HC Deb 26 February 1901 vol 89 cc1239-91
* MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

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 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 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- 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 "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 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, 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- 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?


Order, order ! The hon. Member must address himself to the Chair.


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 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 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 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 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- 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—


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.


Indeed, I did not, Sir.


The hon. Member said that—


Indeed, I did not, Sir.


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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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 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 (Northamptonshire, E.)

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 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. 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 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 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.


Order, order ! These matters do not arise under this Amendment.


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 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- 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."


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 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 to remove the consequences of Lord Roberts's "disorganisation" before he could move.


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.


Yes, and he has repeated it again. How "specially inspired"? What right has the hon. Member to declare that the article was specially inspired?


It could not pass the censor otherwise.


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?


I read that out loud to the House.




I am afraid if the hon. Member did read it I do not recollect it.


Everyone heard me.


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.


Nothing of the kind.


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 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 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 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 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 (Lancashire, Leigh)

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 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 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- 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 (Merthyr Tydvil)

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 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 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 believes that he personally or his colleagues were directly responsible for it.

MR. BOYLE (Donegal, W.)

said 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.


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

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

The House divided:—Ayes, 226; Noes. 117. (Division List No. 12.)

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)
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
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.)

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.
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
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.)

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

Main Question put accordingly.

The House divided:—Ayes, 297; Noes, 78. (Division List No. 14.)

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
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 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.

To be presented by Privy Councillors and Members of His Majesty's Household.

Forward to