Commons Sitting of 26 February 1901

Preamble
Several others Members took and subscribed the Oath.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL.
  Petition for additional provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  BEER BILL.
  Two Petitions from Andover, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUA TION SCHOOLS).
  Petitions for alteration of Law, from Manchester; Pudsey; Soothill; Sowerby Bridge; Rochdale; and Birkenhead; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petition of the Mining Association of Great Britain, against; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUA TION ACT, 1896.
  Petitions for alteration of Law, from Whit by and Monkseaton; Ealing; Woolwich; and Abram; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Paper [presented 22nd February] to be printed. [No. 45.]
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1901–2.
  Copy presented, of the Estimates for Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending 31st March, 1902, together with a copy of the Memorandum by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury relating thereto [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 46.]
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Copy presented, of Ninth Annual Report of the proceedings of the Inspection Committee for the year ended 20th November, 1900, with Appendices [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 47.]
  BARRACKS ACT, 1890.
  Account presented, showing the money raised and issued under the provisions of the Act, the securities created in respect thereof, and the amount expended for the purposes of the Act to the 31st March, 1900, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 48.]

  PUBLIC OFFICES (ACQUISITION OF SITE) ACT, 1895, SESSION 2; PUBLIC OFFICES (WESTMINSTER) SITE ACT, 1896; PUBLIC OFFICES (WHITE HALL) SITE ACT, 1897; AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS EXPENSES ACT, 1898.
  Account presented, showing the moneys issued out of the Consolidated Fund, the moneys borrowed and the securities created in respect thereof, the disposal of moneys issued to the National
  1176
  Debt Commissioners for temporary investment under the provisions of the Acts, and the expenditure to the 31st March, 1900; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 49.]

  ARMY (YEOMANRY) (REPORT OF COMMITTEE).
  Copy presented, of Report of Committee on the organisation, arms, and equipment of the Yeomanry Force [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1900–1901).
  Copy presented, of Supplementary Estimate of the further amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1901, to meet additional expenditure occasioned by the War in South Africa [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 50.]
  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1901–2.
  Estimates presented, for the year 1901–2, with Explanation of Differences [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 51.]
  NAVY STATEMENT (EXPLANATORY OF ESTIMATES).
  Copy presented, of Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty explanatory of the Navy Estimates, 1901–2 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE).
  Copy presented, of Supplementary Estimate of His Majesty's Navy for the year 1900–1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 52.]

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Bank of England.—Copy of all applications made by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England for advances to the Government authorized by Parliament, from 5th January, 1900, to 5th January, 1901 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 53.]
  2. Private Bills.—Copy of Rules for the Practice and Procedure of the Referees on Private Bills (in pursuance of Standing Order 88); to be printed. [No. 54.]
  3. Church Temporalities (Ireland).— Copy of Report of the Comptroller and I Auditor General upon the Account of the Irish Land Commission in respect of Church Temporalities in Ireland for the year ended 31st March, 1900 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 55.]

  CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1899–1900.
  Copy ordered, "of Accounts of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1899–1900, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1900; (2) the distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; together with Copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon."—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  NATIONAL GALLERY REPORT.
  Copy ordered, "of the Report of the Director of the National Gallery for the year 1900, with Appendices."—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  LEAD POISONING.
  Address for "Return giving (a) the number of cases of lead poisoning reported under the Factory and Workshop Act, 1895, in the manufacture of earthenware and china during the period from the 1st day of January, 1899, to the 31st day of December, 1900, distinguishing between cases in the decorative processes and cases in the process of dipping, ware cleaning, etc.; (b) the number of persons suspended from working in dangerous processes by the certifying surgeons for the Hanley, Burslem, Tunstall, and Stoke districts in the same manufacture during the same period, in pursuance of the special rules (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 235, of Session 1900)."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)

  TRAWL VESSELS (PROSECUTIONS).
  Return ordered, "for the years 1892 to 1900, inclusive, ending the 31st day of December, of prosecutions undertaken in the Sheriff Courts of Scotland, under the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Acts, of the Masters of Beam or Otter Trawl vessels for alleged infringement of the bye-laws of the Fishery Board, or the provisions of the Acts prohibiting Beam or Otter Trawling within certain waters
  1178
  round the coasts of Scotland, in the following form, with Summary:—

  Date of alleged offence.

  Name, etc., of person charged.

  Name, Letters, and Number of Beam of Otter Trawl Vessel.

  Where alleged offence committed.

  Statute or bye-law contravened.

  Place and date of trial.

  Result of trial.

  By whom detected.

  Summary.

  Names, etc., of persons charged more than once during foregoing period of eight years.

  Number of times such persons were charged.

  Total amount of fines.

  Total length of imprisonment undergone.

  —(Mr. Cathcart Wason.)

  TENANTS' IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading upon Wednesday, 19th June, read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  Leave given to present another Bill instead thereof.—(Major Jameson.)

  TENANTS' IMPROVEMENT (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  "For improving the condition of Tenants in cities, towns, and villages in Ireland," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 19th June, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR-INQUIRY INTO MANAGEMENT.
  MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when the inquiry into the management of the war will be begun.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am afraid it is impossible for me at the present time to say anything more definite than I have already stated.

  THE JAMESON RAID INDEMNITY.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay before the House all communications that have passed since the annexation of the Transvaal Republic between himself and Mr. Rhodes or other persons with respect to the claim of the late Transvaal Government with reference to the Jameson Raid, and also the ground of any set-off which can prevent the British Government enforcing this claim.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): No communication has passed on the subject since the annexation of the Transvaal.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It seems a strange thing to ask me, assuming there is a good case against the company, to find a ground of set-off for the company.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the speech of—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  PATENT RIGHTS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether British patent rights now extend to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No alteration has at present been made in the Patent Laws of the late Republics.

  NEWSPAPER PROSECUTIONS—CASE OF MR. ALBERT CARTWRIGHT.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether proceedings have been taken against Mr. Albert Cartwright, editor of the South African
  1180
  News, on the ground that he had reprinted in his paper a letter alleging that on a particular occasion Lord Kitchener had given instructions that General De Wet's force, when surrounded, should not ! be allowed to surrender, but be shot down; whether he is aware that the letter making these charges had already appeared in the Freeman's Journal of 15th January, and the parts of it conveying this charge in the London Times of 16th January; and whether it is intended to take any steps against the editors of these papers.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no official information on the subject of the proceedings against Mr. Cartwright which were presumably taken by the Cape Government.

  TREATMENT OF BOER WOMEN AND CHILDREN—RATIONS.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the women and children confined in camps are placed on full rations if they voluntarily surrender, but on reduced rations if the husbands and fathers do not surrender.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I am in communication with Lord Kitchener on this subject. The difficulty of feeding the very large number of persons who are now coming into these camps is very great, and I understand that a distinction has been drawn between those who have surrendered with their husbands and fathers and those who come in to be fed while their relations are still in the field. The information at my disposal is not sufficient to enable me to give an exact answer at this moment.
  MR. DALZIEL: Does the distinction apply to women whose husbands are prisoners or whose relatives may happen to have been shot during the war?
  MR. BRODRICK: I know no more than I have given to the House.

  PAARDEBURG OPERATIONS— GENERAL COLVILE.
  THE MASTER OF ELIBANK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state why no report on the battle of Paardeberg has

  1181
  been received from General Sir Henry Col vile.
  MR. BRODRICK: Major-General Sir Henry Colvile held a subordinate position at the battle of Paardeberg, and was therefore not required to make any report.

  IRISH PRISONERS AT ST. HELENA.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, amongst the Boer prisoners held in St. Helena, there are a number of Irishmen who had taken the oath of allegiance to the South African Republic; and whether these men are to be tried for their participation in the war, or to be allowed to return to their native home; and, if so, when.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): There are some Irish prisoners at St. Helena; they will be treated in the same way as their Boer comrades—as ordinary prisoners of war. No release of prisoners can take place before the termination of the war.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the noble Lord give us any idea when that will be?
  [No answer was given.]

  SOUTH AFRICA CONCILIATION COM- MITTEE—LIEUTENANT MORRISON'S LETTER.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether His Majesty's Government propose to prosecute an association called the Conciliation Committee, which has publicly circulated charges against British officers and soldiers based on statements alleged to ! have been made by Lieutenant Morrison, but the accuracy of which that officer has denied.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): I have no material no which it would be proper for me to express an opinion on this question even if it were desirable that I should do so.

  PAY OF BRITISH SOLDIERS DURING CAPTIVITY.
  MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the
  1182
  pay of British officers and men is stopped when they are prisoners of war; and, if so, whether any allowance is made to their wives and families.
  LORD STANLEY: The pay of prisoners of war is not now stopped unless their surrender is proved to have been the result of their own neglect or misconduct. At no period of the war did the issue of separation allowance to their families cease.

  THE CASE OF ESAU.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why he has not laid on the Table the telegram from Sir Alfred Milner with reference to the case of Esau as promised.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have laid it on the Table. As I gave its terms viva voce I do not think the hon. Member can be inconvenienced.

  TRANSPORT—DEMURRAGE AT SOUTH AFRICAN PORTS.
  MR. P1RIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House of the total demurrage paid to vessels during 1900 at the ports of Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London, and Durban respectively; and if he would grant a Return specifying the names of the vessels, the cargo carried, the port of demurrage, the time of detention, and the money paid as demurrage in each case.
  LORD STANLEY: The operations at the Cape have required a large number of vessels to be retained at the various ports to meet the constantly arising demands for transport. I am not in a position at the present moment to state what has been the exact expenditure upon any particular war service, but it will appear in the accounts rendered to Parliament or can appear in a Return.

  ENTERIC AND DYSENTERY STA- TISTICS.
  MR. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can furnish any Return to show, from the experience gained in South Africa, the comparative liability to suffer from enteric and from dysentery of men at different ages.
  LORD STANLEY: The comparative liability of soldiers to suffer from enteric

  1183
  fever at different ages is already well established and will be found in the Annual Reports of the Army Medical Department. In the Report for 1898 at pages 500 and 501 the South African experience is given for the years 1891 to 1898. There are no special Returns available in connection with the campaign. As regards dysentery there are no similar Returns available.

  INOCULATION FOR ENTERIC FEVER.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Professor Wright, of Netley, has stated, as the results of inoculation for enteric fever in one regiment, that the incidence in the inoculated was 0·55 and the death rate 0·27 per cent., while in the uninoculated it was 6·14 and 3·35 percent, respectively; and whether he can inform the House of the results of inoculation for typhoid or enteric fever among the forces serving in South Africa.
  LORD STANLEY: The statement of Professor Wright referred to the official statistics from India for the 15th Hussars. There are no statistics available for the forces in South Africa. It will not, I fear, be possible to go into them properly until the war is over. The pressure on our medical officers for returns of various descriptions is a heavy addition to their pressing duties.

  THE STORMBERG CASUALTIES.
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg-to ask the Secretary of State for War will he explain how it happened that two privates of the Royal Irish Regiment, who were reported by th3 War Office as killed at Stormberg on 10th December, 1899, were on 1st February, 1901, fourteen months after, reported by the War Office as alive and serving with their regiment; and what steps do the War Office propose to take in the future to prevent such reports being made and not corrected.
  LORD STANLEY: The information to which the hon. and gallant Member alludes was furnished by the officer commanding on the 31st January, 1901, and was to the effect that three privates of the Royal Irish Rifles who had been reported as killed at Stormberg were still alive. It is inevitable that such mistakes should
  1184
  occur in a campaign, especially in the case of a reverse. Every effort has been made by the casualty department at Cape Town to clear up such matters, but owing to the constant movements of the various regiments and the distances and difficulty of communication, it has been found very difficult to secure greater accuracy and earlier correction of mistakes.

  SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLICS (MILITARY NOTES).
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can say why the Paper entitled South African Republics (Military Notes), which was presented by Command, and laid upon the Table on 12th December, 1900, has not been issued to Members; and when it will be issued.
  MR. BRODRICK: It was considered that the wants of Members would be sufficiently met by supplying copies to the library. There are not enough of the stock remaining in England to give a full supply to the House, and it was thought to be a waste of money to reprint the work.
  MR. CHANNING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable demand for this Paper?
  MR. BRODRICK: There are several copies in the library.
  MR. TENNANT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are twenty copies for 670 Members?
  MR. BRODRICK: All the 670 are not interested in the matter.
  MR. STEVENSON: Seeing that intimation was given that the copies might be taken away, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are only one or two left?
  MR. CAINE: I have one on my library table at the present moment.

  MOUNTAIN BATTERIES.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what is the present armament of the mountain batteries of the Army; whether the guns are still muzzle-loaders, firing black

  1185
  powder ammunition; whether one of the two mountain batteries in South Africa has been re-armed with naval guns; and what has become of the other.
  MR. BRODRICK: It is the case that the guns of the Indian mountain batteries are of an old pattern, that they are muzzle-loaders, and fire black powder. Of the two batteries in South Africa one has been re-armed with heavy guns; the other, which has retained its guns, is in Natal. A new design of mountain gun has been approved, and manufacture is about to begin.

  ARMY RESERVE—SECTION D.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a large number of men in Section D of the Army Reserve, who, on the completion of their first period of service, were re-engaged for four years only, their attestation paper stating that the service was to be for Home defence, having been sent out to South Africa, are now detained beyond the period for which they were engaged; whether there is anything in the attestation paper on this subject; whether there is any intention of giving compensation to the men of Section D so detained, who consider they have been unfairly treated; and whether, on completing their seventeenth year of service, they will have some additional allowance in the way of pension or otherwise.
  LORD STANLEY: I am not aware that there are any men of Section D of the Army Reserve serving in South Africa or detained with the Colours contrary to the terms of their engagement. Men of this section are liable, as shown by their attestation paper, to serve in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, and to be retained for an extra year if a state of war exists when their four years engagement expires. It is not proposed to compensate them in respect of this extra year's service, seeing that they accepted the liability for it and received a retaining fee.

  CAVALRY ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the 4th squadrons added in 1900 are permanent additions to the establishment; and, if so, why, in the case of the King's Dragoon Guards and
  1186
  the 3rd Dragoon Guards, the 4th squadron was broken up on their departure for the front; and whether it is intended to reduce them to three service squadrons and one reserve.
  MR. BRODRICK: The 4th squadrons were added to the King's Dragoon Guards and 3rd Dragoon Guards for home defence purposes. They were added in 1900, and, as an increase of this nature is at first in recruits and not in trained soldiers, the regiments on their departure for South Africa only made up three squadrons each—which is the war establishment of all the cavalry regiments in South Africa. The question of whether the permanent organisation of cavalry at home shall be three or four squadrons is under consideration.

  PURCHASES OF ARMY HORSES IN IRELAND.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the total cost of the department for purchasing horses in Ireland; also if, in view of the statement of the Financial Secretary that under 300 Irish horses were purchased from non-dealers in Ireland, he would either abolish altogether the establishment for the purchase of horses in Ireland or insist on the remount officers exhibiting by direct purchase a little more reliance on their own judgment of horseflesh; and whether the Irish farmer loses about £12 per horse by the present system of purchasing almost exclusively from dealers.
  LORD STANLEY: There is no intention of abolishing the establishment for purchasing horses in Ireland. As I informed the House, efforts will be made to purchase from private individuals as well as dealers. I cannot give any information as to prices, but I will ascertain the cost of the department.
  COLONEL NOLAN: If the noble Lord will look up the records he will find that exactly the same answer was given eight or nine years ago.
  MAJOR RASCH: But was not the establishment started in order to get rid of the dealers?
  LORD STANLEY: We wish to give equal facilities as far as possible to private individuals.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Will you see that they get as good a price?
  LORD STANLEY: I hope every horse is bought at its proper value.
  MR. BARTLEY: Do the representatives of the War Office in Ireland find any reluctance on the part of the Irish to sell horses to be used in the prosecution of a war to which they have a serious objection?
  [No answer was given.]

  IRISH MANUFACTURES AND GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Government will establish a receiving depot in Dublin for samples of tenders from Irish manufacturers and contractors who are desirous to compete for contracts for supplies and fittings for the troops and horses stationed in Ireland.
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the reply given to a similar question put by the hon. Member in July last.*

  CRIMEAN SOLDIERS' WIDOWS AND THE PATRIOTIC FUND.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is within his knowledge that several hundreds of widows of Crimean soldiers, some of them eighty years of age and upwards, have not yet received any benefit from the Patriotic Fund, which was subscribed forty-six years ago in anticipation that such widows would be promptly benefited; and whether, in view of the arrangements now being made by the Government for the relief of the widows and orphans of the soldiers who have fallen in the present war, anything can be done for the unrelieved widows whose husbands served in the Crimean campaign.
  LORD STANLEY: The Patriotic Fund was raised to assist the widows and children of those killed in action or dying on active service during the Crimean War. All widows coming within these conditions and now surviving are, so far as is known to the Commissioners, in receipt of permanent allowances. Under the extended
  * See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxvi., page 1508.
  1188
  powers given to them in 1897 the Commissioners have applied the surplus of the Fund to the relief of 936 widows of soldiers and sailors having Crimean war service who were not eligible for relief under the Commission's earlier powers. The Commissioners are, I understand, obtaining an actuarial valuation of their funds, with a view to-considering the possibility of increasing, this number. They believe, however, that the number of widows of Crimean soldiers surviving far exceeds that which they can hope to assist.
  MR. FLAVIN: Are not the Crimean veterans in Irish workhouses, entitled to money out of this fund?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir.
  MR. FLAVIN: Oh, of course the workhouse is good enough for them!

  VOLUNTEER AMMUNITION IN ABERDEEN.
  MR. MACONOCHIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if arrangements can be made to hold a stock of ammunition for volunteers in the county of Aberdeen.
  LORD STANLEY: Every volunteer unit holds at its own headquarters a stock of ammunition proportionate to its strength.

  VISIT OF IMPERIAL TROOPS TO AUSTRALIA.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how much has been paid to the Colonial Governments in reference to the visit of Imperial troops to Australia; and whether any, and, if so, what portion of the expense of the visit has been paid by the Colonial Governments.
  LORD STANLEY: No payment has been made to the Colonial Governments in this connection, as the Imperial troops are to be the guests of the Colonies, during their visit.

  ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND RETURN.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the Return, Royal Patriotic Fund, voted 14th December last, will be presented to the House and circulated to Members.
  LORD STANLEY: The Return will be ready very shortly.

  ARMY CONTRACTS—TEMPORARY SECRECY AS TO PRICES.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that the records of the War Office and of the Committees of this House show that in past wars secret contracts have opened the door to corruption and to excessive profits for middlemen, the statement of the Financial Secretary that the price of horses purchased in Ireland during the past year is to remain a State secret forms a portion of the policy of secrecy in all contracts, or does this secrecy extend only to the price of horses or the price of Irish horses.
  LORD STANLEY: The purchase of horses is not made by contract, and it is not considered to the public interest to publish the prices while the present purchases continue.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS FOR THE NAVY.
  MR. M'FADDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the Pastoral Letter to the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland, assembled in National Synod at Maynooth last year, in which they complained that though Roman Catholic sailors were required to go to every quarter of the globe and to be ready at all times to fight, no Roman Catholic priest is allowed to accompany them, and no proper provision is made for the practise of their religion; and whether the Government will take immediate steps to remedy this state of things by appointing Roman Catholic chaplains sufficient for the spiritual requirements of the Roman Catholics at present serving in His Majesty's Navy.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): My attention has not been drawn to the letter referred to by the hon. Member, but the statement that no proper provision is made for the practise of their religion by Roman Catholic seamen in the Royal Navy is incorrect. Every possible facility, consistent with the exigencies of the Service, is accorded, and while it is impossible to place a Roman
  1190
  Catholic priest on board His Majesty's ships, provision is made at all ports where Roman Catholic missions exist to afford spiritual ministrations to the men. As stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Clare on Friday last, a Roman Catholic chaplain has been sent to China, whose services are in addition to those provided locally. The Admiralty is always ready to consider, and, if possible, to give effect to any reasonable proposals which may be made with the object of providing for the spiritual welfare of men of all creeds serving in the fleet.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an impression prevails in some quarters that a ship would sink if there were a Catholic priest on board?
  A NATIONALIST MEMBER: What greater difficulty is there in sending a Roman Catholic priest on board a man-of-war than there is in the case of a Protestant?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The difficulty is to find accommodation for more chaplains than we already have. The Admiralty, too, are advised that more chaplains are not necessary.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the hon. Gentleman put himself in communication with Cardinal Logue?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I cannot give any promise to communicate with any particular bishop or archbishop. Cardinal Vaughan has been in consultation with the Admiralty, and I understand that he represents the Roman Catholic view.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: But is it not the fact that most of the Catholic sailors in the Navy are Irishmen, and in view of that will the hon. Member communicate with Cardinal Logue?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir. I cannot give any such undertaking.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Then I give notice I will raise this question on the Navy Estimates.

  COOPERS HILL COLLEGE.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the names of the Board of Visitors of Cooper's Hill College

  1191
  who recommended the dismissal of the seven professors of physics and engineering, also of those who refused to make such a recommendation; what amount over and above the maintenance of the college has been received in students' fees for the last five years; what urgent reasons exist calling for these dismissals in the midst of the year's course; can he say how will such a proceeding increase the efficiency of the college; and will he grant the inquiry asked for.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The names of the members of the Board of Visitors of Cooper's Hill College who recommended the changes which have been decided upon, involving the retirement of certain of the present teaching staff, are as follows:—Sir Charles Crosthwaite, Sir William Preece, Sir Alexander Rendel, Mr. Hugh Leonard, Colonel Pearson, Sir William Bisset, Sir Courtney Ilbert, and Sir John Wolfe Barry. One member of the Board, Sir Douglas Fox, was absent on the Continent, and gave no opinion; otherwise the Board was unanimous. During the last five years the cost of maintaining the college exceeded the amount received as students' fees to the extent of £7,719. I cannot within the limits of an answer to a question give the reasons for the decision which has been arrived at, but they may be found in the Papers, which ought before now to have been in the hands of Members. As the matter has been very fully considered by the highest competent authorities I do not propose to hold any further inquiry.
  MR. O'MARA: Is it a fact that one member at least of the Board of Visitors who was stated to have recommended the dismissal of the professors has petitioned to have the inquiry granted?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No, Sir.
  MR. CHANNING: Will the noble Lord see that the Papers are distributed?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have no control over the printing, but I had hoped that several days ago the Papers would be printed by now and distributed.
  MR. O'MARA: Did not Sir Douglas Fox ask to have the inquiry granted?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Sir Douglas Fox was absent.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the Members be given the opportunity of discussing this question?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I cannot answer the question.

  BURMA JUDICIAL SERVICE.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the speech of the Lieutenant Governor of Burma, at a recent Durbar, in which he said the time appears to have come for the establishment of a separate judicial service composed of judges both appellate and subordinate whose whole time would be devoted exclusively to judicial work; whether this statement was made on the initiative and approval of the Government of India; and if it is in contemplation to introduce this reform in other parts of India.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have no information as to any proposals which may be under consideration for the establishment of a separate judicial service for Burma. Such a proposal, however, if it were made and approved, would not introduce any new principle, but would merely have the effect of assimilating the practice in Burma to that which has been already adopted elsewhere. There are very few, if any parts of India where civil litigation is not dealt with by a separate agency from the executive and magisterial work.

  CHINA—THE LOOTING AT PEKING.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the articles seized I by the British troops in Peking, with a view to restitution after peace is declared, have been removed from the places or palaces where they were seized; and, if so, whether these articles were left untouched by the Russian troops during their prior occupation of the same places or palaces; and, if so, on what grounds the British troops acted differently from the Russian troops.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The articles in question have not been seized, as the question implies, but put into safe custody by General Gaselee with a view to restitution to their owners when the war is over. I have no information as to what

  1193
  has happened to all the other articles which were in the palace when it was first occupied by the Russian troops.

  BRITISH TRADE STATISTICS— EXPORTS.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the total value in 1900 of the purchases by the mother country of goods produced within the British Empire, and of the value of the goods made in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland bought by the Empire, and of the value of the goods bought of and sold to foreign countries.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The declared value of the imports of merchandise (that is, not including bullion and specie) from British possessions in 1900 was £110,099,117, and from foreign countries £413,436,422. The declared value of the exports of British and Irish produce from the United Kingdom to British possessions in the same year was £94,322,232, and to foreign countries £197,129,074. The figures are subject to revision on final examination of the accounts.

  IMPORTS OF FOREIGN MANUFACTURES.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can inform the House what the total value of the import of goods manufactured by foreign labour was in 1900, and how much revenue to the public a tax of ten per cent. thereon would produce.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not possible to state the value of the import of goods manufactured by foreign labour, the statistics compiled by the Customs only showing the countries from which the goods were shipped, and not the nationality of the labour employed in their manufacture, which would be quite impossible to arrive at in the case of goods made abroad from materials imported from this country in a half manufactured condition.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: But did not the imports of foreign manufactured goods last year exceed a hundred millions sterling?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think the total was eighty-six millions odd.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Does that include part-manufactured goods?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to reply in the negative.

  TIN PLATE INDUSTRY—AMERICAN DUTIES.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the competition of the tin plate works in the United States of America, supported by their tariff, with the tin plate works in South Wales, and of the danger of this industry being lost to the people of the Principality; and whether he can make representation to the Government of the United States of America with a view to induce them to reduce their duty on tin plates entering their country.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the competition between the tin plate works in the United States and the tin plate works in South Wales. It is satisfactory, however, that while the exports of tin plate to America have declined, those to other countries have increased in recent years. Discretion as regards the suggestion in the last paragraph rests with the Foreign Office, but I have no reason to suppose that any representations from this country to the United States Government with a view to a reduction of the duty on tin plate would be likely to have any result.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take fiscal measures to protect this industry?
  [No answer was returned.]

  DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXATION.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the proportion of public revenue raised by direct taxation and the proportion raised by indirect taxation in the United Kingdom, the United States, France, and Germany.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): For the year 1899–1900

  1195
  direct taxation contributed 48·4 per cent. of the total tax revenue of the United Kingdom, as compared with 51·6 per cent. from indirect taxation. I am afraid I cannot give the figures for foreign countries. I may, however, point out that, in the case of Federal Governments, such as the United States or Germany, any comparison, unless very carefully made, would be apt to be misleading.

  TAPERING PIT PROPS AND BARS.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a meeting of the North Staffordshire Institute of Mining Engineers, held at Hanley, on 14th January, when Mr. W. N. Atkinson, one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, presided, and a discussion concerning a patent for tapering pit props and bars, taken out by Mr. H. Hepplewhite, one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, took place, when Mr. Atkinson spoke in favour of the patent and stated that the question of tapering props was one of economy and not one of safety, and that Mr. W. Statham stated tapering would be unsafe in some mines; whether he has any information to show that some colliery companies have declined to recognise the validity of such Inspector's patent, and refuse to pay the royalties; and whether, seeing that some colliery companies are paying the Inspector for such patent right, he will see that none of His Majesty's Inspectors of Minesdevote their attention to matters other than those of the safety of the men, and take measures to prevent any of them receiving money from colliery companies.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): Nothing had been heard of this matter in the Home Office until the hon. Member's question appeared on the Paper. I have now made inquiries, and find that it is the case that Mr. Hepplewhite, an Assistant Inspector of Mines, has taken out a patent for tapered props and has formed a company to run it, also that the validity of the patent is disputed. With I out going so far as to say that no inspector may ever be interested in an invention, I think Mr. Hepplewhite's interest in this patent is incompatible with his
  1196
  position as Inspector of Mines, and I have decided that he must abandon either the one or the other. I have, however, no reason to think that he has ever acted as inspector otherwise than properly and impartially. Mr. Atkinson, who has no interest in the matter, informs me that he did not speak in favour of the patent at the Institute of Mining Engineers. In my opinion he was perfectly justified in joining in the discussion on the subject of tapered props.

  GUN LICENCES.
  MR. JOHN GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, with the view of preventing accidents and increasing the revenue, the Government will introduce legislation to compel the purchasers of pistols and revolvers to exhibit their gun licences before buying firearms from dealers.
  MR. RITCHIE: I cannot make any promise as to legislation on this subject.

  THE JURY SYSTEM.
  MR. JOHN GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the dissatisfaction among jurors, the Home Office will consider the advisability of introducing at an early date adequate reform of the present system.
  MR. RITCHIE: I cannot give any promise as to the introduction of legislation on this subject.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE PAY.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will reconsider the question of increased pay for the metropolitan police constables so far as to make the entire increase granted pensionable, instead of granting one-half in the shape of a lodging allowance, especially as the allocation of one-half the increase in the latter form has caused dissatisfaction among those who do not participate owing to their being lodged in the police station houses.
  MR. RITCHIE: Beyond pointing out that the statement that half the increased pay for the Metropolitan Police Force has been given in the shape of a lodging

  1197
  allowance does not accurately represent the facts, I can only say that I am not prepared to reconsider the decision to which I came after going into the question very fully and carefully in all its bearings, and which I hold to meet fully the circumstances of the case.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Is it not the fact that the increase given to the City Police is wholly pensionable? Why should not the Metropolitan Police be treated in the same way?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  VACCINATION—THE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that by the working of the conscientious objector's clause in The Vaccination Act, 1898, loss of time and money are inflicted upon poor people objecting to vaccination by having to attend a police court and pay fees for a certificate, and in view of the fact that numbers of working people still neither have their children vaccinated nor obtain certificates, and of the increase in the number of vaccinations claimed as the result of that Act, he will, during the present session, introduce a Bill to completely eliminate the principle of compulsion from the Vaccination Acts.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): The reply to the question of my hon. friend can only be in the negative.

  VACCINATION RETURNS.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will grant the Return respecting Vaccination which stands on to-day's Paper.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Some of the information desired could not be given at the present time. Particulars as to the expenditure out of the rates in respect of vaccination in each financial year are given in the Local Taxation Returns relating to that year; and it does not seem necessary that a special Return should be granted.

  OVERCROWDING IN EAST LONDON.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware of the difficulty of proving cases of overcrowding in houses occupied by aliens in East London; and whether he will consider the desirability of amending the Public Health Act, 1891 (London), in such a manner as to allow sanitary authorities to enter houses at any hour without applying for a magistrate's warrant.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am not sure what is the precise nature of the difficulty to which my hon. friend refers; but if he will bring under my notice any particular instances in which that difficulty has been experienced, I shall be happy to consider what alteration, if any, in the law may be desirable.

  RATES ON AGRICULTURAL LAND.
  MR. SPEAR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in granting the Return as to Rates on Agricultural Land which stands on the Paper for today, he will include in the Return a statement showing the sum paid to each union in lieu of one-half of the rates on agricultural land in each union.
  MR. WALTER LONG: For reasons similar to those which I gave yesterday in reply to a question by my hon. friend, the Member for East Somerset, I regret that I am unable to grant the Return now asked for.

  ABERDEEN POST OFFICE BUILDINGS.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the revised plans for the erection of a new post office in Aberdeen have now been finally settled; when it is intended to begin work on the erection of this new post office; and, what sum it is intended to allot to this work in the Estimates for the coming financial year.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): Revised sketch plans were sent by me to the Postmaster General on the 17th December last for his observations. I have stated that I cannot under-

  1199
  take that the work can be commenced before the middle of this year, and I am afraid it is not in my power, at present, to give the right hon. Gentleman any more definite information on that point. The sum of £4,000 is taken in the Estimates of the coming financial year for proceeding with the work. This was as much as I thought I was likely to be able to spend.

  TRUST FRAUDS.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General if he can state how many cases of a breach of trust, to the prejudice of the widow and the orphan or other beneficiary, engaged in 1900 the attention of the High Court of Justice; and what steps he proposes to take against this class of fraud, and to bring to the notice of the public about to settle moneys or create trust deeds that the Judicial Trustees Act, 1896, enables them to appoint a judicial trustee under the supervision of the Court.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: A great many cases of breach of trust of the nature referred to in the question have engaged the attention of the Courts in the year 1900. Their number could be ascertained, if at all, only by a long and troublesome inquiry. The Government have under consideration a measure for amending the Larceny Act with regard to frauds by agents. The fact that the Judicial Trustee Act, 1896, stands on the Statute-book is, of course, well known. The attention of the public can be further called to it only through the usual channels of information or by means of such questions as that put by my hon. and gallant friend.

  ENGLISH JURY PANELS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General if he can state the number of cases in which jurors have, during the last fifty years, been ordered by the Crown to stand by without cause shown in England.
  Sir ROBERT FINLAY: I find on inquiry that it is impossible to give the particulars asked for, as no record has been kept of the cases.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I inquire if it is possible that a single case cannot be given?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Undoubtedly there have been cases. There is not the slightest question as to the existence of the power, which was settled so long ago as 1807 in a case to which both Lord Campbell and Lord Chief Justice Cock-burn were parties. It is exercised and will be exercised whenever it is required in the interests of justice.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give us the benefit of his own experience? Can he tell the House, from his own experience, how often he has seen this practice exercised in the English Courts?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: My practice in the Criminal Courts has been so limited that I am afraid my experience would be of very little value.

  MAIDSTONE ELECTION.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General if he is considering the cases of bribery scheduled in the Judges' Report to the House on the Maidstone Election with a view to the prosecution of the offenders.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Yes, Sir.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General if the persons who are electors and who were scheduled by the Judges in their Report to the House on the Maidstone Election Petition for giving and receiving bribes will be eligible to vote in the election now in progress.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: No, Sir.

  TELEGRAPH FORMS.
  LIEUT.-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state when the contract for the supply of the paper used for telegrams is terminable; and whether, on the termination of the present contract, the Postmaster General will arrange for the supply of paper of a more durable and substantial character.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The contract for the supply of the delivered telegram forms is for one year from the 1st ultimo, and continues until determined by six months notice. The Postmaster General has not received any complaints of the

  1201
  quality of the paper used for the forms issued to provincial offices. It seems on the whole to be fairly suitable for the purpose, and in view of the large number (upwards of 75,000,000) used, the cost of effecting any material improvement would be considerable; but he will give further consideration to the question before another contract is entered into.

  WELSH-SPEAKING POSTMASTERS.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that inconvenience is frequently caused in Wales by the appointment of postmasters, not able to speak Welsh, in districts where a large proportion of the inhabitants transact their business in Welsh; and whether he will state whether it is the practice of the Department, when making such appointments, to issue the advertisement in such a form as to ascertain the qualifications of the candidates upon this point.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is the practice of the Department when making appointments to postmasterships at places where a knowledge of Welsh is necessary to ascertain that the candidate whom it is proposed to appoint possesses such knowledge.

  DUBLIN AND BELFAST MAIL TRAINS.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that on the Great Northern Railway, Ireland, third class passenger carriages are not attached to the limited mail trains between Dublin and Belfast; whether he can state what is the reason of this exemption on the Great Northern Railway, who have a monopoly of the train service of the northeast portion of Ireland; and whether he will take steps to have third class passenger carriages attached to the limited mail trains on the Great Northern Railway, as is the case on the other lines of railways in Ireland.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The question as to what passenger carriages should be attached to the trains referred to is not one for the Postmaster General to consider. He has no right to interfere
  1202
  with the discretion of the company in this matter.
  MR. DALY: But when the Government arrange their mail contracts do they not make special stipulations with regard to the trains?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of it.

  MR. JERMYN'S CASTLECOVE ESTATE.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that seven tenants on the estate of Mr. E. L. Jermyn, in the electoral division of Castlecove, county Kerry, served originating notices, with the consent of the landlord and agent, to have judicial rents fixed by court valuers for 25th March, 1899, and that these cases have not yet been dealt with; and whether he will take steps to have valuers sent to value the land.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I am informed that in six out of the seven cases referred to a revision of the tenement valuation became necessary under the provisions of the Local Government Act before judicial rents could be fixed, and that until this revision, which was only recently completed, was performed, the Land Commissioners were not in a position to refer the consents to the valuers. All the cases will now be dealt with, with the least possible delay.

  ARMAGH AND KINGSCOURT RAIL WAY SCHEME.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a Bill was passed through Parliament last year empowering the making of a line of railway between Armagh and Kingscourt Ireland, and making a competing route with the Great Northern Railway between Armagh and Dublin; and that the promoters of the line of railway between Armagh and Kingscourt have sold their rights to make the line of railway between Kingscourt and Armagh, which, if carried out, would give a monopoly to the Great Northern Railway Company, which all the public bodies along the entire route protest against; and whether, under Clause 17 of the Agricultural and

  1203
  Technical Act, he will take any steps to prevent an arrangement between the promoters of the Kingscourt and Armagh Railway and the Great Northern Railway, which, if carried out, would injure an important manufacturing and agricultural district between Armagh and Kingscourt.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): At the request of my right hon. friend I will reply to this question. The matter to which the question relates is not one in which the Department of Agriculture have power to intervene under Section 17 of the Act of 1899.

  HORSE BREEDING IN IRELAND.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how it is that the Royal Dublin Society, in offering twenty-five premiums of £100 each for stallions eligible for inclusion in the register of the Department of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland, have allotted only four premiums to Ulster, six to Connaught eight to Munster, and seven to Leinster; and whether he will direct that a re-arrangement of the premiums be considered with a view of giving Ulster a larger number, to which she seems entitled.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed by the Royal Dublin Society that the number of premiums for thoroughbred sires allotted to each province is based upon the extent to which breeding from thoroughbreds is carried on in each province. This knowledge the Society has obtained through the agency of their local committees, which for several years past have administered horse breeding grants in each county. The Society's list of registered thoroughbred stallions in Ireland for the year 1900 shows that there were 93 in Leinster, 63 in Munster 32 in Connaught, and 13 in Ulster, arrangements are revised annually, and tered as the experience of the previous year may suggest.

  FAIR RENTS IN COUNTY LONGFORD.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the next Sub-Commissions for fixing fair rents will be held in Longford, and when the decisions in first and second statutory terms of
  1204
  cases heard in Longford recently will be given.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hearing of a list containing cases from the Unions of Granard, Longford, and Ballymahon will be commenced at Granard on the 12th instant. Judgment will probably be de livered in the heard at the last Longford sittings in the course of a couple of weeks.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: When will the next sittings be held in Longford?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot answer that without notice.

  SLIGO COUNTY COUNCIL—THE COURT HOUSE FLAG.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a body of police entered the courthouse of Sligo, in July, 1899, and took by force there from a green flag, the property of the Sligo County Council; that some of the councillors assembling for the transaction of the business of the county were assaulted on the occasion; that the flag still remains in the possession of the police; and whether, in view of the fact that green flags were universally displayed in London on last St. Patrick's Day, he will order the restoration of the flag in question to its rightful owners, and allow it to be displayed during the sittings of the council.
  MR. ATKINSON: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. I have not as yet received any report in reference to it, but my recollection is that the matter referred to was fully discussed in the House in the session before last, when it appeared that the county council acted illegally and improperly, that ten police seized and removed the flag by order of the High Sheriff, the legal custodian of the courthouse, that no unnecessary force was used by the police, and no assault committed by them, save what were unavoidable in the discharge of this duty. The flag still remains in the possession of the police. The answer to the last two questions is in the negative.
  MR. O'DOWD: Is it not the fact that that flag was not raised at all?

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) RETURN.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant the Return, under the heading Local Government (Ireland), standing on to-day's Paper.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A Return was laid on the Table in the session of 1898 (No. 237 of that year) which contains all the information required in the first part of the hon. Member's proposed Return. The information desired in the second and fourth paragraphs of the Notice can be given. I am in correspondence with the Local Government Board on the advisability of granting a comprehensive Return of the salaries of officials before and after the passing of the Act of 1898, and I will advise the hon. Member when I am in possession of the facts. Perhaps the hon. Member for East Donegal will take these observations as applying equally to the Return on the same subject which stands in his name.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION RETURN.
  MR. O'DOHEETY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant the Return of the Irish Land Commission standing on the Paper of to-day.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The date February, 1800, under the first heading of the Notice is clearly a mistake for February, 1901. A Return was published in July last. Since then I am informed that but one lay assistant commissioner has been appointed, to whom a further Report in continuation of that granted last session would now apply. Under the circumstances it is hardly desirable to issue a further printed Return at present. I have, however, forwarded to the hon. Member particulars regarding this one gentleman in the form indicated.

  THE RECENT "DAY OF GENERAL MOURNING"—POLICE AND WICK LOW SHOPKEEPERS.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the police ordered the publicans of Roundwood and Lara, county Wicklow, to keep their shops closed on
  1206
  Saturday, 2nd February, and whether they acted on their own initiative, or upon instructions received from a superior officer, and under what statute are the Irish Constabulary entitled to order the closing of public-houses on an ordinary weekday.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This question only appeared on the Paper this morning for the first time, and as local inquiry is necessary I must ask the hon. Member to repeat it on Thursday next.

  LIMERICK CLERK OF THE PEACE
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain why, on the appointment of the present Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the county and city of Limerick, his salary was fixed at the same amount as his predecessor, while those of the officials in the office were reduced.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The salary of the present Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the county and city of Limerick has not been fixed at the same amount paid to his predecessor. The salary of the present holder of the office is £900 a year, that of the late officer was £950 a year. The Government have no concern with the appointment of officials subordinate to the Clerk of the Crown and Peace and have no voice in the salaries paid to them.

  COMMISSION OF THE PEACE FOR SOUTH ARMAGH.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant the Return respecting the Commission of the Peace in South Armagh, which stands on Monday's Paper.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I shall be happy to supply the hon. Member with all available information on the subject in answer to a question, if he will place one on the Paper for next Monday. It is unnecessary to incur the expense of embodying the information in a formal Parliamentary Paper.

  CHAIRMAN OF THE IRISH BOARD OF WORKS.
  MR. PATEICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is

  1207
  aware that the Chairman of the Board of Works (Ireland) has resigned his position; and can he say if Mr. Robertson resigned on the termination of his engagement or on what other grounds, and whether his resignation has been accepted.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Robertson has not resigned. The period of his appointment will expire on the 31st of March next.

  SALARIES OF COUNTY OFFICIALS IN WEXFORD.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the result of the appeals of the county Wexford County Council against the orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland increasing the salaries of certain county officials in county Wexford.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that the Court of Appeal has reversed the decision of the Court of King's Bench, and quashed the Orders made by the Local Government Board.
  MR. FLAVIN: What effect will the judgment have on other counties in Ireland?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! That does not arise out of the question.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the decision of the Irish Court of Appeal, delivered on the 25th instant in the case of the Wexford County Council against the Local Government Board (Ireland), will apply to all cases in which the wishes and decisions of other county councils in Ireland were similarly overborne by the Local Government Board.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The judgment of the Court of Appeal only decides the four cases from county Wexford. If there are other cases in which county councils are dissatisfied with the awards of the Local Government Board the councils will, no doubt, act on legal advice as to their position under all circumstances.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman not accept the decision, and thus refrain from putting the county councils to the expense of appeals?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The decision is a very important one, and the Local Government Board would do well to take a few days to consider it.

  SPENCER DOCK, DUBLIN.
  MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the lock gates at Spencer Dock, Dublin, connecting the Royal Canal with the Liffey, have fallen down owing to their rotten condition, and thereby emptied the docks, causing traffic on the Royal Canal to be suspended, to the loss and inconvenience of the boatowners and traders who use the canal, although the renewal of these gates and new stone sills was ordered by General Hutchinson, K.C.B., who inspected this canal, and again by Sir Francis Marindin, C.B., who inspected the canal; and if the Board of Works will again instruct one of their inspectors to examine the canal, with a view of compelling the Midland Great Western Railway Company to carry out the works ordered by the Board of Trade, so that the traffic may be resumed on the canal.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The lock gates have not fallen down nor have the docks been emptied. In the afternoon of the 15th inst. a piece of iron accidentally got into a position which obstructed the proper closing of the lock gates. This caused a lowering of water in the dock and a temporary interference with traffic. The matter was put right by the morning of the 10th inst., and traffic was then resumed. The renewal of those gates and sills was not ordered by General Hutchinson or Sir Francis Marindin.

  STATE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT.
  MR. FENWICK: On behalf of the hon. Member for Durham, Chester-le-Street, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the terms of reference to the proposed Joint Committee to inquire into the arrangements made at the opening of Parliament will be so framed as to make it possible for the Committee to take into consideration the accommodation for the Press.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think there can be no doubt that the terms of reference to the Committee would allow

  1209
  them, indeed almost oblige them, to consider the matter referred to in the question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (GOVERNMENT BUSINESS).
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise to make the motion, "That Government business have precedence this day and to-morrow of all other business." Perhaps it would be well to remind the House that, though the resolution is very accurately stated from a technical point of view, it really is, in substance, rather a misleading resolution. The resolution is not to facilitate Government business in the ordinary sense of the word. It really is to facilitate the task of the critics of the Government and give those critics wider opportunities for exercising their rights. We ask no privileges or advantages for Government legislation. The motion is simply aimed at enabling us to get through absolutely necessary Supply before March 31st.
MR. CREMER: I rise to a point of order. Several hon. Members are afraid that if this motion is carried it will deprive them of their opportunity to-morrow.
MR, SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member had better wait and hear what I have to say. I am making the motion in this unusual form because I am getting somewhat alarmed as to the amount of time which will be available for dealing with Supply before that date. This year March 31st falls on a Sunday, so that that day and March 30th are not available for dealing with Supply before the end of the financial year. It will therefore be necessary to introduce the Appropriation Bill upon Monday, March 25th. If that were done, the Second Reading would be taken on Tuesday, March 26th. the Committee stage, on which no discussion can take place, on Wednesday, March 27th, and the Third Reading on March 28th. It would, I believe, be possible to defer the First Reading to Tuesday, March 26th, but if that were done, private Members would be deprived of Wednesday for the discussion of private Members' Bills, because
1210
the Second Reading would fall on that day. I therefore take Monday, March 25th. Before and including March 25th, we shall have fifteen days only for the discussion, in the first place, of the Civil Service, the Navy, and the Army Supplementary Estimates, and, in the second place, for getting the Speaker out of the chair and obtaining Vote A and Vote I of the two spending Departments and a Vote on Account. All these financial operations must be got through before the Appropriation Bill is introduced; and in addition to that we have, out of the fifteen days, to find one—which will, I think be an early one —on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his statement on the subject of the Civil List in connection with the appointment of the Committee by which that Civil List is to considered and discussed in the first instance. That practically reduces us to fourteen days for the discussion of all that financial business. I wish I could think fourteen days was an excessive calculation; but I find that last year we took sixteen nights to get through the corresponding business of last year, and there were not last year, as unfortunately there are this year, largo Navy Supplementary Votes to consider in addition to Civil Service and Army Supplementary Votes. I am sorry to say that the Supplementary Votes this year are rather formidable in their amount. There are, I believe, over £1,000,000 Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, over £1,000,000 Navy Supplementary Estimates, and over £3,000,000 Army Supplementary Estimates. The mere magnitude of a Vote is, I know, no certain index of the amount of discussion it will legitimately provoke; but when I look at the figures I feel it is not improbable that the House will wish to devote quite as much, if not more, time this year to the discussion of the Supplementary Estimates as it did last year and on some preceding occasions. That is not all. The operation of getting the Speaker out of the chair for Naval and Military Supply is the proper and the best occasion on which to discuss those large questions of policy raised by the statements of the Ministers responsible for these two great Departments; and, as we have made no secret that we have proposals to make with regard to the Army, I cannot doubt that the House will desire very full opportunity for consider-

1211
ing and discussing the statement of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War. And, as there is a large increase on the Naval Estimates of the preceding year, I doubt not that on the Naval Vote also discussion will be asked for, and no doubt will be required. In these circumstances, I think, the House, not at all in the interests of the Government, but in the interests of its own rights of criticising the Government, should do all it can, as I am sure it will, to help us to find time for dealing within the legal limits with this large mass of financial business. But I do not see how that important end can be attained unless the House will allow us to start upon this work on Thursday next with, as it were, a clear run before us. It is for this reason that I have asked the House to allow us at the conclusion of the debate on the Address immediately to set to work upon those preparatory resolutions without which we cannot deal with this mass of financial business. I need hardly say that I am very anxious not to interfere with the discussion of the private Bill which stands first to morrow, and I see no reason any such interference should take place. I am very anxious not to interfere with the discussion of private Members' Bills. If I have convinced the House that we come forward and ask for no privileges to advance our own particular business, if we make no request to monopolise the time of the House beyond keeping up with our own particular business—if the House is satisfied, as I hope it is, that I am asking nothing beyond the time necessary to carry our financial proposals —then I think we ought to be able to do all the business on the Paper in the course of this evening, leaving to-morrow quite clear for the purpose desired by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Government business have precedence this day and to-morrow of all other business."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The formidable and, I would say, beyond all doubt the unprecedented inroad which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make upon the opportunities for free and full discussion in this House—that inroad the right hon. Gentleman bases on what he calls the exigencies of the situation. But this in-
1212
road is made necessary not by the exigencies of the situation, but because the Government have failed to appreciate and provide for those exigencies There is not a circumstance that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to that was not in the knowledge of every Member of this House weeks and weeks ago. To begin with, he knew, and we knew, that there was to be and that there must be a very full opportunity for debate under the present circumstances on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. That was the distinct and clear understanding on all hands. The right hon. Gentleman knew the day of the week on which the 1st of April falls; even that the Government might have known after careful inquiry. The financial position in which they must find themselves was well known. It was well known to all of us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a heavy task to undertake to meet and set in order the financial requirements of this year and next year. The only element of novelty in the whole range of circumstances to which I refer is the question of the settlement of the Civil List; and surely the appointment of a Committee for that purpose need not occupy any long space of time. So that the question which every Member is entitled to ask is—"Why did you not foresee this position Why did you not call Parliament together earlier?" It was even contemplated, I understand, to call Parliament together later still, but that project was fortunately abandoned; and now we are in that position in which many of us foresaw that the proceedings of the Government would land us. Who are to discuss all these important questions —these Supplementary Estimates, so large and important, the Civil Service Estimates, the Estimates for the Naval and Military services, the general scheme of Army reform, which the Government is to put forward, the Estimates for next year—we are to discuss these and many other things in a helter-skelter fashion, and we know we shall be told that if we do not cut the debate short no time will be left for the completion of the necessary business. In the difficulty in which we are landed it is not easy to see how something of this kind is to be avoided, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman; but my argument is that it is his fault that we are in this position. Even the Secretary of State for the Colonies must

1213
see this when he thinks it over more carefully. If the step I suggested, of calling Parliament together earlier, had been adopted, it would have, if not completely obliterated the difficulty, greatly modified the pressure on hon. Members. As things are, what can we do? We have the proposal of the Government, which in itself does not seem to be a strange one under the circumstances; but there is one fact which arouses astonishment—the interference with Wednesdays. There was a complete understanding that no Wednesday was to be interfered with up to Easter. Members came to me on all sides who were desirous of introducing Bills and asked me if Wednesdays were likely to be available, and I said, I was given to understand that no Wednesday would be taken before Easter. Now the first Wednesday is to be taken or may be taken. I do not think that is in accordance with the arrangement which was made. I do not know how the matter stands with regard to to-morrow, because the light hon. Gentleman says he may not require to take tomorrow. If to-morrow is taken it will be contrary to the promise made.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never made such a promise.
SIR II. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Oh, yes.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Just read the promise I made.
SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It was an understanding that no Wednesday was to be taken up to Easter.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he had had on many occasions to protest against arrangements such as this, and, therefore, on this occasion he wished to say why, in his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman was justified in taking the action he now proposed. In past years Governments were constantly getting into a fix with regard to the financial business of the House by devoting their time to the furthering of political measures; they then came down and laid claim to the time of private Members for the purpose of disposing of the financial business. In this case, as he understood, the Government proposed to devote the whole of
1214
their own time as well as any additional time which the House might assign to them wholly to financial business, and to such an arrangement he had no objection to offer, as it avoided the misappropriation of the time to be taken from private members. Something had been said with regard to not taking Wednesdays, but he had always contended that if a demand was to be made on the time of private Members that demand ought to be a consistent one, and ought to affect the time of private Members fairly and squarely all round. He therefore strongly urged the right hon. Gentleman not to be persuaded into giving up Wednesdays, on the public ground, and the public ground only, that the demand he had made was owing to the exigencies of the position in which the Government found themselves with regard to the essential financial business of the House.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not know whether I correctly gathered what the right hon. Gentleman meant to convey, but I certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to give a definite promise that tomorrow should be devoted to the Bill down as the first order of the day.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is my hope and expectation.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not know in what sense that is meant. It rests with the Government, and I hope I may take it that it is quite certain and clear that the Bill will be taken tomorrow.
MR. YOXALLin moving the amendment that the words "and to-morrow" should be omitted from the motion, said that this was the first Wednesday available before Easter, there were only five Wednesdays in all before Easter, and after Easter all Wednesdays became very precarious so far as private Members were concerned. If the motion was passed almost every shred of private Members' time would be taken away in order to assist the Government. He had not long been a Member of the House, but he had sat long enough to see many of the rights— he would not say privileges of the private Members taken away. He would not have grumbled so much had there been,

1215
in his opinion, much necessity on the part I of the Government to make this encroachment on private Members' time, but the exigencies of the position must have been known both inside and outside the House for a considerable time. By the proposal to take every Tuesday before Easter balloting for Tuesdays for private Members' resolutions became an elaborate and solemn farce, yet it was religiously gone through once a week, and the Speaker was compelled by the rules of the House to take part in it, which was, to say the least, undignified. The right hon. Gentleman, in order to take away every Tuesday, suggested that he might also take the first Wednesday when, instead of a private Bill of great importance that was to be brought forward being discussed, the House would have to discuss financial business and Supplementary Estimates, which might very well have been discussed before the General Election.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend may take it that I do not press for tomorrow.
MR. YOXALLsaid the House was now asked to debate financial matters which they were aware might have been discussed during the brief session before Christmas, and in support of that abuse the right of private Members to bring forward private Bills, which very frequently, resulted inmost important legislation, was to be taken away. He protested against it, and he asked the House to support him in his protest. It was not a question of party, it was a question of the right of 600 Members out of 670. The ballot had given him the opportunity to bring forward a Bill on Wednesday, and therefore he had been compelled to move the Amendment. On the following day a proposal was to come before the House of the greatest importance to half a million working men, who, with their wives and families, represented 2,500,000 of the subjects of the King. Fate and the fortune of the ballot had given that one opportunity for bringing in this measure, and all the arrangements which had been made to test the question in the House were to be upset by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. He appealed to private Members on the Government side of the House to support him in his Amendment. It would not mean the resignation of the Govern-
1216
ment nor another General Election. Hon. Members could in this case vote according to their own consciences without turning out the Government or losing their seats. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed the hope that it might not be necessary to take Wednesday. He was perfectly convinced that it would be taken from private Members. If the right hon. Gentleman was in earnest in his desire not to take Wednesday, which was sot down for the discussion of the Eight Hours Bill, would he at a reasonable hour that night ask the House to closure the debate on the Address, and then take the debate on the resolutions to which he had referred?
MR. BROADHURST: I second the Amendment of my hon. friend with great pleasure. I join in the appeal to the Leader of the House that he should not disappoint the great national feeling with which the people have been looking forward to the debate on the Eight Hours Bill to-morrow. It is probably one of the most important labour questions that will come before the House during the present session. It has the first place for tomorrow, and I cannot imagine anything more mean for the Government to do, with several months before them for the transaction of business, than to commence this system of robbery so early in their Parliamentary career, and especially when that robbery takes effect in the way this motion would do. Who have heard that something like half a million workers are concerned in this great movement. These men are engaged at the imminent risk of their lives every day. They are engaged in the production of the first necessity for British commerce, and without it commerce would come to a stand.
MR. SPEAKERasked the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the question before the House.
MR. BROADHURST: Perhaps I did wander from the point, but my desire was to emphasise the importance of having a discussion on this to-morrow. I hope the Leader of the House will alter his mind in this particular case, and accept the Amendment made by my hon. friend the Member for West Nottingham. If the Government are pressed hard for time for their financial business it is the fault of the Government themselves. They and they alone are to blame. I quite understand

1217
that this motion of the Leader of the House meets the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Isle of Thanet, because he is generally against legislation except upon one or two particular subjects. If the Government would bring in a Bill which he approves of, no doubt he would support it. I sincerely trust that the Leader of the House, with his usual good nature, and I might say good sense, will accept this Amendment without a division. There is no other Member of this House who would have dared to make this motion except the Leader of the House. His manner is so seductive that really the same appeal from the mouth of any other Member of the Government would have led to universal screams of execration from this side of the House. We are always prevented when the right hon. Gentleman makes an appeal from giving vent in the volume we would otherwise do to our indignation. I strongly support the Amendment of my hon. friend.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the words 'and To-morrow.'"—(Mr. Yoxall.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'and To-morrow' stand part of the Question."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot help feeling that some Members of the House do not fully comprehend the purpose of my motion. Perhaps it is my own fault. There is no suggestion that tomorrow should be taken for Supply. We do not mean to take any business tomorrow except what remains over of the three first resolutions that stand on the Paper to-night. I do not see any reason whatever why the debate on the Miners Eight Hours Bill should be materially curtailed by the resolution I have brought before the House. I trust that the debate on the Address will be through very shortly. The first resolution deals with a universal desire on the part of Members of the House, the second deals with a rule which has been, year after year, approved by the House, and the only change I have introduced is one which is in favour of the critics of the Government.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman need have no fear at all
1218
about the House not having understood him on the previous occasion. I think so far as hon. Members on this side of the House are concerned that they perfectly understood what he was proposing and that he was making an exceedingly adroit move. Nobody here desires to prevent the discussion of this important Bill which concerns so many of the labouring classes of the country. We should be all exceedingly sorry to take any action which would prevent the discussion of the Bill. He has tried to use that knowledge as a screw upon us to prevent us from insisting upon the proper discussion of the remaining Amendments to the Address and the proper discussion. of his new resolutions. The way the matter stands is this—the right hon. Gentleman says to us, by putting Wednesday into this resolution, "If you don't conclude the debate on the Address tonight, and, in addition, if you do not to-night dispose of these three new resolutions, then I will take to-morrow away from the discussion of this important matter." He is therefore making an adroit move to force us into the position either of scamping the proper discussion of the grave questions involved in these three resolutions, or of having the appearance of interfering with the discussion to-morrow of this important Bill. The debate on the Amendment to the Address which has been moved, or is to be moved, by the hon. Member for East Mayo, raises an aspect of affairs in South Africa which has not been adequately discussed since the House met, and only this morning matters have transpired in the Papers laid on the Table, such as the correspondence between Lord Roberts and Louis Botha, which are of the utmost importance, and which have not been discussed at all. I think it would be a monstrous thing indirectly to put the screw upon us, so to speak, to prevent us having an adequate discussion of the Amendment of my hon. friend. I was astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment suggest that the debate on the Address should be closured at a convenient hour this evening, and that at ten or eleven o'clock tonight we could enter upon the task of discussing these three new resolutions with any hope of their being disposed of before the end of the sitting. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House knows perfectly well that that kind of

1219
talk will not deceive anybody. The first resolution, which he speaks of making a small Amendment on the Standing Orders, is in itself a most novel, and I would say revolutionary, proposal which sweeps away at one stroke one of the only remaining privileges of private Members to raise discussion on Mr. Speaker leaving the chair when the House goes, into Committee of Ways and Means. I respectfully say that the first resolution ought, if properly discussed, to occupy an entire sitting of the House. Then the second resolution is one dealing with the arrangements about Supply, which, though it has been passed by the House since 1896, has never been acquiesced in, certainly, by Members sitting in this quarter of the House, and so far as it rests with us never will be passed by the House without considerable discussion and vehement opposition. The third resolution is one taking away from private Members all the Tuesdays up to Easter. It is ridiculous to think that these three resolutions can be disposed of in a portion of a sitting, as was suggested by the mover of the Amendment. If the Government are in a difficulty, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, then the responsibility and blame rests upon themselves. We in this quarter of the House are not interested in assisting the Government to get out of this difficulty. What I think would be the proper course to adopt would be for the Amendment of my hon. friend for East Mayo with reference to affairs in South Africa to be discussed fully at this sitting of the House, that to-morrow should be reserved, in accordance with what I certainly thought was a clear promise and understanding of the Government, for the discussion of this important English private Bill, and that the whole of the sitting on Thursday should be devoted to the consideration of these three very grave and serious resolutions which interfere with the few remaining rights of private Members. That would be the proper course. If the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that the Address had been sufficiently debated it was his duty to have moved the closure yesterday or the day before. If he is not of opinion that the debate on the Address has been sufficiently prolonged, then the course I now suggest is the only one that will enable him to meet the difficulty in which he stands. By taking that course he will no doubt have to devote
1220
the sitting on Thursday to the discussion of the three resolutions instead of taking the Supplementary Estimates. He will lose a day by it, but that fault lies entirely with himself. Certainly on behalf of the Irish Members who come here to assert the liberty of speech which is very largely denied to them in Ireland, who come here not to assist the Government to do their business and to get them out of their difficulties, but to express their opinions on all matters of duty appointed to them, I protest against this proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. Notwithstanding the manner in which this Amendment was moved, I will vote for it, and I will vote in favour of any motion intended to thwart the intentions of the Government in depriving independent Members and private Members from the exercise of the few remaining privileges which they have of discussing matters of importance.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: I rise to join in the appeal to the Leader of the House in regard to this motion. There is one aspect of the question to which I would respectfully call his attention. It is now quite evident from what has been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down that the chances of the Eight Hours Bill coming on to-morrow, if this motion be agreed to, are exceedingly remote. I would remind the House, and the Leader of the House in particular, that this Bill is not one which can be treated as a little matter of no importance. It passed the second reading in this House some years ago, and was only defeated in Committee on one of its clauses through a misunderstanding. The Government, I submit, is pledged in regard to this matter. Some years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, in a speech in the county of Durham, distinctly enunciated an Eight Hours Bill for miners as part of the programme upon which the Unionist party was then appealing to the country. The Minors Eight Hours Bill has obtained a particularly favoured position for this session. It is an old friend of the House of Commons, but the feeling of the present House has not yet been tested in regard to the measure. The point to which I specially desire to direct the attention of the Leader of the House is that within the precincts of the House of Commons; at this moment there are scores of men

1221
from the mining districts of England, Scotland, and Wales who have come here at considerable expense in the expectation that that Bill would be taken to-morrow. If the motion of the right hon. Gentleman as it stands is agreed to the Bill will not be taken to-morrow, and all the expense which has been incurred by the working colliers in sending delegates will be wasted. That is an aspect of the matter which should not be overlooked. There is no question concerning which greater unanimity of opinion exists than the one down for discussion to morrow. Even as a matter of good tactics the Government would be well advised in agreeing at least to the spirit of the Amendment and giving us an undertaking that this Bill will be discussed to-morrow as one affecting the well-being of nearly three-quarters of a million of the most deserving members of the working classes of the country. For these reasons I add my appeal to those already made, in the expectation that the Government will agree to the proposal now before the House and give us an opportunity of ascertaining the real feeling of this Parliament in regard to a measure of so much importance.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: This is a much more serious question than I think the right hon. Gentleman has yet realised. What does he think will be the opinion of the miners all over the country if they are told that the question in which they take so natural and deep an interest is to be sacrificed simply because there are enormous Supplementary Estimates and an unusual and unprecedented financial condition? I do not think that that will recommend the Supplementary Estimates or their objects to that class of the community. The hon. Member for Waterford has I think suggested a very practical and wise solution of the difficulty. I do not see what right or necessity the Government have for interposing as between to-day and to-morrow these three resolutions. They are absolutely unnecessary. The Government have what I call cornered the House, and they must take the consequences. What is the penalty they will suffer? They will possibly lose a day, more probably half a day, of Supply on Thursday. If the right hon. Gentleman will take these three resolutions not to-night or tomorrow, but upon Thursday, there will be a, security that the Eight Hours Miners
1222
Bill, which I venture to say is one of the most supreme consequence in the opinion of one of the largest communities of labour in this country, will come on on Wednesday, and then there will be very much less feeling than I think would arise if the Eight Hours Bill was disposed of in the way now contemplated. If this is not done, I venture to say that the persons interested in that Bill, when they perceive that subordinate resolutions have blocked the discussion of a matter of such vital importance to them, will consider that they have not been fairly treated. Therefore I hope the Government will adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Waterford and take these resolutions on Thursday.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I wish to add my humble appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury. My appeal must be based on the importance of the question that we have at heart. It is perfectly clear that the question left for decision before it is possible to discuss the Bill we want considered is so important that there will be no chance whatever of discussing the Miners Eight Hours Bill. On behalf of that large body of men, as one of them, as one who has known what it is to earn his bread hewing coal, and to work long hours, I must say that it is our opinion, honestly, that if we get that Bill passed it will tend to decrease the number of lives that are lost. I know some question that statement, but that is our simple and honest opinion. Therefore, on behalf of a number of widows and orphans we once more ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow us to have the discussion. I do not know how it is, but there is a feeling among the miners of the country now that the question is ripe, and we have, therefore, been expecting a favourable result from the proceedings of to-morrow. I am not at all wishful to put anything in the way of the work the Government have to do, but, considering the fifteen days that we have in which to provide money for the killing of men or for armaments for that purpose, is it possible to believe that in the House of Commons of this great country we cannot have one day in which to discuss a matter whereby we may save a number of lives? I cannot believe it, and I appeal with all the earnestness of my heart that the right hon. Gentleman

1223
will allow us to have this debate tomorrow.
MR. LABOUCHERE: There is an air about the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes resolutions of this sort that leads the House sometimes not to perceive their party astuteness. What are we discussing this evening? We are discussing the Address to the King. To that Address there are a number of Amendments, and one very important one has been moved by the hon. Member behind me. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that unless that discussion is brought to an end to-night, and unless we refrain from speaking upon that or any other matter with regard to the Address, and also from discussing fully the resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman, this Eight Hours Bill will not be allowed to be brought on to-morrow—by his direction. What is the aim of the right hon. Gentleman? It is to throw upon us the responsibility of his own acts. I rise simply to say that if the Minors Bill does not come on to-morrow we do not accept the responsibility. That must rest with the right hon. Gentleman. It is all the more hard, and I might almost say unfair, that the right hon. Gentleman should take away this day, because it is done not directly, but indirectly, insidiously, and contrary to a pledge, as I understand, given to the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
MR. LABOUCHERE: The Leader of the Opposition certainly understood, as I gather, that the five Wednesdays before Easter were not to be taken. My right hon. friend, who is a practical business man, understood it in that sense, because, as he told us, when Members who had obtained a good place in the ballot went to him and asked what day they should take, he told them to take one of those Wednesdays. Even if you gave another day for the Miners Bill it would not occupy the position that it would by coming on the first Wednesday. We know that only three or four Bills at most taken after Whitsuntide can pass into law. Under these circumstances, as I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman is inclined to yield at all, I will only say that the First Lord and his followers must
1224
accept before the country the responsibility of what they are doing.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: So many appeals have been made to the right hon. Gentleman from the other side that I feel a certain measure of misunderstanding might easily arise if no appeal was made from this side. We have no desire to burke discussion on the Eight Hours Bill, but that is what will be said in the country by those who do not understand the forms of the House. It is easy enough to say that if hon. Members from Ireland were to curtail their discussions and if the House as a whole were to accept the resolutions as to Supply, this Bill would be reached absolutely without interference. Butin practice we know that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not curtail their discussion even for the purpose of allowing to be debated a Bill which may be the means of saving lives of men. Also in practice there will be many Members who will have much to say upon the resolution with regard to Supply. It seems to me that a fair compromise lies in the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite have the rest of to-day to discuss their Amendment to the Address, and let these Supply resolutions be dealt with on Thursday. If this is done I venture to prophesy, although my right hon. friend may not agree with me, that, having regard to this discussion and the car cession the First Lord might make if he would, it will lead to such a curtailment of the discussion on Thursday as would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman and give him the larger part of that day for the discussion of the important questions of finance which the Government, the House, and the country are so anxious to see dealt with.
MR. COCHRANE: May I add one word in support of my hon. Friend? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to grant this compromise he may be able to give a day for the discussion of this very important question. Not only in my own constituency, but throughout the country great interest is taken in this matter. I have always supported the Second Reading of the Eight Hours Bill. At the last election, however, no pledge was exacted

1225
from me in that respect, and I feel, therefore, the more honourably hound to endeavour to secure from the right hon. Gentleman a promise that if not at the present time, at the first convenient opportunity, this measure, in which so much interest is taken, should be adequately considered.
MR. DALZIEL: I think the main feature of this discussion is that no single speaker has a word to say in defence of the action of the Government. The further the debate proceeds the more apparent it is that had the right hon. Gentleman not placed these resolutions on the Paper at all and suspended the Twelve o'clock Rule in the ordinary course, the probabilities are that be would have got the Address through to-night, we would have had the discussion on the Eight Hours Bill to-morrow, and he would have got his resolutions on Thursday. I am quite sure that would have been the result to-day. This seems to have been a case of bad generalship on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, and there does not appear to have been enough scouting on this question, as was the case in South Africa. It seems to me that it is unjust on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to refer to Members on this side of the House in the way which he did in his speech. No Member has a right to say that we shall not discuss vital and important resolutions, some of them being absolutely without precedent. I do not remember a single ease in the middle of a debate on the Address when a motion of this kind has been brought forward before. ["Oh, oh !"] My impression is that it is absolutely without precedent. Then another precedent is being set up with regard to Ways and Means. I totally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that it is a proposal which will not require much discussion. Why, this is one of the last opportunities which private Members can rely upon for the discussion of the most important questions upon going into Supply. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has very much underestimated the importance of that particular resolution. It comes to this—that the very first opportunity we have for the discussion of this most important question the Government are going to take the Miners Bill away from us. After calculating all the chances as to a par-
1226
ticular day, I think I am correct in saying that that day was selected with the approval of very high authorities in this House. It seems to me that this division, if we go to it—and I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it unnecessary—will be a division on the Miners Eight Hours Bill plus the taking away of most important privileges from private Members. I do appeal to hon. Members opposite who are in the House for the first time to say a few words for the miners who supported them at the last election. I venture to say that there are not many Members representing miners who did not pledge themselves at the last election to support this Bill. At the General Election they promised to support this Bill, and they sit opposite because of their pledge to support this Bill, and they are now called upon practically to vote for or against the minors. It will not do to say it is a mere question of confidence in the Government. It will not do to say it is a square vote, and I hope hon. Members on the opposite side of the House will support us in the Division Lobby. I make this suggestion before I sit down, that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw for the moment the resolution before the House and defer until Thursday the other resolutions, and appeal to the sense and fairness of the House to allow him to get this Address through on the present occasion. If he would do that—and we ought not to have been occupied with this discussion at all at this moment—it seems to me that all parties would be satisfied in that way. As the representative of a great many miners, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to let us have this discussion to-morrow. This is the first time that this Parliament has had an opportunity of discussing this question, and the first day which private Members have an opportunity of bringing in a Bill, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will grant this appeal in some form or another.
MR. BARTLEY: I have always been a great advocate of the rights of private Members, but circumstances vary. ["Oh, oh !"] Nobody can say, at any rate, that I do not always say what I think. Now what is the issue to-morrow? Hon. Members opposite talk about this as being a measure which the miners are all craving for. I have been a Member of this House for fifteen or sixteen years, and

1227
it has been brought forward for a good many years, and I have always found that there are two sets of miners—one fighting the other on this question. It is a matter in which the miners themselves are not nearly agreed, and in which the miners of the north are strongly opposed to the views of miners elsewhere. The Government are asking us to get to work on the great question of Army and Navy reform, and I urge the Government to use their full power to put this great subject before us and not waste any more time.
MR. SETON-KARR: I only wish to appeal to the Leader of the House to afford us an opportunity of discussing this Eight Hours Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no objection to this Eight Hours Bill being discussed, but we must have the time for Supply.
MR. SETON-KARR: I do not wish to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman had any intention of burking this discussion, but that is a construction that may be possibly put upon the action of the Government. If we are going to have a guarantee that this Bill is going to be discussed to-morrow, then it is not necessary to make any further appeal. I also wish to make an appeal to this side of the House, because I do not think that the Government attach much importance to appeals which come from the opposite side of the House. There is this to be said, that as far as Members opposite who have been moving Amendments to the Address are concerned, they do not deserve much consideration. [An HON. MEMBER: What do we come here for?] It is entirely the fault of hon. Members opposite that so much time has been wasted. I think the best and strongest appeal on this question was made by the hon. Member for the Rhondda Valley. Like him I represent a constituency in which this question is one of the deepest interest, and the hon. Member himself was good enough to come down to my constituency during the last election to try and persuade the miners who sent me here to send somebody else, but he did not succeed. However, upon this question I am with him, and I shall vote for the Bill again,
1228
as I have done before. I wish to support the appeal which has been made in order that we may have a discussion on this Bill. I think that the right hon. Gentleman—who, I am sure, will not pay much attention to hon. Members on the opposite side of the House—may possibly pay some attention to hon. Members on this side.
SIR F. S. POWELL: I represent a constituency interested in the coal industry, and I hope, therefore, that the House will allow me to say one word upon this question. My intention is to associate myself with those who are appealing to my right hon. friend to afford them an opportunity for the discussion of this important subject. There may be some difficulty about taking the discussion tomorrow, but I do hope that before this debate ends we shall have some assurance from my right hon. friend that facilities for the discussion of this subject will be given upon a subsequent occasion. Unlike my hon. friend who sits next to me, I do not favour this Bill, but, on the contrary, I am opposed to it; and it is because I am opposed to it that I do not want to appear to stand as a private Member before my constituents charged with having attempted to defeat this Bill by a side wind. That is a position which an hon. Member ought not to occupy, and I do sincerely hope that my right hon. friend will give us an assurance that we shall have an opportunity for a full discussion on this subject. It is a question which most vitally affects the interests of the miners, whatever their opinions may be upon it—and they are greatly divided—and for weal or woe it is one of the largest questions which can occupy the attention of the House of Commons.
MR. COURTENAY WARNER: As the representative of a great number of miners, I must raise my voice in support of the appeal which has been made. It is no use delaying this question, because already, in consequence of the action of the party opposite, there is a suspicion amongst the miners in this country that this Bill is always crowded out whenever it can be, and I know that feeling is very widely spreading. I appeal to hon. Members on the opposite side to give their support to this appeal. Even if they are opposed

1229
to this Bill, let them at least show the miners that they are not afraid of it coming before the House to be divided upon. Do not let us have it brought against us that this Bill has been prevented from going forward, as it undoubtedly
will be if the course suggested by the Government is adopted.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 269; Noes, 182. (Division List No. 10.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Cust, Henry John C.

Howard, Capt. J. (Faversham)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Dalkeith, Earl of

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Aird, Sir John

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

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Allsopp, Hon. George

Dickson, Charles Scott

Jessel, Captain H. Merton

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Dickson, Poynder, Sir John P.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Arrol, Sir William

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W (Salop)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Kimber, Henry

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Knowles, Lees

Baird, John George Alexander

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Balcarres, Lord

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Law, Andrew Bonar

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

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lawson, John Grant

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W(Leeds

Faber, George Denison

Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.

Balfour, Maj K R (Christchurch

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lee, Capt. A. H. (Hants. Fareh'm

Banbury, Frederick George

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

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

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Bartley, George C. T.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Leighton, Stanley

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

Finch, George H.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Beckett, Ernest William

Fisher, William Hayes

Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

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

Bignold, Arthur

Fitzroy, Hon. E. Algernon

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Bigwood, James

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Lowe, Francis William

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Forster, Henry William

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent

Bond, Edward

Garfit, William

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

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

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Boulnois, Edmund

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

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

Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison

Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Macdona, John Cumming

Brassey, Albert

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

Maconochie, A. W.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Goschen, Hon. G. Joachim

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

Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinb'gh, W

Brymer, William Ernest

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire)

Ballard, Sir Harry

Greene, Sir E.W.(B'rySEdm'nds

Malcolm, Ian

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Carlile, William Walter

Greenfell, William Henry

Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

Groves, James Grimble

Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hain, Edward

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Milward, Colonel Victor

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Mid'x

Mitchell, William

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'ndrry

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Chapman, Edward

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Charrington, Spencer

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Cochrane, Hn. Thomas H. A. E.

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Coddington, Sir William

Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Heaton, John Henniker

Morrell, George Herbert

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Helder, Augustus

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Henderson, Alexander

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Colston, C. E. H. Athole

Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

Mount, William Arthur

Cook, Fred. Lucas

Higginbottom, S. W.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Hoare, Edward B.(Hampstead

Muntz, Philip A.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

Cox, Irwin E. Bainbridge

Hogg, Lindsay

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Cranborne, Viscount

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightsde

Myers, William Henry

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Nicholson, William Graham

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hoult, Joseph

Nicol, Donald Ninian

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Round, James

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Thornton, Percy M.

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury

Russell, T. W.

Tollemache, Henry James

Parkes, Ebenezer

Rutherford, John

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Pemberton, John S. G.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

Valentia, Viscount

Penn, John

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Vincent, Col. Sir. E. H. (Sheffield)

Pilkington, Richard

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

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Plummer, Walter R.

Shaw-Stewart, M. H (Renfrew)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Simeon, Sir Harrington

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Purvis, Robert

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Webb, Colonel William George

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tynesi'e

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

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Ratcliffe, R. F.

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

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und-Lyne

Reid, James (Greenock)

Spear, John Ward

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromwich)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Renwick, George

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

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

Richards, Henry Charles

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M' Taggart

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

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

Stock, James Henry

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Stroyan, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Start, Hon. Humphry Napier

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork N. E.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Joicey, Sir James

Abraham, William (Rhondda

Dillon, John

Jordan, Jeremiah

Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud

Donelan, Captain A.

Joyce, Michael

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Doogan, P. C.

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Austin, Sir John

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark

Labouchere, Henry

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Duffy, William J.

Langley, Batty

Barlow, John Emmott

Duncan, James H.

Leamy, Edmund

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Dunn, Sir Wiliam

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Elibank, Master of

Leng, Sir John

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Ellis, John Edward

Lloyd-George, David

Bell, Richard

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lough, Thomas

Boland, John

Evans, Samuel T.

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Boyle, James

Farrell, James Patrick

Lundon, W.

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Fenwick, Charles

MacDonnell Dr. Mark A.

Broadhurst, Henry

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Crae, George

Burke, E. Haviland-

Field, William

M'Darmott, Patrick

Burt, Thomus

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Fadden, Edward

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Govern, T.

Caine, William Sproston

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Caldwell, James

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

M'Kenna, Reginald

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Gilhooly, James

Markham, Arthur Basil

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mather, William

Causton, Richard Knight

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. William

Cawley, Frederick

Hammond, John

Mooney, John J.

Channing, Francis Allston

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Murnaghan, George

Cogan, Denis J.

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Murphy, J.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hayden, John Patrick

Newnes, Sir George

Crean, Eugene

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Nolan, Col. J. P.(Galway, N.)

Cremer, William Randal

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Crombie, John William

Helme, Norval Watson

Norman, Henry

Cullinan, J.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Daly, James

Holland, William Henry

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

Dalziel, James Henry

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Delany, William

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.)

Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Doherty, William

1232

1233

O'Donnell, John (Mayo S.)

Roche, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Roe, Sir Thomas

Tully, Jasper

O'Dowd, John

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Ure, Alexander

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.

Schwann, Charles E.

Wallace, Robert

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.

Scott, Charles P. (Leigh)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

O'Malley, William

Seton-Karr, Henry

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

O'Mara, James

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

White, George (Norfolk)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Shipman, Dr. John

White, Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

O'Shee, James John

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire

White, Patrick(Meath, North

Paulton, James Mellor

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Philipps, John Wynford

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Pirie, Duncan V.

Soares, Ernest J.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Power, Patrick Joseph

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R. (Northnts

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

Reddy, M.

Stevenson, Francis S.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Sullivan, Donal

Wodehouse, Hon. A. (Essex)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Rickett, J. Compton

Tennant, Harold John

Yoxall, James Henry

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighsh.)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.

Robson, William Snowdon

Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Cower)

Main Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 275: Noes, 184. (Division List No. 11.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Aird, Sir John

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Forster, Henry William

Allsopp, Hon. George

Chapman, Edward

Garfit, William

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Churchill, Winston Spencer

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

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Coddington, Sir William

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

Arrol, Sir William

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Gordon, Maj Evans- (Tr. H'ml'ts

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cook, Frederick Lucas

Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

Baird, John George Alexander

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Balcarres, Lord

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y.

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

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Green, Sir E.W.(B. St. Edm'ds.

Balfour Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Cranborne, Viscount

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

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

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Grenfell, William Henry

Banbury, Frederick George

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Groves, James Grimble

Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

Cust, Henry John C.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Bartley, George C. T.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hain, Edward

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

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Beach, Rt. Hn. W.W.B. (Hants.

Dewar, T. R. (T'rHml'ts, S. Geo.

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx

Beckett, Ernest William

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hamilton Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Bignold, Arthur

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Bigwood, James

Dimsdale, Sir J. Cockfleld

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Bond, Edward

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Heaton, John Henniker

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Helder, Augustus

Boulnois, Edmund

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Higginbottom, S. W.

Bowles, T. G. (King'sLynn)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

Brassey, Albert

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

Hogg, Lindsay

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Faber, George Denison

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Brymer, William Ernest

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

Hoult, Joseph

Bullard, Sir Harry

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manch.

Howard, Capt J (Kent, Faversh.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Carlile, William Walter

Finch, George H.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

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

Fisher, William Hayes

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

1234

1235

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Morrell, George Herbert

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Mount, William Arthur

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Keswick, William

Muntz, Philip A.

Smith, H. C. (Northum, Tynesd.

Kimber, Henry

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

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

Knowles, Lees

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Myers, William Henry

Spear, John Ward

Law, Andrew Bonar

Nicholson, William Graham

Spencer, Ernest (W. Bromw'ch

Lawson, John Grant

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Lee, Capt A.H. (Hants, Fareham

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Leage, Col. Hon. Heneage

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Leigh Bennett, Henry Currie

Parkes, Ebenezer

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

Leighton, Stanley

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingtn

Stock, James Henry

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Penn, John

Stroyan, John

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Percy, Earl

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Pilkington, Richard

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Loug, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Plummer, Walter R.

Thornton, Percy M.

Lowe, Francis William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Tollemache, Henry James

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Tufnell, Col. Edward

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Purvis, Robert

Valentia, Viscount

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield

Lucas, Reginald. J. (Portsm'th

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Macartney, Rt. Hn. A. V. G. Ellison

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Macdona, John Cumming

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Maconochie, A. W.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

Renwick, George

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

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

Richards, Henry Charles

Webb, Col. William George

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Staleybrdg.

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

Malcolm, Ian

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

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

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L)

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Wills, Sir Frederick

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Fredk. G.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

Milton, Viscount

Round, James

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

Milward, Colonel Victor

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C.B. Stuart-

Mitchell, William

Russell, T. W.

Wylie, Alexander

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Rutherford, John

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

More, Rt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Morgan, David J. (Walthamst.

Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. E. J.

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

NOES.

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

Caine, William Sproston

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Caldwell, James

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Dillon, John

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Donelan, Captain A.

Austin, Sir John

Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

Doogan, P. C.

Bain, Col. James Robert

Causton, Richard Knight

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Barlow, John Emmott

Cawley, Frederick

Duffy, William J.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Duncan, James H.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Cogan, Denis J.

Dunn, Sir William

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Elibank, Master of

Bell, Richard

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Ellis, John Edward

Boland, John

Crean, Eugene

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Cremer, William Randal

Evans, Samuel T.

Boyle, James

Crombie, John William

Farrell, James Patrick

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Cullinan, J.

Fenwick, Charles

Broadhurst, Henry

Daly, James

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

Dalziel, James Henry

Ffrench, Peter

Burk, E. Haviland-

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Field, William

Burt, Thomas

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Delany, William

Flynn, James Christopher

1236

1237

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Furness, Sir Christopher

M'Kenna, Reginald

Robson, William Snowdon

Gilhooly, James

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Roche, John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Markham, Arthur Basil

Roe, Sir Thomas

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mather, William

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Schwann, Charles E.

Hammond, John

Mooney, John J.

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Seton Karr, Henry

Hardie, J. Kier (Merthyr Tydvil

Moulton, John Fletcher

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Murnaghan, George

Shipman, Dr. John

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Murphy, J.

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Hayden, John Patrick

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hayne, Rt-Hon. Charles Seale-

Newnes, Sir (Jeorge

Soares, Ernest J.

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants)-

Helme, Norval Watson

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Stevenson, Francis S.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Norman, Henry

Sullivan, Donal

Henderson, Alexander

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Holland, William Henry

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

Tennant, Harold John

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

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

Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower

Joicey, Sir James

O'Doherty, William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Tully, Jasper

Jordan, Jeremiah

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

Ure, Alexander

Joyce, Michael

O'Dowd, John

Wallace, Robert

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Labouchere, Henry

O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Langley, Batty

O'Malley, William

White, George (Norfolk)

Leamy, Edmund

O'Mara, James

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Leng, Sir John

O'Shee, James John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Lloyd-George, David

Paulton, James Mellor

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Lough, Thomas

Philipps, John Wynford

Williams, O. (Merioneth)

Lundon, W.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid>

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Reddy, M.

Wodehouse, Hn. A. (Essex)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

M'Crae, George

Redmond, William (Clare)

M'Dermott, Patrick

Rickett, J. Compton

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

M'Fadden, Edward

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Mr. Yoxall and Mr. Jacoby.

M'Govern, T.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Ordered, That Government business have precedence this day and to-morrow of all other business.

NEW BILLS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cathcart Wason, Sir William Arrol, Mr. Alexander Cross, Mr. Harms worth, Mr. Nicol, Mr. Weir, and Mr. Leveson-Gower.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 8th May, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]
  POOR LAW SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND).
  Bill to provide for Superannuation Allowances to certain local officers and servants in Ireland, and for contributions towards such allowances by such officers and servants, and to make other relative provisions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. O'Malley, Sir James Haslett, Mr. Harrington. Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Clancy, Mr. James O'Connor, and Mr. Cogan.
  POOR LAW SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To provide for Superannuation Allowances to certain local Officers and Servants in Ireland, and for contributions towards such Allowances by such Officers and Servants, and to make other relative provisions," presented, and read the First time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 6th March, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]
  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) ACT (1854) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'Crae, Mr. Bryce, Sir John Leng, Sir William Dunn, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Colville, Mr. Wason, and Mr. Robert Wallace.
  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) ACT (1854) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854," presented, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 25th April, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]

  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
  [NINTH DAY'S DEBATE.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [14th February], "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 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.

  CONDUCT OF THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA
  MR. DILLON: Mr. Speaker, last night I was engaged in describing the scenes which are at the present moment being enacted at Standerton, in the Transvaal, in the rear of French's army, where, according to the telegrams, there are long convoys arriving of women and children prisoners of war; and we read this morning in the Telegraph that General French has failed to capture Botha and his army, notwithstanding the great flourish of trumpets as to what he was going to do. But we may, I suppose, take comfort from the fact that if he has not captured the Boer in the field, he has, at all events, taken wagon loads of women and children, and carried
  1240
  them off triumphantly as prisoners of war. It was the custom in the days of the Roman Empire to drag captive women and children at the heels of the conqueror, but since the fall of the Roman Empire I have never heard that any civilised nation has ever reverted to so barbarous a practice as capturing women and children by the thousand and detaining them as prisoners of war. But as there are some other matters which I must deal with in detail, I shall not consume the time of the House by giving now the heartbreaking details which I have in my possession of the condition of the women and children who are now shut up in the prison camps at Port Elizabeth, Pietermaritzburg, and other portions of the colony. We read in the accounts which reach us of eight and ten women being put into one tent; of children ill of measles (which is raging in the camp at Pietermaritzburg, according to the latest account) without accommodation for the treatment of these unfortunate children or proper attendance. We have read the tragic and horrible story of the death of young James Hertzog, a nephew or son of Judge Hertzog, who is at present in command of the western commando that has invaded Cape Colony. How his wife and children were torn from the blazing home, and when the local doctor told the British officers who were in charge that this poor boy, only eight years of age, was suffering from measles and quite unfit to travel, no quarter was offered, no delay was granted, and this boy and his wretched mother were placed on board a train for Port Elizabeth and sent a 600 miles journey, the immediate result of which was that no sooner did he reach the prison camp at Port Elizabeth than he was attacked with pneumonia and died in a few days. What do you think were the feelings of his kindred when they read the announcement of his death—"Died on a certain date, a prisoner of war at Port Elizabeth, Hertzog, aged eight years"? A pretty announcement to come as a result of the operations of your arms in South Africa!
  But I pass over these details to the fact, which was only obtained by the process of squeezing Ministers, the shameful fact admitted by the Secretary of State for War to-day, that in the prison camps and

  1241
  so-called refugee camps of the Orange Free State the women and children of those who are out on commando, and who declined to surrender, are put on half rations and informed that they will be kept on that allowance until their husbands or brothers come in and surrender. Is there any parallel for the cruelty and meanness of that in the whole history of war? For my part I never read of any proceedings so mean and cruel and so cowardly—to endeavour to overcome these men—whom you cannot, although you are ten to one, beat in the field—to seek to force and intimidate them into surrender by starving their women and children. What did the right hon. Gentleman do the other day when this charge was made by the hon. Member for Carnarvon?— it is no wonder we have to continually press for information—he sprang to his feet quivering with excitement and indignation and said the hon. Gentleman was making a foul charge without any attempt at proof. Well, I waited for the speech of the Secretary of State for War, and I remarked the significant fact that he never alluded to this charge. I expected him to telegraph, and I was surprised that he did not. He was willing to telegraph about Esau's case, but he left the House of Commons under the impression that this was an unfounded and foul charge made by the Member for Carnarvon without a shred of evidence; and if it had not been for the question put to-day he would have allowed this debate to close leaving the House under the impression that there was no foundation for it. It is a foul charge, undoubtedly, but it is a true charge, and the right hon. Gentleman was obliged to get up at the Table and admit that it was true. This is the policy of Sicilian and Greek brigands. Brigands in Italy and Greece are in the habit of taking women and children prisoners, and then they threaten to cut off their ears and noses in their desire to have their relatives come forward to ransom them. Yes, I say that I see no difference except in degree between that policy and the policy carried out in this case. When hon. Members call into question the burning of farms, what is the reply? It is said that if it be good policy to end the war, then whatever tends to bring the war to a speedy con-
  1242
  clusion is good policy. Would it be good to send news to the burghers that the noses and ears of their people would be cut off unless they come in and surrender? I say that I see no difference except in degree between doing that and letting them know that their wives and children would be half starved until they surrender, and yet a large body of the press of this country says that no act of cruelty would be wrong if it tended to put an end to the war. It is a most extraordinary state of things. It has been admitted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, in the course of what took place here last night, that a policy of devastation, of carrying fire and sword through these countries, was justifiable, not on the ground that you are dealing with treachery, but to make those countries uninhabitable to the enemy. I denounce that as an outrage on the usages of war as recognised to-day by every civilised country throughout the world. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh, although we have the opinion of Europe and America upon our side, and it is admitted that this policy of starving women and children is adopted and as I understand, approved, by the Secretary of State for War, in the hope that it may tend to bring the war to a close. Let me describe this policy as regards women, and in the words of an English newspaper, which puts it more strongly than I can undertake to do myself. Now I am entitled to use these words, because they are the words of an organ which I regret to say is representative of a large mass of public opinion in this country. Writing in November last it says—
  "When commenting some little time ago on the turn of the war, we pointed out that it would he more business-like on our part to adopt the policy of General "Weyler in Cuba-Lord Roberts has come round to our view."
  That is exactly what I say Lord Roberts has done. He is following in the steps of General Weyler, and it is only two years ago that this House and the civilised world was ringing with denunciations of that general's cruelty in Cuba; and there is this difference, that he was dealing with a rebellion, and fighting against rebels who had kept up the rebellion for two years, and had for a long time outraged the usages of civilised war,

  1243
  whilst you are dealing with two independent States, who from the beginning and down to this hour have observed with scrupulous fidelity the usages of war. Yet you have followed in Weyler's footsteps, and, in fact, you have improved upon his example. Here is another passage which shows the object which the paper had in view—
  "Besides [says the paper] the Boers in arms will naturally treat all those who are bound to aid us as traitors, and coercion will be set against coercion. In such cases the women and children are frequently employed to carry messages, and of course they must be included in the military measures and transported or despatched."
  These are significant words, and I heard no voice of condemnation raised against them when they were used. They are found in the St. James's Gazette, which is accepted by many men as a reputable newspaper. That is the policy that has been advocated. It is a policy which the Government in this House were ashamed to admit. It is a policy with regard to which, in December last, the Secretary for the Colonies equivocated and left us under the impression that no such policy was in force, and which until yesterday, in fact until to-night, was denied. Yet it is a policy that many journalists in this country have advocated, and which has been practised in South Africa for nearly six months.
  Up to this, Mr. Speaker, I have based my case upon the testimony of Englishmen and English newspapers; but I maintain that although you have control of the cable, and although you have the hand of your military censors upon every channel of communication from South Africa, that the men who are fighting you are honourable and civilised men, and that they too have a right to make their voices heard before civilised mankind. Now here is the last solemn statement made by Do Wet and Steyn. I know hon. Members will laugh at their names; but I venture to say that their names and those of Delarey and Louis Botha will be honoured long after the names of your generals have disappeared in oblivion. What do they say in their proclamation? Here is their solemn protest against the way in which this war is being conducted—
  "Our enemy [they say] has armed Kaffirs and natives, and made use of them against us
  1244
  in war. He has been continually busy capturing women and children, old and sickly men. Many women's deaths have been occasioned because the so-called Christian enemy had no consideration for women on a sick bed, or those whose state of health should have protected them against rough treatment."
  It is a horrible fact, and one that cannot be denied, that on many occasions you have torn sick women from their beds —women in such a condition as to make a man's heart bleed if he had a heart in his breast—women who have given birth to children in the cattle trucks on which you were dragging them away.
  "The property of prisoners and the killed burghers have not been respected by the enemy. In many instances the mother and the father are taken from the house, and the children are left to their fate. The world is told by the enemy that he was obliged to carry this out, because our burghers were interfering with the lines of communication. Nearly all the houses in the two Republics were subsequently destroyed, whether they were near the railway lines or not, while with regard to the misuse of the white Hag, that is a contention put forward for the purpose of heaping upon us a calumny against which the Afrikander is striving since God first brought him into contact with the Englishman. Bobbing his opponent of his goods and property is not sufficient for the enemy. He will not rest satisfied till he has robbed us of our good name also."
  I believe those words are absolutely and substantially true and represent the truth of the policy you are carrying out in South Africa. I was reading the other day words which I must say made a deep impression upon me, written by a man who is, to my mind at all events, one of the greatest of living poets. Writing on these events he wrote—
  "Blind from the first, blind to the end,
  Blind to all signs that ask men's gaze,
  In vain by lips of foe or friend
  The world cries shame upon your ways.
  "Fulfil your mission; spoil and burn;
  Fling forth the helpless—babes as well,
  And let the children's children learn
  To hate you with the hate of hell.'
  Those are not the words of an Irish Nationalist, but the words of the first living English poet of the day. [Cries of "Who, who?"] Who? why, William Watson. Have you never heard the name? [A VOICE from the Irish benches: Why, you do not even know your own great men !]
  Well, Sir. I turn now from this subject—this painful and humiliating subject—to

  1245
  another aspect of the war, which is full of mystery and sinister significance, and that is the charge made against Lord Kitchener, for which, while I am prepared to admit there is not complete evidence, I say there is sufficient evidence to demand from you an immediate, serious and searching investigation. ["Hear, hear !"] What is this charge? It is that Lord Kitchener has recently in the Transvaal repeated what he is alleged to have done on the eve of Omdurman— namely, that he conveyed to his officers secret instructions to take no prisoners. I will state the case frankly, and I claim that the evidence in support of the charge is sufficient to require the closest investigation. First of all, let me say that this charge has been made, as I shall show, in an anonymous letter, but it is confirmed by the letters of two or three soldiers whose names I shall give, and who state in published letters that in accordance with the instructions they received they killed the wounded Boers and refused quarter. I wish to say, however, that this charge has been denied by Lord Kitchener himself, and also by the Secretary of State for War in this House; but the denial has been made by both in very extraordinary language. It was easy to them to treat these charges with contempt, and say they were unworthy to be taken notice of, but they did not adopt that course. They published a categorical denial of the charge, and it is remarkable that in the case both of Lord Kitchener and of the Secretary of State for War they do not deny the precise charges as made, but other charges that were never made. What was the denial, let me ask? Here are Lord Kitchener's words, telegraphed by him to the Attorney General at Cape Town—
  "Instructions of the nature mentioned were never given or thought of. We treat the enemy surrendered with every consideration."
  That is Lord Kitchener's denial. The Secretary of State for War most indignantly denied the charge, and said that Lord Kitchener had never given orders or ever intended to slaughter the prisoners in his possession. But that charge was never made. Before he could slaughter his prisoners he should capture them alive. The real charge made is that private instructions were issued to take no prisoners. That charge was first
  1246
  published in a letter in the Freeman's Journal, Dublin, and the second letter from the same officer was published by Mr. Stead. ["Oh !"and "Hear, hear !"] Hon. Gentlemen groan about that. Lord Roberts takes a totally different view of Mr. Stead, as you will see. Here is the extract from the officer's letter—
  "The orders in this district from Lord Kitchener are to burn and destroy all provisions, forage, etc., and seize cattle, horses, and stock of all sorts, wherever found, and to leave no food in the houses for the inhabitants. This applies to houses occupied by women and children only. And the word has been passed round privately that no prisoners are to be taken; that is, all the men found fighting are to be shot. This order was given to me personally by a general, one of the highest in rank in South Africa. So there is no mistake about it. The instructions given to the columns closing round De Wet north of the Orange River are that all men are to be shot, so that no tales may be told; also the troops are told to loot freely from every house, whether the men belonging to the house are fighting or not. You may imagine what this order will lead to in many instances, though, to do justice to the soldiers, I do not think they will in most cases go so far as some of their superiors would wish. I do not believe the soldiers or junior officers will carry out the intentions of their seniors, but in a great majority of cases outrages of all sorts will be committed under such a régime."
  Mr. Stead sent that letter to Lord Roberts, asking him for a contradiction, or a statement with reference to it, and Lord Roberts wrote to Mr. Stead the following most remarkable reply—
  "I readily accept your statement that this officer is a man of good standing and undoubted repute"—
  I must confess when I read that letter of Lord Roberts's it added enormous additional weight to the officer's letter—
  "and, accepting that statement, I am willing to notice what I should otherwise have ignored —an anonymous letter."
  I contend that that adds great weight to the evidence, because hon. Members opposite, or a great many of them, have a very hearty dislike of Mr. Stead, but Lord Roberts, who has known Mr. Stead for a long time, takes his word that this is a genuine letter from an officer serving in the Army. It entitles me to say that that adds considerable weight to the matter. So much for that letter.
  Now I come to the next piece of evidence, and you will take it for what it is

  1247
  worth. It is a letter signed by William Clyne, of the Liverpool Regiment, which was published in the Liverpool Courier. It contains this statement—
  "Lord Kitchener has issued orders that no man has to bring in any Boer prisoners; if he does he has to give him half his rations for the prisoner's keep. Lord Roberts was too lenient with the Boers. De Wet sent in to General Knox asking for an armistice. Lord Kitchener told General Knox to keep on shelling him while he brought up reinforcements. That was the armistice he got.
  I turn to a letter from Private John Harris, of the Royal Welsh Regiment, published in the Wolverhampton Express and Star, which states—
  "We take no prisoners now. … There happened to be a few wounded Boers left. We put them through the mill. Every one was killed."
  I give these letters for what they are worth. I wish to be perfectly frank in this matter, and not to put my evidence stronger than it is.
  I come now to what I must confess influenced my mind more than anything else in this whole matter. When I first heard of it, I confess I did not believe that there was any foundation for this charge. What affected my mind more than anything else were the comments of the English press on the charge. [Interruption.] Hon. Members will perhaps be a little more patient with me for stating the evidence in a calm and frank manner to the House. They treat the subject as if I were making the most atrocious charges. [Interruption.] Yes, but wait one moment, and hear what your own newspapers said. The Pall Mall Gazette, alluding to that officer's letter in the Freeman's Journal, used this language—"We wish we could believe it." The Birmingham Gazette, writing a short time before, used this language—
  "The Boers cannot regain what they have lost, and as the most absolute assurances of fair treatment have been given to them we have a, right to ask for their surrender, and failing that, to treat them as mere wanton marauders and murderers, who must be exterminated in order that the lives of our soldiers may be spared, and so that the people of the Transvaal, who are quite ready to accept British Rule, or who were driven out of their homes when Mr. Kruger declared war, may resume their ordinary avocations."
  The Daily Telegraph of London is a great journal, and it used this language—
  "It will probably be found that these sullen malcontents will go on lighting so long
  1248
  as they have a bullet in their bandoliers, I on the off-chance of slaying one of their conquerors, unless the British authorities make it clear that all caught with arms in their hands I will be shot without mercy. The Germans had no compunction in so dealing with the Francs Tireurs, and their severity did much to shorten the war. We shall hope to see the same measures adopted in South Africa unless the various forces now patrolling the two conquered territories met with immediate success. A few such engagements as that which is reported near Vryheld, in which Bethune's Mounted Infantry are said to have killed sixty of the enemy, would speedily dishearten the marauders, and the proclamation of a specific date after which every armed burgher should be treated as a rebel and shot would be productive of nothing but good."
  What is the use of hon. Members opposite denouncing me as a traducer and a coiner of outrageous charges in the face of these statements from leading newspapers of Great Britain? And here I come at last to the respectable Standard. I don't know how they turned this war into a rebellion, or at what stage. It stated—
  "In every rebellion a point is reached at which the services of the Provost Marshal become more effective than those of the strategist. The prompt and ruthless punishment of every insurgent burgher caught in delicto is required. We cannot keep a troop of horse outside each Boer farm, but we can show its occupant that he risks something more than his freedom, or even his property, when he takes up arms against the Crown."
  I say therefore that each and all of these journals have advocated this policy. There are many other circumstances which are most mysterious and most sinister and disquieting about this whole-business. Lord Kitchener, it will be remembered, assembled a meeting of burghers at Pretoria on 21st December, and I am surprised that the speech then made by Lord Kitchener has attracted so little attention in this country. No doubt we have not had a full report of that speech, but it was a very extraordinary speech, and it certainly has gone a long way towards making me feel exceedingly uneasy with reference to this policy of "no quarter." Lord Kitchener, addressing the burghers, said he was going to adopt for a short time a policy of conciliation. He referred to Mr. Chamberlain's statement in the House of Commons. He mentioned that as the cause for adopting a policy of conciliation which was for the time being to suspend devastation. He stated

  1249
  that orders had been issued that for the time being farms should not continue to be burned. He concluded with these words—
  "He desired to give them every chance to surrender voluntarily and finish the war by the most humane means possible. If the conciliatory method he was now adopting failed, he had other means which he would be obliged to exercise. He would give the committee notice if the time had arrived to consider conciliation a failure."
  Now what are the other means? I think we are entitled to demand and to insist upon the Government telling us what are these other means. They cannot have been the policy of devastating and burning, because that has been carried out to such an extent that the whole country was nearly turned into a desert. They cannot have been the policy of refuge in prison camps, because that was in full force. It was "other means," and I want to know what are the other means. I have failed to imagine any other means. But Lord Kitchener is a man who would not use such an expression unless he had some means present to his mind. When I read these words they had to me a most sinister meaning, and I read them in conjunction with that very extraordinary expression—an explanation of which ought to have been demanded in the debate in December last—used by the Colonial Secretary himself. The language which was used in what was called his conciliatory speech was—
  "Since the proclamation was ordered no doubt the situation has to a certain extent changed, because the position of the British forces is certainly much stronger than it was at that time, that is to say, although there is still all this skirmishing going on, regular warfare has practically ceased. Therefore it is open to the General now in command to reconsider his position and substitute other punishments if he thinks it right to do so."
  Now that is most sinister. What right has any man to import the word "punishment" into this matter? This is a war, and not a rebellion. I say the use of that expression "substitute other punishments" against your enemy was a most sinister and dangerous expression to use. You have no right to punish these men. They have as much right to fight in the field as you have. I put it at the lowest, and I say the word
  1250
  "punishment" ought not to be uttered by the lips of any man in a general sense in connection with this war. No one can contend that the punishment in this case was narrowly applied to acts of treachery or breaches of the usages of war. No general expression from statesmen is needed to deal with such cases. Acts of treachery, whether on your side or on the side of the Boers, fall to be dealt with in the ordinary way by the laws of war, and no man of sense would complain or find fault with you on the one side or the Boers on the other for punishing such acts. No one would complain of the Boers shooting spies, even when they come in the form of peace envoys, or of your men doing the same if the Boers abuse the white flag. I say no man would complain of fair play in such matters. But this was an expression of general policy applying to the whole population in arms against you.
  Here is another, and this is the last piece of evidence I will read to the House. ["Hear, hear."] I think this is a very important subject, and I do not see any reason why it should be curtailed. It comes from a gentleman whose communications I read with very great interest, because I believe they are written by a very clever man. I do not know his name. He is the Johannesburg correspondent of the Pall Mall Gazette, and I have not the least doubt from reading the communications that he gives what is the predominating feeling of the Uitlanders still there. He says—
  "It seems an ungracious thing to say after his masterly conduct of the war up to the fall of Pretoria, but the truth cannot be hidden that Lord Roberts outstayed his welcome. There is a consensus of opinion, from the military officer to the man in the street, that unless stringent measures are taken peace wilt not reign in this country for twelve months to come, and the methods of Lord Roberts were not calculated to bring matters to a speedy issue. We have now reached a crisis when it becomes absolutely necessary to entrust the final touches of the campaign to a man whose personal feelings of pity and compassion are subsidiary to a stern determination to finish, the war at all costs."
  These words show the public opinion of the Uitlander population in Johannesburg. According to the opinion of that gentleman, and also of, I have no doubt, many military officers, they were

  1251
  tired of Lord Roberts and of his methods as too mild; they demanded more stringent methods; and I leave it to the imagination of hon. Members what these sterner methods are to be. I maintain that there is a case, and a strong case, for inquiry into this matter. I maintain that we are entitled to know whether there is any foundation for these sinister remarks, which have come from English channels, and not from Irish or foreign channels. I maintain that we are entitled to obtain from the Government an explanation of what was meant by the Colonial Secretary when he spoke of "other punishment," and what was in the mind of Lord Kitchener when he addressed the burghers in December last and said that if conciliation did not come very soon he would be obliged to use other methods he had at his disposal. Let me refer once more to Lord Roberts. This thing has been treated as if it wore the wildest absurdity to make such charges against British generals, but it is not. I have proved them out of your own newspapers. I shall now prove them out of the mouth of Lord Roberts himself. In the month of June last Lord Roberts issued this Proclamation No. 15, dated Johannesburg, June 1st, 1900—
  "I do hereby warn all inhabitants of the Orange Free State, who after fourteen days from the day of this proclamation may be pound in arms against Her Majesty, within the said Colony, that they will be liable to be dealt with as rebels and to suffer in person and property accordingly."
  [Cheers.] And hon. Members opposite cheer that ! Was there ever such inconsistency? Hon. Members opposite cheer that after they denounce me a few moments before for making baseless charges. What is the meaning of being treated as rebels and suffering in person and property? A rebel is liable to execution. [An HON. MEMBER: Not all] Not all. They are at the mercy of the General. Either Lord Roberts did not mean anything by that, or else he meant that he would treat these men—who have all the rights of belligerents, just as if you were fighting any great European Power—that he would treat them as rebels. What happened? I put a question here as soon as that was telegraphed, and I believe the Colonial Secretary telegraphed to the Orange Free State,
  1252
  and about two months afterwards that proclamation was withdrawn. Like Bruce Hamilton's, it was felt to be rather strong for the House of Commons stomach, but it remains on record as one of the most disgraceful proclamations that have ever been issued, showing the intention on the part of Lord Roberts to do an act which would have brought down upon his and your name the universal condemnation of all civilised mankind.
  I pass over a number of charges made in the course of this debate against the Boers by hon. Members opposite. I shall take another opportunity of dealing with them later. I brand them now as absolutely untrue and calumnious. The statement that the Boers have systematically abused the white flag is, I say, a base and cowardly libel. One hon. Member opposite—the Member for the Tottenham Division of Middlesex—got up and said the Boers had got a different code of honour, and he was backed up by the Finanical Secretary to the War Office, whom I was astonished to hear making such a charge. He did not state of his own knowledge that he had experience of the abuse of the white flag by the Boers, but he indicted the whole race—in the words of Edmund Burke, he indicted the whole nation, with having a different code of honour from the people of this country. Sir, I think that is a monstrous charge, and one also absolutely without foundation. When we are dealing with this question of codes of honour let me draw attention to one case. There may be dishonour on more sides than one, and I am not here to say that none of the Boers ever did a dishonourable or treacherous act, but I am confident that if the question is examined on both sides the Boers will come as well out of it, at least, as your side. I direct your attention to the story of Surgeon-Captain Fiset, a French-Canadian officer, who was in the Transvaal. Here is his story as to his code of honour and the code of honour of that humane man, General Bruce Hamilton. He says—
  "I was left ill at Heilbron; two hours later the Boers came into the place. One of their patrols came into the hospital and, despite my protests that I was a medical officer, searched my clothes, removing my purse and private papers. … General Olivier came after to the hospital and asked if I had any com-

  1253
  plaints to make. I said, as a medical officer, he had no right to make me a prisoner. He replied he had a right to make prisoners, and had been informed an officer of the hospital had been given despatches. I said, if he thought I had despatches he could search me, but he could not be very shrewd if he thought General Hamilton would give despatches to a medical officer who had no right to take them. I was angry and spoke sharply. Fortunately he did not search me; had he done so he would have found the despatches he was looking for between my undershirt and my body."
  [An HON. MEMBER: Good man.] An hon. Member says "Good man." Is that your code of honour?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member must address himself to the Chair.
  MR. DILLON: Yes; I ask you, Mr. Speaker, respectfully, is that the hon. Member's code of honour? All I can say is, that if it is I congratulate the Boers upon having a very different code. This gentleman goes on—
  'They had been given to me by General Hamilton to take to Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener, and I had been instructed to band them over as soon as I reached the main column. Early next day my purse, horse, and saddle were returned to me with the General's compliments."
  The only other case that I will allude to in relation to these charges against the Boers is the charge of the murder of Esau. I wish to call attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman based this charge on Reuter. When we base statements upon Reuter we are howled at, but when a Minister does it, and not merely does it, but does it without mentioning that he is doing it, the case is regarded as very different. He made a statement, and we were entitled to assume, unless he had mentioned the authority on which he relied, that he is basing his statement upon official information. The right hon. Gentleman gave the most horrible details of the murder of Esau. He read a telegram from Sir Alfred Milner, and I noticed that there was no reference to the details which had been previously given, but, assuming all that is said about the killing of Esau to be true, what about the murder of Dolly? What about your officer Cox who murdered Dolly in cold blood, and about whose case there is no controversy and no
  1254
  doubt, for he admitted all he did in a court of law? And your officers declined to prosecute. If ever there was a cold-blooded murder it was the murder of Dolly. There ought to be some measure or balance in these charges. It is impossible that a great war could be conducted for a year without some acts of cruelty on either side. The question is, can you adduce a single shred of evidence to show that your record in treachery, cruelty and ferocity is less than that of the Boers? For my part, I think the balance goes entirely the other way.
  I now come to the second part of my Amendment, which asks the House to declare that it is the duty of the Government to take steps to bring this miserable war to an end by offering the Governments of the two Republics such terms of peace as brave and honourable men under all the circumstances might be expected to entertain. It may be asked what I mean by "such terms of peace." I have deliberately abstained from putting into the Amendment any details as to the exact terms which should be offered, because I hope there will go into the lobby, in favour of offering terms of peace, many Members who might differ as to the precise nature of those terms. But the essence of the Amendment is that definite terms of peace should, in the eyes of the civilised world, be offered to the responsible leaders and governors of the two States. That is a clear issue between my Amendment and the policy of the Government. Ever since May last, when Presidents Kruger and Steyn addressed themselves to Lord Salisbury, after the colonies had been cleared of the invaders, and asked for negotiations, the attitude of the Government has been one of refusal to consider any terms with the responsible leaders of the forces in the field. Can any Member quote a single precedent in the history of Europe during the past century for such action I Is there a single case in the comity of civilised nations, or where-ever white races are gathered together in organised States, in which war has been waged between two independent States, where the victor in the hour of his victory has declined to enter into any negotiations with the Government of the vanquished? No such thing has ever been done before. What would have

  1255
  been said of Germany if, after Sedan, when they had not only the army of their enemy in their possession, but the whole of the machinery of Government and the head of the State—which you have not got in regard to South Africa—they had declined to hold any communication with the new Government set up in France? All civilisation would have cried shame upon Germany. But Germany did not attempt anything of the kind. It is idle, in support of your position, to say there are no Governments. There is just as much a Government to-day in the Transvaal as there was in France after Sedan. I assert that you can never have peace in South Africa until you negotiate with the Government of these two States. You may, I dare say you will, I have no doubt you will, by calling out reinforcements and continuing the war at ruinous expense wear down the resistance of the Boers. You may break up their main bodies and disarm them; you may have a cessation of hostilities until another opportunity occurs, but until you come to some arrangement with the responsible and trusted leaders of the people you will never get a permanent peace.
  What is the position taken up by the Government? When pressed on this question the other day they said, "True, we will not negotiate with the Governments; our terms with the Governments and the leaders are unconditional surrender, but Lord Roberts and General Buller have always been most anxious to meet the enemy in every way, to open the door for surrender and to make the way easy." I deny that. I go further. I say a most extraordinary and unhappy attempt has been made to keep the House of Commons in the dark on this subject. Wherever the responsibility lies it has been singularly unfortunate. What happened here the other night? The Financial Secretary to the War Office got up mainly for the purpose of elucidating this particular point, and of assuring the House that Lord Roberts had done everything in his power to promote a meeting with General Botha. I am the last man in the House to seek to make a charge against the Financial Secretary. I have always found him honourable and kindly to his opponents, but I do say that in this instance, I have no doubt
  1256
  through being misinformed, he grossly misled the House of Commons. This is what the Financial Secretary said—
  "On the 8th June a verbal message was brought from Louis Botha requesting an interview with Lord Roberts. Lord Roberts answered the letter in his own hand consenting to an interview between the outposts, but Botha's answer was not satisfactory in that he would not agree to the terms on which they were to meet. I myself have not seen the actual letter, but I believe Botha stated that he did not mean to consider any terms unless independence was assured."
  I got up amid much interruption and asked whether he would lay Papers giving full details of what passed. He did lay Papers; and what is the result? There is not a single word of truth in that statement; on the contrary, it is in every detail absolutely the reverse of what occurred. Why was the House of Commons kept in the dark as to this correspondence? Papers have been laid again and again since this correspondence passed, but no Papers in connection with South Africa during the past two years have been laid which were of greater importance or interest to the country than this correspondence which was suppressed and intended to be withheld from the House of Commons, but for the fact that I interrupted the hon. Gentleman. What really happened? On the 12th June Lord Roberts wrote the following letter to General Botha—
  "Your Honour,—I address these few lines in the hope that they may have the effect of inducing your Honour, in the cause of humanity, to refrain from further resistance. The British force under my command so greatly exceeds the Boer army in number that, although the war may be prolonged for a few more weeks, there can be but one result. After the gallant struggle your Honour and the force under your command have made, there can be no question of loss of honour should you decide to accept the counsel I now venture to plotter."
  First of all, there is not a suggestion in that letter of any verbal message coming to Lord Roberts. It is perfectly manifest on the face of the communication that that letter was sent on the initiative of Lord Roberts. In the second place, could anything more instructive, interesting, or wonderful be imagined than the commentary supplied by this letter on the condition of mind of Lord Roberts, for it is evident from this letter that he was under the impression that the war

  1257
  was sure to end in two or three weeks, even if the Boers did their best. It is no wonder that Lord Kitchener had to criticise the arrangements of the Army after Lord Roberts left. Here is General Botha's reply to that letter—
  "Your Excellency,—In answer to your letter of yesterday wherein your Excellency advises me, in the interests of humanity, not to continue this strife any longer to your Army as your force exceeds ours so greatly in numbers, I wish to give your Excellency the assurance that the subject is receiving my serious consideration. However, for the purpose of arriving at a decision, it is not only absolutely necessary for me to call a General Council of War of my officers and to consult them, but above all it is necessary for me to consider the subject with my Government. I trust that for the sake of humanity your Excellency will give me the opportunity for such consideration and consultation.
  "As some of my officers are near the Natal border, and I am also a long way separate from my Government, this will require some time. I ask your Excellency kindly, therefore, for an armistice for six days, beginning from to-morrow morning at sunrise, during which time no forward movement will be made on either side within the territory of the South African Republic.
  "I would very much like to receive from your Excellency to-day an answer to your request, and if possible by the agent who is taking this letter."
  Lord Roberts replies refusing the armistice requested. ["Read, read!"] For the moment, all I have to say is that that is not the account given to the House of Commons; it is the very reverse. We were told by the Financial Secretary that the ground on which the meeting did not take place was that Louis Botha wrote to say that he would not consider any terms unless independence was assured. There is not a line of justification for that statement; there is not a word of truth in it. Lord Roberts offered a modified form of armistice, and Louis Botha then replies—
  "Your Excellency, —In answer to your letter, dated 14th June, just received by me, wherein your Excellency consents to an armistice for five days, but with the reservation of the right to your Excellency to move your army in all directions within the South African Republic, except east of Elands River station and north of the Volksrust-Johannnesburg Railway line, I must, to my great regret, inform your Excellency that this reservation makes it impossible for me to accept this armistice, which I have so much desired."
  From beginning to end there is not one word about terms. Botha was willing to come to the meeting with no pre-
  1258
  liminary conditions, and to discuss the subject with an open mind. It is infamous that that fact should have been held back from the knowledge of the country, and the House of Commons and the public deliberately deceived in the interests of that section of Gentlemen opposite and of some of those who cheered when I said Lord Roberts refused the armistice, and in the interests of those for whom The Times speaks when before and ever since the war began it has raised a howl whenever there was a prospect of peace or negotiation. There is a faction in this country and in South Africa who have engineered and brought about this war for vile and selfish interests, and that faction have stood in the path of peace from the day the first shot was fired until this hour; they are the men who forged the Johannesburg letter; they are the men who thought it was no blot upon the personal honour of Mr. Rhodes to deceive his Government and to lie all round. As by forgery and lying they thought in 1896 to rob the people of the Transvaal of their liberty, and as by lying and forgery they embroiled in 1899 this country in the most disgraceful war that has ever blotted her annals, so down to this very hour they have continued this infamous work, and by lying, suppression, and forgery they have misrepresented the leaders of the Boers to this country, they have told the people of England what was false and what they knew to be false—that the Boer leaders refused to meet Lord Roberts unless independence was guaranteed—
  ME. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member is now stating that the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the War Office said something in this House which he knew to be false.
  MR. DILLON: Indeed, I did not, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member said that—
  MR. DILLON: Indeed, I did not, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member said earlier in his speech that the information to which he has just referred was given to the House by the Financial

  1259
  Secretary to the War Office. He has now proceeded to say, "They have told the country what they knew to be false." The hon. Member must withdraw that remark.
  MR. DILLON: I will be only too glad to apologise if I gave that impression, but I think you did not follow my speech very closely. I quite admit that I spoke in heat, and my words may not have reached you.
  MR. SPEAKER: I heard the hon. Member previously say that he did not cast any imputation on the noble Lord, as he stated he had not seen the actual letter, but in the latter part of his speech he certainly did cast such an imputation.
  MR. DILLON: I will put an end to the matter by most fully withdrawing if anybody dreamt that I was casting an imputation on the noble Lord. To make myself perfectly clear, I said that the noble Lord told me he had not seen the letters himself, and that he did not see them until he went to the War Office and got the papers. But I had passed away from Members of this House.
  MR. SPEAKER: I quite accept the hon. Member's statement. All I said was that in the heat of the moment he certainly used an expression which was capable of that interpretation. I quite accept his withdrawal.
  MR. DILLON: I am quite prepared to make any amende to the noble Lord. I was applying my language to the authors of the Jameson raid, who, in my opinion, created and worked for this war, and stopped at no means, however disgraceful and unscrupulous, to embroil this country and the South African Republics. Most completely have they succeeded in their nefarious design. I charge them now with pursuing that detestable policy to the utter destruction of these people, but, please God, they never will succeed in achieving that. They stand today, as they stood five years ago, in the path of peace, with their forgeries and lies, but now with the blood of
  1260
  20,000 Englishmen who have perished in this conflict upon their heads, and the ruin of two nations. The vengeance of God, though it is slow, will yet, I trust, find them out, because in the pursuit of their vile and selfish ends they have given all South Africa to fire and sword, and they have embroiled England in the bloodiest and most disgraceful war she has ever known, and called down upon her the universal condemnation of the civilised world. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my nature.
  MR. CHANNING: I rise to second this Amendment, which has been moved in a speech of passionate eloquence, elaborate and powerful reasoning and illustration, and, I venture to say, a spirit of wise and broad statesmanship. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may think those words ill-chosen, but although some of them may dissent, as I do, from some of the words and contentions of my hon. friend, they will at least recognise the broad spirit in which he has entered upon this question and tried to raise the standard of action of this country in this great struggle.
  This Amendment raises issues of the gravest importance upon which I, representing an English Liberal constituency, hold that the opinion of the House of Commons should be declared at this crisis in the nation's history. Many of us have been challenged during the recent election for voting in favour of my hon. friend's Amendment to the Address in the session of October, 1899. I feel the same satisfaction in seconding this motion as I felt in voting for that. The hon. Member for East Mayo was then supporting the application to this struggle of that principle of arbitration which we all pretend to want carried out, and what he has done now is to lay before the House the strongest case I have heard for years for an inquiry into the statements he has made—statements for every one of which he has given actual evidence of great force and weight. As I listened to his speech, I could not help thinking of the parallel between the debate of tonight and that of yesterday. Then

  1261
  we were asking for, and the Government granted, an inquiry into the cases of ghastly and sorrowful surrender. Now my hon. friend, as I understand him, is laying this tremendous series of charges before the House rather as a case which demands the impartial and loyal consideration of this great court of the Empire, in order that the highest and noblest standards of warfare, which it has been the pride of this country to uphold in the past, may be maintained. The policy of crushing resistance without parley, or negotiation, or consideration for the feelings of those with whom you are fighting, is as unwise as it is cruel. I believe the whole of this country and a great portion of the forces in South Africa—although they will fight to the last with all possible gallantry, doing their duty, however tired they may be of the ghastly series of affairs—are weary of the struggle. We are weary of the enormous and increasing burden which will paralyse social reform, which is starving many charities and philanthropic efforts all over the country, and which is putting a millstone around the neck of British trade at one of the most serious crises it has had to face; but the Government, when we are all so anxious to bring this war to the speediest possible conclusion, have adopted the very worst methods for securing that end. What are their methods? They are to add to the legitimate fighting strength—which, of course, it is the duty of the Government, though I do not support them in doing it, to exercise—two instruments which I think are the worst that can be imagined in such a case as this. First, they have refused to the enemy just the very thing that men of that type and character cling to with the most passionate devotion and loyalty—namely, their liberty; and, secondly, they are attempting to enforce their submission by this hideous terrorism of threats of suffering and torture of the weak and defenceless.
  The First Lord of the Treasury said the other day that the prolongation of this war was due to the enemy, and not to ourselves. I venture to say that the prolongation of the war is, as a matter of demonstration, the result of the policy of His Majesty's Government.
  1262
  We have recently had the despatches and proclamations of Lord Roberts laid before Parliament. Those despatches, may or may not—I express no view—raise the opinion of military experts with regard to the strategic capacity of Lord Roberts, but they certainly lower our view of his capacity as a statesman and politician, and as one who has to administer the delicate and difficult considerations that go to the root of the instincts and feelings of his fellow-men. In these proclamations we have had what I can call nothing but a litter of inconsistent and contradictory statements. It is absolutely impossible for any man reading those proclamations to find out what would be the result of his ! action or his abstention from action. What impression could they produce on the narrow and prejudiced but shrewd race opposed to us? The Boers must have thought alternately that they had to deal with the fatuous imbecility of Dogbery and Verges, and the scarcely disguised merciless policy of a Duke of Alva. You have had in Lord Roberts's campaign more than one opportunity of bringing this war to a close. Lord Roberts himself admits that the risk of his rapid rush on Bloemfontein and Pretoria was serious from a military point of view, and I say—and I challenge contradiction —the one real justification for the risk and suffering of those rapid operations would undoubtedly have been to use the moment of success in order to put before the more influential members of the Boer community just those considerations and offers of terms which might have served to bring about at least the beginning of negotiations which might have resulted in an agreement between the two sides. This has been laid before the country in the clearest possible way by one of the greatest of Conservative statesmen, Sir Edward Clarke. What is the professed aim of the Government policy? It is to have a contented and peaceful South Africa, equal rights for all men, and fair play for all parties; the open door for all industries, and free institutions, which the Secretary for the Colonies and many others have explained again and again would ultimately be granted in order to give the freedom and the free self-government now enjoyed

  1263
  by Canada and Australia to these South African communities. I venture to say that the policy you have adopted week by week has put the whole possibility of such a solution farther and farther away from you. You can read the signs of the times in South Africa. Thank Heaven, Cape Colony has not joined in this movement, and I hope that no consideration may induce the Dutch in Cape Colony to join in the struggle, which would thus enlarge the area of the war. I am one of those who look upon the military result of this war as a foregone conclusion. I have no doubt as to the ultimate result of these military operations, but I do think that to carry out this policy with exasperation is one of the most unwise and improper courses to take in so grave an emergency.
  My hon. friend the Member for East Mayo has quoted many passages from the press to show the real temper which is present in the minds of some supporters of His Majesty's Government and the policy they are pressing for. Let us here in the House of Commons let South Africa know the terms which the Government are prepared to give to the Boers if they surrender. Let us know the immediate terms, and let them be frankly and fairly made known to the Boers forthwith throughout South Africa. I listened to the last speech of the Colonial Secretary, and remember the speech which he addressed to the House in December last, and they present a great contrast. There seems to be in the policy of the Government as explained across the floor of the House of Commons just the same vacillation as in the proclamations issued by Lord Roberts. Your policy must produce on the minds of your enemy the same uncertainty and hopelessness of making out what their fate would be, and there is the same distrust of your intentions. What I have to challenge His Majesty's Government upon is that if they continue the, policy which they are now doing; if the Colonial Secretary continues to refuse to offer terms of settlement, and if he continues to be guided in his policy by Sir Alfred Milner and Lord Kitchener, and still declares that until they give him leave to offer terms of peace he will leave things in
  1264
  their hands, then I say the responsibility for the prolongation of this war rests clearly with His Majesty's Government, and they will have to face the responsibility before history as to whether they are not themselves in their own hearts aiming at a policy of extermination, of absolute annihilation, and of absolute removal of these troublesome races. My attention was called to an article in the Economic Journal, written by a great financial authority in the City, over well-known initials. In this article the argument was deliberately put forward that the prolongation of the war was an advantage to His Majesty's Ministers and to those interested in speculations in South Africa. The prolongation of the war was said to be an advantage to British occupation, because each month, as it went on, diminished and swept away the Boer race; and day by day more and more of these wretched men were being reduced to bankruptcy, and more and more would be killed off and disappear. I listened with interest to a speech made by the noble Lord the Member for North Bedfordshire, who has rendered valuable service in South Africa, He spoke in a very appreciative way of the character of the Boer farmers, and he pointed out that the probable solution in South Africa would be the complete colonisation of these Boer colonies by British colonists, who had been encouraged to take these farm under a sort of compulsory expropriation.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! These matters do not arise under this Amendment.
  MR. CHANNING: I will not pursue that argument further, but I was simply using it as an illustration that even in minds like that of the noble Lord who has been in South Africa there was a contemplation of this policy of driving the Boers out of their own country, in order that we might occupy it ourselves. This impression has arisen because of the persistent refusal of His Majesty's Government to put forward conciliatory terms which might be accepted by a brave and resolute people. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will remove this impression, and that His Majesty's

  1265
  Government may even now do something to bring this hateful war to a conclusion. I say that His Majesty's Government, in the face of the speeches which have been made and of the articles which we have seen in the press, and in view of all the facts we have before us, are bound to attempt to clear themselves from the suspicion that this war is being prolonged in order to accomplish the extinction and the extermination of these people.
  I have only one more word to add, and it is that I have always been taught— and I believe every lad in the Anglo-Saxon race has been taught—to love and respect the passionate determination of a people to make any sacrifice to defend their homes. That is the fundamental quality of the Boers who are fighting against us to-day. We heard to-day that some of the Boer women were condemned in the camps because their husbands were showing this noble courage and fighting for their independence, and it was said that these women were to be subjected to starvation rations in order that their husbands might be coerced. I heard a few days ago that in some of our camps Boer women had been expressing in the strongest and most passionate terms their hope and belief that their husbands and sons would never allow the sufferings of the women to be a motive for surrendering their struggle for their liberties. Whatever we may think of the origin of the war, such noble motives as these should weigh in our hearts, and should have their influence in urging His Majesty's Government to take some such course as is suggested in this Amendment—
  Amendment proposed—
  "At the end of the Question, to add the words, 'But we humbly represent to Your Majesty that the wholesale burning of farmhouses, the wanton destruction and looting of private property, the driving of women and children out of their homes without shelter or proper provision of food, and the confinement of women and children in prison camps are practices not in accordance with the usages of war as recognised by civilised nations; that such proceedings are in the highest degree disgraceful and dishonouring to a nation professing to be Christian, and are calculated by the intense indignation and hatred of the British name which they must excite in the Dutch population to immensely increase the difficulty of restoring peace to South Africa. And we humbly and earnestly re-
  1266
  present to Your Majesty that it is the duty of Your Majesty's Government immediately to put a stop to all practices contrary to the recognised usages of war in the conduct of the war in South Africa; and to make an effort to bring the war to an end by proposing to the Governments of the two Republics such terms of peace as brave and honourable men might, under all the circumstances, be reasonably expected to entertain.'"—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I have heard many astonishing things in the course of this debate, but I think the most astonishing of all was that which fell from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down when he alluded to the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo as dictated by a wise and broad statesmanship. I am no stranger to the methods of the hon. Member for East Mayo. This is a subject which deserves at the hands of the House of Commons a treatment distinguished by judgment and discretion, and, if possible, without passion. I have heard the hon. Member for East Mayo on many occasions, but, though well steeled to his invective, I confess that I do not think that either in the vehemence or in the length of his paroxysms he ever surpassed himself in the historical exaggerations which he has applied to this subject. Those hon. Gentlemen who do not know the hon. Member for East Mayo and who do not know his supporters might suppose that this rhetoric had been called into existence by this special case, whereas nearly every piece of invective was familiar to us on this side of the House, It has been used before in the Irish debates—yes, and not only has the invective done duty before, but the cheers with which it was greeted I have also done duty before. It has done duty whenever British soldiers were fighting against the Mahdi, or the Khalifa, or the Afridis, or any real or supposed enemy of Great Britain.
  The hon. Member, who revels in such a speech, asked us at the close to enter on the business in a spirit of conciliation. The hon. Member stood there as an apostle of conciliation; but what single sentence in his speech led to conciliation? What single opportunity did he give to Gentlemen on this side of the House to

  1267
  join him in that effort, which many of us on this side of the House, even in the present debate on the Address, have urged the House of Commons to make, and to put aside these bitter nesses if we could in order to arrive at some common ground of settlement. On the contrary, the hon. Member said everything he could to stimulate antagonism. He said everything he could to exasperate and not to conciliate opposition. He did everything he could to make us farther apart and to make the cleavage greater. He did everything he could in these directions, and every word he used will be telegraphed to South Africa, and there they will impair the chances of an ultimate settlement. I should not object to his invective if it were always based on facts. The hon. Member has corrected me with regard to a statement I made, on information which reached me and which has since been corroborated by Sir A. Milner. I said not one word with regard to the Boers. What I said was that these were men whose minds had been poisoned by pernicious literature which the hon. Member freely quoted and which the hon. Member for Carnarvon also quoted, and which has since been found to be doctored for the palate of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member objected when I rose to ask him what evidence he had of the truth of the pamphlet from which he was quoting—an interruption which he repudiated at the time, but which has since been found to be justified by one of the most outrageous and open instances of cutting out all which tells against his side, in order to make a case, which has ever been put before the House of Commons, even by a Conciliation Committee. In that race, in that competition of unjust modelling of evidence, the hon. Member for East Mayo is not far behind his colleague the Member for Carnarvon. The hon. Member attacked Lord Roberts for his political conduct of the war, and he even ventured to impeach his military conduct for the state in which he left the troops in South Africa. The hon. Member said, What was the Commander-in-Chief for, if he left the Army in that position? And he quoted from an article the purport of which was to explain the grounds on which Lord Kitchener had to take three months
  1268
  to remove the consequences of Lord Roberts's "disorganisation" before he could move.
  MR. DILLON: What I said was that if the account given in a specially inspired article published in The Times last Friday was correct, then Lord Roberts was not fit to command.
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, and he has repeated it again. How "specially inspired"? What right has the hon. Member to declare that the article was specially inspired?
  MR. DILLON: It could not pass the censor otherwise.
  MR. BRODRICK: Then why did not Lord Kitchener censor all the letters from which the hon. Member has quoted reflecting upon himself? The hon. Member must know as well as I do that letters have come to this country by the hundred and the thousand which cannot be touched by the censor. Coming to Lord Kitchener, an honourable and generous man, who has honourably served with Lord Roberts, with whom he is on the closest terms of intimacy and friendship, the hon. Member had the assurance to tell the House that Lord Kitchener had inspired this letter against Lord Roberts, and—putting his own construction upon it—said this was Lord Kitchener's revenge for Paardeberg. [Cries of "Shame."] The motive of the hon. Member can be seen from that statement, and from the fact that he left off reading the letter at the exact point where it relieved Lord Kitchener from the gross insinuation the hon. Member sought to convey. What was the nature of that letter? It contained these words—"It must not be imagined that Lord Roberts was in any way to blame for this state of things. "Why did the hon. Member not read that sentence?
  MR. DILLON: I read that out loud to the House.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Apologise!
  MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid if the hon. Member did read it I do not recollect it.
  MR. DILLON: Everyone heard me.
  MR. BRODRICK: If he did read it then it certainly does not appear in print. Did the hon. Member read this—
  "It was the inevitable outcome of a protracted campaign in a difficult country, with an enormous area, and also the complete change in the character of the war on the part of the enemy from a war of defence to an offensive guerilla war."
  Why did not the hon. Member read that? Because it would have destroyed his bitter and groundless insinuation about Lord Kitchener going behind the back of Lord Roberts to a correspondent of The Times in order to poison the mind of the British public, which Lord Kitchener would never have thought of doing. Just in the same way the hon. Member was good enough to put into my mouth expressions I never used, and for which there was not a particle of evidence to justify his charges. The hon. Member has tried to saddle us with statements we have never made, just as he has tried to saddle Lord Kitchener with things he has never written. He has taken on trust garbled extracts which have reached him from anonymous letters, and when Lord Roberts, out of the courtesy of his nature, writing to Mr. Stead, said—what many of us, I fear, would not have said— namely,
  "I readily accept your statement that this officer is a man of good standing and unblemished repute,"
  the hon. Member went as near as he dared to saying that Lord Roberts was standing bail for the truth of the accusation made by Mr. Stead.
  MR. DILLON: Nothing of the kind.
  MR. BRODRICK: I will not follow; the hon. Member further than I can I help upon these lines, for I believe that they are fraught with the utmost danger to future negotiations, the utmost inconvenience at present, and I believe it to be wholly foreign to the judicial temper m which the House should discuss these proceedings.
  Looking at the subject from that point of view, I would say one word as to the exaggerated account which the hon. Member gave of the state of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. He
  1270
  said there had been a wholesale devastation of the country. That is absolutely untrue, according to any facts which have reached us, or even from any insinuations which have reached us, from any authentic source. There must, of course, be very considerable devastation in tracts of country which have been fought over in some instances half-a-dozen or a dozen times. Obviously that is inevitable in war. But what are the facts of the case? I will tell the House in two or three minutes. In the first place, we are still waiting for the actual facts as to the number of farms burned; but the hon. Member left the impression on the House that all the burnings and devastation had been carried out by orders of British generals. That is absolutely wrong. When the British entered the Orange Free State they found that lies had been spread in front of them, calumnious statements that the honour of women would not be safe and that farms would be looted; and they found that farm after farm had been deserted, and in every single instance those farms had been looted and in many cases burned by the Kaffirs. I have it on the authority of Lord Roberts himself that those in advance of the army arrived at homestead after homestead which they found a smoking ruin when they entered the colony. And to a large extent the destruction and devastation of the farms in the two colonies was caused by the desertion of the farms by the Boers and their destruction by the Kaffirs. I do not wish to say anything, to make matters more difficult between the two races; but I would remind the House that one of our greatest difficulties has been the attitude of some of the Boers towards the Kaffirs, and that the Kaffirs had a long score to settle with the Boers, when the time and the opportunity came for looting their houses. There was a second class of cases which came under the description of punishment—that word to which the hon. Member for East Mayo so vehemently objected. A British general was not merely entitled, but he was bound to take serious notice of cases of treachery in farmhouses. There has been an immense amount of treachery in this war, of breach of parole, and a great deal of harbouring of the enemy in farmhouses

  1271
  which had received our protection. There has been concealment of arms and ammunition. Ammunition has been discovered when some farms were burnt carefully kept out of sight. The destruction of these buildings forms the second class of cases for which I am perfectly ready in this House to stand bail and to defend the conduct of the generals, and which accounts for a very large amount of such devastation as has been caused.
  There has been a third class of case—the destruction of the line on which the whole provision of the forces, and the non-combatants as well, depended during the progress of the operations. The hon. Member for East Mayo and other Members on the same side have addressed the House with great vehemence and have delivered a strong attack upon us because we have not always been able to give the whole of the population which depended upon us full rations of every kind during the campaign. But the same Members who so vehemently attack us for that make an equally vigorous attack because punitive measures were set in force in order to protect the lines from being broken. At one time, for weeks together, the line was broken at some place or other every night, and it was absolutely necessary to take strong steps in these cases. Lord Roberts may have issued strong proclamations, and may have acted up to them in certain cases. If he did so it was because he thought it was necessary in order to preserve his force, and also in order to find food for the enormous civil population depending upon him. When we talk of war, do let us divest our minds of cant. War cannot be made without a certain amount of human suffering. All you can do is to palliate that suffering and alleviate it as much as you can. What Lord Roberts and Lord Kitchener have had to do will bear comparison with the humanity of any war that has ever been waged. [Cries of "No" from the Irish benches.] There is no war which has ever been carried on before in which the general began by sending on parole all those who were willing to go back to their farms; there has been no war in which the general has attempted successfully to feed all the women and children who came to him. Go back to the American War and see the devastation
  1272
  of tracts of country by Sheridan and Sherman; go back to the Franco-German War and see what was found necessary by the German generals through many months when they were in a hostile country. So far from hon. Members calling on all their gods to witness against their own fellow-countrymen, I say that we have a right to be proud of the humanity of our officers. We have a right also to be proud that in all these difficulties we have scarcely heard of one outrage by a private soldier, and we can hardly trace a single case in which a general has by some hasty expression or decision diverged from the path which we, sitting quietly here, find it so easy to trace out for him.
  I am asked to declare again what the intentions of the Government are. They have been already stated by the Secretary for the Colonies in the admirable speech he made last December, and confirmed by the First Lord of the Treasury during the present session of Parliament. But we are told that if we do not at once answer the statements made by our opponents we have assented to them. I say again, as regards the question of the independence of the two Republics, the Government has not the slightest intention of giving way. Subject to that, we are willing to consider at the proper time, and we have encouraged the generals to communicate freely with the Boer commanders, reasonable terms of settlement. It is perfectly well known to all in authority in the Transvaal that there is no reluctance whatever on the part of His Majesty's representatives to meet them; but we shall do no good by going cap in hand at this moment and offering terms which would be indignantly rejected, such as those discussed in the House on the last occasion and on the present. I can only say this, that if more motions of this kind are made it will be our duty to answer them, but that we can add nothing to the declarations we have already made. So far from these motions being those of wise and broad statesmanship, I believe that they are in every way injurious to the ends which they are supposed to promote. They are not wanted as a check on our generals, they are not necessary as a stimulus to the Government to make peace, and believe they create a false impression

  1273
  abroad and in South Africa, while I know that the, speeches by which they are accompanied contain grave and unwarrantable imputations on the Commander-in-Chief and form a gross libel on our Army. They tend to heighten passions and to deepen resentments, and in consequence they increase the difficulty of settlement. I do not think that many of the observations addressed to the House were made with the object of conveying sympathy with the Boers —[HON. MEMBERS on the Irish benches: Oh, oh!]—so much as with a desire to embarrass the Government. The Government have shown that, although they mean vigorously to prosecute the war by every means in their power, they are still ready at any moment to welcome proffered peace, on terms which perhaps are not usually given, and to allow those who have been in arms against us to go to their homes. We are determined that there shall be humane treatment of those who surrender, as well as of those who, according to the laws of war, are in arms against us. I trust that we shall not be hampered further by motions of this kind, which can add nothing to our determination in one direction or the other, but which are eminently calculated to prevent what ought to be, and I hope still is, the desire of all parties in the House—namely, an early and satisfactory conclusion of the war.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: Mr. Speaker, we all recognise the great importance of the statement which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. I do not refer to the purely controversial matters dealt with in his speech, but towards the end of his speech he came on to discuss a matter which is vital at this time, the question of the terms upon which this war might be brought to an end, and he said that the statement which he made might he regarded as final. The statement was evidently very carefully considered and carefully worded, and we are told that after this, if any further questions are raised in this House, we may expect to be referred back to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman this evening. We are entitled, therefore, to ask for some little in formation in regard to those terms to which
  1274
  we alluded. We are entitled to know what the Government really mean by the statement which they have put into the mouth of the Minister for War to-night. Now, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of future negotiations, and he deprecated the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo on the ground that the motion which he moved and the speech which he had made upon it were calculated to increase the difficulties which might arise in the course of those negotiations. We are happy to hear there are to be negotiations. It is not so long ago—a very little while—that we heard that there were to be no negotiations, and that the only terms to be offered to the Boers were to be unconditional surrender.
  The Secretary of State for War spoke further of reasonable terms of settlement. He said that the Boer leaders in the field were perfectly well aware that reasonable terms of settlement were open to them, and although it was not for us to go hat in hand to them, still they were aware that if they desired terms of accommodation, terms of accommodation could be had. We are extremely glad to hear that. We do not want to know the details or even the main substance of those proposals, but we do want to know what is to be their character. There has been a good deal of studied ambiguity with regard to this matter. At one moment we are told that there can be no negotiations at all, and at other times we are informed that there can be negotiations, but only in regard to the individual soldiers in the field. What we really want to know is this: Are the Government prepared, as part of those terms on which the Boer army are to lay down their arms, to give them assurances as to the mode in which the Government of their country is to be carried on? The whole question rests upon that. Of course, we cannot expect for a moment that men in the field would lay down their arms unless they were told that their lives would be safe, but they will want to know something more, and it will be absolutely futile to ask these men to lay down their arms unless you also say what is to happen to the country when they have done so. They have taken up arms in the defence of their country, and they will not lay them down voluntarily until they know roughly, broadly, what is to

  1275
  be the position of the country and its Government when they have surrendered that power which they now hold. I think this House has a right to be informed whether our commanders in the field are prepared to inform the Boer leaders broadly, roughly, in outline, what the condition of the Government of the country is to be when the surrender has taken place. If that be not done I am afraid all this talk about coming to terms will be perfectly futile. It will very likely be the fact that within the next few weeks or days the Boer forces may undergo some grave reverse; it may be that the force under De Wet may be dispersed, and that under Botha broken up, but that will not put an end to the war, it will merely mark a new stage, and the war may drag from month to month and from year to year before the country can be declared settled, and before we can reach the goal which every man in this House ardently longs to reach, if it can only be reached with safety and honour.
  I am satisfied that if terms were offered, if assurances, proofs, were given to our gallant enemy in the field that we honestly desire to respect their right to internal self-government, that we honestly intend and are determined to follow the objects we had when we engaged in this war, and that we are prepared to act up to the promises we had in our mouth at that time, and if they could see we did not desire to appropriate their country and the gold in it—if they were assured of all these things (and until they are so assured they will not lay down their arms)—then I believe there might be in truth a healing up, not immediate but gradual, of the terrible wounds inflicted by the war. If they found we were prepared to stand by the main lines of the policy with which we began the war, they would say these people are honest, and England, whom we thought so unworthy, is still worthy of our faith. That would save for this country the possibility of holding permanently our South African possessions; but if that be not done, if these terms that are to be offered are simply terms of surrender to the individual commandoes, then we shall be no forwarder than we were before.
  I trust the Government, if this is, as they say, their last attempt at con-
  1276
  ciliation, will tell us a little more about it, in order that we may derive some hope that at last they have arrived at something like a true estimation of the real facts of the situation, and that it is not their intention to palter with it.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: What I want to know is whether the terms now to be offered to the Boers are the terms for which they are fightings— the independence of their country. I do not believe they are, neither do I think that anything said either in or outside this House, by those who are termed pro-Boers or those who are for the war, will have any effect on the conduct of the war. The Boer generals and the Boer farmers are not spoiled children, they know what they are fighting for and why they are fighting, and the opinion of anyone in this House, whether on the Government side or on this side, is, and must be, to them a matter of the most supreme indifference. Anyone who can imagine men of the calibre of Louis Botha, Christian De Wet, Delarey, and the other generals of the Boer army, who are now exciting the admiration of the world and teaching nations the art of war, being influenced by anything said here by the members of the Government or Opposition has failed to appreciate the position.
  I appeal for the independence of the Boers as a means of settlement, because we have no right to take their independence from these people. It is not that we cannot subdue the Boers, that is not my point of view. The words "Do unto others as ye would they should do unto you" apply to nations as they do to individuals, and a nation professing to be Christian should do its best to uphold so sacred a charge. Not only are we trying to do that which we have no right to do, but we are attempting the impossible. Our army may wear down the Boer resistance, but you cannot wear down the Boer independence. In the end superiority is bound to prevail, and if these men have proved one thing more conclusively than any other, it is that in every respect— mental, moral, and physical—the Boers are superior to those we have been able to put in the field against them. It may be said that by that remark I am casting reflections upon my own countrymen, but that is not so. I have relatives on the

  1277
  field fighting for His Majesty, and I cast no reflections upon men doing what they believe to be their duty when fighting for their country. I am stating facts, and it is because Gentlemen opposite, and Gentlemen on this side who support the war, have shut their eyes to facts all the way through that we are in the position we are in to-day. We may by force of numbers overrun the Boers, but in the end they are bound to, and must, dominate South Africa. The position on these benches around me (the Irish Nationalist benches), after a hundred years of an attempt to enforce British rule upon a people who rejected it and repelled it, ought to be sufficient to convince even the most unwilling of the impossibility of one white race imposing its will upon another white race. In South Africa you will have Ireland ten times multiplied because of the distance from this country, and because of the opportunities for effective resistance, and so I press as good policy, as sound morality, and as an act of justice which the Government owes to these countries, that even now it should be made known to the Boers, not by sending women and discredited immoral parsons as envoys to them, but by direct communication from the Government to those who are left at the heads of the Boer army in the field, that you proclaim an armistice to discuss terms of settlement. Treat these men as they have a right to be treated—as honourable men who deserve honourable treatment at our hands.
  I rose to call attention to a statement of the Secretary of State for War to-night in connection with a leaflet to which he referred. He spoke in terms of deepest reproach concerning all those responsible for the issue of a mutilated extract from a, letter written by Lieutenant Morrison, published in a Canadian newspaper, reproduced in a garbled form in a New York paper, and cabled in that form to this country, and reproduced here. Such is the history in brief of the letter which the Conciliation Committee afterwards issued in leaflet form. Anyone listening to the statements of the Secretary of State for War, or reading the comments of the war press on this incident, could come to no other conclusion than that the doctoring of the document and the leaving out of certain passages
  1278
  was the deliberate work of the Conciliation Committee, or of the Manchester Guardian, which first reproduced the letter. I ask the House to remember the kind of men whom we have thus by implication been making liable. The chairman of the Conciliation Committee is no Socialist leader or Irish rebel. He is a man who for twenty years adorned this House, and for over a dozen years supported the Government in its anti-Home Rule policy, a man who commanded the confidence for his integrity and; ability of every section of this House—the right hon. Leonard Courtney. Will any man dare to say that he would be guilty of dishonourable conduct in connection with a leaflet of this kind? If the Secretary of State for War meant to blame him in connection with that matter, he was libelling a man whose shoe latchet he was not worthy to unloose. I rise to let it be known, speaking as a member of the Conciliation Committee, that the majority of that committee are not pro-Boer Radicals, but were until this war broke out supporters of the Unionist Government and the Unionist party. This fact requires to be stated emphatically, because everything is being done to spread the belief that only people of little influence and of less ability have dared to make a stand against the war. On the Conciliation Committee and on the Stop-the-War Committee are some of the best men in literature, and quite a number of the noblest professors and upholders of the Christian faith in the country. Men who hold high positions in politics are enthusiastic and devoted members, and to profess that a committee composed of people of that type could be guilty of conduct of this kind is a wanton insult which should not be allowed to pass. When we remember the history of the war—when we remember that the press by sheer and deliberate lying and misrepresentation misled the nation into the war, it lies with bad grace on the lips of any supporter of the war to feel indignation for a mere slip, for which the persons accused cannot be reasonably held guilty by anyone who knows them. I hope that whoever speaks for the Government this evening will take the opportunity of doing an act of justice to an old colleague by making it perfectly clear that no one in this House

  1279
  believes that he personally or his colleagues were directly responsible for it.
  MR. BOYLEsaid he was a member of an Ulster constituency, and he was proud to say that a majority of the Members from that province and a great majority of the population were entirely and avowedly against the war. They were not only against the war, but they were expressly against the methods by which it was being conducted by England. He represented a constituency in a very remote part where the people only got a tri-weekly paper. When he went there he was asked how the war was going on. Whenever De Wet achieved a victory there was gladness and glee around the homesteads. Why was that? Because the English Government in West Donegal were doing the same things that the English were doing in South Africa
  He had listened with the greatest possible interest to the powerful indictment by the hon. Member for East Mayo. The Secretary of State for War had made a feeble reply to that indictment. The Irish Nationalist Members who advocated right, justice, and freedom were accused from the Treasury Bench of talking cant. Were the speeches of Burke and Lord Chatham cant, when the British were trying to enslave a white race in America? The speeches delivered from the Opposition benches then were the speeches of wise and statesmanlike men. About the time the war began he had a relative at
  Kimberley who was not in any way connected with the military, but as all persons had to go under arms he went under arms. His friend wrote a letter to him after the siege of Kimberley to the effect that the Boers were very bad people and should not be encouraged by the Irish. Lately he had another letter from the same gentleman, in which he said that now the British were devastating farms and burning homesteads as had been done in Ireland. He would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite if it was a mark of civilisation to devastate farms and homesteads. He would say that they would not annihilate the Boers. So long as one Boer mother could give birth to a son so long would there be antagonism and hostility in South Africa to the English Government. Ireland was a parallel example. If the forces of tyranny could have annihilated the Irish race there would not be one Member of the old stock on these benches now. The burning of farms in South Africa was not the way to end the war. When they burned the homestead of De Wet he said he would make the English Government pay the sum of £2.000,000 for the house.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 226; Noes. 117. (Division List No. 12.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Charrington, Spencer

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bond, Edward

  Churchill, William Spencer

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Aird, Sir John

  Boulnois, Edmund

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

  Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Brassey, Albert

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Arrol, Sir William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Butcher, John George

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Carlile, William Walter

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Balfour, Maj. K. R.(Christch.)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

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

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Bigwood, James

  Chapman, Edward

  Doughty, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Renwick, George

  Dunn, Sir William

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalyb'ge

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Kenyon, on. G. T. (Denbigh

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Faber, George Denison

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Knowles, Lees

  Russell, T. W.

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

  Rutherford, John

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Finch, George H.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lee, Cpt. A. H. (Hants., Fareh'm

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leighton, Stanley

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Fitz Gerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Flower, Ernest

  Lowe, Francis William

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tynesd.

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks)

  Garfit, William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Stanley, Edwd. Jas. (Somerset)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. F.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'lets)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Stock, James Henry

  Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

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

  Stroyan, John

  Gosehen, Hon. George J.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Maxwell, W.J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Thomas, J.A.(Glamorgan, Gower

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Groves, James Grimble

  More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

  Tufnell, Col. Edward

  Hain Edward

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

  Ure, Alexander

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Mid'x

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H.(Sheffield

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm.

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

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

  Wallace, Robert

  Harris, F. L. (Tynemouth)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Helder, Augustus

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Webb, Col. William George

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

  Penn, John

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pilkington, Richard

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

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wylie, Alexander

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Howard, Cpt. J. (Kent, Faversh.

  Purvis, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Colville, John

  Duffy, William J.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Duncan, James H.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Crean, Eugene

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Cullinan, J.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Bell, Richard

  Daly, James

  Ffrench, Peter

  Boland, John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Field, William

  Boyle, James

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Delany, William

  Gilhooly, James

  Caldwell, James

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Dillon, John

  Hammond, John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Cogan, Dennis J.

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  1282

  1283

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.

  Roche, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

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

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary M.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

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

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Dowd, John

  Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Labouchere, Henry

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Leigh, Sir Joseph (Stockport)

  O'Malley, William

  Tully, Jasper

  Lloyd-George, David

  O'Mara, James

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Lundon, W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  O'Shee, James John

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  M'Crae, George

  Partington, Oswald

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  M'Demott, Patrick

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  M'Govern, T.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Reddy, M.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Mansfield, Horace Kendall

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Murnaghan, George

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

  Murphy, J.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Question put accordingly, "That those I words be there added."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 91; Noes, 243. (Division List No. 13.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hammond, John

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Dowd, John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

  Bell, Richard

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Malley, William

  Poland, John

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Mara, James

  Boyle, James

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Labouchere, Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Burt, Thomas

  Leamy, Edmund

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Caldwell, James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph (Stockport)

  Reddy, M.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Cogan, Denis, J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Colville, John

  Lundon, W.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Roche, John

  Crean, Eugene

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Sullivan, Donal

  Daly, James

  M'Govern, T.

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Delany, William

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

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Mansfield, Horace Kendall

  Tomkinson, James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mooney, John J.

  Tully, Jasper

  Dully, William J.

  Murnaghan, George

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Murphy, J.

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

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.),

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Field, William

  O' Brien, Kend'l (Tipperary, Mid

  Mr. Dillon and Mr. Channing.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Arrol, Sir William

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Aird, Sir John

  Arnold-Fortter, Hugh O.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Flower, Ernest

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

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

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Balfour, Maj K. R. (Christch'rch

  Garfit, William

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Barry, Sir P. T. (Windsor)

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

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'ml'ts

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

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

  Gore, Hon. E. S. Ormsby-

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Bigwood, James

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Myers, William Henry

  Bond, Edward

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Greene, Sir E. W. (B'yS Edm'ds.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex)

  Gretton, John

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Iynn)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Brassey, Albert

  Hain, Edward

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Penn, John

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (M'd'sx

  Pilkington, Richard

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Butcher, John George

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Carlile, William Walter

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynemouth

  Prvce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Helder, Augustus

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Renwick, George

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Ridley, Rt. Hn M. W (St'Iybr'dge

  Chapman, Edward

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Gharrington, Spencer

  Hogg Lindsay

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Russell, T. W.

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rutherford, John

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Howard, Capt. J. (Kent, Fav'rsh

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Howard, J. (Mid., Tottenham)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

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

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Smith, H. C, (N'rth'mbTynes'de

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Knowles, Lees

  Spear, John Ward

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Stock, James Henry

  Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield-

  Lawson, John Grant

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Lee, Capt. A. H. (Hants, Farehm

  Stroyan, John

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Dorrington, Sir John Edward

  Leighton, Stanley

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Doughty, George

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tufnell, Col. Edward

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Ure, Alexander

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield)

  Faber, George Denison

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Fardell, Sir T. George

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

  Wallace, Robert

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Walton, Joseph (Harnsley)

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

  Finch, George H.

  M'Crae, George

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Killop, James. (Stirlingshire)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Webb, Col. William George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Malcolm, Ian

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Maxwell, W.J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Williams, Rt. Hn J Powell-(Birm

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  1286

  1287

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. ER (Bath

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  MR. A. J. BALFOURclaimed, "That the Main Question be now put."
  Main Question put accordingly.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 297; Noes, 78. (Division List No. 14.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Harris, F. L. (Tynemouth)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Harwood, George

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Aird, Sir John

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Allen, C. P. (Gloue, Stroud

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Helder, Augustus

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Davies, M Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.

  Henderson, Alexander

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hermon- Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John F.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockheld

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Balcarres, Lord

  Doughty, George

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Houldsworth Sir Wm Henry

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

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Hoult, Joseph

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Duncan, James H.

  Howard, Capt. J. (Faversham)-

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

  Dunn, Sir William

  Howard, J. (Mid., Tottenham

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil

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

  Edwards, Frank

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Elibank, Master of

  Hutton, Alfred E.(Morley)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Bigwood, James

  Faber, George Denison

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Bond, Edward

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh).

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Finch, George H.

  Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salo'p.

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

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Brassey, Albert

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Knowles, Lees

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Fison, Frederick William

  Labouchere, Henry

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon

  Langley, Batty

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Flower, Ernest

  Lawson, John Grant

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Forster, Henry William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Burt, Thomas

  Garfit, William

  Lee, Capt. A H (Hants, Fareh'm

  Butcher, John George

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington,

  Caldwell, James

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Carlile, William Walter

  Gordon, Maj. Evans-(Tr. Hmlts

  Leigh, Sir Joseph (Stockport)

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

  Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

  Leighton, Stanley

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Goschen, Hon. George J.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nds

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Chapman, Edward

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Lough, Thomas

  Charrington, Spencer

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Gretton, John

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Groves, James Grimble

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hain, Edward

  Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G (Midx

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

  Colville, John

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  M'Crae, George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Malcolm, Ian

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Mansfield, Horace Kendall

  Rea, Russell

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh.)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Renwick, George

  Tomkinson, James

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybri'e)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Tufnell, Col. Edward

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Ure, Alexander

  Morgan, David J. (Waltham'w)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monmouthsh.)

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Russell, T. W.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Rutherford, John

  Wallace, Robert

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Saekville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E.

  Myers, William Henry

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Webb, Col. William George

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Partington, Oswald

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Smith, H. C (North'mb, Tynes'e

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Penn, John

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Percy, Earl

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

  Pilkington, Richard

  Spear, John Ward

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (North'nts

  Wodehouse, Hn. Armine (Essex

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somers't

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

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharpe

  Stock, James Henry

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stroyan, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Purvis, Robert

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

  Sturt, Hon Humphry Napier

  NOES.

  Abraham, W.(Cork N. E.)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda

  Hammond, John

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Barry, E. (Cork S.)

  Holland, William Henry

  O'Dowd, John

  Bell, Richard

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Boland, John

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Boyle, James

  Jordon, Jeremiah

  O'Malley, William

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Mara, James

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cogan, Dennis J.

  Lloyd-George, David

  O'Shee, James John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Crean, Eugene

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Reddy, M.

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Daly, James

  M'Govern, T.

  Roberts, John Bryn-(Eifion)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Roche, John

  Delany, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dillon, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murnaghan, George

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Duffy, William J.

  Murphy, J.

  Tully, Jasper

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

  Wilson, Henry J. York, W. R.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Field, William

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and
  1290
  loyal subjects, the Commons of the 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

  1291
  Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors and Members of His Majesty's Household.

  SUPPLY.
  Resolved, that this House will, Tomorrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.
  Ordered, That the several Estimates presented to this House during the present Session be referred to the Committee of Supply.—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Resolved, That this House will, Tomorrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.— (Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not propose to move to-night the first of the two motions which stand in my name— that relating to Ways and Means— because I am very anxious to show, as far as I am concerned, that it is not my fault if there is not ample opportunity given to-morrow to discuss the Eight Hours Bill. I shall, therefore, commence by moving the second resolution standing in my name, which is the sessional Order dealing with Supply, which has been agreed to session after session by the House, and which in the opinion of every Member competent to form a judgment upon it has been a great convenience, and has greatly increased the opportunities of independent Members of discussing the general policy of the Government. I think I may be absolved from making any definition of that sessional Order, but it may be desirable to point out to the House that I have made one small change in the last paragraph of the Order. If hon. Members will take up their Papers and look at
  1292
  the last line on page 1, it will be observed that after the words "any vote of credit" I have added these words—
  "Or of Votes for Supplementary or Additional Estimates presented by the Government for war expenditure."
  These words are entirely new, and the effect of adding them is that if after Easter the Government have to come to the House for additional Estimates for military expenditure, these Estimates will not be discussed within the fixed and rigid limits of this rule, but they will be discussed with the full freedom accorded to discussions in Supply on Supplementary Estimates before Easter. I have always felt that the justification for this Supply rule was that it gave an opportunity for discussing the ordinary administration of the Government within reasonable limits and within reasonable time, and I think it would be a straining of the rule to make it include cases entirely outside the ordinary administration of the Government, and it was in order to meet that view that originally the words "Vote of Credit" were put into the rule. If, for example, things should go badly in South Africa—we have no reason to think they will; in fact, we feel confident that they will not—but if they should, it would seem most unreasonable that, if we had to come to the House of Commons with Supplementary Estimates for the war, say in June, May, or July, the House should feel itself debarred from a full and free criticism of the policy of the Government by the limitations imposed by this rule. Therefore, the change I suggest is entirely in favour of the independent criticism of the Government, and so far as it can be said to be for or against the Government, it is rather against it. I trust the House will appreciate the motive for the change, and that after the long experience we have had of this rule it will be passed without any lengthened discussion, and with absolute unanimity.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, so soon as the Committee of Supply has been appointed and Estimates have been presented, the Business of Supply shall (until it be disposed of) be the first Order of the day on Friday, unless the House otherwise order on the motion of a Minister of the Crown moved at the

  1293
  commencement of Public Business to be decided without Amendment or Debate; and the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 shall be extended to Friday:
  Not more than twenty days, being days before the 5th of August, on which the Speaker leaves the Chair for the Committee of Supply without Question put, counting from the first day on which the Speaker so left the Chair under Standing Order No. 56, shall be allotted for the consideration of the Annual Estimates for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services, including Votes on Account, the Business of Supply standing first Order on every such day:
  Provided always, that on Motion made after notice by a Minister of the Crown, to be decided without Amendment or Debate, additional time, not exceeding three days, may be allotted for the Business of Supply, either before or after the 5th of August:
  On the last but one of the allotted days, at Ten o'clock p.m., the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the outstanding Votes in Committee of Supply; and on the last, not being earlier than the twentieth of the allotted days, the Speaker shall, at Ten o'clock p.m., proceed to put forthwith every question necessary to complete the outstanding Reports of Supply:
  On the days appointed for concluding the Business of Supply, the consideration of such business shall not be anticipated by a Motion of Adjournment under Standing Order No. 17; nor may any dilatory Motion be moved on such proceedings; nor shall they be interrupted under the proceedings of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House:
  Provided always that any Additional Estimate for any new service of matters not included in the original Estimate for the year shall be submitted for consideration in the Committee of Supply on any day not later than two days before the Committee is closed:
  Provided also that the days occupied by the consideration of Estimates supplementary to those of a previous Session,
  1294
  or of any Vote of Credit, or of Votes for Supplementary or Additional Estimates presented by the Government for War Expenditure, shall not be included in the computation of the twenty days. Provided also that two Morning Sittings shall be deemed equivalent to one Three o'clock Sitting."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I desire to join in the protest which was made earlier in the evening against this motion being placed where it is. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would have found the slightest difficulty in placing it the first order on Thursday next, and then we should have been able to discuss the matter free from any pressure, and without feeling that we were interfering with the opportunities of hon. Gentlemen who had been successful in the ballot. I think we desire, as a whole, that hon. Members shall have a chance to-morrow of discussing the Eight Hours Miners Bill. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have assumed on the part of the whole House rather too great a knowledge of the business before it. This is a new Parliament, and a very large number of hon. Members are here for the first time. I wonder how many hon. Members understand the effect of the seven rather complicated paragraphs which you, Sir, have just read to the House. Those of us whose memories go back to the old times of Supply think that, in the main, the operation of this rule has produced a better state of things. I believe that the origin of the rule was in the year 1895, after what was to the Leader of the House rather an unhappy experience then, for he had great difficulty in getting Supply through. Consequently the right hon. Gentleman came down one day in the year 1896 and laid this rule before us. I agree that the rule has worked an improvement, but only in. respect of one portion of the rule—namely, that in regard to the allocation of a particular day to Supply. That we all now know beforehand when we are going to go into Committee to deal with the Esti-

  1295
  mates is a great improvement upon the old state of things. I remember well in this very place a resolution being moved in the year 1892 to the effect that a particular day should be allotted to Supply, and that that day should be Friday, and I remember the right hon. Gentleman telling me across the floor of the House that the thing was impossible. I was delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman come down to this House four years afterwards and ask the House to do what he had before declared to be impossible. So long as a good thing is done, I am not going to quarrel as to who does it. I agree that this part of the rule has worked admirably. But when I turn to the second part of the rule—the closure part—I do not admit that that has worked well. I hold a very strong opinion with regard to the closure. I hold that the use of the closure is a mark of the Parliamentary incapacity of the man who uses it. I recollect that two great measures which I saw pass through this House—the Local Government Act of 1893–4 and the Finance Act of 1894—were carried through respectively by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton without the aid of the closure. I remember Lord Randolph Churchill, as the Leader of the House, coming down here in August, 1886, after the General Election, and he got all his Estimates through without the aid of the closure. I have taken the trouble to look up the figures in the Library, and I find that in the year 1896 the total number of Votes was 150, and out of that number 21 were closured. In the year 1897 the number was 159, and 30 were closured; in 1898 the number of Votes was 170, and 32 were closured; in 1899 there were 151 Votes and the number closured was 46; and in 1900 there were 151 Votes and 46 of them were closured. Now what does the closuring of Votes mean? It means not only that the money is voted without any possibility even of the Minister in charge of the Vote getting up to answer questions, but it means that at ten o'clock upon a certain day the Chairman, or you, Mr. Speaker, may get up and put Votes seriatim, and
  1296
  nothing can happen except a division. It not only means that, but also that with all the great departments for which money is voted there is no possibility of the House in Committee examining into the conduct of those departments and into the economy or extravagance of their expenditure. What is the object of Supply after all? I confess that I entertain a much higher opinion of the functions of the House in Committee of Supply as compared with its legislative labours than some of my colleagues. I have the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord, of the Treasury in entire agreement with me in that view. I have read his speeches delivered in 1881 and 1882, when Mr. Gladstone was proposing the Closure, in which he gave a most admirable picture of the functions of the House of Commons.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have forgotten them.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I can assure the House that those speeches form most admirable studies for young members. Now what did the right hon. Gentleman opposite say when Mr. Gladstone proposed this rule? He said—
  "It will have the effect of enabling private Members to bring forward in that discussion on the Estimates all those questions in which they are interested, and it will enable them to keep close control over the administrative action of the Government for the time being."
  Now what is the object of discussions in Committee of Supply? I do not think it is so much a question of economy, because, in my opinion, the House of Commons is rather inclined to press expenditure upon the Government than otherwise. It is in Committee of Supply that we are enabled to have the effective criticism and cross-examination of the policy of a particular Minister. We all know that in these days a good deal of the cross-examination of Ministers formerly done at question time in the form of supplementary questions has been curtailed, and at the best this method is always unsatisfactory. I have seen the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire get up in this House and exercise his great powers

  1297
  of cross-examination in Committee of Supply with the most happy effect upon the Government of the day. I can assure hon. Members who have listened to me that they cannot value too highly the privilege of putting a question to a Minister and getting an answer or an explanation at once during the informal debate of Committee of Supply. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, in the speech from which I have already quoted, said—
  "Broadly, Supply alone affords private Members in this House that right of criticism, that constant power of demanding from the Government explanations of their administrative and executive action, which, without Supply, can never be possessed."
  ME. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Then let the right hon. Gentleman do nothing to diminish that power of criticism. Surely I have given him some reason to doubt the working of this rule when I point out that last year forty-six Votes out of 151 were closured. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR dissented.] Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute my figures?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; but I dispute the inference drawn from them.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: It is a fact that a number of Votes were closured, and amongst them were a large number of Votes which had never come before the House in any form. This rule embraces in its operation the discussion on a Vote on Account. I can speak upon this matter with some knowledge, because I have had to consider the matter from quite another point of view. A Vote on Account does not give to any hon. Member the same facility of effective criticism as the ordinary Votes put from the Chair do. Under the régime of Mr. Courtney some antiquated rules were furbished up, and they became a part of the procedure to be adopted by succeeding chairmen. In this way the power of criticism was very much
  1298
  restricted in Committee of Supply. We all know that towards the end of the session hon. Members of this House who are interested enter into a kind of scramble with one another as to what Vote shall have the first order place on a Friday. Very often the Member for the Forest of Dean gets up and asks that the Estimate for the Board of Trade or some other Department shall be taken on a particular Friday, but I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has often resisted these appeals, and refused to give information as to what shall be put down first. There is always that kind of pressure brought to bear on the Government. This rule, so far as the closure part is concerned, puts the power into the hands of any Government of very much diminishing, if not of burking, the discussion of any inconvenient Vote of Supply. We have had this rule enforced only for five years, and it was worked by the right hon. Gentleman fairly well through the earlier years of that time. But we might have a very much worse Leader of the House than the right hon. Gentleman, whose fair-mindedness and absolute sense of honour, and the fact that he never breaks a promise, are some guarantees against the abuse of this rule. But it is-possible that we might have someone in his position who might not be of the same calibre or possess the same qualifications. We must not forget that inroads are constantly being made into the effective power of control by this House over the Executive administration of the country. Necessarily, that requires watching, and if I had been allowed the necessary time I intended putting a few Amendments down to that effect. I think experience has proved that twenty days for Supply is altogether insufficient. It is really only nineteen days, because at ten o'clock on the nineteenth day the Chairman is bound to rise and put the Votes. Therefore, it is only nineteen-days at the most. The right hon. Gentleman took power some short time ago to have three additional days devoted to Supply, and I remember that when the rule was first moved we on this side of the House thought that twenty-five days at the very least should be allowed for Supply. I think Votes on Account ought

  1299
  to be excluded, as the discussion then comes under entirely different rules. The right hon. Gentleman has put in some words at the end of his rule which have entirely given away his own case, and conceded substantially what I am pleading for. He says there may be some Votes on which the House ought to have opportunity for fair and effective criticism; but I maintain that we ought to have that on every Vote. I do not intend to move any Amendment, but simply to express my satisfaction with the rule as regards the allocation of a particular day, but my very strong objection to the closure part of it, which I believe may be found to have some very unexpected consequences.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in the satisfaction he has expressed in regard to the working of this rule. I have always looked upon this rule as an exceedingly adroit device put forward by the Government to enable them to get Supply as easily as possible. It is a Front Bench rule, and I have no doubt at all that gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench will agree that it is most admirable. But from the point of view of the private Member I believe it is absolutely fatal, and calculated to stifle independent criticism of the Government of the day. In a special way I regard it as fatal from the point of view of Ireland. Although it will be admitted that Irish Members on every occasion when the rights of the private Members have been called in question have taken their side and endeavoured to maintain their privileges, yet, at the same time, I would care very little for the operation of this rule were it not that it interferes with the rights of Irish Members to discuss the Irish Estimates. Under the operation of this rule, at first four nights were given to Irish Supply, but of late years the discussion of the Irish Estimates has been limited to three nights, although it must be evident that three nights are thoroughly inadequate for the purpose. There is scarcely any opportunity of raising questions in regard
  1300
  to administration in Ireland except on the Estimates, and it is absolutely absurd to imagine that that can be done in three nights.
  Let me just call the attention of the House for a moment to the way in which this rule has been worked so far as Ireland is concerned. It will be admitted, probably with the greatest readiness, by the Leader of the House, that the most important Departments in Ireland, and those needing the most criticism from the Irish Nationalist Members and examination from the House generally, are those which deal with the administration of the Chief Secretary, and with the Royal Irish Constabulary, and yet under the operation of this rule these great Departments have not been discussed, and the Votes for their maintenance have been closured year after year. In 1897, the year after this rule came into force, neither the Royal Irish Constabulary, the Lord Lieutenant's Department, the Resident Magistrates, the Prisons Board, nor the Queen's Colleges, which raise the whole question of University Education in Ireland, were discussed, and the I Votes were, at the end of twenty days, put by you. Sir, from the chair and carried without opportunity for debate. In the year 1898 the Local Government Vote was guillotined, and there was no discussion upon it. The same thing; occurred with the Votes for County Courts, the Royal Irish Constabulary which raises all sorts of constitutional questions, the Prisons Board, and the Industrial Schools. And will it be believed the Chief Secretary's Vote was closured without any discussion that year under the operation of this rule. I think the present occupant of the office of Chief Secretary, if he will allow me to say so is not exceedingly desirous that that Vote shall be closured. I am speaking from what I know of the right hon. Gentleman, that I think he would desire that the administration of his Department should be subjected to the free discussion of this House; but under the operation of this rule we have had this most important Department closured. It is absurd to imagine that in these circumstances the Irish Members could acquiesce in this system. I have often had occasion to admire the audacity of the Leader of the House, but never more than to-night,

  1301
  when he said in proposing the rule that he did not think it necessary to justify it by argument, because everybody was in favour of it. The hon. Gentleman who spoke before me called attention to the fact that this was a new Parliament. Now, when this rule was proposed in 1896 it was discussed for three nights before it was passed; and, every time it has been renewed since, it has been subjected to long and critical discussions. Surely, in proposing this rule to a new Parliament, it would have been only respectful in the Leader of the House to have explained the meaning of the rule; but, in his own airy fashion, he said he would not support it with argument, because he understood that everyone was in favour of it ! I believe that, from a constitutional point of view, the duty of discussing Supply is more important than legislation; and this rule strikes at the root of the power of this House to discuss grievances before voting Supply.
  I do not know whether the Leader of the House has anything special to say to the Irish Members. When he first proposed the rule we were told that we should have full time to consider the Irish Estimates, and that care would be taken that the Irish Votes would be taken on consecutive nights to suit the convenience of Irish Members. At first he gave us four nights, which were quite an inadequate number, but having got this rule, to some extent by smooth phrases, he turned round and reduced the Irish nights from four to three. I ask him what he proposes to do during the present session? Does he propose to give us three nights or to go back to the original number of four? In any case, so far as the Irish Members are concerned, they are bound to protest in every way against the passage of the rule. I think we have all of us reason to complain that the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward this rule at this hour of the night. I do not myself believe that anything is to be gained by party managers by their attempts at sharp practice in this House. There is no question that counting on the universal desire of the independent Members that the Miners Eight Hours Bill should be discussed to-morrow, the Government thought they would get this rule through without discussion. So far as the first rule is
  1302
  concerned they have failed; they have put it off till Thursday next.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To please you.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: To please us ! If the right hon. Gentleman had put it off at an earlier hour in the evening, he would have saved two hours discussion. However, he knows his own business best. He has put the first rule off till Thursday next, but he has taken this long, serious, and cumbersome rule at this hour of the night without giving one word of explanation to new Members of a new Parliament. I hope he will not succeed in getting it passed before twelve o'clock to-night. I think that to deprive private Members of the right to discuss the Estimates is very seriously to abridge the privileges of the House, and I sincerely trust that the Government will not succeed, after an hour's debate, and introduced as it was perfunctorily, in getting the rule. We protest that this rule has worked iniquitously, so far as Irish interests are concerned, and that it is subversive of and dangerous to the rights of private Members.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I confess there is something to be said for this rule and something against it. Why did we not make this a Standing instead of a Sessional Order? The question was discussed at the time it was brought in, and it was then suggested that it should be a Sessional Order in order that we might have an opportunity of discussing it every year. It was thought that changes or modifications might be made in it as the result of experience; but practically no changes were made in it in the last Parliament, and it seems to me that in a new Parliament we should have those changes which are admitted to be desirable. The first change I would suggest is that instead of devoting twenty days to Supply there should be twenty-five days. Twenty days are really not sufficient after the statement of my hon. friend, who pointed

  1303
  out that Ireland only got three days. We know that there is a great deal of discussion on matters relating to Ireland, and that there are differences of opinion between the present Government and the representatives of Ireland. They certainly ought to have more than three days.
  Well, there is another objection, audit is that there is not a sufficient division of the Estimates. We have the Irish Estimates, the Scotch Estimates, the Army Estimates, and the Navy Estimates. It happens that at one time Gentlemen connected with the Army are very anxious to put forward matters in relation to the Army, and colonels, majors, and captains get up and make most lengthy speeches; but the consequence is that those interested in the Navy and other services have not got time to say much for themselves. We know perfectly well that there is a Service Association to which all these Army men belong, and they get up and talk at interminable length. Naturally the Civil Service Estimates are on that account put off. Now, there are a certain number of Gentlemen on this side of the House—and perhaps I count myself among the number—who are modest and unassuming, and who really get thrust out on these occasions, and cannot find an opportunity for discussing those subjects in which they are interested, and these Votes are included in the massacre of the innocents. There are the Home Office questions, which I have seen again and again put aside. Sometimes with a struggle Gentlemen interested in these matters get one single question debated. And there are Board of Trade questions which are not really discussed. There is another class of subjects, including Votes on Account. I think it is most unfair that the Government should take these enormous sums on account. Formerly, comparatively small amounts were asked for at a time, but latterly the Government say "Let us come forward with most enormous sums," and almost invariably when these are taken, only one single subject can be discussed. If we had two or three Votes on Account there might be opportunity for some discussion. Sometimes that is a way of attacking the Government. It is an indirect way of moving a vote of want of confidence in the Government.
  1304
  As a matter of fact, I do not think that three days are enough for the Votes on Account. I think that, whatever the number of days set apart for Supply, we ought to have them for the discussion of the Estimates of the year; and that the Government should take other Votes in their own time and not in the twenty or twenty-five days devoted to the Estimates of the year.
  There is another objection to the last paragraph, which limits extra days discussion to Votes for war expenditure. We hear nothing nowadays but war, war, war. But it is said that we are going to have proposals for the reorganisation of the Army, and the enlargement of the Army, and the increase of the Navy: and time ought to be given to these subjects as well as to war expenditure. I say, too, that peace expenditure, on education for instance, is of far greater importance to the country than war-expenditure. I think we have a right to complain that the right hon. Gentleman has not adopted the practice of every previous session, of bringing on this discussion at the beginning instead of at the far end of the sitting, and after having closured a very interesting debate. Much as I desire the Miners Eight Hours Bill to be discussed to-morrow, I cannot resign one single right that I have to express my opinion on these rules; and I hope my friends around me will not resign their rights either. If the Miners Eight Hours Bill is not to be discussed to-morrow, then the responsibility will be on the Government.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I quite agree with several remarks of previous speakers in reference to the important duty which the House of Commons discharges in Committee of Supply. But they have omitted to state that the object of this rule was to increase the control of the House of Commons over expenditure and administration, and to do away with a state of things which older Members of the House know, but of which new Members have no idea. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe Division was rather too lavish in the tribute of

  1305
  admiration he gave to the Leader of the House. This rule, I am bound to say, is not a child of the Leader of the House, although he carried it through the House eventually. But the scheme of having one day in the week for Supply was the proposal of the right hon. the Member for West Monmouth.
  MR. DILLON: But not the closure.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I am not talking of the closure. The scheme was proposed by the right hon. the Member for West Monmouth, and I believe the first Friday night it was to come on the Government fell, and no further progress was made with it in that Parliament. As one having no interest in the matter except that of promoting the efficiency of the House, I must say that the rule has, on the whole, worked very well. [Cries of "No" from the Irish benches.] Well, I give the House my opinion.
  What is the history of the state of things? If Members will only go back and inquire what the control of the House was over the Executive and the voting of Supply prior to the adoption of this rule, they would see what happened. Now and then the Government asked for a considerable number of Votes on Account, till these Votes on Account became such a serious evil that a special Committee was appointed to consider the practice, for it meant that the Government were taking lump sums without any control or examination by the House of Commons. What happened next? As the session went on, after the slaughter of the innocents had taken place, the Government told the House that they could not get away for their holidays until Supply had been passed. The House then sat night after night voting money by millions without proper discussion and without any administrative control. Bargains were arranged in and out of the House—If you do so and so, so much earlier will the holidays begin. "Well, the autumn recess is not a thing to be trifled with, and the Government were strong enough to stifle all desire for administrative cross-examination or ad-
  1306
  ministrative efficiency. Many Members who interested themselves in financial matters, I believe, came to the conclusion that it was absolutely necessary to have some new scheme in order to provide that the House should have sufficient control over expenditure. A specific day once a week was the proposal of the right hon. the Member for West Monmouth, and was eventually agreed to by the House. The hon. Member for East Mayo said that the closure was not a part of that scheme. But it is substantially part of the scheme, because there must be a limit to the number of days to be devoted to Supply. The Leader of the House knows very well that I have taken exception to the allotment of the limited number of days, and that the present scheme is not the best that can be worked out. I feel considerable dissatisfaction with the mode in which the Civil Service Estimates, for example, have during the last two or three years been treated. I think that the duty of the allocation of the different nights ought to rest upon the Executive Government of the day. The right hon. Gentleman, as we all know, is most courteous and considerate, and I venture to say that he has been, if anything, too yielding in putting off Votes of general interest and in putting down Votes which are of interest only to individual Members. We have at present no system of allocation or distribution, except that one day of the week must be devoted to Supply. I think that the plan can be improved on in many points, but, taking it as it stands, I think that historically and practically the rule has been a great improvement on the state of things that existed before.
  COLONEL MILWARD: Although I am of opinion that the new system is much better than the old system, yet I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the present proposal is capable of improvement. I can quite easily understand that a Leader of the House not so eminently scrupulous as my right hon. friend might very easily burke discussion on subjects which Members of the House

  1307
  might very strongly desire to discuss. If we had a Committee independent of the Government, such as the Committee of Selection or the Public Accounts Committee, who would choose the order of the day, it would I think be more desirable. The very fact that a particular subject is put down for a particular day indicates that criticism is to be passed on the Government regarding it, but at present it is possible for the Government to put aside a matter which they do not wish to have brought forward in the House. I think that is too dangerous a power to place in the hands of the Executive. I also think that the nineteenth and twentieth days— the days of the closure—are almost a scandal, and at all events extremely undignified as far as the business of the House is concerned. Hon. Gentlemen who take, as I take myself, an interest in the number of divisions that they take part in, come back to the House of Commons and vote in twenty or thirty divisions which are taken on those days, their object being not to take an intelligent interest in the Estimates but to swell the number of their divisions. Many important Estimates are put forward on the nineteenth and twentieth days of which never a word has been heard. Therefore, while fully admitting that the present practice is an improvement on that of years past, still there are means by which it might be improved, and I hope that in another session the Government will direct their attention to the question of allocation, and also to the absurd system by which many Votes are closured on the last two days of Supply without a word of discussion.
  MR. LOUGH: There is one remark that I desire to make about these rules. I am sure we all recognise that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House always endeavours to approach this matter not from a party standpoint, but in order to make the best arrangements possible. There is one great defect in the system, and that is the automatic closure at the end. Every critic is agreed as to that. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, who defended the
  1308
  rules more stoutly than the Leader of the House, passed very lightly over the question of the automatic closure at the end. In his description of the system which preceded these rules he said that two or three weeks were given to Supply and that the Government had to bargain with Members. I am very fond of these bargains—Members generally get something out of them; but there is no possibility of bargaining under these rules, as everything left over is automatically closured. I think that is a great defect, and I would submit to the right hon. Gentleman that some amendment on this point might be devised. If a longer time were given us—say, even half an hour or an hour—for referring to some of the great questions which are about to be closured it would be an improvement. I believe on one night recently twenty-eight millions were voted, and I question whether a parallel to that could be found under the old system. While we have an advantage in one respect under the new system, we have also the disadvantage of the automatic closure at the end. As the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has explained, the Government have also the right to select the Votes they like best, and the others may be left over to be automatically dealt with in the last two days. I quite frankly admit that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House does everything he can to meet the wishes of hon. Members on this side, but we are as likely to make a mistake as the Government. We cannot think of everything at once, and we may select something which seems desirable to us to discuss, only to find out at the last moment that a still more important subject has to be automatically closured. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will think over this matter and give us a longer buffer, which is what we require. Even a very little added time would be a great help. I do not see any harm in the new point introduced into the rules by the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope he has got nothing up his sleeve with regard to it. So far as I can see it is an improvement, because it gives us longer time. He has left out the rule with reference to Ways and Means, and I would appeal to him not to bring it up again. I am sure—
  MR. SPEAKER: That hardly arises on this question.
  MR. LOUGH: I readily accept your ruling, Sir. Generally, I think, the right hon. Gentleman has put the matter very plainly to us, and I hope he will be able to state that the severity of the automatic closure at the end will be somewhat mitigated. That would be a great improvement.
  MR. CAINE: I wish to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. Many new Members do not understand these elaborate rules. I am in some sense a new Member myself. Although I was a Member of four Parliaments after 1880, still I have been five years out of the House, and I am astonished at the fetters and cramps that the House has placed upon itself during that period with regard to facilities for debate, I find it impossible to take any step without going to the Table to find out whether I would be in order, although five years ago I would be under no such necessity. I think it would be much better if this motion were put down at a time when it could be properly discussed and when Amendments could be placed on the Paper, and I would therefore appeal to the Leader of the House to adjourn the debate until Thursday.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish also to make an appeal to the Leader of the House with regard to a point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton—namely, the allocation of days for various classes of Supply. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and with my hon. and gallant friend that the allocation of days as between the different classes of Supply is very uncertain and very often very unjust. Questions of very great importance have been, I will not say burked, but have been passed over, and the opportunity for discussing them has been lost because the time of the House has been entirely taken up with some other class of Supply very much
  1310
  less important. Organised parties and sections in this House have a very great advantage in obtaining days over individual Members who may be quite as numerous and equally interested in some subject of great importance. For instance, the Irish party by their activity and organisation always command a very great and perhaps an excessive share of the time allotted for Supply. [Several HON. MEMBERS: No, no!] I quite admit Irish Members have a full right to their opinion, and I will not pursue the specialisation of this subject. The particular subject to which I wish to refer is the Foreign Office Vote. In recent years that Vote has been placed very much in the background, I will not say deliberately, but the opportunity for discussing important questions on it has not been given. Take the subject of China, which has been very little discussed during the last few years, although it is a subject of vast importance, and involves greater British interests than any other subject, not even excepting South Africa. That has been burked for season after season. I think the suggestion of my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon—that a special Committee should be appointed to consider with the Government the allocation of the days to be given to Supply as between the different classes—is a very valuable suggestion. I agree with my hon. and gallant friend that this is a question which ought not to be left entirely to the Government of the day. It is not a question which it is quite safe to leave entirely to the Government, and I should like to see a small Committee appointed, consisting of the leaders on both sides and of the various sections of the House, to consider and report as to the number of days it is, as a rule, desirable to allocate to the different classes of Supply. I do not say that there should be a hard and fast rule without any variation, but at all events it ought to be laid down that such a subject as the Foreign Office Vote should always have at least two days of Supply allotted to it. I hope my right hon. friend the Leader of the House will! consider that suggestion.
  MR. FLYNN: This motion has received the imprimatur of the

  1311
  right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, as we all expected it would. Indeed, he was more enthusiastic in its favour than the right hon. Gentleman who moved it. but who gave no arguments in favour of it. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton that the ordinary Members of this House, as distinct from Front Bench men, are more interested in this question of Supply than either of the Front Benches. I would also call his attention to the fact that since this rule has been in operation, and when great questions concerning the Civil Service, Irish affairs, and other different subjects have been under discussion, Gentlemen on the front benches have been conspicuous by their absence; and even when present they sit indolently and perhaps somnolently in their places. Therefore the question of Supply is of much more importance to and much better understood by Gentlemen on the back benches than by right hon. Gentlemen on the front benches.
  If there is one class of Members who regard this rule with keen suspicion and great jealousy it is the Irish Members. I have had some experience in connection with the Irish Estimates, and it leads me To the conclusion that since this rule has come into operation a great deal of time is very often spent on comparatively unimportant Votes, and the Votes that really touch Irish administration, which go to the root of the action of the Executive in Ireland, and which alone give Irish Members an opportunity of criticising the Government in Ireland, are passed over sub silentio. Irish Members may have an opportunity of intervening in big debates, but the cross-examination in Supply of the Ministers connected with the Executive in Ireland is of more importance to Irish interests than if we had a full-dress debate once a month. The fact is that in this country any subject which engages public attention, whether it concerns the Army, the Navy, the Civil Service, or the Foreign Office, is discussed in institutions all over the country, as well as in the press, and the necessity of discussing it in this House is not a tenth of the necessity which exists for the discussion of Irish affairs, because subjects of interest in Ireland, and gross abuses of the adminis-
  1312
  tration in Ireland, pass comparatively unheeded in this country, and, even if they are taken notice of in the press, they only find lodgment in some obscure corner. Therefore the chief opportunity which the Irish Members have of discussing questions in connection with the administration of Ireland is on the Votes in Supply. When I came to this House fifteen years ago our opportunities for debating Supply were practically unlimited. At any rate, they were much more comprehensive than they are at present. Now the consideration of the Irish Votes in Supply is arbitrarily cut down to three nights. What happens? The Minister does not care a threneen. Irish Members may get up one after the other, and speak a whole night perhaps on the drainage of the river Suck, but the Minister knows very well all the time important Votes affecting administration in Ireland are being put back, and he actually connives—and it is very hard to blame him—at this waste of public time, in order that when his own Department comes to be discussed only an hour or perhaps a few minutes remain to consider matters of importance. I was very much struck by the attempt of my hon. and learned friend the Member for Waterford to draw the present Chief Secretary into some expression of opinion that he would not be the naughty boy that previous Chief Secretaries have been. I noticed when my hon. and learned friend was speaking that a smile spread over the good-looking; features of the present Chief Secretary, and when my hon. and learned friend mentioned that the Chief Secretary's Vote had not been discussed last year or the year before, he no doubt mentally; rubbed his hands in glee, and said, "I am going to have a jolly fine time of it." But when my hon. and learned friend, in that winning way of his, appealed to the right hon. Gentleman as to whether he would not be more industrious, and whether he would not see that these important Votes would not be scamped, the right hon. Gentleman sat tight and said nothing; but the smile remained. I contend from every point of view that there is no section of Members in this House more interested in this question of Supply than the Irish Members. It is supposed to be a maxim

  1313
  of constitutional law that the redress of grievances should precede Supply, and I suppose that the brightest pages in connection with the constitutional freedom of Great Britain refer to the battles which have been fought between arbitrary monarchs and the Commons on questions of Supply. I contend that the importance of discussions in Supply to this country is not so great as it was a century, or even a few generations ago. You have institutions—the press and debating societies—throughout Great Britain, but in Ireland acts may be committed by the Executive which may be in themselves unconstitutional, and the only chance of redress we have is during the discussion of Votes in Supply affecting Irish matters, and therefore I say any system under which the Irish Votes only get three days works unfairly. After the King's Speech, and with the exception of a little Bill or two we hope to introduce, we shall have practically no opportunity of bringing forward questions affecting our country, except on these Votes of Supply, and I certainly think the Irish Members should strenuously urge that we should at least have five or six days, and that a guarantee to that effect should be given us.
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton claimed the paternity of these rules for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth were present to-night I am not certain that he would be proud of it, because when the rules were proposed for the first time he strongly opposed— and he is the most experienced champion of the rights of the House of Commons— the application of the automatic closure to Supply. Of course, everyone who takes any interest in Supply (and I agree with my hon. friend that the Front Benches are not the most interested in it) agreed with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth that it would be a good thing if one night each week were given to Supply; but the right hon. Gentleman never proposed and never assented to the, applica-
  1314
  tion of the automatic closure, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton declares that the application of the automatic closure to Supply, which is a scandal and disgrace to this House, was an inseparable part of the scheme proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth I entirely deny it. The right hon. Gentleman stated in his speech that he believed the scheme would work without it, and he appealed to the Government to give the proposal a fair trial. I want to know why such a scheme should not work well. Why could we not give Friday of each week to the discussion of Supply, and let the Votes not discussed on Fridays be taken in the ordinary way? That would be an improvement, and would not place any new difficulty in the path of the Government.
  The First Lord of the Treasury, when he made his original proposal, made it in a very insinuating speech. He declared that his object in making it was to improve the position and opportunities of private Members. But how did he improve the opportunities of private Members? Before these rules were introduced we had Fridays and also Tuesdays for private Members' business. He proposed to take away Fridays from private Members for Government business, but he said, in that agreeable and insinuating manner of which he is the master, "I must not take away Fridays for Government business. Supply is private Members' business, and under these rules we are giving private Members an admirable opportunity of bringing forward subjects in which they are interested." I say that in taking Fridays for Supply the right hon. Gentleman was taking away a private Members' night, for which he has given us absolutely nothing in return. Moreover, he has put in force the extraordinary principle of the automatic closure. Now I want to ask the Government a question which I have asked before. Why is this automatic closure to be applied to Supply and not to be applied to Bills? In the debates which took place in 1896 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth—and no one has a greater knowledge of the House of Commons than he has — expressed it as his deliberate opinion that if you applied the automatic closure

  1315
  to Supply you would be driven irresistibly by the force of logic to apply it to legislation. I believe that to be true, because every argument in favour of closuring Supply applies with greatly increased force to legislation. In Supply there are only two stages; in legislation there are several stages, and also the check of the House of Lords, which does not exist in the, case of Supply; and therefore, apart from all other considerations, it is a much more violent proceeding to apply the automatic closure to money Votes in this House than to apply it to Bills. As I have said, these rules give private Members nothing, while depriving them of one of the most effective, I think I might almost say the only, means they have of putting pressure on the Government and of really effectively surveying the action of the Executive. We have seen to-night, ample proof that this Sessional Order is in itself vicious. It proposes to apply to delicate machinery, which is the result of ages of experience, and is the most perfect machinery ever devised by the wit of man to bring the Executive Government into touch with the people, a strait-jacket which will make it impossible to work, and which will ultimately result in bringing it into absolute inaction. I am perfectly convinced if this system is persisted in that the time will come when even the twenty days which are now allotted for Supply will be more than sufficient, because the discussion of Supply under the operation of these rules will become absolutely unreal and farcical, and hon. Members have a very great dislike to taking part in what they know to be a mockery and a farce. Some among us took the liberty of saying in 1896 that the effect of these rules would be to increase enormously the expenditure of this country. Everyone who has devoted any attention to the subject knows that one of the chief aids which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in defending himself and the Treasury against the ever-increasing demands of the great Departments of the State, was the dread of passing his Estimates through this House. When you passed these rules you removed from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that great aid. What has been the result? In the whole history of England there has never been such an unheard-of
  1316
  rapidity of increase in the Estimates, and I venture to submit to the House that those of us who prophesied that the result of the introduction of these rules would be a great and unparalleled increase in the expenditure of this country have been fully justified.
  There is another matter which has been touched upon lightly in the course of this debate. An hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite said that these rules placed too much power in the hands of the Executive Government. I believe that is true. The working of these rules is only beginning to be understood. Everyone who has any experience of the House of Commons knows that it takes many years before hon. Members can realise what the effect of a great change, in procedure is. These rules enable the Government, if they are so disposed, to withdraw any Vote or group of Votes from the discussion of the House altogether. For instance, they might say that the condition of Ireland was such that it would be better not to discuss Irish Votes at all, or it would be open to them to take the view that the condition of foreign affairs was such that no time was available for the discussion of Irish business. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is at present, and has been for some years, sailing in summer seas with a favourable wind behind him. He has a majority of 130, and an Opposition which takes things so quietly that he gets up occasionally and complains that they will not play the game and give him an interest in the discussions. But we in Ireland have I known the right hon. Gentleman under other circumstances, and we know that if he is pushed into a corner he has claws, although at present they may be with drawn. If Ireland became troublesome again, and if the Irish Members became: a nuisance, I am not so sure that the right hon. Gentleman, however agreeable his speeches may now be, would not closure the Irish Estimates. The law would be with him, and the only right we should have would be dependent on the goodwill of Ministers, and a right which depends on the goodwill of Ministers is practically non-existent. These I rules give the Leader of the House the absolute right, without in the least degree infringing their spirit or their letter, to

  1317
  closure all the Irish Votes. I think that alone shows that it would be impossible for us to agree to them. I have merely touched upon the fringe of the subject. It is a subject in which I take great interest and which I understand, but as it is only a Sessional Order, and as we shall have another opportunity of discussing it, I do not intend to say all I should like to say now. I will, however, submit an Amendment which I believe I shall be in order in moving at a later stage, in order to further safeguard the rights of Members.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot speak on the subject again.
  MR. DILLON: We were allowed a Second Reading discussion in 1896, in 1897, and 1898, and Amendments were taken afterwards, but it is not a matter of importance, because one of my colleagues will move my Amendment. The Amendment which I desire to move is, "Provided also that not less than six nights shall be allocated for the discussion of Irish Estimates."
  MR. FIELD: As an Irish Member, I protest most strongly against the motion before the House, because my experience in this House is that the only effective opportunity an Irish Member has of entering a protest against what is called Government in Ireland is on Supply. We have no constitutional Government in Ireland. We are governed by bodies non-elected and irresponsible, and who are not chosen by the people, and the only opportunity given to Irish Members in this House of criticising the action of these bodies who deal with public money collected from the Irish taxpayer is on Votes in Supply. In my opinion this motion is an infringement of the liberties of Irish Members in this House. I also maintain that the right hon. Gentleman
  1318
  ought not to have brought in rules of this kind without notice, and without Members being afforded an opportunity of putting down Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman contends, in that nice language of which he is such a master, that it is for the advantage of private Members that he has introduced these rules. I am surprised that the House has not taken more cognisance of this motion, because, in my opinion, the most sacred privilege which belongs to Members of this House is the right to criticise Supply and Ways and Means. What is the difference between this House and the House of Lords? It is that we can originate money Bills, and are supposed to regulate taxation. The motion of the right hon. Gentleman proposes to limit the power which now resides in private Members, and as an Irish Member I protest most strongly against it, and I hope we will be able to defeat it by the votes of the independent Members of this House. May I briefly point out this fact. Members frequently come over from Ireland to take part in the discussion on Votes in Supply only to find, when they arrive in this House, that the automatic closure has been brought into operation and they might just as well have stayed at home. [HON. MEMBERS laughed.] Hon. Members opposite may think that this a matter of laughter.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is not relevant to, the question before the House.
  MR. FIELD: I was pointing out, Mr. Speaker, the fact that Members coming over from Ireland find that they are prevented from taking part in debate owing to the automatic closure.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is the irrelevant observation to which I refer.
  MR. FIELD: I bow to your ruling, Sir; but when a Member is prevented by

  1319
  the automatic closure from taking part in debate, that is certainly a very relevant matter for him. I object most strongly to this motion, because, in my opinion— and I am sure my opinion is the opinion of the independent Members of this House—it is an attempt to limit the right which private Members possess at present of criticising Supply. That is one of the most important functions that can be exercised by the House of Commons, and is at the root of all the liberty which England possesses. It is on money questions that the whole Government of this country depends. If you stop supplies you stop the Government, and that is the reason why the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious to have this matter settled without discussion, and that is the reason why right hon. Gentlemen on the two Front Benches want things manipulated according to their own ideas, and object to have questions of Supply debated by independent Members. This is a dangerous proposal, and ought to be resisted not only by Liberal Members, but also by independent Conservative Members, because, as I understand, the Conservative Members are as jealous of their liberties as either Irish or Liberal Members. I trust that when this matter is put to a vote, at least a sufficient number of Members will vote against it to show the public that we are determined to maintain our right, as private Members, to criticise Supply brought before us by the Government.
  MR. DALZIEL: The right hon. Gentleman who introduced this motion has a majority, and that majority will support him, but some day perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite who used to be such strong champions of the rights of private Members may realise more than they do now the importance of these rules. With the experience which we have had of the operation of these rules, I am more convinced than ever that they are not in the best interests
  1320
  of the House. Year after year we have been unable, no matter how keenly we may have desired it, to say a single word with regard to several great spending Departments of the State. I can point to case after case, especially affecting Scotland, where we have had no opportunity of saying a word. It has been the same with the Board of Agriculture, the Local Government Board, and many other Departments. What is the result? This House is losing its power. The Departments are becoming your masters. What do they care if you have a grievance in Supply? They know perfectly well that no opportunity will arise for discussing it. We are told that this is really a private Member's motion. Is it not a fact that before these rules were introduced we could discuss Votes on Account, and had still left to us the discussion on the Vote in Supply? It may have been the fault of private Members if they did not avail themselves of this opportunity, but at least they had it. I desire to move an Amendment, and I must complain that no opportunity was given us of putting Amendments on the Paper. I beg to move in line 16 to leave out the word "three" in order to insert the word "five." The result will be to give two more days for Supply, which would certainly be some slight concession to the views we hold on this side of the House, especially as the Foreign Office and the War Office will take more time than usual this session.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 16, to leave out the word 'three, in order to insert the word 'five.'"—(Mr. Daziel.)
  Question proposed, "That the word three' stand part of the Question."
  ME. WILLIAM REDMOND: The Amendment appears to me to be one which would to some extent meet the

  1321
  difficulties which have been pointed out by hon. Members from Ireland. There can be no doubt whatever, no matter how hon. Gentlemen opposite may object, that it is a perfectly reasonable thing for Irish Members to take every opportunity to increase our facilities for discussing Supply with reference to our own country. The three or four days now allotted to Irish Supply are not nearly enough. I hope the Amendment will be accepted. In my opinion the First Lord of the Treasury has not treated the House fairly in proposing this motion at this time-He knows perfectly well what is expected to take place to-morrow and the state of public business generally, and it would be much better if he deferred the further consideration of the motion until Thursday. But as he has not done so, I hope he will accept this very reasonable Amendment. It is a monstrous thing, apart from the Irish point of view altogether, that the whole Supply of this country must be dealt with in twenty days. That is not nearly enough, and there should be thirty or thirty-five days allotted to Supply. The result of the present system undoubtedly is that Supply cannot be adequately debated.
  It being midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

  LEAD POISONING.
  Address for "Return of the number of cases of Lead Poisoning reported as occurring (1) in the earthenware and china industry, for each month from January, 1898, to December, 1900, both inclusive, and (2) in all other trades (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 171. of Session 1900)."—(Mr. Coghill.)

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Fifteen Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of—Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Banbury, Mr. Blake Mr. Gibson Bowles, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Goddard, Sir Brampton Gurdon, Sir Arthur Hayter, Mr. Brodie Hoare, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Sir Robert Mowbray, and Mr. Pym.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.—(Sir William Walrond.)

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed, to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House and that the Reports of the Committee do set forth the number of signatures to each Petition only in respect to those signatures to which addresses are fixed; and that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions; as shall appear to require it:—And that such Committee have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of—Mr. Allsopp, Mr. Edward Barry, Mr. Brymer, Sir Charles Dalrymple, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, General Laurie, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Sir Henry Meysey-Thompson, Mr. Charles Morley, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Philipps, Mr. Tollemache, Lord Willoughby de Eresby, and Mr. Henry Joseph Wilson.
  Ordered, That three be the quorum.—(Sir William Walrond.)
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve of the clock.

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  FURNESS RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.

  BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
  Ordered, That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Belfast Corporation Bill that they insert the following clause—
  "Any scheme for the establishment of a thrift fund under this part of this Act shall not come into operation until the Council shall, in respect of that fund, have been registered under The Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and the provisions of that Act (except the proviso to Sub-section 1 of Section 8 and Section 41), so far as they are applicable, and are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part of this Act, shall apply as if (a) the Council were a society to which that Act applies and were the trustees of such society; (b) as if the scheme were the rules of such society; (c) as if the thrift fund were the funds of such society; and (d) as if the contributors to the fund were the members of such society."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)

  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Secretary of State under The Military Lands Act, 1892, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Brodrick and Lord Stanley.
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Secretary of State under The Military Lands Act, 1892," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]
PETITIONS.

  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Timsbury, Bishop's Sutton, Springfield, Old Mills, Farrington, Bromley, Bower, Bamfurlong, Cakemore, St. Helens (two), Eccleston Hall, Golborne, Cwmteg,
  1150
  Clydach Merthyr, Weig Faur, Lye (two), Cradley, Primrose, Darton, Wharncliffe, Woodmoor, New Cwmgorse, Morton, Reservoir, Rawdon, and Netherseal Collieries; to lie upon the Table.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.
  Petitions for alteration of Law: From Crockett, and Llandilo Talybont; to lie upon the Table.
  FRESH WATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Two Petitions from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Lancashire and Cheshire, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPER ANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Eastbourne, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MIDWIVES BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Clapham, Wimbledon (thirteen), Chadderton, Liverpool (two), Richmond (two), and Toxteth; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Timsbury, Bishop's Sutton, Springfield, Old Mills, Farrington, Bromley, Cradley, Lye (two), Bamfurlong, St. Helens (two), Eccleston Hall, Elphinstone, Tranent, Newbattle, Carberry, Haydock, Wallyford, Niddrie, Arniston, Polton, Preston Grange, New Cumnock, Golborne, Cwmteg, Clydach Merthyr, Weig Faur, Cakemore, Oldham, Darton, Wharncliffe Woodmoor, Denny Loanhead, Redding Shieldhill, Denny, Maddiston, New Cwmgorse, Primrose, Rawdon, Netherseal, Reservoir, and Morton Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  ROYAL DECLARATION.
  Petitions from Hull, against alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From High Brooms and Blackpool; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN.
  Petition of the United Free Church of Scotland, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR (TRIAL OF COMMANDANT KRUITZINGER).
  Petition from Cambridge, for clemency; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (STATEMENT OF EXCESSES), 1900–1901.
  Copy presented of Statement of the sum required to be voted in order to make good excesses of Army Expenditure beyond the grants for the year ended 31st March, 1901 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 79.]
  NATIONAL GALLERY (REPORT).
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 24th February; Mr. Austen Chamberlain]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 80.]
  MILITARY WORKS ACTS, 1897 AND 1899.
  Account presented for the period ended 31st March, 1901, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. No. 81.]
  RAILWAYS (PARIS METROPOLITAN RAILWAY).
  Copy presented of Report to the Board of Trade on the Chemin de Fer Métropolitain de Paris, with remarks on Shallow Tunnels by Lieutenant-Colonel H. A. Yorke, R.E., Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways, Board of Trade [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (EXCESSES), 1900–1901.
  Copy presented of statement of sums required to be voted in order to make good excesses on certain grants for Civil Services for the year ended on the 31st March, 1901 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 82.]

  MIDWIVES BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  LORD CECIL MANNERS: In moving the Second Reading of this important measure I may perhaps be allowed to express regret that owing to the fortune of the ballot the responsibility of doing so has fallen on myself and not on one of the hon. Members who have so long worked on its behalf and who are more familiar with it. While firmly believing in the merits and general principle of the Bill, I cannot claim to have made an exhaustive study of the subject. I shall therefore confine myself to a very brief statement of its general aims and objects; and, in consideration of the fact that the subject is perhaps an unusually difficult and inappropriate one to deal with in a "maiden" speech, I shall ask the House to extend to me more than the indulgence it usually grants to those who address it for the first time. This matter has frequently engaged the attention of Parliament. As far back as 1878 a Bill on this subject was introduced, and since then almost every year a Bill dealing with the question has come before the House. The Select Committee of 1892 reported that—
  "No woman should be allowed to call herself or to practise as a midwife, except under suitable regulations."
  A similar recommendation was made by the Select Committee of 1893, and in the year 1900 a Bill drafted on the lines of this Report passed its Second Reading by a majority of 90. It also got through the Grand Committee stage successfully, but it unfortunately reached the Report stage too late, and consequently came to nothing. The general consensus of opinion in this country is undoubtedly very strongly in favour of the Bill. The General Medical Council in 1889, and again in 1893, passed this Resolution:—
  "That this Council regards the absence of public provision for the education and supervision of midwives as productive of a large amount of grave suffering and fatal disease among the poorer classes, and urges upon the Government the importance of passing into law some measure for the education and registration of midwives."
  The Royal College of Physicians, in 1891, reported—
  "That legislative action is desirable in order to secure the due education, examination, and registration of midwives."

  1153
  I think that these facts go to prove that the consensus of medical opinion, of those best qualified to speak on the subject, is very strongly in favour of some legislative action being taken. Experts, no doubt, differ as to the precise form that action should assume, and I think the opposition which the Bill has met with in the past has been more due to the fact that the opinions of experts thus differ than to any feeling that legislation is unnecessary.
  What is the existing state of things which it is desired to remedy by this Bill? As matters stand at present, any woman, however incompetent, who chooses to put a brass plate on her door or a card in her window calling herself a midwife, is qualified to practise, and there can be no doubt whatever that the system is one which is fraught with the gravest danger to the lives both of women and infants. The Lancet, which I believe may be taken as the leading organ of the medical profession, says—
  "Legislation is absolutely necessary to prevent ignorant and incompetent women from practising for gain to the danger of those women who employ them. A drunken old hag could not obtain a situation as nurse to a hospital or a workhouse, but there is nothing to prevent her putting a brass plate with 'Midwife' under her name on the door. In this simple fact lies the whole question to be solved."
  I may say I believe that this country is the only civilised country in Europe where there is not some sort of form of registration and regulation of the practice of midwifery in France, Germany, Austria, Russia, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, and Norway, the education of midwives is provided for, and their practice regulated by legislation of long standing. I do not intend to weary the House with long and harrowing details of the evils which undoubtedly result from the practice of these incompetent and ignorant women, but when it is considered that there are about 450,000 cases of childbirth in England and Wales annually, attended by women alone, and that most of these midwives are absolutely untrained and incompetent, I think it will be apparent to all that it is necessary to take some steps to supervise them. It is computed that no less than 30 or 40 per cent. of the cases of blindness in our asylums are directly attributable to the fact that
  1154
  proper care is not taken at the time of childbirth, and puerperal fever is another very frequent result from improper attention. I think that these facts speak for themselves, and that, therefore, it is unnecessary for me to enlarge on the grave necessity for some immediate legislation.
  I should now like to say a word or two on the measures proposed to be enforced under this Bill, although it will, I think, be generally admitted that the details may be more fittingly considered when the Bill reaches the Committee stage. There are two main objects aimed at. The first is to secure the proper training of midwives, and the method by which we propose to effect that, is by the appointment of a Board of seven—four of whom are to be registered medical practitioners. This Board will frame rules and regulations directing the course of training and laying down the conditions of admission to the Register of Midwives. It will also restrict the practice of midwives within proper limits; and it will grant certificates which will enable persons who are in need of the services of a midwife to discriminate between trained and untrained persons—between those who are competent and those who are absolutely incompetent. In this the Board will be closely following the lines of the General Medical Act of 1858, which provides that—
  "It is expedient that persons requiring medical aid should be enabled to distinguish qualified from unqualified practitioners."
  After all, that merely puts midwifery on a par with kindred branches of the medical profession—with medicine, dentistry, and veterinary surgery. When the enormous importance of this subject is considered, I think it will be admitted to be unfair, in the highest degree, not to put the profession of midwifery on a par with the other professions I have mentioned.
  The second object aimed at in the Bill is supervision, and it is proposed to entrust that duty to the County Councils. In this we are following the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1893. The County Councils will have ample powers of delegation to District Councils and the supervision will be ensured by a system of notification similar to that which obtains under the Infant Life Protection Act. That will, I think, be

  1155
  sufficient, as it will always be possible to ensure the identity of the woman, and trace her qualifications and character.
  These are the main features of the Bill, but I may say that the promoters will gladly welcome in Committee any suggestions as regards amplification or improvement. I would ask the House, in consideration of the fact that the services of these women are an absolute necessity, as was admitted by the Committee of 1893–60 per cent. of the total cases of childbirth in this country being attended by them—and that whether legislation is passed or riot midwives will continue to attend these cases, in consideration of these facts I would ask the House, seeing that the women who are affected are almost entirely of the humbler classes, to assent to the principle that they should have an opportunity of being able to distinguish between those who are competent and can give dependable assistance, and those who are not. We do not in the least intend to provide by the Bill that midwives should act absolutely independent of doctors, but we do want to oblige the woman to know her business sufficiently to be able to tell whether things are going right or not, and to judge when it is necessary to call in a doctor. I confidently ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading, and by so doing to put an end to a state of things which, it is not using too strong language to say, has long been a disgrace to this country.
  MR. DE TATTON EGERTON: In rising to second the Motion of my noble friend, I have first to say that he has travelled so thoroughly over the whole ground that I feel rather diffident in dealing with the same points. But he only began at the year 1878, and I think it is on record that as far back as 1813 the Society of Apothecaries tried to induce this House to legislate on the question of midwifery. But still, it was in 1878 when the General Medical Council considered the matter so important that they promoted a clause in the General Medical Act which had reference to the registration and organisation of midwives. In order to carry their Bill, they found it necessary, however, to drop that portion which had reference to midwifery, because it was
  1156
  found that it might lead to some confusion between midwives and medical men. Since that time the subject has been very well threshed out throughout the country. There have been several Bills before this House to remedy the evils complained of, and I can only call it a disgrace to this country that there is no, restriction whatever upon either the use of the word "midwife" or the employment of unqualified women. The hon. Member for the Malton Division mentioned that this country was almost alone in the whole civilised world in having no distinct and strong legislation on this subject, but he did not inform the House of the dates at which such legislation took place in other countries. In Austria it dated back to 1810, in Belgium 1818, in France 1803, in Switzerland 1864, and in Sweden and. Norway 1810. I have not the date for Russia, but I may tell the House that in most of these countries the regulations with regard to midwives are very stringent indeed.
  Let the House consider what has been the character of the opposition to the Bill in the past. There is a general consensus of opinion that legislation is necessary and that there should be some restriction on the practice of midwifery. The General Medical Council has been one of the principal opponents of this Bill whenever it has been brought forward. In the last three or four years they have had a Bill of their own prepared, but they have never thought fit to present it for discussion by the House. They have taken up—I will not call it a dog-in-the-manger position—but while they have never brought in their own Bill they have done all they can on every occasion to wreck Bills brought forward by those whom I have the honour to represent. Yesterday morning as a last attack they brought forward their reasons for opposing this Bill, and one ground of objection is that notification has been substituted for a system of local licences. Every midwife under this Bill is to be registered, but under the old Bill, and according to the idea upheld by the General Medical Council, a nurse, whenever she changes her place of residence, must take out a fresh licence. We simply propose, however, that she shall be notified to the sanitary authority of the district,

  1157
  who shall annually see that she is residing there and is doing good work. We do not ask that a medical man who comes into a district to reside shall take out an annual licence, and, therefore, why should we impose such a condition upon a midwife? There is no other class of person who has to take out an annual licence in that way. The General Medical Council also object very seriously indeed to the constitution of the Central Board. It wishes to take the whole matter into its own hands, and seems to forget that there are other interests in the country besides its own. I think that a Central Board, the majority of the members of which shall be medical men, and which will include also a representative of the Midwives Institute, which we consider to afford proper representation of midwives throughout the country, as well as somebody appointed by the Privy Council, would possess quite as much authority as the General Medical Council itself, and as, indeed, it requires or ought to have. The proposal in the Bill is, I venture to submit, a sound and just one.
  The only other point to which I have to call attention is that within the past three or four years we have had various deputations to the Privy Council, which has assisted us by its advice. The Bill which is before the House is a result of a meeting which has been held in conjunction, not only with the Privy Council, but with the Home Office and Local 'Government Board, Who have sanctioned the proposals contained in it. We have had the most generous support, not only from the doctors associated with these public bodies, but also from the Women's National Association, the Women's Liberal Federation, the Women's Industrial Council, and representatives of the Body of Coroners. The evidence which the Coroners have given to us in the past is of such a nature that, I think, if it were printed and circulated among Members, it would have but one effect. It would demonstrate the absolute necessity for the passing of such a measure as this, and I hold that the House will be wrong if it does not at all events give the Bill a Second Reading, so that its details may be dealt with in a proper manner in Committee. I have great pleasure in seconding the Motion.
  1158
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR JOHN TUKE (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities): it is with a certain amount of regret that I move the rejection of this Bill, for it contains certain good points. But it will, I fear, prove a useless Bill, because it is lacking in one essential and vital point—in strength and purpose—and on account of that I conceive it to be my duty to move the rejection of it. I supported the Bill of 1900 generally on the ground that, to my mind, it was an important measure bearing upon public health. I supported it notwithstanding the opposition of a section of the medical profession. The profession was by no means unanimous on the question, but I think that, as regards the present Bill, I am not wrong in saying that 95 per cent. of the members of that profession will be found to be opposed to it. The hon. Member for Knutsford has alluded to the action of the General Medical Council, and spoken of it as being of a "dog-in-the-manger" policy. It is not so. In 1900 I gave voice to the views of the General Medical Council, which is as desirous as I am that a really good and efficient Bill should be presented to this House. I supported the Bill of 1900, although it was opposed by a certain section of the profession to which I have the honour to belong, and I did so on account of the strong belief I held that it conferred very great benefits upon parturient women. But this Bill now before the House does not contain the Clause which rendered the Bill of 1900 an important measure of public health, and the omission of that Clause will, in my opinion, make this Bill inoperative, futile, and, to a certain extent, mischievous. The Bill omits the provision preventing uncertified women from practising midwifery, and that omission, to my mind, constitutes a cardinal objection. I have other grounds of objection, but they, perhaps, can be better represented if the Bill reaches the Committee stage, which, I may say, I trust it will not.
  The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading conceded that the main and great object of the Bill was to provide women in labour with suitable and safe attendance.

  1159
  No one is more anxious than I am that a measure securing such safety should pass this House, but that is an object to be secured, not merely by providing for the education and superintendence of midwives, but by preventing the practice of incompetent women. It is a matter of common knowledge that amongst the women now acting as midwives there are a considerable number who, as stated by the proposer, by their ignorance, carelessness, filth, and occasionally dissipated habits, constitute a serious danger to the public. Through their evil practices puerperal fever is generated and communicated from case to case, and by their filth that most dangerous form of insanity known as puerperal insanity is often engendered. Many thousands of women suffer for years from the consequences of bad attendance, and in not a few instances the deaths of mother and children are the result. In proof of this it is only necessary to refer to the verdicts found in many Coroners' Courts. The Bill of 1900 was not only calculated to build up a class of midwives who, after receiving elementary education in obstetrics, would be placed as to their practice under regulation and supervision, but by a special clause it was sought to suppress an existing dangerous class. The Bill before the House fails in this important particular. It does not suppress those evils out of which the movement for the registration of midwives has grown. Under the Bill of 1900 only certified women were allowed to use the name "midwife," and what is of infinitely greater importance, uncertified women who habitually and for gain practised midwifery were made liable to a fine of not more than £5.
  I ask the House to consider Clause 3 of this Bill. It reads thus—
  (3) Any woman who, within two years from the date of this Act coming into operation, claims to he certified under this Act, shall be so certified provided she holds a certificate in midwifery from the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, or from the Obstetrical Society of London, or such other certificate as may be approved by the Central Midwives Board, or produces evidence, satisfactory to the Board, that she bears a good character.
  Thus any woman who now acts as a midwife can obtain a certificate on producing evidence that she is a respectable woman, and fulfils certain conditions to be
  1160
  laid down by the Board to be constituted under Section 4 of the Bill. By the penal clause of the Bill of 1900, ignorant, disreputable, or incompetent persons would be precluded from certification. But the very class of persons out of whose irregularities this whole question has arisen is, as the Bill now stands, to be still permitted to practise their work unchecked by any authority or any form of supervision. It is quite true that such a woman cannot put a plate over her door or a ticket in her window calling herself a certificated midwife, nor can she use any designation implying that she is certified under this Act. But anyone who is acquainted with the class of persons among whom such women work must know right well that such a slight disability will have no effect, and, consequently, she will continue under this Act to he a continuous source of danger and evil. It might be argued that already the number of incompetent women is, lessening as a consequence of our extended views of nursing generally, but the evidence obtainable from great manufacturing centres, and from the Metropolis, itself, as well as from district nurses, goes to show that at the present moment the dangerous midwife is still a power in the land.
  Now, Sir, I should like to ask the House to consider whether the provisions of this Bill are likely to lessen the number of uncertified midwives. It may be allowed that the Bill might produce a class of fairly well educated women—of women educated in the rudiments of obstetrics and in the first principles of midwifery. But before a woman can get on the register she comes under the jurisdiction of the Midwives Board, one of whose functions is to regulate the course of training and to conduct the examinations. I cannot conceive that this Board would admit to the roll any woman who, not having had previous hospital training, had not studied the subject specially for six months, or who, having had previous hospital training, had not studied it for at least three months. This, I hold, would be an absolutely irreducible minimum. The Board possesses other powers with regard to the supervision of midwives, and under Clause 8 the midwife is to be placed under the immediate supervision of county or borough councils, and she is

  1161
  to pay fees. All this involves expenditure of time and money and subjection to authority, and in return she gets for it the right to call herself a midwife, and to sue for fees, while alongside of her women who have obtained some local reputation will exercise their trade without expense or subjection to authority. There is one other point I wish to refer to. The Board is to possess penal powers. It can strike a woman off the register for misconduct. But she can still go on practising. Every existing reputable midwife can get on the register under the provisions of the Bill, but it is only for the incompetent and disreputable women that an implied special provision is made enabling them to continue a source of danger. I have heard it suggested that the penal clauses would unduly interfere with the midwives in the remoter parts of Scotland, such as the Highlands and the Islands.
  MR. EUGENE WASON (Clackmannan and Kinross): This Bill does not apply to Scotland.
  *SIR JOHN TUKE: I believe the promoters of the Bill were sincerely sorry when, under the pressure of certain permanent officials, they withdrew the penal clauses, and thereby eviscerated the Bill. What are the reasons adduced? It is suggested that the penal clause would create a new class of offence. This I deny. I refer the House to the Apothecaries Act of 1815, which has not only not been repealed, but which is constantly put in force. Why should not the provisions of that Act apply to midwives in the same way as the same principle has been applied to other professions—like solicitors and auctioneers—and to trades, with the object of excluding undesirable members or persons? I venture to say that the penal clause does not create a new offence, and that it only represents the extension of an existing principle of law to a dangerous class. No measure for the certification of midwives can be made effectual so as to safeguard the public health, and to prevent numerous deaths from puerperal fever and other preventible causes, unless uncertified women are precluded from practice. If they are not, the irregular, incompetent, and dangerous women will increase in numbers, and the object of
  1162
  the promoters of the Bill will be nullified, while the certified midwife will be found to be in a minority. I think hon. Members will admit that I have not argued this question from a professional point of view. I have attempted to do so from the point of view of a member of the general public, having, however, some knowledge of medical matters. I hold no brief for the profession. If I hold a brief at all, it is for the hundreds of thousands of women who, from necessity or choice, are attended by midwives. I would gladly support this Bill with, perhaps, some modification, were the penal clause to which I have alluded re-introduced. But as an old Parliamentary friend of mine said to me the other day, "You can never make certain of anything in this House." I find it necessary, therefore, to press my Motion. I do so on the ground that this is not a measure to secure the public health, and that it does not secure to lying-in women those advantages which the promoters had in view when they took up this movement.
  SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON: In seconding the Motion for the rejection of this Bill, I may at once say that I have no professional knowledge of this subject. I only speak as a man who happens to own land, and who, like other landlords in Great Britain and Ireland, takes an interest in the people who live in the villages on his estate. That is the sole reason why 1 take any interest whatsoever in this Bill. I do feel an interest in the welfare of the poor I people who live on my estate, and I am bound to say I hope most sincerely that this Bill will never pass the Second Reading stage. Every gentleman who makes a friend of the Medical Officer of Health in his district, or of the parish doctor, must be well aware that frequently some poor girl who gets into trouble, or some married woman who does not wish to increase her family, begs and implores the doctor to perform a certain operation. I need not say that these gentlemen, being honourable members of a most honourable profession, send these applicants away with a severe rebuke. But I do think that if you give midwives a certain amount of authority in the eyes of poor people, by certifying or registering

  1163
  them—an authority which the ordinary Mrs. Gamp of the village does not possess, the danger of illegal operations being performed on these girls and women will be enormously increased, and I think that that point should be carefully considered by hon. Members who own estates before they vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. Does this Bill confine itself to the proper practice of m dwifery, and does it protect poor women against incompetent practitioners? If it did I would gladly support it. What it does do is to create a perfectly new class of midwife, who will have some sort of authority in the eyes of the poor people in the country, because they will be able to put some adjective before their names. And poor people will think, more than ever, that, by employing these women, they are perfectly at liberty to save the doctor's fees. In too many cases the result will be that they will leave their husbands to pay the undertaker's bill, while there will be many more cases than there now are of children suffering from ophthalmia and other dreadful diseases which are common among children who are neglected at the time of their birth. Surely the proper authority to take steps for the formation of a Central Midwifery Board is the General Medical Council. But under this Bill it seems to me that the General Medical Council will have remarkably little to do. The final authority in any dispute will be the Lord President of the Privy Council. It is true that the rules of the Central Midwives Board are to be subjected to the approval of the Privy Council, after consultation with the General Medical Council, but in the event of there being any disagreement between the General Medical Council and the Central Midwives Board, the Lord President of the Council is to be called in to settle the dispute, and the General Medical Council will be kept out of the position which it, of all authorities, is most competent to occupy. Again, there is no provision in this Bill requiring the certified midwife to obtain a local licence annually from the sanitary authority of the district in which she Practises. The Bill, as I said before, creates a new class of midwife, whom poor people will think to be as good as a doctor, and who will have a free hand to do exactly as she likes in
  1164
  the district in which she practises. The local Sanitary Authority will have no authority over her, and neither will the doctor; indeed, nobody will know anything about her except the poor people among whom she may be doing, of course unintentionally, unmitigated mischief. I do not for a moment say that the present state of affairs concerning midwives is satisfactory. Indeed, it is most unsatisfactory. But I could easily imagine a Bill which I would support with pleasure and even with enthusiasm. I take it that if this Bill passes, it will render the present unsatisfactory state of affairs still more unsatisfactory, and it will do much more harm than good. No Bill can be satisfactory which leaves so many things un done which it ought to have done, and which does so many things which it ought not to have done. No Bill can be satisfactory which makes no provision whatever for medical attendance, even in dangerous cases. No Bill can be satisfactory which makes no provision for nursing after labour. No Bill can be satisfactory which must positively create discord and trouble between local doctors and midwives; and, above all, no Bill can be satisfactory which makes this newly invented class of midwives absolutely free from medical superintendence and gives them a free hand to do whatever they please in their own district. On these grounds, and in the interest of the poor, I sincerely trust that this Bill will not pass its Second Reading.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months.'"—(Sir John Take.)
  Question proposed—
  "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)said that his hon. and learned friend who moved the rejection of this Bill made a very temperate speech, and he regretted that it fell to his lot to speak in opposition to him, for they all recognised his distinguished position as a member of the General Medical Council and the authority with which he spoke—an authority which rendered his remarks

  1165
  well worthy consideration. But he was glad to say that, although his hon and learned friend came to curse, he remained to praise, and there had been no more effective speech made in favour of the Bill, and of the general principle embodied in it, than that delivered by the Member for the Edinburgh University. Although he dissented, and perhaps properly so, from certain provisions, he had given plain and emphatic testimony to the evils going on throughout the country, and had thrown in his lot with those who desired to find some remedy, more or less effective, for a condition of things which they all deplored. He did not think his hon. friend quite fairly quoted the provisions of Clause 3. He omitted the words which provided that the applicant should have a bona fide practice.
  SIR JOHN TUKE: If I did so, it was quite accidental.
  *DR. FARQUHARSONsaid he fully accepted that explanation, but he thought the House should be placed in possession of the fact that, in addition to having a good character, applicants must bring evidence to prove that they had been in bona fide practice for a certain number of years. He took his stand upon the ground that it was high time that something should be done. The evidence given before two Commissions showed that a very great evil existed, which ought to be remedied as soon as possible. He wished to make one quotation from the finding of the General Medical Council in 1899. He desired to do this more emphatically because it had been remarked that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ilkeston was going to oppose this Bill. What did the hon. Member do in 1899? He moved the following Resolution at a meeting of the General Medical Council—
  "That this Council regards the absence of public provision for the education and supervision of midwives as productive of a large amount of grave and fatal disease among the poorer classes, and urges upon the Government the importance of passing into law some measure for the education and registration of midwives."
  Although he did not agree with all the provisions of this Bill, he was not one of those who refused something because
  1166
  they could not get everything. As his hon. friend had stated, no less than 450,000 women in labour were attended by female midwives every year, and they preferred the female midwives. A great many women naturally preferred to be attended by their own sex at a time when the softness and tenderness of women was desirable for softening suffering. He knew that many of these women were ignorant and dirty. They had the testimony of medical men, and some of their leading medical institutes, that many of these midwives were dirty, ignorant, and incompetent from every point of view. Therefore they ought to take steps to educate them and make them less dangerous than they were at present. Parturition was a purely mechanical process, which was perfectly easy and natural, and could be carried out without any difficulty whatever. With savage tribes the process of parturition was quite easy, but there was the greatest difference between civilised and uncivilised people as to the peculiar difficulty with which this process was carried out. It was, however, a simple process as a rule, and two or three months, with ten or twenty lessons, would be quite sufficient to qualify one woman to know how to attend to another woman in childbirth. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite laughed at that, but he would point out that the attendance of six cases whilst in College was considered sufficient for a person to qualify in midwifery. If that was so, would not a woman who had attended 300 or 400 cases know as much as a man about this subject? He thought the women of the future would be sometimes safer guides in matters of this kind than the ordinary medical practitioners, who had not time to attend to antiseptic matters. Those women would be taught to use antiseptics and those modern methods which would abolish the dangers which frequently accompanied the present bad system under which midwifery was practised.
  This Bill represented an honest attempt to regulate and find a remedy for a great evil. The Board was to be constituted by the Privy Council, who would frame the rules and regulations, and they would afterwards have to be accepted and supervised by the General

  1167
  Medical Council. Therefore, in every case the General Medical Council was the final Court of Appeal. As the Midwifery Board now stood, they were to have an equal number of medical men as against an equal number of others. The great objection which had been raised by his hon. friend was that the penal clauses had not been introduced, bnt he assured him that to expect Parliament to insert them was a hopeless Utopian dream. All they would be called upon to do would be to give some hall-mark which would enable the public to see readily who were qualified and who were not. If they said by this Bill "Here is a hall-mark," then they had given the public all the protection they could expect to obtain, and after that, if the people were too stupid not to find out those things for themselves, the blame would be on their own heads if they employed incompetent persons. He was glad that the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill did not take the usual professional objection which he found running through the speech of the seconder, for he did not like that line of argument. The medical profession had been honourably distinguished for doing good to the general community and not promoting their own selfishness. His hon. friend who moved the rejection said that 95 per cent. of the doctors were against this Bill.
  *SIR JOHN TUKE: On account of the omission of the penal clause.
  *DR. FARQUHARSONsaid it had been alleged that the proposed registration would imply a practical repeal of the Medical Act. Those who put forward such views could not have read the fifth sub-section of Clause 1, which provided—
  "The certificate under this Act shall not confer upon any woman any right or title to be registered under the Medical Acts, or to assume any name, title, or designation, implying that she is by law recognised as a medical practitioner, or that the is authorised to grant any medical certificate, or any certificate of death or of still-birth, or to undertake the charge of cases of abnormality or disease in connection with parturition."
  He had sat on two Committees on this question, and he had been in consultation, not only with the medical faculty, but with many outside who took a deep
  1168
  interest in the matter. He could hardly believe that any one would seriously oppose the Second Reading of the Bill on its merits. He considered that its principles were well founded. What he thought the House ought to do was to pass the Second Reading so that the Bill might be sent to a Select Committee or a Grand Committee to bring it into a form which would satisfy the medical profession, and give some sense of security from danger to the general community.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN (Kent., Tunbridge): I cannot claim to approach this subject with any medical knowledge, but this, after all, is largely a social question, and one with respect to which, though the House listens with the greatest interest to all the medical men have to say, it may very well be decided by the House at large. I must confess to being somewhat amused at the attitude the doctors have taken towards the Bill. It is always said "doctors differ." Today we have had two distinguished doctors speaking on the Bill. One has spoken in favour of it and the other moved its rejection, and it is all the more incumbent on us, who have no medical knowledge, to carefully consider what course we should take. When this Bill was last before the House I moved on its return from the Standing Committee that it should be reconsidered, and that Motion I think was talked out by the hon. Member for Northwest Sussex, who was the parent of the Bill. I think the action I then took was thoroughly justified, because this is a very important matter, and one not to be dealt with lightly. I should like to assure my hon. friends that I have no intention of voting against the Second Reading of the Bill today, and I hope there will not be a vote. Although we may differ—and I differ considerably from the promoters on many details—I certainly hold that the promoters of the Bill are aiming at removing a great evil, and I know that many of them have worked hard to bring this matter before the public, and, if possible, to find a remedy for it. I think we ought to afford the Bill every facility by giving it a Second Beading and allowing it to go to the Standing Committee, where it can be thoroughly thrashed out.

  1169
  What are the real facts lying at the root of the necessity for this Bill? They are very simple. In the first place it is an absolute fact that in the great majority of the cases that occur among poor people they will not call in a doctor to attend. Secondly, I believe that in the great majority of simple cases there is no necessity to call in a doctor. Thirdly, owing to the fact that no sort of training and no sort of certificate are required on the part of those called in, there is a vast amount of ignorance and a vast amount of dirt, and consequently a vast amount of preventible disease; while lastly, there is this, which to my mind is most important, that in every single case where there is any sort of complication, abnormality, or disease, it should be absolutely necessary, and laid down in black and white, that a doctor should be called in. What seems to me to be required is this. We should endeavour to set up not an inferior class of medical practitioners, but a superior class of trained nurses, and if we accomplish that we shall have done a very good thing. Does the Bill do that? I approach the Bill in the most friendly spirit, but I am bound to say, as was pointed out by the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill, that it does not do that. In the first place it does not prohibit the ignorant person from whom dangers now arise from practising in future. That is the whole point. As the hon. Member said in moving the rejection of the Bill, the danger now arises not from the better class of midwives, but the worst class. You propose to register and grant certificates to the better class, but you will enable the worst class to go on practising in the future as now, and, therefore, you will not remove the danger which exists. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire said that no House of Commons would ever think of passing a penal clause prohibiting people not registered from practising. I have only got to point out the fact that in the session of 1900 the House of Commons did pass through the Second Reading, and through Committee, a Bill which contained such a penal clause, and it seems to me to be absolutely essential, if we are to do the good my hon. friend and his supporters desire, that we should pass this penal clause, and enact that no woman should
  1170
  habitually, and for gain, practise midwifery, unless she has obtained a proper training and certificate. Does the Bill provide adequate training? I am not now in a position to criticise the Midwives Board, but I am told that its composition is open to a great deal of perfectly proper criticism. I think that instead of some of those bodies appointing members, and which seem to have very little qualification for the purpose, it would be infinitely better that the persons appointed should be appointed by the General Medical Council. I mean those who are mentioned in the first sub-section. They should be persons who have been recognised teachers of midwifery in some medical school in England, Ireland, or Scotland. If that were done, you should have certainly some guarantee that the professional people composing the Midwives' Board were competent to grant certificates. This is essentially a matter of nursing, and I think that on the Midwives Board it is most important that that splendid institution the Royal Nursing Association should have a representative If that were done, I think it would go far to meet the objections of some of those who are inclined to criticise the composition.
  Another objection to the Bill is that there is no provision for adequate local control. The Bill has really been altered for the worse in this matter. In the Bill of 1900 it was necessary that the local authority should grant a licence or certificate before any midwife could practise in the district covered by it. Now the promoters have taken that out. That provision, I think, was important, because it gave some regular control which had to be renewed year by year by the local authority. Now the promoters have inserted merely notification. The control of the Central Board can be very little indeed. A local body may report to them and they can inquire into a case, but what we want is strong local control and supervision, and that being so I think the provision placed in the Bill of 1900 requiring the renewal of the licence was far better than the provision for notfication which occurs in the present Bill. I cannot see in this Bill—and I would ask the promoters in this matter if I am right or wrong—whether there

  1171
  is any compulsion on the midwife in cases of abnormality or disease to send for a doctor. I believe it is intended. but certainly the provision is exceedingly weak, if there is any provision for it. I venture to say that unless you make that position strong and insert a penalty you will be doing by this Bill a great deal more harm than good. Surely it is not intended to set up an inferior class of practitioners—people who take out a degree in midwifery alone, whereas the doctor who attends these cases must have a course not only of midwifery, but also of medicine and surgery. Surely it is not pretended that these inferior practitioners are competent to deal with difficult and complicated cases. If that were the intention of the Bill I should certainly oppose it on the Second Reading.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE (Sussex, Horsham): May I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us how these cases are to be foreseen?
  *MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: What is really essential is to strengthen the local control. If the local body observes that a case has taken place in which there was evidently some complication but in which the midwife employed did not at once send for a doctor, then the local body should have some power—I shall not attempt to sketch what it should be—to deal with that case in an effective manner. What I wish to press home is that I think it most important in all these complicated matters and all questions of disease that a medical man should be called in. That should be provided distinctly in the Bill. We heard it mentioned by the hon. Member opposite that this Bill does not apply to Scotland or Ireland. I confess I do not know why. I suppose these evils arise in Scotland and Ireland just as much as they do in England. Two of the hon. Members who have spoken on the Bil are, I believe, Scotch, and there are Irish Members who will speak later on. I am told that they manage these things better in Scotland. I do not know how that can be, but if we are to have a Bill at all we should make it apply all round. I apologise to the House for going into some details, but they are important points,
  1172
  and upon their solution depends whether we are justified or not in opposing the Bill on the Second Reading. I assure hon. Members, both for myself and many others who take an interest in this question, that we do not in the least wish to stop or obstruct their Bill, but we think the means contained in the measure are not calculated in their present form to cure the evil, and we very much fear that they may bring about a state of affairs which would be worse than exists at the present time. For these reasons I intend to support the Second Reading, but I hold myself perfectly free to move Amendments on the lines suggested when the Bill goes into Committee.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: I heartily concur with the hon. Gentlemen in regretting that this Bill does not extend to Scotland, but I think the fact is, as has been stated, that these things are managed better in Scotland. The House ought to know that our local machinery is different from what it is in England, and it would have complicated the measure very largely if Scotland had been added. I do not grudge that the predominant partner should take the lead in this matter. If it does, I have no doubt that both Scotland and Ireland will soon follow suit. Great complaint has been made with reference to the Bill. What strikes me is that it does not go far enough. I think that was the tenour of the observations made by the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill. But we must proceed tentatively, and if the Bill can be made stronger in any way I think it would be better for the community at large. But it is admitted that something ought to be done. The Medical Council has done nothing up to the present. I desire to speak with all respect of the medical profession, amongst whom I have many friends, and I am glad my hon. friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool is present, because he does not take the same view of the medical profession as I do. Of the medical profession he says—
  "There never was a trades union tyranny or an agrarian tyranny in Ireland or elsewhere which could approach in its cruelty the tyranny of legal and medical etiquette."
  I belong to one of these trades unions of legal etiquette, but I certainly have

  1173
  never suffered under its tyranny, and I do not suppose that the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill has ever suffered from the tyranny of the General Medical Council. I believe that if this measure is carried it will confer a great boon on the poorer classes of this country. This is essentially a woman's question. It was only ten days ago that a large party of textile workers came up here from Yorkshire and Cheshire with a petition and asked that Members should see them, and when they saw them they asked that they should have a Parliamentary vote. The reason they gave for this was—"That if we had a Parliamentary vote we should be able to make you Members of Parliament carry out measures for the benefit of us women which you do not understand at the present time." Sir, this is one of those measures. I do not say that it is a perfect measure, but I was glad to hear the hon. Member who last spoke say that he was not going to vote against the Second Reading. I hope it will be passed unanimously, and that it will be sent upstairs, where, if it can be, it will be made a better Bill Of course the promoters would have liked to have taken the General Medical Council with them, and they had the choice between taking the Government and the Privy Council with them and taking the General Medical Council with them. And I think the promoters did well in securing the allegiance of the Government and the Privy Council rather than that of the General Medical Council. I do not wish to detain the House at greater length. I would merely say that I received this Bill as a legacy from my predecessor; that it is a question that I have taken a great interest in, and which I have supported in three Parliaments, and I hope the House today will give this Bill a Second Reading without a division.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan): said that, as one who sat upon the Committee on Law which considered this question in 1900, perhaps the House would allow him to say a few words on this subject. The Committee at that time devoted their best attentions to this difficult and complicated subject. The Bill was considered
  1174
  by the Committee for two days, their deliberations were careful, and, he ventured to say, of a highly instructive character. There were several divisions, which marked the pains the Committee took during the investigations, and although the numbers who attended the Committee were not, large, still the majority was emphatic as showing the view which the Committee took respecting the Bill. Now he, having approached this question in this way, desired to consider whether the changes made in the Bill of 1902, the present Bill, were of such a character as to induce him to withdraw his support from this Bill on the Second Reading. He regretted all these alterations and thought they weakened the Bill; but a weak Bill at this stage might be made a strong Bill in the course of subsequent discussions, and although he could not support it on a Third Reading be did support it now in the hope that it would be made more stiff, more serviceable, and more valuable to the community. As to the evil that existed there could be no doubt. It had been proved by the experience of all, and by abundance of evidence brought before the Select Committees, and the opportunity which we had at the present moment for improving the law ought not to be neglected. It was a difficult thing for a private Member to bring in a Bill for Second Reading so early in the session, arid it was still more difficult for a Government with such claims on their time to carry through a matter of this character. He sincerely hoped therefore that the House would give this Bill a Second Reading, in order that it might be rendered such a Bill as would be worthy of its placeon the Statute Book, and such a Bill as would remedy many disastrous evils.
  If the House would allow him, he would deal with one or two alterations that had been made in this Bill as compared with that of 1900. One alteration which all would regret was the abolition of the fine; the analogy of the absence of the fine in the medical profession and the absence of the fine in the case of these women did not hold good. A medical man was able to obtain a fee, and if not duly qualified could sue in a Court of Law, but if his information was correct, the payments made to these women partook somewhat of the nature of an honorarium, and it was

  1175
  very seldom indeed that any claim was made in the County Court in order to obtain these fees. Therefore there was no analogy between the two cases. The proposed condition of the law in the case of these women would render any statute that might be passed practically useless and entirely ineffectual. There was another alteration which was of the most disastrous character, and that was giving authority to the Lord Presidents of the Council. We lived in days when Lord Presidents of Councils or even First Lords were not Admiral Crichtons; they were not versed in all subjects, and generally could only perform the duties of the responsible positions which they held because they were served by highly qualified staffs. The Lord President had no equipment to deal with this matter. During the last twenty years the feeling that had aminated this House had been to reduce the power in many particulars of Lords Presidents, and place a great deal of their work in the hands of other Ministers, assisted by highly qualified and competent staffs. Another alteration was that rules of the Body were to be approved by the Privy Council after consultation with the General Medical Council. In the Bill of 1900 the power was left to the General Medical Council, with power of appeal to the Privy Council. As regarded notification, he thought a change had been made in the wrong direction. He regarded the necessity of obtaining licences as most important. If licences were compulsory, the people to be licensed would be seen, and to some extent it would be possible to ascertain whether they were proper people to perform these duties. All these matters were reasons why the Bill should be altered, but were no reasons for abandoning legislation in the present session; and he therefore hoped that the Bill would be read a second time and referred to a Committee, in order that a long-standing scandal might be removed, the public safety increased, and much suffering and wrong removed for ever from the community.
  DR. AMBROSE (Mayo, W.)said that as one who had been in practice for twenty years it might not be out of place if he said a few words on this question, which was one of the most important
  1176
  which, in his opinion, had ever come before the House. Of the three branches of the medical science, medicine, midwifery, and surgery, there was nothing that required greater coolness, skill and dexterity than midwifery. A man might have a run of luck in midwifery; he might never lose a case in a practice embracing, as his own had done, 6,000 cases, but at any time he might come across a case where it would take him all his time to preserve the life of the child, or the mother, or both. If a medical man, who understood the anatomy of the heart, with all his knowledge sometimes failed to preserve the life of the child or mother, how in the name of common sense could a woman who only went through a preliminary training of two or three months be expected to succeed? He appealed to the promoters of the Bill to think well before they handed over the lives of the poorer women of this country to such an incompetent body. In France three years training was required before a midwife was allowed to practise, but if this Bill were passed into law any women after a couple of months training could go in for midwifery.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: Will the hon. Member kindly show me where such a provision is mentioned in the Bill?
  DR. AMBROSEsaid that every Member who had spoken on the Bill had said that two months training was all that was required, even if that did not appear in the Bill, but he would not labour that point further. What did this Bill propose to do? It proposed to provide a class of women who should be able to attend women who were too poor to pay for a doctor, and it was proposed to set up, in order to provide this class of women, a Board which was to be called the Midwives Board, and to give power to that Board to say to any woman, "From hence forward you shall be at liberty to attend confinements ad libitum." Was such a thing likely to be for the welfare of the poor women of this country? This body was to be presided over by the Lord President of the Privy Council. What did that Gentleman know of midwifery? If a man was to be ap-

  1177
  pointed to preside over a particular body, it only stood to reason that he should know something of the subject with which he would be called upon to deal, but the Lord President of that Council, knowing nothing about confinements, would have it in his power to say who should and who should not attend confinements. A proposal still more ridiculous was that this particular body, in issuing these particular licences, should let loose upon the poor women of this country 20,000 of these women, for he saw from a Return that there 20,000 women in existence at the present moment, without knowledge, who were called in simply because they were "handy" women. It had been said that this Bill was being proposed for the benefit of at least 450,000 women. As he had said, there were 20,000 "handy" women in existence at the present time. If they took only 20 cases a year, which was not a large number, they would attend between them 400,000 out of the 450,000 women for whom this Bill was to be passed. There was no guarantee that these women were to be properly trained; all the Bill said was that the Midwives Board would accept the certificate of the Obstetrical Society of London. No person studying for the medical profession could obtain a fellowship of that Body until he had qualified in the three branches of medicine, but by this Bill this Licensing Body would have power to accept this certificate as a guarantee that a woman was proficient in the art of midwifery. He opposed the Bill because it created an inferior class of practitioner in midwifery — one of the branches of the medical profession—a class over which no control would be exercised by the Medical Council. He opposed the Bill because it created a precedent for a non-elective body applying to the County Councils for the ratepayers' money and spending it; because it made no provision for qualified medical assistance even in difficult cases; because it made no provision for nursing after labour; because it contravened the Medical Acts, which required all practitioners to be qualified in medicine, surgery, and midwifery; because, although the Bill was ordered to be printed on the 21st of last month, it had only been printed on the
  1178
  12th of this month, the public thus not having had time to consider its merits; and he opposed it also in order that some day an efficient Bill might be brought forward.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE (Liverpool, Abercrombie)said he had not intended to take any part iii this debate, but he had been pressed by important bodies in Liverpool to advance the interests of this measure in any way he possibly could. Last year a strongly worded petition was presented in favour of this measure, and as that day he received another petition, he felt he could no longer be silent on the question. Up to the present he had abstained from taking part in these discussions because he had the honour to represent a considerable body of the medical profession in Liverpool, and as long as there was any uncertainty in the public mind on this question, he did not consider he was called upon to deal with it; but now that public opinion was focussing itself upon this matter, he thought it was about time that the House came to a decided opinion upon it. He approached the discussion of this Bill with absolutely disinterested motives, and he thought its promoters ought to be content with the discussion; so far as it had gone, there had been no radical objections to the Bill, and the fact that there was no objection to the Bill upon its merits was another reason which justified the action he was taking. Tile real objection appeared to be that the Bill did not go as far as it should, but no doubt the promoters of it would be glad to strengthen it, if they received the permission of the House to do so, and therefore he did not think that the argument that the Bill was not strong enough was a sufficient argument to throw it out. Half a loaf was better than no broad. And the fact that a number of incompetent people were now practising was not a sufficient reason for rejecting the Bill. If the Bill became law, it was quite true that a certain number of incompetent people who were now practising would for a certain time continue to practise, but if it did not, they would practise just the same. He thought it only right that those people who had

  1179
  been hitherto earning their living in this way should be allowed to continue. A reform of this kind could only be brought about by recognising vested interests. It might be desirable to prevent incompetent people from practising this work, but the only way was to get the machinery in force, and then gradually improve and strengthen it. Some hon. Gentlemen advocated these persons being licensed. It was true that licences did not figure in the Bill, but if it was necessary that these people should be licensed, such a proposal could be considered in committee. As the matter stood, the County Councils were to draw out lists of those who practised, and they would have power to suspend at once any person guilty of malpractices, and when these persons came up for registration any case of improper action would be promptly noticed and the person guilty would be struck off the list. It was quite time a definite conclusion was arrived at on this important question. It was quite certain that on the ground of expense many women would never have a medical man. At present that class received very insufficient treatment at the hands of incompetent women, but under this Bill, if passed, these presumably incompetent persons would gradually die out, and their place would be taken by persons better qualified for this duty. He had no doubt that in the country districts the Parish Councils would only recommend those persons who, in their opinion, ought to have certificates, and in that way a register would be obtained of people fairly competent. The Central Body had been criticised by hon. Members. He saw no special reason for the President of the Council as the initial authority; there was no reason why this authority should not be given to the Local Government Board, who were the Authority on health and sanitation; but whoever the authority was given to, he had no doubt that a good deal of good would be done by passing the Bill and getting a Council at once into operation. He was glad to see there was no longer any jealousy on the part of the medical profession. The Bill was clearly in the interest of the general community, and on that ground he cordially supported it.
  MR. EMMOTT (Oldham): desired to say one or two words in cordial support of the measure. It was stated as one of the objections that it did not apply to Scotland or Ireland, but he hoped that would not be taken as any objection. It was a very curious tendency of the time that the principle of what he called separatist Bills—by which he meant Bills which dealt separately with each country—was very much on the increase in the House. It was perhaps strange, and yet on the whole very satisfactory, that both the supporters and opponents of the Bill agreed in the main. Their idea was in this matter to stop untrained midwives attending women at childbirth; and if they desired, as all did desire, that an efficient and Imperial race should grow up, one of the earliest things they wished to see would be the two or three thousand preventible deaths which occurred every year stopped, to see the misery and suffering which women had after child-birth through insufficient care and attention put an end to, and to see instead of weak and ricketty children strong children able to be of some service to the State. But because they wanted more than this Bill gave, that was no reason for opposing it. He would welcome the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Edinburgh University, which would prohibit unqualified women from attending other women during childbirth, but this was not the time for heroic measures. Half a loaf, on this as on other questions, was better than no bread at all. It was stated that cheapness only was considered by the poor, and that to make this class of midwife a special class would be that the poor would employ them to the detriment of the doctors. He ventured to differ from that. He did not believe for a moment that the poor would value less than they had done in the past the attendance of properly qualified men. If, however, the newly certificated midwives in time competed with doctors, surely by that time we would be able to advance a step further and have more stringent legislation in regard to this matter. (2.10.)
  COLONEL SADLER (Middlesborough): I am in the unique position of having been connected for some 25 year

  1181
  with the sanitary authority of the constituency which I represent, and during that time I have had some experience of the amount of misery which has been caused to the community by the practices of midwives. Their ignorance and their pretensions, unfortunately, make the poorer classes a very easy prey to them, and it seems to me that it only wants the nickel-plated diploma, if I may so describe it, provided in this Bill to make them a still more easy prey to their pretensions. I therefore trust that this House will hesitate before it reads this Bill a second time, for it contains proposals which will have a far reaching influence amongst the class I have described. I consider that this Bill is entirely unnecessary. If it be true that women desire to be attended by a member of their own sex, I have no objection whatever to that, if the lady possesses the necessary qualifications. I strongly object to your putting a woman who has had only one or two years experience in the position of a medical practitioner. The proposal absurd on the face of it. I have had a great deal to do with the sick poor in the district I represent, and I know that what are wanted are trained nurses. I am glad to say that philanthropic people and the public spiritedness of large communities have risen to the occasion, with the result that we now find a large staff of trained nurses who are available at any time for emergencies of this kind, as well as others. I am not for a moment against trained nurses; I would almost penalise any one who acted as a professional nurse, if they had not some training for the work. I shall oppose this Bill, myself, on the ground that it is not fair to the working classes. The diploma which it is proposed to issue would be magnified into something of a great deal more value than it is really worth, and it is in the interest of the poorer people, and to shield them from what I fear to be a most dangerous imposition, that I shall feel it my duty to vote against the measure.
  MR. LUKE WHITE (Yorkshire, E.R., Buckrose): As one of His Majesty's coroners, I should like to be allowed to say a few words in regard to the Bill. I have had some experience of the great evils at present existing, and I for one, can give my cordial support to the Second
  1182
  Reading of the measure now under discussion. With regard to the provisions of the Bill, I may say that I do not think it is a perfect measure, but it is one which I think should be fully discussed in Committee, and I have no doubt that if there is a general feeling in this House with regard to the passing of the measure, as I believe there is from the speeches which have been made, it will evolve from the Committee in a much better shape than it is in at the present time. With regard to the principle, I believe that our Coroners' Courts have shown during the last ten or twenty years the existence of a great evil. I can assure the House, in my position as coroner, and from the information I have at my disposal, that there is urgent need for legislation on this question. In the large towns and in the country districts there are a large class of women who are known as monthly nurses, who act more especially under the direction or supervision of a medical man, but the Bill will not touch these persons. There are, on the other hand, a number of women, especially in our great cities and towns, who absolutely hold themselves out to the public as being qualified to act as midwives, and it is to that class of persons that this Bill will especially apply. I think we ought to look upon this question, not from the point of view of the medical profession, not from the point of view of being regarded as giving some support to a class who might be, to a certain extent, in opposition to the medical profession, but we ought to look at it from the point of view of those persons who employ these midwives. They are the poorer portion of the community, and we ought, if possible, to give them midwives who are in some way qualified to perform the duties which they undertake. We should endeavour to give them some safeguard that they have not got at the present time, and it is for that reason that I heartily support the Second Reading, so that the Bill may be referred to a Committee.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I rise because I have a sense of responsibility with reference to the measure before the House, and the whole subject which has been engaging our attention this afternoon. It was mainly through action on my part that this question came under the notice

  1183
  of the General Medical Council some years back. I was then struck, as many Members of the House have expressed themselves to-day, with the terrible horrors that occur through incompetent persons attending the poor at the time of labour and childbed, some very startling instances having come under my own personal observation, for at that time I happened to be practising my profession. I felt that something ought to be done to improve the education of midwives, and to put them in a position to render aid to their sisters in trouble without the terrible calamities that occurred then and still occur, I am sorry to say, among the very poor. Holding that view, I moved a Resolution on the General Medical Council in the direction of improving the education of women practising midwifery, and out of that grew in 1889 the measure which was brought before the House, and the agitation which has now been going on for some twelve years. The subject has been brought before the House from time to time in consequence of that action. Having some humble qualification for knowing how this will affect the poor, and putting aside altogether the possibility of the measure affecting the medical profession, I am bound to admit that even at the present moment the problem is most complicated and difficult. Although I am as anxious as any promoter of the Bill can be that it should be solved, I must honestly say to the House that there are still some points which raise difficulties that I cannot get over, and which this Bill fails to meet to a still greater extent than some of the Bills that have preceded it in this House. A problem which is as difficult as this, a problem which has engaged some of the ablest minds in my profession, and which they have failed to solve from the medical point of view, and which a number of hon. Members of this House have failed repeatedly to solve from the public point of view, is not a problem which we can discuss lightly, and which we can draw up a Bill to remedy, or which we can find a cure for in a few hours discussion in this House. It is a subject which eminently demands deliberation on the part of men specially qualified to consider it, and it is a problem which even then would be found
  1184
  very difficult of solution. So difficult was it, that two Select Committees of this House have had the matter under consideration. The first Select Committee I shall not speak of as having done a great work, but the second Select Committee took a large amount of evidence on this question and presented a Report, in which they did not offer a solution of the problem, but they asked that they might be re-appointed in the ensuing session of Parliament in order that they might come to some conclusion.
  MR. DE TATTON EGERTON: I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The second Committee did report fully.
  *SIR WALTER FOSTER: I am very much obliged to my hon. friend for calling attention to it. I only wanted to point out that it is a difficult problem, which requires a considerable amount of deliberate consideration before we can arrive at anything like an adequate solution of the difficulty. Putting that aside for a moment, and not to press this point, I want to come to closer quarters with the difficulty before us. There is no doubt that it is desirable that we should find some method by which we can approach this question with the view of obtaining more adequate assistance of this kind for the poor in time of difficulty. We are all agreed upon that, and the only thing on which there is a difference of opinion is the question of method. I say this is not as good a Bill, in my opinion and in that of many others, as the Bills previously submitted to the House, and which have been nearly passed into law.
  Let me ask the House to consider for a moment the position in which we are placed with reference to the Bill. You must remember that you are dealing here with a subject which has been steadily growing in scientific complexity and difficulty during the last thirty or forty years. I remember the time when the medical profession did not consider the practice of midwifery on a level with the other duties it had to do for the public, and practitioners of midwifery scarcely held the same rank as they hold today. Gradually the scientific practice of midwifery has been developed until it

  1185
  has obtained a position now in the Statute Book and in the eyes of the scientific world which gives it a greater consideration and a right to be put on a level with the other branches of the medical profession. By the legislation of 1886, when this House in its wisdom took into consideration the position Which the science of midwifery had at that time attained, it was placed on a level with the other branches of the medical profession, medicine and surgery, and it was enacted that no man should go on the medical register unless he had had a training and qualification in all these branches. The consequence of that was that it placed the practitioner in a totally different position. No individual man is now allowed to practice midwifery in this country unless he has had five years training, and has obtained a diploma to practise medicine, surgery and midwifery, so that if a general practitioner wants assistance in midwifery cases he cannot get that assistance in the simplest case of labour from a pupil who has attended all his lectures, and all his prescribed midwifery cases, and passed all his examinations except the final one which entitles him to be put on the Medical Register. That is a very strong position to be taken up; but it is based on the law which this House approved of in 1886, and which has never been interfered with. So strong is that law that the General Medical Council in carrying it out have accused a medical man of infamous or unprofessional conduct for employing assistants who were notably good obstetricians because they were not technically qualified by law. I remember a practitioner of good repute having been brought before the General Medical Council for a comparatively trivial offence. He had bought a practice in the South of London, the vendor of which had had a son as assistant. That assistant had taken out all his lectures, had passed through the whole of his medical curriculum; he had attended many thousands of midwifery cases, and was so skilful a man that the people of the district preferred him to the new principal. But the General Medical Council, carrying out the law of 1886, regarded this man as an unqualified assistant, and had to tell his principal that if he continued to employ him in even the simplest cases of labour,
  1186
  they would be obliged to call him up for judgment for employing an unqualified assistant. This attitude was taken, not in the interest of the medical profession, but to save the public from the terrible disasters which have been experienced in the past from the practice of illegal and unqualified practitioners. The medical profession, through the General Medical Council, has been exceedingly jealous of maintaining a high standard in its members for the sake of the community at large.
  If this Bill were passed, what would happen? All tins structure winch has been erected with so much care to protect the public would fall to the ground. A general practitioner would—especially in populous centres—employ as assistant, instead of a man who has had five years study, who has all the qualifications for registratration as regards lectures, who has passed all his examinations and who has had experience of midwifery cases, a certificated midwife, and would put her into a branch practice, where she would do work which the General Medical Council would not allow a man to do who had twenty times her qualification, training and experience. That is an absolutely unjust and unfair position in which to put students of medicine, and unjust also to the poor of the country, who would have thrust upon them, especially in the manufacturing districts, midwifery practitioners who had only a very few months training. That is an evil so great that we ought to consider it very carefully before we put it on the Statute-book. I do not want to dwell on that point further than to show that, in trying to do good in one direction, we may be doing harm in another. In a case like this, where you have a very compassionate and a very benevolent class of people anxious to do good, there is a danger in making that attempt of opening the flood gates to an evil much greater than that which you are trying to arrest.
  I would point out also that the dangers to the public are not adequately met by this Bill. When we conjure up in our minds the evils that occur under the present system we naturally think of those cases, which are the exception, which come before the coroner; but probably for every one of

  1187
  these there are a score which are never made public, especially among the class of people whom this Bill will not touch. There are midwives in the country districts who do not put out any signboard, but who have their own connection, and who probably attend five labour cases for one by a midwife who has a brass plate on her door. The Bill will not touch these; they will continue to go on in practice, and the evils which form the great basis of this agitation will not be touched. The only effect of the Bill will be to produce a new class of registered practitioners. I am not at all sure that this system of registration is a good one. I remember that in 1887 or 1888 my hon. friend the Member for Northampton protested against the mania for registration, when some Registration Bill was under discussion. Although I supported that Bill, I am not at all sure now that there was not a large element of truth in my hon. friend's contention that registration is a poor protection for the public. What is the agitation in the medical profession? It is not for more registration, but that the penalties against practitioners should be imposed unless they are registered. This Bill does not impose any penalty against a person practising midwifery who is not registered. There is nothing in having a name on a register. You may put the register on church doors, but the public will not read the names on it. They send, when they require a midwife, for the person whose name is in their ears—the person about whom they have heard. Registration would therefore be little protection to the public. It would simply give a certain status to women who take out licences as midwives and make them a class in themselves, by enabling them to recover their fees.
  This is a bad Bill as compared with previous Bills introduced into the House of Commons, and I cannot support it, although I am entirely in favour of educating these women for the public good. My objection to the Bill is, first of all, that there is no definition of what a midwife is. We do not know what she is to be, or what her duties are to be. The only definition of a midwife which you find in the dictionary is that she is a woman who attends another woman in labour. But that is not sufficient, nor is
  1188
  the word abnormality put in the Bill as a limit to her functions. Abnormalities occur only when the midwife is called in, and are often so slight in the first instance that it requires a very experienced practitioner to detect them, and the life of a woman might be lost while a midwife was trying to find out whether there was any abnormality or not. There is also another defect in the Bill. There is no check whatever on the class who do the most harm. They will go on without any penalty or interference with practices which cost hundreds and thousands of lives every year in this country. When the comparatively limited class of midwives who hang out signs and put up brass door plates are brought under the Bill, they will be subjected to no adequate supervision. In the last Bill we had a very salutary provision that they should get an annual licence from the Local Authorities, so that every year they would have to go to the Medical Officer of Health of the district and get his licence to practise for another year on payment of a shilling. What an enormous advantage that would be in keeping people respectable, and in keeping their practice in the proper direction, and away from that class of trouble into which it may easily fall. One of the most unpleasant features of our civilisation is that some women having the diplomas referred to in this Bill or other diplomas are at present in practice in this country, and are undertaking that kind of practice which is infamous in the eyes of everybody. They advertise themselves as "ladies' friends" in the newspapers in our great public centres, and every one of these advertisements means a whole vista of horrors and immorality which we ought to be careful not to encourage. Then, again, we have this further fact. We have not now in this Bill the local control which we had under the old Bill through the Medical Officer of Health, and we have not got the protection of annual licences. All a woman has to do is to go down to any borough in England and say, "I am going to practise midwifery; here is my certificate." Is that sufficient supervision to keep her in that close, straight path which every professional person ought to take? There

  1189
  is another fact. There is no central medical central now of any kind, such as we fought for in the other Bill. The General Medical Council is practically struck out of the Bill, as it has been put under the Privy Council. That was not the advice of the Lord President of the Council when, in receiving a deputation in 1898, he distinctly stated that above all things the promoters of any measures of this kind should bring themselves into harmony with the General Medical Council; that it was the body to consult in the first instance, and the body to control by laws and regulations afterwards. That is all thrown to the winds. The General Medical Council are to be given the power to consider anything submitted to it by the Privy Council, but the Privy Council will have supreme power in connection with the practice of these women. The central authority to be constituted is, I am afraid, a weak authority. A central authority, consisting of three medical men, and some others added, and the representative of a body I have never heard ofߞthe Midwives Institute—which is not known to my profession, would not be strong enough to control these thousands of women all over the country. We want, in addition, a certain number of local bodies to control them, and above all, the assistance of the medical officers of health in counties, county boroughs, and even smaller areas, acting in direct connection with the central body, to control these women in their practice.
  We have, then, these great defects in the Bill as now drafted, not as compared with an ideal Bill, but as compared with previous measures submitted to the House. The Bill falls off in four or five great particulars, and the House ought to pause before passing the Second Reading. I believe the right course would be, if the Bill is read a second time, to refer it to a Select Committee. It is not a subject that can be adequately discussed in Committee of the whole House or in a Standing Committee, because it requires the deliberate consideration of men who have given years of thought to the subject, aided by others who bring common-sense business principles to the solution of State problems. If we have a Committee of that kind, I believe we
  1190
  might bring about a final solution of this difficult and intricate problem, a problem so difficult and intricate that I have seen thirty of the best medical members on the General Medical Council unable to arrive at a conclusion regarding it. If these thirty men of scientific distinction, all over the three Kingdoms, with all their technical knowledge, were unable to come to a satisfactory conclusion on some points, surely the House of Commons ought to pause before it takes up a subject of that kind, and attempts to settle it on a Wednesday afternoon by passing a measure which even its promoters admit is a defective measure, and one which does not rise to the seriousness of the occasion. This Bill is not big enough to deal with the problem. It is brought forward with the best motives by gentlemen animated by the highest desire to serve their fellow creatures; but they are grappling with a problem which is too big for them. It ought not to be in the hands of private Members at all. It ought to be taken up by the Government and considered from the point of view of statesmanship. The moment you pass this Bill you will have another Bill for the registration of other nurses, and if there is one evil greater than another it is the want of any such registration. We have scandals going on now because nurses are not under control. There is plenty of documentary evidence at the Home Office in support of the contention that some system of supervision is necessary; and, therefore, I say that this Bill ought to be submitted to a Select Committee in order to be properly shaped, or the Home Secretary ought to rise to the height of statesmanship, and say that this is part of a great scheme that must be placed before the House for dealing with the State control and registration of all nurses in attendance on the sick. If the Home Secretary would do that, he would confer a standing benefit on his time and generation, and would put his name to an Act which would benefit humanity all the world over.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHN-STONE: We have heard a vigorous speech from the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think he was justified in making a charge of inconsistency, because he himself has looked at this question from every conceivable point of view, but, as far as I

  1191
  know, he has not done anything towards solving the problem. The hon. Gentleman's speech was somewhat misleading. An innocent mind might perhaps be misled in some degree by it. If I had heard that speech and knew nothing else about this subject, I should have imagined that the Select Committee of 1893—the last Committee which considered this subject—had not dealt with it fully or completely, or had not heard all the evidence that might be brought before it. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman forgot in the heat of the moment that that Committee had before them all the evidence taken in 1892, and gave full and adequate discussion and consideration to this matter. I hardly think that any hon. Member would be justified in laying the Report of the Committee of 1892 before the House and keeping absolutely silent as to the Report and recommendations of the Committee of 1893. We have heard a great deal about the unqualified assistant who rendered such valuable services to the gentleman he was assisting, and whose knowledge of midwifery was learned in long years of practice. We were told that the practitioner was forbidden by the General Medical Council to avail himself of this gentleman's services because he had not passed the requisite examinations. The hon. Gentleman did not make it clear to the House that if the unqualified assistant had chosen to set up for himself there was no law to prevent him. I go further, and point out that the practice of midwifery has never been rendered illegal, and that the effect of the General Medical Act to which the hon. Member referred was that a person should not be entitled to be put upon the General Medical Register because he possessed only one of three qualifications now necessary. Previous to that, a man was entitled to be put on the Register if he qualified in either medicine, surgery, or midwifery, but from the date of the Act he was obliged to qualify himself in all three branches of the profession before he could be entitled to call himself a registered medical practitioner.
  Before coming to the general objections which have been raised to the Bill, I should like to make clear once for all to the House one other matter. We have heard from more than one speaker that this Bill is certainly defective in that it proposes a
  1192
  system of notification instead of the annual licence provided for by the Bill of 1900. The object of the annual licence was simply to secure the local supervision which we all believe to be important and necessary. But that licence would be a mere matter of form, a matter of course, and would be granted to any woman who had a diploma as midwife, without any question as to desert or merit. That system was objected to because of its inconvenience, since it involved the taking out of a licence in every area in which the midwife was practising or likely to practise. If we can effect the same result by a much less troublesome process, I think the House will see we are fully justified in doing so. Many of these women felt that by being compelled to take out a licence they were put on a somewhat low plane, as if they were in the same position as mere applicants for a gun licence or a dog licence. Therefore we tried to meet their objection by substituting a much less cumbersome and much less harassing procedure, viz., that they should give notice that they intend to practise in a certain area; and that would enable them to fall within the jurisdiction and supervision of the local authority of the district where they were carrying on their practice. There is nothing in the present Bill which will diminish the powers of local supervision which the local authorities were given by the Bill of 1900. These local authorities will still have the power to investigate charges of negligence, malpractice, or misconduct; and be able to keep their finger on every practitioner in their area, and, without being unfair to the women, to exercise that care and control which we believe necessary in the true interests of those who would profit by this measure.
  I pass on to deal very shortly indeed with a few of the objections which have been taken to the Bill on points of detail. It is objected that the Bill does not contain the provision of the Bill of 1900 which rendered unqualified practice illegal. This Bill gives to a person who needs the services of a midwife the power to discriminate between a woman qualified and a woman unqualified, but it does not go as far as the Bill of 1900, which forbade an unqualified woman from taking practice, under a penalty.

  1193
  For this we have ample precedent. In fact, the only measure of the kind which ever penalised unqualified practice was the Apothecaries Act of 1815. There is no such provision in the Medical Act of 1858, or in the Dental Surgeons Act. The principle of these Acts is that persons desirous of obtaining medical or dental assistance should be able to make a distinction between those who are duly qualified practitioners and those who are not, and to prevent men practising as qualified practitioners when they are not so qualified. These Bills never imposed a penalty on those who practised but were not qualified. In regard to that I do not think I can do better than quote the words of one who was well known and highly esteemed in this House, and who took a strong interest in this matter. Writing in the British Medical Journal in 1896, Sir William Priestly said—
  "I do not propose to impose penalties on women who attend others in their continement. This in remote districts would be to deprive the poor of help and comfort, imperfect though it be, in their time of trial. And it is quite certain that the House of Commons would listen to no such proposal. In England the principles of liberty are carried so far that men, and women too, insist on their right to employ quacks if they choose, and being treated medically even to their own hurt, if it so pleases them. The only possible limitation, therefore, is to insist that the public shall be able to distinguish between those who have been educated and registered and those who have not, and to impose penalties on those who pretend to be registered when they are not so. This is the principle embodied in the Medical Act concerning the medical practitioners."
  Upon these principles this House has invariably acted, and we cannot ask this House to go beyond them. It may not be the counsel of perfection which we might desire to see carried out, but we cannot go further in legislation at the present time, however much the General Medical Council may wish it. There is no breach of confidence in saying that we have received information from high quarters that it would be hopeless to attempt to carry any measure if it were encumbered with a clause actually penalising unqualified practitioners. When this fact was brought to my notice I had to consider whether we should bring in a Bill containing such a clause, and allow it to be dropped out in Committee. I thought, however, that
  1194
  the honest course in dealing with this House was to face the difficulty at once, and not bring forward a clause in the Bill which we did not think would get through the Committee stage. That is a reason for the change which the promotors of the Bill themselves regret.
  I am quite aware that the General Medical Councils object to the Bill, although we have sought to the utmost to agree with them. What they ask is that this should be made a stepping-stone towards rendering the practice of unqualified men illegal. That has been their aim all along, but the country is not prepared for it at the present time. We feel that if we can pass this Bill, even in its present state, we shall have gone a long way in dealing with a subject of great difficulty and perplexity, and at the same time of great necessity. In regard to the Bill itself, it aims at securing, first, the proper training of midwives, and secondly, that they should be properly supervised. For the training it is proposed to establish a Central Board, the majority of whom shall be registered medical men. This Board shall, by rule, prescribe both the course of training and the nature of the examinations which the midwives will have to pass. We consider it desirable that these things should be done by rule, but not by cast-iron regulation. We are treading in somewhat unknown paths, and until we have had experience of the working of this measure it is particularly undesirable to lay down hard and fast regulations that the women should have so many months training and no more. Then, we provide for local supervision by placing it in the hands of the County or Borough Councils. This is in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee of 1893, but we give them such ample powers of delegation that they will be able, in every instance, to form local committees, not constituted of their own members, but of those who are likely to be useful. If, as the hon. Member who spoke just before me stated, this is a grave problem, we must realise that that problem has to be dealt with by this House. Everybody who has brought in a Bill must have realised that the promoters can neither get nor give all they desire, for there are always difficulties in the way of doing this. My own attitude in

  1195
  this matter towards this Bill is that there are an immense number of minor details upon which I have very clear and definite views, andupon which those who speak with me also hold definite views, but as to which the House itself must decide. The House itself is the body which must decide between us, and we commit those details to the House with absolute confidence. Parliament must have the last word in all these matters. It may be that when we come to thresh out all the details of this measure we shall find that there are more points of agreement than of difference. In conclusion, let me give a very few figures which I think are extremely instructive, and I do not think I need to apologise for laying them before the House. I had given to me only yesterday a number of figures dealing with the deaths of women attended by trained midwives called out from some of our large hospital institutions. Trained nurses from eleven nursing institutions attended 13,712 cases, and the deaths were but seventeen in all. That is a death-rate of 1·23 per thousand, as compared with a general death-rate in maternity cases all over the country of 4·66 per thousand. Nothing more is, in my opinion, necessary to show the superiority of trained over untrained nurses, and I commend these figures to the consideration of the House.
  M. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool Scotland): I do not count myself among the opponents of this Bill, but I take up the attitude of a vigilant critic. I congratulate my hon. friend in charge of this Bill who has just addressed the House upon the tenacity, good feeling, and humour with which he has conducted this campaign for many years. Nobody can deny that there is a great evil to be dealt with. The figures which my hon. friend who has just spoken has given to the House in his eloquent appeal are strikingly tragic and unanswerable. I hope, however, that the House will quite understand that I do not stand up here to lay down that the present system should be maintained or that it does not require great and prompt reform. I hope that is clearly understood in regard to my position with reference to this Bill. We who are opposed to this measure admit the
  1196
  evil, we admit its existence and magnitude, and above all we admit the undeniable feelings of humanity and the desire to improve the lot of the poor which underlie the motives of this Bill. I do not think there was ever a Bill introduced into this House which had a larger number of kindly men and women in its favour. What we ask the House to consider, and what we ask the promoters of this Bill seriously to consider, is whether the remedy which they propose to apply to this admitted evil is not such as will tend to aggravate instead of diminish the evil. I object in principle to the multiplication of registered bodies, and I object to any "ring" or fence to protect any class of the community from open competition. I am so strongly in favour of that principle that I look with extreme suspicion upon every Bill which is brought in the object of which is to increase the number of persons who can practise a certain trade or profession under the certificate of a certain society. My objection is that no cry has led to more unwise legislation in the past than the cry which is summarised in the words "Something must be done." My hon. friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire said that "Something must be done," and so did some other other hon. Members. That is a statement which I will not accept unless I know the proposal is something which is calculated to improve matters and reduce the evil complained of. It is all very well to say "Something must be done," but we must not, under the name of progress, adopt a retrogressive step. We must not allow women to have powers of practising medicine under less severe safeguards and guarantees than are applied to men. My hon. friend has brought before the House, in a very remarkable and well-informed speech, the remarkable fact that all the progress of medical education, especially with regard to midwifery, has been in the direction of strengthening and making more vigorous the education of the persons engaged in it. When I was at college, three years were held to be sufficient to acquire a sufficient medical education for men to practise the medical profession, and now five years is practically the normal time. This very subject of midwifery used to be considered so inferior and easy a portion of the profession that a man could practise

  1197
  it who was considered to be no good for any other department of medicine, because the could practise it with an inferior qualification. That was an absurd opinion, which has been abandoned, and midwifery is now regarded as one of the most complex and difficult duties of the medical man, upon which he requires the severest kind of training. My hon. friend first laid down his own experience, and then he laid down a doctrine. My hon. friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire said that when he was a young doctor the attendance upon six cases were held to be sufficient to qualify a man to practice midwifery. Was there ever a more scandalous exposure of the inefficiency of medical education than such a statement as that?
  DR. FARQUHARSON: May I ask my hon. friend if it is any better now?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: As a matter of fact, it is better, although I am not going to say that it is much better. I understand that twenty cases are required now instead of six, but I do not think that that is a very great improvement. But is my hon. friend arguing that because the education of men with regard to midwifery is still inferior, we are going to make it any better by accepting these low qualifications for women? I say that the whole trend of medical education has been to increase the difficulty of men obtaining the necessary qualifications to practise midwifery. Under these circumstances, are we going to take a retrograde step with regard to women? Is this House to be asked to allow women to practise medicine under less safeguards than are applied to men? My hon. friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire said that three months training was enough to qualify a woman to practise midwifery, but what is there in this Bill about either three or six months training? There is nothing in this Bill to prevent the new Board laying down that a woman should be qualified in three months. There is nothing about the amount of training required; therefore I am entitled to say that we have a right to demand from the promoters of this Bill that they should deal with this question affirmatively and not negatively, and that there should be some safeguard which will insist upon
  1198
  the adequate training of women. My hon. friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire gave us a description of the practice of midwifery, and he said it was an art so simple that any woman could learn it in two or three months. I would like to ask the hon. Member for Horsham if it is his opinion that a woman would be competent and qualified to practise midwifery after two months training? I notice that while I am putting this question the hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham adopts an old Parliamentary practice of indulging in earnest conversation with another hon. Member sitting near him.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: If the hon. Member will repeat his Question I will answer it.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORrepeated his Question.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: That would entirely depend upon the woman. I prefer to trust the judgment of the Central Midwives Board much more than the judgment of the hon. Member or of myself.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The House has heard this incident, and I hold that it justifies my hon. friend below me and myself in looking with suspicion on this Bill lest there should not be proper precautions taken for that thorough education of women which is held on all sides to be absolutely necessary to give them the right to practise midwifery. I would like the House to bear with me for a few moments while I say something about other countries. The hon. Member for Knutsford said they were adopting in this Bill the practice of foreign countries.
  MR. DE TATTON EGERTON: I did not say this was the practice of foreign countries. I simply said that in other countries the registration of midwives had taken place nearly a century ago.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: What happens in France? The system in operation there is an excellent one. When a woman applies for a certificate as a midwife in France she has to show that she

  1199
  has gone through two years training, and she has also to show that one of those two years has been spent at a general school of medicine under a proper medical authority. I am not defending the whole provisions of the French law, but it lays down the particular things that a midwife can do and the particular things she cannot do. The French law does not leave this an open and vague question, but it prescribes the use of instruments and goes into the question of the drugs she may apply in the case of a confinement; in other words, it takes care that if you give a certificate to a midwife she shall deserve it by proper, an adequate, and lengthy training in the profession she wishes to adopt. That is a practice which I think it would be wise to follow in this country.
  I come to the last refuge of my hon. friend. He says that there is a competent Board set up under this Bill which can establish any rules it likes, and he argues that we shall be perfectly safe in leaving the matter to this Board. But that depends altogether upon the composition of the Board. A Board that has these extraordinary powers ought to be a very strong one indeed. But is it a strong Board? I think this is largely a question of nursing, and I believe it is more a question of nursing than of medicine. There is nothing in regard to the treatment of the sick which has shown such extraordinary improvement as the question of nursing. The nurse of today is not merely different, but she is a perfect transformation, from the nurse of the days when Dickens created his immortal character of Sarah Gamp. Nursing has now become not only the occupation of poor people, but it has been undertaken by many of the highest ladies of the land, who have shown themselves only too ready to take their share in that work. And how has this great change been brought about? I maintain that the Royal British Nurses Institution has done more to produce that wonderful and beneficent reformation and revolution in nursing than anybody else. It is a chartered body, under the control of the greatest and ablest men in the country, and with the exception of a few pounds spent upon clerical work the work of the Association is carried on
  1200
  without a penny of expense. What has this Institution done? It has registered nurses, and, in fact, created a new body of nurses, who, in a great many difficult cases, do far more to procure the recovery of a patient than the medical man who comes in merely for a quarter of an hour every day. I have here a letter from the hon. Secretary of this body, and he is also the resident medical officer of the Middlesex Hospital. This gentleman, who acts as the hon. Secretary of the Royal British Nurses Institution, without fee or reward, objects not to the principle but to the details of this Bill. He puts forward as his objection to this Bill that it will do a great deal to undo the work of the Royal British Nurses Institution. He says that this Institution has for many years worked very hard to secure the efficient education and training of nurses, and has met with the most encouraging success not only in this country but also in the Colonies. He further states that with regard to this Bill he is afraid that it will lower the standard which the Institution has adopted for nurses. Now, what is the standard of the Royal British Nurses Institution? There is no woman gets a position on the register of this Institution unless she has had between two or three years training in a hospital, and they hold that when she has had that training she is in a perfectly competent position to do the work. My hon. friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire may be right in the description he gave of the mysteries of this particular branch of the medical profession, but it is a well known fact that unless a nurse thoroughly understands aseptic principles she is very likely to bring on all those diseases which are so frequent in maternity cases. Therefore, if you want a good and competent midwife, you must see that she is a good nurse, and you cannot get a good nurse under the conditions laid down in this Bill. I earnestly beg my hon. friend in the further stages of this Bill to take this matter seriously into account and help us by insisting upon adequate precautions being taken to see that those who are going to be employed in this important profession shall have proper and adequate training.
  I have spoken of the work of the Royal British Nurses Institution, which has revolutionised nursing in this country.

  1201
  Will it be believed that this great nursing Institution has no representative upon the Board which is set up by this Bill, which has to deal with a subject which, after all, is mainly a question of nursing? I see that there are to be representatives on the Board from the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Physicians, and the Apothecaries Society, and there is also to be some representation given to the Incorporated Midwives Institution. I say that my friend was disentitled to make the statement he did make on the Bill. He described this as a debate in Committee, and not on the Second Reading of the Bill. This is a Bill with the principle of which we are all agreed. It is the manner in which the principle is carried out—in other words, the details of the Bill we have to discuss, instead of leaving that to another stage. Everything depends on whether the midwife is to receive two months or two years training, and therefore I am entitled even on the Second Reading to criticise the composition of the Board. I put again a question to my lion, friend, who has something of the wisdom of the serpent, as well as the gentleness of the dove, in dealing with this question—I ask him where he discovered the Incorporated Midwives Institute, which is to nominate one of the people who are to decide upon the qualifications of midwives. I do not know whether such an Institution exists, but I would call the attention of the House to the extraordinary fact that the greatest nursing institution in the world is omitted from the nomination, while a nameless, if not imaginary, and certainly an inferior body is given the right to nominate a member. Another point to which I wish to refer is the absence of the penal clause. I must say that I sympathise to some extent with my hon. friend on this point. I think there would be some difficulty in the penal clause, which would immediately deprive of employment thousands of women who have been allowed for years to practise midwifery. I have never favoured legislation which allows people to enter on any occupation whatever, under the protection of the law, and then proposes to throw them out on the street, because of a change in the law. He has put in
  1202
  the Obstetrical Society of London, whose certificate would protect women practising midwifery. I am told that the certificates of this body are given without the adequate instruction these women ought to get. I thank the House for listening to the detailed criticism of the Bill I have offered.
  SIR SAVILE CKOSSLEY (Halifax)said he had no intention of detaining the House more than a few minutes. He was very glad the hon. Member who had just spoken was in favour of the main principles of the Bill, though he was against some details of it. During the last fifteen or sixteen years he had had some connection with the hospitals of London, and he had the honour to he Chairman of the Hospital Saturday Fund, which was the organisation formed by the working classes of London to collect for the London Hospitals. He was informed by the Fund officials that although the matter had not been brought before them, the vast majority being working men of London were in favour of the Bill, and hoped to see it carried out. It must be quite clear to everyone that there were many cases where it was impossible to obtain the services of a surgeon or doctor on account of the expense, and also on account of the fact that many services performed by midwives could not be performed by doctors. The care of the children and the care of the mother was undertaken by midwives, at the present time, in many cases where a doctor would cost too much. What the poor classes of London required, so far as he knew them, was a midwife who was competent to know when to send for a medical man, and when not to send for him. It might not be generally known that puerperal fever had been entirely abolished, or had ceased to exist, in all the London hospitals. There had been practically no cases of this type of fever for some time past, but there had been many cases in the country which might be taken to prove clearly that unskilled midwives, or women acting as midwives, were largely answerable for the deaths which occurred. In a very good article on the subject, Dr. Cullingworth, obstetric physician to St. Thomas's Hospital, said—
  "The Medical Officer of Health for Glamorganshire, Dr. Williams, recently published a paper, illustrated by maps, showing the relative death-rate from puerperal fever in the various districts and counties of England and Wales.

  1203
  With regard to Wales, Dr. Williams, knowing the district, was able to give some particularly valuable information. He stated that puerperal fever chiefly prevailed, not in the towns, where doctors and trained midwives were abundant, but in the hilly districts and mining villages, where the confinements are, for the most part, attended by unskilled and ignorant women, who indeed call themselves midwives, and systematically act as such, but who have had absolutely no training, and whose only qualification usually was that they are themselves mothers."
  It would appear to everyone that the training, such as was advocated by the last speaker, would be highly desirable—a training, lasting not two months, or some short period of that sort, but two years. But they could not go such lengths as that. Every Member of the House knew that if such a regulation had been inserted in the Bill, it would have been absolutely impossible to carry it out. Although, under the present system, improvement had been made in the hospitals in the treatment of puerperal fever, puerperal fever itself had increased instead of decreased. In 1847 there were 748 deaths from that disease, being an average of 1.5 per thousand births. From 1847 to 1853 the figures showed the average number of deaths per thousand births was under two per cent. But from 1882 to 1895 the figures were very close on three per cent., showing that with all the advancement of medical science, the deaths from this terrible cause—a cause which everyone knew might be entirely avoided—had increased very largely. At that late hour of the evening he would not detain the House further. He would only say that he hoped the Bill would be allowed to go to a Second Reading without a division. He was sure it was one which would commend itself to all who were interested in the welfare of the working classes, and he hoped the House would look at it from that point of view, and not from the point of view of any vested interests or any sort of that kind.
  SIR MICHAEL FOSTER (London University): I have listened with much interest to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, but my pleasure in listening to his speech was mixed with alarm, because I felt that if he were right I had wholly misconceived the purpose of the Bill. May I state what I believe to be the purpose of the Bill? Child-birth is sometimes spoken of as a
  1204
  travail. And it may be likened to a journey through which one may go with the ordinary discomforts of travel, but a journey on which, at any moment, one may be placed in the utmost peril to life. Those who can afford it are able to carry a doctor with them on their journey, so that he may be there whenever an accident occurs. The poor cannot do that; and I take it that the Bill is in the interest of the poor, is in order that a poor woman may carry with her on the journey so full of danger, not a doctor, but one who knows when the doctor should be sent for. I venture to think that the lion. Member opposite has somewhat confounded the words "midwife" and "midwifery." A midwife simply means a person who can take charge of an ordinary child-birth; midwifery means all that science and art can bring to bear on the various events and accidents which take place or may take place in child-birth. If I understand the Bill, it is simply to arrange that the public may know that there are special nurses, different from the ordinary trained nurses, women whose qualifications I take to be mainly these three. First, to know when to send for the doctor; second, to be cleanly, and, what is more important, to know what cleanliness means; and, third, never to drink. My interpretation of the Bill is that it simply demands this; and I should look with terror on any Bill which demands two or three years training in an obstetric school. What we want to get is a better Mrs. Gamp. It is far better for the House to throw itself upon the good feeling and the knowledge of the people than to trust to the enforcement of penal clauses. When the people know that Mrs. Clamp can be trusted, and that Mrs. Harris cannot be trusted, even if Mrs. Gamp charges Is. more than Mrs. Harris, I venture to say that Mrs. Gamp will prosper and Mrs. Harris will disappear, because she will be starved out of existence. There are, undoubtedly, several points in the Bill which need amendment, but I have hope, and, indeed, confidence, that this House will, at all events, give the measure a Second Reading, leaving any improvements which may be desirable to be effected in the Committee.
  MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea): There is not much more to be said

  1205
  in support of the Second Reading of the Bill after the very weighty speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House. I represent what is known as a working class constituency, and any man who lives in a big city, and who knows the short and simple annals of the poor, especially of women folk, or who is a Member either of this House or of a municipal body, is soon brought into contact with the facts of the domestic life of the poor, which are the underlying foundations of this Bill. I have discussed this question with the doctors in my district, and they have asked me to support the Bill, and so have also the sisterhood of nurses in my constituency. If there is any fear in the minds of Members in this House that this Bill might, lead to a diminution in the standard of medical education, or to laxity in the practice of male practitioners, I venture to say that that question should be left to the doctors themselves, who are, in this matter, thoroughly well qualified to look after themselves.
  If the hon. Member for the Scotland Division will allow me, I would just like to traverse one or two of the arguments he used. He admitted the evils with which this Bill deals, and he also admired the motives of kindly sympathy and humanitarianism which prompt those who are in favour of the Bill, but he went on to say that the remedy proposed for the evils with which the Bill deals must be adequate. However, he did not suggest the remedy himself, although, curiously enough, he indirectly suggested a very strong practical remedy, which is only in modification of some of the details of the Bill. He eulogised nurses, and in that we are all agreed. There is no comparison between the nurses of to-day and those of twenty, or even ten years ago. But how has that change been brought about? By precisely the same provision of training, examination and registration which this Bill will secure to the Sarah Gamps and Mistress Harrises of the future. The hon. Member said he hated registration where unnecessary. So do I, and for that reason I opposed the Plumbers Registration Bill and other Bills of a like nature. But if it is necessary to register doctors, to educate
  1206
  them, and to exalt, as I am glad to say the doctors are doing, the standard of their qualifications, then surely sick-nurses and midwives ought to be highly trained and registered. The doctors must depend on the midwives for the cleanliness and care of the patient. When the hon. Member for the Scotland Division, with that language which sometimes charms the House, spoke about six cases of midwifery qualifying a midwife, and rather ridiculed such a qualification, he seemed to think that that was an argument against the Bill, because a doctor had to attend before qualification twenty cases instead of six. But anyone knows that six bad midwifery cases are of more value, so far as training is concerned, than 120 or 150 cases of natural labour.
  I can only say that if this Bill had been passed, the career of a woman in my parish would have been prevented. The woman is dead now, and therefore I may refer to her without impropriety. We have had in London for far too long unqualified midwives, dirty and drunken, who trade on the poverty of the poor, who are pests to good doctors, and a curse to people to whom they administer so-called help. Apart from being dirty, untidy and drunken, many of them practise abortion. The woman I referred to was the celebrated Mistress Barinbold, who for many years was the pest of my own district. Had that woman been subjected to the conditions of this Bill, she would soon have been found out, and she would have been brought before the local Board and suspended. Although under suspicion of the authorities, she was able to pursue her mischievous course for many years, and I am sorry to say the doctors in the neighbourhood believe that she was responsible for the death of many children who might have lived, and of many mothers. The hon. Member for Scotland Division has an exalted love for the medical profession. I have the same, but the hon. Member stood up for the very narrowest views of the medical profession. For myself, I stand up for the doctors, for I believe that they do for the help of the poor more unpaid work than any other profession. The average doctor is like the average Bob Sawyer in his sympathy with the poor in our large cities; and I believe the doctors do not want the support which the opponents

  1207
  of this Bill are giving them. If this Bill is passed, and we had qualified midwives and nurses, many children would be born into the world better children, and hundreds and thousands of poor women would be saved untold suffering and misery. All the objections which have been stated to the Bill are objections to details which can be altered, if necessary, in Committee. I am quite content to leave the conditions of the training of midwives to a Board composed of either surgeons or physicians. It is because I believe this Bill will be a boon and an immense advantage to the poor of London and other large cities that I shall follow the excellent example shown by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and the hon. Member for the London University, and support the Bill in the hope that it may be placed on the Statute-book.
  THE. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): I do not suppose it is necessary for me to occupy the attention of the House for more than a few minutes or to say much in support of this Bill. I think there is a general consensus of opinion in all parts of the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. The only Member who has attacked the Bill root and branch was the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division, who, adopting the familiar mode of getting a subject shelved, asked for more inquiry before we deal with this subject. The hon. Member, however, answered himself when he told the House that there had been inquiry after inquiry, and Bill upon Bill, on this particular subject, and that hitherto we had never got beyond inquiry, and that no Bill on the subject had ever become an Act of Parliament. Why is it that a principle on which we are all agreed has not yet got to the stage of effective legislation? It is because a certain number of gentlemen, who are not opposed to a change in the law, desire much more than anything that is suggested in this Bill. They want more inquiry in order to make the Bill more drastic, comprehensive, and complete. I venture to say that these are the wrong lines altogether to go upon in this matter. Everyone is agreed that great evils exist, and this is a modest Bill to deal with these evils. It proposes
  1208
  to place at the service of women, who, require the attendance of someone to help them at a time of peril, the means of judging whether or not the person they are compelled to call in is qualified and trustworthy in their time of difficulty. I know there are some people who desire to go very much further than that, and who wish that the person called in should have gone through a very long course of training. But that would mean that in a large number of towns and villages throughout the country the poor would be deprived of this assistance. They would not be able to avail themselves of the assistance of anyone but a medical man, who would be beyond the reach of many, and who, possibly, would not be within call when wanted. It must be remembered that more than expert knowledge is required, and to pass a measure which would be so drastic as to prevent people being able to avail themselves of assistance in time of need would, in my opinion, be most unfortunate.
  There are, no doubt, matters of detail in regard to the Bill which may very well be considered in Committee, but there are two perils which the House, if they wish this Bill to be rendered effective, will, I trust, avoid. One is the peril of a Select Committee, which the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division pressed upon the House. It may be taken for granted that a Select Committee will, at any rate for this session, be the grave of the Bill. There is another peril, and that is the well-meaning effort to make this Bill stronger, and to alter it from the simple Bill it is to one more complex. That again, in my opinion, will prove the grave of this measure. We have in this Bill a simple remedy, nothing heroic, for what everybody admits to be a great evil. Do not let us refuse to take this remedy because it does not go the whole length some of us desire. It has been very carefully considered by my hon. friend, who has devoted so much time and attention to it, and by a large number of ladies and gentlemen who have taken the greatest interest in this matter for many years. All of them desire that it should pass, though, perhaps, the measure does not go as far as some of them would like. I hope, therefore, that

  1209
  the House will not only give the Bill a Second Reading, but will send it to a tribunal which will deal with it without delay, and enable it to be passed into law in the present session.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. CAINE (Cornwall, Camborne): I do not intend to make a speech, but it will greatly help the promoters of this Bill in the division if they can make it clear what "The Incorporated Midwives Institute" really is. I do not know this Institute; I do not know even if it exists. I asked several hon. Members about it, but could obtain no information. It will greatly help if the hon. Member responsible for the Bill will let us know where or what it is.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I happen to know that the body has had a most useful existence for a considerable number of years, and the hon. Member may be quite certain that they would not have got a charter of incorporation unless they were a responsible body, doing good work under a responsible government. It is really a question for the Committee, and I will undertake to supply them with the necessary information.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, &c."—(Mr. Heywood Johnstone.)
  *SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to move an Amendment, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. In doing so I should like to say, in answer to the hon. Member for Horsham, that when I referred to the Select Committee of 1892, I quite forgot for the moment the Select Committee of 1893, which reported at length. That Report, however, is now nearly nine years old, and
  1210
  in that time there has accumulated a great deal of material for reconsideration.
  SIR JOHN TUBEformally seconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words 'the Standing Committee on Law, &c.,' and insert the words 'a Select Committee.'"—(Sir Walter Forster.)
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment. I can say for myself, and on behalf of my hon. friends, that we entirely repudiate the idea which has been put forward by the Home Secretary that we want to use a Select Committee as a means of killing the Bill. I did not challenge the Second Reading of this Bill; I stated quite frankly I was in favour of its principle, and certainly I have no intention of considering the Bill in anything like a spirit of malignity. But I think it is a Bill of such a complex character as to require most careful consideration. I have had experience in Grand Committees on this Bill before, and no hon. Member has, as we would say in Ireland, a more soothing manner than the hon. Member for Horsham; but he is one of the most uncompromising and unyielding supporters of the Bill. Whenever we endeavoured to get any concession from him he was always able to execute that most difficult Parliamentary manœuvre of giving a promise to the ear, while leaving himself at perfect liberty to break it in spirit. I do not, of course, impugn the hon Gentleman's good faith, but he is one of these dangerous genial fanatics who are the most difficult to deal with, and I am sure that, with the best intentions in the world, he has got this Bill so on his mind that he regards everyone who utters any criticism on it as almost breaking some sacred or divine law; and we have very little chance of getting from him that serious consideration of details if he has the rapid and guillotine machinery of a Grand Committee. I assure him that a Select Committee would not be against the final passage of the Bill. No man would oppose the Bill passing into law this session. I agree with my hon. friend that it is full time this question was settled. I do not at all dispute that the question has been too long before Parliament, and certainly I have no idea whatever of using the

  1211
  machinery of a Select Committee for any purpose than for a more elaborate and critical examination than would be possible in the Grand Committee.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I have served on several Select Committees to consider Bills, and as far as I am aware no single one of them ever reached the Statute-book. I am not going to be led away by any Amendment of this kind, but I would ask my hon. friend to give us his valuable assistance on the Standing Committee on Law.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: Although I have criticised this Bill, I cannot support the proposal to refer it to a Select Committee. This is a Bill as to the main principles of which we are all more or less agreed. We differ only on details, and that being so, a Standing Committee is precisely the Committee to deal with it. Every opportunity will be given for threshing out the Bill in the Standing Committee, and then it will be sent back to the House.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, &c.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE (Antrim, N.): I am aware that the time at the disposal of the House is now very short, but I am sure anyone studying the provisions of the Bill which I now move, must see that it is a non-contentious measure and that it introduces no new principle. It only proposes to remove certain defects which have been found by practical experience to exist in an administration of the Irish Labourers Acts. I propose, therefore, very briefly to state its objects. The first, section will only apply to a limited part of the country. The House is probably aware that a sum of £40,000
  1212
  has, since 1891, been annually granted to various rural sanitary authorities in Ireland for the purposes of the Labourers Acts, and it is remarkable that although this money comes from the Government, and is practically a free gift, yet in certain parts the rural authorities have been unwilling to utilise the grant, with the result that large arrears have been accumulating to the credit of several counties. In one county the amount is £9,000 and in another £8,000. It seemed, therefore, to those who have considered this matter, that if some of those who are more interested in the carrying out of the Acts were put on these rural authorities to see that this money was spent, it would be a great advantage. The added members might be agricultural labourers themselves, for whose benefit the Acts were passed. That is the effect of the first clause. The next two clauses make it easier for a labourer to get a representation signed for the putting in force of the provision of the Acts. As the House is probably aware, at present he must have twelve signatories to his representation. In many places it. is difficult to find twelve labourers who are free to sign, or are perhaps able to read or write, and the result is that a labourer very often has to go to a ratepayer, and we know from experience that it is very difficult to get a ratepayer to sign anything which would facilitate a labourer putting the Acts into force. It is proposed in this Bill to allow a labourer to initiate proceedings by a representation signed by six instead of twelve. The next section, which introduces new but much needed matter, is this; where a labourer has signed a representation it has happened that the first act of his employer is to put him out of his house, most of these tenements being weekly tenements. We propose that when a labourer has made a representation he shall not be disturbed until the rural authority has considered whether he should have a new house or not, and if the rural authority decide that he should have a new house, he shall not be disturbed until the new house is built —on two conditions, that there is no interference with the demesne lands, and secondly, that he shall continue to pay whatever rent he was under at the date of the representation. Finally, we

  1213
  have found that in practical working the definition which at present exists of an agricultural labourer is too small. An agricultural labourer at the present moment means a weaver, who does not do any agricultural work at all, or a fisherman, who may do some agricultural work, but a large class of people are left out who ought to be included. Surface-men and roadmen are left out, and they are just as entitled to live in decent houses as the ordinary agricultural labourer working in the fields. Hon. Members will see that it is not unreasonable that the definition should be extended. I know it is impossible to have a full discussion now, but I do not think that hon Members will find that there is anything in this Bill which they can object to as a matter of principle. I understand that the members of the Government will not be averse to the Bill if it gets a Second Reading; and I would suggest that any matters of difference between us might be settled in one of the Standing Committees. Three Labourers Bills were brought in by hon. Gentlemen opposite and three by my hon. friends. The labourers have benefited by each of them, but they were only passed by fighting out our minor differences in that way. I have received resolutions from labourers' associations expressing approval of the Bill, and I hope hon. Members will see their way to reserve our debating ground for upstairs, and give the Bill a Second Reading now.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): During the course of last session a Bill was introduced by an hon. Member opposite dealing with this labourers question, which contained a great deal I could not approve of, but I stated my intention of voting for the Second Reading, trusting to be able to remove what I objected to in Committee. My feeling in regard to this labourers question is this, that the state of things is so bad that any hon. Member takes a great responsibility in opposing anything designed to remedy it, and I for one am not prepared to take such responsibility. But I wish to state with all brevity that
  1214
  this is rather a singular Bill. Its effective clauses are 1 and 3. All the others may be taken for granted, but clauses 1 and 3 are founded on singular principles. The hon. and learned Member who introduced the Bill has made it quite clear that it has been introduced because of an Ulster difficulty. There is no cash in hand in any of the southern counties, because the authorities elected to work the Acts have worked them. The difficulty arises, let it be distinctly stated, from the unwillingness of certain Ulster constituencies to apply the Labourers Acts, and therefore money has accumulated. It is very well known that candidates for rural district councils have more or less humbugged the people. That is not confined to rural councils. It is quite true, and perfectly well known, that members of rural councils have pledged themselves to put these Acts into operation, but they have not done it. But that is not confined to rural district councils. There are other people who have given pledges to their constituents to do certain great things—
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: To support the Government.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To support the Government seems now to be regarded as a moral law. What I say is that, just as in the case of rural councillors who have pledged themselves to put the Labourers Acts into operation and have broken their pledge, so other gentlemen have given pledges and have not kept them. What is the proposal now brought forward to deal with this difficulty—and it is a real difficulty in Ulster? There is no doubt that the Acts cannot be put into operation while the present rural district councillors hold the field. What is the remedy this Bill proposes I This Bill, introduced at five o'clock on a Wednesday afternoon, proposes to alter the provisions of the Local Government Act. When that Act was passed it provided that three members of the old Grand Jury should be incorporated in each county council, but only for three years. This Bill now proposes to introduce into a rural district council of forty members, three members to be selected by the Local Government Board, and

  1215
  with that new machinery it is hoped that this measure will work smoothly. Was there ever a more monstrous proposal? If forty members are opposed to the Acts, how are three members selected by the Local Government Board to put them into operation? This proposal is opposed to the whole principle of representative government, and if the labourers cannot get the Acts put into operation by their votes, then we shall have to consider the whole question. The Local Government Board has most serious work on hand as it is, in bringing local government into operation in Ireland. That work is delayed by collisions with local authorities, and to propose now that three members to be nominated by the Board should influence or overrule a rural district council in the expenditure of public money, is a grave proposal, requiring a great deal more debate than can now be given to it. It may be necessary to do something to get these Acts put into operation, but I should be very much surprised if the Government would assent to any such principle. The hon. and learned Member pledged the Government in advance, but if the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland rises and informs the electors of Ulster that they are going to be overruled in this matter by a selection of the Local Government Board, if he takes responsibility for that, then the House may well allow it to pass. Clause 3 is another clause which contains a very singular proposal. It is as to the character of the representation to be made to the rural authority. The law at present requires twelve names; but the Bill proposes that six men can sign a representation, and that it is sufficient if these men are within the definition of an agricultural labourer as defined in the Bill. I have laid it down before now that these Acts ought not to be confined to mere agricultural labourers, arid that a labourer in a town who is badly housed has a right to get the same treatment as an agricultural labourer; but this Bill proposes that six men who need not be rated at all—the only test required being that they shall have worked in the district for six weeks during the year—can sign the representation, and practically compel the expenditure of public money. Men may be brought from the ends of the earth for the purpose; and I say that is
  1216
  a new principle to introduce into legislation by this House. I know the necessities of hon. Members from Ulster, but I do not know that the House is exactly under the same kind of necessity as to cause them to outrage all ordinary principles in dealing with this question. These are two matters on which I should like the opinion of the Irish Attorney General. I have stated that I think these Acts are in such a terrible condition, and the state of the labourers is so deplorable in Ulster, that I will not take the responsibility of opposing any Bill which proposes to do anything in the desired direction.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.): You are doing your very best to oppose it.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Surely it has not come to this—that the hon. Member for South Belfast maintains that Bills should pass without discussion. Surely we have not come to that state of coercion yet, although we may come to it. We have not come to that pass in Ulster yet, as the hon. Member found out the other day. If the Government take the responsibility for it, then, so far as I am concerned, the Bill may pass, but I protest against overruling local authorities charged with the working of such measures, by men nominated by a body which is fast forfeiting the confidence of the people of Ireland. I should also like to ask my right hon. friend whether he approves of the proposal in the Bill that a man who has worked for six weeks in a locality has a right to demand that a cottage should be erected at the expense of the ratepayers. These are the two questions I would wish settled, and if the Government take the responsibility for the Bill, so far as I am concerned, it may pass.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): I think probably it will be for the convenience of the House if I at once state in a few words what exactly is the attitude of the Government with reference to this Bill. I know that my hon. and learned friend has long taken a great interest in this question, but I certainly cannot congratulate him now on the mode in which he has drafted his proposals. He attempts to effect

  1217
  three objects. He desires first to provide the machinery by which local authorities, especially in the North of Ireland, shall not be permitted, while a vast amount of money is accumulating under Section 5 of the Land Act of 1891, to do anything whatever to put in force the Labourers Acts, no matter how much they may be required in the locality. An Amendment is certainly desired in the law to effect that purpose, and I think my hon. and learned friend aims, at all events, in providing it, but I do not think that the remedy he has proposed is positively the best. The description given of it, however, by my hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone is very much to be traversed. He says that the local authorities are to be overriden by three members nominated by the much abused Local Government Board.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Suppose there is a close division, the three members might be able to overrule the others.
  MR. ATKINSON: That would be a very unusual thing, and from what I know of the North of Ireland, no three persons nominated by any Board could overrule Northern members who did not want to spend money. I do not think that the machinery proposed by my hon. and learned friend is the best, but I do think that it is desirable that some remedy and some machinery should be provided. My hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone has forgotten what is the condition of the law at present. Owing to the reluctance of some of the local authorities in the north of Ireland to put in force these Labourers Acts in 1891, the then Government introduced a Bill providing that if they did not entertain or refuse an application made to them to put in force the Labourers Acts, recommendations might be made to the Local Government Board that the Local Government Board would send down an inspector to inquire into the facts, and if he came to the conclusion that the accusation against the local authority was well founded, and that they were not putting in force the Acts, the Board could supersede the local authority altogether. That is a complete overthrow of their authority.
  MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.): It is a retrograde step.
  MR. ATKINSON: At all events, the first object of the hon. and learned Gentleman is a good object. I could not at all bind the Government to approve of the machinery he has proposed, but I think it desirable that some remedy and some machinery should be provided. The next object my hon. and learned friend aims at is a good one also, but here again I think he has drafted his clause too widely. It is the fact, undoubtedly, that at present very often when a labourer signs an application to have a cottage put up, the farmer on whose farm it is to be erected immediately turns him out. ["No," and "Not in the South of Ireland."] The South of Ireland, think, is applying the Act rather too widely. Undoubtedly such a course does exist, though I do not think it exists in many places. It is very unjust and oppressive, and no doubt some machinery should be devised whereby a tenant, if he seeks to have the Labourers Acts put into force in regard to himself, should not be turned on the world. But I think my hon. and learned friend has not sufficiently safeguarded his clause in this respect. The third object of my hon. and learned friend is to so widen the definition of an agricultural labourer that it shall include labourers who, though not engaged in the business of agriculture, are engaged in businesses that are ancillary to, and closely connected with, agriculture. For instance, it is a ridiculous thing that the man who shoes horses for a plough is not an agricultural labourer within the meaning of the Act, while the man who drives them is. In rural districts I think it is desirable to extend the definition so as to include such labourers as these; but here again, my hon. and learned friend unnecessarily extends it, and, by Ids definition, would enable those living in towns who are really not engaged in any occupation ancillary to agriculture to get houses put up for them at the expense of the ratepayers. It may be that it is desirable—I daresay it is—to extend the provisions of the Housing of the Working Classes Act to provide better tenements for men who live in towns, but it is not fair to throw upon the rural authority the expense of providing houses for people living in the country who are really not engaged in

  1219
  any occupation at all ancillary to agriculture. The Government recognise that these three objects are good objects, which ought to be given effect to, and, therefore, do not feel justified in opposing the Second Reading of the Bill. At the same time, I warn my hon. and learned friend that, if the Bill goes to a Committee, the Government will endeavour to introduce clauses to restrict its operations and improve the machinery.
  MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.): The speech of the Attorney General demonstrates that it is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman, as representing the Irish Government, to bring in an adequate measure for dealing with this matter. There is no doubt that the Labourers Acts have been a failure from one cause or another in the North of Ireland, and I have received Resolution after Resolution from my own constituents urging me to advocate a reform of those laws. My objection to the Second Reading of this Bill is that I fear it will commit the House to certain principles which are wholly at variance with the system of the Labourers Acts. I protest against the three nominees of the Local Government Board being introduced among the elected representatives of the ratepayers, and I fear that if we give a Second Reading now, it will not be competent, having adopted the principle of the first section, to introduce such an Amendment as the Attorney General himself admits is absolutely necessary. The Local Government Board in Ireland is an entirely unrepresentative body; it does not possess the general confidence of the ratepayers; and, if there were no other objection to the Second Reading of this Bill, that, I think, would be quite sufficient. With regard to suspending the eviction of labourers pending an application, that is a matter on which I do not feel very strongly. If there were nothing else in the Bill, I fear there would not be any objection to that, but the effect of its introduction may be to throw the apple of discord between the tenant-farmers and the labourers in the North of Ireland. The Attorney General has pointed out the unnecessary alteration of the representations by which the Acts were put into force. The Local Government Board can now compel rural districts in the North to put the law in force if they are
  1220
  not doing their duty, and, therefore, there is no necessity for that section. The idea of saying that six labourers, who only require to be six weeks in the district, can put in motion the whole of the expensive machinery for the erection of labourers' cottages is, in my opinion, fraught with danger. I do not, therefore, see my way to support the Second Reading.
  MR. SHEEHAN (Cork County, Mid.): As one who is deeply interested in the better housing of the working population, I desire to make a few remarks on this Bill, which I consider to be a most faulty measure. It is ill-conceived and ill-considered, and does not tend to any real practical reforms. The very first clause contains a preposterous proposal. It would introduce into the public boards of Ireland the ex officio element which was abolished by the Local Government Act of 1899. If machinery is required for putting into force in the North of Ireland the provisions of the Labourers' Acts, I respectfully submit that in the Act of 1891 far more efficient machinery is set up than that proposed in this Bill.
  It being half-past Five of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  COUNTY JUSTICES CLERKS BILL.
  Read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc."
  Debate arising; and, objection being taken to further proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP No. 1.)
  Mr. ASHTONreported from the Committee on Group No. 1 of Railway Bills, that, there being no further business ready for the consideration of the Committee, they had adjourned until Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  First Report brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 83.]
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock.