancashire Tramways.

97. Southport Water (Transfer).

98. South Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway.

99. Stockport Corporation Water.

100. Stratton and Bude Gas.

101. Stratton and Bude Improvement.

102. Sutton-in-Ashfield Urban District (Water).

103. Tyneside Tramways and Tram-roads.

104. Warkworth Harbour.

105. Watford and District Tramways.

106. West and South London Junction Railway.

107. Weston-super-Mare Gas.

108. Wigan Corporation Tramways, etc.

109. Wisbech Water.

110. Worcester Tramways.

Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath.

THE DEATH OF QUEEN VICTORIA.
Mr. SPEAKERinformed the House that he had received the following Communications expressing the condolence of the Portuguese Chamber of Deputies with the

445
British Nation in the loss it had sustained by the death of Her late Majesty:—
London, February 15th, 1900.
SIR,
I have the honour to enclose a resolution from the Portuguese Chamber of Deputies expressing their profound sympathy with the people of Great Britain in the loss they had suffered by the death of the late Queen Victoria.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient humble servant,
SOVERAL.
The Speaker of the House of Commons.
Chamber of Deputies.
Copy of the records of the Session January 23, 1901, containing the vote of profound condolence on the death of H. M. Queen Victoria of England, Empress of India.
The President stated that it was his sad duty to communicate to the Chamber the decease of H.M. Queen Victoria of England and said that this event, which brought mourning and sorrow not only to the Royal Family of England, but to the whole English Nation, had also afflicted the Royal Family of Portugal, and particularly their August Sovereign, the King, Dom Carlos; the Portuguese people too were shocked and felt, as their own, the sorrow and grief of our ancient and faithful ally; he said that he believed himself to be interpreting the sentiments of the whole Chamber, which was the legitimate representative of the country, when he proposed that in the records of the session should be inscribed a vote of profound condolence on this unhappy event, and that the proper communication should be made to the English Government and the House of Commons.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the Government, said that he associated himself with the proposal of the President, and in deeply sympathetic terms eulogised the virtues and high qualities of mind and character which distinguished the illustrious Queen of England, Empress of India, whose glorious reign had seen the realisation of all the dreams of greatness and prosperity of Her beloved people; he extolled the qualities which adorn the Sovereign who is about to preside over the destinies of England, and concluded by saying that the funeral ceremonies which were to be celebrated in the United Kingdom were something more than a commemoration, they were the apotheosis of Her who was the glory of Her Country and an honour to humanity.
Senhor Joas Franco Castello Branco, in the name of the parliamentary majority, said that he associated himself with the proposed manifestation, not only as a mark of condolence which was due, in such circumstances, to friendly nations, but as a confirmation of the sentiments of respectful sympathy and well deserved admiration for the virtues of the illustrious Queen whom England had just lost, and who was a perfect model for Constitutional Sovereigns and Chiefs of modern liberal States; and after declaring that Portugal owed to England an assurance that she would ever be at her side to share her joys and
446
her sorrows, he concluded by laying on the Table the following motion:—
"I propose that the Chamber, in testimony of its regret and deference, do suspend its sittings until after the funeral."
(Signed) JOAS FRANCO.
Senhor Francisco Beirao, on behalf of the progressive minority, said that he associated himself with the manifestations which had been proposed, and after dwelling upon the excellences of character of the illustrious Departed and the services which She had rendered to civilisation, concluding by moving that the proposal of the President and that of the illustrious leader of the majority should be approved by acclamation.
The resolution was passed.
True copy. Directorate General of the Office of the Chamber of Deputies. January 26, 1901. The Councillor, Director and Secretary General.
(Signed) JOAQUIM P. DI ABRANCHE.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. SPEAKER further informed the House that he had received from the Judges appointed to try the several Election Petitions the following Certificate and Report relating to the Election for the Borough of Maidstone:—

MAIDSTONE ELECTION PETITION.
The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Acts, 1854–1895.
To the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons.
We, Sir William Rann Kennedy, Knight, and Sir Arthur Moseley Channell, Knight, Judges of the High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges on the Rota for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England and Wales, do hereby certify in pursuance of the said Acts that upon the eleventh to the fourteenth days of February of this year we duly held a Court at the Sessions House,. Maidstone, for the trial of, and did try, the Election Petition for the Borough of Maidstone, between Fiennes Stanley Wykeham Cornwallis, Petitioner, and John Barker, Respondent.
And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we report that at the conclusion of the said trial we determined that the said John Barker, being the Member whose Election and Return were complained of in the Petition, was not duly elected, and that the Election was void on the ground of bribery by his Agents; and we do hereby certify in writing such our determination to you.
And whereas the charges were made in the said Petition of corrupt and illegal practices having been committed at the said Election, we, in further pursuance of the said Acts, report as follows:—

(1) That no corrupt or illegal practice was proved to have been committed by or with the

447
knowledge and consent of the said John Barker.

(2) That the persons whose names are set out in the Schedule hereto were proved to have been guilty of the corrupt practice of bribery.

(3) That although it was proved that corrupt practices were committed at the said Election it was not proved, nor have we reason to believe that corrupt or illegal practices extensively prevailed at the said Election.

(4) That the said John Barker was guilty by his agents of the corrupt practice of bribery.

(5) That we have given certificates of indemnity to all the persons whose names are set out in the Schedule hereto except Levi Barker, Alfred Henry Russell, and Henry Ward.

A copy of the evidence and of our judgment taken by the deputies of the shorthand writer of the House of Commons accompanies this our certificate.
Dated this 18th day of February, 1901.
WILLIAM RANN KENNEDY.
A. M. CHANNELL.

Schedule.

Persons Bribed.

John Costello.

Arthur Henry Pinhorn.

Frederick Perrin.

Alfred Atkins.

George Hoad.

Edward Woollett.

Thomas Bray.

Henry Jenner.

James Jury.

Alfred Henry Russell.

William Rivers.

Lionel Ireland.

Thomas Ring.

William Muggridge.

William Stevens.

Henry Luck.

Thomas Beadle.

Thomas Henry Underhill.

Henry Ward.

Joseph George Rogers.

Eli Harman.

Albert George Honey.

Harry Harman.

Arthur Logan

George Mace.

W. R. K.

A. M. C.

PETITIONS.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
  Petition from Low Moor, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
  Petitions for alteration of Law, from Killamarsh; Worcester; Clayton; Liverpool; Heckmondwike; Longton; Loughborough; and Ecclesfield; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS).
  Petition from Epsom, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW MEDICAL OFFICERS (SCOTLAND).
  Petition from the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1896.
  Petitions for alteration of Law, from Blaenavon; Newport Pagnell; Radstock; Newhaven; and Great Crosby; to lie upon the Table.
  PURE BEER.
  Petition from Berwick on Tweed, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petitions in favour, from Newport Pagnell; and Fenny Stratford; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN.
  Petition from Surbiton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR.
  Petition from Southport, for termination; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889 (ORDINANCE).
  Paper [presented 15th February] to be printed. [No. 27.]
  Paper [presented 15th February] to be printed. [No. 28.]

  STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Copy presented, of Statistical Abstract for the principal and other Foreign Countries in each year from 1889 to 1898–9 (Twenty-seventh Number) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH.
  Copy presented, of Report on the State of the Finances of the University,

  449
  made by the University Court, for the year to 31st August, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 29.]

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
  Accounts presented, for the year ended 21st December, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 30.]
  EDUCATION (SCHOOL BOARDS, ETC.) (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of List of School Boards and School Attendance Committees in England and Wales, 1st January, 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Copy presented, of Additional and Amending General Orders for the Regulation of Proceedings under and in pursuance of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 31.]
  EAST INDIA (TRADE.)
  Copy presented, of Tables relating to the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries for the five years 1895–6 to 1899–1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NEW BILLS.
  POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND).
  Bill to assimilate the Law relating to Police Pensions and Allowances in Scotland to the Law in England, and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Wilson (Falkirk), Sir Lewis M'Iver, Mr. Wylie, Mr. Hozier, Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Walter Thorburn, Mr. Dalziel, and Mr. Law.

  POLICE SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To assimilate the Law relating to Police Pensions and Allowances in Scotland to the Law in England, and for other purposes relating thereto," presented, and read the first time; to be
  450
  read a second time upon Wednesday, 6th March, and to be printed. [Bill 2.]

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND).
  Bill dealing with Congested Districts in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Flynn, Dr. Ambrose, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Boland, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Conor O'Kelly, Mr. Boyle, Mr. Roche, Mr. John O'Donnell, Mr. Thomas O'Donnell, and Mr. O'Doherty.
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "Dealing with Congested Districts in Ireland," presented and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 13th March, and to be printed. [Bill 3.]
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN.
  Bill to prevent the sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Crombie, Sir William Houldsworth, Mr. Tritton, Sir Joseph Leese, Mr. Asquith, Sir Henry Fowler, Sir Edward Grey, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Alfred Thomas, Mr. William Johnston, Mr. Peel, and Mr. Charles Douglas.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  "To prevent the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 20th March, and to be printed. [Bill 4.]
  BEER.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to the manufacture and sale of Beer, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Purvis, Sir Cuthbert Quilter, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, Sir James Fergusson, Mr. Frederick Wilson, Mr. Bound, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Griffith-Boscawen, Colonel Brookfield, Mr. Price, Mr. Younger, Mr. Jeffreys, and Mr. Joseph Walton.
  BEER BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the manufacture and sale of Beer," presented and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 27th March, and to be printed. [Bill 5.]
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS).
  Bill to restrict the hours in Mines to Eight Hours per day from bank to bank, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Yoxall, Mr. Pickard, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. William Abraham (Bhondda) Mr. Thomas Bayley, Mr. Markham, Mr. Keir Hardie, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Caldwell, and Mr. Joseph Walton.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  "To restrict the hours in Mines to Eight Hours per day from bank to bank," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 27th February, and to be printed. [Bill 6.]
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT).
  Bill to amend the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, which relate to employment, ordered to be brought in by Sir Thomas Roe, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Pickard, Mr. William Abraham (Rhondda), Mr. Holland, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. Markham, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Bell, Mr. Cremer, and Mr. Joseph Walton.
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  "To amend the provisions of The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, which relate to employment," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 17th April, and to be printed. [Bill 9.]
  EDUCATION (YOUNG CHILDREN) (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) (SCOTLAND).
  Bill to regulate the Attendance of Young Children at School in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Pirie, Mr. Asquith, Mr. Baird, Mr. Dillon, Sir William Houldsworth, Sir Lewis M'Iver, Sir Robert Reid, Mr. Robson, Captain Sinclair, Mr. Parker Smith, and Mr. Tennant.
  EDUCATION (YOUNG CHILDREN) (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To regulate the Attendance of Young Children at School in Scotland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 1st May, and to be printed. [Bill 8.]
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.
  Bill to amend the Law as to Marriages with a Deceased Wife's Sister, ordered to be brought in by Sir William Gurdon, Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, Mr. Hambro, Captain Jessel, Sir Joseph Leese, Mr. David MacIver, Mr. Mellor, Mr. Melville, Colonel Sadler, Mr. Charles Shaw, Sir Barrington Simeon, and Mr. Price.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  "To amend the Law as to Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 24th April, and to be printed. [Bill 7.]
  LEGAL PROCEDURE (IRELAND).
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Trial by Jury and other legal procedure in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Harrington and Mr. Clancy.
  LEGAL PROCEDURE (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Trial by Jury and other legal procedure in Ireland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 15th May, and to be printed. [Bill 10.]
  LAND TENURE.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to the Tenure of Land, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lambert, Mr. Seale-Hayne, Mr. Soares, Mr. Charles Allen, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Fletcher Moulton.
  LAND TENURE BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Tenure of Land," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 8th May, and to be printed. [Bill 11.]
  COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO CROPS, ETC.
  Bill to give Compensation for Damage by Fires caused by sparks from railway engines, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hudson, Mr. Jeffreys, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. Channing, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, Mr. James Lowther, Mr. Price, Major Rasch, and Mr. Strachey.
  COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO CROPS, ETC., BILL.
  "To give Compensation for Damage by Fires caused by sparks from railway engines" presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 6th March, and to be printed. [Bill 12.]
  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1896, ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. P. Farrell, Mr. Barry, Mr. Mumaghan, Mr. Kendal O'Brien, Mr. Lundon. Mr. Joyce, Mr. Crean, and Mr. O'Shee.
  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Labourers (Ireland Acts, 1883 to 1896," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 22nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 13.]
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND).
  Bill to enable parish councils in Scot-land to grant Superannuation Allowances to Poor Law Officers and servants and to officers and servants of committees of management of poor-houses formed under a combination for poor house purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Maxwell, Sir Lewis M'Iver, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Nicol, Mr. Ure, Mr. Cross, and Mr. Renshaw.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To enable parish councils in Scotland to grant Superannuation Allowances to Poor Law Officers and servants, and to officers and servants of committees of management of poorhouses formed under a combination for poorhouse purposes," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 13th March, and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

  LICENCES (IRELAND).
  Bill to stop the issue of new Licences unless in exceptional circumstances in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. T. M. Healy, Colonel Saunderson, Mr. Clancy, Sir
  454
  James Haslett, Mr. Samuel Young, Mr. T. L. Corbett, and Mr. Jordan.

  LICENCES (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To stop the issue of new Licences unless in exceptional circumstances in Ireland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 5th March, and to be printed. [Bill 15.]
  OUT-DOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES).
  Bill to amend the Out-door Relief Friendly Societies Act, 1894, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wingfield-Digby, Mr. Strachey, Sir Albert Rollit, Sir Mark Stewart, Mr. Goulding, Sir Samuel Hoare, Colonel Brookfield, Mr. Yoxall, Mr. Thomas Bayley, Mr. Holland, Mr. Rigg, and Mr. Platt-Higgins.
  OUT-DOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) BILL.
  "To amend the Out-door Relief Friendly Societies Act, 1894," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 15th May, and to be printed. [Bill 16.]
  TRAWLERS' CERTIFICATES SUSPENSION.
  Bill to enable Courts to suspend the Certificates of Trawlers convicted of Illegal Trawling, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bignold, Mr. Harmsworth, Mr. Weir, Mr. J. Cathcart Wason, Mr. Jordan, and Mr. Leveson-Gower.
  TRAWLERS CERTIFICATES SUSPENSION BILL.
  "To enable Courts to suspend the Certificates of Trawlers convicted of Illegal Trawling," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 6th March, and to be printed. [Bill 17.]
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE).
  Bill to grant certificates to persons in charge of Steam Engines and Boilers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Bell, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Helder, Colonel Denny, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Mr. Paulton, Mr. Joseph Walton, and Mr. Holland.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  "To grant certificates to persons in charge of Steam Engines and Boilers," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 1st May, and to be printed. [Bill 18.]
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (IRELAND).
  Bill to provide for improving and extending the procedure for obtaining parliamentary powers by way of Provisional Orders in matters relating to Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hemphill, Mr. Field, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Caldwell, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Condon, and Colonel Nolan.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To provide for improving and extending the procedure for obtaining parliamentary powers by way of Provisional Orders in matters relating to Ireland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 1st May, and to be printed. [Bill 19.]
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Bill to provide Pensions for the aged poor, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Channing, Mr. Burt, Mr. John Burns, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Sir Walter Foster, and Mr. Broadhurst.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL.
  "To provide Pensions for the aged poor," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 15th May, and to be printed. [Bill 20.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Local Government in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Crean, Mr. Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh, Mr. J. P. Farrell, Mr. Daly, Mr. O'Shee, Mr. Nannetti, and Mr. Tully.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Local Government in Ireland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second
  456
  time upon Wednesday, 12th June, and to be printed. [Bill 21.]

  LAND TENURE (WALES).
  Bill to amend the Law relating to the Tenure of Agricultural Land in Wales and Monmouthshire, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Osmond Williams, Mr. Alfred Thomas, Mr. Brynmor Jones,. Mr. Ellis Griffith, and Mr. Edwards.
  LAND TENURE (WALES) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Tenure of Agricultural Land in Wales and Monmouthshire," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 22nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 22.]
  TENANTS' IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND).
  Bill for improving the condition of Tenants in Cities, Towns, and Villages in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Major Jameson, Mr. Field, Captain Donelan, and Mr. Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh.
  TENANTS' IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  "For improving the condition of Tenants in Cities, Towns, and Villages in Ireland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 19th June, and to be printed. [Bill 23.]
  CRIMES ACT (IRELAND) REPEAL.
  Bill to repeal certain criminal statutes relating to Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Abraham (Cork), Mr. William Redmond, Mr. O'Doherty, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, Mr. Boland, and Mr. O'Shea.
  CRIMES ACT (IRELAND) REPEAL BILL.
  "To repeal certain criminal statutes relating to Ireland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 26th June, and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

  ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITIES REMOVAL.
  Bill to remove certain Disabilities affecting Roman Catholics in Great Britainand Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tully, Mr. Daly, Mr. Patrick

  457
  Aloysius M'Hugh. Mr. O'Doherty, and Mr. M'Fadden.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.
  "To remove certain Disabilities affecting Roman Catholics in Great Britain and Ireland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 6th March. and to be printed. [Bill 25.]
  SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Salmon Fisheries (Ireland) Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Seton-Karr. Mr. Thorburn, and Colonel Lucas.
  SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT MILL.
  "To amend the Salmon Fisheries Ireland) Acts," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 5th June, and to be printed. [Bill 26.]
  MANHOOD SUFFRAGE (IRELAND).
  Bill to establish Manhood Suffrage in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'Fadden, Mr. Murnaghan, Mr. Daly, Mr. Roche, Mr. Tully, Mr. Barry, Mr. Cullinan, Mr. O'Doherty, and Mr. Boyle.
  MANHOOD SUFFRAGE (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To establish Manhood Suffrage in Ireland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 22nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]
  OLD AGE PENSIONS (No. 2).
  Bill to provide Pensions for aged deserving poor, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bull, Mr. Goulding, Lord Willoughby de Eresby, Mr. John Hutton, Mr. Remnant, Mr. T. L. Corbett, and Mr. Hay.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS (No. 2) BILL.
  "To provide Pensions for aged deserving poor," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 17th April, and to be printed, [Bill 28.]
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RESIGNATION OF SEATS).
  Bill to enable Members of Parliament to resign their seats, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Loder, Sir Francis Powell, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Fison, Mr. H. D. Greene, Mr. T. M. Healy, and Sir Joseph Dimsdale.
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RESIGNATION OF SEATS) BILL.
  "To enable Members of Parliament to resign their seats," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 8th May, and to be printed. [Bill 29.]
  OLD AGE PENSIONS (No. 4).
  Bill to provide Pensions for aged deserving poor, ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. W. Wilson, Mr. Goulding, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, Mr. Gray, Mr. Morrison, Mr. Hay, and Mr. T. L. Corbett.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS (No. 4) BILL.
  "To provide Pensions for aged deserving poor," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 24th April, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]
  JURORS' EXPENSES.
  Bill to provide for the payment of the expenses of Jurors attending Assizes and Quarter Sessions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lloyd Morgan, Mr. Wharton, Mr. John Hutton, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Abel Thomas, and Mr. Edwards.
  JURORS' EXPENSES BILL.
  "To provide for the payment of the expenses of Jurors attending Assizes and Quarter Sessions," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 17th April, and to be printed. [Bill 31.]
  IRISH LIGHTS.
  Bill dealing with the Irish Lights Board, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Patrick White, Mr. Field, Mr. Cogan, Captain Donelan, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, and Mr. Conor O'Kelly.

  IRISH LIGHTS BILL.
  "Dealing with the Irish Lights Board," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday,

  459
  27th March, and to be printed. [Bill 32.]

  CONSTABULARY (IRELAND).
  Bill dealing with the Royal Irish Constabulary control, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Condon, Mr. Kendal O'Brien, Mr. P. J. O'Brien, Mr. Cullman, and Mr. O'Shee.
  CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BELL.
  "Dealing with the Royal Irish Constabulary control," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 20th March, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]
  VOLUNTEERS (IRELAND).
  Bill for the establishment of a Volunteer force in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Thomas O'Donnell, Mr. Boland, Mr. Cullman, Mr. Barry, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Flavin, Mr. Conor O'Kelly, Mr. Condon, and Mr. John Redmond.
  VOLUNTEERS (IRELAND) RILL.
  "For the establishment of a Volunteer force in Ireland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 24th April, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]
  WATER AND LIGHT SUPPLY (IRELAND).
  Bill to amend the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, so far as regards the Supply of Light and Water to Towns in Rural Districts in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Conor O'Kelly, Mr. Flynn, Mr. M'Fadden, Mr. O'Doherty, and Mr. Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh.
  WATER AND LIGHT SUPPLY (IRELAND) RILL.
  "To amend the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, so far as regards the Supply of Light and Water to Towns in Rural Districts in Ireland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 8th May, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]
  BOROUGH FUNDS ACTS (AMENDMENT).
  Bill to amend the Borough Funds Act, 1872, and the Borough Funds (Ireland) Act, 1888, ordered to be brought in by Sir Albert Rollit, Sir James Woodhouse, Sir Harry Bollard, and Sir Thomas Roe.
  BOROUGH FUNDS ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  "To amend the Borough Funds Act. 1872, and the Borough Funds (Ireland) Act, 1888," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 25th February, and to be printed. [Bill 36.]
  ELECTORAL DISABILITIES REMOVAL.
  Bill for the removal of certain electoral disabilities, ordered to be brought in by Mr. O'Doherty, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Hemphill, Mr. M'Fadden, Mr. Tully, Mr. O'Malley, Mr. Boyle, and Mr. Flynn.
  ELECTORAL DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.
  "For the removal of certain electoral disabilities." presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 22nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]
  SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT (1899) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend Section 1 of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Horner, Sir Benjamin Stone, Mr. Harry Samuel. Mr. Ernest Gray, Mr. Boulnois, and Mr. Thomas Dewar.
  SMALL DWELLINGS ACQUISITION ACT (1899) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend Section 1 of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 17th April, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend and extend the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, ordered

  461
  to be brought in by Mr. Sydney Buxton, Captain Norton, and Mr. John Burns.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend and extend the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 8th May, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]
  COAL MINES REGULATION.
  Bill to amend the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, ordered to be brought in by Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. William Abraham (Rhondda), Mr. Thomas Bayley, Mr. Bell, Mr. Bolton, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Jacoby, and Mr. Pickard.
  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  "To amend the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 17th April, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]
  SHOPS.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Shops, ordered to be brought in by Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Flower, Mr. Lloyd-George, Colonel Hughes, Mr. Kemp, Mr. Melville, Mr. Nannetti, Sir Barrington Simeon, and Mr. Tennant.
  SHOPS BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Shops," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]
  FRANCHISE AND REMOVAL OF WOMEN'S DISABILITIES.
  Bill to establish a single franchise at all elections, and thereby to abolish University representation, and to remove the disabilities of Women, ordered to be brought in by Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. Logan, and Captain Norton.

  FRANCHISE AND REMOVAL OF WOMEN'S DISABILITIES BILL.
  "To establish a single franchise at all elections, and thereby to abolish Uni-
  462
  versity representation, and to remove the disabilities of Women," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 3rd April, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

  WAGES BOARDS.
  Bill to provide for the establishment of Wages Boards, ordered to be brought in by Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. John Burns, Mr. M'Kenna, Mr. Tennant, and Mr. Trevelyan.
  WAGES BOARDS BILL.
  "To provide for the establishment of Wages Boards," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 26th June, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]
  RE-AFFORESTING (IRELAND).
  Bill to promote the Re-afforesting of Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nolan, Mr. William Abraham, Mr. O'Doherty, Mr. Edward Thompson, Mr. Patrick White, Mr. Tully, Mr. Conor O'Kelly, and Mr. Thomas O'Donnell.
  RE-AFFORESTING (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To promote the Re-afforesting of Ireland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 20th March, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]
  LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Bill to enable Leaseholders to become Freeholders, ordered to be brought in by General Laurie, Mr. Kenyon, Sir Albert Rollit, Sir George Fardell, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Spear.
  LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  "To enable Leaseholders to become Freeholders," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 24th April, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Bill to prohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday, ordered to be

  463
  brought in by Mr. Charles Wilson, Mr. Perks, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Pickard, Mr. Cornpton Eickett, Mr. Firbank, Sir Frederick Mappin, Mr. John Wilson (Mid-Durham), Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Bell, Mr. Crawfurd Smith, and Mr. Hain.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  "To prohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 8th May, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]
  PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION ACT (1874) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend The Public Worship Begulation Act, 1874, ordered to be brought in by Mr. H. D. Greene, Mr. Brynmor Jones, and Colonel Sandys.
  PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION ACT (1874) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend The Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 3rd April, and to be printed. [Bill 47.]
  CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES).
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Coroners' Inquests in the case of Fatal Accidents on Railways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Channing, Mr. Bell, Mr. John Burns, and Mr. Schwann.
  CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Coroners' Inquests in the case of Fatal Accidents on Railways," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 2 7th February, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]
  JURORS (IRELAND).
  Bill to make provision for the payment of Jurors in Ireland, and to amend the Jury Laws', ordered to be brought in by Mr. William M'Killop, Mr. M'Hugh, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Tully, and Mr. O'Dowd.
  JURORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To make provision for the payment of Jurors in Ireland, and to amend the Jury Laws," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 22nd April, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]
  CONTEMPT OF COURT.
  Bill to define and limit the power of Judges to imprison for Contempt of Court, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. O'Dowd, Mr. Crean, Mr. Roche, Mr. M'Killop, and Mr. Condon.
  CONTEMPT OF COURT BILL.
  "To define and limit the power of Judges to imprison for Contempt of Court," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 22nd April, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL.
  Bill to relieve members of Friendly Societies of certain Disqualifications arising from the receipt of temporary relief, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Strachey, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Courtenay Warner, Sir Samuel Hoare, Mr. Barlow, Mr. Platt-Higgins, Mr. Beaumont, Mr. Rigg, Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Nussey.
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.
  "To relieve members of Friendly Societies of certain Disqualifications arising from the receipt of temporary relief," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 26th February, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA — RECRUITING FOR SOUTH AFRICAN CONSTABULARY IN AUSTRALIA.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Premiers of Victoria and

  465
  New South Wales have, in reply to telegrams from Sir Alfred Milner, refused to allow recruiting for the South African Constabulary to be carried on in those colonies; and whether Sir Alfred Milner had authority from the Home Government for appealing to Australian Governments to allow such recruiting.
  MR. CHANNING: At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Sir Alfred Milner cabled to the Governor General that he proposed to send an officer to recruit men in Australia and New Zealand, and whether Sir William Lyne has replied that the New South Wales Government objected to this course; and, if so, whether Sir Alfred Milner was acting on his own motion or by instruction from the Colonial Office.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have no information as to such refusal or as to such an appeal to Australian Governments by Sir A. Milner. I am making inquiries on the subject. This also answers the question addressed to me by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire.
  MR. CHANNING: Are we to understand that the Government did not authorise Sir Alfred Milner to take this step?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not prepared to answer that question, lest an inference be drawn that if such an application had been made we should not have approved it. As soon as I know the facts I shall be prepared to say whether we approve what was done.

  CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF THE NEW COLONIES.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies how soon it is his intention to issue the proclamation in the English, Dutch, and Taal languages, announcing the intentions of the British Government as to the immediate civil administration of the new South African colonies, and the promise of colonial
  466
  self-government at the earliest opportunity, as he engaged to do in his speech in debate on 7th December last, and in answer to a question by the Member for Bolton on 11th December.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have felt obliged to defer to the opinion of both Lord Kitchener and Sir Alfred Milner that during the last few weeks the time was not opportune; but I have asked Sir A. Milner to inform me at once as soon as such action is advisable.

  SOUTH AFRICAN LANDS SETTLEMENT COMMISSION.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state when the Report of the South African Lands Settlement Commission will be completed and issued to Parliament.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The evidence is not yet in my hands.

  COST OF THE WAR—THE TRANSVAAL CONTRIBUTION.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any estimate has been made of the amount of the contribution towards the cost of the war in South Africa which will be levied on the diamond mines and the gold mines now in the possession of the British; and whether it is proposed that such contributions shall be levied by way of specific charges or by way of a rateable tax on profits, and, if not, in what other way.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I do not quite understand the allusion to diamond mines in the question. Everything I have said on this subject has related to the Transvaal. But it is not possible at present to make any estimate, or to state the mode in which such a contribution may be obtained, and I fear that the prolongation of the war will delay the date at which I had hoped such a statement might be made.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate being

  467
  able to make his statement before he 'introduces his Budget?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir.

  ALLEGED ORDERS TO SHOOT BOERS DRESSED IN KHAKI.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any order, either from Lord Roberts or Lord Kitchener, or any other general qualified to give such an order, has been issued that the Boers dressed in khaki when captured are to be shot; and, if so, if he can state what was the date of such order, what were its terms, and in how many cases has it been acted upon.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): No, Sir. Certainly not.

  GUILDFORD CORPORATION — RESERVISTS AS FIREMEN.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been officially called to the action of the Corporation of Guildford; in refusing to permit the employment of Reservists in the borough fire department; and whether any other locality can be selected as a suitable headquarters for the Queen's Royal West Surrey Regimental District in the stead of a town of which the municipal representatives act thus towards the men who have served their country.
  MR. BRODRICK: My attention was not called to this matter officially, but privately. I understand that the corporation has since withdrawn the refusal.

  SOUTH AFRICAN DESPATCHES—LORD ROBERTS AND "THE CLOSE OF THE WAR."
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Lord Roberts's despatch of 14th August, 1900, had been received in this country by 20th September, 1900, and whether the Government was at that date in possession of any further advices from him, telegraphic or otherwise, deal-
  468
  ing with the probability of the war in South Africa being brought to an early close; and, if any such communications exist, will they be printed as a supplement to the despatches already printed and circulated.
  MR. BRODRICK: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. There was no further correspondence up to the date named except a telegram from Lord Roberts stating he had information that Kruger and Botha had come to the conclusion that further resistance was hopeless.

  REINFORCEMENTS OF MOUNTED TROOPS.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many mounted troops have been sent to South Africa since 1st January last, and how many of these are to fill up vacancies, and how many are additions to the strength of the Army in South Africa sent at the request of Lord Kitchener.
  MR. BRODRICK: The total reinforcements of mounted troops for South Africa sent out since the 1st January amount to 131 officers and 5,530 men, including one officer and 920 men of the South African Constabulary. There are no returns available to show how many of these will fill up casualties or be additions to the strength of the Army in South Africa.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Are these figures independent of General Baden Powell's police force?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have said they included the men sent out for that force.
  MR. BARTLEY: Are we to understand that no portion of the 30,000 additional men has yet been sent out?
  MR. BRODRICK: About 2,000 have started.

  HORSES OVERWEIGHTED—LIGHTWEIGHT MEN.
  SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I beg to ask the

  469
  Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the weights habitually carried by our horses in South Africa; whether he is aware that the efforts being made to end the war have been much hampered and delayed by the slowness of movement forced on our troops by the weight placed on the horses; and whether, in order to give some portion of our troops the power of moving quickly, the War Office is, while raising the large number of mounted men it is now proposing to send out, making any special effort to discover and secure the services of the lightest men capable of doing the work required of them.
  MR. BRODRICK: My attention has been drawn to the matter referred to by the hon. Member, and much thought has been given to the subject. There is no doubt that our horses have in many cases been over weighted, but other causes, such as shortness of food, and the unsuitability of some of the horses, are also in part responsible for the lack of mobility. As regards the weight of the men, the standard has been materially reduced, and no man is now accepted for cavalry of the line who is over 5 feet 8 inches.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is there any record of the countries from which the horses which broke down came?
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not think there is a record of each country.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it only the Argentine horses that have broken down?
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Is it in contemplation to effect any reduction in the weight of the saddle?
  MR. BRODRICK: Only two or three hours ago I was informed by an expert that horses under the heaviest saddles had gone best.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Did that refer to the American saddle?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order! These details should be discussed on Supply.

  FARM BURNING.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is yet in a position to inform the House as to the extent of the farm burning in the new South African colonies.
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. The information called for has not yet reached the War Office, but I am informed by Lord Kitchener that some information has been despatched.

  IMPERIAL YEOMANRY—RATES OF PAY.
  SIR JOSEPH LEIGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Imperial Yeomen who volunteered for a fixed period of twelve months, and who have been in active service at the seat of war for the past twelve months, will now receive the same rate of pay—namely, 5s. per day— that is to be given to the men of the same class who have recently joined the colours.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Imperial Yeomanry now at the front will receive the same amount of pay which is now to be given to those enlisting; and if so, have they been notified of such increase.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): All the Yeomen will receive the higher rates of pay from 1st February, and any who may have completed twelve months service before that date will receive the higher rates from the date on which the twelve months expired. The exact date of the increase was notified to South Africa by telegram on the 6th inst., but the general, announcement was made on 21st December last year.
  MR. DILLON: May I ask the noble Lord whether the War Office has considered the desirability of extending to the ordinary soldiers, such as the Dublin Fusiliers and the Gordon Highlanders, who have gone through the whole of the campaign, the same terms of pay as are

  471
  now to be given to the Imperial Yeomanry?
  MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
  MR. DILLON: I will give notice of the question.

  MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS - SERGEANT MAJOR GARNER'S SAVINGS.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a Sergeant Major Garner, 13th Battery Royal Field Artillery, who was killed at Farquhar's Farm in October 1899, left a sum of about £200 in the military savings bank; that his widow proved her claim to the money, but has not been able to secure the payment of a single penny of this money; and that all communications with the War Office have proved fruitless; and whether there is any reason for withholding the payment of this sum; and if not, what further lapse of time beyond the eighteen months indicated is likely to take place before the widow receives the money due to her.
  LORD STANLEY: A man's regimental savings bank account is kept with his battery or company. No notification of the existence of any account in this man's name has been made by the battery, and only in December, 1900, the widow reported to the War Office that her husband had left an account, said to be over £100. Inquiries were addressed to the battery, but no reply has as yet been received, The remainder of the estate, so far as it is known, has been issued, and the case was, on the 13th November, 1899, notified to the Patriotic Fund Commissioners, who, it is understood, made a grant of 6s. 6d. per week.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Will the noble Lord answer the latter part of the question?
  LORD STANLEY: This matter involves communication with Natal, which, as my hon. and gallant friend knows, is very difficult just now. I will try and get an answer as quickly as possible.

  PROVISION FOR PERMANENTLY DISABLED SOLDIERS
  MR. LEVY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that soldiers who have been so maimed in the South African campaign as to be rendered incapable of ever again following any remunerative employment, are being only temporarily relieved by the War Department, and in some cases reduced to pauperism; and if he will state on what principle pensions and allowances are granted to officers, non-commissioned officers, and men respectively, who have been permanently disabled while on active service.
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir; I am not aware of the existence of such a state of things. The Chelsea Commissioners award a temporary pension at first, and when the result of the injury continues, they continue the pension; if the results became more serious, the pension might be increased. The principles on which pensions are granted are clearly laid down in the Pay Warrant, the exact amount within certain limits being left to the discretion of the Commissioners in the case of non-commissioned officers and men.
  MR. LEVY: Does the noble Lord consider that a man who is certified by the medical authorities of the War Office as practically blind, mentally dull, and I helpless as a result of the war is sufficiently compensated and able to keep his: wife and family on a shilling per day?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !

  OFFICERS' WAR GRATUITIES.
  MR. HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the persons dependent upon the war gratuity due to the estates of officers who have died in the service of their country in South Africa are often in needy circumstances, he will state the cause of the delay which has hitherto occurred in the payment of this gratuity; whether such gratuity is subject to any deduction; and, if so, under what circumstances; and whether he will give immediate in

  473
  structions to secure the prompt issue of this gratuity in the future?
  LORD STANLEY: On the death of an officer his estate is wound up by a committee of adjustment as required by the Regimental Debts Act. Owing to the conditions of active service in South Africa there is generally considerable delay in sending home the report of the committee. On its receipt immediate steps are taken to issue the estate, but probate has to be obtained except in cases of estates under £100. The gratuity referred to by the hon. Member forms part of the estate and like the rest is available to meet the debts of the deceased. To expedite matters the gratuity has recently been issued to the representatives on their giving a guarantee to meet all preferential charges.

  SOLDIERS' WIDOWS AND ORPHANS IN IRISH POORHOUSES.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what inquiries he has made concerning the statement in the House on 11th December, 1900, by the hon. Member for North Louth, to the effect that while Irish soldiers have been amongst the bravest of our regiments, many of their wives and children are in the poorhouse in Ireland; and what have been the results of such inquiries, if any.
  LORD STANLEY: As a result of the action taken by the hon. Member for North Louth, some Irish Unions have referred certain cases to the War Office. These are now being carefully inquired into.

  MILITARY AID TO THE CIVIL POWER —BILLETING RATES.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, as a result of the consideration given to the matter last year, legislation will be introduced this session to place the cost of catering troops when sent to maintain the peace in disaffected districts upon the local authorities, and to increase the maximum rates allowed by the War Office for billeting.
  LORD STANLEY: As regards legislation concerning the incidence of cost of military aid to the civil power, the question should be addressed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. As regards billeting, the question of revising the rates was very thoroughly considered about a year ago, and it was decided that no grounds existed for disturbing the present rates.

  UNDER-AGE ENLISTMENTS.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the enlistment some weeks ago of Edward Moore, of Rossville Street, Londonderry, a boy under eighteen years of age, in the Inniskilling Fusiliers; and whether, seeing that enlistment under eighteen years by the recruiting sergeant is contrary to conditions of Enlistment No. 5, issued by the War Office, the authorities will direct the discharge of this boy out of the Army.
  LORD STANLEY: All cases of enlistment under age are decided by the General Officer Commanding the district concerned, who will no doubt give the case all proper consideration.

  THE PERMANENT UNDER SECRETARY FOR WAR.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is now able to announce the name of the new Permanent Under Secretary of State for War; and, if not, whether it is his intention to select an experienced military officer who is competent to advise upon the needs of the Army, or to follow the traditions of the office by selecting a civilian.
  MR. BRODRICK: I shall be glad if this question can be deferred for a few days.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC ARMY AND NAVY CHAPLAINS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that His Majesty King Edward the Seventh, the supreme head of the Army and Navy,

  475
  has sworn or declared that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the Mass as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are "superstitious and idolatrous," the Government intend to discontiune the payment out of public funds to Roman Catholic chaplains for celebrating Mass and performing the other functions of the Roman Catholic religion for the military and naval forces in the service of the King who profess the Roman Catholic faith so described by His Majesty's oath or declaration.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): No, Sir; we do not propose to discontinue the payment.

  NAVY — BOILER COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
  MR. PENN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state when the Report of the Boiler Committee will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): It is not possible at the present stage to give a date for the presentation of the final Report of the Water-tube Boiler Committee. It is, however, the intention of the Committee to present an ad interim Report, which has been specially called for, dealing with some of the points referred to it. I have reason to believe that this Report will be presented to the Admiralty in the course of the next few days.

  INDIA—CHINA AND THE OPIUM TRADE.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the opinion expressed by this House in 1891 that the opium trade of the Government of India with the Chinese is morally indefensible, and considering the present demand of His Majesty's Government for Chinese reform, the Government have any intention of abandoning this traffic.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): I am not aware that this House in 1891 passed any definite decision upon the subject to which the hon. Member's question refers; but I am aware that in 1895 a Royal Commission, after an exhaustive investigation, reported generally in favour of the system under which the growth and export of opium is now regulated in India. His Majesty's Government have no present intention of altering that system.

  COOPER'S HILL COLLEGE.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will institute an inquiry into the matters in connection with the recent dismissal of certain professors from Cooper's Hill College.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I propose to publish the Papers which deal with this subject, and when published they will show that a most careful investigation, to which full consideration was given both by the Board of Visitors and by the Council of India, was made before the proposed educational reforms were sanctioned.

  CHINA—PROTECTION OF THE FOREIGN LEGATIONS IN PEKING.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the generals of the Allied forces in Peking have decided to erect an extensive fortress in the heart of that city for the protection of the foreign legations; whether His Majesty's Government has approved of this project; and whether there is any precedent in history for such a proceeding.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): The question of the measures to be taken for the protection of the legations is now under discussion by the foreign representatives at Peking, but no decision has yet been come to in the matter by His Majesty's Government. But I may add that we are fully conscious of the expediency of keeping such arrangements within reasonable bounds.

  THE BUDGET.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any indication of the time when he will introduce the Budget.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if he will take it before Easter?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I cannot say.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in anticipation of increased taxation, large quantities of dutiable articles are being taken out of bond; and whether he has considered any means of preventing the revenue of the next financial year being seriously discounted in this manner.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Considerable quantities of certain dutiable articles are being taken out of bond, and I believe that much of this is due to the reason suggested in the question. I am considering whether it would be at all practicable to check this by making increases of duty retrospective; but probably the best chock to gambling of this kind would be that those who have put themselves to considerable trouble and expense in this way should find themselves disappointed in their expectations of increased taxation on the articles taken out of bond, and it is by no means impossible that this may be the case.
  MR. CHANNING: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate introducing the Budget at an earlier date in order to achieve this object?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I must decline to answer questions as to dates.

  REVENUE RETURNS AND EXCHEQUER ISSUES.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the quarterly returns of revenue and issues from the Exchequer which are supplied to the press are not
  478
  supplied to Members of this House; and whether he can see his way to giving instructions that in future these Returns shall be laid upon the Table and distributed to Members.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: In accordance with an arrangement made by the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury, 100 copies of the Quarterly Account are sent on the evening of the last day of the quarter, when Parliament is sitting, to the Vote Office.

  INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY—DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE—CASE OF B. G. LAKE.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I bog to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the case of Ben jamin Green Lake, solicitor, sentenced to penal servitude for fraud; whether he is aware that this is the same person who was, up to May last, the chairman of the Discipline Committee of the Incorporated Law Society; whether this is the committee which conducts the investigation of cases in which fraud or other misconduct is charged against solicitors in order to ascertain whether there are grounds for striking them off the rolls; whether he still adheres to the statement of May last that having personally inquired into the allegations made against the Incorporated Law Society, he was satisfied with the explanations given; and whether he proposes to continue the payment out of public moneys of £2,500 a year to the Incorporated Law Society towards defraying the expenses of their investigations into alleged frauds or other misconduct by solicitors.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The committee referred to in the question is a statutory committee of the Incorporated Law Society appointed by the Master of the Rolls, whose duty it is to consider allegations against solicitors of professional misconduct, and report to the Court if a prima facie case is made out. They also report to the Public Prosecutor if there is prima facie evidence of a criminal offence. The person mentioned retired from the committee in December, 1899. I adhere to my statement of last

  479
  May† on the subject. The allegations into which I inquired related to certain specified cases, and had been made in the public press. I do not see why the Vote should be withdrawn because one person who held a high position in the society has been convicted of crime. I fear that even the House of Commons has in the past suffered in the same way.
  MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if this lawyer had anything to do with the promotion of the Limerick, Kerry, and Tralee Railway?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  GIBRALTAR—ACCOMMODATION FOR NAVAL AND MILITARY FORCES.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to communicate to the House the steps taken by His Majesty's Government and the Governor of Gibraltar to carry out the recommendations of the Inter-departmental Committee, which were made in 1898, with the object of improving the sanitary condition of the town and garrison, and of affording better house accommodation and recreation grounds for the naval and military forces stationed there.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The recommendations of the Committee were very numerous, and are being gradually carried out. I am not in a position to state exactly what stage has been reached in regard to many of the recommendations, but the Governor will be asked to furnish a report on the subject.
  MR. STEVENSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon the Report will be presented to Parliament?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid not.
  MR GIBSON BOWLES: Has the drainage been completed?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I would rather not answer now. I hope to have a full report before long.
  † See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. LXXXIII., page 409.

  HARBOUR DUES — TONNAGE MEASUREMENT.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Wexford County Council at a recent meeting unanimously passed a resolution expressing the opinion that the system of levying dues on the net registered tonnage of steamships is detrimental to the best interests of the harbours of Ireland; and whether the Government is prepared to alter the law so as to enable Harbour Commissioners to levy dues on the gross tonnage.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Yes, Sir, I am aware of the resolution to which the hon. Member refers, but as at present advised, I do not propose to take steps to alter the present law of tonnage measurement which is international. It is, of course, open to Harbour Commissioners to endeavour to obtain powers to levy dues on the gross tonnage by means of local Acts. Such powers have, I am informed, been already obtained in several places, notably in Scotland.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Did I under stand the right hon. Gentleman to say the system now in vogue in this country is international?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.
  MR, T. M. HEALY: Has the circular promised last session been issued?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir, but the negotiations are progressing.
  MR, T. M. HEALY: In view of the public anxiety will not the right hon. Gentleman expedite its issue?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is obviously in the public interest there should be as little friction as possible, and with this object it is desirable to consult the parties interested.

  CRUELTY IN CAPTURING SONG-BIRDS AND ALBATROSS.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade

  481
  if his attention has been drawn to certain cases of cruelty to animals practised in angling for song-birds in Cornwall and for albatross on ocean-going steamers; and what steps he purposes taking in the matter.
  ME. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir. The subject is not one which comes within the purview of the Board of Trade, nor have I any powers in the matter.

  TRIENNIAL BOROUGH COUNCIL ELECTIONS.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Local Government Board has as yet come to a decision as to the request forwarded by the City of Westminster and other borough councils, in accordance with the London Government Act, 1899, in favour of triennial elections.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I have received applications from most of the metropolitan borough councils asking for Orders directing that the whole of the councillors shall retire together in every third year. There are technical questions of difficulty in connection with this subject upon which I have determined to take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. On receipt of that opinion I shall be prepared to come to a decision with regard to the course to be adopted in the matter.

  HIGHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS—OFFICIAL RECOGNITION.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he will state how many applications for recognition of schools, or departments of schools, as higher elementary schools have been made to the Board since the date of the Higher Elementary School Minute; how many schools or departments have been recognised under that minute; in how many cases the applications have been declined by the Board; and, during the same period, how many applications for recognition
  482
  of schools as organised science schools or schools of science and art have been refused by the Board.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (SIR J. GORST,): I am told that some 190 applications have been made to the Board of Education, but many of these are general and vague and not for the recognition of any specific school. The answer to the second paragraph of the question is, two; to the third paragraph, one; to the fourth paragraph, none.

  STREET REFUGES IN PICCADILLY.
  SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the crossing refuges are to be placed in Piccadilly; and, if so, when will this be done.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (MR. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The matter is not one which is under my control, but under that of the local authority—the City of Westminster.
  SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the local authorities as to the extreme danger arising from the present condition of things?
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: It is not part of my duty to communicate with the local authority, but I have no doubt that the publicity which the hon. Baronet has given to this matter will secure the object which he has in view.

  DOG MUZZLING IN COUNTY CARMARTHEN.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Presdent of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed at the meeting of the Carmarthenshire County Council, held on the 24th of October last, calling his attention to the fact that the Board of Agriculture had either refused or omitted to make inoculation experiments in order to discover whether the dogs destroyed by

  483
  order of the Board of Agriculture in the county of Carmarthen, on the ground that they were suffering from rabies, were in fact so suffering; and, if so, whether he will state the reasons for such refusal or omission to make the necessary experiments; and whether he will state the grounds on which the muzzling order now in force in the county of Carmarthen was issued.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS (for Mr. HANBURY): The resolution to which the hon. Member refers does not appear to have been received in my Department, but it is clear that it was passed on some misunderstanding as to the facts of the case. The Carmarthenshire Muzzling Order was passed because certain experiments conducted by our veterinary officers conclusively confirmed the opinion expressed by the veterinary inspector of the local authority that a dog kept near Llanwrda had developed symptoms of rabies. Eleven other cases of the disease have since occurred in the district to which Muzzling Orders have been applied, in two of which inoculative experiments were also carried out.

  IRISH AND SCOTCH REPRESENTATION AND THE DEMISE OF THE CROWN.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General if he can state to the House what effect the demise of the Crown has upon the representation of Irish and Scotch constituencies.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): The demise of the Crown has no effect on the representation of Irish and Scotch constituencies. The 51st section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, provides that the Parliament in being at the demise of the Crown shall not be determined or dissolved by such demise, but shall continue so long as it would have continued but for such demise, unless sooner prorogued or dissolved by the Crown. As there is only one Parliament for the United Kingdom, this enactment applies in the case of Members for Scotch and Irish constituencies, as well as in the case of Members for English and Welsh constituencies, and the provision in Section 2, exempting Scot-
  484
  land and Ireland and the election of Members for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge from the operation of the Act, can have no application to Section 51, the terms of which show that it applies to the Parliament of the United Kingdom as a whole. There is no such thing as a partial dissolution of Parliament. I may add that the Statute Law Revision Act, 1878, repeals the words in Section 4 and Section 5 of the Statute 6 Anne c. 7 (c. 41 Ruffhead's Edition), which, until the passing of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, restricted the duration of the existing. Parliament to six months from the demise of the Crown.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: What would be the effect of the demise of the Crown before Parliament had met?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: That depends on another statute altogether. I shall be happy to show it to my right hon. friend.

  LONDON TELEPHONE SYSTEM.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to, ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state approximately when the Government telephone system will be opened so far as London is concerned.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): No definite statement can be made at present.

  URBAN DISTRICT VALUATIONS IN IRELAND.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the system of valuation in urban district councils differs from the English method, he will consider the advisability of introducing a measure to assimilate the law, so as to enable the periodical and general revaluation by local authorities in Ireland.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): If the

  485
  chief object of the hon. Member is to secure a revaluation of urban districts under the existing system which is now being applied to county boroughs, I will consider the possibility of dealing separately with such districts. But to supersede the existing system would not, I think, be expedient and would meet with great opposition from many quarters in which the Irish system is justly considered superior to that which prevails in England.
  MR. FIELD: Are we to understand it is proposed to assimilate the English to the Irish system, which is superior?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I believe in many quarters in Ireland a general revaluation for the whole country is held to be of the highest importance. There would be great objection to having one which was merely local and piecemeal.

  ANNALLY (CO. LONGFORD) ESTATE.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of farmers on the eastern portion of the Annally (county Longford) Estate have not yet got their vesting orders, although all the necessary papers were lodged fourteen months and in some cases two years ago; can any explanation of the delay be given; and will he call for a report as to the causes of the delay.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Applications from a number of tenants on this estate for advances to enable them to purchase their holdings were received by the Land Commission on various dates between the 24th July last and the 10th ultimo. It may well be that there was delay in the Land Judge's Court. This under existing circumstances cannot, I fear, be avoided. Of the 124 applications, 36 have been sanctioned, while the remaining cases are either awaiting the completion of the inspection of the tenants' holdings, or replies to necessary queries which have been issued from the office of the Commissioners.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Will the cases be settled before Easter?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I should not like to say without fuller knowledge, but I should imagine there will be no avoidable delay.

  IRISH HEAD LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any report has been furnished to him regarding recent sittings of the Head Land Commission for fixing fair rents on appeal; whether he is aware that within the present month twelve tenants have had to go to Dublin to get their appeals heard; and can he explain why it is that, as was always the case, the Land Commission refuses to come to Longford on circuit to hear appeals; and will he call for a report on this subject.
  MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. Member refers to a list of appeals from West-meath, which were heard in Dublin on the 30th and 31st January, I am informed that the list contained forty-five appeals, and that there were no appeals in it from Longford, though in some of the cases the holdings were situated near to the borders of Longford. Unless under exceptional circumstances, it has always been the practice to hear appeals from all parts of the county of Wostmeath in Dublin; by this arrangement the Land Commissioners are enabled to provide for such appeals being heard at earlier dates. It is not the case that the Land Commissioners have always refused to go to Longford for the hearing of appeals.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Land Commission has not sat in Longford for a period of three years, thereby causing great loss to the tenant litigants?
  MR. WYNDHAM: They may not have sat in Longford, but they have taken cases in Dublin, thereby accelerating the business, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is in arrear.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to get a change in the rules, so that poor country litigants may not be put to the cost of going to Dublin?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think it would be wise on my part to interfere with the administration of the Land Commission.

  RAILWAYS IN COUNTY MEATH.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any funds or balance of funds voted by Parliament for the construction of railways in Ireland yet remain unexpended; and whether, in view of the importance of giving railway facilities to connect the port of Drogheda with the Midland counties of Ireland, the Government would be prepared to assist in constructing a line of railway between Granard and Oldcastle, the present terminus of the Great Northern Railway in Meath county.
  MR. WYNDHAM: At the request of my hon. friend I will answer this question. None of the money provided by Parliament for the construction of railways in Ireland is now available for further railway projects.

  CRIME IN COUNTY DONEGAL.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the Judicial Statistics for the past year, whereby it appears that the county of Donegal, and especially the North Donegal division of said county, has had during the past five years the lowest average per 100,000 of the population of indictable offences in Ireland; and whether, seeing that this division of the said county is proclaimed under the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1881, although practically in a crimeless condition, steps will be at once taken to have the proclamation revoked.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The first part of the question states the fact correctly. It is erroneous, however, to assume that the question of the removal of a proclamation against the keeping of firearms is determined by considerations such as are urged by the hon. Member. The Government do not consider it desirable to revoke the proclamation.

  LONDONDERRY AND THE PEACE PROCLAMATION (IRELAND) ACT.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, though the City of Londonderry is proclaimed under the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 188], so far as regards the carrying of arms, his attention has been called to the discharge of firearms on the 18th December from the city walls, and of a bomb some months ago into the yard of a house in Wellington Street, in the Roman Catholic quarter of the city, and is he aware that no one was ever made amenable to justice; whether a quantity of explosives of the description used at the Orange celebrations held in Derry City was discovered on the other side of the city walls, which resulted in serious injury to one or two boys of the district; and whether an investigation by the authorities was ever made into the above circumstances; and if so, with what result.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There was no discharge of firearms in Deny on the 18th December. On the 11th November a signal rocket, that is to say one of a dangerous character, found under the city wall, exploded and injured a young man. This rocket is believed to have been discharged on the 6th June previously. The occurrences were carefully investigated by the police, but they were unable to make anyone amenable.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: Are we to understand that, though the City of Londonderry is proclaimed, the constabulary authorities have no idea of the quantity of arms stored therein?
  MR. WYNDHAM: One can hardly call a rocket a firearm.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer that part of the question which deals with the bomb.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I think that the bomb and the signal rocket must be the same. I have heard of no other.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: May I ask if the discharge of the bomb in Wellington Street was not inquired into by the magistrate, and was not the discovery of

  489
  the rocket outside the city walls an altogether different matter?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have done my best to give information. One of these rockets which were discharged on the (5th June last caused injury to the person, and the rocket found on 11th November, to which I have referred, is believed to have been another of those fired on the 6th June. Both occurrences have been carefully investigated by the police.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: Have not Orangemen for carrying firearms been fined only one penny each, while Roman Catholics have been subjected to a much more severe penalty?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !
  As the hon. Member did not at once sit down—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is a new Member, and perhaps is not aware that it is his duty to resume his seat when I rise.

  LATE LONGFORD PETTY SESSIONS CLERK.
  MR. J. P. ARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he, can state the grounds upon which the widow of the late Mr. Moore, clerk of petty sessions in Longford, was refused a sum of about £300 compensation on retirement because he died a few days before the necessary papers completing his resignation could be perfected; whether the refusal of the petition recently addressed to the Lord Lieutenant on the subject has been in consequence of the attitude of the Treasury; and whether, as this family have been deprived of a sum to which they were legally entitled, steps will be taken to have the payment made to them of this £300.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No application was made by M. Moore, before his death, for a pension r ratuity, w ic could only be granted o him n his retirement from office. There is no power to grant a gratuity to his widow. Her son has succeeded his father in the office of
  490
  petty sessions clerk. The Treasury are in no way concerned in the matter, and were not communicated with.

  TIPPERARY RENT APPEALS.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in the hearing of a, number of cases in the Tipperary Union in which notices to fix judicial rents for the second terms were served more than two years ago; and whether he will make a representation to the Land Commission on the subject.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A list containing a large number of cases from this union was issued on the 22nd ultimo, and the hearing of this list commenced at Cahir on the 6th instant. There are no cases now unlisted from the Tipperary district in which applications are pending for so long a period as that stated in the question.
  MR. CULLINAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the delay in dealing with these cases has prevented settlements for the purchase of some of the property?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware of that. I think the delay regrettable.
  MR. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of appointing more Land Commissioners?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !

  DUBLIN POST OFFICE—SORTERS' GRIEVANCES.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether memorials have been received from three Dublin sorters, Sweeney, Kelly, and Farrelly, who, on grounds of age, had, been reduced in salary to 18s. per week; and whether proof could be shown they were aware of intention to reduce; whether, in December, 1897, they were informed that the London Secretary admitted cause for dissatisfaction, and offering the ordinary salary from

  491
  their nineteenth birthday; and whether the Postmaster General is now prepared to put into effect the promise made by the Secretary.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has received statements made on behalf of the three officers referred to, and hopes to arrive at a decision in the course of a few days.

  DGNGARVAN POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. SHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the decision of the Postmaster General with reference to the improvement of the postal facilities for Dungarvan has yet been arrived at.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The railway company have been asked whether they propose to maintain permanently at the present hours the early morning train from Mallow to Dungarvan and the evening train from Dungarvan to Mallow. If the reply is in the affirmative, instructions will be given for these trains to be used for the Dungarvan mails.

  IRISH LIGHTS BOARD.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Irish Lights Board consists of twenty-two self-elected and eight ex-officio members; that the salaries of the officials amount to £5,000 per annum; that the "Princess Alexandra" yacht is used for annual inspection at a yearly cost of £10,000 and that the annual outlay of the Board is about £84,000; and whether the Government intend to bring in a Bill to reform this Board or to dissolve it and appoint a responsible Government department with a competent staff.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The number of members of the Irish Lights Board, as fixed by Act of Parliament, is 22, of which number 5 are ex-officio members, and 17 are co-opted by the Board. The salaries of the officials I amount, as stated, to about £5,000 per annum. The annual cost of the "Princess Alexandra" yacht is a little over
  492
  £0,000. The annual outlay of the Board is, as stated, about £84,000. His Majesty's Government do not, as at present advised, contemplate the introduction of a Bill dealing with the constitution of the Lighthouse Authority.
  MR. FIELD: Will the Government support a Bill brought in by a private Member for the purpose of reforming this Board?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir, I can give no such undertaking.

  IRISH LIGHTSHIPS—REPAIRS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Lights Commissioners continue to place contracts for the repairs of lightships under their control with an English shipbuilding company at Appledore, Devon, which does not pay the trade union rate of wages; and whether he will suggest the desirability of placing such contracts with Irish firms.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the last contract for the repair of a lightship which was placed by them with the shipbuilding company at Appledore, Devon, was in the case of the "Gannet," in 1898. As stated by my predecessor in reply to a question from the hon. and gallant Member in February 1899, the company in that case gave an assurance that they were prepared to pay the wages generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen in the district. I am also informed that tenders were advertised for in that case, and the lowest was accepted. As regards the second paragraph of the question, I do not think this is a matter in respect of which the Board of Trade can properly interfere, by suggestion or otherwise.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it a fact that neither the Government nor the Irish people have any control over these Lights Commissioners?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

  ESTATE DUTY IN IRELAND.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the amount of Estate Duty collected in Ireland since the passing of the Finance Act on devolution of tenancies from year to year, what has been the decision of the Irish Courts as to the legality of such duty, and whether the Government propose to refund any duty held not to have been legally exigible.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: (1) The amount cannot be exactly stated; it is estimated at £37,000. (2) The decision ! in the case referred to in the question is that what is in Ireland known as "tenant right" comes within the definition of "Agricultural property" in Section 7 (5) of the Finance Act, 1894. The main effect of this decision is that the head rent paid by the tenant, and the expenses of management, are allowable as deductions from the annual value before multiplying such annual value by the number of years purchase agreed upon (but never to exceed 25) to fix the principal value. (3) Orders have been issued that in all cases affected by the decision of the Irish Court, applications for a proper return of Estate Duty are to be entertained.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Have not the Government been ordered to repay something like £35,000?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not know; it may be so.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the Government consider that honesty is the best policy?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if a return would be granted.
  [The answer was inaudible.]

  TREASURY GRANTS FOR IRISH HARBOUR CONSTRUCTION.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if until about 1884 it was a custom to devote a separate sum of £8,000 a year solely to the construction of small Irish harbours; if about 1884
  494
  the Treasury absorbed this £8,000, granting in lieu thereof a sum of about £220,000 for creating similar harbours; it this £220,000 was drawn exclusively from an Irish and not from an Imperial fund and is long since expended; and if, under the circumstances, he would consider the expediency of reviving the annual £8,000 which was made until about 1884 for the above purpose.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Down to about 1884 a sum of varying amount was annually voted by Parliament in aid of the construction of minor Fishery Piers and Harbours. In 1883 a sum of a quarter of a million was provided out of the Irish Church Fund under the Sea Fisheries Act for these purposes, and it therefore became unnecessary to apply to Parliament so long as the fund created by that Act lasted. The fund is not yet quite exhausted, but the question of the future policy in regard to such works has not been lost sight of.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in answer to previous questions it has been stated that the fund is exhausted?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir, I am informed that it is not.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Well, we have been told so for the last seven years.

  ROYAL OPENINGS OF PARLIAMENT—ACCOMMODATION FOR MEMBERS.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consent to the appointment of a committee to consider the accommodation provided for Members of this House when their attendance in the House of Lords is commanded by the King, and also as to the best means of securing the orderly and safe progress of Members when they obey His Majesty's commands.
  The following question also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. STEVENSON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether,

  495
  having regard to the increase in the number of Members of the two Houses, to the inadequacy of the accommodation afforded on such occasions by the House of Lords, and to the necessity for ensuring better order and greater dignity in connection with the proceedings, and in view of the existence of various precedents in accordance with which the opening of Parliament used to take place in a chamber other than those in which the two Houses habitually sat, generally in the Painted Chamber of St. Edward the Confessor, he will consult with other authorities concerned as to the possibility and desirability that in future when Parliament is opened by the Sovereign in person the ceremony shall take place in Westminster Hall, in order that every Member of the Legislature may have an opportunity of hearing the Speech from the Throne.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I have already stated to the House, the Government have no control over, and, therefore, are not responsible for, the arrangements which are made when Parliament is opened by the Sovereign in person, but I have it in command from His Majesty to express his approval of the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider what accommodation can be provided on such an occasion for Peers and Members of Parliament, and, in particular, whether Westminster Hall could not be utilised.

  CAPRICIOUS DISMISSAL OF SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government contemplate introducing a Bill during this session dealing with the capricious dismissal of teachers.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The questions which arise in connection with the hon. Member's questions are under the consideration of the Government.

  SCOTTISH EDUCATION BILL.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the educational measures promised in the King's Speech will include an Education Bill for Scotland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not prepared to say what action will be taken in pursuance of the announcement until the matter has been further considered in consultation with the Secretary for Scotland.
  MR. BARTLEY: Will it be introduced before Easter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have told the House already that we have come to no decision on the subject.

  QUEEN VICTORIA'S FUNERAL—THE MEMBERS' STAND.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury who was responsible for placing the stand allotted to Members of the Houses of Parliament at the funeral of Her late Majesty at so great a distance from the route of the procession; and whether he will consent to the appointment of a permanent committee of unofficial Members on both sides of the House who would have the right of approving such arrangements as it may be necessary to make when the House of Commons takes part in any State function.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The route of the funeral of her late Majesty was selected and the general arrangements, made by the Earl Marshal, and were not under the control of the Government. For the stand allotted to Members of Parliament I am responsible, and the site selected was the only one available on the line of route which was at the disposal, of the Government. It is a matter of regret to me that no better provision could be made. I may add that on the occasion referred to I was at pains to submit what I thought could be done to the authorities of the House for their approval. With regard to the last paragraph of the question, I may observe that the suggestion appears to me hardly a practicable one or suitable for all circumstances and occasions. The erection of stands on these occasions is no part of my official duty, though I am always anxious to meet the general convenience of Members of the House, and to consider any representations that may reach me.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: May I ask how it was there were no covers on this stand?
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Perhaps the hon. Member is not aware of the great difficulties which occurred in getting any accommodation for members. There was extremely short time after the route was settled—I think only four days—and it has always been the practice of this Government and other Governments not to enclose for any privileged class any portion of the ground reserved for the public. There was literally no time to put up a cover, and I doubt whether we should have been justified in putting it up, thereby excluding the view of those behind.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: May I also ask if it would not have been better to have had no place at all than such a stand?
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Were any steps taken by the right hon. Gentleman or any other person in responsible authority to represent to the Earl Marshal that the position of the stand or the route of the procession was most inconvenient for Members of the House?
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I have said that there was very short time. I had no authority to act for the House, but I acted in the belief that hon. Members would desire the best accommodation they could get, and I placed before the Earl Marshal the desirableness of affording some accommodation for Members. This was literally the only accommodation that could be found.

  AGRICULTURAL LAND RATING ACT 1896—TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) ACT, 1899.
  MR. GEORGE WHLTELEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Agricultural Land Rating Act, 1896, and the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Act, 1899, expire next year, it is the intention of the Government to propose their renewal to Parliament during this session, and whether he will generally state the course the Government intend to take in relation to these Acts.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, it is our intention to propose the renewal of these Acts.
  MR. GEORGE WHLTELEY: When will the necessary Bill be introduced?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to have notice of that question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (KING'S SPEECH.)
Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Address in answer to His Majesty's Speech have precedence this day and to-morrow of all other business.—(Mr. Balfour.)

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (ASH WEDNESDAY).
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do meet to-morrow at Two of the clock."—(Mr. Balfour.)
The House divided:—Ayes, 276; Noes, 153. (Division List No. 3.)

AYES.

Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Baird, John George Alexander

Brassey, Albert

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Baldwin, Alfred

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Aird, Sir John

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G.W.(Leeds)

Ballard, Sir Harry

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christch'ch

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Banbury, Frederick George

Carlile, William Walter

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bartley, George C. T.

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs).

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbysh.

Arrol, Sir William

Bignold, A.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Bill, Charles

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Chamberlain Rt.Hn. J. (Birm.

Austin, Sir John

Boulnois, Edmund

Chamberlain, J Ansten(Worc.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

Murnaghan, George

Chapman, Edward

Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

Murphy, J.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hope, J. F.(Sheff'ld, Brightside

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Clancy, John Joseph

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Myers, William Henry

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E.

Horner, Frederick William

Newdigate, FrancisAlexander

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Houldsworth, SirWm. Henry

Nicholson, William Graham

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hoult, Joseph

Nolan, Col. JohnP. (Galway, N.

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Howard, Capt. J. (Faversham)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

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

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cranborne, Viscount

Hudson, George Bickersteth

O'Malley, William

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Jackson, Rt. Hon. W. Lawies

O'Mara, James

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Dewar, T.R.(T'rH'mlets S. Geo.

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Joicey, Sir James

Pemberton, John S. G.

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Penn, John

Dillon, John

Kennedy, Patrick James

Percy, Earl

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Kenyon,Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred D.

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Plummer, Walter R.

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kimber, Henry

Power, Patrick Joseph

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Laurie, Lieut. -General

Pretyman, Ernest George

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Law, Andrew Bonar

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir WilliamHart

Lawson, John Grant

Purvis, Robert

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Leamy, Edmund

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Faber, George Denison

Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

Randles, John S.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lee,CaptA. H. (Hants.Fareh'm

Redmond, William (Glare)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Fergusson, Rt. Hn SirJ. (Manc'r

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Ffrench, Peter

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Rentoul, James Alexander

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Ridley,Samuel F(BethnalGr'n

Finch, George H.

Long, Rt Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Fisher, William Hayes

Lowe, Francis William

Round, James

Fison, Frederick William

Lowther, C. (Cumb.,Eskdale)

Rutherford, John

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alex.

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

Forster, Henry William

Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

Fuller, J. M. F.

Lundon, W.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Garfit, William

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew

Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H(CityofLond.

Macartney, Rt. Hon. W. G. E.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Macdona, John Cumming

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Maconochie, A. W.

Smith,AbelH. (Hertford, East)

Gordon.MajEvans- (T'rH'ml'ts

M 'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Smith,HC(North'mb.Tyn's'de

Gorst,Rt.Hon. Sir John Eldon

M'Calmont,Col.J.(Antrim,E.)

Spear, John Ward

Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

M'Cann, James

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh,W.)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

M'Killop, James(Stirlingshir'e)

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Greene,SirE.W.(Bury St. Ed.)

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, N.)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Grenfell, William Henry

Manners, Lord Cecil

Stock, James Henry

Groves, James Grimble

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Stroyan, John

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hain, Edward

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F

Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Uni.

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Maxwell,W. J.(Dumfriesshire)

Thomas,F.Freeman-(Hastings

Hambro, Charles Eric

Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

Thompson,E. C.(Monaghan,N.

Hamilton,RtHnLordG(Midd'x

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Hamilton,Marqof(L'nd'nderry

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Thornton, Percy M.

Hammond, John

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'd

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fred. G.

Tully, Jasper

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Milward, Colonel Victor

Valentia, Viscount

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Mitchell, William

Walker, Col. William Hall

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Hayden, John Patrick

Mooney, John J.

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Welby,Lt.-Col. A. C.E (Tauntn

Healy, Timothy Michael

More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.

Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Whitely, H. (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Heath, Jas. (Staffords., N. W.

Morton, ArthurH. A (Deptford)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

Mount, William Arthur

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Higginbottom, S. W.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.

500

501

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Wylie, Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Wilson-Todd, Wm.H. (Yorks.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

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

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Wortley.Rt.Hon.C. B. Stuart-

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

NOES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Foster, Sir Walter (DerbyCo.)

Perks, Robert William

Allen, Cherles P. (Glouc, Stroud

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Pickard, Benjamin

Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Hy.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Price, Robert John

Atherley Jones, L.

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Rea, Russell

Barlow, John Emmott

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Reckitt, Harold James

Barry, E. (Cork, S)

Hardie, J. K.(MerthyrTydvil)

Reddy, M.

Rayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Harwood, George

Rickett, J. Compton

Bell, Richard

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Black, Alexander William

Helme, Norval Watson

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Blake, Edward

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Boland, John

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Roche, John

Boyle, James

Holland, William Henry

Roe, Sir Thomas

Brigg, John

Hope, John D. (Fife, West)

Russell, T. W.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Schwann, Charles E.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Burt, Thomas

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Shipman, Dr. John

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

Caine, William Sproston

Jordan, Jeremiah

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Caldwell, James

Joyce, Michael

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Cameron, Robert

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Soares, Ernest J.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Labouchere, Henry

Spencer. Rt. Hn. C R(Northants

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Lambert, George

Stevenson, Francis S.

Carew, James Laurence

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Strachey, Edward

Cawley, Frederick

Langley, Batty

Sullivan, Donal

Channing, Francis Allston

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Cogan, Denis J.

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington

Tennant, Harold John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Leng, Sir John

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E

Crean, Eugene

Levy, Maurice

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Crombie, John William

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Tomkinson, James

Cullinan, J.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Trevelyan Charles Philips

Daly, James

M'Fadden, Edward

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Govern, T.

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

Delany, William

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

White, George (Norfolk)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Kenna, Reginald

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Doogan, P. C.

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Duffy, William J.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Duncan, James H.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Dunn, Sir William

Newnes, Sir George

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

Edwards, Frank

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Elibank, Master of

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Kills, John Edward

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Wodehouse, Hn. Armine(Essex

Evans, Samuel T.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Woodhouse, Sir J T(Huddersf'd

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Yoxall, James Henry

Farrell, James Patrick

O'Doherty, William

Fenwick, Charles

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

O'Dowd, John

Mr. Broadhurst and Sir William Gurdon.

Field, William

O'Shee, James John

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Partington, Oswald

Flynn, James Christopher

Paulton, James Mellor

ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
[FOURTH DAY'S DEBATE.]
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [14th February],
502
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth—
"Most Gracious Sovereign,
"We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the

503
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Forster.)
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
MR. ASQUITH: I shall not detain the House long, nor should I have intervened at all at this stage in the debate but for the challenge which was directly addressed last night to the occupants of this bench by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. On the last occasion, in December, when the right hon. Gentleman spoke to the House upon the terms of settlement in South Africa, it was my agreeable duty, in following him, to congratulate him upon the spirit, and to concur to a large extent in the substance, of what he had said. The Amendment which had then been moved by my hon. friend the senior Member for Oldham was, by the general consent of both sides of the House, withdrawn, and it really seemed as if we were within a measurable distance of an eirenicon, not only as between parties in this House, but, what is much more important, as between the combatant forces in South Africa. Nothing, as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, has been said in the course of this debate to detract from or to qualify what then occurred. Criticisms —serious and weighty criticisms—have been passed by my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean upon certain aspects of the conduct of the war. Anxiety, natural and— as I venture to think—perfectly legitimate anxiety, has been expressed as to how far and by what means the terms of peace announced by the right hon. Gentleman in December have been and are being communicated to the Boers. An Amendment, it is true, was put down on the Paper by ray hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs; but that Amendment has not been moved. That is one of the main grievances of the Colonial Secretary. I should think that it is the first time,
504
that it is at any rate quite a novel thing for a Minister to complain when there are forty-six Amendments on the Address, that one of them is not to be moved, and that the possible number of divisions is to be reduced to forty-five. It is true that my hon. friend has not moved his Amendment. He confined his speech to an attack on the methods in which the war has been, and is being, conducted in South Africa—an attack in which I may say at once I myself do not in the least concur—and which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, will no doubt be met in due course by the Secretary of State for War. Finally, my hon. and learned friend the Member for the Dumfries Burghs made a grave appeal for the lenient and considerate treatment of those who should surrender —an appeal the extreme moderation of which was acknowledged by the right hon. Gentleman himself, who also said that it would be found not to have fallen on deaf ears.
Such has been the course of this debate; and it is under these conditions that the Secretary of State for the Colonies takes the opportunity to make a speech as unprovoked and as provocative as almost any which I ever remember to have heard in this House. Why, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman, in one part of his remarks, went out of his way to revive—I hope I am not using too strong language—what we had all hoped to be the obsolete Billingsgate of the General Election. He described the six Gentlemen, including my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, who have addressed the House from this side in the course of the debate, as so many pro-Boers. There was a time, in the heat of the election, when it almost seemed as though the right hon. Gentleman had brought himself honestly to believe that anyone who was presumptuous enough to question the wisdom of his diplomacy, or even the taste of his metaphors, must be in alliance, secret or avowed, with the enemies of his country. But the election fever is over. The majority has been secured, and now sits safely and, I hope, comfortably on those benches. These epithets have served their purpose: and is it not about time that they should be cast into the rhetorical dustbin, which

505
is the only place fit for them? The right hon. Gentleman in almost the same breath complained of the want of unanimity in this House in strengthening the hands of the Executive. This is a very curious way of procuring unanimity. We are sometimes warned as to the effect which speeches made here may produce on the minds of the Boers. I am not sure that the best way to promote an early cessation of the war and to bring about a discontinuance of a hopeless resistance is to suggest, as the right hon. Gentleman more than suggested last night, that, if not the whole, the majority of those who sit on this side of the House are in sympathy, latent or acknowledged, with those who are in the field. However that may be, I think this kind of circumspection should begin at home. Has the right hon. Gentleman reflected what gratuitous obstacles deliverances such as that of his last night interpose in the way of that unanimity which he professes to desire, and of the consequent strengthening of the hands of the Executive for the attainment of that which, I believe, we all, without any distinction of party, agree to be at this moment the cardinal and the capital object of British policy—the securing of an honourable and lasting peace?
But my main object, indeed my sole object, in rising is to remove one or two misconceptions to which the right hon. Gentleman's speech lent countenance, and which, if they were not misconceptions but were founded on fact, would reflect greatly upon our conduct and credit as an Opposition, and I think might even conceivably have the effect of hindering or postponing the termination of the war. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that we, or some considerable section amongst us, are in favour of undoing the annexation of the two Republics and restoring the political status quo. That I believe to be a complete delusion. I am not in the least ashamed to confess for myself that I was a slow and reluctant convert to the necessity of annexation. I am not going into the argument now. It was fought out at the General Election. It is sufficient to say this: that my own view, which I believe to be that of many others, is that to annexation there is not, and there has not been for a long time past,
506
any practicable alternative—practicable, I mean, in a double sense: on the one hand, of guarding against the future recurrence of past dangers, and, on the other hand, of securing equality and freedom for the whole of South Africa. But that is no new statement of policy. So far back as last Whitsuntide my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition at Glasgow, with all the authority that belongs to his position, declared annexation to be inevitable, and stated that, in his opinion—which was also, of course, that of his colleagues—it had to be accepted both by parties in this country and by the Boers and British in South Africa as an indispensable condition of the ultimate settlement. So much for that. But the right hon. Gentleman went on to allege that a number of us here—and he singled out in this particular my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition —had expressed the opinion that the terms to be offered to the Boers should include the immediate concession of self-government in the conquered territories. Well, Sir, speaking again, I believe, not only for myself but for a number of others, and speaking certainly for my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, I say we have neither entertained nor expressed any such idea. I listened, on the first night of this debate, to my right hon. friend's speech, and certainly he never said or suggested anything of the kind; and I was never more surprised than when I heard the First Lord of the Treasury father upon his words that construction—a construction which was emphatically repudiated a few hours later the same evening by my right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen, and I repudiate it now. What is the situation with which we have to deal in those conquered territories? I am speaking as one who is most anxious that, at the very earliest possible moment, the solemn pledges which the Government and the people of this country have given to the people of South Africa should be completely and effectually fulfilled. You have a community, of which it is no exaggeration to say that both the social and the political fabric have been overturned from top to bottom. You have population in which racial animosities have been heated and envenomed by the war until they have

507
reached a state of the most acute inflammation. You have a territory which has been to a large extent devastated and depopulated. The leaders of the farming class are prisoners of war, and the industrial classes to a large extent are emigrants, Under those conditions I agree entirely with my hon. friend the junior Member for Oldham—whose interesting and eloquent speech last night we must all hope and believe, and especially those of us who, like myself, enjoyed the privilege of friendship with his illustrious father, was the first step in a Parliamentary career of the highest distinction—that to plant, or attempt to plant, the full machinery of constitutional government would be to ignore the fundamental facts of the case. There must be an interval for resettlement and revival, for a renewal of the ordinary functions of social and domestic life, before the work of political and constitutional reconstruction can be properly set on foot. How is that interval to be bridged over? Here, again, as it seems to me, the right hon. Gentleman magnified and inflated verbal distinctions into differences of principle and policy. I suppose we are all agreed that military government ought to be brought to an end at the very earliest possible moment that it is practicable to do so. I am sure my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition agrees with me there. We are all agreed. It may be, I hope it may not be, but one cannot ignore the possibility, and even the probability, that at the time when it is safe to bring the régime of a purely military administration to an end, the conditions are not yet sufficiently matured for starting the new machinery of self-government. If that be so, there must be a period, not of military but of civil administration; and when my right hon. friend protested, as I believe he did protest, in the speech to which I have referred, against introducing into these countries the system of what is called a Crown colony, what I understood him to mean, and what I should certainly mean myself, was that from the earliest moment when you transform the administration from a military into a civil character, you ought, so far as you can, to associate the work of administration and government with some representative element
508
which, although you have not yet got full-fledged representative institutions, still less full-fledged responsible government, will ensure that the Government for the time being is more or less in touch with the feelings and interests and sympathies of the governed. No one proposes, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to think —no one, at any rate, with whom I am acquainted—to purchase peace in this manner at the price of dishonour. It is not a question of yielding to fear that which we are not ready, freely and spontaneously, to give; still less is it a question of betraying those who have trusted us. But it is of vital importance, with a view first of all to the speedy ending of the war, with a view next to making good the pledges we have given, that both Boer and Briton in South Africa shall understand that we are not going to replace the artificial ascendency of one race by the artificial ascendency of another. Surely it would be more useful — I do not care to use the word patriotic, because until recently patriotism was claimed as a monopoly by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, otherwise I should have said it was more patriotic—at a time like this of grave national necessity that, rather than endeavour to create a perfectly artificial party issue, we should inquire whether the best means have been taken, or are being taken, to attain this end.
I am not going into the question—the very speculative question—of whether terms of peace could or could not have been arranged immediately after the capture of Pretoria last June. Speaking for myself, and for myself alone, I doubt it; and I doubt it for this reason, amongst others: that as we now know, and as the Boers knew perfectly well then, we were not at that time in any real or effective sense in occupation of their country. However that may be, I do not hesitate to say that, in my opinion, the steps which were taken in the immediately succeeding months were singularly ill-calculated for the purpose. What were they? You had a series of inconsistent and inconsequent proclamations. Of course the responsibility rests not with Lord Roberts, but with His Majesty's Government; and I must say, having studied those proclamations

509
with as much care as I can, I think it must have been difficult almost to the point of impossibility for any Boer of average intelligence to ascertain at any given time what precise offer was open to him to accept. You had, at the same time, the policy of what has been called farm-burning, as to which, again, after carefully studying the evidence, I say— I am giving my own opinion—that it was conducted on the part of our officers and men with all the humanity that was possible in the circumstances. That is nay opinion. But it is a policy to be condemned, in my opinion, not so much for its cruelty—all war is cruel—but for its wastefulness, for its want of method, and, above all for its almost complete futility. Then the generals came home under the impression that the war was over; and the House still awaits, and awaits, I think, with interest and impatience, some statement from the Secretary for War as to the steps which were taken during the autumn and the winter to replace the disbanded and recalled troops and to replenish and reinforce the wasted regiments that were left upon the spot.
What are we doing now? I suppose most of us will agree that we have, or we ought to have, two objects in view —to make the Army efficient, and to bring home to the Boers the conviction of the sincerity of our intentions. The right hon. Gentleman asked last night to whom are we to address ourselves. Well, it appears from the answer which he gave to a question this evening that the proclamation has not yet been issued which he foreshadowed in December last, and which was to be the means by which we at any rate understood the Government were to make known to the mass of the inhabitants of South Africa their intentions in this matter. I cannot help feeling great regret that the issue of that proclamation has been delayed; and we should like to know precisely what are the reasons for that delay. Let me ask, further, if the terms which the right hon. Gentleman announced two months ago have been conveyed to the Boer prisoners at St. Helena and Ceylon? Have any assurances been given to these men as to the restoration and restocking of their farms or as to provision being made for the
510
mortgages and other debts which are accumulating upon them during their absence? Above all, have these prisoners been allowed, are they being allowed—this is one of the most pacific influences that you can bring to bear on the Boers—are they being allowed to communicate freely with their families, their friends, and kinsmen in the field?
These are practical questions which demand categorical answers. We have differed widely in this House as to the origin of the war. We may differ—though suppose that there the differences are not quite so widespread—as to the wisdom, the foresight, and the energy with which it has been conducted. But we all agree,. I believe, without any distinction of party or section, in the desire to secure at the earliest possible moment an honourable peace. Sir, that end will not be accelerated, I venture to say by truculence of language any more than by weakness in action. If it is to he-attained, it can be attained only in one way, and that is by the combination of two things—an army, strong, mobile, capable of commanding victory, and terms of pacification which it will not be derogatory either for the victors to offer or for the vanquished to accept.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I do not think there can be any doubt in the mind of any Member of the House that the tone of the speech which has just been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman is different from that of the speeches of his colleagues who have spoken from the same bench. I think that it will be felt by the House that the right hon. Gentleman has struck a distinctly higher note than that which we have heard on previous evenings during this debate, and I venture to say that if all the speeches which have been made from that side of the House during the last three days had been delivered in the same tone and to the same purport the necessity for the speech which my right hon. friend the Secretary for the Colonies delivered last night would not have arisen. But, Sir, there was one very striking feature in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman—striking and, to me, exceedingly

511
disappointing—in that he spoke, not amidst the rounds of cheers which greeted the sallies of other speakers on that bench, but in chilling and disappointing silence. I call attention to that because the right hon. Gentleman asked the House to take up a position, which is not only far better and far higher, from the point of view of the office which I occupy, but also a far more useful and practical position for the purpose which we all ought to have, and I cannot help still hoping we all have, in view—namely, that we should use our opportunities in this House, from whatever standpoint we approach the question, with a determination to do everything, and to leave nothing undone, which will bring us nearer to the termination of the war. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken for his colleagues. I cannot say that the description which he gave of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition agrees with the impression conveyed to us on this bench when we listened to him on Thursday last. But when he proceeded to bring into line the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen, I think that we were in a position to make an effective retort. But I would rather leave that retort unuttered; I would rather accept his statement. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it does not give the Minister for War any pleasure, to use his own phrase, to go scavenging in the rhetorical dust-heaps of the past. It is almost impossible in approaching this question, in the daily responsibility of watching the ebb and flow of the war, knowing, as the Secretary of State must know perhaps more than any other man, what is going on at the front, responsible for filling up the too numerous vacancies made by wounds and disease, responsible also for withdrawing officers who may not I be efficient and replacing them, and for repressing disorder if it occurs, and still more responsible perhaps for defending ! those who have been maligned in or out of this House—I say it is impossible not to feel that the moment has come, frankly, when we should get rid of these stale party recriminations, and, putting party aside for a few moments, consider how we can best bring to an end this great loss of life which is going on, this devasta-
512
tion which must take place of an entire country, this embitterment of feeling which will remain afterwards, and this waste of resources, which are the necessary concomitants of war.
I look to the debate which is taking place solely from that point of view, and I ask the Opposition to consider, holding what views they please, the question not from the point of view of justice only, on which Gentlemen opposite may hold different views from us, but from the point of view which they themselves have adopted—namely, that of expediency; and I would ask, from that standpoint whether the speeches which have been made in the last few days tend to a speedy termination of the war. I am not going into the argument as to whether we are right in saying that there shall be no independence, whether the Member for South Aberdeen with his protected State is nearer the mark, or whether the suggestions made in two other speeches from that bench of a speedy return of self-government after the close of the war might possibly most tend to conciliation. I ask the House to look at the matter clearly and to face the facts as they are at this moment. We are told by all the speakers opposite that the Boers we now have to deal with are desperate men. You may say that we have made them desperate. [An HON. MEMBER: Who else?] The more you say so the more you force upon us the view that they are not open at this moment to a reasonable compromise. What I ask the House to consider is this. They are fighting for independence as they understand it. They have been told that the complete surrender of their independence is the only means by which the war can be finished. Does the Member for South Aberdeen really believe that if Lord Kitchener went to-morrow to General De Wet and General Botha and said to them, "We cannot give you back your independence, but we will make you a. protected State; we will give you back 25 per cent. of that for which for the last sixteen months you have been fighting," he would get a favourable answer?
MR. DILLON: Try it.
MR. BRODRICK: I think the hon. Member is probably the only Member of this House who thinks so. ["No."] Is it not more in keeping with reason and with our past experience of the Boers to believe that the mere offer of 25 per cent. of their independence would cause them more vigorously than ever to pull themselves together to fight in order to turn that 25 per cent. into 50 per cent.
The position at this moment, so far as the Government are concerned, is this. We have by proclamation offered to the Boers terms of surrender which have never before, I delieve, been offered to a vanquished enemy. [An HON. MEMBER: Never were there more disgraceful terms.] Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to develop that for a moment. Lord Roberts's original policy when he entered the Free State was to accept the oath of any Boer who came in and surrendered his rifle, and to allow him to go back to his farm. I do not believe that in any other war such a thing has been done—that a private soldier has been allowed to go free on mere parole, and to go back to live as a private individual in the very country in which warlike operations were going on. That leniency was a disastrous failure; because men who had given their parole were either cajoled or compelled again to take up arms, and the very men who came in one day and gave up their rifles would assault these same posts a week afterwards with all the advantage of the information they had obtained. The next stage in the operations was that those who were taken were sent across the water, and their wives and families were promised protection, and they were promised that they should return when the war was over. That plan, again, has not been a success, for the reason that the Boers, dreading to go across the water as they do, have preferred to continue in arms rather than to come in on those terms. Lord Kitchener has now undertaken a third step. He has proposed (and to the extent of 15,000 persons, I think, his proposal has been accepted) that all the Boers who desired to surrender to the British Government should be allowed to come in and obtain protection in laagers with their families and be preserved either from compulsion to take up arms again or from any danger
514
which might accrue until it is possible for them to go back to their farms. I know not what a British general could have done more in order to bring home to those against whom he was fighting our desire to make the path of submission as easy as possible. But I think it would be not only a mistake but positively disastrous if we were now to go to a man like General De Wet, who is making such a desperate resistance and offering so determined a front against any terms whatever, who is flogging and shooting members of the peace committee, who is alleged, rightly or wrongly, to be flogging his own men who desire to surrender—
MR. DILLON: Where is your authority for that statement?
MR. BRODRICK: I say who is alleged to be doing so—is it not absurd to suppose that, if we were to go to him with a proposal now to leave him a few shreds of independence at a time which we cannot name and of a nature which he could not be expected to appreciate, we should break down his determination to continue in arms? I think by such a policy we should not only render ourselves contemptible in the eyes of the world, but make the British Government ridiculous throughout Europe. All I can say is this. The right hon. Member for South Aberdeen said the other night that he could not check himself in making speeches here by the effect which they might have in South Africa.
MR. BRYCE: I did not say that. I said it was my duty here to say what I thought.
MR. BRODRICK: Allowing for the divergence of language, consequent perhaps upon my less concentrated methods of thought, I should have said that I had exactly expressed the right hon. Gentleman's meaning, However that may be, I want to make the House, in all sincerity, feel in the fullest sense its responsibility in this matter. It is one on which I feel exceedingly deeply. Letters reach me by every mail showing the mischief done by speeches, proclamations— [Irish cheers]—I mean by pamphlets and publications, and speeches which are

515
called those of conciliation. There is a Committee of Conciliation, and another committee which, I believe, is distinct from it, called the Stop-the-War Committee. I believe I am right in saying that one or other of these committees was responsible for the atrocious libel on Lord Kitchener, when it was said that he had given orders to shoot all Boer prisoners. We know that a question in this House, or a statement in the newspapers, is sufficient to disabuse every Englishman of such an idea; but that statement goes broadcast throughout South Africa, and publications like the letter quoted last night by the Member for Carnarvon—from a lieutenant in the Canadian Horse, a letter which may be a highly coloured narrative, but which has never been verified or tested, but on which I will undertake to say General Smith-Dorrien will have considerable light to throw—have been found in the farmhouses not merely in Orange River Colony, but in Cape Colony. I heard by the last mail that our own troops that are pursuing General De Wet in Cape Colony had found them broadcast, having been distributed, deliberately, throughout the Dutch farmhouses in the Cape Colony, creating among those who read them an absolutely false idea, and immeasurably embittering the differences between the two races, and the feelings of those who have hitherto been loyal subjects of the King. What happened the other day in the town of Calvinia, which is in the western part of Cape Colony, and about 100 or 150 miles from the Orange River Colony? It is not a place about which any question of rebellion against Boer authority, if there was a Boer authority still existing in either of the colonies, could arise, as it was as much a part of His Majesty's dominions as the House in which we are sitting. What happened there the other day? A coloured man, educated, well-known in Cape Colony, cultured beyond his fellows, who has taken part in politics in Cape Colony to a considerable extent, was seized by a commando which reached that town about a month ago. What was his crime? It was that he was well-known to be a centre of loyal feeling in that neighbourhood. That man was openly taken out
516
by the commando—who were no doubt stimulated by their feelings as regards cruelties which, they were told by every publication they came across in the Dutch farmhouses, had been practised on their own fellow-citizens—and flogged so brutally that his vitals were exposed. He lingered for three weeks, and was then shot in cold blood before our troops entered the town. I quote that only as an instance of many in Cape Colony who had been similarly treated, and I quote it because I would ask the House to consider whether the Conciliation Committee, by whom these stories are published, ought not better to have been called the Exasperation Committee, because these stories and loose talking across the floor of the House, such as that indulged in by the hon. Member for Carnarvon, without due consideration, and without being verified, do not influence us here, but they do go to South Africa to further exasperate and increase our difficulties there. I am not one who complains of the ordinary chances of war. You must lose lives, you must ride horses to death, you must see a country devastated if you once go to war. All these are necessary incidents of warfare. But surely, it is right for any man who is responsible in any degree for the conduct of operations, to make an appeal that we should do as much as we can here to prevent the ordinary horrors of war degenerating into acts of savagery of the kind to which I have referred.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite has urged me to say what steps the Government have taken in the last two or three months to bring about a speedy termination of the war. In December last I stated that I believed the kindest thing to both parties was to place Lord Kitchener in possession of every force he could desire in order to bring about a speedy capture of the marauding bands which are disturbing the two colonies in South Africa. We are told that the Government have been drifting in their policy and action. I deny that altogether. Our policy has not changed and our action has not for one moment swerved. A statement has appeared in the papers that Lord Kitchener asked us for a large body of troops in December last and that we began very late to

517
provide them. The fact is, we have never been behind Lord Kitchener in our supplies, but we have always endeavoured to anticipate his wishes. The 13th December last was the first time we had had any demand from South Africa for troops for some months. At that moment there were 210,000 soldiers in South Africa. Lord Kitchener then asked whether, as some of his mounted troops, owing to service in the war, had lost numbers, we could supply drafts. I took action on that at once. He also asked whether some of the colonial troops, on whom he greatly depended and whose services he eulogised in the highest manner, could be replaced. The Government immediately appealed to the colonies to replace their contingents, and we had a reply as enthusiastic as we could possibly receive. Ten days or a fortnight ago I published a summary of the mounted troops we hoped to supply in the course of a few weeks. In that summary I put clown the colonial troops at 5,000. I find that the number of those who have come forward has already exceeded that figure.
MR. T. M. HEALY: At 5s. a day !
MR. BRODRICK: And if more were wanted they would be ready to come to our assistance. I promised 2,500 cavalry and 1,000 mounted infantry. Of this 3,500, 2,500 left in a few days, and at this moment form part of the column in pursuit of De Wet. In addition to that, we quickened the recruiting of the 10,000 Colonial Police, which, being a, force of a more permanent character, did not fill up quite so quickly as the more temporary reinforcements; and we brought before Lord Kitchener the extreme desirability of prompting every man in Cape Colony willing to take up arms for local defence to do so. Now that the war has extended to Cape Colony, I think the colonists ought to be among the first to strike a defensive blow. Within three weeks some 10,000 men were enrolled in Cape Colony, and these were mounted and equipped with rifles by the British Government. I have been asked by several hon. Members questions as to the supply of horses, and we have been taken to task in some
518
quarters for delay in sending out an additional supply. In keeping up the supply of horses our difficulty has been great, for this reason, the wastage of horses has always exceeded the wastage expected by the commanders in the field; consequently, although we kept up the supply, that supply was not sufficient. When I took office three months ago I immediately tried to attain an object which is most important in regard to the supply of horses in South Africa, that they should arrive a mouth in advance of the time of their actual requirement. That alone gives the animals time to regain their condition, and probably prolongs their working life many weeks or months. In these efforts we fairly succeeded. From 1st October to 14th February there were 21,800 horses landed in Cape Colony, and on 14th February there were 8,500 at sea on their way, a total of 30,000 in a period of little over three months. I do not think there will be found in any period of the world's history an instance of any nation sending for an expedition to any part of the world 30,000 horses a distance of 6,000 miles in three months. Lord Kitchener also, when the war extended to Cape Colony, found it necessary from the point of view of anticipating Boer raids to secure as many horses as he could locally; and he succeeded in obtaining at a good price a good supply of 13,000 horses and 4,000 mules in January, and I am glad to say, from the most recent telegrams sent, Lord Kitchener has got all the men he can mount provided with good horses. Lord Kitchener applied for reinforcements at the end of January. Early in January I found that the recruiting for the South African Constabulary was not proceeding as rapidly as I had expected, and I thought it necessary, in view of probable demands from Lord Kitchener, that we should be ready to send out a large force of Yeomanry. We called for more Yeomanry, and the response was extraordinary. We have up to date enlisted 8,000 or 9,000, and they are coming in very rapidly. I understand the men are of very good stamp. The result was that when Lord Kitchener did tell us at the end of January that, owing to a very great increase in the area of warlike operations,

519
more mounted troops were needed, we sent him at the end of the same week the first batch. We have sent a considerable number, and in ten days ships will sail with further forces; and by the end of March we expect to be able to put at Lord Kitchener's disposal something like 30,000 men.
It is not for me to say anything of the future course of the war. I can only say that the strain at the front must be very great. Many officers have been on active duty for fifteen or sixteen months, and it must not be suposed that when generals come home in any special case they are in any way discredited. It is extremely desirable that some generals should have a rest, and we are therefore sending Lord Kitchener every general he has selected or desires to have in order to relieve those who have been on service for a long period. In this connection I quite agree with my right hon. friend the Member for Oldham when, in his admirable speech last night, he said that in Sir Bindon Blood and General Elliot, distinguished officers with Indian experience of a special character, we are sending the best men we can to supplement Lord Kitchener's force. But the House may rest assured that whatever form the operations may take the Government will work hand in hand with Lord Kitchener, and we have every confidence and expectation that the steps taken are such that before long they will greatly narrow the area of the war. We recognise that in strengthening Lord Kitchener's hands lies the way to this. The House may be assured that to this consideration everything— even the reorganisation of the Army at home—will be subordinated, that we may keep the Army in the field in the highest state of efficiency we can attain.
During the debate there have been three or four speeches in reference to hospital arrangements in South Africa, and I hope the House will pardon me for entering on that important subject. It is fully worth a debate to itself, but as it has been brought forward during this debate, I ought to say a few words upon it. Great blame has been thrown on the Army Medical Department, and I do not for a moment mean to say that the Department has not many things to
520
answer for; but, in considering mistakes made by the Army Medical Department, let us also consider the part the House of Commons has played in bringing about the present state of things. I am quite ready to take responsibility and blame for which we are fairly accountable at the War Office, but it should be remembered that in the House of Commons, when nearly fourteen years ago the late Lord Randolph Churchill carried on for two years his crusade against public expenditure, this Army Medical Department was severely criticised. I well remember a strong speech in which the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton said there were too many doctors, and that the Department wanted overhauling, for it cost too large an amount of public money, and the Report of the Committee at the time bore out the right hon. Gentleman's belief. The Committee, after two years investigation at the War Office, decided that there were too many doctors, and that they were too highly paid, with a too high proportion of retired pay, and that the whole subject required revision. By this the War Office has ever since been influenced. In the House of Commons successive Ministers have laid it down that we must provide for three army corps at home and two abroad, and upon this the arrangements of the Army Medical Department have been made. Can you wonder, then, that when we came to send the equivalent of six Army Corps to South Africa the medical arrangements should he somewhat strained? Difficulties arose that were not foreseen in sending supplies along lines of communication longer than had ever been necessary in a Continental war. The War Department in the matter of doctors has for the last fourteen years been between the upper millstone of a Parliament determined to keep down expenditure and the lower millstone of the medical profession, who denied their best candidates except upon better terms. The War Office did all it could to get better men, but the heads of the profession declared that medical men must have military rank, without which they could not hold up their beads among their military colleagues. I remember it was even urged that beyond the titles of major and colonel the title of general should be

521
open to them. Five years ago Lord Lansdowne was assured that unless the title of "general," not "surgeon-general," were given other proposals would he useless. I remember perfectly well suggesting that a deputation of the profession should go over to the Admiralty and ask that naval surgeons should be allowed to become admirals, When they received that recognition the War Office would consider the concession of the rank of "general."
But, not to trouble the House at length, I will sum up in a few words what the experience of the war has shown. It has shown, in the first place, that these military titles have not altogether conduced to harmony. In the second place, the Commission of able, independent men, who, whatever we may say of their conclusions, certainly held no brief for the Government, have shown in their Report that there has been no general disposition on the part of the Army Medical Department to shirk its duties, and that there has been great devotion shown among the medical I men. If in some cases there have been defects of organisation and skill, that organisation can be reformed, and want of skill has been due to the fact that officers have been so hardly worked that they have not had proper opportunities of studying their profession. It has been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ilkeston Division that we have not realised the importance of a suggestion that came from himself— that sanitary committees should be sent out to direct sanitary arrangements for the various camps. I think the experience of the war has shown that a committee of that character, or something like it, would have done good service. And, while knowing as I do the devotion to duty of the great mass of medical officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps, I cannot deny that it has been brought out in the course of these inquiries that there was a certain amount of professional jealousy, an indisposition to avail themselves of outside assistance in an emergency, and, perhaps, too much of that red-tape disposition which is supposed to pursue the Army in all its courses, which I, at all events, desire to see removed to a great extent. And in this respect let me say that so far from regarding those
522
who have interested themselves in these matters, both here and in South Africa, with any suspicion or distrust, I thank them for their attempts; I believe they have been largely productive of good to the public service, and I believe we may found on the recommendations of the Commission, and on the extraneous assistance we have received, partly from Members of this House, a new and satisfactory system, but one which can only be brought about by a drastic reform of the Army Medical Service. But in the emergency as it now exists we cannot pretend to make a complete reform in a few weeks. We are bound to look at this question very carefully, and we are determined to call to our assistance the heads of the medical profession. It may be that by making our terms of enlistment more elastic, it may be that by making them more attractive in other ways, we can obtain a better class of men. All I would say is this: if the House will give us a little confidence in this matter I will undertake that no effort shall be wanting, that there is no experience we can get but shall be turned to account, and that no past prejudices shall be allowed to intervene, or prevent outgiving the Army in the future an effective medical service.
I do not know that there is any other subject on which I need trouble the House, for I feel that I have been too long already, but I wish to say this before I sit down. The right hon. Gentleman expressed regret that the Colonial Secretary had not yet been able to put out the proclamation foreshadowed in December last. He may rest assured that at the first moment that such a proclamation is likely to have any effect it will be at once published. Lord Kitchener has made, and is making, every effort, by personal action, by offers to meet the hostile generals, by every means in the power of a general or administrator to take, to bring before the Boers the terms on which he is willing to give them the opportunity of surrendering. And those who know—the right hon. Gentleman thought the Boers do not know—those who know what have been the terms in these proclamations, those who know how earnestly the Government desire, and the House desires, to see the Dutch and British races in South Africa again

523
settling down in amicable concord, will know that no stone will be left unturned, as far as is possible to remove past subjects of bitterness and to secure peace between the two races in South Africa. I can only conclude by adopting in the fullest sense the language of the right hon. Gentleman, and by saying that if this House will only keep before it first and foremost, putting aside all party issues, the main question of bringing this war to an end, we shall not only avoid great occasion of difference and recrimination in this House, but we shall go a long step towards securing for South Africa an honourable and lasting peace.
MR. C. P. SCOTT: The right hon. Gentleman has just stated that it is the desire of the Government to do everything they can to bring this war to an honourable and satisfactory close, but in the early part of his speech he seemed to convey to us that the only effectual means was to conquer them. He told us that it was useless to offer to the Boer generals in the field terms of accommodation which would not be wholly acceptable to them, because the only result of offering 25 per cent. of what they wished for would be to induce them to ask for 50 per cent. I hold that this is not the way in which the Government ought to conduct this great and momentous business. I think there must be a feeling in this House and in the country also that the time has come when some more effectual steps should be taken to bring this dreadful conflict to an end. On our side, at least, it is felt that there is doubly a reason for that, because many of us believe that you can obtain now terms which would be better, safer, and more conducive to the welfare of this country and to a lasting peace than you would obtain if you carried this war through to the hitter end and crushed out every spark of opposition. Why do we think that? It appears to some of us that the policy of force and of simply using the enormous power of this country to crush out all opposition in South Africa is in itself doomed to failure. However successful you may be and however complete the triumph which, after infinite losses and sacrifices, you may obtain, the result will be less than the result which you
524
might obtain without those sacrifices by offering generous terms. We are told that to offer terms would be a sign of weakness, but what argument can be weaker than that? What is the supreme weakness of a statesman? It is the fear to seem weak. It requires courage to look the facts fairly and fully in the face and deal with them, not according to the exigencies of party—God forbid that any man on these benches should look to the interests of party in a matter of this kind—but in the interests of the permanent peace of South Africa and the welfare of this country. We have not got to deal merely with the suppression of the resistance of our enemy in the field, but how are you going to govern people on the other side of the globe unless you can do something to reconcile them to your rule? How are you going to do it? If you are going to do it or try to do it why will you not at once make it plain to them what are the lines of the healing policy on which you intend to proceed.
It is my conviction that the only means by which we can secure the permanent peace of South Africa is to offer to respect the natural sentiments of these people, their dignity and prejudices and love for their old customs and institutions, and to give them everything which you can give subject only to this one condition, that you shall guard yourselves against the outbreak of hostilities in the future. What are the securities which are necessary in order to protect us from a fresh outbreak of war, and in order to secure to us the fruits of all this expenditure of blood and treasure? There is now no practical question before the House of restoring to the conquered States the full independence which they have lost. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies confused the issue when he suggested and actually stated that that was the question which divided the parties in this House. He asked," What is the issue if it is not a question of annexation? "That is not the issue. Annexation is now accepted as a practical necessity, whatever we may think of its justice. We on this side of the House realise that we are powerless upon this matter, and that is not the question upon which we are

525
at issue for the moment. The difference between us is quite other than that. It is not a question of the restoration of the full and complete independence of these two States as Sovereign International States, but we have to consider how we can reconcile those States, who dearly loved the independence they have lost, to the loss of that independence. That is the problem which statesmen have to grapple with at this moment. How can we reconcile them unless we are prepared while they are in the field, and as a condition of their surrender, to tell them what terms we will give them, in what way existence is to be made tolerable to hem, what respect is to be shown for their sense of nationality, their love of their flag and of their country. I believe we might go a long way to meet them, and at least it is worth while trying.
The right hon. Gentleman says that to attempt to negotiate or make an arrangement is simply to encourage the Boers to resist. A more fallacious argument I never heard. At any rate, if we believe that any terms of accommodation can be made which will safeguard the interests of this country and at the same time will in some measure reconcile the conquered territories to their absorption in the body of the Empire, it is our bounden duty to make that effort. I believe that much could be done, and that even now it might be possible to put an end to the waste of life and treasure. Obviously the great fear of the Boers is that they will be deprived practically of their independence and that they will be governed in a way they detest—by British officials from Downing Street. This is what happened to them before. This is not the first experience the Boers have had of British annexation. We annexed their country once before. We then promised them that we would grant them full local self-government, but we never fulfilled that promise, because we had not the courage, even when they were a small, weak people, compared to what they are now, to say, "We will give you local independence at once under the British flag providing you acknowledge the supremacy of the Crown." I believe the same thing will happen again, and if we begin with Crown colony govern-
526
ment we shall go on with it. It is all very well to say that when these men become reconciled to your rule, when they are loyal and prepared to accept from their hearts British supremacy, then, and not till then, we will grant them self-government. Why should they become loyal to the British? What faith are they likely to put in our promises if their fulfilment is postponed to a remote and indefinite future?
The only plan is to take our courage in both hands and to say to these men, "We give you full control of your own affairs. We respect your old institutions. Keep your Volksraad, your President, your flag—subject, all of them, to the supremacy of the British Crown and the British Government." It is no doubt a difficult course, but all courses are difficult, and I believe it will give the only chance of reconciling these people to British rule and of securing from them, if not a willing assent, at least an assent to the incorporation of their country in the British dominions. I believe, myself, the best plan would have been to treat the conquered territories as protected States, and to have left them their institutions. But if that be objected to—and I admit there are great objections to it— another plan is to treat them as two of the federated States of South Africa. Federation has been the dream of the Colonial Office for a generation. It has been responsible for much of the mischief that has been done and for many of the errors that have been committed. But now. I believe, federation would be accepted, and it would be a panacea to a large extent for all our difficulties. If these States were treated as independent, and were added as two States possessing autonomy under a federal constitution, then the conscious allegiance of the individual citizen would be to his State, as it is in Canada and Australia—the allegiance of the State would be to the Federation, and the Federation would be under the authority and supremacy of the Crown. In that way we should escape the greater part of our difficulties. We should escape all the friction and trouble arising from the need of a Resident and constant interference from Downing Street with the affairs of these commit-

527
nities. We should have a federal body to deal with, a body responsible and strong, with which we could deal effectively, and which we might trust to deal itself with disaffection or rebellion in any of its members. I do not believe that we would get disaffection, but in that way we would to a large extent escape from these difficulties. There are no doubt difficulties in this course, but there are far greater difficulties in the opposite course. Suppose the Government determine to offer no terms, but to crush out opposition and at their own time and in their own way to give some small portion of self-government which by degrees would be developed into a larger measure, what would happen? The Boers would not believe us, they would not trust us, and, thinking that we had deprived them of their rights as citizens and did not mean to restore them, they would become discontented and rebellious. Their discontent and rebellion would again be made a reason for refusing to extend to them the self-government we had promised. No, I believe it is far better and safer to take the risks of dealing at once and effectively with the constitutional position of these States, and with the rights of their citizens, and that by postponing it we shall only lay up for ourselves an infinitely greater crop of troubles in the future.
MR. LAW: The speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has been answered already many times in this House, and never more effectively than by the right hon. Member for East Fife. The speech delivered last night by the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was, from his own point of view, a very able one, and if I am not presumptuous in saying so I can pay it the compliment of saying that if it were properly printed, with a sufficient number of head-lines, it would be a most effective conciliation pamphlet like those with which hon. Members of this House are so generously supplying the public. What struck me, from a debating point of view, was the peculiar ability and the remarkable success of the way the hon. Member laid his baits for the applause of the
528
Gentlemen around him. The first of these baits rather surprised me. It was a reference to the Colonial Secretary's expression of opinion as to the personal honour of Mr. Rhodes. The applause which that remark excited was not due to its novelty; but it seems to me that, as regards the Colonial Secretary, there is no statute of limitations, that the oftener a charge is made against him, and the less there is in it, the more certain it is of being applauded by a certain section of the House. But did the hon. Gentleman not perceive that in attacking the Colonial Secretary he was attacking the former leader of his own party? In 1896 the right hon. the Member for West Monmouth used these words—
"Knowing Mr. Rhodes as I do, I am certain that he may have been actuated by what the poet calls 'the last infirmity of noble minds,' but that he has not been actuated by any mean or sordid motives, or greed of gain.
These words seem to me to resemble very closely those employed by the right hon. the Colonial Secretary.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That was before the Inquiry.
MR. LAW: I expected the interruption; but these words referred to the supposed complicity of Mr. Rhodes in the raid. These speeches, it seems to me, were creditable to both the statesmen who made them, although I daresay the hon. Member for Carnarvon cannot understand the motives which induced them to make them. It is easy to hit a man when he is down, but that is a form of warfare which does not commend itself to either of the statesmen I have mentioned. Another reference of the hon. Gentleman was to the quotation from the Prime Minister He said that because we demanded the unconditional surrender of the Boer Governments there would be masters, and therefore the Boers must be servants. But no one knows better than the hon. Gentleman that the moment the war is over and the last shot fired, the Boer race will be under exactly the same laws as the men of British extraction; and what is good enough for our own people

529
is surely good enough for the Boers. But what shall we say of the charge made by the hon. Gentleman against the distinguished General now in the field? It seems to me that the last person whom a fair-minded man would attack is one who is absent, who cannot speak for himself, who is serving his country in the field, and who, after all, is risking his life in her service, while the hon. Member is risking nothing, not even his reputation. But it is such a man whom the hon. Member has chosen for an attack, and whom he attacked so brutally last night, and who, for all the hon. Gentleman knows or at all events for all that he has told this Mouse, was merely executing literally the orders of his superior officer. The hon. Member said that we had exasperated the Boers. That is perfectly true, but he seemed to be under the impression that it would be our duty to make war in a peaceful manner ! Whenever he could win from these benches a sign that we do not like what is going on in South Africa, he seemed to think that he was scoring against the Government. Of course we don't like it; the soldiers do not like it: and. above all, Lord Roberts does not like it. We don't like war, we don't like the horrors of war, but we are responsible for them only if the war is an unjust war, and that is a responsibility which this Government and country can bear with a clear conscience. If the hon. Member had proved that in this war we had done anything contrary to the laws of war there might have been something in the charges he has made which would have affected the Government and done discredit to the country. But he has not proved that, and no one could. What are the laws of war? The laws of war are the usages of war, and the usages of war are the history of what has been done in modern times by nations under circumstances similar to those in which we are placed to-day. Reference has been made more than once to the, analogy of the American Civil War. I venture to say that if our generals had chosen to adopt the measures adopted by American generals in that war, the war in South Africa would have been ended long ago.
530
Hon. Gentlemen know one quotation so-well that it is hardly necessary to repeat it. They know the phrase used by General Sheridan in a letter to General Grant describing the devastation caused in the Shenandoah Valley, because it was quoted in one of the Conciliation pamphlets. In that letter General Sheridan said he had devastated the valley so effectually that "if a crow were to fly over the district it would require to bring its own rations with it." I will read you another proof of what I say, which is perhaps not so well known— the general order issued by General Sherman before proceeding on his march through the South, which ended the Rebellion, He gave these instructions—
"To army corps commanders is entrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton gins, etc., and for them this general principle is laid down. In districts and neighbourhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property would be permitted; but should guerillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army corps commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility."
That order was most literally and most accurately fulfilled. The hon. Gentleman had again brought the God of Battles into the debate. He told the House that because the war had been more difficult than we had expected, therefore the God of Battles apparently was not on our side. That is a curious and dangerous argument, and I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I agree rather with Sir Wilfrid Laurier when he said that the very fact that the war has proved so difficult, and that our enemies were so ready for it, while we were not, proved that the war was not our war, but that it was the war of those who were ready for it, and expected to beat us in it.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I do not wish to go over in any detail the subject of farm-burning, but I desire to deal shortly with a reference of the right hon. the Member for East Fife to the speech of the hon. Member for Carnarvon on that point. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think or

531
state that he did not concur with the eloquent and able speech of my hon. friend; but immediately after making that statement he proceeded to show that he did concur distinctly, and in every respect, with it. The right hon. Member for East Fife said that my hon. friend complained against the manner in which the policy of farm-burning had been carried out. My hon. friend made no such statement. On the contrary, he said that the soldiers who had been employed to carry out that policy loathed it, and if they loathed it the inference was left that they carried it out to the slightest extent consistent with obeying orders. What my hon. friend complained of was the inhuman and barbarous policy forced upon the soldiers, so that if the right hon. Gentleman had not misunderstood my hon. friend's speech he might have agreed with it completely. My hon. friend quoted instance after instance in which the soldiers were annoyed and ashamed of what they had to do; and he quoted especially a Welsh Member who has been fighting at the front and who was the first and loudest to raise his voice from the other side of the House in denunciation of the barbarous and inhuman policy, ordered probably from home, and certainly proclaimed by Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener. The hon. Member who had just spoken seemed to imply that even Lord Roberts disapproved of the policy, or, at any rate, had a strong distaste for it. I am inclined to think that that is the case; but, if so, Lord Roberts has shown himself a very weak man. It was obvious to everyone who had closely followed the news which came from South Africa that an attempt was made to force Lord Roberts's hands in that respect. We were told that references were coming over from the press in South Africa urging this policy upon the military authorities, and, in fact, covertly and openly denouncing Lord Roberts for his leniency. And Lord Roberts was weak enough to give way. Pretty nearly every mistake that we have made in connection with this lamentable war in South Africa has been due to following the advice given us by the English colonial gang there. Even this disastrous and hateful policy, now proved to be
532
futile and injurious to our own interests, was inaugurated solely and pressed upon us and forced upon us by the Uitlanders, who have deluded us all so long, and for whom we have been fighting.
The right hon. the Secretary for War had made a very powerful and impassioned appeal to hon. Members on this side of the House to refrain from expressing their views because of the injury which it caused in South Africa. That appeal had been made before the war commenced, and I can say that it has been fruitful in mischief. In my belief it was that appeal which brought about the war. From an expression dropped on the other side of the House it seemed to be believed even there that there was really not so much force in the complaint of the Secretary for War. That complaint was made on the radical delusion, fostered by the war party from the very first, that the Boers do not know their own business, that they are incapable of judging for themselves, that they are not sensible or even intelligent men, but a set of little children who can be led hither and thither by the opinion of other people who know less of the circumstances of the case than they do themselves. It has been that nonsense that has led us to carry on our whole policy, under the belief that bluff would succeed with the Boers. Bluff succeeds with children, and very often has succeeded with the Front Opposition Bench; but it has never succeeded with the Boers. They understand their own business as well as anybody, and always have been and will be guided by their own judgment, and it is not to be supposed for a moment that they would be influenced in the slightest degree by anything said in this House. In fact, the Colonial Secretary admitted as much in the remarks he made last night; while the hon. Member for Oldham expressly dissociated himself from the statements of the Secretary for War. He based his argument upon the practice of the most eminent Parliamentarians in past times. When these denounced an African War in a previous crisis, the Boers did not allow themselves to be guided by the pinion of their friends in this country. The mistake the British

533
make in judging of other nations and peoples is in not believing that others are actuated by the same feelings of patriotism as themselves, and that they are not able to judge what is good for them as well as we. Would England be affected in a matter of this kind in the slightest if she was in a similar position to that of the Boers? Supposing that this country was invaded by France, and that the French were unanimous as; to the invasion, and that they were as much stronger than we as we are than the Boers, and that we had been driven up north as far as Carlisle, and we were asked to shape our policy in accordance with the opinions of a few gentlemen in the French Chamber of Deputies, who had still some regard to justice. Should we be so foolish as not to defend ourselves to the utmost upon the reliance that the views of truth and. justice raised by those gentlemen in France might finally prevail? No, Sir, we should not allow that to influence us in the slightest degree, and it is not to be supposed that the Boers would in this case.
There is this injustice, of which we are entitled to complain. Whatever we do, hit high or hit low, we are to be blamed. The Colonial Secretary on a previous occasion denounced us because we did not express our views. On the 11th of May last, in Birmingham, he expressly said the question was whether the war was just, righteous, and inevitable, and later on he could not refrain from expressing his contempt for the men who, though they believed the war was unrighteous and unjust, had not the courage to express their views. The same argument was urged by the First Lord of the Treasury. Therefore, we who believe from the depths of our hearts that this war is unrighteous are denounced as contemptible if we do not express our views, and if we do we are accused of a want of patriotism. Possibly, if the universal opinion in England and throughout the world was that the war was just on the part of England and unjust on the part of the Boers, the opinions we hold might have had some effect; but the opinion is the other way. The opinion of independent people on the Continent is dead against us, a great part of the country is dead against the war, and the opinion in America is practically unanimous against
534
it, and on that account I for one shall never refrain from expressing my opinion, in the endeavour to save this country from the evil and disastrous course it is pursuing in this war. We were silent in the autumn of 1899 in order to give the policy of bluff a chance of succeeding, which in the case of the Boers it never has. We remained silent because it was said any protest on our part would strengthen the hands of the Boers, but my belief is that if two or three hon. Members and right hon. Members who sit on the Front Opposition Bench—the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton and the hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick, and others—had sat on the other side of the House it would have been better for the Opposition. We have had to fight them from the first, and I trace the war to a great extent to the paralysing influence of those Gentlemen's silence in opposition.
Now what is the present condition of affairs? It is such as nobody ever dreamt of. No one ever dreamt for a moment that we should be in the deplorable position in which we now find ourselves. Every object for which we embarked in this war could, after the capture of Bloemfontein and Pretoria, have been secured. All the Boers wished for then was to concede what we asked, and that was intimated by the two Presidents to Lord Salisbury. All they wished to maintain was their independence in the country, and that we did not desire to take away when we went to war. The Colonial Secretary stated what was incorrect when he said that from the moment the invasion of Natal took place by the Boer troops the policy of the Government was changed, and became a policy of exterminating the Boer States, and that the policy of not leaving a shred of independence to these people was adopted from that moment. I suppose the reason he made that mistake was because he does not read all Lord Salisbury's speeches. If he had read those speeches he would have found that a month after the invasion of the Transvaal Lord Salisbury said at the Mansion House: "We seek no goldfields and we seek no territory." My point is, that we could have attained all our objects if we had been content with those objects for which we went to war; but after we succeeded in capturing

535
Bloemfontein and Pretoria we thought the rest would be a walk-over, and we declined to listen to any terms. If the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who guide our destiny knew then what they know now they would not have thrown away that opportunity. A declaration has been made that "not a shred of independence" is to be allowed to remain, and I have no doubt that every effort will be made to maintain that declaration, but it would be as well to remember that Lord North and his king George III., in the last century, made just as strong a declaration, and had just as high stomachs, but they had to withdraw and give way. The force of circumstances compelled them to do so, and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that this Government may have to seek some other solution. I believe, unless some terms are made, that South Africa will be lost to England, and it is only by making terms it can be retained. Hon. Gentlemen have said that in South Africa we shall have a second Ireland on our hands if we annex the Transvaal. It is not suggested that if we restore the independence of these States, Cape Colony will be a second Ireland. I believe that if we gave them independence in internal affairs they would give up all claim to direct foreign affairs; and if they were independent in internal affairs it would reconcile all the Dutch, loyal and disloyal.
We have been accused of disloyalty — I am quite as loyal as any man who prates patriotism and jingoism, who maintains that the best interests of the country are to be sacrificed and thousands of lives are to be lost in the future as there has been in the past to save the faces of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches, and the politics of the Conservative party. We have been denounced by our friends and even by our constituents, and called pro-Boers. I have been called a pro-Boer in my own county, but I did not quail. I did not let that cow me. I explained my views and denounced annexation at every meeting which I attended, and the result was that I was returned unopposed, although the Conservatives did everything in their power to obtain a candidate to contest the seat. Other hon. Gentlemen have been returned unopposed — the right hon. Gentleman
536
the Member for East Wolverhampton was returned unopposed, and others—but only by the goodwill of the Conservatives. They were returned unopposed because they made friends with the enemy. I was returned unopposed because my enemies did not dare to face me. We have suffered a good deal for our opinions, but we stick to those opinions, because we believe the best interests of our country depend upon those opinions being expressed and adopted by the country. We are ready to sacrifice ourselves to save the country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the other hand, have been ready to sacrifice the country to save themselves. Hon. Gentlemen who have made this war have made a name for themselves in history, but a name only similar to that of the Duke of Alva. In thirty or forty years all England will be eager to dissociate itself from the responsibility of the war. There is no war in the history of our country which will be at the same time so famous and so infamous as this; the fame will rest with the Boers, the infamy with us. The war has made a great general, but he is not English—his name is De Wet. Look at the ignominy of this war. The white population of the Boer Republics is half a million, the population of the country which attacked them 50,000,000. If there was a country opposed to us as superior to us in numbers as we are superior to the Boers, it would have to have a population seven times as large as that of the entire world. These people have resisted an army in proportion to theirs of twenty to one for twelve months. If we had been able to do a like thing we should be entitled to look upon ourselves as heroes, and so they will be reckoned in history. I do not care what the consequences may be to me for the course I have taken in this matter. I have conscientiously discharged what I believe to be my duty, and I believe if everybody else in this House had done the same there would have been no war.
LORD ALWYNE COMPTON: Although I also had the honour of being returned unopposed, I do not feel equal to the task of following the hon. Member who has just sat down in those flights of rhetoric in

537
which he has indulged. I approach the consideration of this question from he point of view of one who has spent ten months in the country and travelled over a great portion of it, and therefore I should like to ask the indulgence of the House while I say a word upon the subject of South Africa.
I have listened with great attention to the criticisms that have been made in the course of this debate, but what seems to stand out very strongly is the I criticism as to the prolongation of the war, and the policy which has guided our Government. In the question of the whole operations of the war the Government has been taken severely to task because at some particular moment when I was in South Africa there seemed to be an idea that the war was likely to come to a termination. Personally, I may say that does not seem to me to be very unreasonable. May I ask the House to look back for a moment to what the circumstances were when the Army under Sir Redvers Buller drove back the Boers and took possession of the railway from Pretoria to Komati Port. Mr. Kruger had gone out of the country with £ 2,000,000, we had beaten the army over and over again, we had taken prisoner their best general and some 17,000 men, we had taken possession of their chief cities, and occupied their railways, and cut off their supplies. Was it unreasonable to suppose that on the Boers, a brave and intelligent foe, the dictates of common sense and humanity would prevail, and that they would realise the position, that they would see that they were beaten, and would sue for peace? But in considering this matter, it seems to me that what is wanted is a knowledge of the Boer character.
What is the Boer character? Take a community of Dutch such as those who settled at the Cape in 1652, add to them a sprinkling of broken and desperate men whom the Dutch East India Company enlisted in their service, and mix with them a strain of the inflexible French Huguenot, such as settled there later, and the product must be a hardy, rugged, virile, and unconquerable race. Give the Boers a country which is peculiarly adapted to the; tactics of marksmen and riders, and
538
you have the most formidable and remarkable foes which any people could encounter. You have in the modern Boer the most formidable enemy that has ever crossed the path of Great Britain. We have altogether misunderstood the character of the Boer for three-quarters of a century, just as they have misunderstood us, and it is not likely that we should understand them now. So far as I am concerned, I do not blame the Government for forming a wrong judgment with regard to the early termination of the war, but at the same time, while I exonerate the Government, I am not prepared to exonerate a great department of the State—the War Office—for relaxing the efforts which they should have continued unceasingly up to the present time. It is, of course, delicate ground to touch upon. I do not know what the relations are between the Defence Committee of the Cabinet and the Secretary of State for War, but at least I am quite sure of this, whatever miscalculations they may have made with respect to the war, and the time when it will be terminated, they never told him to relax his efforts in keeping up the supply of equipment, stores, and food, and, above all, of trained mounted men for South Africa. If that was not said to him then, how was it that on my return from South Africa, the other day, I saw it announced in the newspapers that there was a fresh call to arms, which was practically going to the country for untrained men and offering them 5s. per day? According to my conviction, these preparations ought to have been made earlier, and the army in South Africa should have been reinforced by men who had been in training. There will be another opportunity for discussing these matters, but I should like to make a point of this particularly, because I had an opportunity, which I was glad to have, of equipping and training a body of men myself. I make a point of this because, as I have said, I found on my arrival here that a miscalculation had been made, apparently, inasmuch as no efforts whatever had been made for keeping up the supplies. The next point I wish to make is as to the criticism that has been passed on the policy which has guided His Majesty's Government in our efforts at subjuga-

539
tion. Again I say that to a certain extent there was a miscalculation of the Boer character.
For myself I would say that I have had the honour of the friendship of Lord Roberts for about twenty years. I do not suppose that the whole world contains such a humane man as Lord Roberts. While he is a man of wide sympathies, no one is more capable of exercising an iron will should the necessity arise. The Boers never gave Lord Roberts a chance. I have heard in South Africa and also in this country a great deal about the use that was sometimes made of the white flag, and I think it is quite possible that some of these incidents may have been exaggerated, but I do know that time after time when the Boers thought they were in a tight place the white flag was raised, and when the English soldier, with the simplicity and confidence characteristic of his nature, appeared, the inevitable volley ensued. That occurred over and over again. With regard to the policy of farm-burning, I have from the first regretted it more than I can tell, but such a measure was in my opinion necessary. A long line of communication, which is obviously the life blood of an army, had to be maintained, and I can state from my own personal observation, and also upon the authority of letters which I have received from my own friends, that in every instance in which farm-burning took place it was only under exceptional circumstances, and only after the officer in command had thoroughly assured himself that a case of treachery had occurred. We heard last night some of the fiction which has been current in regard to the action of our troops in South Africa. There is another side to the picture which perhaps the hon. Member for the Eifion Division of Carnarvon has not seen. There was the case of the white flag appearing over a farm and an English soldier going to the farm to get a drink of water and being received with a volley.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Did the hon. Member see such a picture himself, or is he repeating rumours?
LORD ALWYNE COMPTON: There is another point I should like to refer
540
to, very shortly, and that is the recklessness of the language which has been employed in this country during the whole course of the war. It is language which ought not to have been used. I will give credit to hon. Members who sit opposite for honestly believing that what they say here does not matter, but that is an utter fallacy. The Leader of the Opposition at the commencement of the session said in the speech he made that it was quite possible the Boers did not know of the House of Commons itself, and possibly had never heard of the Colonial Secretary. Let me relate my own experience. When I was in Johannesburg, Sir Alfred Milner made me chairman of a committee to inquire into looting which was alleged to have taken place. I came in contact with burghers who had been fighting against us—lawyers and others who had been in the Transvaal Government. I conversed with them on various topics. They told me that everything that had been said for the last twenty years in this country had been faithfully represented in South Africa. They said—
"The Boers can perfectly well understand that under your form of government there is an Opposition whose duty it is to criticise. We know that one party takes a different view from the other. We have seen that during the last twenty-five or thirty years. We have seen vacillation in this country. We have seen the party in power acquire territory, and we have seen another party hurriedly abandon the same territory without the slightest consideration for the loyal people whose interests were affected. All that we can understand. We have seen it, and we know what it is, but what we do not understand is that in time of war there can be any dissentient voice in the whole of your country."
They stated with respect to themselves that at least when they were at war all other considerations were put on one side and they faced the foe as one man.
There are two aspects of this question which have presented themselves to my mind. One is the problem as to the settlement of South Africa, and the second is the expansion of our military forces for the defence of the Empire. In regard to the first of these questions I do not think it is desirable for me to say anything on this occasion except that, as the result of my observation and judgment, the very best effect with the view to the fusion of the two races

541
will come from the colonisation of the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal, From that point of view I am bound to say that in my judgment there are large tracts of country which hold out the most promising prospect for the agriculturist. I shall state what in my opinion would be the best course to pursue. I believe that as soon as subjugation has taken place, or if possible before, if the Government were wise they would adopt some definite form of state colonisation. Farms should be acquired by purchase, and I would suggest that our colonists should be allowed to settle on them. I would suggest also that the farms should be stocked and our colonists placed on them. In the course of this debate I have heard some doubt cast upon the question as to whether any of our people would be inclined to remain there as colonists. My own experience in South Africa has convinced me that many of the men now on service in the country would remain there in fairly large numbers. When I came away my own force was broken up, and of the eighty men left in the country sixty announced their intention to remain in the Colony.
As to the problem of the expansion of our military forces in order to provide for the defence of the Empire, I shall have an opportunity of discussing it on the Army Estimates, but I should like just briefly to say that if anything is proved as the result of this war it is that Army critics like the hon. Member for West Belfast, who is now a member of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean, and others, including myself, have been absolutely right in our criticisms as to the organisation of the War Office, and that the defenders of the old and bad system were wrong. We have said in the past over and over again that no plan of operations for the defence of the Empire had really been carefully thought out and decided upon, and we also said that when the military organisation of this country was put to the test of war it would be found inadequate. The Government will say, "Look at what has been done—250,000 men have been taken over 6,000 miles of sea, and stores, equipment and supplies have been kept up all the time." I am the
542
first to give credit where credit is due, and so far as I am concerned no words I can utter can convey my appreciation of what has taken place in South Africa—the valour, endurance, and intrepidity of our troops, Regulars and Volunteers, and particularly the Yeomanry, but having said that I ask: Is that enough? Is it right that we should depend on all that in the future? Great armies are not built up in a day. It is only done by laborious years of steady scientific work. If the lessons of this war are taken, the problem of Army reform will be the more easily solved.
MR. HARWOOD: I wish to take the House back to the question of China. Although great anxiety is felt in connection with the South African War, I would remind the House that we may sometimes lose the true sense of political perspective. We must recollect that the problems in China are much more difficult and complicated, and fraught with issues of much more importance than those in South Africa. We are face to face in South Africa with only a small population, and we have a problem to solve which we are certain to solve; but in connection with the question of China we are in touch with the oldest and largest civilisation in the world, and we are acting in union with others whose objects we cannot always fully understand. We are extremely nervous in Lancashire as to what will come of the conduct of the Government in this matter. We are extremely anxious that they should take a wise, firm, and right line. One doubt we have in our minds, if I am not speaking disrespectfully of the Government, is this: the general feeling is that we are drifting, and waiting on events without a clear policy. Another fear that we have is that the Government may have allowed itself to be dragged into a line of action distinctly unwise as regards our own interests. I refer to the position in this matter of the German Emperor. I think the Emperor remembers the motto of his famous Chancellor, Dout des. We ought to consider that the interests in China of others are not necessarily the interests of this country. I would ask the Government to consider in regard to this question what they mean

543
to do in China. You have a great carcase there and you have the European eagles gathered together. Do the Government mean to keep up the present Government, or do they mean to substitute another? So far as I can judge their policy is to maintain the present Government. If that be their policy, I ask them to consider the danger of doing anything to weaken that Government. We must be guided by something more than that. This country will make a great mistake and will greatly jeopardise her interests in China if they allow themselves to be dragged by any desire, even of giving just government, into any step that will weaken the government of China.
The noble Lord who spoke on the question the other night said that we were the wronged. Is that quite true? Let us look at the thing from the point of view of the Chinaman as well as from our own point of view. We have taken piece after piece of his territory. Another is encamped in his back yard and another in the garden. He has heard these men talking together as to how they shall arrange for the disposal of the rest of his property. Is it not a reasonable thing that people with national spirit should feel indignant and angry at this process? It is natural that they should resent this treatment. We have divided up the Empire into spheres of influence, and have not hesitated to talk of it in the most open way. Allowance must therefore be made for the natural irritation of the Chinese, and we must not let our indignation at anything they have done carry us beyond the lines of reasonable policy and due consideration for our own material interest.
The other question to which I wished to refer was in regard to the policy to be adopted for bringing the Boer War to an end. Everybody in the House practically agrees with the Minister for War that the question now before us is not one of recrimination about the war, or of explanations of the philosophy of the war, or of discussion as to whether it was right or wrong to begin the war; but it is how, in the name of Heaven, can we bring it to an end at the earliest possible moment. During the last session I was fortunate enough to obtain
544
a promise from the Colonial Secretary that in any proclamation stating the terms of peace it should also be clearly stated that as soon as possible there would be granted to these territories the same system of self-government, or one similar to that which prevails in the other South African colonies. I am extremely sorry to hear that such a proclamation has not been issued, and the absence of such a proclamation may have done much to continue the war. It may seem a bold step, but I would ask the Government to consider whether, when such a proclamation is issued, in addition to stating that a condition of self-government will be given to the colonies, a definite time could not be named when that condition of self-government will be given, unless proper reason can be shown to the contrary. The First Lord of the Treasury has discussed this matter as if there were only two courses. He twitted the Leader of the Opposition with being in favour of granting self-government immediately the war was over. That, of course, was a mistake. But the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the only other course was a vague promise of self-government at some time or other. If the Government adopt my suggestion it will put upon them the onus of giving a reason for not giving self-government. We are very suspicious of getting a system of self-government crystallised in these colonies. It has been stated again and again that the military system of government is a bad system, and that there must be some system of civil government intervening between the cessation of military rule and the beginning of self-government. But if you allow a form of civil government to settle itself in a territory of this kind it will be extremely difficult to disturb or displace, and I would rather have an inefficient military government for a time than a more efficient civil government perpetuated for a longer period. Another ground upon which I press the wisdom of this step is the remark made by the Prime Minister on this question when he said that "it may be years, it may be generations" before self-government is granted. To dangle before nations a promise of self-government as an inducement to submit, and to add that

545
it may be generations before that promise is fulfilled, is simply to play the fool with anything like business matter. Therefore, I am quite certain it would be a wise thing for the Government to take upon themselves the onus of having to give a reason at the end of a stated period for not giving self-government.
There are two reasons why I press this course. In the first place, it is said that it is no use granting self-government to the people until they are fit for it. But people do not become fit for things except by using them. History teaches again and again that the gift of self-government to one community after another has been successful, though the promise was not great, because once you put responsibilities upon people you bring out the virtues which are necessary for the proper discharge of those responsibilities. I am greatly afraid that in years to come, when others are in our places, this gift may be delayed by the plea that the people are not fit for it; and therefore I ask that we should commit ourselves to some definite promise. My second reason is, that those of us who read Continental papers know quite well that our attitude in this matter is not believed in the world to be honest. I do not believe that we should live for the good of the people of the Continent, or that we should consider the good opinion of anybody, so long as we are doing what is right; but at the same time I do believe that when we find a consensus of judgment against us it should make us consider whether we have done everything we ought, and whether we are really as honest as we claim to be. I am one of the last to desire to run down my countrymen, but I am inclined to think there is a great deal of Pharisaism and hypocrisy about us. Looking back over history I find that whenever there has been a squabble in the world Great Britain, when she has entered into it, has done so with professions of the highest principle, and has emerged from it carrying away the best portion of the swag. This matter involves taking upon ourselves some material burdens, and greatly increasing the difficulties of our political life, and it would be wise for us to make it clear, not merely to the French and German, but also to the American world
546
—for they, too, do not believe in us— that we are honest when we say, "We want no gold; we want no territory," and bind ourselves to grant to these people at a certain date, unless good reasons can be given to the contrary, those principles of self-government which we have extended to our other South African colonies. I believe that we, as Englishmen, are honest in our desire to give this self-government, and I urge that the strongest pledges should be given that we will carry that desire into execution.
Finally, I would say that in bringing about a peace we have to consider not merely the time when the sword will be sheathed and the guns cease to be fired —that will be only the beginning of the task—but we have to look forward to the time when there will be a strong and united fellowship of good feeling between the citizens of these lands. How are you going to bring it about? One element of power in the hands of the Government is the element of hope. I beg of them to consider what they may do by giving hope to these people—not by telling them merely that we will give them self-government in some vague, far-off, uncertain time, but by saying that at a certain time, unless we can give good reasons to the contrary, we will give it. You will then put into the hearts of these people the hope that, within their own lives and the lives of their children, they may become free citizens of a great Empire, and united to forward its interests.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL—

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member is proposing to address the House in a language with which I am not familiar, but which I presume is Irish, and he will not be in order in doing so. It is an unknown practice in this House, and I must ask the hon.

547
Member to address the House in English.
Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELL
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is disregarding my ruling, and I cannot allow him to address the House in any other language but English.†
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Upon a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask if there is any rule, written or unwritten, to prevent an hon. Member speaking in the language which is most familiar to him. Of course, one cannot argue this question from the experience of other legislative assemblies, but I may be allowed to point out that in my own experience I have heard in one of the legislatures of the Empire—that of New Zealand—Maori members speaking in their own language, although the language used by the general body of the members was the English tongue. I would respectfully ask you whether there is any precedent recorded in the journals, or other authorities of the House, which makes it incompetent for an hon. Member elected by a constituency to address the House in the language most familiar to him, and. which is the language used by the majority of his constituents.
MR. SPEAKER: There is no precedent one way or the other so far as I know; but during the 600 years Parliament has been in existence, there is no record of any hon. Member having attempted to address the House in any other language but English.
MR. LEAMY: Upon a point of order, I should like to ask if it is not a fact that when the Irish Chieftains came over to England representing the Irish Parliament—which was being
† Mr. O'Donnell gives the following translation of the two sentences spoken by him in Irish: "Mr. Speaker, as an Irishman from an Irish-speaking constituency, a member of a nation which still possesses a language of its own, and is still striving bravely for freedom." At this point the Speaker interposed, after which the hon. Member resumed: "Is it not true that Irish is my native language, the language of my ancestors, the language of my country?"
548
absorbed by this Parliament at the time of the Union—they were allowed to speak in the Irish language, although the English representatives spoke the English tongue. If that is so, why should an Irishman not be allowed now to talk in his own language.
MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that Irish Members have now set continuously in this House for 100 years, and they have never before thought it to be a grievance to be prevented from speaking any other language but English. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for West Kerry, with the usual eloquence of his countrymen, will be able to address the House in English if he pleases, quite as well as in Irish. A claim of this kind, if it is to prevail, must first be established by a Standing Order of the House.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it not within your own knowledge that so recently as the year 1896 the hon. Member for the Rhondda Valley actually addressed this House in Welsh?
MR. SPEAKER: I remember the incident to which the hon. Member refers. The hon. Member for Rhondda used a Welsh word or quotation in the course of his speech, but he did not make a Welsh speech to the House. But I must adhere to my ruling. The rule of the House is as I have stated, and I hope the hon. Member will conform to it.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: If I may be allowed to offer advice to my hon. friend, I should advise him to bow to your ruling, but refuse to address the House in English upon this occasion, I reserving his right to address the House in Irish.
MR. DALY: If the Government had only taken the advice which I gave them upon a former occasion with regard to the situation in South Africa a great deal of money would have been saved. The Government has been disgraced owing to the fact that for the last fifteen or eighteen months some 250,000 men have been trying to conquer 25,000 farmers. This

549
war is a disgraceful war, provoked for the purpose of benefiting land-grabbers and stock-jobbers. It is a stock-jobber war, and actually certain Members of the Government and their families will benefit by this war in the supply of stores and ammunition. I believe that the opinion of every Member on the other side of the House is the same as that of the noble Lord who spoke a few minutes ago, and who let the cat out of the bag when he said that many people had gone out there for the purpose of settling down, and of acquiring large tracts of rich and fertile land. The acquirement of land in this way is simply grabbing the property of others, and as long as I am a Member of this House I shall protest against any such system of grabbing the property of others. The speech of the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen reminded me very forcibly of what Ireland has suffered in the past when the land was grabbed from the people. Now the Boers will be driven into the worst parts of the country, and you will place speculators on the rich lands formerly owned by the Dutch farmers. I should be very glad to see this unjust and wicked war terminated, but I do not see that there is much chance of this when we read that De Wet is invading Cape Colony. So far from these 250,000 men having succeeded in beating the Boers and keeping them in their own country, the Boers are actually invading the English colony, and it is a disgrace to us that such an extraordinary army of English soldiers, about whose valour and perseverance we have heard so much, has not been able to prevent the invasion of our colonies. With regard to this war, and the mistakes which have been made, some people blame the War Office, others the Colonial Office, and some say that the provision for nursing the sick and wounded was at fault. It does not matter to me who is at fault, for I believe this war to be unjust and unholy, and I shall have the greatest pleasure in voting against the adoption of the King's Speech, and in every way I can I shall oppose the voting of money for the prosecution of this war in the future.
There is another matter which I regret has not been mentioned in the King's Speech, and that is in regard to the action of the Local Government Board in
550
Ireland. If there is anything which affects the district councils and the board of guardians at the present time in Ireland in discharging their public duties it is the extraordinary and arrogant manner in which they are interfered with by the Local Government Board. During the time when ex-officio members predominated on boards of guardians there was very little chance of the Local Government Board poking its nose into the affairs of local bodies, but the moment popularly-elected bodies came into being the Local Government Board rendered it almost impossible for them to prosecute their business in any sort of a decent manner. Since the election of district and county councils in Ireland they have increased the salaries of the assistant county surveyors in some cases by 75 per cent., and when I put a question to the late Chief Secretary for Ireland as to why this was done, his reply was that they were very much underpaid in the time of the grand juries. So long as the grand juries were in power the Local Government Board never thought it worth their while to interfere with the salaries of these officials. The moment these popularly-elected bodies get the management of local affairs, then the Local Government Board step in and say, "These men have been underpaid in the past, and we will make you pay 75 per cent. of an increase in their salaries." The action of the Local Government Board has made it almost impossible for these public bodies to transact their business and give satisfaction to those who have elected them on these local councils. If the Local Government Board had contributed anything to the rates in these localities in Ireland, then they would be justly entitled to interfere and say what salaries ought to be paid. But it is not fair for them to step in and increase salaries towards which they are not going to contribute anything. The Local Government Board seems to have one object in view, and that is to try and increase the rates in Ireland and endeavour to bring discredit upon popularly-elected bodies. I will give one instance which occurred in my own district. There is a poor dispensary district, where for the last four years we have had a doctor at a salary of £100 a year, and the guardians found that during the

551
time that the doctor was away on his holidays they had to pay £3 3s. for a substitute. The board of guardians therefore decided to raise the doctor's salary by £20 a year. The Local Government Board said, "No; we cannot sanction this." But last year there was a secretary elected for the county council, and it was made a condition of his election that his salary was to be so much, and that he should do the whole work with three assistants. But he was not six months in office when he said he wanted another assistant. A representative of the Local Government Board came down and said, he must have assistance, and the result was that, although several members of the county council protested against it, an additional assistant was given and an addition to the secretary's salary made at a total cost of £160. The reason of the refusal of the increase in the one case was that half the money would come from the Treasury, while in the other case, where the increase had to be given, it came out of the rates. I say, therefore, that I regret that no mention has been made in the King's Speech that there is to be no improvement in the management of the Local Government Board.
I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in his place. I have read some of his speeches in Ireland, and I think he will make an effort to be conciliatory, both in regard to the district and the county councils. If he does so, he will be remembered for a long time in that country. In many places these councils are doing their best to make local government in Ireland a success, but owing to the insensate obstacles thrown in their way by the Local Government Board, it is absolutely impossible for these local bodies to do their duty with satisfaction to themselves and the country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see that the Local Government Board will give more satisfaction to the popularly elected bodies who are doing their work without fee or reward, while a few well-paid officers domineer over and scout the ideas and views of the popularly elected councils. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that owing to the action of the Local Government Board there are any number of appeals pending in the Superior Courts, and I ask the
552
right hon. Gentleman to meet the county councils and district councils in Ireland sympathetically; and I will pledge my word that they will ask very little but what will be for the benefit of the ratepayers, and with the sole idea of carrying out the ideas of the electorate which they wish to carry out. If he does this he-will do a great deal to smooth the way of these bodies, which has hitherto been somewhat rugged.
DR. FARQTJHARSON: I wish to express my appreciation of the tone of the speech of the right hon. the Secretary for War. I am very glad that he has stamped his approval on the devoted and admirable work done in South Africa by the Royal Army Medical Corps. In the face of difficulties, complications, and dangers complete success in the performance of these duties was almost impossible. The prime difficulty was that the Department was far too. undermanned. That is not only my own opinion, but that of the Hospitals Commission. In their report the Commission stated that the deficiency in the staff of the Royal Army Medical Corps and of the staff of officers associated with them had been urged on the authorities before the war without avail. I am very glad to hear from the Minister of War that he has it in contemplation to initiate inquiry into the whole working of the organisation of the Royal Army Medical Department. We have heard about the purely military titles conferred upon the officers of the Department in answer to their desire that such arrangements should be made. It was perfectly well known that unless that concession had been made the supply of candidates for the service would have dried up from the medical schools. I have not been able to satisfy myself whether the system is a success or not, but the Secretary for War seems to think that it is a success. As one who took part in the agitation which led up to the conferring the titles, I can say that the unanimous opinion of the Army Medical Department was that some such recognition of military rank was necessary in order to enable the surgeons to carry on their work to a successful issue in the time of war. Whereas the medical practitioner has had admirable oppor-

553
tunities for the exercise of his profession and of gaining fresh experience as he goes on, the army doctor sees very little, the range of experience is very small and meagre, and the opportunities of working at his profession scientifically are few. What we have urged over and over again, outside the House and inside the House, is, that the medical officers of the Army should get periods of leave, when they might learn the advances in the science of their profession at the post graduate courses in the great centres of medical study throughout the country. The leave might extend to three months every two years, and, in that way, the army surgeon might become once more as efficient as when he started practice in his profession. Of course, all these things will be worked out when the new Commission is instituted. I am very glad to hear from the right hon. the. Secretary for War that that Commission is to be founded on a large and generous spirit, and that he has taken into his counsels the leaders of the profession, from whom, I have no doubt, he will learn what is best both for the student and the army doctor. I have no doubt that the result will be that the Royal Army Medical Corps will once more become a popular branch of the service.
MR. MURPHY: As a humble Member of the House, sent here by the common people to try and seek justice for them, I feel considerable disappointment at the treatment given to the hon. Member for West Kerry. It would be a satisfaction and a pride if we were permitted to speak in the language which is dearest to our hearts, the language in which we were taught to lisp at our mother's knee, and in which we can best express our thoughts. But while we are deprived of the opportunity of using that language, and compelled to resort to a foreign tongue, I have come to the conclusion that hon. Members care as little for our wants as for our language. The Irish language, however, has survived; a new effort has been made to cultivate it, and perhaps a time will come when hon. Members opposite, as well as Irishmen, will take an interest in its study and use. I do not appear in the House in
554
my present attire for the purpose of outraging the traditions of the House. I come here as I live and move amongst my own people, in order to show exaxctly what I am—one of the humble, ordinary folk who have to work for their living; and to make my appeal to you here for justice. I must confess, from my first impressions of this Assembly, I am not too hopeful of any good result from my presence here. I must say that when I came amongst the hon. Members who occupy seats on the one side or the other of this House, I expected to find men whose first desire and intention would be to try and learn the various points in connection with the different questions that would come up for discussion. But, after two or three days experience in the House, I find that too many hon. Members seem to be more anxious to learn the ins and outs of the smoking-room and the dining-room.
I would not have intervened in this debate were it not for the purpose of joining in the appeal in behalf of the people I represent, and asking you to confer on them at least some of the rights to which they are entitled. When I came to the House I expected to hear that in His Majesty's Speech from the Throne some concession was to be made to the feelings of Catholic Irishmen in regard to our faith, which is as dear to us as our very lives. But an oath which contains one of the most direct insults to that faith has still to be taken by the King. And yet we are asked to be loyal, and to shout "God save the King." That, in itself, is one of the strongest and most painful arguments that could be used by an Irishman in regard to the inefficacy and hopelessness of Parliament. However, I do not believe that all hon. Members, even on the Tory benches, possess coldness of heart or want of interest in Irish affairs. I believe that some amongst them have good hearts and good intentions, and that if we could only get at their hearts and make them see the condition of things as they really exist in Ireland, and show them that such conditions ought not to continue, I believe they would do justice to Ireland. But if they will not do justice to Ireland, the Irish Members will, I hope, make it impossible for them

555
to do justice to England also. That is the purpose for which we have been sent here, and we shall knock at the door of Parliament until justice has been done to our people—not asking as gentlemen who have had a university education, but with the honest voice of men who have sprung from the people, who feel with the people, and who take a pride and glory in belonging to the working masses of the land. The other evening the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division was speaking about Manchester beer. The only thing I remember about Manchester is that twenty-three years ago three honest Irishmen were offered there as a sacrifice to British tyranny, and for their loyalty to Ireland. We are not much interested in Manchester beer, or in the affairs of China, or even in the Transvaal, although we sympathise to a great extent with the brave Boers, and protest against the injustice perpetrated against them by England. But I would say to the right hon. Gentleman who gave us such an extraordinary amount of statistics with reference to the consumption of beer in Manchester, that if he wants to get a good glass of beer he should go where you go for your finest soldiers—to Ireland, and he will have a good chance of getting it. Not that I would like to see any Member of this House, or the people generally, indulging to any extent in the beer of any country. I may say it would be a pleasure and satisfaction to me if all the beer were poisoned. I have heard of Army chaplains, and sometimes of Navy chaplains, but in future we apparently shall have a "Beery Chaplin" in this House. I wish sincerely that hon. Members would come here for the purpose of trying to understand the statistics relating to the population and condition of Ireland with as much exactness as those relating to Manchester poisoned beer. While I listened to the right hon. Member for Sleaford and watched him holding out a cup of that poisoned beer for the investigation of right hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial bench, I could not help thinking that there was, perhaps, in the mind of the right hon. Member just the suggestion of a wish that someone upon that bench would drink it, so that a vacancy might be left for him to occupy.
556
I noticed, however, that the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the War Office displayed a courtesy and a kindness towards these benches that I did not quite expect, and he paid a high tribute to the gallantry and nobility of character of the Boers. I could not help feeling, therefore, that there was at least one man on the Treasury Bench whom I should not like to see taking a cup of that poisoned beer. His testimony, of course, was to a certain extent depreciated by the conclusions he drew. He told us that the Boers went into the war with the distinct object of killing. I suppose everyone who goes into war does so with such an object, unless it be that some Englishmen go into it for the purpose of running away at the first opportunity. However, we sympathise with the Boers in the struggle they are making, as we believe, for the simple and sole purpose of gaining their liberty. Although they are doing it in a different way, they are, like ourselves, fighting for their liberty. We believe that they are fighting against the capitalists who have been instrumental in bringing about this war, and they have done so with energy and manhood against frightful odds. They have not been beaten yet, although in the end their liberty may be dragged from them; but while there is an Irishman left we will always speak in their favour and against the tyranny and injustice perpetrated against them. In my own poor county of Kerry we have a labouring population which has been continually depleted by emigration. When I listened to His Majesty's Speech read from the chair, I hoped to hear some indication that at the beginning of a new reign, of a new era, of a new century something was to be done for the Irish race, so that our men and women would be permitted to live in their own land without having to go abroad, surrounded by dangers and difficulties which few of them are aware of. When crossing from Dublin to Holyhead, one of the persons who accompanied me was a young Irish girl who was leaving her country to seek her fortune in the large city of Manchester. I hope when she gets there that she will not be induced to touch any of the poisoned beer. If any hon. Member had been with me on

557
board that boat and had seen that young girl—and remember, she was only one of thousands who are leaving our native land year after year—he would certainly have felt one touch of nature in his heart, and have evinced a strong desire to give us in Ireland an opportunity of managing our own affairs, so that our boys and girls should not be compelled to leave their native home in order to get a living elsewhere.
I have spoken much longer than I intended, and I have merely striven to give expression to a few of the sentiments in my heart. I want you to understand that though you have thrust the Irish people to their knees, they are living still; and that until the right to manage their own affairs which they ask for is conceded, and until they are placed in a position to legislate for themselves, so that the Irish people of every description are able to live in their own land, they will continue coming and knocking at the doors of the British Parliament demanding that right for Ireland.

LICENSING LAWS.
MR. WHITTAKER: I rise to move an Amendment to the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, in order to express regret that there appears to be no intention on the part of the Government to deal adequately with the question of reform of the licensing laws. There is no need for me to dilate on the eyils of intemperance. It is reognised that drinking is our country's curse; our enemies say it is our national characteristic, and all right-minded people deplore it as a great dishonour. It is admitted to be a potent source of crime and poverty, and it is a great barrier across the pathway of social and moral progress. It confronts and baffles and defeats all philanthropists and reformers. Statesmen, judges, magistrates, doctors, ministers of religion, guardians of the poor, governors of gaols and workhouses, and that innumerable band of men and women who render priceless service to their fellows by constant, self-sacrificing, and largely unseen work among the poor, all unite in describing intemperance as the giant evil of our
558
day and generation. Not only do the drinking habits of the people destroy their health, corrupt their morals, and waste their resources, but the liquor traffic itself—that swollen tyranny— has become a kind of British Tammany, a widespread source of political corruption, a distinct danger to the State, and a menace to the purity of our local and national public life. That is the social evil and the political danger with which it is the object of this Amendment to ask the Government to deal.
The Amendment expresses regret that there is no indication in the King's Speech of any intention to at all adequately attempt to discharge an immediate, urgent and obvious duty. There is an announcement in the King's Speech, but it is by no means easy to say precisely what that announcement means. The general opinion is that it means extremely little. It is clear that no reform in the licensing system, as a whole, is intended. Lord Salisbury says—
"It may be matter for regret that our licensing system has reached its present condition, but how, without injustice to the individual, without injury to the public weal, and without exaggerating the influence of Parliament, this state of things can adequately be remedied we do not at present see."
That is a pitiable confession of impotence and incompetence. It is quite true that he goes on to suggest that somebody else may see a remedy, for he says—
"In any case the remedy is obvious. Legislation is not the monopoly of the Government, and if the noble Earl will propose Bills on these and other subjects we shall consider them with sympathetic interest and we shall be glad to find a way out of the labyrinth of our troubles."
We have some idea what the sympathetic interest of the Prime Minister is worth. We know his treatment of the Children's Bill last year, and how he treated the Motion of the Bishop of Winchester. One thing is clear from the King's Speech, and that is that it is results and not causes that are to be dealt with. That is not what the nation desires or requires By all means check and punish drunkenness, but the Government should grapple vigorously with the system which facilitates, promotes, and largely creates the evil. Drunkenness in public-houses is already an offence

559
against the law. It is a violation of the licence to permit it. Are we to understand from the Prime Minister that it is so prevalent, glaring, and scandalous as to be the most obvious and urgent reform? If so, what is to be said of the authorities that permit it and under whose supervision it has grown up? It seems to me that we ought to deal with this licensing question thoroughly, but the Prime Minister and the First Lord of the Treasury have made it quite clear that the Government does not mean to grapple with this question seriously.
What is the position? In 1896 they appointed a Commission. In 1899 the Commission reported, and the Majority Report—it issued two Reports— after expressing the opinion that drunkenness has materially decreased in the last twenty-five years, went on to say—
"Yet it is undeniable that a gigantic evil remains to be remedied and hardly any sacrifice would be too great which would result in a marked diminution of this national degradation, nor is Parliament likely to remain satisfied with leaving things as they are or to trust wholly to the influence we have described."
That is the portion of the Report which indicates the extent of the evil. It is a gigantic evil and national degradation. I may say, on behalf of myself and my colleagues who signed the Minority Report, that we all agree with that statement in the Majority Report, and I must remind the House that on the Commission sat eight chosen representatives of the liquor trade.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is there any method by which we could compel the attendance of some member of the Government? The Ministerial bench is empty, and this is a most important debate.
MR. CAINE: Should I be in order to move the adjournment of the House?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member cannot move the adjournment whilst another hon. Member is in possession of the House.
MR. WHITTAKER: I was pointing out to the House that on the Commission
560
were eight chosen representatives of the liquor trade. They signed the Report that there is a gigantic evil, and also that Parliament is not likely to rest satisfied with leaving things as they are. That was the opinion of eight representatives of the liquor trade. Is there an hon. Member in this House who does not endorse those statements? Yet the Government practically refuses to do anything, and makes a suggestion which is obviously so trifling as to be absolutely ludicrous? Therefore, I beg to move this Amendment, which practically declares Parliament will not rest satisfied to leave things as they are. It is twenty-five years ago since the Secretary for the Colonies used these words—
"Temperance reform lies at the bottom of all further political, social, and religious progress. Drink is the curse of the country. It rains the fortunes, it injures the health, it destroys the lives of one in twenty—I am afraid I should be right in saying of one in ten—of our population, and anything which can be done to diminish this terrible sacrifice of human life and human happiness is well worthy of all the attention and study which we can give it."
And then he went on to say—
"The agitation will go on without us if not with us. If we are silent the very stones will cry out. If there is in the whole of this drink business any single encouraging feature it is to be found in the growing impatience of the people at the burden they are forced to bear, and their growing indignation and sense of the shame and the disgrace which it imposes on them."
The Home Secretary only the other day said that in his opinion things were growing worse rather than better, and yet the Government is practically silent, and the Prime Minister at one time gibes and flouts and sneers, and at another wrings his hands and pleads impotence and incompetence; whilst the Home Secretary prattles ancient nonsense about better dwellings for the poor. It is enough to make the very stones cry out. Thirteen years ago the Government then in power thought it needed dealing with. Eleven years ago they made another attempt. In 1894 the Colonial Secretary said "temperance was the most urgent social reform." In 1895 he said "there is a grievous scandal existing, to which it is the duty of statesmen to devote attention." In 1896 the Government appointed a Royal Commis-

561
sion, which was an admission that this question needed dealing with; and only the other day the Home Secretary said—
"It had been said, and he thought without exaggeration, that intemperance was one of the greatest evils which could possibly be inflicted on a country. It was indisputable that it filled our prisons and crowded our workhouses, that it lowered vitality, that it prevented the breadwinner from putting forth the strength that was necessary for the purpose of maintaining his family, and that much of the wretchedness and distress in this country was owing to the extent to which, unhappily, intemperance existed. They were, he thought, justified in saying that all parties in the country, to whatever section of the temperance party they belonged, or indeed whether they belonged to any section or not, were agreed that the evil was a great one, and that it would be a great blessing to the country if means could be found to mitigate, if not altogether to remove, that great evil."
Then why do not the Government take some action? It is a year and a half since the Commission reported. We cannot be charged with being unduly hasty. The Prime Minister and the First Lord of the Treasury have indicated one reason, which is that the Commission was not unanimous. Of course they were not. They could not be unanimous, and I venture to say it was never intended that they should be. The constitution of the Committee was too absurd to hope for unanimity. But I say if the fact that a commission does not agree is to be taken as an excuse for burking a question, it will always be easy to avoid dangerous and difficult legislation by appointing a commission which never will agree on a particular subject. The excuse is too paltry, and would never be put forward except by a Government which, in proportion to its majority, has less courage and backbone, and is more flabby than any I have ever known.
It is a plea of incompetence. They do not wait for unanimity on other questions—when they give doles to parsons for tithes, doles to aid agricultural rates, and subsidies for sectarian schools. They do not stipulate for unanimity then, nor is there any demand for it when they desire to shovel money into the pockets of their friends. It is only when they are called upon to grapple with a gigantic evil and a national degradation upon which a body of men fatten who claim to have
562
put the Government into power and to be able to put them out again that they stipulate for unanimity. The First Lord of the Treasury and the Home Secretary have stated that there is no unanimity as to a remedy; but there is unanimity that something should be done. The Commission does disclose where the shoe pinches; it discloses weaknesses, defects, and failures in the law; it shows the evils to be grappled with, and it is the duty of the Government to propound the remedy. That is their duty and responsibility, and they cannot shuffle it on to the shoulders of anyone else. The Government asks for a plan, but it is not our business to supply one. I remember years ago in this House the Colonial Secretary, speaking with true commercial instinct on another question, saying what he would do when he sat on the Treasury Bench and received the fees. It is the duty of the Government to suggest a remedy, and of the House to accept or reject it. Have they not a plan? I seem to remember during the last and the previous election that the supporters of the Government went to the polls with the plea that they were in favour of reasonable and practical temperance reform. Those men must have had some definite idea of what they were talking about. Where is their scheme? If they do not produce one they are charlatans and political humbugs. I venture to say there is a good deal of unanimity upon this matter. Of course, if the Government stipulate that the trade must be unanimous, they probably demand the impossible; but it is a novel doctrine that those who fatten on abuses and wrongs must be consenting parties to reform, or nothing can be done.
The Times pointed out some time; ago that it was not to be expected that the trade would agree to temperance reform, which means the checking of drinking, and consequently less profits, but if there is not unanimity there are many points of general detail upon which the Commission is unanimous, and still more of general principle. The Home Secretary demands unanimity, and when the points of agreement are suggested he doubts if licensing reform will do much good, and branches off to better dwellings, and through it all

563
chews the cud of compensation, and his own fiascos in 1888 and 1890. I am not surprised that he was frightened at the deputation which waited upon him, and made their foolish proposal. They practically asked him to revive the absurd, discredited, and discarded proposals of twelve or thirteen years ago. It was not unreasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to refuse to consider their scheme. With regard to points of agreement, take the question of watch committees. There was absolute unanimity in the Report that representatives of the liquor trade should not be members of watch committees. Let me remind the House what a scandal there was at Manchester. In that case it was found that there a superintendent of police had some property bequeathed to him, a brothel and a beerhouse. He would not allow the police to bring charges against the keeper of that house, and set them to raid other establishments to promote the business of his own: and when eventually a summons was obtained against the keeper he with held the summons so that the keeper might escape, and when finally the matter came before the magistrate at Manchester, I never read more scathing language than he used in connection with this man's conduct. Moreover, this superintendent of police, while himself a married man, with a grown-up family, had cohabited with a woman who was a beerhouse keeper, and took her to the Isle of Man for a holiday. That was brought to the attention of the watch committee; but did they dismiss him? No. They merely censured him. It was only after a public outcry that he had to go, and then they awarded him a pension, though after another public outcry that pension was refused. The chief constable of the city had to go in consequence of that scandal, and at the next election the watch committee was purified. Yet the Government of the day conferred a C.B. on the chief constable, and this year the chairman of that watch committee was knighted. At the very time the Commission was sitting the mayor of the borough of Wigan was a publican who held premises in a district in which the police had to go in. couples at night, and who had
564
admitted that he had sold drink illegally. At Derby, too, there was another terrible exposure; and anybody who read the evidence taken before the Commission would understand why they unanimously recommended that it should be made illegal for anyone connected with the trade to sit on a. watch committee. Another unanimous recommendation was that no one who acted as solicitor to brewers should be allowed to act as clerk to any bench of magistrates. Justice must be purified at its source by removing liquor-dealers and brewers from the watch committee. These are anomalies that ought to be remedied. As to Quarter Sessions, there is a belief that the present condition of things is extremely undesirable. The magistrates who review the decisions do not know the localities or the conditions under which the licences are dealt with. There is agreement that the bona fide traveller nuisance needs to be dealt with; there is very large agreement as to the serving of children, and there is agreement that the licensing authority should have control over all licences. There is also unanimity on the Commission as to providing legal assistance for the police in carrying out their duties with regard to licences. There is also agreement that the hours of sale on Sunday should be very much reduced. There; is not agreement as to the actual hours, the majority—twenty out of twenty-four —reporting in favour of two hours at noon and two at night. There is agreement as to the necessity of some restriction upon clubs, and there is also agreement as to the necessity for greater power as to snugs, screens, partitions, back doors, and side entrances—those abominations that respectable men ought to be ashamed to resort to. They facilitate people sneaking in unseen to get liquor if they are ashamed to be seen doing it. The baker or the butcher does not want a side entrance or a back door. The publicans want these entrances because they know that the people who go into these places are ashamed to be seen. The people who own these public-houses are not ashamed to facilitate those people in doing what they are ashamed to do. The screens and partitions inside mean that when

565
they get inside they are afraid of being seen by one another. If I had time I could tell you some terrible stories of what has occurred behind the screens.
I have ventured to name a number of points on which there is unanimity. There is no question of compensation in connection with these things. If the Government cannot see its way to anything further, these are some points on which they might do something. The Home Secretary referred to reduction in he number of houses. The recommendation of the Commission is unanimous that there ought to be a reduction. The Home Secretary questioned whether, after all, it would be of very great value to reduce the number, He says there has been a great reduction in the number during the last twenty-five years, and yet public-houses are now worth more than before, and that more drink is consumed now. Well, of course the houses are worth more. If you have fewer of them and a larger population it does not necessarily mean that there is more drinking. You may have fewer houses, and a smaller total sale, but each of the fewer houses may sell more liquor. It is the monopoly that sends up the value.
I shall now deal with the point whether, in spite of the reduction in the number of houses, there has been an increase in drinking. I challenge the fact entirely, and I will undertake to prove that there has been a diminution in drinking as the number of licences has diminished, and that until there was a diminution in the number of licences there was a steady increase in the consumption of liquor. The Home Secretary gave the period of twenty-five years, and I will take his own period. I will take the bulk of my figures from the statistical abstract issued by the Department over which the Home Secretary previously presided with such distinguished credit. Between 1874 and 1899 there was a diminution of 15,000 in the number of public-houses and beerhouses. During the same period the consumption decreased 15 per cent. in spirits, 30 per cent. in wines, and 4 per cent. in beer. At the same time, the consumption of tea, went up 41 per cent., sugar 47½ per cent., and tobacco 31 per cent., showing that the decrease in the consumption
566
of liquor was not due to a diminution of the prosperity and the spending power of the people. I will go back twenty five years prior to 1874. During those twenty-five years there was an increase in the number of public-houses, and the consumption of spirits went up 21 per cent, of wine 130 per cent., and of beer 60 per cent. Everyone knows that facilities do increase drinking. If they do not, why is not anyone who wants a licence allowed to have one? There is not a single bench of magistrates in the country which grants licences to every applicant. Every Committee and Commission which has investigated the subject during the last seventy years has recommended a diminution in the number of licensed houses on the ground that an increase in such houses facilitates drinking. The trade continually enlarge their premises because they know that facilities increase drinking, and they will tell you that clubs do promote drunkenness. The. Registrar-General gives statistics every ten years, which show that the mortality amongst publicans and their servants is greater than in any other trade. Why is that? Because the men are under more temptation than anybody else; they are constantly face to face with liquor, and the result is that they drink more than other people. The terrible increase in drinking amongst women during the last twenty-five years has been due to the establishment of grocers' licences and refreshment houses. It is very proper that better dwellings should be provided for the people, but my firm opinion is that temperance is the most important factor in social reform. Is there no drunkenness in the dwellings of the well-to-do? Ask our doctors and the clergy. In the north of England I know something of colliery villages, which have been built near great pits. The conditions of the people in these villages are the same. The houses are all alike and men work at the same trade and earn the same rate of wages. Go through the streets of these villages and you will find some of the houses utterly miserable and neglected, while others are clean and respectable. Make inquiry, and you will find that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the dirty houses are occupied by intemperate

567
people. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that it you take the drunken family out of the dirty home and put them into the house of the sober family it would alter their way of living? I say that the drunken family would soon alter the condition of the clean home. It is since 1876 that a reduction in the number of licences has taken place. Up to 1876 from 1828 there was a steady increase, and from 1876 there has been a considerable decrease. The twenty-five years prior to 1876 was a prosperous time in this country, and pauperism was diminished one half during that period. Our exports rose from £71,000,000 in 1850 to £223,000,000 in 1875. There was a, great increase in the education of the country during the same period, and the sanitary conditions under which the people lived were greatly improved. During that time licences increased by 15,000. In spite of better sanitary regulations and Factory Acts, drunkenness and crime increased, and, what is very important, the death rate stood still. Our sanitary legislation made no change on the death rate of the country, it was in 1876 that licences began to go down; drunkenness and crime also went down, and the death rate fell from 4 to 5 per thousand. I suggest that formerly the evils of intemperance more than counterbalanced all the improvements in the other directions.
The Prime Minister deprecated changes the effect of which could not be seen. I venture to say that here are changes the effect of which can be seen in diminished drinking, and in the improved condition of the people. We have never during the past century reversed any restrictive legislation with regard to the liquor traffic. The Licensing Commission docs not suggest that we should go back on the restrictive legislation we have passed. All the forecasts as to the failure of Sunday closing have been refuted and disproved. Many of the reforms recommended in the two Reports are already in operation in Scotland, and they are a success there, and the people of Scotland are asking for more.
But there is the difficulty of compensation. I venture to submit that this is not an insuperable difficulty. What are the conditions under which com-
568
pensation could be agreed to? First, it must be so arranged that it will not block the way to further tenvperance reform. It must also secure some immediate or early substantial reform, and it must not come out of the public pocket. I am not going to argue the question of legal right. That has been settled by the law courts of the country long ago, and is now beyond dispute. With regard to the question of compensation, eight of the members representing the trade on the Commission signed the recommendation that the compensation should come from the trade itself. Both the Majority and the Minority are absolutely unanimous on that point. The fact disposes of the legal claim, because no one who had a legal claim would ever suggest that he should provide the money himself. It has been alleged that the temperance party were foolish to reject the schemes of 1888 and 1890, but the truth is, those schemes were impossible, because they were inadequate, because they endowed public-houses, and because they blocked the way to future reform. As a matter of fact, many more public-houses have been got rid of without those reforms than would have been the case with them. In London those proposals of 1888 and 1890 would have provided money enough to buy up between 150 and 200 public-houses in seven years. But in seven years in London since that time we have got rid of 600 licences. Therefore, when people say the temperance cause lost much by not accepting those schemes, they do not know what they are talking about. The temperance party ought not to accept any measure of compensation that will not give them a much bigger reduction than they are now getting. It should be an essential part of any scheme, too, that it should not block the way to future reform. I am satisfied that a workable and satisfactory scheme of compensation, by means of funds raised from the liquor trade, could be arranged. The great bulk of the temperance people will not oppose a reasonable scheme, if the way to further reform he not blocked, and the whole of the money required comes from the trade. Lord Peel's scheme is only one way of grappling with the problem. If the trade wish to pay more money to

569
each other that can he arranged. To say that extreme men prevented legislation is childish nonsense. No body of extreme men could in this country prevent reasonable, just, and effective legislation.
My object in proposing the amendment is not to press on the Government any particular scheme of reform; all I wish is to press upon them most earnestly to do something. I do allege that the responsibility is theirs, and the amendment calls upon them to undertake the responsibility and to discharge the duty. I know the question is a difficult one, but the greater will be the honour to those who deal with it. And they must not talk as though they were giving something to temperance men as an advantage, as though we, as a class or section of the community, were going to gain something by it; they must not talk as though we were really primarily and specially responsible for the evil. We are interested in dealing with this matter only as citizens anxious to get rid of a great evil in our midst. If there be any class of men upon whom the burden of responsibility with regard to the liquor traffic does not rest it is those of us who touch not the stuff. Our hands are clean, at any rate; we do not necessitate the business from which this evil flows: and to talk to us as if we were specially responsible for dealing with it is little less than an impertinence. Those are responsible who necessitate, countenance, and justify the traffic. The responsibility is theirs, and if they will but shoulder that responsibility and attempt to discharge the duty which lies upon them, temperance men will help them in so doing.
The Government should grapple with this question. I am not the man to advise the liquor trade, but I venture to suggest that the trade itself will do well to get the question settled. We who sit on this side of the House will be in power some day, and there are more ways of killing a cat than by hanging it. We can destroy the value of the monopoly in public-houses if the trade will not consent to some reasonable method of doing it. High licence fees and a free licence to everybody who will pay the fee will knock the bottom out of the public-house monopoly in twenty-four hours. It can be done, and the trade need not look
570
to another place to protect them, because it could be done in a Money Bill. Temperance men want something doing; we are anxious to have this gigantic evil dealt with. The country wants something doing, and I venture to think that the trade itself is somewhat weary of the uncertainty and unrest which the continual agitation is causing it-The opportunity, therefore, is favourable; everybody is in a mood for a reasonable settlement. Let the Government but pluck up their courage to deal with this question, and they will secure a great triumph. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: After the able speech of my hon. friend it will not be necessary for me in seconding the Amendment to do more than emphasise one or two of the main conclusions to which his speech inevitably led. I feel some diffidence in referring to Lord Peel, but perhaps. I may, without presumption, be allowed to say that I think he has rendered the country a great service through his chairmanship of the Licensing Commission, and that future history will count his name memorable, not only because of his having been a great Speaker of this House, but because he very courageously grappled with a very difficult problem and made an important contribution towards its solution. My hon. friend has already pointed out that the main conclusion to which this Commission came was somewhat remarkable, namely that there, was rampant in this country a gigantic evil in regard to intemperance, and that hardly any sacrifice would be too great which conduced to reduce its power. That was a strange conclusion to come from a Commission so constituted. That body had upon it representatives of every phase and section of opinion on the subject. Another fact which ought to be alluded to is that, with regard to that inquiry, we had an absolutely open door; there was nothing in the shape of a press censor in connection with it. Every section of public opinion had an equal right and opportunity of laying its views before the inquiry, and yet the result of three years examination of the problem was an emphatic verdict

571
of condemnation of the existing licensing system. The Commission aroused in the country an extraordinary amount of interest, by reason of the fact, I believe, that the matter has now become a national question. The conscience of the country-has at last been touched upon this point, and the temperance problem has passed from the region of uncertainty and doubt into the domain of fact. Anyone who has seriously considered the conditions surrounding the problem will at once see that that is an clement in the case of the greatest importance. The Amendment points out that there is at the present moment in the country a widespread desire for legislation in the direction of temperance reform. The evil is admitted; no one doubts it for a moment.
I would very briefly lay down three general propositions with regard to the Amendment: first, we are dealing with an issue of national importance: secondly, that the condition of things in regard to it is so grave that it demands the abandonment of political considerations; and thirdly, that there is no time to be lost, but that action ought to be taken in the direction of legislative interference without delay. We are dealing with an issue of national importance. I am not going to weary the House by going over ground which has been already covered, but evidence from every quarter substantiates this proposition. Judicial and criminal statistics, the records of crime, disease, and insanity, the opinion of the medical prefession, the statistics of the Registrar General, the annual colossal and annually increasing drink bill, and, more than all, if you go below the surface of things you will find that this poison of drunkenness is prejudicially affecting what I might call the higher life of the country. As evidence upon this point we have the unanimous judgment of the Royal Commission. I would draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the very strong words he made use of the other day in replying to a deputation to which reference has already been made. The right hon. Gentleman admits that drunkenness fills our prisons, crowds our workhouses, lowers the vitality of the country, prevents the maintenance of families, and causes much of the distress and misery of the people. In the face
572
of such facts no Government are justified in declining to propose legislation dealing effectively, at all events, with the most glaring defects in our licensing system.
Then the position, I take it, is so grave that it demands the abandonment of political considerations. The time has come for us to look at this problem from the national standpoint. Is not this the history of every great reform? In regard to all big questions is it not the ease that a point comes when the politician must be merged in the citizen? This is the case with regard to questions affecting national defence. I am glad to think that with regard to the Army and the Navy we have at all events in this House reached a point when those matters are dealt with from a national and not from a political standpoint. And is not this curse of drunkenness the great enemy of our home life that our country has to fear? I want to give one or two of the reasons why I think the Government have not so far been able to show any indications of their determination to deal with this question. One reason I would submit is a want of information on the part of leading political statesmen of the day as to the true and real condition of things, My hon. friend the mover of this Amendment has referred to the action taken by the late Lord Randolph Churchill in years gone by. Many speeches in regard to temperance reform made by that gentleman are memorable to this day, and I think the reason of that great interest was the fact that he took an opportunity of seeing for himself something of the havoc which drink is doing in regard to the life of this metropolis. Another reason put forward for the inaction of the Government is this. In his speech to the deputation the other day the Home Secretary said that he was unable to promise any great things with regard to legislation on temperance lines, because of what he called the opposition and the difficulty of carrying a Bill through Parliament. Is that a valid excuse for a Government with a majority of 134 behind its back? Clearly the opposition to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is not a Parliamentary opposition. My hon. friend has already dealt so clearly with the plea that nothing can be done because of the want of agreement or all points in the Com-

573
mission that I will not dwell upon that point; I would only emphasise, the fact that it is not true that there is a. want of agreement upon many of the main points. We are agreed as to the necessity of a drastic amendment of the laws relating to the administration of the trade, and also as to the necessity of a great reduction in the number of public-houses. Even if we had not been able to come to an agreement upon those points, I do not think that any Government, having regard to the circumstances of the case, are not justified in shirking the responsibility of taking effective action in regard to the matter. But what is the real reason that; we cannot get any real and substantial reform? It is because of the unfortunate alliance between the party opposite and those who represent the drink trade. I do not say that there are not on the other side of the House a large number of hon. Members who take as great, an interest in temperance reform as any Member upon this side. I further believe that this alliance is not generally of their own choosing; it has grown up owing to the application of one of the leading political doctrines of their faith to an interest in the country which has assumed gigantic and alarming proportions. But nevertheless the fact remains that, speaking generally, Members on the other side of the House are more or less pledged to resist temperance legislation. Until this alliance is severed we cannot hope, so far as legislation coming from the party opposite is concerned, to have an adequate solution of 1he question. There was also a general agreement on the Commission with regard to the amendment of the Sunday Closing Act in Wales, and with regard to Local Veto the Chairman's Report recommended that after a certain period of time that principle should be applied to the Principality.
My concluding point is that we have arrived at a condition of things which demands immediate action. I was reading the other day a very interesting article which appeared in the Lancet. It points out that during the last twenty years, whereas there has been a diminution in the death rate in all other groups, in the group dealing with deaths from drink there has been a substantial increase, the rate of mortality rising from
574
45 per cent. per million to 77 per cent. per million. The writer of the leading article, who cannot be in any way regarded as attached specially to temperance reform, makes this observation —
"No temperance lecturer can be more profoundly convinced than we are ourselves of the terrible mischief which is being done to our country at the present day by alcoholic indulgence."
If we are not touched in regard to this matter by questions affecting humanity, perhaps some of us may be affected by other considerations. In looking forward to the future, it is important for us to watch very carefully what is taking place in regard to the trade and the economic position of this country. I believe the time has come when we should throw aside the subtleties of political controversy and have united action upon this question, which is of vital concern to the nation. There is apparently in this country at the present day a serious lack of earnestness in regard to social questions. The air is filled with the word and spirit of Empire. I have more than once candidly admitted that there is no one who takes a greater pride in the glory of the British Empire than I do, but I cannot close my eyes to the unalterable fact that if we are to maintain our prestige and our position abroad as an Empire who must see to it that our house at home is set in order. One of the most essential reforms in my judgment for the strengthening and the uplifting of the home life of the country is an effective measure of temperance reform, and I believe it is in this way alone that in this century the British Empire can be made, not only in name but also in deed, the greatest power for good in the world. I have very great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"At the end of the Question, to add the words,—' But we humbly express our regret to Your Majesty that, having regard to the Reports of the recent Royal Commission on the Licensing Laws and the wide-spread desire which exists that some effort should be made to diminish the evil, which they describe as gigantic and a national degradation, there is no indication in Your Majesty's Gracious Speech of any intention to deal at all adequately with this subject.'"—(Mr. Whittaker.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
COLONEL BLUNDELLprotested against the references made, by the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division to Wigan. He had no hesitation in saying that neither the chairman of the watch committee nor the Mayor of Wigan would encourage drunkenness any more than the hon. Member opposite.
SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: Those of us who sit on this side of the House, and yet have much sympathy with the views expressed by the mover and seconder of this Amendment, feel that they have two difficulties to contend with in dealing with this question on this occasion. One is that an Amendment to the Address is generally viewed as a vote of want of confidence in the Government, and, that being the case, if the hon. Member goes to a division, we, shall have some difficulty, I am afraid, in following him. The second difficulty is that we are in ignorance at the present moment as to exactly what it is His Majesty's Government have in their minds in regard to carrying out the statement of the King's Speech in reference to this licensing question. Many of us have examined it very carefully, and have endeavoured to conjecture what it meant, but we have failed to derive very much comfort from it, or, in fact, to imagine what the proposal is. I am one of those—and there are a considerable number on this side of the House—who, while not anxious to press upon the Government drastic and impracticable measures, do earnestly believe that the time has come when progress should be made with regard to temperance reform. I venture to say, notwithstanding some remarks of the seconder of the Amendment, that there is a very large body of Members on this side of the House who will support the Government in bringing forward, and vote in this House for moderate and reasonable measures of reform, which, after all, although moderate and reasonable, may be very beneficial indeed and pave the way for further legislation in the future,
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I am sorry to interrupt, but that is exactly what I endeavoured to say. I acknowledged the fact that there were a large
576
number of Members on the other side heartily in favour of temperance reform.
SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: I am glad if I misunderstood the hon. Member. The Home Secretary the other day seemed to be very much afraid of entering upon legislation connected with the licensing law, and apparently he gave as his reason that he would have to face the difficult question of the reduction of licenses coupled with the thorny subject of compensation. I hope that that was not really the Home Secretary's own feeling. I think he was a little misled, perhaps, by the deputation which appeared before him, because I rather think that that deputation had not so much in their minds the reforms that many of us have in our minds; they wished to impress upon the Home Secretary the very reasonable and beneficial character of the scheme of reduction and compensation which they recommended. I venture to suggest that we should leave aside for the present that large question of reduction and compensation. I am in favour of the reduction of licenses, and I believe it will be essential, but there is a great deal of work to be done before we get to that question. If we put that in the fore-front of anything we attempt it will only block the way and prevent us doing a great deal of good which might pave the way to such a reduction coupled with compensation. It is sometimes said that piecemeal legislation is bad legislation. I do not think it is. I can fancy that in regard to some subjects piecemeal legislation may do harm if it is ragged legislation, but I think we could show the Home Secretary that on this question there are a number of reforms which are simple and complete in themselves which might be taken up and carried into law without interfering at all with further progress, and which would be most beneficial.
The question of compensation is always I dragged across the path of temperance reform, but the Report of the Royal Commission consisted of five parts, and in the first part, relating to England and Wales, there are forty-three recommendations which have nothing to do with the question of compensation at all. Indeed, it is only when we come to the fifth part that the question of compensation is dealt with. My hon. friend opposite

577
has suggested some, reforms which, I agree, will he most beneficial and are demanded. Having been a member of the Royal Commission, I venture to say that the hon. Member has not exagger-rated in the slightest degree the evidence that was brought before us. I am quite prepared to stand by the words the hon. Member has used, and to say that in many parts of the country the present administration of the licensing laws is in a scandalous condition. That is not a question of temperance reform. It is a question of the reform of the administration of the present law; and if the Government are afraid of entering upon purely temperance legislation, surely they ought not to be afraid of reforming the administration of our existing licensing law.
I will not weary the House by giving a long catalogue of the various reforms that are suggested in these Reports. A large, number of them, as the hon. Member pointed out, wore unanimous recommendations by both sides of the Commission, including the trade, and I venture to say that the trade ought to be bound by the action of their delegates in regard to them. I also believe that the Majority Report in many of its recommendations not only represents what temperance reformers desire, but represents the opinion of the public outside—that these are reforms which should be undertaken at once by the responsible Government of the country. One simple reform that might be undertaken —it is so simple a matter that I am almost ashamed to mention it—is the holding of the licensing session in March instead of August and September, when the renewal of licences and the granting of new licences is very loosely done, because in the various localities the people are away at that time of the year. Then there is the reform that a licence should not be renewed in the case of a house under £12 rateable, value. Off-licences should be under the control of the licensing authorities, and the distance in regard to bona-fide travellers should be extended. Then there is the power to arrest for simple drunkenness, and of dealing with habitual drunkards. There is also the important question, unanimously recommended by both sides of the Commission, as to
578
the limit of age at which children should be served with drink. I believe that public opinion has been thoroughly roused on this question, and that it has a great deal of sympathy from many who have no liking whatever for what is called ordinary temperance reform. It is strongly felt that if we cannot in our generation remove the stigma of drunkenness, which unfortunately attaches to our nation, we should endeavour to prevent the next generation from falling into the evil. There is in addition the very important question of clubs, which is not exclusively a temperance question. I do not know whether the Home Secretary will venture to take that question up. I feel that the more the, number of public-houses is decreased the more the growing evil of clubs will increase. The proposals of the Commission with regard to clubs are not at all drastic. They do not interfere with bona-fide clubs, hut would put a stop to bogus and drinking clubs which are often set up for the sole purpose of drinking, and carried on by some publican who has lost his licence. The regulations proposed would improve the condition of working men's clubs, many of which are admirably conducted and free from the stain of drunkenness, but many of which would be better for the public eye being turned upon them.
These and many other recommendations I think the Government might take up, and I trust the Home Secretary and the Government will take a more courageous attitude on this subject. Up to a certain point this is becoming less and less a party question, and it will find a, great deal of support from these benches. I have had an opportunity during the past few weeks of ascertaining the views of a large number of Members on this side, of the House, and I am surprised to find the change that has taken place in public opinion on this question since I. first entered this House. We are not fanatics. We will be found to be most reasonable, but if the Government does not move we shall have to be unreasonable. I do not ask for a comprehensive Bill. I simply ask the Government to deal with some of the urgent reforms recommended in the Report of the Royal Commission, and to give their support

579
to any private Bill introduced for this object, which would, without their assistance, have only a remote chance of becoming law.
MAJOR JAMESONcontended that instead of reducing the number of licences the Government should go to the root of the question and see that what was sold in public-houses was good and wholesome. Much of the spirits sold in this country was imported from Germany, Sweden, and Denmark, and was manufactured from sawdust and shavings by what was known as the sulphurie acid process. It was this sort of stuff that produced the mischiefs of which so much complaint was made, and at a recent exhibition it was used to clean the elephants with. If attention was not given to this matter they in Ireland would have to seriously consider the question whether they should in the future produce barley or sawdust. He hoped the House would pause before taking away the vested interest in licensed houses such as was admitted to exist in Ireland, and not run amuck against all licensed houses with so-called temperance reformers. The great check in Ireland was that it anyone broke the law he lost his licence. He denied that there was any widespread desire to deprive of licences a class of traders in commodities which bore the brunt of taxation. If the temperance party had their way they would reform the trade off the face of the earth, and then they would have the greater evil of unlicensed public-houses or shebeens. If the House would see that arsenic was not put in beer, and that whisky was not made from sawdust. it would do far more towards promoting temperance than by reducing the number of licences, and taking the bread out of the mouths of people who were conducting their business in an honourable way. Would England like to have its trade interfered with, simply because of the fads of some gentlemen who did not understand the question? [An HON. MEMBER laughed.] That laugh was probably the exhilaration of adulterated tea. The licensing question was one of the most serious questions of the day, because the trade was the backbone of the taxation of the country. He did not remonstrate with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the question of licensing,
580
but on the subject of foreign spirits which were not taxed, and he asked that when the question of licensing was being considered, the Government should also consider the question of the sale of deleterious compounds produced in foreign countries, and sold in this country under names which they had no right to bear. He never heard of Danish whisky, or Swedish whisky, or German whisky, but compounds from these countries were bottled in bond, and fraudently imposed on the public as Irish whisky. He objected to that, and he felt sure that the Government would consider it before interfering with the vested interests in. a trade which had always found money I for taxation. It could not be shown that the licensing system in Ireland was a bad one. The drink bill in Ireland was £2 l4s. per head, but the sober people of England spent £4 5s. per head. In Ireland they had not only a better licensing system, but they had better stuff. They were always asked in Ireland to take their opinions from England, and to go to England for sobriety and licensing reform. They declined. They did not want English licensing; they did not want English liquor, but they asked England to take theirs. They did not wish licensed houses to sell as an Irish commodity a compound made in Germany or Denmark. There was one thing that the Government should consider, and that was whether they were going to rob people who had invested money in a trade which was always sanctioned by law. If the Government abolished all licences to-morrow, how would the teetotalers like to see tea and soda water taxed? They would then be-all found drinking London water. He-would conclude by making an entreaty to the Government to deal with the question of commodities. If they found that adulteration was rife, and that the public health suffered, then let them not. spare such licensed houses as sold such compounds, because they had broken the law. But as long as licensed houses carried on their trade in a fair and honourable manner, any Government worthy of the name of a government would not interfere with them, notwithstanding all that the faddists of the nation might say.
SIR MARK STEWART: In a somewhat amusing speech

581
the hon. and gallant Gentleman stated that the people would not drink Scotch whisky in Ireland. I would reply that we would not drink Irish whisky in Scotland, a liquor which I heard described in this House as "a torchlight procession down one's throat," and I think no one accustomed to Scotch whisky would favour it. I do hope that some good will come, of this debate. The matter is one in which the whole country is of one way of thinking, although not much was said about it at the General Election. I believe in every constituency, certainly fin every Scotch constituency of which I have knowledge—and I have knowledge of a good many—it was held that legislation on the lines laid down by the Royal Commission must take place; and it would not be well, under these circumstances, for the Government, with its great majority, to do nothing during the present Parliament. I think, however, that the tone of the proposer and seconder of this Amendment was somewhat harsh as regards the position of the Government. I do not condemn the Government. They have introduced a sentence on the subject into the King's Speech. What that may be worth I do not know, but it may be worth—and I rather think it will be worth—a great deal more than some hon. Members seem to think. Therefore I give the Government every credit for yielding to the wishes of the country, provided that they see, as I am satisfied they do, the great urgency and importance of the question. It is not that Englishmen attach any great importance to drastic measures. I have been in Parliament for, more or less, twenty-five years, and I have never yet seen one of those great reforms foreshadowed at the commencement of any session carried into law. Almost the only measure of any utility affecting Scotland which was carried during the last twenty-five years namely, the closing at an earlier hour at the wish of the town councils in the burghs, was really carried by myself. The hon. Baronet the Member for North-west Manchester foreshadowed several important measures. It is true they were small ones, compared with the larger measures foreshadowed by the Royal Commission; but if several of them were passed in the present Parliament we should be much the better for them, and I believe they
582
would tend to give us a more sober people, and to put licensing reform on a much better basis. Those of us who know anything about licensing in Scotland know it is not a question of liquor, but really a question of administration, and if the question of administration is better attended to in the measures which; the Government may give us no one will be more satisfied than I will be.
MR. TULLY: I think the Irish Members are entitled to some explanation from the Government on this licensing question, so far as it affects Ireland. We have heard from these benches eloquent speeches on the temperance question. I, for one, do not object to home rule for England in temperance matters. If you want legislation to deal with the evils existing in England, let it be confined to England. The general rule on these temperance matters is that Gentlemen from the Liberal benches bring forward temperance measures, and apply them not to England but to Ireland. Ireland is used as a, place to experiment upon, and as a kind of dumping ground for temperance fads. I think, therefore, the Irish Members are entitled to know from the Government, if they are really serious about bringing in temperance legislation, whether it is to apply to Ireland. You passed a Sunday Closing Act for Ireland, but there is no Sunday Closing Act for England. We who have experience of the working of the Sunday Closing Act in the West of Ireland know that that Act has closed no house which would not have been closed if it had never come into operation. All the respectable houses would close of their own accord on Sundays, and as a matter of fact, the Sunday Closing Act has really been a Sunday Opening Act for all low-class public houses.
The hon. Member who introduced this amendment referred to the police corruption in Manchester, Wigan, and other cities in this country. We know that in Ireland police corruption on a smaller scale has also occurred. From my own experience I know that the police, instead of enforcing the Sunday Closing Act with an equal hand and with equal justice, use it as an engine very often for political and personal spite. A certain

583
class of publicans are harassed, whereas another class are allowed to sell as much as they like on Sundays. I myself, having been appointed a magistrate under the Local Government Act, had to complain about the conduct of the police in this very respect. But I could obtain no satisfaction. In fact, other magistrates and myself have been sneered at because we are Nationalists. If you put in force any law of great severity it is almost bound to lead to corruption on the part of the men who are called upon to administer it. If, therefore, you increase the restrictions at present existing, how are you to guard against corruption on even a wider scale? On that ground alone I object to any further attempts to make people sober by Act of Parliament, or to make them temperate by methods of coercion. The ordinary individual would not drink a glass of whisky more simply because there were a hundred public-houses in a street instead of ten. Of course foolish and stupid people will get drunk no matter what legislation you may pass, and to say that because a few idiotic individuals get drunk the reasonable habits of ordinary men are to be hampered is a proposal which this House should not tolerate. My reason for interfering in this debate is simply to object to any further extension of licensing restrictions to Ireland. If you want them in England I will not object. The hon. Member who moved the amendment referred to the terrible drunkenness prevailing in some parts of England. I have had some experience of that myself. I remember attending a meeting held in a colliery village in the North of England—it was called a"village"—of 10,000 inhabitants. The day happened to be pay-day, and I never saw such a state of drunkenness before. After the Irish meeting was over, which I attended, I remember that every place I went to, I saw nearly every man, woman and child in a drunken condition.
MR. JOHN WILSON: As one of the Members for Durham I should like to know the name of that village. I venture to say that the hon. Member cannot find a village in the north of England which in any way comes near his description. I hope he will use more careful language.
MR. TULLY: I have great personal respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I do not wish to hurt his feelings particularly. If he would like the name of the village I will give it to him afterwards.
MR. JOHN WILSON: I wish to have it now.
MR. TULLY: It was in the village of Hetton-le-hole.
MR. JOHN WILSON: It is untrue.
MR. TULLY: I was a witness of it myself. When I was looking for a car to take me to the station, every place I went into appeared to be crawling with drunkenness, and I could not get a vehicle to carry me to the nearest railway station there were so many people drunk in the place. I do not object to any coercion, any Crimes Act you may introduce to put down intemperance of that description. I never saw any thing like it in Ireland, and I hope I never shall. I hope in this matter the Government will confine their legislation to England. When we brought forward the question of the over-taxation of Ireland the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment was one of our most conspicuous and able opponents, and although he would not give us Home Rule in the matter of financial relations I am quite willing to give him Home Rule in the matter of temperance legislation. I have seen it stated that one of the methods of dealing with this question is to wipe out all public houses under a certain valuation in Ireland without compensation. There is also another proposal. In obedience to some circular or mandate issued from Dublin Castle, the county court judges in Ireland—a respectable body of men—were summoned to meet, and came to the conclusion to recommend to the Government that all licensing business in Ireland should be taken out of the hands of the local magistrate and put into the hands of the county court judges. I object to giving them any further power in these matters. I think they are entirely unfitted to deal with licensing questions in Ireland, by their political as well as their legal training. Moreover, they have quite enough to

585
do at present. The cry never went up in Ireland for abolishing the jurisdiction of ordinary magistrates until, owing to the operation of the Local Government Act, men like myself, elected by the votes of the people, were able to take our seats on the magisterial bench. And because such men have become magistrates it is suddenly discovered that everything wrong is now done by the local magistrates and the Government are accordingly asked to abolish their jurisdiction and to hand over the question of licensing to the county court judges. Another proposal is to, hand over the licensing administration of Ireland solely to the paid magistrates.
I think that is equally objectionable. In fact, if I had to choose between the two classes I should prefer the county court judges. Whatever chance of fair play or independence or consideration for the people that might be looked for—and it might be very small—would be found among the county court judges rather than among the promoted policemen who figure as resident magistrates. I think the Secretary of State for the Home Department outlined recently a very wise alternative scheme, by which the vice of intemperance could be dealt with in a satisfactory manner. He said that if intemperance was to be combated the people must be housed in proper houses. I am very glad to see that the King is identified with that question, and I hope that during the opening years of his reign legislation regarding it will be passed, because it is on the lines of improving the dwellings of the poor that you can effect real temperance reform. When we consider the miserable slums in which these people have to live, and the miserable cabins in Ireland, often with nine or ten persons in a single room, is it any wonder, that, worn out with hard and constant toil, these people should at the end of the week seek some respite by recourse to indulgence in drink? As long as the poorer classes are housed—
MR. SPEAKER: The hon Member would not be in order in discussing the housing of the working class on an Amendment having reference to licensing reform.
MR. TULLY: I do not, in any way, wish to disregard your ruling, Sir. I was merely pointing out an alternative to that raised by the motion. In my experience the gentlemen who so strenuously advocate the question of temperance are generally employers who are trying to get more out of their men at lower wages. They think that by preventing the working men from spending money on drink, they will be able to get them to work for less wages. There is nothing straightforward about them, although they pose as possessing a monopoly of all the Christian virtues, whereas any of us who differ even slightly from, them are sinners who ought to be cast out into the wilderness. My experience of these gentlemen is that they make their temperance fads a stalking horse for their own profit, and for the purpose of getting more work out of their workpeople. I think, however, if these temperance fanatics are compared to the men who resist their ideas it will be found that the latter are just as straightforward and as anxious for the good of the people. My own experience is that whenever we put forward in our local bodies any housing or water scheme the men who oppose it are generally those who are distinguished as temperance advocates. I am certain the House will not consent to any legislation on this question unless men of all classes and all parties assent to it. It seems to me that the gentlemen who are most desirous of promoting temperance legislation are the gentlemen who will give no freedom of opinion to others, and who will allow no one to differ from them without calling them vile names.
It being midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

DECLARATIONS OF HEADS OF STATES.
Address for "Return of the various Oaths or Declarations touching religion which are made on their accession to power by the Heads of the following States: Great Britain and Ireland, Empire of Germany, United States, France, Austro - Hungary."— (Colonel Nolan.)
Adjourned at two minutes after Twelve of the clock.