Commons Sitting of 14 March 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  RHYL BRIDGE BILL. (By ORDER.)
  Order for Second Beading read, and, discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL. (By ORDER.)
  Order for Second Beading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. LOUGHsaid this Bill was one which was familiar to the last Parliament. It dealt with the great London monopoly, with regard to which very serious complaint was made by those who suffered from it. Not only had London local authorities, but Parliament itself had had to investigate the affairs of this company. A Committee of that House in 1899 made certain recommendations which were to be carried out before any more capital was to be granted, and yet none of those recommendations had been carried out in the Bill now before them, although they had been accepted by the South Metropolitan Company. The Gas Light and Coke Company, although it had the best area in the world for selling gas, charged 3s. 5d. per 1,000 feet of gas, as against 2s. 8d. charged by the South Metropolitan Company, and each extra penny represented a charge of £80.000 a year on the people of London. Thus a single company, by this extra charge, levied a tax of three-quarters of a million sterling on the residents of a portion of the Metropolis-He proposed to move the rejection of the Bill, and although it might be suggested it was necessary to pass it in order to enable the company to get the capital they required to carry on their undertaking, he thought he would be able to prove that there was no immediate necessity for this Bill at all. The Bill sought to find further capital for the company,

  1517
  which only required £200,000 of capital each year to carry on its undertaking. But the last balance-sheet, published three months ago, showed there was a balance of nearly £700,000 to the company's credit. Therefore it clearly had enough capital to enable it to go on for two or three-years. Again, the company had got the permission of that House to issue £280,000 of capital—a permission of which it had not yet availed itself. Moreover, a Bill had recently passed through the House, one of whose objects was to enable this company to sell to the South Metropolitan Company a large area which it had on the south side of the river. This transaction could be completed in a moment, and it would put the Gas Light and Cote Company in possession of £900,000 of capital without incurring any additional charge for interest whatever. Therefore it was plain that the company could get the money it required without pressing through this Bill. The company had circulated among lion. Members a Paper in favour of the Bill which, he was sorry to saw was a very disingenuous document, ft was said, in the first place, that a similar Bill had been read a second time two years ago, but it did not add that it was rejected by a Committee of the House of Lords. Moreover, the Bill of last year was rejected by a Committee of the House of Commons. Net now they were asked to put the authorities of London to the trouble of again opposing a Bill which was precisely the same in essential matters. This Bill was opposed by the Corporation of the City of London, by the London County Council, and by all the local authorities in the area affected. They were unanimous in asking the House not to pass the Bill until the company, in accordance with the recommendations of Parliament, had put its house in order. It was almost incredible that a private trading company should prove itself so recalcitrant, and so utterly disregard the opinions arrived at by the House after most careful deliberation. The Gas Light and Coke Company had given the House more trouble than any other private trading company in the country. As an instance of the hardship occasioned by the high price charged for gas he would like to point to the penny-in-the-slot meters, of which there were
  1518
  now some 200,000 in London, and for which, under the regime of this company, the poor had to pay on the average £2 16s. a year. If gas were supplied by the company at a fair price, as it was on the south side of the river, there would he a saving to these poor people of between His and 18s. a year, which would constitute a very important addition to the fund for feeding and clothing the children. All classes of the community in London were vitally affected by this Bill, and he therefore asked the House to reject it.
  MR. ALBAN GIBBSseconded the motion for the rejection of the Bill. He was, he said, happy for once to find himself in complete agreement with the hon. Member opposite, and with the action of the County Council. The only attempt in the Bill to meet the recommendations of that House was in the redemption clause, and he was sure the House would agree that that clause-was utterly perfunctory and insufficient. The Committee recommended that before any further power was given to the company to issue fresh capital, the sliding scale should lie reduced. But the company had made no effort whatever to do that, and he therefore hoped that the House, without troubling a Select Committee for the third time, would reject the Bill.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the-end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Mr. CRIPPSurged that, as a matter of business, there was no reason why this Bill should not be read a second time, in order that it might be properly discussed by a Committee upstairs. It was undoubtedly the fact that the company wanted fresh capital, and it was in the interest of all parties that that capital should be raised in the most inexpensive way. The reason why two years ago a Bill was thrown out by a Committee of the House of Lords was because the time was inopportune, for Sir James Rankin's Committee had not then issued its

  1519
  Report. The second Bill was thrown out because its terms were not in accordance with the recommendations of Sir James Rankin's Committee. Last year power was asked to issue two and a half millions of capital, but in this Bill the capital asked for had been reduced to a million, in order to comply with the recommendations of Sir James Rankin's Committee. It was the intention of the company also to comply with the recommendations of that Committee in regard to the redemption clause, and the Committee upstairs could see that that was done. The question as to slot meters could likewise be more effectively dealt with by a Committee upstairs. What reason was there why this Bill should not have its Second Reading? Full opportunities would be given of discussing all these objections before an impartial tribunal in the Committee upstairs. He thought that on these grounds ordinary business principles ought to be extended to the present case, and he hoped the House would adopt the Second Reading.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought this measure was one of the most impudent proposals he had heard for many years. This question had already been before Committees of this House and the other House, who had made recommendations upon the subject, and yet this was identically the same Bill, and contained exactly those provisions which both this and the other House had decided against. The hon. Member for Stretford contended that this was a different Bill, but in the circular issued by the company they did not themselves claim that more than one out of five of the recommendations of the Committees had been carried out. It was said that the company were now asking for a capital of £1,000,000 instead of the £2,500,000 previously applied for. But it was quite obvious that under the proposals of the company the money would last them for a much longer period than that which had been stated. Under the Bill passed by this House they were going to sell to the South Metropolitan Gas Company a portion of their area for something like £1,000,000, and with this sum and the amount provided for in the Bill they would then be able to
  1520
  defy the House of Commons for a long time to come. Again, the company had picked out of the five recommendations made by the Committee only those which were of the least importance to the general public, arid after doing this they claimed that they had complied with the Committee's recommendations. The Committee had come to the conclusion not only that this company was badly managed, but that it ought not to have special powers without complying with those recommendations, and until they were inserted in the Bill he hoped the House of Commons would refuse to pass it.
  MR. CRAY (West Ham, N.)said he desired to join in the opposition to this Bill. Having regard to the nature of the measure, he thought they ought not to allow the local authorities to be involved in the cost of attending before the Committee upstairs. The local authorities had already borne the expense twice, and he suggested that it would be most unbusinesslike to throw that cost upon them again. In those parts where this company had to compete with the South Metropolitan Gas Company they charged a lower rate, but when they had disposed of their South London property they would be free to charge the higher rate to their consumers in those districts. His constituents saw no reason why the ordinary consumers should be made to pay for mismanagement. The Committee which had been alluded to recommended that whenever another Bill was brought forward by this company it should contain a clause fixing the price to be charged for gas. But this Bill did not contain a clause. It was ridiculous for the company to come to the House and ask them to pass a Bill against the wishes of all the local authorities. He hoped the House would decide to protect the consumer, and not show such a tender interest for some of these monopolies. If the ratepayers of Loudon knew the nature of this Bill they would be up in arms against it, and he hoped the House would teach this company a lesson, and throw out the Bill by a large majority.
  MR. JOHN BURNSpointed out that the City Corporation, the County Council, and all the local

  1521
  authorities were unanimous in their chorus of condemnation in regard to this Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Stretford said that as a matter of business this Bill should be allowed to pass its Second Reading and be sent upstairs, but they had had so much of the Gas Light and Coke Company's legislative proposals that they were getting tired of them in their attenuated form. He objected to discussing skeleton Bills which had been rejected by Committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and until this company brought in their proposals in such a way that they could be accepted on matters of principle be was not disposed to allow the time of the House to he wasted. Already this company had put the local authorities to an expenditure of something between £7,000 and £10,000, which was utterly unjustifiable. What did the South Metropolitan Gas Company do when they asked fur legislation. They came forward with a whole, a full, and a good Bill, and they put all those proposals which the hon. Member for Stretford wished to be discussed upstairs into the Bill itself. In this way the local authorities had a chance of considering them fully, and the company were frank about it. The Gas Light and Coke Company, however, did no such thing. At the present time this company was charging the consumer 3s. 5d. per 1000 feet for gas, which was 9d. per thousand more than the company on the south side whose Bill had been passed this year. He believed that that difference in price was inexcusable and indefensible, and he contended that with efficient management that extra charge of 9d. could be reduced to 4d. or 5d. The manager of the South Metropolitan Gas Company made no secret of it. for he had stated that if this House compelled all the gas companies to amalgamate under his management. 2s. 8d. per thousand feet would be the uniform price all over London. At present the Gas Light and Coke Company charge 3s. 5d., the South Metropolitan Gas Company 2s. 8d., the Crystal Palace Company 2s. 10d., the Wandsworth and Putney Company 2s. 4d., or 11d. less than this wealthy company which was introducing this Bill. He appealed to the House not to put up with these
  1522
  extortions, and lie asked hon. Members to reject this Bill because the local authorities were unanimous against it. He believed that the House of Commons had made up its mind that this company should not be allowed to continue to impose these exorbitant rates upon the consumers of gas.
  MR. COHENsaid that the constituency he represented had been the victim of these extortionate charges for a long time. The question involved was nothing less than the authority of the House of Commons itself. It was subversive of the authority of the House of Commons that a private company should be encouraged to ignore and disregard the representations of a Select Committee. He was not there to advocate all the recommendations of tile Select Committee. It was quite possible that the House of Commons itself might find some of them could not be given effect to. He would remind the House what this company had done. They first introduced a Bill when the inquiry by the Select Committee was going on. Then they introduced a Bill ignoring altogether the recommendations of the Committee, and now, forsooth, they had the face to come before a Committee of the House obeying those recommendations of the Committee which were of least value to the consumers, and disregarding every other one. That system of dealing was not becoming on the part of a private company, and he hoped that the House would, by rejecting the Bill, tell the company that they would not be treated in that way.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said the matter they were considering had been before two Private Bill Committees, in two successive years—one a Committee of the House of Lords, and the other a Committee of the House of Commons. The Committee of the House of Commons had in distinct and emphatic terms objected to the Bill on the ground that the company had not given effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1899. The Bill now before the House was substantially the same as the one of

  1523
  1899 and 1900. Notwithstanding what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Stretford, he failed to see that the company had complied with the Committee's recommendations, and lie was sorry to say that he was forced very reluctantly to ask the House not to read the Bill a second time.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid that, having regard to the opinions expressed in the House, he was authorised on behalf of the promoters, to ask leave to withdraw the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. (By ORDER.)
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate, on Amendment to Question [12th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  And which Amendment was—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Bell.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. PENNsaid it might facilitate matters if he made a short statement as to what the promoters were prepared to do. They were willing to introduce after Clause 27 the words, "It shall not be compulsory upon any servant of the company to become a member of the society." Those words were similar to words introduced in the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Act of 1897, and in the Great Northern Railway Act of the same year. He trusted that the Amendment would satisfy the House.
  MR. BELLsaid he was glad that the hon. Member for Lewisham had seen his way clear to meet the suggestion he had made, but he certainly could not accept the Amendment now without further consideration, and he therefore moved the adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate he now adjourned."— (Mr. Lough.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 151: Noes, 160. (Division List No. 65.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Holland, William Henry

  Abraham, William(Rhondda)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife West

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Doogan, P. C.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Duffy. William J.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Blake, Edward

  Duncan, James II.

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Boland, John

  Elibank, Master of

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Jordon, Jeremiah

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Joyce Michael

  Brown, George M. (Derbyshire)

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidst'ne

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Burns, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Burt, Thomas

  Efrench, Peter

  Leamy, Edmund

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Field, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accringt on

  Caine, William Sproston

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Leng, Sir John

  Caldwell, James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lough, Thomas

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Foster, Sir Walter (DerbyCo.)

  Lundon, W.

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Gilhooly, James

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rHmlets

  M'Govern, T.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M 'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hammond, John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Crean, Eugene

  Hardie, J Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John Wm.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Harwood, George

  Mooney, John J.

  C'rombie, John William

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Cullman, J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Murnaghan, George

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Murphy, J.

  Delany, William

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr

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

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

  O'Brien,Kendal (Tipperary Md

  Reddy. M.

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Tomkinson, James

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Roche, John

  Tully, Jasper

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

  Russell, T. W.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  O'Dowd, John

  Samuel, Harry S.(Limehouse)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  0'Kelly,James(Rose'mmon,N

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Weir, James Galloway

  O'Malley, William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Mara, James

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wodehouse, Hn. Armine (Essex

  O'Shee, James John

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf' d

  Palmer, George Wm.(Reading

  Strachey, Edward

  Young, Samuel (('avail, East)

  Partington, Oswald

  Sullivan, Donal

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  TELLERS FOR; THE AYES—

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Tennant, Harold John

  Mr. Bell and Sir Charles Dilke.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen,E.)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood,Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Garfit, William

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Aird, Sir John

  Gibbs,HnA.G.H.(CityofLond.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon Robert Wm.

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

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Balfour,Maj.K.R.(C'hristch'ch

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Myers, William Henry

  Banbury, Fredk. George

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Heath, James(Staffords.,N.W.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

  Hoare,EdwBrodie(Hampstead

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset,E.

  Parker, Gilbert

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bill, Charles

  Horner, Frederick William

  Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hoult, Joseph

  Penn, John

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Percy, Earl

  Bowles, T.Gibson(King'sLynn

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Pilkington, Richard

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Purvis, Robert

  Billiard, Sir Harry

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh

  Randles, John S.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kenyon, James (Lanes., Bury)

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W(Salop.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Cavendish, V.C.W(Derbyshire

  Kimber, Henry

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.

  Knowles, Lees

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Chamberlain, J Austen(Worc'r

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Chapman, Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Renwick, George

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

  Lawrence, William F.

  Ridley,Hn M.W(Stalybridge)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Lee,Capt.A H(Hants.Fareham

  Ritchie,RtHnChas.Thompson

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Colomb,SirJohnCharlesReady

  Leighton, Stanley

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H.Athole

  Leveson-Gower,FrederickN.S.

  Smith,AbelH.(Hertford, East)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Smith,HC(North'mb.Tynesi'e

  Cross Herb.Shepherd (Bolton)

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Smith,. James Parker(Lanarks)

  Dalkeith, Karl of

  Long, Rt.HnWalter(Bristol,S.)

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James(Kent

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Digby,John K. D. Wingfield-

  Lowther,Rt.HnJW(Cum. Penr

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Dimsdale, Sir J. Cockfield

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Lucas,Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Macartney, lit. Hn. W. G. E.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Malcolm, Ian

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r

  Maple. Sir John Blundell

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maxwel1. W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Warde, Lieut. -Col. C. E.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  1526

  1527

  Wason, John C. (Orkney)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Tannton

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Mr. Renshaw and Mr. Wilson-Todd.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Resolution agreed to.

  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsuggested that when railway directors desired to promote Bills such as the one under discussion, which, in spite of all that was said to the contrary, did interfere with the liberty of the subject, and prevented free and unfettered combination on the part of the employees, they should in future consult the hon. Member for Derby, who had just as much right to speak for railway men as a railway director had to place his name on the back of a railway Bill. The original clause made it obligatory upon the men to join the company's benefit society, but under the new clause the membership was to be optional. He, however, knew what "optional" railway funds meant. In the event of a member too closely examining the details—actuarial position and so on—he would soon find his occupation gone. He instanced the case of a man in the employment of the London and North-Western Railway Company who, having protested against the provident fund, was called upon by a superior official to give an explanation of what it was he objected to. The man lost his employment.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: Can the hon. Member give me the name of that employe?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: No, I decline to do that, and I have as much right to refuse the name as the War Office has to refuse the names of generals, but I may say I did not mention the Great Eastern Railway. Proceeding, the hon. Member said he objected to railway funds altogether, on the very simple ground that the men did not get the same amount of benefit for their money as they would obtain from an ordinary friendly society, supervised by the Registrar of Friendly Societies and under legislative safeguards and conditions. Railway service was more dangerous than many other spheres of employment, and it stood to reason that with only 8,000 or 9,000 members
  1528
  to meet that greater risk the benefit could not be so large as in the case of a society with perhaps half a million members. There was another objection to it. He did not believe that these railway funds were promoted cither for philanthropic or benevolent purposes. Take the ease of a Great Eastern Railway platelayer getting sixteen shillings per week. That man would have to contribute to an accident fund and also to a burial fund out of his very limited wages. This Bill also proposed an orphan fund to compete with the better fund provided by the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. Out of such limited wages no man should be compelled against his will to contribute to three or four funds, (1) because he did not get value for his money, and (2) because he ought to be free to transfer his labour where he could get the most profitable employment without sustaining the loss of parting with all his past contributions. In these railway funds the men did not get full value for their money; they interfered with freedom of promotion, and also prevented a man getting that continuous investment which was possessed by every member of a friendly society. Take, for example, the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, the Odd-fellows, or the Hearts of Oak. Suppose a platelayer belonged to any of these societies, his investment was continuous; whereas, as a member of this fund, if he worked at Liverpool Street station and was transferred to the North Western Railway he would lose all ho had paid in. What was more, supposing he was a patriotic platelayer, and went out to South Africa, in response to the Government request for men, to join the railway pioneer corps in order to rebuild the lines from Kimberley to Bulawayo which the Boers had destroyed, the moment be went on board ship at the dock he would lose all the benefits of his membership of this society. Why did not the Great Eastern Railway Company employ the staff engaged on these peddling schemes of sick funds, accident funds, burial funds, and orphan funds; in improving the passenger traffic at

  1529
  Liverpool Street, and the general administration of the railway? In 1899 the House of Commons appointed a Committee to inquire into the working of shop clubs and railway funds, and the spirit and letter of the operation of these were adversely criticised by that Committee. It might be said that that criticism had been got rid of by the Great Eastern directors by the concessions which they had made. Nothing of the sort. The most objectionable condition was still retained, and he hoped that the directors would make a further concession. Why ask the men to contribute to no fewer than four funds? The reason was that this was an insidious device to divert the railway workmen's subscriptions from their trades unions, which protected them from long hours and short wages, and gave them better friendly society benefits than the Great Eastern Railway Company possibly could, and to render it impossible for these men to remain in their trade unions. If a workman was paying 10d. a week to these four schemes, and had only 16s. a week wages, it was obvious that he could not go on paying 5d. a week to his trade union. The wife would come along and say, "Tom, I wish you had wages enough for both the trade union and the railway societies, but you have not"; and over the tea-table Tom would reply, "What am I to do?" Jane, the wife, would say, "You had better choose the side on which your bread is buttered. If you do not do so, foreman this or superintendent that may probably carry it to the right or wrong quarter, and if you do not belong to the company's funds you will lie spotted, your promotion will be cheeked, and ultimately you will lose your employment." And so the poor man would give in. The object of this scheme, therefore, was to hit the trade unions, to kill the freedom of the men, and to assist the directors who had not the capacity to get on good terms with their employees on account of some imaginary strike that was to come off. It was not for the House of Commons to play the game of the railway directors, but to uphold the liberty of the workmen.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURreminded the House that on the last occasion on
  1530
  which this Bill had been discussed objection was taken to the provident funds clause, and the adjournment of the debate was moved in order to give the directors of the Great Eastern Railway Company, the promoters, an opportunity of amending the clause. Now the hon. Member for Lewisham, on behalf of the company, expressed his willingness to amend the clause as follows: "It shall not be compulsory upon any servant of the company to become a member of the society." Nothing could be more clear or satisfactory than that. He was bound to say he did not think the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea had any reference to the question now before the House. He could not help thinking that that hon. Member had come down to the House primed with a speech on the suspicion that the directors would not give way. But they had given way, and the hon. Member for Battersea was not willing to forego the opportunity of making his prepared speech. The clause in its original form was not objectionable in any respect, but in its amended form it conceded everything that had been asked, and there was no reason why the Second Reading of the Bill should not be taken.
  MR. TENNANTthought that the concession made by the hon. Member for Lewisham was probably useful. He would be the last to deny it, but he thought that it would have been only courteous had the hon. Gentleman come to hon. Members on that side of the House who took an interest in the subject and asked them whether the Amendment met their views or not. Would it not be wise, if it were possible, for the promoters to reconsider their determination, and give the opponents of the Bill an opportunity of considering how the operation of these words would affect their case? It was an extremely important Bill, and the House would remember how questions such as these were fought out day after day when the Compensation Bill was before the House. He thought it was only reasonable that the House should allow the debate to be adjourned for a day or two.
  *The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,)said it was not usual to make

  1531
  any arrangement with any person to discuss a form of words to be introduced into a Bill. The usual procedure was to discuss the form when the Bill got into Committee, which practice had been followed by the hon. Member for Lewisham. The right hon. Member for Fife had asked the hon. Member whether the promoters would be prepared to insert words to make it clear that the clause was not compulsory. Now the hon. Member came to give in the House the undertaking for which he had been asked in the House. If it could be shown to the Committee upstairs that the words did not carry out the undertaking, the hon. Member would be prepared to consider other words.
  *MR. BELLdesired to make an explanation. In the course of his opposition to the Bill he had received resolutions from different centres of the Great Eastern Railway Company's district opposing the Bill, first in regard to the question of compulsion, and secondly because it was an effort of the directorate to deprive the employees of benefit for injuries. That was an injustice, and he could not accept anything while that clause was allowed to remain.
  MR. CAINEwas of opinion that it was not only a question of people being compelled to join the society, there were other questions, such as the control by the men and the right to withdraw, neither of which points had been touched by the Amendment.
  *SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYwas of opinion that nothing would be lost by an adjournment being granted. On the contrary, he thought there would be a great saving of time if the debate were adjourned, that an amicable settlement might be arrived at as to the words to be introduced into the Bill at a later stage. He did not agree with the President of the Board of Trade that these words would have an effect on the foremen throughout the railway system. The foremen would still select men for promotion, and the fact that a man had not joined the society would have an effect as to his selection or non-selection by the foreman. It was a far
  1532
  more important measure than many Members thought, and he hoped, for the sake of the peaceful settlement of the interests concerned, that the hon. Member would see his way to adjourning the debate. It did not seem to him that there would be any loss of dignity on the part of his hon. friend the Member for Lewisham in agreeing to such a course. The Bill had many features of extraordinary public value, independently of of the clause in dispute.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODhoped his hon. friend would not accept the suggestion which had just been made. The hon. Members for Battersea and Derby were not content with this Bill when it was obligatory, they were not content with it when it was not obligatory; and he would like to know what concession on the part of any railway company would ever make them contented, unless it exactly coincided with their own political and social views. Not content with general charges, the hon. Member for Battersea made a further charge against the London and North Western Railway Company, a company with which he himself was connected. The hon. Member made a very serious charge against that company, but refused to give the name of the man.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I will give it at once—it is Robert White, wagon examiner, of the London and North Western Railway, who, after twenty-one years service, was dismissed and forfeited all his benefits except 16s. 6d.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I should be very sorry to accept that statement as being correct until I have had an opportunity of checking it. [Opposition cries of "Oh," and "Withdraw."] I have nothing to withdraw.
  *Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Member had said that he considered that the hon. Member for Battersea had wilfully made a misstatement, of course he would have to withdraw the expression, and would do so, I am sure; but what he said was, I understand, that he does not accept the statement made as being a true version of the facts.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I do not object; I regard it as a directorial contradiction, and we know how they come.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid it was pefectly clear that the hon. Members for Battersea and Derby objected to the railway companies having any benefit societies. The hon. Members objected to such societies running counter to their own.
  *SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid the point on which the debate turned was the principle whether a man should or should not be compelled to join the society. The actual words had to be brought up in Committee on the Bill, as on the principle the House was agreed. The Home Secretary had already pointed out that the form of the Amendment could not be brought up on the Second Reading of the Bill. He might say that many years ago in a similar case similar words were accepted, and those words were discussed and agreed to by everybody interested before the Bill in question reached the Committee stage. This Bill contained a great many things advantageous to the districts through which the Great Eastern Railway passed, and the Bill need not now be detained in its Second Reading stage. If the proposals promised were not found in the Bill when it went into its subsequent stages the Bill would have a very rough time in the House.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE, who spoke amid great interruption and cries of "Divide!" said it was all very well for railway directors earning their fees in the House to attempt to prevent free discussion, but so far as he was concerned they would not succeed. It was very unfortunate that the promoters would not accept the suggestions which bad been offered. It was unfortunate an adjournment had not been granted. The speeches delivered showed that there was a greater difference than was supposed by the President of the Board of Trade. The concession was not a real one, hon. Gentleman having whittled away the whole of the concession as it was represented by the right hon. Gentleman the
  1534
  Home Secretary. The hon. Member in charge of the Bill said he would be willing to introduce a clause which should have the effect of eliminating compulsion, and he would read the words to the House, but nobody without taking the words down and considering them carefully could possibly say they were sufficient for the purpose. They would be asked were they going to reject this Bill, which might involve large considerations, which had been threshed out in Committee, and for which there had been all this expenditure, simply because they could not accept these words in regard to one particular clause. The promoters knew, and the President of the Board of Trade knew also, that this was the only real opportunity they would have of discussing these words. The matter had been discussed in regard to other companies. Two specific points had been put to the promoters. One was, were they willing that the men should control this fund; the other, were they going to permit men to withdraw their savings it they were dismissed from the employment of the company? That constituted the key to the whole situation, and if the promoters did not give to the House some assurance upon those two points, he hoped every opportunity would be taken of opposing the Bill.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,)said he would appeal to the House not to take upon itself at this stage the functions of a Committee. He humbly submitted that this was not the time to discuss the point; the time to do that was when the Bill was in Committee. If they were, going on in that way, it was obvious that on the Second Reading of measures they would be occupying time on matters which ought to be taken up by the Committee, which was the proper body to go into the drafting of Clause 27. If the House would give the Bill a Second Reading and allow it to go to a Committee, he would take an early opportunity of getting his hon. friend the Member for Lewisham to meet him in his room, and he would invite the hon. Member for Derby, and they would consider together whether those words carried out the intentions in the minds

  1535
  of the two hon. Members who had spoken. He thought that a few moments conversation would achieve all that was desired, but supposing the consultation proved unsuccessful, the Committee would still have an opportunity of drafting such words as they thought suitable, and after that occasion, if the Bill came back to the House in a form not acceptable to the hon. Member for Derby, there would yet be an opportunity on the Report stage for the hon. Member to suggest any other words. He thought that was an offer which his hon. friend the Member for Lewisham would be willing to accept.
  MR. PENN: I am willing to adopt that course.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid that, as a rule, upon Committees upstairs there was no one to represent the public, because each party represented their personal and pecuniary interests. Under such circumstances, it was very difficult to protect the public interests. The House was asked, in spite of what had been said by the hon. Member for Lewisham, to allow this company to compel their men to contribute to a fund in which it was a condition, no matter how many years a man paid into it, that he should sacrifice the whole when lie left the employment of the company. They ought not to consent to give a clause to a railway company to enforce such a condition as that. Ho heartily welcomed the interposition of the Chairman of Committees.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERthought he ought to have an opportunity of putting a point which no one had yet put. There had been considerable friction between the men employed and the company, and that friction had been so great at times that there had been danger of a strike occurring. A strike on the Great Eastern Railway would be the means of the dislocation of a great part of the labour of London, because a large number of workmen were brought up to London by that line. The danger of a strike which this clause might produce would at once be seen, and he hoped the House
  1536
  would be very careful not to permit the-company to have such a power.
  *MR. BELLsaid the suggestion made by the Chairman of Committees was certainly a point in advance of what the promoter of the Bill had said. He was prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, provided the conference took place before the notice he had down for an Instruction to the Committee was reached. The conditions laid down in his previous statement were that the clause should be withdrawn for the present session, so that the employees might make arrangements of their own.
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I am quite willing to do that.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked if the right hon. Gentleman meant by his proposal that if the Second Reading was allowed to pass a conference would then take place between the representatives of the railway company and the hon. Members alluded to in order to see if some agreement could be arrived at?
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I am quite willing to give such an undertaking.
  *MR. SPEAKER: As the hon. Member for Derby speaks of moving his Instruction afterwards, it is only fair that I should tell him that I do not think I should be justified in allowing the hon. Member to move his Instruction, for it would be asking the House to debate over again the exact question raised by him on the Second Reading.
  *MR. BELL: I am much obliged to you. Mr. Speaker, for the interpretation you have given.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked if that ruling applied also to the Committee.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Not at all. This point has already been the subject of discussion.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid it was within his knowledge that a considerable number of Members

  1537
  were prepared to vote for the Second Reading if Clause 27 were deleted. The effect of the Speaker's ruling would he that the Second Reading would be got with the clause in the Bill, and no opportunity would be given for taking it out.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. BELL: I understand that I can raise the question on the Report stage. On that understanding I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.—Bill read a second time, and committed.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert the following clause:—
  No scheme for the establishment of a provident fund under this Act shall come into operation until it has been registered by the Registrar of Friendly Societies under the Friendly Societies Act.—(Mr. Strachey.)

  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY BILL.
  Mr. BELLsaid the objection he had to the North British Railway Bill was not a very strong one. He had had a short conference with the promoters, and had expressed the objections of the employees to one of the clauses. Under this clause the company sought to employ police on the same lines as the county and borough police. The privileges which railway police had had for some years past had been largely abused as against railway servants, who had been assaulted and wrongfully arrested upon suspicion, and wrongful searches of their houses had often been made. He thought the instances of this kind which had been brought before the public lately were a good reason why they should have some expression of opinion from the representative of the company. The railway servants objected to the police having power to follow and arrest any person who had departed from any railway station. He begged to move his Instruction.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Com-
  1538
  mittee to strike out sub-section (3) in Clause 45 of the North British Railway Bill."—(Mr. Bell.)
  THE EARL OF DALKEITHassured the hon. Member for Derby that it was not the intention of the directors of the North British Railway that their employees should be harassed unnecessarily by such proceedings, but he was not quite sure that this clause made very much difference in regard to their position. This clause had been introduced to enable them to follow luggage thieves rather than for matters of that kind, and a similar clause had already been introduced into nine other railway Bills. The clause had been considered by the Home Office, and the form which had been adopted was based on the model clause which was generally enforced. It was the last wish of the directors to harass their men or accuse them unjustly, but if there was anything of that kind in this clause, they might discuss it in Committee upstairs. He thought it would be most injudicious, and contrary to the practice of the House, to adopt Instructions of this kind at the present stage. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Instruction, because it would, if passed, fetter the discretion of the Committee very much in dealing with this question.
  MR. BELL: I beg leave to withdraw my motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP D).
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS informed the House that the Committee on Group D of Private Bills not being appointed to meet until Thursday next, the parties opposing the Heckmondwike Gas (Transfer) Bill, which was set down for consideration on the first day of the meeting of the Committee, had appeared before, him and proved that the evidence of Arthur Frederick Goodson, Secretary to the Heckmondwike Gas Company, Gas Works, Heckmondwike, was essential to their case, and that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House.
  Ordered, That the said Arthur Frederick Goodson do attend the Committee

  1539
  on Group D of Private Bills on Thursday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

  PETITIONS.
    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
    Petition from Bedford, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
    INHABITED HOUSE DUTY AND INCOME TAX.
    Petition from Westminster, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
    PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
    Petitions for extension to women, from Bolton; and Longforgan; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
    Petition from Chertsey, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Cleator Moor; Wark on Tyne; Gateshead (two); Otley; Cuckfield; Longcott and Fernham; Nigg; Holme Eden; Birmingham (three); Lincoln (one); Tow Law; Abersychan; Edinburgh (four); Dulverton; Teesdale; Sheffield (three); Norton; Carlisle (three); Chorley; Govan; New Whittington; York (two); Hull; Tarvin; and Barrow in Furness; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Petitions in favour, from Wick and Pulteneytown; Hamilton; Nigg; Cambusnethan; Dunfermline; Tomintoul; Liberton; Loanhead; Duffus; Edinburgh; Rattray; Wishaw; Dingwall; Newton Stewart; Gardenstown; Alloa; New Muchar; Dumfries; and Keith; to lie upon the Table.
    SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION BILL.
    Petitions against, from Alva; Dunfermline; and Cowdenbeath; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    ST. CROSS HOSPITAL, WINCHESTER.
    Return [presented 13th March] to be printed. [No. 83.]
    CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSION.
    Copy presented, of Fiftieth Report from the Church Estates Commissioners for the year preceding 1st March, 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
    Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 7th January, 1901, granting a retired allowance to Mr. E. A. de Wiele, Admiralty Writer, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    LUNACY (SCOTLAND).
    Copy presented, of Rules for the Engineer and the Plumber of the Inverness District Asylum [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
    Copy presented, of Return of Proceedings during the month of November, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    BANKRUPTCY COURTS (IRELAND).
    Annual Returns presented, of the Official Assignees of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland and the Local Courts, Belfast and Cork, for the year 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    BOARD OF EDUCATION (CODE 1901).
    Copy presented, of Code of Regulations, for Day Schools, with Schedules and Appendices, by the Board of Education, [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    ARMY.
    Copy presented, of Memorandum of Field Marshal Viscount Wolseley and of Memoranda thereon [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
    Controverted Elections.—Further Return, Copy of Minutes of Evidence and Judgment in the Cockermouth Election Trial [ordered 22nd February; Mr. Attorney General].
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) OFFICIALS.
    Return ordered, "showing the names, dates of appointments, and emoluments of all Officials transferred by virtue of the provisions of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, to County, District Councils, or Boards of Guardians, with the salaries of every such official as fixed by these bodies, or as determined by the Local Government Board; the increases in the poundage rates consequent upon the operation of these provisions of the Act where the salaries were increased; the amount proposed to be paid by these bodies to any such official by way of compensation or retiring allowance, and the amount determined by the Treasury on appeal to be payable."—(Mr. Wyndham.)
    WINES IMPORTED.
    Return ordered, "showing the quantity of Wines, at the various degrees of strength, which were imported into the United Kingdom in 1900 from Spain, Portugal, Madeira, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Australasia, and other countries (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 155, of Session 1900)."—(Mr. T. R. Dewar.)
    CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
    Mr. Speaker informed the House that he had received from the Judges for the time being on the rota for the trial of Election Petitions the following Certificate and Report relating to the Election for the Cockermouth Division of the County of Cumberland:—

    COCKERMOUTH ELECTION PETITION.
    In the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division.
    The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
    The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Acts, 1854 to 1895.
    To the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons.
    Election for the Cockermouth Division of the County of Cumberland, holden on the 4th day of October, 1900.
    In the matter of an Election Petition for the said Division presented to the High Court of Justice on the 19th day of November, 1900.
    John Armstrong, James Hardaker Brooks-bank, Benjamin Brown, James Beck, William Cooper, and Barwise Henderson, Petitioners, and John Scurrah Randles, Respondent.
    1542
    We, Sir Charles John Darling, Knight, and Sir Arthur Moseley Channell, Knight, Judges of the High Court of Justice, and two of the. Judges on the rota for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England and Wales, do hereby, in pursuance of the said Acts, certify that, upon the 26th, 27th, and 28th days of February, 1901, we duly held a Court at the Mission Hall, Duke Street, Workington, for the trial of and did try the said Election Petition between the said Petitioners and the said Respondent.
    And in further pursuance of the said Acts we report that at the conclusion of the said trial we determined that the Respondent, being the Member whose Election and return were complained of in the said Petition, was duly elected and returned, and that his Election was not void, and we do hereby certify such our determination to you.
    And whereas charges were made in the said Petition that various illegal practices therein specified had been committed in reference to the said Election by the Respondent and his agents, we, in further pursuance of the said Acts, report as follows:—

    (a) That no illegal practice was proved to have been committed in reference to the said Election by or with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent.

    (b) That no persons were proved to have been guilty of any illegal practices other than the acts or omissions set out in paragraph (e) hereof.

    (c) That there is no reason to believe that illegal practices extensively prevailed at the said Election.

    (d) That the Respondent was not proved to have been guilty by his agents of any illegal practice other than the acts or omissions set out in paragraph (e) hereof.

    (e) That certain of the acts or omissions alleged in the said Petition to be illegal practices as having been committed by the Election agent, sub-agents, or other agents of the Respondent, in contravention of the 20th and 33rd sections of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, namely; (1) the use of a room on licensed premises as a committee room, and (2) the return of the Election expenses of the Respondent at the said Election by his Election agent not being in all particulars in accordance with the form provided by the said Act, arose from inadvertence or from some other reasonable cause of a like nature, and did not arise from any want of good faith, and under such circumstances it seemed just to the Court that the said Respondent, his Election agent, sub-agents, or other agents should not be subject to any of the consequences under the said Act of the said acts or omissions, and the Court therefore made an order pursuant to the 23rd section of the said Act allowing the said acts or omissions to be exceptions from the provisions of the said Act which might otherwise have made them or any of them an illegal practice or practices.

    (f) That the other illegal practices alleged in the said Petition were not proved or were disproved.

    1543
    A Copy of the evidence and of our judgment herein taken by the deputies of the shorthand writer of the House of Commons accompanies this our Certificate.
    CHARLES DARLING.
    A. M. CHANNELL.

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—MR. ADRIAN HOFMEYR'S MISSION.
  MR. PIE1E: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state who was responsible for sending Mr. Adrian Hofmeyr to Pretoria; what were the actual terms of his engagement there; and what salary did he receive; whether the fact that he had been suspended from the Dutch Church for immorality was known to those who appointed him, and why care was not exercised in making inquiry before accepting Mr. Hofmeyr's services, and if in future the antecedents of those employed by the Government in South Africa will be impartially inquired into; and whether he is aware that statements made publicly by Mr. Hofmeyr when lecturing in England during the General Election as to his treatment at the hands of the Boers were characterised by General Baden-Powell as a fabrication.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J CHAMBERLAIN,): I telegraphed the substance of the first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's question to Sir A. Milner, and have received the following reply:—
  "Lord Kitchener asked me to send Mr. Hofmeyr to Pretoria if I thought that he would be of use, and as I did think so I sent him then and there. No employment was specified; I simply told him that I wanted him to place his services entirely at Lord Kitchener's disposal, and that I could not say for how long or short a time he might be wanted, but that while employed he would be paid at the rate of £50 per month plus actual travelling expenses. I take sold responsibility for this arrangement; was not aware, and I am not now aware, he was suspended for immorality. I was aware that there had been some scandal about him two years ago and that he had quitted post of Dutch Reformed minister at Wynberg."
  As to the third paragraph, I have no information. I have already informed
  1544
  the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Hofmeyr was not employed by Lord Kitchener.

  NAVAL BRIGADE DESPATCHES.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will lay upon the Table the despatches in regard to the Naval Brigade in South Africa which were published in the London Gazette of the 12th instant.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): There will be no objection to laying these Papers if the right hon. Gentleman will move for them.

  COLONIAL TROOPS—STATISTICS.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is possible to state the number of men sent to South Africa by the Dominion of Canada, the colony of New Zealand, and each of the six Australian colonies respectively, and the number in each case who have completed their service and returned to their colonies; also the number in the case of each of these colonies now serving in South Africa.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The figures are too numerous to read out to the House, but I will lay them on the Table, as far as it is possible to give them.

  PENSIONS FOR SOLDIERS' WIDOWS AND ORPHANS.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the particulars of the pensions proposed to be given to the widows and orphans of those who have lost their lives in the South African Campaign.
  Mr. BRODRICK: The actual conditions on which grants will be given are not quite settled; but I may inform the hon. Member that so far as the Government are concerned the rates of pension and compassionate allowance to widows and children of non-commissioned officers and men, killed in action or

  1545
  dying of wounds or disease contracted on active service, will be as follows:—

  Class.

  Widows.

  Each child.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  I.

  Q. M.-Sergeant

  10

  0

  2

  0

  II.

  Col.-Sergeant

  9

  0

  2

  0

  III.

  Sergeant

  7

  6

  2

  0

  IV.

  Corporal

  6

  0

  1

  6

  V.

  Privates

  5

  0

  1

  6

  BOER PRISONERS—PLACES OF CUSTODY.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Government are making plans and estimates for the location of batches of 1,000 Boers at Dehra, Pachmarhi, and other places; and, if so, whether the Boers will be imprisoned in those districts.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Yes, Sir; arrangements are under consideration to locate Boer prisoners in India, in case the present available places of detention become overcrowded.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Are these Dutchmen to be imprisoned in India?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: They will be detained under the same condition as the other Boer prisoners.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether places are being prepared for the reception of Boer prisoners in India; whether, if so, the prisoners to be removed there are now at Ceylon, or whether the Government are contemplating sending any more out of South Africa; and whether, if the latter is the case, they will consider the possibility of sending them to our Australasian colonies in preference to India or Ceylon, both for climatic reasons and in order to increase the opportunities of friendly contact between the two races.
  MR. BRODRICK: All the questions mentioned by the hon. Member will be considered before any step is taken. It is not proposed to move any of the prisoners who have already been deported.

  COURTS-MARTIAL—STATISTICS OF IMPRISONMENT.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of soldiers sent back from South Africa in custody; how many are now undergoing sentence in Great Britain, and in what prisons; how many soldiers are undergoing sentence in South Africa, and in what prisons; and would he have any objection to give a Return of the number of offenders in each regiment, and the nature of the offences, and the character of the courts-martial.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): It would take a very long time and much labour to obtain the detailed information required. It is quite impossible to throw on the staff in South Africa the labour of making a variety of detailed Returns unless for some urgent public purpose.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the noble Lord say how many soldiers have been sent back in custody from South Africa, and what prisons they are now confined in? It is a question which affects the liberty of these men, and we are entitled to look into it.
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Surely I am entitled to an answer.
  LORD STANLEY: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member the information he requires. It would involve an enormous amount of work to collect it, whether in England or in South Africa. The staffs in both places are very much overworked, and I hope that hon. Members will not press for any of these Returns as long as the war is going on.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: But is not the liberty of these men in question?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  CIVIL SURGEONS AND NURSES—WAR GRATUITY.
  SIR ANDREW AGNEW: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the civil surgeons and nursing sisters employed in tending the sick and wounded in

  1547
  South Africa will be entitled to the same war gratuity as those connected with the Army.
  LORD STANLEY: Civil surgeons, civil veterinary surgeons, and nursing sisters are employed under a definite contract as to pay, and are not entitled to any war gratuity.

  SOUTH AFRICAN COLD STORAGE COMPANY'S CONTRACT.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the South African Cold Storage Company contracted for the supply of fresh meat for the troops in the field at 11d. per pound for each pound of dead meat actually handed over; whether, notwithstanding that the conditions of the contract provided for the supply of cattle and sheep to accompany the troops with drovers and other necessary arrangements for the care of live animals, this part of the contract was not complied with, three-fourths of the supply being frozen or refrigerated meat; whether he is aware that the same firm at the same time was supplying frozen meat for the troops at Cape Town and to the Admiralty for transports at 5¾d. per pound; and whether precautions have been taken to ensure that the terms of the contract shall be carried out.
  LORD STANLEY: I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question put on Tuesday, the 12th instant, by the hon. Member for the Flint District.* I may add that this contract expired in February, 1900.

  WELSH HOSPITAL IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  MR. G. T. KENYON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the assent of the subscribers to the fund for the Welsh Hospital in South Africa to its absorption in another hospital was asked for or obtained, and whether he is aware that a considerable amount of the money originally subscribed still remains unexpended.
  LORD STANLEY: The absorption was arranged by the authorities in South Africa in communication with
  *See page 1328 of this volume.
  1548
  those in charge of the hospital there. I am not aware of the details of that arrangement, or of the conditions on which it was made; nor do I know the position of the funds. Lord Kitchener has given instructions that full information as to the circumstances of the absorption shall be reported.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: May I ask the noble Lord whether the gentleman to whom he alluded on Tuesday last was authorised to speak only for the executive committee? Has the general secretary expressed satisfaction at, or acquiescence in, the action of the military authorities?
  LORD STANLEY: The gentleman I referred to represented the executive committee. I thought, wrongly, it seems, that he represented the views of the whole committee. I do not exactly know what are the objections now being raised, but if the hon. Member will see me privately I shall be most happy to give the matter my attention.

  IMPERIAL YEOMANRY RECRUITS— RIDING AND SHOOTING TESTS.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, before accepting the application of anyone to serve in the Imperial Yeomanry or other mounted force enrolled to proceed to South Africa, each applicant is tested in riding and shooting; and whether all are refused who cannot show their efficiency in these requirements.
  LORD STANLEY: Yes, Sir.
  MR. BARTLEY: Where are the men who come up to the offices in Victoria Street tried in these matters?
  LORD STANLEY: I cannot say.

  YEOMANRY CAVALRY TRAININGS.
  COLONEL WARDE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it has been decided to order a training of Yeomanry Cavalry this year; and, if so, on what conditions.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Yeomanry will certainly train this year. An Army Order on the subject will shortly be published.

  RESERVE OFFICERS.
  Sir J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to appoint to the garrison battalions any reserve officers who have served during the late emergency, and who are recommended by their commanding officers; and whether the employment by the War Office of officers no longer on the active list may include officers of any arm or only ex-Staff officers.
  MR. BRODRICK: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. In reply to the second paragraph, officers of any arm may he employed, but will be selected according to their suitability for the duty for which they are required. A preference will be given to officers otherwise eligible who may have been disabled in the war.

  WAR OFFICE—LORD WOLSELEY'S MEMORANDUM TO LORD SALISBURY.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Memorandum addressed to the Prime Minister by Lord Wolseley, enumerating his duties as Commander-in-Chief; and all correspondence of an official character between him, when Commander-in-Chief, and the late Secretary of State for War, in respect to the military operations that might become necessary in the event of war in South Africa.
  MR. BRODRICK: The question of J laving before Parliament the letter addressed by Lord Wolseley to the Prime Minister is one for their consideration. I am not aware of any correspondence between the late Commander-in-Chief and the late Secretary of State for War on this subject, and it would be quite contrary to usage to lay the departmental minutes which pass daily between officials on all the current business of a Department before Parliament.

  FORT OF INCHKEITH GUNS.
  MR. JOHN HOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the guns on the fort of Inchkeith are muzzle or breech loaders; if the latter, are they of the newest quick-
  1550
  firing pattern; also whether, for the protection of the Forth, he will consider the advisability of placing batteries no the Bass Rock and May Island.
  LORD STANLEY: It has been explained to the House on previous occasions that it is not considered expedient to give information in regard to the details of the various armaments. I may, however, state that the guns on Fort Inchkeith are all breechloaders.

  WELSH MILITARY HEADQUARTERS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience arising from the present distribution of Welsh counties for purposes of military command, whereby the military headquarters for North Wales are located at Chester, whilst the headquarters for South Wales, together with Montgomeryshire and Monmouthshire, are located at Plymouth; and whether, in view of the advantages in matters of recruiting and training which would accrue, he will consider the advisability of establishing one military command for the Principality.
  LORD STANLEY: I am not aware of any inconvenience arising from the present distribution of Welsh counties for purposes of military command. Further, it is not at all likely that the troops quartered in Wales will amount to a whole army corps, and it will therefore be necessary to allot the troops there either to form part of one or more of the six future army corps already notified.

  MARK IV. BULLETS.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how much compensation has been paid to contractors in connection with the withdrawal of Mark IV. Cartridges; how many Mark IV. bullets have been broken up; and how many Mark IV. bullets still remain in stock.
  LORD STANLEY: £6,568 16s. 7d. has been paid to the contractors. About 4½ million bullets were broken up, and about 250,000 are still in hand.
  MR. HEEBERT LEWIS: Were these Dumdum bullets?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: Why were they broken up?
  LORD STANLEY: If the hon. Member will put the question down, I will endeavour to answer it.

  MEDICAL ATTENDANCE FOR SOLDIERS' WIVES.
  MR. ARCHDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the wives and families of soldiers, embodied militia, or reservists, serving with their corps, are only entitled to free medical attendance when residing within reach of an officer of army medical corps or of civil practitioner engaged at military contract rates; and, if so, will he say who is to pay for medical attendance for those who live outside that distance and are too poor to pay for themselves.
  LORD STANLEY: It has been explained to the House before that it is not possible to provide medical attendance for those residing at a distance from military headquarters.

  SOLDIERS' UNCLAIMED BALANCES.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the respective annual amounts of soldiers' unclaimed balances for the last six years that are ascertainable, and how have these been disposed of.
  LORD STANLEY: The figures for the last six years of which the accounts have been closed are as follows:—1892–3, £1,268; 1893–4, £1,418; 1894–5, £2,979; 1895–6, £3,238; 1896–7, £1,036; 1897–8, £1,813. The balances for the first two years have been transferred to the Patriotic Fund. The remainder are invested pending transfer at the expiration of the statutory period of advertisement.

  DECEASED OFFICERS' BAGGAGE.
  MR. HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in administering the estates of officers who have died on active
  1552
  service, it has been the practice of the War Office to delay payment of moneys due to their estates, or to demand a guarantee in respect thereof before payment, on account of the cost of carriage home of the deceased officers' baggage; and, if so, whether he will take measures to abolish a regulation which has caused much hardship to those dependent upon the proceeds of the deceased officers' estates.
  LORD STANLEY: There has been no delay of payment arising from cost of conveyance of baggage home. Owing to a number of claims against officers for conveyance of excess baggage in South Africa, arrangements were made for retaining a balance of £5 from the estates of officers to meet any such claim. This arrangement ceased last December, and all cases have, so far as I am aware, been settled.

  DEAD SOLDIERS' CLOTHING.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Financia, Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that clothes of men dying in South Africa from enteric fever are returned to this country often in a dirty state; and whether, in consequence of the danger of infection, now increased by the prevalence of plague in Cape Colony, he will order that the kits of soldiers dying of disease shall be thoroughly disinfected before being returned to this country, or destroyed, and proper compensation made to their relatives.
  LORD STANLEY: No clothing of men dying in South Africa is returned to the Clothing Department at home and nothing is known of any having been sent home privately. In accordance with the Regimental Debts Act the personal effects, except special articles left by will, belonging to a soldier dying on active services are sold by auction on the spot. Special cautionary instructions as to the spread of infection have been sent out.

  LONDON VOLUNTEERS—RIFLE RANGES.
  COLONEL LONG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what steps it is proposed to take to

  1553
  insure the London Volunteers having satisfactory facilities, as far as ranges near at hand arc concerned, for rifle practice and for becoming efficient shots.
  MR. BRODRICK: The ranges at Bisley and Staines provide for a large number of the corps, and I had hoped that with the assistance of the London County Council an excellent range could have been obtained for those corps whose headquarters are in the east of the Metropolis. The representatives of the Volunteers, however, refused to accept the arrangement it the Loudon County Council participated therein. I have no other scheme at present under consideration.

  ILFORD RIFLE RANGE.
  COLONEL LONG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the acknowledged excellency in shooting arrived at in Switzerland by practising on short ranges, and the fact that a range near the headquarters of a rifle corps can be much more extensively used and consequently be much more valuable than one at a considerable distance, he will have a fresh inquiry held to see whether the Ilford Range, which has been used so long with perfect safety, cannot, even if doubtful for long ranges, be made a safety range up to some 400 yards.
  LORD STANLEY: This question has been very carefully considered and the Secretary of State is not advised to reopen it. The military authorities hold that it is impossible to adapt the Ilford Range to meet the musketry requirements now imposed upon the Volunteers.

  NON-ALCOHOLIC REFRESHMENTS FOR TRAVELLING SOLDIERS AND SAILORS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any, and, if any, how many railway companies besides the Great Eastern have arranged to supply soldiers, reservists, and sailors in uniform with non-alcoholic refreshments at railway station bars at a reduced price; and will he state what steps have been taken to acquaint the men of this concession.
  LORD STANLEY: Communications on this subject have been made to all the
  1554
  principal railway companies. As soon as the arrangements which are in progress have been completed they will be made known.
  MAJOR RASCH: Will the noble Lord inquire as to the indifferent quality and high prices of the provisions before forcing them down the throats of the men?
  MR. WEIR: And will he take steps to inform the men of the concession made in their favour?
  LORD STANLEY: It is of no use acquainting them of the fact until the concession has actually been granted by more than one railway company.

  PATRICK M'NAMARA'S PENSION.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Patrick M'Namara, of Sixmile-bridge, county Clare, who was formerly a soldier in the 14th Regiment, and served for one year and two months in the Crimea, and twenty-three years in the English Army; whether he is aware that M'Namara is only in receipt of a pension of 4s. 8d. per week, out of which he has to pay rent and support a family that he is now weak from old age, and. has to depend for medical assistance and nourishment on the ratepayers; and1 that the Limerick Board of Guardians and the police of his district have recommended the War Office to increase his allowance; and whether, having regard to all the circumstances, arrangements will be made to give this old soldier a sufficient amount to keep him from want and suffering.
  LORD STANLEY: The amount of this man's pension is as stated, but it is not possible under the regulations applicable to his case to grant him any increase. He was not in possession of any good conduct badges when discharged, and his character while in the Army was bad.

  QUEEN VICTORIA'S FUNERAL—1ST SEAFORTH VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the company of 1st Seaforth Volunteers who, in response to an invitation from

  1555
  the War Office, left Dingwall soon after noon on Friday, 1st February, for the purpose of taking part in the ceremonies at the Queen's funeral, found on their arrival at King's Cross at 5.30 on Saturday morning that there was no one to direct them, and that no provision had been made for their arrival, with the result that it was only by accident, and through the courtesy of the commanding officer of a Metropolitan Volunteer corps, that they obtained food late in the afternoon prior to their return to Dingwall by the 5.30 p.m. train, arriving at the latter place Sunday forenoon; and will he state who is responsible for this neglect, which caused discomfort and dissatisfaction.
  LORD STANLEY: An officer was detailed as station staff officer at King's Cross on the 2nd February, and the detachment was duly directed on their arrival in the morning to the King's Cross goods shed, where ample accommodation and food were provided. No neglect is attributable to anyone.
  MR. WEIR: Is the noble Lord aware that as soon as the men entered the goods shed they were ordered out by the railway company? I have it on the best authority that that was the case. Is the noble Lord aware that the men had neither food nor drink provided for them? I beg to give notice that I shall take the earliest possible opportunity of drawing attention to the gross neglect of which these men were the victims.

  NEW NAVAL BARRACKS AT PORTSEA
  Mr. REGINALD LUCAS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board have yet come to a decision upon the case of the men employed by Messrs. Lovett, the contractors, on the new naval barracks works at Portsea, who received no allowance for enforced loss of work on the occasion of the funeral of Her late Majesty, when the Government employees engaged upon the same work suffered no loss of pay.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: A decision has not yet been arrive at, but will very shortly be given, and I shall then be happy to communicate it to my hon. friend.

  DEPTFORD VICTUALLING YARD LIGHTING.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the arrangements for lighting at Deptford Victualling Yard, where men have been working overtime during the past eighteen months loading and unloading ships and barges by candle lamps and gaslight, as a result of which several slight accidents have occurred, and one man recently broke his leg; and whether seeing that on either side of the yard, both at the Foreign Cattle Market and Brighton Railway Company Dock, electric light is used, he will take steps for the introduction of that light into the yard.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: During the last eighteen months only nine accidents—one of them severe—have occurred in connection with the loading or unloading of vessels at Deptford, and none of them are attributable to defective lighting. They are only the ordinary cases of spraining and slight contusions inseparable from wharf duty. The case referred to, where a man broke his leg, occurred through his slipping from a frozen plank in the frosty weather. The wharves are lighted by Siemens' patent gas lamps, and in order to facilitate the work of loading or unloading, candle lamps are placed on board the craft. Fewer accidents have occurred by night than by day.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that the gas lighting in this yard is defective?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I think it is adequate for all purposes.

  ILLEGAL TRAWLING NEAR ABERDEEN— THE "JACKAL."
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the fact that the "Jackal" is the gunboat more directly charged with the duty of preventing illegal trawling in the close vicinity of Aberdeen, he can state where she is at present, how often during the months of December, January, and February, respectively, this boat has been berthed in Aberdeen Harbour, and on how many of such occasions she has taken tip her moorings inside the dock

  1557
  gates of the harbour; what is the number of officers on board her, and since when has the present officer in charge of her held the appointment.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: His Majesty's ship "Jackal" is stationed on the coast of Scotland for the protection of the fisheries generally, and is not directly or exclusively charged with such duties in the vicinity of Aberdeen only. She was at Aberdeen under repair up to the 19th December last (another gunboat doing her duty). She left on the date named for fishery duty, and has not since been in Aberdeen Harbour. From the 1st January she has been employed in the waters of the Hebrides. The commanding officer of the "Jackal" is Lieut.-Commander James C. Tancred, the date of whose appointment is 10th February, 1899.

  ABYSSINIAN FRONTIER DISPUTE.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State, for Foreign Affairs whether any agreement with the Negus has yet been signed with regard to the delimitation of the Abyssinian frontier; and whether any arrangement has been come to for joint action against a common enemy on the frontier.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) (for Lord CRANBORNE): No agreement has yet been signed with regard to the Abyssinian frontier, but negotiations are now proceeding between King Menelek and His Majesty's agent and Consul General at Adis Abeba on the subject. King Menelek last year invited the co-operation of His Majesty's Government in suppressing a fanatical Mollah who has for some time past been disturbing the peace among the tribes on the borders of the British Protectorate of Somaliland and the Abyssinian dominions. His Majesty's Government have instructed their officers to arrange for such, co-operation in the event of a forward movement against the Mollah becoming necessary. This is, however, only a temporary arrangement for a special purpose.

  CHINA—RUSSIA AND MANCHURIA.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have made any proposals to the United States Government in reference to the action of Russia in Manchuria; and, if so, whether he will state the nature of these proposals.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR (for Lord CRAN-BORNE): His Majesty's Government are in constant communication with the Rowers concerned on every phase of the Chinese question, but it would be contrary to the public interest to enter into particulars at the present moment.

  NICARAGUA CANAL—HAY-PAUNCE- FOTE TREATY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any steps are being taken to revive the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR (for Lord CRAN-BORNE): The Hay-Pauncefote Convention has lapsed, the time for ratification having expired. No steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to revive the Convention, but they would be ready to consider in a friendly way any proposals made for that object by the Government of the United States.

  SOMALILAND OPERATIONS.
  MR. C. P. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he will issue to Members Papers on British East Africa and on the recent operations in Somaliland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Papers are being prepared and will be laid as soon as it is possible to include in them certain fuller reports on the recent operations in Jubaland which we expect shortly to receive.

  WEST AFRICA—COST OF WARLIKE OPERATIONS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the total expenditure on warlike operations from 1895 to 1900, inclusive,

  1559
  in connection with the Colonies or hinterlands of Gambia, Sierra Leone, the Gold Coast, Lagos, and the Niger, respectively; and what has been the total cost of the West African Field Force up to date.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The only expenditure on warlike operations separately recorded, apart from the cost of the various constabulary forces in the years 1895 to 1900, is that of £44,625 for the extra cost thrown upon Sierra Leone in respect of the operations in 1897–8 and that of £195,893 for the Cold Coast, the greater part of which is the cost of the Ashanti expedition of 1895–6. The cost of the recent Ashanti War is not yet ascertained, but will probably come to about £400,000. The total cost of the West African Frontier Force up to date has averaged about £180,000 per annum for the last four years.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Will the hon. Member give the cost for each separate year?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I will endeavour to get the figures.

  WEST AFRICA—GOLD-MINING OPERATIONS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has observed that various companies have been formed to work gold reefs in parts of Western Africa within the dominions of His Majesty; whether the law which vests in the State all gold discovered in the United Kingdom holds good in these West African dominions; whether such companies pay a tax upon the gold that they extract from the soil; and, if so, what is the amount; arid whether any steps are being taken to ensure that no natives shall be employed in these mines without their assent being obtained, their full comprehension of any contract into which they may enter being brought home to them, and security against their ill-treatment being provided.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am advised that the law of England as to gold mines does not apply to the Cold Coast. Under the law of the Cold Coast, companies formed to work gold mines will pay a special tax of 5 per cent. per annum
  1560
  on their net profits. The law of the Gold Coast appears to provide sufficiently for the protection of persons employed in mining as at present carried on.

  RHODESIA—NATIVE LABOUR.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it has been brought to his notice that certain black men inhabiting East Africa were induced by the Chartered Company of South Africa to enter into a contract to be transported to Rhodesia and to work in the mines there, and that on reaching Lorenco Marques they declined to proceed further; whether he can state what was the nature of the contract; whether the black men understood its stipulations; whether the Chartered Company of South Africa obtained the permission of His Majesty's Government to enter into it, and its provisions; and whether any supervision in regard to its conditions was exercised by British officials; and what has become of these black men.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I will answer this question in the absence of the noble Lord the Member for Rochester. The journey of the agents of the British South Africa Company to engage labourers in North-East Africa was undertaken with the consent of His Majesty's Government. As to this particular case, we are informed that a number of natives belonging to Jibuti in French territory came overland to Zeyla in British Somaliland, having been engaged as labourers for Rhodesia by one of these agents. Application was made by him to the Customs superintendent for permission to embark them, but this was only granted upon a promise by the agent that he would take them to Berbera, so that the Consul General might be satisfied before sanctioning their embarkation. This, however, for some reason as yet unexplained, the agent failed to do. On reaching Beira they became alarmed and refused to go any further, and a struggle took place, in which one native lost his life. The Portuguese authorities ordered an inquiry, the result of which we are awaiting; and a full explanation has been called for from the British South Africa Company. We have every reason

  1561
  to believe that the natives in their alarm were labouring under a misapprehension, but we are not aware of the terms of the contract, which presumably was made under French jurisdiction.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will a copy of the contract lie laid on the Table?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put any further question down.

  PRESS COMMENTS ON PENDING TRIALS.
  *MR. MARSHALL HALL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce a short Bill making it a misdemeanour punishable on conviction by fine or imprisonment, or both, for any person to publish in the press or in any public manner whatsoever any comment upon any criminal charge or accusation made against any individual whilst the hearing or determination of such charge or accusation is pending either before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction or before a Court of Record.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): Comments in the press upon a criminal charge whilst the hearing is pending cannot, in my opinion, be too strongly condemned. I am now considering with the law officers whether the law as it stands is not sufficiently strong to deal with such cases as that referred to in the question.

  PRESS INTERVIEWS WITH WITNESSES ON PENDING TRIALS.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been drawn to a practice adopted by representatives of some of the press of seeking interviews with persons who have been called, or who are about to be called, as witnesses in matters pending before the courts of justice, and of publishing the statements and answers to questions given by such persons; whether he has observed that these statements and answers have afterwards been used in court to discredit the sworn testimony of the persons from whom they were obtained; and whether
  1562
  he is prepared to take measures, by legislation if necessary, to put a stop to the practice referred to, and to any interference whatever with witnesses, as being calculated to impede the course of justice.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): My attention has been called to the fact referred to in the question. The practice mentioned in the first paragraph is a most objectionable one, and might, under certain circumstances, bring those concerned within the reach of the criminal law as it stands. The whole subject is under consideration.†

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY AND LIEE SAVING ARRANGEMENTS.
  SIR R. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Admiralty authorities have decided to put up wireless telegraphy stations at Dover, Culver Cliff, Portland Bill, Rame Head, Scilly, and other places; and whether he can now hold out hopes that this system will be adopted without delay for life-saving purposes.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I am informed that certain stations are being erected by the Admiralty along the coast to test the value of wireless telegraphy. I regret that I am not in a position to say more on the subject at present.

  P. AND O. STEAMERS—ACCOMMODATION FOR LASCARS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any steps have yet been taken to require the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company to provide lascars employed on their vessels with accommodation equivalent to that to which European crews are entitled—namely, 72 cubic feet of space
  †Reference may be made to The Parliamentary Debates, First Series, Vol. vi., page 902. In 1806, Mr. Serjeant Rest had obtained leave to bring in a Bill "to prevent the publication of ex parte evidence against persons accused of felonies and other crimes previous to trial." He explains the grounds on which he considered such a measure necessary, and his reasons for deciding, against his personal judgment, not to proceed with the Bill.—[Ed.]

  1563
  per man; and, in view of a statement made by the late President of the Board of Trade, can it be stated whether any action has yet been taken against the company by way of a test case to show whether or not the company has committed an infringement of the Merchant Shipping Act in providing lascars with less space than above indicated; and, if not, will he say when action will be taken.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the matter to which the hon. Member referred had not been lost sight of. The Peninsular and Oriental Company have taken steps by a petition of right, which has been fiated, to obtain an authoritative legal decision on the points that have arisen with regard to lascar crew space. An answer to this petition has been prepared by counsel, but I am not able to say definitely when the case will come on for hearing.

  AVOCH CHANNEL BUOYS.
  MR. WHIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners are yet in a position to state when they will be prepared to place lights on the five buoys which indicate the channel off Avoch, Ross-shire.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand that the lighting of the Avoch Buoys was not included by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses in the Estimates for the coming year, in consequence of the many more important works required on different parts of the coast, but that the matter will not be overlooked.

  RAILWAY COMPANIES' BICYCLE RATES.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the railway companies continue to refuse to reduce the charges imposed on cyclists for the conveyance of bicycles, in spite of the recommendations of the Board of Trade and the views expressed by its late President to a deputation on the 11th of May last; and whether he will now introduce the legislation to which the late President of the Board then made reference.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not aware of any general reduction of charge
  1564
  adopted by the railway companies. I do not think my right hon. friend promised, legislation on this subject, and I am not prepared to introduce such legislation.
  MR. LOUGH: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the answer of his predecessor?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.

  IRON AND STEEL IMPORTS.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will extend the information with regard to iron and steel imports in the monthly Trade and Navigation Returns, by showing the imports of bar and angle iron, and unwrought steel, separated into the various countries from which more than 100 tons has been imported, as shown under the other heads of pig and puddled iron; and also give similar extensions under the various heads of iron and steel manufactures and machinery.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The form of the monthly Trade and Navigation Returns cannot be changed during the course of the year without great inconvenience, but the hon. Member's suggestion will be referred to the Committee on the Revision of Trade Accounts which meets next autumn. Meanwhile it is possible for any person interested to obtain the information referred to in the question from the various monthly supplements to the London Bills of Entry issued by the Customs Department.
  MR. CAINE: In view of the great interest felt in this matter up and down the country, cannot the Board of Trade give this information?
  Mr. GERALD BALFOUR: It would be very inconvenient now to change the form. Anyone requiring the information can obtain it from the monthly supplement to the London Bills of Entry.

  PONTEFRACT LOCOMOTIVE EXPLOSION.
  MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the explosion of a locomotive while running a mineral train near Pontefract, on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway on the night of

  1565
  the 11th instant, by which two men, the driver and fireman, were killed; can he state the number of the same type of locomotive possessed by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, and their steam pressure; and whether he will order an inspection to be made of all that class of locomotives on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board of Trade have ordered an inquiry into this accident. I am not at present prepared to make any further statement with regard to the matter.

  HYDE PARK CORNER CARRIAGE WAY.
  *MR. MARSHALL HALL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, during the session of Parliament, the carriage way between Hyde Park Corner and the Marble Arch and Victoria Gate can be kept open until I a.m. instead of being closed at midnight as at present.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I am sorry that I do not see my way to adopt the suggestion of my hon. and learned friend.

  MEMBERS' LOCKERS.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, seeing that there are at present a number of Members who cannot get lockers, he will take steps to remove that inconvenience by providing such accommodation as soon as possible.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I hope it may be found possible, to provide the additional accommodation suggested by the hon. Member.

  THE PYX CHAPEL.
  MR. G. T. KENYON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he can state by whose authority the custody of the Pyx Chapel has been transferred from the Board of Trade to the Office of Works; what is the object gained by the transfer; and whether he can give any assurance that the chapel will not be submitted to any process of restoration, or improved away altogether, as was the case with the Rolls Chapel.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The transfer of the Pyx Chapel was made by leave of the President of the Board of Trade, with the approval of the First Lord of the Treasury. The object is to place the chapel in charge of the authority who has already the care of the Chapter House adjoining, and whose function it is to maintain buildings of national interest. The chapel will not be submitted to any process of restoration.

  RICHMOND PARK.
  MR. SKEWES-COX: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will direct that attention be paid to the complaints made by the Kingston Municipal Society of the broken glass at present scattered about Richmond Park, and take steps to prevent as far as possible the practice of picnic parties leaving empty bottles and other litter in the park to the danger of ordinary visitors.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The matter referred to by my hon. friend has received attention. All that I can do to suitably and effectively prevent the nuisance complained of is already being done.

  TRAPP (CARMARTHENSHIRE) NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  MR. ABEL THOMAS: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed at the last meeting of the Llandilo Urban District School Board with reference to the condition of the Trapp (Carmarthenshire) National School; whether he is aware that one master is in sole charge of the entire school, in which there are infants and children from the first to the sixth standard, who are taught in one and the same room; that owing to the condition of the school the average attendance during the last few months has diminished by nearly thirty per cent., and that some of these children have to walk a distance of four miles to go to another school; whether complaints have been received by the Committee of Education of this school for the last seven years; and whether he will state what he proposes to do in the matter.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GIRST,): As far as I have been able to inquire since the question was put down, no resolution has been received; there is at the school one master for some thirty-two children; there are two rooms. I have no information as to the diminution of average attendance in the last few months, nor as to the distance of other schools. No complaints, so far as I know, have been received; but I will make further inquiry.

  BOARD SCHOOL SITES IN EAST LONDON—REHOUSING.
  MR. THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the London School Board have scheduled, for the purpose of erecting additional board schools, three sites in Barnsley Street, St. George's-in-the-East, and Arbour Square and Bromley Street, Stepney, comprising some of the best class of property in one of the most congested districts in London; and whether, seeing that the conversion of these sites into board schools will unhouse upwards of 300 people for whom no provision for rehousing has been made, he will commend to the consideration of the London School Board the necessity of finding other sites than those scheduled, which will not accentuate to so great an extent the housing problem in East London.
  SIR J. GORST: The Inspector of the Board of Education is about to inquire into this question of sites.
  Major GORDON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can give the approximate number of school places at present required in St. George's, East, and Stepney Divisions of Tower Hamlets; whether he has information showing that the demand for such places is sufficient to justify the proposed destruction of house property in these neighbourhoods; whether he is aware that vacant sites and slum areas are available in the immediate vicinity; and whether the
  1568
  School Board can be compelled to utilise them.
  SIR. GORST: I have already said that this matter is being inquired into.

  HIGHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS— WEST HAM SCHOOLS BOARD.
  Mr. GRAY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that on 3rd March, 1900, the School Board for the County Borough of West Ham asked for approval of arrangements for a higher grade school; that the Board of Education replied on 27th April requesting that the application should be renewed at a later date; that the application was renewed on 15th June, and the Board of Education wrote on 2nd August asking whether they understood the application to be for a higher grade or higher elementary school; whether he is aware that, in view of this suggestion, the Vest Ham Board asked on 28th September for approval for a higher elementary school in Harold road, and that, up to 7th March, 1901, no approval had been given; whether he can give the reasons for this delay of over twelve months; and, whether he will now facilitate the efforts of the West Ham School Board in their attempt to provide at least one higher elementary school in a town of 300,000 people.
  SIR J. GORST: The West Ham School Board did not apply for the recognition of a higher elementary school at Harold Road until September 28th, and has not yet provided the information necessary to enable the Board of Education to come to a decision on their application. Further information was asked for by the Board of Education on October 18th. The answer to this inquiry was not received until January 28th, and the information it contained was still inadequate. A further communication has already been sent to the School Board.

  HIGHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MINUTE.
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Minute of the Board establishing higher elementary schools without

  1569
  amendments will form part of and be published with the Education Code which will shortly be laid upon the Table.
  Sir J. GORST: The answer is in the affirmative.

  IRISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.
  MR. ARCHDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the full amount in proportion to acreage is expended in Ireland upon geological survey as is in England and Wales; if not, would he consider the advisability of expending the balance in preparing soil maps for the benefit of farmers and agriculturists in general.
  Sir J. GORST: The expenditure of t lie geological survey docs not depend on acreage at all. The Vote of Parliament is spent on the survey of the United Kingdom as a whole, and no balance is available for any other purpose.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE IN SUFFOLK.
  MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the President of the. Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the petty sessional division of Stowmarket has been closed as an infected area; and whether he will take immediate steps to have the restrictions removed, seeing that there has been no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease within a radius of ten miles of the said division.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): The Stowmarket, Boxford, and parts of the Melford and Thingoe Petty Sessional Divisions were on February 27th added to the district originally scheduled because outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease had occurred in the west of Ipswich, and within six miles of the boundaries of those of the Stowmarket division. I fully realise the loss and inconvenience which the necessity of arresting the spread of the diseasemust entail upon a scheduled district, and though it would be premature to assume that the outbreak has been entirely suppressed, a case having occurred at Bradford as recently as March 7th. the outlook has, no doubt.
  1570
  improved, and I hope to be in a position soon to further modify the restrictions.

  BUTTER ADULTERATION IN LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state how many samples of butter have been taken by inspectors under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1889, for the purpose of public analysis in Liverpool and Manchester respectively during the year 1900; also the number taken by inspectors during the same period in each of the towns of Cheshire having a population of 20,000 and upwards.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): The Returns received by the Local Government Board do not relate to the number of samples taken, but to the number analysed. The number of samples of butter submitted for analysis last year was as follows:—Liverpool, 39; Manchester. 149; Birkenhead, 33; Stockport, 8: Chester, 6; Macclesfield, 3; Hyde. 17; Stalybridge, 5. There are two or three other places in the county of Chester with populations of over 20,000, but for these there are no separate Returns of samples analysed.

  SALE OF DRUGS ACT, 1899.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state what steps have been taken by the Local Government Board or the Board of Agriculture, under Section 3, Subsection (2) of the Sale of Drugs Act, 1899, to enforce the Act in places where the local authorities have failed to execute its provisions.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: The Local Government Board have not hitherto had occasion to take action under the sub-section referred to. I may explain that the Act came into operation on the 1st January, 1900, and that the Returns as to the proceedings taken by local authorities last year are only now coming in. As regards any action on the part of the Board of Agriculture, the question should be addressed to my right hon. friend the President of that Department.

  DIVIDED MAGISTERIAL BENCHES.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General when a bench of magistrates in England happens to be evenly divided in opinion as to whether a case should be returned for trial or not, if he can state what action is usually taken; and if the case is brought up for consideration at a future session.
  SIR ROBERT FLNLAY: I have made inquiries, but have been unable to hear of any English case in which there has been an equal division of opinion as to committal for trial. I am therefore unable to make any statement as to any usual practice in such an event, but think it very probable that if there should be a final difference of opinion, the case might be brought up for consideration on a future occasion.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Can the hon. Member say why the views of paid magistrates should carry more weight than those of unpaid magistrates?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH SCOTLAND.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the commercial and manufacturing interests in Scotland complain of the frequent interruptions and in some cases the total collapse, of the telegraph service during the storms of the past winter, causing loss, and placing them at a disadvantage compared with their competitors on the Continent, and especially in Germany, where such interruptions are now, through the adoption of the underground system of telegraphy, unknown; whether he can state the relative length of underground telegraph lines in this country and in Germany; and whether it is proposed to extend the underground system from Birmingham to the north of England and Scotland, which have both suffered so much from the interruption of telegraphic communication during the last two winters.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The
  1572
  answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative; but he is under a misapprehension in supposing that interruptions are unknown in Germany. On the 12th instant, the day when his question appeared on the Paper, eleven out of the twenty-two wires between this country and Germany were interrupted, and in no case was the interruption in this country. According to the latest statistics in the Postmaster General's possession, the length of underground line in Germany was about 3,940 miles, while in the United Kingdom there were at the same date 1,080 miles. The mileage of underground wire on the other hand was 26,750 for Germany and 10,600 for the United Kingdom. The Postmaster General proposes during the ensuing financial year to begin the construction of two additional sections of underground line to the North.

  MARRIAGE GRATUITIES EOR POST OFFICE CLERKS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state what amount is provided for marriage gratuities to young ladies in the post offices and in the telegraph offices of the United Kingdom for 1901–2; will he explain why it is proposed to give £1,000 less this year than last year for marriage presents or gratuities to the ladies of the telegraph department; and is it estimated that there will be fewer marriages.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The amounts provided for marriage gratuities in the Estimates for 1901–2 are as follows: postal, £4,250; telegraph, £6,500. The reason why a reduced amount is provided for the telegraph service is that in the last two years there has been a falling-off in the expenditure, and the full amount voted by Parliament has not been required.

  ENNISKILLEN POSTAL STAFF.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, on 4th August, 1900, the Postmaster General stated that the male, staff were suffering incon-

  1573
  venience in the discharge of their duties and that remedial measures were in progress; and whether, seeing that since that period the male staff has been reduced and the female staff increased, and that such alterations have worsened the duties and attendances of the male staff, steps will be taken to revise the arrangements with a view towards improvement.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member refers to the Enniskillen office, it is not the case that the number of the permanent male staff has been reduced under the revision carried out in January last. The object of that revision was to readjust the attendances so as to admit of the staff having the proper interval of nine hours rest from duty, and this improvement has been effected. The services of a man employed temporarily previous to the revision were dispensed with, as it was found that an addition to the male staff was not justified, and that an increase of one in the permanent female staff would suffice. The number of men employed at Enniskillen is already somewhat above the average for an office of this class, and it is only on account of the early morning duties that the proportion of women employed has not been further increased.

  ACHNASHEEN (ROSS-SHIRE) POST OFFICE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, having regard to the fact that the people residing in the neighbourhood of Achnasheen, Ross-shire, have no office at which they can obtain money orders or cash postal orders nearer than Kinlochewe, which is distant ten miles, will he consider the expediency of arranging for the transaction of money order and savings bank business at Achnasheen post office.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The question of extending money order and savings bank business to the post office at Achnasheen, Ross-shire, is under the I consideration of the Postmaster General, and he hopes that it will be found practicable to make the extension without requiring a money guarantee.

  WHITTLESEA POST OFFICE.
  MR. BRAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any steps have been decided in regard to premises for a new post office at Whittlesea.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No decision has yet been arrived at in regard to a new post office at Whittlesea. Inquiry for suitable premises is still going on.

  SCILLY ISLANDS.
  MR. TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Scilly Islands have been eased; and, if so, can he state the amount of the rental and the date of the termination of the lease.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is understood that the Scilly Islands have been leased at various times and for varying periods, but the particulars are not known to the Treasury, as Treasury sanction is not required for the leases.

  PENNY POSTAGE STAMP COLOUR.
  MR. TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that the colour of the halfpenny postage stamp has been lately altered from red to green, to bring it into conformity with the colour of the corresponding values of other countries in the Postal Union, he will take steps to change the present colour of the penny postage stamp back again to its original colour of red now adopted by other countries in the Postal Union as that of their stamps of corresponding value.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Although the Postmaster General sees certain advantages in uniformity of colour for stamps approximately the same value throughout the Postal Union, he does not think those advantages great enough to override all other considerations. As stated in reply to a question asked in this House by the hon. Member for Canterbury on the 11th instant, the Postmaster General is not satisfied that any sufficient reason exists for altering the colour of the penny stamp as suggested.

  CONTINENTAL MAILS.
  MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the afternoon mail train is frequently detained at Dover in consequence of the late arrival of the steam packet either from Calais or Ostond; and whether, with the view of saving a detention of mails and passengers at Dover, he will suggest to the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company that the mails and passengers by the Ostend and Calais steamers should always be conveyed from Dover to London by the same railway route, so that each of the two trains shall leave Dover as soon as possible after the arrival of the steamer whose mails and passengers they would by this arrangement convey.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Of the two trains from Dover which run in connection with the day mail packets from the Continent, one only, that going via, Ashford, is under the control of the Postmaster General. He does not consider that special expense would be warranted in order to obtain control over the other train going viâ Chatham. Whenever it happens that the packet from Calais is late, the mail train viâ Ashford is detained until the arrival of that packet, which carries very heavy and important mails. When the Belgian packet, bringing much smaller mails, is late, the train in question waits only a short time for it. It is understood that the railway company detain the train going via Chatham in the same way as the mail train, and with this arrangement the Postmaster General has no power to interfere.

  APPLECROSS (ROSS-SHIRE) ROADS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Congested Districts Board have yet considered the expediency of providing funds for the construction of a road or footpath on the north coast of the parish of Applecross, Ross-shire; and, if not, will the matter receive the consideration of the Board.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that they have already granted
  1576
  75 per cent, of the £130 required to complete the path round the north, coast of Applecross.
  MR. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to secure a further grant?
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I cannot do anything now.

  SCOTTISH CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the number of acres of land purchased by the Congested Districts Board for Scotland since the establishment of the Board, and the total sum of purchase money paid.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have to state in reply to the hon. Member that the Congested Districts Board have made purchases of considerable areas of land for new settlements in two different parts of the congested area. Information as to these will duly appear in the Report of the Board for the year to 31st March next. Other negotiations are in contemplation, and it is inexpedient to give further information until the Report of the Board is in the hands of hon. Members.
  MR. WEIR: Seeing that last session-the issue of the Report was delayed several months, will the right hon. Gentleman take care that this year it is placed in the hands of Members earlier?
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am quite aware of the inconvenience caused' by the delay last session. We have reason to hope it will not occur again.

  TELEGRAPHIC ARRANGEMENTS AT SHAWBOST, STORNOWAY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the Postmaster General has stated that he is prepared to establish a telegraph office at Shawbost, Stornoway, under a guarantee of £27 per annum, and seeing that the Barvas Parish Council have signified their intention to guarantee half that amount, will the Congested Districts Board consider the expediency of providing the remaining half of the required guarantees
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that the Barvas Parish Council have not yet approached them on the subjects referred to by the lion. Member, when they do so their proposal will be duly considered.

  GLASGOW SMALL-POX EPIDEMIC.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I. beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can state the number of cases of small-pox and tin number of deaths from that epidemic in Glasgow up to date.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): I am informed by the Local Government Board for Scotland that from 22nd February, the date on which information was last supplied, in reply to the hon. Member, up to the 11th instant there have been;312 cases of small-pox and thirty-two deaths have occurred.
  MR. BARTLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of the persons attacked were vaccinated?
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I am afraid not.

  SOLWAY FIRTH FISHERIES.
  *MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can explain why no notice has been taken of the Report of the Royal Commission of 1895 on the Fisheries of the Solway Firth, recommending the purchase of the Scottish stake nets, and the establishment of uniform legislation on both sides of the estuary: and whether he can state if it is necessary to await a confirmation of that recommendation before taking steps to redress a grievance which is inflicting hardships on the Cumberland fishermen.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As a Royal Commission is now sitting, it seems inexpedient to come to any decision as to further legislation until they have reported.
  *MR. CLAUDE LOWTHERasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he was aware that this Royal Commission
  1578
  had finished sitting, and whether he could inform him when the Commissioners were likely to make public their Report.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that rested entirely with the Commission. He I would inquire, if notice were given of he question.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN NORTH DUBLIN.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution passed by the North Dublin District Council, at its meeting on the 6th inst., in which it is stated that it still takes two years to carry out a scheme for the erection of labourers' cottages; and whether he will take into consideration the advisability of proposing futher legislation with a view to shortening and cheapening the procedure to be adopted in the administration of the Labourers Acts in Ireland.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM.): In some instances an interval of two years has elapsed between the commencement of proceedings under the Labourers Acts and building operations. The time taken depends to a great extent on the dimensions and nature of the schemes, which are frequently submitted by local authorities in an incomplete and imperfect manner, necessitating lengthy correspondence with the promoters. The Act of 1896 simplified and expedited the procedure, so far as it was considered expedient to do so.
  MR. CLANCY: Will the right hon. Gentleman propose further legislation in. the direction suggested?
  MR. WYNDHAM: As at present advised. I think the Act of 1896 sufficiently meets the case.

  DISMISSAL OF MULLOUGH POLICE OFFICERS.
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg-to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Police-sergeant Sheridan and Constable Mahony, of Mullough Police Station, have been dismissed the service for

  1579
  placing boycotting notices in the pocket of a man named Ryan and subsequently arresting him; and what steps do His Majesty's Government propose to take to safeguard the public against such practices on the part of the police.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Sergeant Sheridan and Constable Mahony arrested on the 1st January at Mullough, county Clare, a man named John Ryan, alleging that they had observed him in the act of posting a threatening notice, and that subsequently they had discovered two other threatening notices in his pockets. He was brought before the resident magistrate at Miltown Malbay on the following morning and remanded from time to time until the 26th January, when he was discharged from custody on the ground that the evidence would not have secured a conviction. No other course could properly have been taken when the evidence brought forward was, in the opinion of the Crown, untrustworthy. These police officers were not discharged for placing the notices in the man s pocket. They were discharged for supporting a charge by evidence of a character so unsatisfactory and conflicting as to render their further retention in the force undesirable in the interests of the public.
  MAJOR JAMESON: Is there any intention of prosecuting these two constables for illegal arrest?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. In their case, as in the case of Ryan, the Crown do not believe a conviction could lie obtained. The evidence goes to show that though apparently the officers acted in collusion with regard to the man arrested, it was not sufficient to justify a prosecution.
  MAJOR JAMESON: Will the Government grant a Select Committee to investigate this case, as was done in the case of Sergeant Malony of Limerick?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it customary to forthwith dismiss police officers simply because their evidence is untrustworthy? In view of the suspicion, which the right hon. Gentleman
  1580
  has admitted exists, that this case was concocted by the police, will he order a public inquiry into the whole circumstances?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I think there is no need for that. I repeat that in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown the evidence is not sufficiently strong to justify a prosecution, but the conduct of the men was of such a character as we should not expect from officers in the discharge of their duty.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: Were these two officers Roman Catholics?
  MR. FLAVIN: If the, two policemen were innocent, why were they dismissed from the force?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The matter cannot be thus debated across the floor of the House.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Cannot you give them a command at Gibraltar?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  BOARDING OUT PAUPER CHILDREN IN IRELAND.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state in how many poor law unions in Ireland the principle of boarding out the children has been adopted; and whether, in view of the spread of the system, he is prepared to appoint female inspectors as is tin1, case in England.
  The following question also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that about 100 unions have adopted the boarding-out system, he will endeavour to have lady inspectors appointed to superintend and advise on the working of that system.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Children are boarded out in 124 unions in Ireland; the number of children boarded out is about 2,000. The appointment of a female inspector, or inspectors, will be considered.

  IRISH REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there are over 5,000 girls in the reformatory and industrial schools in Ireland, and whether the question of appointing female inspectors in connection with these institutions has been considered.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The question of appointing a female assistant inspector of reformatory and industrial schools in Ireland was considered by my predecessor in 1899, when it was decided that the sphere of work in which a female assistant might be engaged was too limited, and that the services of a male assistant would be more advantageous to the Department. I am not aware that a female assistant is employed in connection with these schools in this country.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are more girls in Irish schools than in similar institutions in England? If we are permitted to discuss the action of the executive, I certainly shall raise this question.

  VALUATION IN IRISH COUNTY BOROUGHS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the rule that is applied to the land in Ireland that the valuation should not be increased could be also applied to the county boroughs in respect to the new valuation, and whether, seeing that the gross valuation of Belfast city has been increased by 25 per cent., there is any reason, why such tenements should not be reduced by that amount, so that the Imperial taxation would not be increased.
  MR. WYXDHAM: Section 05 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, provides that land in county boroughs is to be valued in the same manner as houses. It cannot, therefore, be valued under the old Valuation Acts, which contained no provision for revising its value. There is no power under the Valuation Acts to reduce the valuation below the statutory basis.

  VALUATION OF BELFAST LICENSED PREMISES.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in regard to the valuation of licensed premises in Belfast, the value of the licence is assessed, and whether those premises are valued on the same basis as other business and private premises.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Licensed premises in Belfast are now valued on the same basis as other business houses, with a sum representing the annual value of the licence added.

  TYPHUS FEVER IN THE ARRAN ISLES.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that typhus fever has broken out in the Arran Isles, county Galway; whether complaints were made to the Local Government Board concerning the unsanitary state of the isles so long ago as last August; and whether the medical inspector of the Board entirely neglected his duties in not visiting the isles until about ten days ago, and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct of this officer.
  MR. WYXDHAM: The first and second paragraphs are a repetition of inquiries put to me by the same hon. Member and answered on the 28th ultimo. I also stated that the duty of taking steps to prevent outbreaks of fever devolves upon the local authority and not upon the medical inspector of the Local Government Board. That gentleman visits the Arran Islands as often as his other duties throughout the province of Connaught permit, and I am not aware that there is anything in his conduct calling for inquiry as suggested.
  MR. DUFFY: But why did the inspector fail to visit the island until ten days ago?
  MR. WYXDHAM: The duty devolved not on the inspector, but on the local authorities.

  MILLINGAR LUNATIC ASYLUM CAPITATION GRANT.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the amount paid for capitation in relief of rates for the service of Mullingar District Lunatic Asylum for the year ending 31st March. 1901; can he state how much of this sum was credited to the county Longford; and is he aware that serious complaint is made in county Longford of the taxation consequent upon the present management of the Mullingar Asylum.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The amount paid for capitation grant in relict of rates for the service of this asylum for the year ending the 31st March. 1901, was £8.137 16s. 8d. Of this amount the sum of £2,045 8s. 3d. was credited to the county Longford. The management of the asylum is vested by the Local Government Act. 1898, in a joint committee comprising representatives from the three counties forming the asylum district—namely, Longford, Meath, and Westmeath. No specific complaints have readied Government on the subject of the management of the asylum.

  OVOCA (CO, WICKLOW) EVICTION.
  *MR. COGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the police who assisted the sheriff at the eviction of a man named Foley, of Ovoca, county Wicklow, on the 4th instant, entered the house with revolvers presented at the tenant, who refused to leave, and threatened to shoot him it he resisted; that tin' only officer in charge of the police was a sergeant: that they made a prisoner of Foley and a man who was in the house with him: and that these two men are now in gaol on a charge of resisting the sheriff: and whether a sergeant of police has any power to order the use of firearms on such an occasion unless in the presence of a magistrate, and then not until the Riot Act has first been read.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The sergeant entered the house with a revolver in his hand, but he did not present it at anyone or make use of threats. Three con-
  1584
  stables were present in charge of the sergeant. Foley and another occupant of the house resisted the sub-sheriff' in the execution of his duty and attempted to strike that officer, as well as the sergeant, with a wooden pole. The two men were arrested; Foley has been remanded in custody, and the other man has been admitted to bail. A sergeant of police has power to order the use of firearms if in his judgment the necessity for such a course arises, even though a magistrate he not present and the Riot Act be not read. The Riot Act is a public caution and adds nothing to the powers of a peace officer.

  RICHMOND DISTRICT ASYLUM.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the views expressed by the Richmond District Asylum Committee in favour of the boarding out of certain pauper lunatics; and whether he will take steps to carry out the recommendations of the committee.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Legislation would be necessary to give effect to the recommendations of the committee. The matter is now engaging the consideration of Government.

  DOUGLAS NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the teacher of Douglas National School, Roll No. 12,875, District 54, sent early in January an order for books to the Board's stores, and has since got no reply; and that the manager of the school, who wrote more than three weeks since, complaining of the matter, has not yet got a reply; and whether, seeing that on 19th February a second order was sent from the same and no reply has yet been sent, steps will be taken to place this department on a businesslike footing.
  MR. WYNDHAM: An order for books was received from this school on the 14th January, and the books were forwarded on the 17th January. Both the teacher and the manager were at

  1585
  once advised by post of the transmission of the books. A second order was received on the 20th February and the goods were forwarded on the 2nd instant. If there has been any delay (in the delivery of the. goods, or letters of advice) the responsibility does not rest with the Commissioners' Department.

  BELTUEBET TO BALLYHAISE RAILWAY.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg-to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the railway from Belturbet to Ballyhaise is a separate railway or part of the Great Northern Railway of Ireland; is he aware that the Grand Jury of the county of Cavan, before this railway was constructed, gave a guarantee of 1 per cent, to the Great Northern Railway Company on the cost of construction; and, seeing that the ratepayers of the barony of Lower Loughtee are still paying this guarantee, although the Great Northern Railway Company is paying a dividend of 6¾ per cent, to its shareholders, will the Board of Trade hold an inquiry as to the right of this company being paid this guarantee any longer.
  MR. WYNDHAM: At my right hon. friend's request I will reply to this question. The railway is part of the Great Northern system. The barony docs not guarantee 4 per cent, on cost of construction, but only £340 towards any deficiency there may be in any one year after charging the accounts of the branch line with 4 per cent, interest on £30,000, the estimated capital and cost of working. For the year ended June. 1900, the receipts fell short of providing the working expenses and interest to the extent of £1,480, towards which the barony contributed £340. leaving a net loss to the Great Northern Company of £1,140.

  ENNISKILLEN INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the division of the Fermanagh Royal School Endowment, the first chairman of the Roman Catholic Local Board of Education gave a written undertaking, dated the 20th October. 1886, to spend half the Roman Catholic portion of the endow-
  1586
  ment in maintaining an intermediate school in Enniskillen; that, on the 3rd January, 1900, the present chairman of the Roman Catholic Local Board of Education, in a written statement to the Commissioners of Education, also undertook to have an intermediate school established in Enniskillen; and that, notwithstanding these undertakings, no steps have yet been taken to establish such a school: whether he is aware that the Fermanagh Roman Catholic Board, while alleging that they have no longer any power under a scheme of the 22nd May, 1891, to establish a new school, have opposed a petition of the Roman Catholics of county Fermanagh, to the Commissioners of Education, to have the scheme so altered as to provide for such a school at Enniskillen, and advised the Commissioners not to advise any alteration; and whether the Commissioners of Education will now recommend that the scheme of 22nd May. 1891, be so modified as to compel the Roman Catholic Local Board to carry out the undertakings referred to.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners of Education have no knowledge of any undertaking such as that mentioned in the first part of the question. But in January, L900, a written statement was submitted to the Commissioners embodying a proposal of the Chairman of the Fermanagh Roman Catholic Board of Education to theeffect that a guarantee fund would be locally raised with a view to the allocation of a fair share of the endowment to an intermediate school to he established in Enniskillen. So far as the Commissioners are aware that proposal was not accepted. The Fermanagh Board has no longer any power, under the scheme of 1891, to establish a new school. It has asked the Commissioners not to advise the alteration of the scheme. In answer to the third paragraph, the Commissioners in January of last year arrived at the conclusion that there were no grounds for applying to the Board of Charitable Donations and Bequests to make any change in the scheme.

  POOR LAW SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I lug to ask the Chief Secretary to the

  1587
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Poor Law Officers' Association in Ireland have circulated amongst Members of this House a document containing the statement that the contributions proposed in the Poor Law Superannuation (Ireland) Bill will establish a fund sufficient to superannuate union official, sthereby relieving the rate-pavers of all cost in the matter; that the correctness of such statement is denied, and the assertion made that the passage of the Bill would increase the rates; will he obtain expert opinion in respect to the financial proposals of the Bill, and give, Members of Parliament from Ireland an opportunity to know approximately before the Bill comes on for Second Heading its probable effect on local rates: and inasmuch as the matter is of interest to the administrators of the poor law system, he will ask the Local Government Board to invite the opinion of boards of guardians throughout Ireland in respect to the proposals of the Poor Law Superannuation (Ireland) Bill.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is impossible to estimate the effect of the, Bill on local rates, since I cannot judge how far existing officers would be likely to take advantage of its provisions. I see no objection to inviting the opinions of Boards of Guardians on the provisions of the Bill.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give directions for obtaining those opinions?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes.

  IRISH UNIONS—MEDICINE CONTRACTS.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether ho is aware that the Local Government Board recently submitted to the boards of guardians in Ireland a tender form for medicine contracts containing a provision to compel boards of guardians to return all empties or pay full value of same, the Local Government Board at the same time refusing to contribute from the grant in aid a proportionate share of the cost in connection with the proposed arrangement; and inasmuch as the present custom relieves boards of guardians of responsibility in
  1588
  the matter, will he suggest to the central authority the desirability of omitting from the tender form the provision referred to.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The provision referred to was inserted in the form of tender in consequence of the negligence of union officials in returning empties. The arrangement appears to be an equitable one.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Why do the Board take such interest in these contractors?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Because they are Protestants and Freemasons.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member misconceives the object. It is to get the best medicines at the lowest price.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: Has any complaint been made of the quality of the medicines?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I understand there- were complaints as to some

  LAND SALES IN COUNTY WEXFORD.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Wexford, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that arrangements have been come to for the sale to the occupying tenants of a number of holdings in county Wexford, in addition to those already sold to the tenants in that county; and whether, seeing that the proposed sales cannot now be carried out owing to the lack of money for the purposes of the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts, he will make arrangements for the advancement of £500,000 for the purchase of holdings in county Wexford immediately.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. As already stated by me, no advances under the Land Purchase Acts can be made in the county Wexford pending the result of an investigation which has been ordered for the purpose of ascertaining whether the, limit of advances of guaranteed land stock fixed by the Act of 1891 has been reached in the county.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when the result will be made known?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I hope in ten days or a fortnight.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Do the Land Commission make inquiry before they issue, the notice that the limit of advances has been reached?
  MR. WYNDHAMwas understood to reply that the limit was laid down in a Return issued in 1891.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: And is one result of the Board's action the stoppage of voluntary purchases?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir; they are not stopped.

  IRISH MODEL SCHOOLS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf (if the hon. Member for North Wexford, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consider the advisability of handing over the model schools in Ireland to their respective county authorities for the purpose of technical instruction.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This matter was recently considered by the Commissioners of National Education, who did not feel themselves prepared to take any action in regard to it at present.

  WEXFORD COUNTY OFFICIALS' SALARIES.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Wexford, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Local Government Board for Ireland to hold an inquiry at Wexford with a view to the increasing of the salaries of certain county officials in respect of whom the previous action of the Local Government Board has been set aside at the instance of the county Wexford County Council by the Court of Appeal in Ireland; and if. in view of the importance of the case, he will see that the proposed local inquiry is not held until the judgments in the Court of Appeal and the affidavits on both sides have been printed and circulated as a Parliamentary Return, and that the inquiry is conducted in open court; and whether in view of the expense to which the ratepayers of county Wexford have been already put
  1590
  in upholding their rights in this matter, he will cause the expense of the proposed inquiry to be defrayed out of the funds at the disposal of the Local Government Board.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Local Government Board propose to hold a public inquiry at Wexford in connection with the salaries of certain officials in the county, and have asked the county council to state whether the 2nd April would be a convenient date on which to open the inquiry. The judgments of the Court of Appeal have been sent to the judges for revision before laying them on the Table of the House, and as the judges are at present on circuit some little delay may unavoidably occur before the judgments are returned. If it is possible to have them printed and circulated before the 2nd April, this will be done; but if not the Local Government Board would be prepared, with the concurrence of the county council, to postpone the holding of the inquiry. In answer to the second paragraph, where the Local Government Board hold a local inquiry it is mandatory on the council, under Article 32 (3) of the Schedule to the Application of Enactments Order, 1898, to defray the costs incurred in relation to the inquiry.
  MR. BOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman grant an inquiry to other count councils?
  MR. BOYLE: In cases where the salaries have been increased?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The cost will fall on the county councils.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: But in view of the peculiar circumstances attending the Wexford case, will the Local Government Board see that this county council shall not be put to further cost?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I will consider that. I do not know if it is possible.

  COUNTY DOWN POLICE.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the only Roman Catholic constable in county Down advanced within twelve

  1591
  months to the rank of acting-sergeant occupied a secretarial position in the office of the county inspector; and whether, as the proportion of promotions of non-Catholic constables has been six to one in a county in which Roman Catholic constables outnumber those of all other denominations, he will undertake that future recommendations for promotion in. that county will be scrutinised so as to ensure that the religion of which the majority of the Royal Irish Constabulary are adherents will not he a barrier to preferment.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Recommendations for promotion in the constabulary do not come before me, but I am assured by the Inspector General that such promotions are strictly governed by considerations of merit and not of religion

  LIMERICK LAND COMMISSION SITTINGS.
  MR. O'SIIAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether; his attention has been called to a resolution of the Kilmallock Rural District Council in reference to the decisions of the Chief Land Commission recently sitting in Limerick, raising the rents fixed by the Rub-Commission in 40 per cent, of the cases tried before them; and, if so, whether he will take steps to legislate in the matter, as indicated by this rural district council, during the present session.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The number of fair rent appeals heard by the commissioners at their recent sitting in Limerick was ninety-six. Of these the rents fixed by the sub-commissioners were raised in fifty-three cases, and reduced or affirmed in forty-one. In two cases judgment was reserved. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.
  MR. O'SHATHGHNESSY: Did the Chief Commission raise the rents fixed by the Sub-Commission?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  ROXBOROUGH ROAD SCHOOL.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of
  1592
  Ireland whether he is aware that the Roxborough Road schools were built, I with the exception of a sum of £50, by, the ratepayers of the city and county of Limerick, nine-tenths of whom are Roman Catholics, and that the premises are vested in the Commissioners of Education in Ireland by Act of Parliament, with an express prohibition against selling or letting them; and, in view of the fact that the town council of Limerick by unanimous resolution protested against the uses to which these premises are now applied, will he state what steps he proposes to take in this matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The cost of building the Roxborough Road schools was £1,672, of which the sum of £1,640 was presented by the grand juries of the county of Limerick and of the county of the city of Limerick. The premises are vested by statute in the Commissioners of Education in Ireland, to be held as part of the demesne belonging to the Diocesan Free School of the dioceses of Limerick, Killaloe, and Kilfenora inalienably, and not to be let or disposed of to any other use whatever. I have no information on the proportions of the religious denominations of the ratepayers of the city and county of Limerick. The town council by resolution dated 2nd September, 1897, protested against the uses to which the premises were applied. The Commissioners have acted under the law as administered by the Court of Chancery in reference 'to the management of trust property by trustees. The Government do not propose to take any action in the matter.

  GORTIN SCHOOLS, COUNTY TYRONE.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that there, is disappointment at the delay in completing the new schools in Gortin, county Tyrone, will he explain the cause of delay and take steps to have them finished as soon as possible.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that these schools are practically complete and ready for the reception of pupils. The erection of the buildings was carried out by a contractor employed by the manager, and the responsi-

  1593
  bility for any delay in their construction does not attach to the Commissioners of National Education.

  OMAGH RURAL DISTRICT RATES.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the local rates for the year 1901 in the Omagh Rural District of Tyrone are 30 per cent, higher than in 1897, on which the agricultural grant is based; can he say how much of this increase is necessitated by compliance with orders of the Local Government Board; and, as the additional burden is placed on the occupying tenants, the poorest class in the community, will he take into consideration the necessity of increasing the agricultural grant to an amount corresponding to half the increase since I lie standard year.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The rates in this district for the current year show an increase of about 16 per cent, on the rates in the standard year. This increase is, I believe, of a temporary character; it was not caused by the Local Government Board, but is chiefly due to the payment of election expenses, and the expenditure generally incurred in bringing the Act of 1898 into operation. The Local Government Board anticipate that the new rates about to be made will show a considerable reduction (compared with rates for the current year), not only in Omagh but throughout Ireland.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the new rate to which I desire to call attention is at least 35 per cent, over the standard rate, it being 4s. 3d. as compared with 2s. 11d?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have taken that into account.

  PORTUMNA RAILWAY.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. B. C. Moloy stated to the Roscrea Board of Guardians that be bad received a promise from the Government to increase the grant towards the re-
  1594
  equipment of the portumna line from £12,000 to £18,000; and whether he will take steps to secure this grant being made.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first paragraph is in the negative; no such, undertaking was given by the Government.
  SMALL HOUSES ACQUISITION ACT. MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he would be willing to introduce an Amendment to the Small Houses Acquisition Act, Clause 2, subsection (c), that the title to the ownership is one which an ordinary mortgagee would be willing to accept, and insert the word purchaser instead of mortgagee, and also modify Registration Clause 7 by removing the personal liability of the registrar, and the limit of time reduced to twelve years as under the Conveyancing Act.
  MR. WYNDHAM: have already informed the hon. Member that this Act. which became law in August. 1899. has been in operation in Ireland for so limited a time as to offer insufficient grounds for considering the question of further legislation. When the Government are in a position to form an opinion as to how far it would be desirable or possible, by legislation, to modify the machinery of the Act the suggestions of the hon. Member will be considered.

  IRISH WORKHOUSE TEACHERS.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether lie is aware that the national teachers in Irish workhouses labour under inequalities with their professional brethren in the matter of salary, promotion, compensation, and superannuation: and whether he will consider these grievances with a, view to their redress.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Teachers in workhouse schools are officers of the Board of Guardians, by whom they are appointed, and who fix their salaries with the approval of the Local Government Board. It is also competent to the

  1595
  guardians to grant to them, at their I discretion, superannuation allowances. Workhouse teachers will be eligible for I promotion under the new system of gradation with the general body of national teachers, but such promotion will not give them any right to increased remuneration unless the guardians with the approval of the Local Government Board think lit to grant such an increase.

  WESTMEATH COUNTY COURTHOUSE
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Westmeath County Council has deputed to a committee its powers under The Agricultural and Technical Instruction Act (Ireland), 1899, which committee is known as the Westmeath Agricultural and Technical Instruction Society, and for- the greater part consists of members of the county council, its place of meeting having been in the county courthouse; whether he is aware that, on Thursday, the 28th February last, the sub-sheriff had the doors of the council chamber locked against the committee and refused admission to the members on the ground that- the room had been cleaned for the Grand. fury for the following day; whether a committee appointed under an Act of Parliament, and recognised by the Agricultural Department, was right in regarding itself as a committee of the county council, and as such entitled to the use of the, courthouse when there was no interference with the administration of justice: and whether any steps will be taken to prevent a repetition of this exercise of the high sheriff's power of control over the courthouses, for the maintenance of which the ratepayers have to pay.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): I am aware that the county council has deputed its powers in the manner suggested to the committee named in the question. The committee was right in regarding itself as in effect a committee of the county council. The custody of the courthouse is, however, vested in the sheriff. The primary purpose for which that building is erected and maintained is the administration of
  1596
  justice. The right of the county council, or its committees, to the use of any portion of the courthouse for the execution of their duties is subsidiary to that purpose. The high sheriff was not only entitled, but hound to take such steps as in his judgment appeared necessary in order to prepare the courthouse for the discharge of the business of the assizes, and that is the action complained of. The reply to the last paragraph is, therefore, in the negative.
  MR. J. P. PARRELL: At whose cost was the courthouse erected?
  MR. ATKINSON: At the cost of the ratepayers.
  MR. HAYDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the grand jury were only to meet, the following day. Does it take twenty four hours to prepare the room for their reception?
  MR. ATKINSON: I am not aware of that, but it was the duty of the high sheriff to sec that the room was duly prepared for the assizes,
  MR. FLAVIN: Then are the county council compelled to give up the courthouse notwithstanding they want it for the transaction of their business?
  [No answer was returned.]

  MAYOR OF WATERFORD AND THE COMMISSION OE ASSIZES.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the provisions in the great Charter of Charles I. to the City of Water-ford, whereby it is secured to the mayor, sheriffs, and citizens of the county of the I city, for the time being, that no other! may he assigned to inquire into, hear, and determine, or to deliver the goal, or to discuss or order any other thing within the said city, except one or more justices of the fine bench or the other, or the Master of the Rolls, or one or more Barons of the Exchequer of the Kingdom of Ireland, and that any such commissions, writs, precepts, or mandates made otherwise or to other' persons shall be void and of no effect; and whether, under these

  1597
  circumstances, he will give directions that the mayor of the city be, in future included in the Commissions of Assize.
  MR. ATKINSON: My attention hat been called to the Charter referred to, the passage from which is set out in the question with substantial accuracy. In the year 1887 the then Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland expressed the opinion that the privileges conferred by the Charter on the Mayor of Waterford were taken away by the thirty-second section of the Judicature (Ireland) Act, 1877, leaving the Crown free to omit the name of the mayor from the Commission of Assize. I concur in that opinion. The reply to the second part of the question is therefore in the negative.
  MR. HEMPHILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Crewe, when Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, had the Mayor of Waterford reinstated in the Commission?
  MR. ATKINSON: I do not see how that in any way arises out of the question on the Paper.

  TULLAMORE ASSIZES— INSUFFICIENT BUSINESS—LARCENY OF QUINLAN'S ASS.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of the larceny' of Quinlan's ass, which was the only case to go before the grand jury at Tullamore assizes, and to the remarks of Mr. Justice Johnston in respect of the amount of expenses incurred; and will he direct the repayment of the expenses which fell on the ratepayers.
  MR. DELANY: At the same time, may I ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether it has been brought to his notice that the calendar at the last King's County assizes consisted of only one criminal case, in which the grand jury found no hill, and that Mr. Justice Johnston stated that the case was a matter for civil action; and whether he will inform the House what official was responsible for sending the case forward to the assizes.
  MR. ATKINSON: At the request of my right hon. friend, I will reply to these
  1598
  two questions together, My attention has been called to the reports published in the daily press of the remarks of Mr. Justice Johnston on the occasion referred to. I cannot say whether the report is accurate or not. I do not find any observation of the learned Judge as to a civil action such as is mentioned in the question. The magistrates at petty sessions returned the accused for trial to the assizes for larceny. The depositions disclosed a strong prima facie case for investigation by that grand jury. My colleague the Solicitor General for Ireland most properly, in my opinion, on the 18th February, 1901, in the ordinary course, directed the prosecution to be taken up by the Crown. The expenses of this, like those of all other cases taken in charge by the Crown, are paid by the Imperial Exchequer.
  MR. REDDY: Is it not true that Mr. Justice Johnston censured the Crown Solicitor for bringing forward the case; and that he said he brought it on the express direct ion of the Attorney General, who the judge said ought to pay the costs?
  MR. ATKINSON: I do not think the learned judge said anything of the kind.
  MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the age of Quinlan's ass?
  MR. ROCHE: I desire to know if the right hon. Gentleman will act on the suggestion of the learned judge, namely, that when Quinlan's ass pays the debt of nature it shall be stuffed and kept carefully in the museum at Dublin?

  ENNIS INTIMIDATION CASES.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Messrs. Lynch and McInerney have been summoned to appear at the Ennis Petty Sessions on a charge of intimidation arising out of the question of direct labour by the Clare County Council, and whether, in view of the change recommended in the law (under which these prosecutions have been taken) by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, he will order these proceedings against

  1599
  Messrs. Lynch and M'Inerney to be withdrawn.
  MR. ATKINSON: At the request of my right hon. friend I will reply to this question. The proceedings will not he further prosecuted,

  BALLYBOGHILL POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the morning delivery of letters at Ballyboghill and Damastoun, a journey of scarcely two hours by road from Dublin, takes place at present about L2 noon; and whether there is any possibility of improving the postal service in that part of the county of Dublin.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The mails are due at the places named at 10.5 a.m. and 10.15 a.m. respectively, and the morning deliveries commence soon after those hours. In both cases the deliveries include the letters received in Dublin in the morning by the night mails from England. The cost of the postal services in both districts considerably exceeds the revenue from the correspondence, and the Postmaster General regrets that in the circumstances he would not be justified in incurring additional expenditure in either case, with the view of affording an improved postal service.
  MR. CLANCY: Then are we to understand that the public convenience is made dependent on the question whether or not the service will prove remunerative?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is one of the circumstances which have to be weighed in considering whether postal facilities shall be extended in any particular place. There are of course other circumstances to he taken into account.

  GOODS RATES ON IRISH RAILWAYS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any complaints have recently been made to him of the railway rates
  1600
  on the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland; whether he is aware that goods for rural parts of Ireland can be got cheaper from America direct to the ports of Sligo and Gal way than per cross-channel steamer from Liverpool, and thence by rail; and whether he proposes to introduce any legislation to cheapen the cost of appeals to the Railway Commissioners.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No complaints of the rates of this railway appear to have been received recently, but the Board of Trade will always be happy to consider specific complaints made in pursuance of Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888. The answer to the last paragraph of the question is in the negative.

  IRISH TEACHERS' QUALIFICATIONS FOR ENGLISH SCHOOLS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can explain why Irish teachers trained for two years and certificated in second class are not recognised as certificated in England, while English teachers untrained but certificated in second class are recognised as certificated in Ireland, and are the examinations practically alike.
  SIR J. GORST: The Irish system of examination and classification of teachers differs, I am told, materially from the English. The principle of the Board of Education is to recognise all Irish teachers who possess professional qualifications which are in their judgment equivalent to those required from teachers in England. I am not acquainted with the grounds on which the Education authorities in Ireland recognise English teachers.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter? The examination papers seem to be pretty much alike.
  SIR J. GORST: Yes, I will see if the qualifications required of Irish teachers are higher than those of English teachers, I have been told it is not so.

  HUSH NATIONAL GALLERY.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Wexford, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if in view of the fact that large sums of money have been granted by Parliament under exceptional circumstances to buy pictures for the English National Gallery, while no money has ever been similarly granted to buy pictures for the Irish National Gallery, he will take the necessary steps to secure the Jan Vermeer, now being exhibited by Messrs. Forbes and Paterson in New Bond Street, for the Irish National Gallery.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it would be desirable to alter the present system of contribution to the Irish National Gallery. It is perfectly true that there has been a change such as the hon. Member suggests in connection with the English National Gallery, but that is consequent on and connected with a proceeding by which the annual sum given to the English National Gallery has been cut down by half.

  LAW OF CONTEMPT OF COURT.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that, so far back as 24th October. 1882, the late Mr. Gladstone, then Prime Minister, declared that the Government had it in contemplation to submit al a very early period a measure dealing with the alteration of the present law of contempt of court; and whether, as no such measure has since that date been introduced, His Majesty s Government "will now propose legislation on the subject.
  MK A J BALFOUR: Some method of dealing with contempt of court is necessary but I do not know that any satisfactory change in the present law has been suggested. The hon. and learned Gentleman must have made some mistake at to the date of Mr. Gladstone s statement, as I cannot trace the reference.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I will send the reference to the right hon. Gentleman.*
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol. cclxxiv., page 36.

  THE KING'S ACCESSION OATH.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the Oath taken by the Sovereign on accession to maintain and to preserve the Act of Security in the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England, which Act is declared to be a fundamental and essential condition of that Treaty in all time comings whether, in view of the fact of this Act having been infringed by the abolition of theological tests for professors in secular classes in Scottish Universities, it is the intention of the Government to so change the Oath that it shall no longer be obligatory for the Sovereign to swear that he will maintain those tests which have been already abolished by Act of Parliament.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am advised that no change in the Oath is rendered necessary under the circumstances suggested in the question.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now make am definite statement as to the Committee to be appointed on the subject of the Sovereign's Accession Oath.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the horn Member is a ware, the proceedings in connection with this Committee originate in another place, and I am not at this moment in a position to make any statement on I be subject.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBFLL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask the Leader of the House what will be the business of the House next week.
MR A. J. BALFOUR: It must partly depend on the business to-morrow (Friday) and the progress made with the discussion on question: connected with the Army Estimate. I hope the House will make rapid progress, for the time w hen all the questiont of Supply must be concluded is rapidly approaching. I hope hon. Gentlemen will consent, in the case of tin Army Estimates, to the Speakers leaving the Chair and giving the Government Votes A and I without delay. I am sure that the questions raised by the Secretary for War in his

1603
statement are of the greatest gravity and importance, and I shall feel it my duty to find later on such opportunities as may be necessary for adequate discussion of those far-reaching proposals.
MR. O'DOWDI beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state On what date it is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair for the purpose of discussing the Navy Estimates.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: This question should be addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury.

THE CIVIL LIST COMMITTEE- PUBLICATION OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS.
COLONEL KENYON SLANEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, Whether Ida attention has been called to the statement published in The Times to-day, purporting to give a full account of the proceedings of and the papers submitted to the Civil List Committee at I heir meeting yesterday: whether those proceedings and papers were not strictly confidential; and, if so, whether he can tell the House from what source such information has been obtained.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My attention has been called to this incident. I regard it as in the highest degree deplorable and discreditable to the channel through Which this communication was given to the public press.
MR. T. M. HEALY: As this is a purely English Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of making it a purely Irish Committee?
MR. PIRIE: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he intends to take any steps to discover the channel through which this communication got to The Times, or to take any steps against the paper for publishing it?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I nave no machinery at my disposal for carrying out the investigation Which the hon Gentleman suggests.
MR. BARTLEY: May I ask whether the document was not marked "private and confidential," and whether a similar private and confidential document was not published a short time ago—the Report of the Telephone Committee—in the same journal?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I believe I am right in saying that copies of the document which has been made public were marked "private and confidential." They were strictly limited in number, and were given only, as I understand, to members of the Committee.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will the right right hon. Gentleman take similar steps to those taken in the case of a confidential scheme which got into a newspaper a good many years ago, which led by a careful examination of misprints to fixing the responsibility and to the printing contract being taken away from the firm?
MR. LDMIND ROBERTSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the law officers as to whether the Official Secrets Act does not apply?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will put a question himself to the law officers, and give notice of it on the Paper.

MESSACE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act for the regulation of the burning of human remains, and to enable Burial Authorities to establish crematoria." Cremation Bill [Lords.]

IRELAND—CONDUCT OF POLICE IN COUNTY CLARE.
MAJOR JAMESON: I rise to move the adjournment of the House to call attention to a matter of urgent and definite public importance, namely, the arrest and imprisonment of John Ryan, of Mullough, county Clare, on a false charge in reference to which a police sergeant and constable have been dismissed the service of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
*MR. SPEAKER: That does not appear to me to be other than an ordinary case of police, court jurisdiction, and I do not think I can submit the motion
MR. JOHN REDMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I cannot go into the question as to whether any policemen Were dismissed for trumping up a case against this man Ryan, but I would ask whether the interpretation you yourself have placed upon the rule as to motions for adjournment is not that the urgency and importance of the matter brought forward should be left to the decision of the House?
*MR. SPEAKER: There must be some prima facie, ground for me to submit the motion to the House. It is usual in cases where there is any doubt to submit the point to me first, so that I may have an opportunity of considering it.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: My hon. friend will postpone his motion till tomorrow. In the meantime, I hope he will not be disqualified from submitting it to your judgment.

SUPPLY (ARMY ESTIMATES).
Older read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [12th March]. "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
Question again proposed.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Estimates which are to be submitted when we go into Committee are of exceptional importance, and I think it would not be too much to say that the discussion of them may be almost characterised as momentous. I am confirmed in that opinion by the fact that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, speaking with the authority of one whose letters are admitted to the columns of The Times, the other day invited me and my hon. freinds to speak now or for ever be silent. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is perfectly right. This is an occasion on which we are bound to take exception, if we see it right to do so, to these great Estimates.
Now, last year the excess of the normal Estimates of the year over the preceding year ran to five millions; on this occasion
1606
they only, if I may use that word, amount to three and a half millions, In previous years of the present Government's administration they have built up the ordinary Estimates of the Army from eighteen millions to the figure at which they How stand—namely, twenty nine millions. The Secretary for War said with great truth that we had become inured to these huge figures. We have been accustomed to them and do not realise what they are. It may be asked why, seeing that the actual increase is not so great as the increase last year, we did not make our protest last year. For that I think I can give two or three very excellent reasons. There are considerable differences between our position this year and last year. Last year our criticism was overborne by the fact of the emergencies which existed. I am not speaking at all of war expenditure. There has been no impediment placed upon any expenditure for the purposes of the war in order to bring it as soon as possible to a satisfactory and triumphant conclusion. I am speaking only of the normal Estimates. Last year we could not with a calm mind discuss the increase in the Estimates, because we were overborne by the consciousness of a great emergency, and the proposals of the Government were, by their own admission, of the nature of shifts and expedients to meet that emergency. The House, therefore, exercised great reserve, and many of us who had something to say held our peace. Now we are free from that necessity. I am not going to say that the war is over, or is on the eve of being over, but the great emergency, at all events, is over for the present. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Essex the other day referred to one of two of the proposals which have been carried out by way of increasing the military strength of this country, and I think he very properly raised a smile, almost, on the face of everyone who listened to him when he spoke of the Reserve battalions—the stout elderly gentlemen of whom they are composed— and when he described the process- which has been going on quite recently of hurrying on board ship at Southampton horseless and saddleless Yeomanry, who may be anything in the world, but are certainly not Yeomen.

1607
Following the example of the lion, and gallant Gentleman. I think we may feel ourselves more tree than we were to discuss some of these matters, but it is my intention in this debate to avoid as much as possible questions of detail, and to confine myself to the larger questions of military policy which have arisen, Another thing which makes a difference between this year and last year is this—that this year's proposal has been announced as a great epoch-making reform. It has been heralded by receiving a prominent place in the gracious Speech from the Throne, ft was heralded before that by a good many speeches at the time of the General Election—that General Election, which will be an inexhaustible topic, for all those who wish to understand the methods of the present Government. It is an object-lesson which we are not likely soon to forget. Success does not always justify the methods that are used to obtain it. We were told that if the country would only place confidence in the right hon. Gentleman opposite there, would be a permanent solution of the great military problem. Does any one see an element of finality or permanence in the proposals that are now brought forward? It is true that the right hon. Gentleman has only been three or four months in office, but as we are all aware lie is perhaps more familiar than any other individual among us with all questions of military policy, and the accident of his having been engaged in another department for a year or two does not prevent him from being in all respects most excellently qualified to deal with the problem. His principal adviser, the Commander-in-Chief, has, however, only been in office for a few months. We have the most intense admiration for and gratitude to Lord Roberts, and there is probably no man at the present moment to whose opinion on ordinary military subjects the country would be more willing to bow. At the same time, I must make this observation —that I think Lord Roberts's name and fame are a little too largely invoked. There is a rule of this House prohibiting hon. Members from introducing into debate the name of the Sovereign; I almost think, sometimes, that we ought to extend that rule to include the Commander-in-Chief. Even Lord Roberts's
1608
great services and career ought not lo dazzle ns and blind ns to such obvious mistakes, it they exist. I am aware that occasions may arise when the opinion of a leading military expert may be quoted in substantiation of that which a Minister stales in this House. I remember one occasion when I adopted that course myself; but the judgment which I quoted from my principal military authority was scouted as of no effect whatever. Here it is a little worse, because the authority of the Commander-in-Chief is constantly being brought in, and I venture to say it is neither fair to Lord Roberts himself, nor is it altogether proper in relation to Parliament. We must remember this, that the Commander-in-Chief has passed nearly the whole of his military life in India, in what I may call dealing with the finished article. He is an immense authority on everything connected with the use of troops; but, from the necessity of the case, he has had as yet no experience, no individual personal knowledge, if the peculiar difficulties that are found in this country in furnishing the raw material out of which the finished article is made, the precise force we have to maintain, the social and local susceptibilities we have to consider, and the sensitive market from which that raw material is drawn. All these matters an officer, however distinguished, who has been all his career in India can have no acquaintance with. Lord Roberts has just come home from a great command, where he has greatly added not only to his fame, but also to his knowledge of the British Army. But I think that if we are to be guided by what we call the lessons of the war great caution must be used. The conditions of tins war are in many respects must exceptional— exceptional in the demands made upon us. exceptional in the nature of the warfare. Where else are we likely to be called upon to light, not an army, but a whole population, with all the manhood of the people skilled in the use of horse and rifle and well found in both? Where shall we find a country at all similar to the scene of operations? We shall therefore incur risk of being warped and vitiated in our whole military system if we frame it to meet a series of repetitions of this war in South Africa. There are, of course,

1609
numbers of lessons to be drawn, and no one is more capable of suggesting them to the right hon. Gentleman than the present Commander-in-Chief— I mean in regard to the efficiency of our weapons, in regard to our mobilisation and transport arrangements, the character of our equipment, and the training of officers and men. On those and kindred subjects Lord Roberts can very rightly advise us, but we must not proceed on the supposition that any future war will be similar to this one, and I think we should do well to look with suspicion on any proposal that bears a trace of that error.
Another circumstance gives special importance to these Estimates. It is this—that this is a new departure; this is a new declaration of policy. In the first place, the Government proposes to add an army corps to the scheme of the Army, and that army corps is destined not to the domestic defence of these islands, but to be sent abroad. And, in the second place, the right hon. Gentleman took up an ominous attitude with regard to compulsory service, because he let us see plainly that, although he objects to compulsion, yet, if voluntary recruiting fails to furnish the men required for his scheme and if the scheme therefore comes into conflict with the right hon. Gentleman's objections, it will not be the scheme that will be made to yield, it will be his objections. There is much shaking of the head now over the possibility of the exhaustion of our military recruiting resources. By and by there will be much shrugging of shoulders when we are told that that eventuality has actually occurred. This has been plainly indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, and it marks a totally new departure from anything that has gone before. I take exception to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Government on both grounds I hold that no adequate justification has been offered for this new army corps, and I hold that conscription in any form will not be endured by our people, and ought not to be imposed upon them; and, further, if it were imposed, it is inapplicable to the peculiar military requirements of our Empire. What reason does the right hon. Gentleman offer for
1610
this new army corps for foreign service? He discards the idea that a wise foreign policy may keep us out of trouble. Our neighbours, he says, have an eye to our wealth; the goodwill and forbearance of foreign Powers are a mere quicksand to the right hon. Gentleman. And he says this, remember, on behalf of his Majesty's Government. I am quoting his own words. There are two continents besides Africa in which he says we have great "commitments"—great interests to defend. I should like to have a little more information about this; and then he speaks of European "entanglements." Entanglements is not a nice word. The last time we, heard of it was at Ladysmith, and it arose in some degree, at any rate, on that occasion from a rash promise made by the Imperial Government, and it is the same Government now which again speaks of entanglements. The right hon. Gentleman says—
"We cannot suppose that, if ever we should unhappily become entangled in European complications, we could fulfil our engagements to our allies by limiting our operations solely t o the action of our Fleet, keeping our soldiers in barrack's at home."
What is all this cloudy talk about entanglements and commitments and allies? We have a right to know before any of this money is voted. Here is a great additional burden proposed to be put upon the taxpayers, and as a matter of fairness to the taxpayers they ought to be informed. If we do not ask for this now we shall be told afterwards that we were consenting parties. This air of "I could an' if I would" say something will not do in a matter so grave I believe that either such hints are serious, and in that case they should be made more explicit, or they are mere mischievous trifling. Some readjustment of the units of the Army is a trifle, neither here nor there, but these indications of Imperial necessities are momentous. Indeed, if I were to guess at what is indicated when we hear of one continent after another where we have great commitments, it is not three but thirteen army corps that would be required. Let me say this. As we are here within four walls and nothing can get outside, we can afford to talk with perfect frankness and sincerity. What is an army

1611
corps in this country? Sir the expression "army corps" is like the great word Mesopotamia —it is a blessed Word. It deludes the earnest and it imposes oil the simple. But in this case "army corps" has another feature. In tins country an army corps is a pure fiction. It is convenient for purposes of administration; it is a useful thing—to use the regular phrase—to work up to, but it has no other value. No army corps was ever put on board ship to leave this country, and I doubt if it ever will be.
*SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: We have sent out six to South Africa and we had two at Waterloo.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In the form of an army corps? The right hon. Gentleman says with perfect truth that during this war Ave have, sent out to South Africa the equivalent of six army corps, but not a single army corps constituted as such. In other countries it is quite different. In Continental countries the army corps has a reality it can never have here. There it is localised and stereotyped: and, as they have no drafts and no reliefs to send to foreign garrisons, it can be maintained rigidly, and. when the necessity comes, marched off to the trout. Let the House never forget this—ours is necessarily what I should call a fluid Army. The units must be interchangeable and elastic. The composition of the force which leaves this country will have to be adjusted to the necessities of the particular climate of the country and campaign in which it will be employed. That is not so in the case of Germany or France, where the army corps have to march over the frontier into a. country homogeneous with their own and in all particulars familiar to them. Therefore the alarming proposal is not the creation of a new army corps, which has no terrors for me, knowing the nature of the word; it is not the mere fact that some military units are in future to be known by another name; the alarming thing is the recognition shown here of some great military purpose. But the right hon. Gentleman did not stop there He quoted the saying, I think, of Lord Palmerston, "We are not a military nation, but a fighting
1612
people." I think ho attributed it to Lord Palmerston.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. BRODRICK,): I have since been told it was Mr. Gladstone who said "We are not a military people," and Mr. Disraeli replied, "But we are a martial race."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say— "We may be a fighting race, but it is only by accident that we are a military nation; we have to consider how we can turn that accident into a permanent fact." Therefore it is not only entanglements and commitments that we have before us, but a transformation of the national character. I venture to say this is running counter to the whole genius and traditions of our people. Our position in the world has been made and is held by commerce and peace and amity; it must be maintained in the same manner, and not by the stirring up of the military spirit. Moreover, if ever there was a, moment less desirable than another when the energies of our people should be diverted into a military channel, it is now, when it will require all the energy and enterprise of out people to maintain our predominant and pre-eminent position in the industry of the world.
What is the true military policy for this country which has been pursued by all wise statesmen of the past? In the first place it should be a complete defence of our shores. There is the Navy, of course, everybody knows that, but behind the Navy there must be an adequate Army for home defence. For this purpose nothing will be grudged, no demand will be refused. Therefore, the first thing is to increase the efficiency of the defensive force. It by no means follows that you must increase its number. I am not sure that in some parts of it a little pruning away of numbers would nut be advantageous, provided the remainder was increased greatly in efficiency. In that case, I should be glad to support anything the Government proposes for such a purpose as that, admitting that we have been found rather deficient

1613
in proper provision in this respect, as the last few months may be said to have shown. The second thing we have to do is to provide adequate garrisons for the Empire where they are required. The right hon. Gentleman makes two proposals in regard to this. In the first place he speaks of twelve battalions being a sufficient garrison for South Africa. I should be very glad to be able to take so hopeful a view. If twelve battalions are sufficient for that purpose it will show that our policy of settlement after the war had been based on the proper and wise foundation. But I think it is rather a sanguine proceeding deliberately to speak of twelve battalions as the normal military force for South Africa. Then he proposes to hand over from the Army to the Navy certain coaling stations. I am one of those who, looking at the matter mainly from the point of view I have been most accustomed to—namely, the interests of the Army—have often expressed adhesion to that policy. But the Navy almost to a man are in deadly opposition to it, and I do think the right hon. Gentleman had no right to come here and speak of that as a feature of his scheme when he tells us at the same time, that the Admiralty has not yet agreed to it. I was taught in the earliest days of my public official life that the last thing you should do was to support your own Department by compromising another. If, for instance, a Minister thinks that something should be done and the Treasury imposes obstacles, he should never —is it allowable to use the word "round"? [laughter]—he should never "round" upon the Treasury by exposing that tact, but should accept t he responsibility and be loyal to the other Departments. But I cannot say that in this matter the right hon. Gentleman has acted up to that high standard The last point in sound military policy is that we must have a sufficient force, properly equipped to reinforce our garrisons, and for any emergency wherever an expeditionary force is required. This is the point, undoubtedly, upon which opinions will most differ as to the strength of the force which it is desirable to maintain for these purposes; but all I say is this, on what possible
1614
ground should you In this matter base yourself upon (he experiences of this exceptional Boer war? Why should you expect to have such a demand made upon us again as has been made during the last two years? The proper thing to do is to avoid the necessity of sending large forces abroad; to trust more to judicious diplomacy; and I am bound to say that for the last five or six years we have seen one occasion after another where that course has not been followed. Now I come to the great question which is really the crux of the whole matter. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to raise a certain force in skeleton. How is that force to be maintained? How is he to secure that recruits will be forth coming for it? I am rather surprised that there was very little said on this subject in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman gave, us no information whatever as to the number of recruits required for the several branches of the service. Surely he must have thought it out and fortified himself with an actuarial calculation as to the recruits. That should present no difficulty to bun because my experience leads me to believe that actuarial calculations can be made to prove almost anything. Let us have next an actuarial calculation of the number of recruits. There is no difficulty whatever in procuring plenty of recruits in time of war. The enterprising spirit is rife enough then to induce men to go to the front, and we will always obtain them. It is the listless, dull, anxious, irksome duties of the soldier in time of peace which fail to attract. I do not think there is any Member of the House or any man outside the House who has devoted much attention to this subject who does not see that the whole of our future system depends upon the possibility of obtaining recruits. What, then are we to do? If the scheme of your Army is too great for your resources, then you have two things that you can do—pursue a less aggressive policy abroad and at the same time offer greater attractions to recruits. But do not flatter yourselves that you have safe ultimate resource the application of compulsory service. I am not going I to recite the well-known arguments

1615
against compulsory service upon the grounds of political right and social convenience. Nor will I dwell upon the strain on the industrial resources of the country which would necessarily conic from the employment of it, because that strain is not easily assessed in figures. I take a. much less ambitious view. Putting aside all questions either of principle or convenience, I ask is a compulsory system practicable in this country? In the first place it is inapplicable to the whole portion of our Army stationed in foreign peace camps. The German force in China is composed entirely of volunteers; not a single man is there because he is a conscript. There may be some justification for taking a man away from his home and family and occupation and making him serve in some barracks in order that he may be trained into an effective defender of his country. That we can understand. But you can never send such a man to the plains of India, or the veldt of South Africa, or even to the Rock of Gibraltar, in time of peace. You can do it for home defence only, and that brings me to the proposal that there should be a ballot for the Militia. Those who talk-about a ballot for the Militia should read up the history of the subject and they will see what happened in regard to it in past years. We have only to look up the text-books to see its anomalies and its inequalities, and the difficulties necessarily placed by it in the way of recruiting for the Regular foreign going Army. The system has been tried and abandoned. I am speaking, of course, of the Militia ballot—that is to saw the system of taking one man and leaving another. One man is to be chosen by some process of luck, and he is to be made to serve, while his neighbour escapee. Perhaps the man who is taken away is the very man who docs not want to go, and perhaps the man who is left behind is the very man who would like to go. The old way was that you allowed the man chosen to purchase a substitute. That is where the system came into conflict with the recruiting for the Regular Army. I ask can anything be more grossly unfair than the system of purchasing substitutes? How is the; poor man, to whom it is just as great a hardship—perhaps greater— as to the
1616
well-to-do man to be taken away, to purchase a substitute, while his richer neighbour is well able to do so? There must be universal Compulsory service if you have it at all.
Let us think for a moment what com pulsory service means. The first objection to universal military service is that it would give you a vastly larger number of soldiers than you could possibly require or employ. We are not in the position of Continental nations. Continental nations, whether it be Switzerland, Austria, Germany, or any other, are surrounded by other nations with huge armies, who could in the case of war be hurled across the frontier—an almost interminable crowd of armed men. Therefore each of these countries must put every man. It can possibly lay hands upon into the ranks. But we are in a different position altogether. We have the sea; and our command of the sea depends upon our Navy. If the Navy is destroyed, what then? I will not pursue that further. No defensive army you could ever have could save you from disaster. But supposing the Fleet is inveigled away to the West Indies, or somewhere else, as in the old days, or supposing it meets with some disaster so that the shores of the country are left practically undefended for some days. Why, skilled soldiers and sailors will tell you exactly the number of men who could be landed upon our shores in these circumstances, and they will proceed further to tell you the smallest number of men that you must have to deal with those who are landed, so that there is a limit to the number of soldiers you can profitably employ in these circumstances; and if you have a great mob of untrained men, or even of efficiently trained men, they would only be treading on each other's heels and would not be required for a purpose of that nature—the purpose of defence. Therefore, on all grounds, it seems to me that if you look quietly at it you will see that the system of conscription is totally inapplicable, as well as politically intolerable, in this country; and in. so far as, not so much the proposals of the Government as the hints and indications of the right hon. Gentleman pointed to such a future policy, I must say that I will reject it and abjure it in advance.

1617
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State is postponing the thorny question of the constitution of the War Office. The War Office has a curious effect upon some minds. For instance, the hon. and gallant Member for the Chelmford Division of Essex attributes every evil thing to the War Office. I should like to ask him whom does he mean by the War Office I You must have a War Office of some sort. What is the particular habitat of the ogre the hon. and gallant Gentleman finds in Pall Mall? There are three elements in the War Office. There are distinguished officers and their subordinates, there are a number of civilians, and there are a few political officials. Which of these elements is objectionable? The soldiers are presumably the best that can lie found in the Army. They are men who have come to the front, and I will say boldly that for the last ten or twenty years you will not find anywhere men more qualified for their positions than the soldiers who have held high posts in the War Office. How they arrange their duties among themselves is a question which may be postponed to a more convenient season, especially as, I believe, it is going to be threshed out, or, to borrow a word from the hon. and gallant Member for the Chelmsford Division, washed out tomorrow in another place.
Now I come to the civilians. I have often heard it said. What chance has the Army when the whole thing is governed by a pack of civilians at the War Office? But it is an odd thing that it has always been so. There has always been a large number of civilians employed in the administration, and especially in the financial business, of the War Office. It was so in the Duke of Wellington's time, and he has held in passages which have come down to us that it is the proper constitutional system. It has always been considered desirable—and I put this very strongly to the House—that the Secretary of State should have a number of men trained and experienced in their duties, which are in no sense military duties, but, at the same time, independent of prejudices and inclinations of a military kind, and ready to point out when occasion offers any encroachment on the civil rights of the people. It is not only a question of good administration. There
1618
is also a constitutional question in it. and although the right hon. Gentleman seems to be setting himself to diminish the influence of civilians in the War Office, I venture to say that that is a departure from the old constitutional system which satisfied the Duke of Wellington, and which, having satisfied him, may very well satisfy those who come after him. Those clerks in the War Office do not take notice of any military duties; they deal with military subjects it is true, but only the civil aspects of them. In this war, so far as I have observed or been informed, nothing but admiration is deserved by the civilian branches of the War Office for the manner in which all the purchases of supplies and stores and everything else that was required have been conducted. Some, indeed, among them ought, I think, to be placed on a higher pedestal. Some of them obtain great experience and knowledge of military subjects, quite as great as any distinguished military officer can have.
The right hon. Gentleman referred, very justly, to the reforms introduced and carried out by Lord Cardwell, and. being a survival of that effort, I thank him on behalf of the memory of my friend Lord Cardwell for the way in which he spoke of his work. But those reforms were not allowed to sleep in the meanwhile. They were sympathetically developed by the father of the noble Lord opposite, the present Lord Derby, and by Mr. Stanhope, and I would mention especially that Mr. Childers was the author of that territorial connection of the Auxiliary Forces which, I believe, has, almost more than anything else, created the zeal and enthusiasm which we have seen in this country during the past year or two. It is to them that we owe what has been done—the sending of this great force to South Africa. There is now leaving the War Office at the close of his career a civilian clerk. Sir Ralph Knox, to whom, perhaps more than any one man, the institution and success of that whole scheme of reform is due. I remember seeing a paper written by him in the early days of 1870, before the scheme had ever been considered by the higher authorities within the War Office, itself, in which he marked down, with a nicety and exactness which is perfectly mar-

1619
vellous, all the ramifications of the proposals and everything connected with this great scheme of localisation and organisation for adding to the efficiency of the Army. That was done by a civilian clerk. Now I come to the political officers. What about them? I would suggest to the hon. Member for the Chelmsford Division that he should direct his sarcasms against the political officers instead of denouncing that abstract entity the War Office, which may mean anybody or nobody, and apply his epithets to the Minister who undoubtedly is responsible, and who, as we know, is not one to refuse responsibility; and here, at all events, in the House of Commons, the Minister must lie made answerable. For my part, while reserving any detailed criticism of the plan now unfolded, I must announce my dissent from it on the broad grounds that it indicates a departure from the prudent policy formerly pursued, and the introduction of a military spirit and military system which would fatally alter the character of our nation and Empire.
*COLONEL WARDEsaid he wished to make a few remarks on that branch of the military forces in which, for the time being, he was more intimately connected. He meant the yeomanry cavalry. He should be doing scant justice to that force if he did not frankly acknowledge the considerate and consistent support it had received from the War minister for some years past, sometimes when it was very much underrated by the country. He could only suppose that the Yeomanry cavalry had always done its work so modestly that the county had not realised their value. He would remind hon. Members of what happened last year. In the beginning of last year it was suddenly discovered that the war could not be carried through successfully without a large force of mounted infantry. The Government offered a very modest sum to the officers of the Yeomanry, and they provided for the country a force of 12,000 men fully equipped. He need not remind the House of the services that were rendered by that force. He congratulated his right hon. friend the secretary of state for war on the speech he made expounding the alterations
1620
which were proposed in the organisation of the Army. It was true that there was no reference in it to the absurd system of brigading two regiments together in order to make one adjutant do the work of both, and thereby effect an economy of staff. The right hon. Gentleman did not say whether an annual course of musketry was to be included in the training, or what, if any, place the Yeomanry were to have in the army corps now being brought into existence. These, although perhaps important questions, were more or less matters of detail.
The question that must most affect the future of the force was its divorce from that branch of the service with which it had been hitherto connected—namely, the cavalry. The first recommendation of the Committee of Yeomanry Officers, the formation of which his right lion, friend had himself asked for, was that the force should continue to be called the Yeomanry Cavalry or the Imperial Yeomanry Cavalry. In the first statement of the right hon. Gentleman made with regard to this new force, he utterly ignored the first recommendation made by the committee. In the opinion of the hon. and gallant Member, "the was more I experience of the South African War" was a hobby that was being ridden to death. No doubt we had a great deal to learn from the South African War. We had never in the history of the Empire had to conduct such a war before, in a country devoid of enclosures, where the rifleman's range was only limited by the power of the eye, and in an atmosphere where the eye could discern objects double the distance possible in a European climate. They might never have to conduct such a campaign again. The Yeomanry had never been called upon to take part in a campaign abroad before, and might never be again. It might be that at some future period we might find ourselves at war with a European Power, and the country might be denuded of cavalry altogether, and in that event the Yeomanry would be our only cavalry reserve. A distinguished officer some years ago stated that if the country was at war, and one ship laden with grain was captured by the enemy, the panic would be so great in the City that bread would go up in price 500

1621
per cent. In such a case it was possible that the Yeomanry might be called upon to suppress bread riots. Of what avail would a rifle be then? In his humble opinion the best weapon that could be used for such a purpose was the sword. Cavalry could always be converted into mounted infantry, but mounted infantry could not be converted into even indifferent cavalry. The experience of the war had proved this. Most of the cavalry regiments that had gone to South Africa had been armed with rifles instead of lances, but be doubted whether any War Minister or Commander-in-Chief would ever admit that we could do away with cavalry on all occasions. There was no other cavalry reserve except the Yeomanry, and it would be a mistaken policy to divorce it from that branch of the service. The country did not realise how valuable the Yeomanry were, but from his experience he fell confident that if they were out for six months in the year, that force would be able to march round most regiments of Regulars. It would be found that the Imperial Yeomanry in South Africa had been used more for cavalry than mounted infantry purpose. At any rate, the Yeomanry had now established a claim on the country; they had vindicated their existence; and he hoped the right bon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was not going to desert them. He earnestly urged the right bon. Gentleman to inquire carefully before committing himself to a policy which, in the opinion of a great many experienced Yeomen, would go far to destroy a force which, in the present war, had so fully earned the gratitude and approval of the Empire at large.
CAPTAIN NORTON: No one could have listened to the lucid and comprehensive statement of the Secretary of State for War with greater interest than I did for two reasons. In the first place, to all Service Members and Army reformers it was interesting to find that almost every suggestion which we have been for years past offering to the War Office, and which have been rejected with scorn, have now been tenderly embraced by the Secretary of State. In the next place, I was much interested to
1622
notice the skilful manner in which he concocted what I may call the new military organisation "soup." It reminded me of our own Gaelic neighbours, who are so skilful in the culinary art, who when they are short of provisions make a soup which consists of fried onions, milk, hot water, and certain condiments, but meat is altogether absent. So it is with the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. The basis of his scheme is wanting. He cannot bring his scheme to a successful conclusion without dealing with the question of recruiting. He told us lie was about to ask the House for £88,000,000, of which £29,000,000 were practically the Army Estimates for the year, thus showing that upon I be present war as much within £9,000,000 has been spent as upon the great Crimean War. But although this great Imperial Army, and this great charge is due to a great war undertaken for Imperial purposes, not one hint is foreshadowed that any call would be made, either for men or money upon any other portion of the Empire, but the whole cost is to be borne by these islands in the home seas.
In speaking of the future of the Army he asked. Is it in strength and character capable of fulfilling its proper functions? To that he gave no reply, although over and over again we have pointed out that the defensive forces of the Empire were not adequate for the purpose. After a well-deserved eulogy of Lord Cardwell's scheme, he said that that scheme gave us now 100,000 Regulars in South Africa. But Lord Cardwell's scheme was never carried out. After it had been in operation for a short time there was a sort of semi-return to the long service system. What has this combination of the two schemes produced? We may have 150,000 in South Africa, but we have not three army corps. It was a mob of 150,000 men we sent to South Africa. Then the right bon. Gentleman said—
"I have over and over again endeavoured to persuade the House that it is necessary for us to organise our forces on the principle of being able to send two army corps abroad."
He attempts to cast the blame on the House. Why this House has never denied the right bon. Gentleman or his predecessor anything he asked for the Army, On the contrary, the Service

1623
Members appealed to his predecessor over and over again to increase the artillery and the number of trained horses with the troops, in order that we might have two complete army corps to send to South Africa. Therefore no blame whatever is to be attached to the House of Commons.
The scheme goes on to provide for 155,000 Regulars in this country, and 115,000 Regulars to garrison India and our dependencies beyond the seas. I feel confident that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other man who has had experience of these matters believes for a moment he will be able to provide sufficient recruits during the next few years according to the scheme, and with the advantages laid down, seeing that some 15,000 men are at present serving in India, beyond their time, and that recruiting is almost certain to fall. Towards the close of the Crimean War we paid as much as £20 per man for recruits, and we are now employing what I may call emergency men at five shillings a day to do duty which the trained cavalry soldier is obliged to do for a little over one-fifth of that amount. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to admit that the artillery was insufficient. What greater condemnation of those who sit on the Treasury Bench could there be than that admission, seeing that year after year the deficiency has been pointed out? Furthermore, we are told that a much larger body of mounted troops is required. These are the very two points which the sixty or seventy military Members of this House brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. If sixty or seventy Members interested in, say, the textile trade were to have brought before the Government the fact that certain reforms were necessary in that industry, would they have been treated with the scorn and contempt with which we have been treated? I think we are justified in making it clear that we did our duty, and we are in no way responsible for the terrible fiasco of this war.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the great success of recruiting during the past year. He stated there was an increase of 46,000 men in the Militia, He used the word "men," but for the most part they were boys and weaklings.
1624
Of those 46,000 not one-fourth would be fit even to garrison India, let alone to go to fight in South Africa, lie points to the 10,000 Yeomanry, but they were obtained under great pressure, and in consequence of the war. He spoke also of 56,000 additional Volunteers, and the grand total is made up to 140,000. But at what cost were those men procured? A great deal of this £88,000,000 was paid to procure them; and in order that he may have a sufficient supply in the future, what are the advantages held out? Instead of sleeping in a barrack room the recruit is to sleep in a cubicle; he is to have a little less sentry-go, but not one farthing more pay. Seeing that recruits are usually drawn from pretty much the same class, is it likely that these inducements will enable the right hon. Gentleman to obtain sufficient recruits for an extra army corps for foreign service in addition to those necessary for the 115,000 troops we are obliged to keep beyond the seas? The right hon. Gentleman said he would be pusillanimous if he did not make further proposals to the House in the event of recruiting not being a success. I was about to say that the right hon. Gentleman was inclined to be somewhat dishonest in placing this scheme before the House, because he must know from the statistics at his disposal that he cannot by any possibility obtain the men to make his scheme a success? The Militia alone gives 14,000 recruits, or one-third of the total number, to the Line. That being so, and if he is going to increase the Militia by 50,000, how can the right hon. Gentleman suppose that he is going to recruit enough for the Militia on the one hand, and for the Line on the other, seeing that he offers no special incentive for men to join? He says the Army is to be no longer a paper force. I am disposed to think that a very large proportion will be a paper force, for, in addition to the matters I have stated, discharges have been suspended for eighteen months, and there will be something like 30,000 men going out of the Army at the close of this year. Inducements will be held out to them to remain, but those inducements will not be sufficient. Referring to the army corps,' the right hon. Gentleman said. "This is an organisation which cannot be called

1625
an organisation at all." That is precisely what we have been saying for many years past; and I am disposed to think that the organisation of the future, although it may be slightly better, will be practically of very much the same character. These army corps, with the exception, perhaps, of the one at Alder-shot, will be patched-up army corps. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the stores being massed for each army corps in the army corps district. It must have occurred to him that vast barracks and buildings will be necessary, and that there will be an immense initial cost for transport, lie has therefore not been frank with us in placing these Estimates before the House, and leading people to believe that £2,000,000 will be the entire cost. If the scheme is carried out in its entirety, and the force is not to be a paper force, it will cost nearer £10,000,000 than £2,000,000.
Then I go to the employment of Militia and Volunteers, and here we have a case of the largest force being the least efficient. The fourth, fifth, and sixth army corps are to be mainly composed of Militia and volunteers. When the glamour of the war is over, the majority of those who find it irksome to serve in the Militia or Volunteers, having to undergo a more severe training and to have a heavier strain placed upon them, will begin to ask why they should take this undue share in the defences of the country unless they are to obtain some corresponding advantage. If those corresponding advantages are given it will increase out of all proportion the demand which the right hon. Gentleman makes upon the taxpayers of the country. How are the Volunteers and Militia to be trained, and where are the officers to be found? A certain proportion will be drawn from the Regular Army, but tin' Regular Army is not only to be kept up to the present standard, but there are to be three army corps instead of two. Then the Volunteers are to be given field guns. If the Commander-in-Chief is going to rely upon field guns worked by Volunteers for the defence of the country in case of naval mishap, those who are to work the guns must receive a very much higher training than Volunteers at present receive.
1626
To go to the question of the eight reserve regiments which it is proposed to form, consisting of men of fourteen or, in some cases, twelve years regular service, I understand that existing reserve regiments are to be drawn on in order to encourage some of the men to volunteer for the proposed new battalions. When the late finder Secretary of State proposed embodying these men and said he expected to get between 45,000 and 50,000 men, I was bold enough to say he would not obtain half that number of efficient men. A matter of fact, he obtained about 23,000, and I venture to think that three out of every four were men who, although fitted for one year's home service, were certainly not fitted to do even garrison service in the Mediterranean. If these garrison regiments are formed, probably not more than one-eighth, or one-fourth as the maximum, provided that the medical officer is not too strict, can be drawn from the reserve battalions. Therefore they must be drawn from the Regular Army, notwithstanding the fact that we are to increase the Army by one whole army corps. The army produced will be a stage army. The same men will be paraded over and over again. The incentive to the men to continue their service is 6d. per day, with 1s. 6d. as an old age pension at sixty-five years of age. No more ridiculous proposal was ever put forward. Very few men drawn from the working classes, especially old soldiers who have seen foreign service, reach the age of sixty-five, and they will not give you a "thank you" for such a pension offer. At present a man can serve for twenty-one one years, leaving the service at the average age of forty, and obtain at once a pension of 1s. 1d. per day, so that the new offer is no incentive at all.
As regards the substitution of five battalions to garrison certain stations in the tropics. I gladly admit that that is a very sensible proposal. I infer from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, however, that the whole cost will fall on the Home Exchequer, but I do not know whether the necessary sum is included in the Estimates. When we come to the coaling stations we find a strange state of affairs. I always understood that the fixed principle of our policy was that the

1627
Navy was our first line of defence, and that the greater part of the Army was required only for the defence of India and our other dependencies, the remainder to he, as it were, a feeder to the other, and that we relied to a great extent on our Volunteer forces for the defence of the Empire in case of mishap to the Navy. But here, in order to bolster up our Army, the system of robbing Peter to pay Paul is again adopted, and by this scheme we are going to render our Navy less effective. We are told the First Lord of the Admiralty has not yet seen his way to give a final decision. I should think not. He very naturally wishes to keep the first line of defence in the best possible condition, and if he is to take over the coaling stations he must furnish the equivalent of five battalions of Marines, as I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman meant that the Admiralty should use bluejackets for this purpose. The Marines are, without exception, the finest force in the country, they are picked men, but they are also very highly paid men. I wish to know whether the cost of those men is be borne by the Army or by the Navy. If by the Army, the sum put down by the right hon. Gentleman must be increased, while if it is by the Navy then a greater sum must be demanded by the Navy. In either case it is the same to the unfortunate taxpayer.
With regard to distribution, I have only this one remark to make about those twelve battalions. They must be the same as the men we send out to India. Where are these seasoned old soldiers to come from, and what are the inducements held out to both non-commissioned officers and men to take a turn at this, after service in South Africa? I have dealt with the Militia problem, but I omitted to point out that no incentive is given to the Militiaman, although the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to make this scheme perfect, and add 150,000 men in the Militia. To do this, he will be obliged to raise straight away 80,000 men. As a rule they are 30,000 men short, and the right hon. Gentleman requires 50,000 more, and I am at a loss to see where they are to be got from, inasmuch as they are to receive only an extra 3d. per day and £3 a year as an incentive to join. I think that will not be sufficient to induce the large number
1628
of men he requires to conic forward for the Militia. The Militia Reserve are to receive 4d. a day and £6 a year, but that Reserve cannot be drawn upon like the late Militia Reserve was drawn upon, because it is only to be liable for home service. The Militiamen who have done ten years service and Linemen who have done fourteen years service with the Reserve are to form the new Militia Reserve, and they have to do fourteen days musketry. It is extremely unlikely that, when a man has done ten years in the Militia and has probably married and settled down, he would be willing to spend fourteen days every year at musketry.
Now I come to the Yeomanry. It is proposed to raise 35,000 Yeomanry, of whom some 10,000 are supposed to exist already. I hope it will not be thought that because I am an old cavalry officer I wish in any way to disparage the Yeomanry, but what I say is that we have always been given to understand —and all the great Continental nations agree in this—that the minimum time required to make an effective infantry soldier in the case of a highly cultured man is one year. When you get a man of a lower grade it takes two years, but it has always been held that it takes a much longer time to make an effective cavalry soldier. If the only cavalry we are to have to defend these shore's are to be Yeomanry, I ask whether that is not a, bogus mounted force so far as these three army corps are concerned? If one division of foreign cavalry were landed upon these shores and jutted against these 35,000 half-made cavalry soldiers, I believe that the foreign division would sweep them all away. Therefore, I say that it is deluding the country to lead people to believe that 35,000 Yeomanry will be anything like an effective mounted force for these three army corps. They are to serve eighteen days, fourteen of which will lie obligatory, and the privates are to receive 5s. a day. That will be rather an expensive price to pay for these doubtful Yeomen, because no one believes that the right hon. Gentleman will get men of the real Yeoman class. You will no doubt get a number of the better class young men who now serve in the Volunteers. This new force, will he highly popular, but

1629
highly inefficient. I notice that the Government are about to provide horses. They will obtain men who, for the most part, are unaccustomed to horses, and the fact that the horses with which these men are supplied will be horses of which they know nothing will render the difficulties of the officers who have to train them very great indeed.
Now I come to one of my complaints of the whole system. This war has conclusively shown that the mounted man, as compared with the dismounted man, is of the highest advantage, more especially in the face of modern weapons? discharged at such a distance that the infantry man rarely sees the man to whom he is opposed. I think that one of the main defects in the scheme is the inadequate provision of mounted forces. It has been one of the main defects in the late war, as will be seen from the, Report published by the Intelligence Department. Referring to South Africa, that Report says—
"It is of all countries perhaps the most dangerous in the world for infantry to operate in without a screen of mounted troops in their front and on their flanks."
Although we advocated that in this Mouse over and over again, our Army was sent out to South Africa without sufficient mounted men. At Graspan, Modder River, and Magersfontein our infantry were mown down, and a famous Scotch Brigade was sacrificed because they were led into traps which they would never have been led into had they possessed a sufficient force of cavalry scouts. It has been said by the Leader of the Opposition that we must not draw our deductions from the South African campaign. With that I entirely agree, because if we did it would be argued that the soldier of the future was a little man on a little horse with a long rifle and a big spade, and that troops of no other calibre were required. I do not suppose that we shall ever be drawn into a great Continental war in which we shall have to put such a vast army into the field, because in such a war in which we may be engaged the Navy will do the bulk of the work, and the only thing the Army would have to do would be to send a sufficient force abroad to act as a threat to our opponents by seizing some of their colonial possessions.
1630
Therefore we should only require a limited force, but it would have to be of the highest character, and if we happened to he operating in any portion of northern Europe, north of the Pyrenees and the Alps, it would be imperatively necessary to cover that territory not with Yeomanry, but with thoroughly trained and skilled I cavalry. It was conclusively proved in the war of 1870 that the whole success of the German troops lay in the fact that they had a thoroughly effective cavalry, properly trained to cover the advance of the army.
As regards the Volunteer reforms, I notice that they are to receive 5s. a day, and that we are to have 225 battalions, necessitating an increase of 57,000 men, and that they are to do duty for thirteen days. Hut. after taking what I call the cream of the Volunteers for Yeomanry purposes—and the incentive offered will bring about that result— is it to be supposed that you will be able to fill up that gap of 35,000 men and at the same time get fresh men to the tune of 57,000? What about the employers of labour? It has. perhaps, not dawned upon the right hon. Gentleman that when he begins to put the pressure on these Volunteers, to give them the necessary training, the conditions under which they serve will be that each man when he finds the undertaking to be, irksome will have nothing to do but to pay a small fine, put on his civilian clothes, and walk off. The scheme resembles a fairy tale. I shall be told, probably, that we have a large number of trained men of different categories in South Africa, and that we have, these men to draw upon. Out of the sweepings left from South Africa you may have a number of men, but I think that the vast number of the men fighting out there will take the earliest opportunity of returning to civilian life.
I now come to a point upon which most Service Members feel very strongly — namely, the question of the artillery. The right lion. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War admits its weakness, but shelters himself behind the Commander-in-Chief. He is made to say with reference to our artillery—
"It has accuracy, it has moderate weight behind the teams, all of which are important elements in artillery."

1631
He goes on to say—
"The open country and clear atmosphere in South Africa have shown that as regards range and power an improvement is necessary. That has to a certain extent been effected during the war by the provision of slow-burning cubes. As regards rapidity of tire some improvement is certainly necessary, and the matter is now under consideration."
Therefore this artillery of ours is defective in range, in power, and in rapidity of fire. If this is so, then I ask what on earth is it good for? I often think with what qualms in his heart the present Commander-in-Chief made this admission, when we reflect that the loss of his gallant son was due to the fact that the range of our artillery was defective. We have pointed out before the fact that our artillery was defective in range, and that a neighbouring nation had the very guns which we desired. Hut what was done? The Financial Secretary told us that he was about to spend some £200,000 in order to make what I will call some gimcrack arrangement in connection with the laying of t he gun and the carriage in order that we might fire a little more rapidly. On the occasion of the battle of Colenso, what was the officer in charge of the guns to do under the circumstances? Why, he was bound to do what the whole course of his training had taught him. He had either to remain in the rear, subject to the fire of the enemy's guns, or else thrust his gnus right under the rifle fire of the Boers. He did what every British officer was bound to do, and now the unfortunate Commander-in-Chief who lost his only son in this way actually tries to whitewash the Government.
MR. BRODRICK: The remarks which the hon. Member is making are totally unjustified by the facts.
CAPTAIN NORTON: The right hon. Gentleman says the remarks I am making are totally unjustified by the facts, f am amazed. I say that our guns were defective in range, and had nothing like the range of the Boer guns.
AN HON. MEMBER: Is the hon. Member speaking of guns of position or field guns?
CAPTAIN NORTON: I am speaking of field guns. The hon. Member must
1632
know that we had no guns of position in South Africa until we drew on the Navy. Reference is made here to out-Horse Artillery guns, and the report says:—"Our Horse Artillery guns need improvement in several respects." Now I come to the question of the training of officers. What is to be done is that professional acquirements must rank first. If the intention is to do away with the social status of the British officer, seeing that it is the fact that it is the social status that causes him to desire to be an officer—if you sweep that away, I have strong doubts as to whether you will get a sufficient number of officers., and you certainly will not get the right class of men unless you are prepared to pay them adequately for their services. What is the incentive to be given to the British officer in order to induce him to devote himself to his profession, and how does it compare with other professions where many prizes are to lie gained? Prizes are very few indeed in the British Army. The incentive offered is that the officer is to be allowed to buy his uniform at cost price from the Government establishments; but I have yet to learn that the expense connected with, uniform, even in the most expensive cavalry regiments, is a very large item in an officer's expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government would shrink from no difficulties-and from no criticism. You are offering to the British officer the sum of 36s. 9d. per week, if you were to go into my constituency amongst the printers you would not get a single printer to work for 36s. 9d. per week, for he draws 40s. per week. And while you offer the British officer this immense sum, you put forward as an incentive that he will be able to buy his uniform at a cheaper rate, and you think that is sufficient to attract to the ranks of the officers of the Army a class of men who will be prepared to give themselves up to professional duties, and who, if they were to seek employment in other learned professions, would get at least ten times as much money.
The right hon. Gentleman finished up with the question of cost, and he put the entire cost of this bogus scheme at something like £2,000,000. As I have said before, my contention is that it will

1633
cost £10,000,000, because you have to include transport, reforms in the Army Medical and the Army Veterinary Departments, the building of barracks, and the establishment of training grounds, without which the troops will be absolutely useless. I suppose no hon. Gentleman here will contend for one moment that the recent South African War has been a success. When we carry our minds back to those terrible days in December, 1899, I ask whether there is a single man in this House or in the country who did not feel himself covered with shame when he read of those great disasters; and even at the present moment what must be our feelings when we reflect that we have now got the equivalent of six army corps in South Africa, and that all this effort was necessary in order to subdue two petty Republics whose total population was not equal to one large London parish? I say that military men in this country are covered with shame, because we have nothing to show in this war except that all our men and officers have behaved with unparalleled bravery; but so far as the management of the Army is concerned we have all condemned it. We were not able to land in South Africa two complete army corps in proper fighting form, and we have had to keep drafting an afterwards all sorts and conditions of troops who were a drag upon the transport, and who were not really fighting men. When we get these training grounds and a sufficient number of guns for the six army corps, and the garrison guns for the defence of our ports, then I say that the amount of money required will be more like £10,000,000 than £2,000,000, and that is what the country has to face. It is for the country to consider whether they are going to allow a similar state of things to occur if ever we are drawn into other entanglements.
The whole scheme resembles the well-known story of the Irish tourist in the train running on a single line. When the train stopped at a station the man called out, "Has the So-and-so express passed yet?" The reply was, "How should I know?" And then the guard said to the driver, "Drive on, Patsy; in God's name we will chance it."
1634
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid he did not claim to treat this matter as an expert in military matters. He was not an old soldier, nor had he had the advantage of the experience of some lion. Members who had served in South Africa during the last year, but as a civilian who had had the honour of serving in a garrison as a Militiaman on a station abroad, he would like to say a few words upon the subject of the very important scheme which had been submitted to the House by the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Member for Stirling Burghs objected to the scheme because it went too far, but the only objection which he could see was that it did not go far enough. The right hon. Gentleman was terribly afraid of adding an army corps to those troops who were to be ready at a moment's notice to go abroad. His objection was that there were not three or four army corps to be added instead of one. We had learned by the South African War the absolute necessity of this country having a large force ready to embark at a few moment's notice for service abroad. As the Empire has grown so enormously during the last twenty years, so the Army must grow pari passu, with the Empire. The Empire had entirely outgrown the Army, and a scheme involving an increase £3,000,000 on the normal expenditure of for the purpose of organising an army corps to go abroad was, in his opinion, much too moderate a scheme. The right hon. Gentleman spoke very strongly upon this subject because compulsion had been hinted at; for his part, he would welcome any scheme of limited compulsion that would give recruits to the Army. He congratulated his right hon. friend the Secretary of State on the scheme which he had submitted, but he was doubtful whether he would get the recruits to fill the ranks of the Army. At the present moment, no doubt, the war fever was high and recruiting was brisk, but in the future, when the war fever had disappeared, where were the recruits

1635
to come from? There were only two alternatives—either to increase the pay of the soldier and the officer at a cost of something like £10,000,000 a year to the country, or to introduce a scheme of limited conscription. Some such change, in his opinion, was absolutely necessary, because we had reached the limit of recruiting, arid had been compelled to enlist what were termed specials, who were men under the ordinary standard. In 1898 we enlisted no less than 34 per cent, of specials as against 18 per cent, in 1886. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs entered into a long tirade against conscription, which was rather useless, because his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War had not proposed conscription. He was sorry he did not; the country now would tolerate it, and whether it liked it or not it would have to come to it in the end. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of having conscripts and sending them abroad. What we ought to have was an Army enlisted on the voluntary system, and some scheme of home defence by means of some large extension, of the Militia, and that was a thing we should have to come to if we were to have the very moderate scheme which had been brought before the House. His right hon. friend had not proposed any compulsory system. He had said, let us give the voluntary system a chance, and as he had done that, we must be grateful for the reform he had initiated.
There were two things which the country was in great earnestness about at the present moment. One was a widespread opinion that our Army, excellent as were the men who composed it, splendid as were the officers who commanded it, was not run on business lines. The country wished to see it run in a more businesslike manner. As a nation of, perhaps, the most businesslike people in the world, there was something very unbusinesslike in our Army; and the unbusinesslike methods upon which it was run did a great deal of harm, and if the Army was to be put on a businesslike footing we should have to begin reforming the head and reform the War Office itself. Was there anything more unbusinesslike in the world
1636
than the pay sheets with which the officers had to make themselves conversant? He was reading a short time ago in The Times of a very curious arrangement of the Army Pay Department. A regiment had been engaged in the Orange Free State, and the officers had been sleeping out in the open on the veldt. Now it was well known that any officer who lived under canvas was entitled to field service allowance, but when these officers applied to the authorities for their field service allowance they were told they were not entitled as they had not been sleeping under canvas. His right hon. friend had alluded to the fact that the training in the Army was not up to date. He quite agreed that there had been too much barrack drill, too much ceremonial. According to one Army Order, the first thing that a soldier had to learn was the sword exercise, and yet the same week that that order was issued a paragraph appeared in the papers to the effect that the General Commanding in South Africa had prohibited the sword ever being used at all. Our present system of training was not suitable for troops in the field. Under the scheme of training provided in the Kings regulations, one month in the year only was devoted to field training and two periods of a fortnight devoted to musketry exercise.
MR. BRODRICK: That has all been altered now.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid he was glad to hear that statement from his right hon. friend and hoped that it was part of the scheme before the House. Musketry practice under the present system commenced at 200 yards, and at 200 yards it was carried out standing. He asked who would stand up 200 yards from an entrenched enemy. His view was that soldiers should be trained to do their duty in the field, and he suggested that a simple Manœuvres Act should be passed so that in every year a large tract of country might be taken and the soldiers go anywhere. He believed if that were done and adequate compensation given to the farmers of the country taken, they would be perfectly willing for the manœuvres to take place over their land,

1637
and so far as the landlords and sporting tenants were concerned he was perfectly sure they would not stand in the way of allowing soldiers to go over the land in order that by so doing the Army might lie perfected for the field. He understood that the Militia was to receive better treatment in the future than it had in the past. He hoped this was so, fir the Militia had proved itself to be as useful a force as any in the Army, though it had been neglected in the past. The idea of a Militia Reserve was simply ridiculous, seeing that it only consisted of a number of men who, having taken the bounty, were willing to take the risk of being called out. He expressed his entire approval of the abolition of that Reserve and the creation of Royal garrison regiments. He cordially supported the scheme, which he thought would be to the benefit of the Army.
*SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think the importance of discussing this question cannot be exaggerated. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said the other night that he had made proposals such as never had been made and which he hoped never will be made again. The first part of that statement was unquestionably true. Whether the latter part rests in hope only I know not. At the rate at which our Estimates increase I. fear that that hope may be disappointed. We are asked to-day to Vote Estimates for £88,000,000, a thing. I believe, that has never been asked in this country, or any other country, before. But this history of the growth of our Estimates is comparatively recent. I think that this Administration, in the course of five years, has increased the normal Estimates of the Army and Navy by £25,000,000; they stood at £35,000,000 in the year 1895, and to-day they are £60,000,000. That is a matter which f think deserves the attention of the House of Commons. The industry and labour spent in this country in cultivating the war spirit, partly by responsible Members and greatly by the press, give us little hope that we shall enter soon upon a different course. These Estimates are, of course, largely with reference to the war in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman told us that five
1638
years ago he apologised, in his own person, for normal military Estimates that amounted to eighteen millions. To-day they are twenty-nine millions—a growth of eleven millions in the normal military Estimates of this country. Is there any reasonable probability that these Estimates have reached high-water mark? On the contrary, I consider that there is a prospect of indefinite increase. The Estimates are vague and uncertain. They depend to a great degree upon the price which you are going to pay for these voluntary recruits. In the future I suppose the Government will come forward, as they come forward to-day, and speak, with contempt almost, of these miserable Estimates as they do of those of three or four years ago.
That is the commencement of the speech of the Secretary for War. He concluded with a scheme which he described as involving a military force of 650,000 men. The conclusion was as formidable as the commencement of his speech, lie says that the Estimates of 1896—that is. his first Estimates—of eighteen millions, were received with perturbation, and the Estimates of to-day are accepted with relief. I cannot say that that is exactly the sentiment with which these Estimates inspired me, and the appearance of the Secretary for War in the character of a relieving officer is certainly a curious part for him to have assumed. W e have not yet come to the Budget under which these Estimates will have to be paid for, and I doubt very much whether the sentiments of the taxpayers of this country will be sentiments of relief when they see the consequences of the Estimates laid on the Table. I do not propose to go into details. I should be quite incompetent if I were to attempt to do so. But I do ask to examine what is far more important than any details, and that is the spirit and the policy on which these Estimates are founded. The Secretary of State invited us to look at the large and increasing figures of the War Estimates under our normal military equipment. Yes, Sir, I accept his invitation, and what is the policy that underlies it? A memorable saying of Mr. Disraeli's was that expenditure depends on policy; and the secret of the present expenditure is to be found in the policy by which it is inspired. It is that part

1639
of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which is most important, and in my opinion, to use the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman by my side, the most momentous, because I look not so much at the figures—they are the figures of to-day—but I look at the policy which is declared in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, speaking for the Government, as I understand, for he would never have been so rash or so indiscreet as to indicate that policy if it was not the policy of the Government as a whole. What is that policy? Hitherto our armaments have been on a comparatively moderate scale, because I think it may be said on the whole, certainly in the nineteenth century, that the policy of English statesmen has been a policy of peace. Under the favourable auspices of peace we have achieved in this country an unexampled prosperity in the health and wealth of this people. At the commencement of the last century we had a people depressed by the consequences of a great war; this was followed by a long peace, by a great development of prosperity, and has been crowned by a contented people. That has been the policy of the nineteenth century, interrupted only by the fatuous episode of the Crimean War. What is going to be the policy of England in the twentieth century? I confess that to have the twentieth century inaugurated by such Estimates as these gives us little hope that this is the policy to be pursued in the future.
Let us see how far we can divine the policy of the Government from the statements of the Secretary of State. It is something very different from that which we have been accustomed to hear from responsible Governments, certainly during the last fifty years. I cannot say that I see in what is called "the new diplomacy" omens of peace. They are omens of a different description. They do not breathe the spirit of "peace on earth and good will towards men." They are inspired rather in the language of a poet of our time, "War with a thousand battles and shaking a hundred thrones"—thrones which, I may observe, are, from time to time, treated to occasional menace. You may pay the lip service of hypocrisy to the cause of peace at The Hague and then
1640
proceed to illustrate it by the object-lesson of arming 250,000 men in South Africa. It is those who have the most acquaintance with war who are the most willing to cultivate the arts of peace. That happened to the Tory Government which was in power after the great war in 1815; and it is a well-known fact, constantly quoted, that the lowest Army Estimates ever known in this country were the Army Estimates of the Administration of the Duke of Wellington. Why was that? It was because the consequences of war were alive in the minds of the people who had suffered from the consequences of war, who had seen the people distressed and starved, and trade ruined. The result was that you had a new epoch of economy and of peace. The British people had learned what the consequences of war were, and the people to-day have yet to learn the consequences which this war will in its outcome bring upon them. There was another thing learnt from that great war, and it was the lesson that England, above all things —and this has been what I may call the traditional policy of her statesmen—was to avoid as much as possible European complications, and alliances, holy or otherwise, were to be strictly abjured. These may be described as the leading principles of the peace policy of almost the whole of the 19th century. What is indicated—what is more than indicated — I say revealed—in the speech of the Secretary for War in bringing forward these Estimates? He felt that these Estimates were so enormous that it was necessary to put forward emphatically principles of the policy that should justify the enormity of the sum that was I demanded. I am not, in spite of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, without hope that the bitter experiences of this war while it was waged, and, I fear, still more the experiences which will be found in the peace which is to follow it, will inspire a soberer sentiment in the people of this country, and that the time will come when the melodies of the music-halls and the Mafeking mobs will not be regarded as the true exponents of English statesmanship. I hope that may be the case, and then at all events, the experience of this war will not have been suffered in vain.

1641
Nothing could be more false than the pretence that great armaments are a security for peace. Were the great armaments of Germany and of France in 1870 a security for peace? Every man knows that they were the main things that provoked the war, because each of the parties relied on the victories their armaments would secure for them. Do not let us therefore be told that great armaments procure peace. There is nothing so easy as to manufacture inevitable wars. We have seen that process very recently; and in the eyes of the nations who make wars all wars appear to them to be just and necessary, and they only want the means of carrying them out to make them think that they are politic. Therefore do not let us pretend that these great armaments are any security for peace. As King John said:
"How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds
Makes ill deeds done."
That is as true of armaments as anything can be. I know how unpatriotic is the protest of a preference for peace. I know that war is considered the only true badge of patriotism to-day. [No.] The hon. Member who says "No" cannot read his daily newspaper. I do believe that we are standing to-day in a situation when the nation at large will recognise that after all there are some advantages in peace. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes, I mean a peace that is a real peace.
MR. BARTLEY: Not a Majuba peace.
*SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Majuba peace kept peace. [Several voices on the Ministerial side: "And made war"; "You made war."] It was not the people who made the peace of Majuba who made this war. But I will not enter in to that controversy now. I will follow the lead of the Secretary for War, and pursue as closely as I can his argument and his defence of the Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no time when the Army was weaker than between 1860 and 1870. I mentioned just now that the lowest Estimates known in this country were the Estimates of the Duke of Wellington. It is quite true that the Estimates were moderate between 1860 and 1870. That was the period immediately succeeding the
1642
Crimean War. The British Parliament, British statesmen, and the British nation were determined after the conclusion of the Crimean War that, peace being made, there should not be a war establishment. Was that the doctrine of the despised Manchester school? ["Hear, hear" from the Ministerial side.] I was waiting to hear an illustration of the knowledge of the history of that period possessed by some hon. Gentlemen opposite. I will tell you who the author of that policy was— the main and principal author. It was one whom I am sure you will respect. Mr. Disraeli in 1857 on the Budget of that time stated his intention of moving resolutions against the continuance of war taxes in time of peace. I will only quote one sentence, but it is worthy the consideration of the House, He said—
"If these resolutions are carried we shall witness some beneficial changes in the financial system of the country. I think we shall give a great impetus to salutary economy, and shall in the most significant manner express our opinion that it is not at present advisable that England should become what is called a great military nation."
I will call attention presently to the doctrine of the Secretary of State upon that subject, but I think that is a very valuable sentence, and I recommend that it should be hung up in letters of gold in the habitations of the Primrose League. I think it might be useful if it was inscribed on the wreaths which about Budget time will be laid on the statue in Parliament square. That would be extremely valuable to the taxpayers of this country. The right hon. Gentleman. I was glad to hear, passed a deserved eulogium, as did Lord Wolseley, on Lord Cardwell. I had the honour of entering Parliament as a colleague of Lord Card-well in the representation of Oxford, and I am glad to —
"See nations slowly wise and meanly just
To buried merit raise the tardy bust."
It has taken thirty years for people to recognise a great Army reform, which was at the same, time a well-considered and an economical reform, because the creation of the Reserve by Lord Cardwell was a peace measure. It did not provide for keeping on foot a large armed force ready to be launched on the Continent at a moment's notice. At that time the Estimates

1643
were some £16,000,000 or £17,000,000. What is the policy of these Estimates of £29,000,000? The Secretary of State has told us extremely frankly, and I would like to revert to the sentence to which my right hon. friend referred. He said—
"I hear it sometimes boasted that we are by nature a fighting race. I can only say that may be so, but it is only by accident that we are a military nation. Now we have to consider how we can turn that accident into a permanent opportunity."
That sentence I remember very well. It was Lord Palmerston's, but he did not use it as if he desired that this should be a military nation. He said that we are a fighting people, but not a military nation. That is not the view of the Secretary of State. He desires that we should be a military nation; and found his opportunity, he says, in the accident which has made us a military nation—that happy and glorious war we are now waging, and he hopes that fortunate accident will give us the happy opportunity of becoming a military nation. That is the revelation of the meaning of these Estimates and of their magnitude. They are intended to convert England, which has never yet been so throughout its history, in the ordinary sense of the word, into a great military nation. That is the first thing: and of that I venture to say that, so far as L can, I protest against this revolution in the policy of this country—against this attempt to convert England into a great military nation. That is the exact opposite of all that has hitherto been desired by the succession of British statesmen who have deserved the confidence of this country.
The Government look forward to the conclusion of the war as an opportunity for increasing our military forces and turning this into a military nation. As I have shown, the policy of Mr. Disraeli was when a war was concluded, to reduce establishments, and not to increase them. Other nations, no doubt, in peace have been, and are, compelled to keep up vast armies, but why is that? It is because they have great vulnerable frontiers, and these frontiers must be constantly defended by their arms. But our frontier is the sea. [Cheers and Ministerial cries of "No."] Is the lion. Member who sits below the gangway not aware that England is an island?
COLONEL BROOKFIELD: The British Empire is not an island.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: India is not an island.
*SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I may put a further question—Are hon. Gentlemen not aware that a frontier is that which surrounds a country? When you put these two things together I do not think my proposition—
SIR JOHN COLOMB: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be individualising me. I would ask him—Is he aware that the land frontiers of the Empire are greater than the diameter of the earth?
*SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I should say that the greater part of the Empire has the sea for a frontier. I might mention a small portion of the Empire which is called Australia. That. I think, has the sea for a frontier, and a great part of India is bounded by the sea. I will say, if he will allow me to say so, that, after all, the great defence of our frontier is the Fleet, and that the Fleet should be made sufficient for the necessary defence of our frontier at whatever cost has always been my doctrine; and it is because the greater part of the frontier of our Empire is the sea, and that its defence is the Fleet, that we are not called upon to maintain great military forces in the sense that Continental countries are called upon to maintain them. That is a reasonable proposition.
Then, Sir, I want to point out another principle which underlies the speech of the Secretary of State. He warns us that we are not to build up our military policy on the quicksands of the good will and forbearance of foreign powers. Yes, but it is a new feature in modern statesmanship that on every occasion the j Government thinks it necessary to come forward and warn us that we are the best hated people in the world. If an individual had to make such a confession some people might think that he himself had something to do with his being hated, and it is by the authors of this new diplomacy that we are constantly told that we are the best hated.

1645
people in the world. It certainly was not necessary in this country in former times to make that disagreeable announcement On the contrary, it has been the habit in Speeches from the Throne to inform us that we were on the best possible terms with the other nations of the world. It has been left for this Government to make it the favourite theme of their policy that they cannot count upon the goodwill of other nations.
This confession that we have contracted the odium of mankind is brought forward as one of the topics—I might call it one of the principles—which is to justify these increased Estimates. And it is quite true. You cannot expect goodwill when you cultivate a blatant jingoism which is regarded as the true badge of patriotism, and which defies and insults your neighbours. [No, no.] That is not a policy, or one likely to secure the goodwill of other nations. The Secretary for War told us truly that "a wise foreign policy may keep us out of foreign enterprises and entanglements" I should have thought that such a, policy would mitigate the universal hatred with which it is said we are regarded. But as we are asked to arm against this universal hatred I can only draw the conclusion that in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the foreign policy of the Government has not been a wise one, because if it were it would have kept us out of these difficulties and dangers. Here, again, we see the natural outcome of the new diplomacy. It leads to enormously increased armaments. But I come to a still more serious matter. I hope I am dealing accurately with the statements of the right hon. Gentleman. I have taken great care to verity them, because they are of the deepest importance as regards the future of this country. The right hon. Gentleman, having told us that we were compelled to send the equivalent of six army corps to South Africa, passed at once to another very significant requirement. I beg to be excused if I again read a passage which my right hon. friend has already quoted, because I think we ought to have a most definite statement from the Government upon this subject, which, I venture to say, will have most serious consequences
1646
throughout the world. The right hon. Gentleman said—
"Africa is not the only continent on which1 we have great commitments."
I suppose the right hon. Gentleman knows what "commitments" means. I do not. It is not an English worth I wanted to understand what that word "commitments" meant I consulted many dictionaries and I could not find that "commitment" was a word ever used for anything but committing a man to prison. But at last I found a dictionary of a more modern character, and discovered in it the word "commitments." The authority quoted for it was the money article of the Daily Telegraph on 10th October, 1877. and it is said to mean "engagements." Now I know what it means. I understand it belongs to the jargon of the Stock Exchange. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that we had commitments and interests on two other continents besides Africa, which we were bound to defend. Asia, no doubt, is one of the continents. I understand that, as we have there India and also China. But I do not know what these great commitments are on the other continent. I do not suppose you are going to send six army corps against the United States. It remains, therefore, that there are European commitments upon which we are to arm as a military nation. That is a very important matter, upon which we ought to hear a great deal more from the Government. I cannot conceive that this is a bugbear invented by the right hon. Gentleman only for the occasion. I imagine it must be the declaration of the Cabinet as the ground for proposing this gigantic Army plan and these enormous Army Estimates.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
"No man in this House will be so hold as to say that in any circumstances we can keep ourselves free from European entanglements."
So the "commitments" end in "European entanglements" Further—
"Nor can we suppose, if we ever become unhappily entangled with a European country, that we can limit our enterprises solely to the extent of our own possessions."
Therefore it is to be "commitments" and "entanglements," and they are not

1647
to be in defence solely of our own possessions. Then what are they to be in defence of? Then he goes on to say—
"It stands to reason that if we have allies"
—mark the word "allies," because that is very important; it does not says whether it is a triple alliance or a dual alliance—
"if we have allies none of them will be prepared to turn out every man they can muster and allow us to rest at home. We ought"
—mark these words; they are the conclusion of the argument—
"to have ready at any moment three army corps to send abroad—practically 120,000 men."
Is that for the purpose of satisfying European allies? The "enterprises not limited to the extent of our own possessions."
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Treaties.
*SIR WILLIAM HARCOUBT: That is just what I am asking. Have you made these treaties? You are to have 120,000 men ready for the purpose of alliances—let us know what these alliances are. I rejoice at the frankness of the Secretary for War, endorsed by the ardour of the Member for Oldham. But I venture to say that 120,000 men are about as inadequate for the performance of that task as the 10,000 men you sent to conquer the Boers. One hundred and twenty thousand? Why, you wanted 250,000 to fight the Boers, and if you are going to join in the great military combinations of Europe, I venture to say that co-operation is quite as dangerous as opposition. We have now Estimates for £88,000,000. But if you go in for a policy of this kind you may have to present Estimates twice or three times £88,000,000. That is why it is necessary at this stage of the debate, before we go into details, that we should know what is the policy upon which the Government are proceeding which leads to Estimates such as those which are laid on the Table of the House. Can there be anything more dangerous or more childish than the proposal to keep ready 120,000 men in order to launch them at any moment upon the Continent so
1648
as to satisfy your allies? We know very well that allies make it a condition of their alliance that you shall keep a certain number of men always ready for their purpose, and I think you will find that they will require you to keep a great many more than 120,000 men always ready. When your 120,000 men who are to be always ready to be launched on the Continent fail you, or want to be reinforced, what have you got? You send your three army corps, and you have got your three home army corps, but what do they consist of? That is exactly what we do not understand. It is to be a sort of omnium gatherum medley, a fortuitous concourse of voluntary atoms. What are these three army corps for your home defence to consist of when your first three army corps to satisfy your European commitments have proved insufficient? I venture to quote again an authority which I hope will have the respect of hon. Members opposite. It is a passage from the speech of Mr. Disraeli at the close of the Crimean War. He said—
:I am not in favour of any new and still mysterious military system"—
he must have foreseen this very plan—
"great, I am afraid, beyond proportion, and of which we have heard it said that it could at any time in ten days land an army on the Continent."
Do you agree at all with the opinion or the policy of Lord Beaconsfield? Here is his emphatic condemnation of the very plan which is now before the House.
When we are on this question of alliances, I would remind the House that we had this doctrine first in a speech at Leicester not long ago. Alliances were solemnly propounded; they were then proposed, but they were received with a chilling attitude and declined with thanks. But you may be more successful in the future; and the new diplomacy may come down and say, "Well, at last my proposals for alliances have been accepted, and here they are, and we have got 120,000 men ready to launch on the Continent at any moment." It is with these resources as a new-born military nation, and under the auspices of this diplomacy, that we are going to enter into competition with the great military States of Europe. That is a

1649
policy I understand: but it is a policy to which I, for one and I hope everyone who sits on this side of the House, will offer a determined and constant resistance. I do not know, you have never told us, how many Regulars you expect to get. You have got these 120,000 men always ready to start on to the Continent but how many more have you got in your home army corps? There is to be a small number of them, apparently in the three home army corps, but besides that there is to be a great number of Volunteers, of Militia of Imperial Yeomanry, and so forth: but we have never been told what the proportions of these are, so little has this plan been developed.
MR. BRODRICK: I gave all the figures.
*SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg pardon. I must have missed them. But I do not pretend to go into these different military figures. I am endeavouring to examine the policy, and not to argue upon the figures or military details. But whatever the figures are the right hon. Gentleman has very little faith in his voluntary recruits. He says—
"We have added to our regular forces in the last three or four years 50,000 men. We have, I think,"
—this is most important—
"under existing conditions almost reached the limit of our recruiting power."
He "thinks," and I think he thinks rightly. The only resource he has are a few battalions from the garrisons, and they are to come home, and then some elderly gentlemen are to volunteer to occupy all the unhealthy, disagreeable parts of the world. That is the only cure for the failure of the recruiting power of this country. I want to know when you say, after all your experience, that you are going to garrison South Africa with twelve battalions, what the exact figure is of Baden-Powell's police, and at what you estimate the cost of that force? If there are 10.000 men, as we have been told, at £250 apiece, as you have informed us, that amounts to £2,500,000 more; and if there are 15,000 men, as has been said, and as seems more likely in a territory more which you have to add to your Esti-
1650
mates. That must appear upon some Estimate, or are they for the present to be paid by the gold miners in the Transvaal? I expect not. For their 5s, a day and all found they would like to have some better security than that—namely, the British Treasury.
The right hon. Gentleman says that 140,000 men have come forward voluntarily in the course of this war. That is a thing we must all be proud of, and of the spirit that has been shown. But that has been under, to use the right hon. Gentleman's own words, "the influence of the war fever." He does not feel confident that he will always be able to keep up the war fever. Indeed, I think he is rather of the opinion that the thermometer is already sinking and that before long it may perhaps be pronounced to be sub-normal, and when that time arrives he does not seem to have the same confidence in the number of his voluntary recruits. I applaud the frankness with which the right hon. Gentleman has developed his policy in support of this scheme, He will not, he says—and this is perhaps the most important point of all—"win cheap cheers by a proud declaration of adhesion to the voluntary system." I know the gallantry of the right hon. Gentleman; he will never "win cheap cheers by a proud declaration of adhesion to the voluntary system." but I do not know what the price of the cheers will be for conscription. At what figure will they he quoted when the war fever has evaporated? I should venture to predict that they will be very cheap cheers. He has declared his very slight adhesion to the voluntary system. He says his adhesion to the voluntary system is strictly limited.
MR. BRODRICK: Strictly limited by what?
*SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Strictly limited by his own opinion of what he is likely to do.
MR. BRODRICK: It depends upon our having sufficient defence at home.
*SIR WILLIAM HARCOUET: Strictly limited by the necessity of having 650.000 men, at a cost of twenty-nine millions sterling, or whatever the cost may be. He asks us to fix the minimum,

1651
I suppose, at 650,000 men, or he would not have asked for it, and he estimates the cost at twenty-nine millions sterling. How much it may turn out to cost when the war fever has collapsed, how much a day his Volunteers will require, he does not know and nobody knows. But he says that, if the war fever collapses and the recruiting and volunteering fall off, the Government "would be pusillanimous if they did not make further proposals. They will exhaust every means before they come forward with that proposal." I should be sorry to see the right hon. Gentleman pusillanimous. It does not belong to his character at all. I should say of him, C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre. But when he says he will exhaust every other means, I think before he comes to that he will have exhausted His Majesty's Government. He will find that the confidence of the country has collapsed also, as well as the war fever, and that their adhesion to his conscribing aspirations are also very strictly limited. I think that that will probably be the final result of the policy thus revealed.
Now, this jumble of a scheme that has been laid before us, concocted, as the right hon. Gentleman tells us in four months of office, with the assistance during only two months of the Commander-in-Chief, is not what the country has expected as a great scheme of Army reform. What they looked for was something very different from this precipitate project flung upon the Table of Parliament to fulfil the pledges of a precipitated election. That is not what we want, or what the nation requires. We require a deliberately conceived and carefully worked out scheme of Army reform. My right hon. friend says. How is it possible that Lord Roberts, who has been Commander-in-Chief for two months, has had time? The right hon. Gentleman, in apologising for the time he had been able to bestow upon the scheme, said, and it was quite true, that he was pressed with many other occupations, in this House and elsewhere. I say that this scheme bears upon its face all the marks of haste and of an undigested conception. It is a business which requires far more time than the right hon. Gentleman or the Commander-in-Chief has been able to bestow upon it. I do not find fault
1652
with either of them, but I do not know whether the Government themselves appreciate all the bearings of this scheme. I am sure if they do nobody else does. But in his peroration the right hon. Gentleman said that his extraordinary scheme is to be lasting monument to the memory of the thousands of gallant men who have fallen and suffered in this ill-omened war. Well, I confess that I foresee in South Africa consequences of this war which will be more deplorable even than the conflict itself. That you have acquired and maintained this great Empire by voluntary arms has been a proud tradition, a proof of your greatness and your strength, and if the outcome of the war shall be that it has inflicted upon the British nation the curse, of conscription, then I say that the monument that this measure will erect will be a monument not of your glory, but of your decay.
THE FIRST LORD of the TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): My right hon. friend near me has been the mark for a great many shafts hurled at him by two very important Gentlemen upon that bench—the present Leader of the Opposition and the late Leader of the Opposition. They have combined their forces, and have made an attack on the same lines against my right hon. friend and his scheme. Yet, on the whole, I think my right hon. friend may take comfort from the speech to which he has just listened. After all, the authority to whom the right hon. Gentleman opposite chiefly appealed was the late Lord Beaconsfield, and of the quotations from Lord Beaconsfield, which he gave us in considerable quantity, the date. I think, of the most recent was forty years ago, and, probably, of the less recent of them about fifty years ago. I think it is possible that in forty or fifty years some Radical gentleman upon that side of the House may look to my right hon. friend and quote his speech also upon Army reform, as the right hon. Gentleman has quoted the leader of the party to which he is opposed. The right hon. Gentleman is now apparently exactly where Lord Beaconsfield was before the German army reached its present perfection, before the war between Germany and Austria, before the war between Germany and France,

1653
before the war between Russia and Turkey, before the war between China arid Japan. The state of mind of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to military matters is exactly where it was before all the great developments of military power. And that is what it is to belong to the party of progress!
I have not much to agree with in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but there is one part of his speech which I do heartily agree with. I certainly do think that the growth of the Estimates is a very serious matter. The increasing magnitude of the burden thrown upon us by our responsibilities is not a pleasant fact; but it is a fact that we have not attempted to disguise, a fact that flows directly from responsibilities cast upon us through no aggressive spirit of ours, through no corrupt or vulgar ambition on our part, but by the general movement of the world's history, and not the least by the growth of great military and naval Powers, which have magnified their forces by both land and sea to a degree never contemplated by our forefathers, and necessarily have imposed on us obligations which, however onerous, are not to be disregarded, and which would become very serious indeed if we repudiated them. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite occupied great parts of their respective speeches in telling us how large a space might be filled, how great an effect might be produced by the efforts of diplomacy as a substitute for military power. But, Sir, diplomacy never was a substitute for military power. What diplomacy can do, what diplomacy has done, and what I hope it constantly will do is to prevent the use of military power, to prevent the actual clash of opposing forces, the fatal collision of nations in arms. That diplomacy may do. But the idea that, by dexterous language, soft words, and smooth promises you can make up for a strong army and effective navy is a fantastic suggestion which history has shown to be ludicrous in the extreme, and which, if any nation adopted it as a permanent policy, would certainly land that nation in final ruin and calamity. Of course, it is possible by rash and unthinking diplomacy to land your country in complications and difficulties.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Birmingham diplomacy.
MR. A.J. BALFOUR: Who doubts that? Who has ever doubted it? It is a lesson written large on the pages of history, and, indeed, it does not require history to tell us that must be so. But where is the nation that has found successful substitutes for brave soldiers and expert sailors in soft speeches and cunning diplomacy? The right hon. Gentleman objects to the "new diplomacy"; but, whatever be the merits of the new diplomacy, at all events it has never, any more than the old diplomacy, claimed to be a substitute for well-disciplined armies and well-equipped fleets. The real question before us is not the almost childish problem how we may substitute diplomacy for military preparations; but whether the military preparations suggested by my right hon. friend are or are not sufficient for our needs; whether they are or are not calculated to maintain their object. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the word "commitments." He and the right hon. Gentleman near him, the Leader of the Opposition, appeared to think that in the phrase used by the Secretary for War lurked some obscure indication of new obligations, new and secret obligations, entered into by His Majesty's Government, which would carry in their train as the necessary and logical consequence a great increase in our military force. That is all fancy, all that is illusion; there is no foundation for it whatever. But we know we have great colonies and dependencies to defend, we know that some of these colonies and dependencies are in contiguity with the possessions of great Powers, and that possibly—I hope it may never be, but it may possibly be—the neighbouring Powers may be at war, or threaten war with us.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: What colony?
MR. A.J. BALFOUR: It is simply a geographical question. Anybody who gets out a map can see where our colonies lie and their geographical relation to the colonies of other Powers. This is a responsibility that will be denied by no man. It will not be denied by the right hon. Gentleman.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Secretary for War put forward the defence of our colonies as a separate

1655
reason. He also said we had commitments on the Continent as well.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's interruption, and will leave that part of my subject, for I understand he does not dwell on our defensive responsibilities, our obviously defensive responsibilities; he bases his attack on my right hon. friend on the supposed obligation to deal with quarrels not immediately our own. There are treaties in existence, not made by us or by our immediate predecessors, but which are still binding; and who can say, in the changes and chances of mortality, in the moving kaleidoscope of European politics, how soon we may not be called upon to fulfil our treaty obligations? Not secret obligations, but obligations which are there on the face of all the text books, with which the right hon. Gentleman is as well acquainted as I am myself. It is conceivable, and it is, I presume, a contingency which my right hon. friend had in view, that if Britain were attacked, even if Britain had to fight a defensive war, she might have allies in that defensive war. The right hon. Gentleman, though he repudiates any special military knowledge, must be well aware that if we had allies in such a war they would properly expect our assistance in operations which, although in ultimate intention defensive, might be immediately offensive. Are we to render ourselves absolutely helpless in any case to give assistance by any military power of ours?
But I frankly admit that though this is an important consideration, it is not the main or governing consideration in the policy which my right hon. friend has put forward. I do not think that this contingency, which I have mentioned as possible, is in any sense probable, but though not probable, it is one that we, should not forget. But let us just consider what it is that has brought down upon my right hon. friend the charge of this military ambition—the accusation that he is encouraging the military spirit; that he is attempting to create a huge, hitherto new, and unthought of force, a force which none of our predecessors ever contemplated.
1656
The right hon. Gentleman could not have followed my right hon. friend's figures. Anybody looking at those figures would see that whether it be or be not well contrived—and I think it is admirably contrived—the great effect of the scheme is not to increase the absolute number of our troops, but to make that number efficient for the purpose for which they exist. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has no objection to the existing number of our Regular troops. That number is not increased by my right hon. friend, except for the garrison regiments. The right hon. Gentleman does not object to the present number of Reserves. That is not increased. I do not suppose he objects to the number of Miltia which, according to the law, we ought to have. That number is not increased. It is perfectly true that we ought to have 150,000, and that we have now only 100,000. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will consider it a very aggressive scheme to raise the 100,000 to the 150.000. There are 250,000 Volunteers in the scheme. That is not an increase; and the only increase in the present numbers are the 10,000 garrison veterans, and the increased numbers of the Yeomanry—25,000 more Yeomanry. Is it credible that on such an increase as that, we should have such accusations hurled at our heads? What the right hon. Gentlemen opposite object to, is not the numbers of our troops, but their efficiency. We shall have, when this scheme passes, 680,000 men. We have now over 600,000, and it is that increase apparently which frightens the right hon. Gentlemen. They appear to lay it down as an axiom that, whatever else the British Army is to be, it is not to be an organised and efficient army.
The Leader of the Opposition in the speech he made early this afternoon, told us that it was nonsense to talk about army corps, that an army corps was a convenient ideal to be nominally worked up to, but that there was no such thing in the British Army as an organised army corps, in the sense that there is in the German, French, and Russian armies. I think that is very true. But the object of my right hon. friend is

1657
to produce army corps; that is the object he has in view. He does not think that we ought to remain in the hugger-mugger condition defended by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He does not think our army corps are to be mere miscellaneous and unorganised forces of men. The essence of this scheme is that the army corps with which we have got to deal, shall be army corps in reality as well as in name—army corps with their proper complement of generals, officers, and staff; army corps with their proper complement of cavalry; army corps with their proper complement of artillery; army corps organised as military units which can meet the invader, if invasion we have to fear, without being re-embodied by combination with other half army corps, strong regiments, casual military elements, before they form an organised and united force. That is the object of my right hon. friend. That is the object which right hon. Gentlemen opposite think we ought not to try for. I cannot agree with them. Where this country is chiefly at fault is not so much in the number of its troops as in their organisation, and it is not so much the number of troops that my right hon. friend proposes to add to, as the organisation which he proposes to perfect and complete.
What has the right hon. Gentleman got to say on the other side? I listened with amazement to the attack of the right hon. Gentleman on my right hon. friend. I think it was at the end of his speech that the Leader of the Opposition talked about the General Election and all the interesting lessons which the General Election taught, and all the morals which could be drawn from the speeches made at the General Election and all the unforgetable lessons which the General Election instils into us and our children and grandchildren. I think that one of the topics which next to ardent enthusiasm for the war filled the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, was equal ardour for Army reform. I remember being very severely taken to task by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife because I said in the course of the election cam-
1658
paign that the party opposite, so far as I remembered, had hardly contrived to produce the smallest beginning of Army reform for more than a generation; indeed, not since Lord Cardwell's great change in 1870. I remember the Member for East Fife, though I do not think he mentioned any great change either in the number, discipline, or equipment of the troops, did say that during their tenure of office the Luke of Cambridge had resigned, and another Commander-in-Chief had been appointed. That was the contribution which he pointed out. I venture to say that even before the war we had endeavoured, both by augmenting the numbers and in other ways, to improve the condition of the British Army. We were laughed at. Now what do we see? These gentlemen here, dressed high for the war whilst the election was going on, are now talking about the temperature of the war fever sinking to a sub-normal point.
These gentlemen who talked so glibly about Army reform, their capacity to carry it out, our incapacity to carry it out, have nothing to say about my right hon. friend's system, either in its outline or detail, except that it encourages the military spirit. This is surely playing with a great problem. Everybody admits that the task of the War Minister in this country, who has got to deal necessarily with a voluntary Army, who has got to find troops for innumerable foreign stations, many of them very unhealthy, is one of extraordinary difficulty and perplexity—a problem such as is not presented to any foreign statesman, whether French, German, Russian, or Italian. My right hon. friend has made a serious attempt to deal with the difficulties of that problem. I do not think that any critic of the Government will doubt that; but in attempting to do so under exceptional difficulties, how is he met? On one night he is attacked because he attempts to raise the efficiency of the British officer, because he refuses to promote those whose inefficiency has been demonstrated, He is attacked on the next night, forsooth, because he has not put off his Army reform for another year, because he has inflated the military spirit. I can hardly extract from the cloudy fumes of the oratory of the right

1659
hon. Gentlemen what is the essential accusation they bring against my right hon. friend; but if my right hon. friend's scheme is carried out, as I earnestly trust it will be, he will at all events have used to the utmost the forces we have at our disposal, he will have organised for the defence of our fortresses those materials useful for little else, but most useful for that purpose, He will have freed for operations in the field troops who are now used and in part wasted in fortress work. He will have organised these army corps, not for wanton aggression, but for home defence, He will have made the best of ail the military elements at his disposal; and though he is attacked now, as military reformers have before been attacked, though he is made the target for the criticisms of right hon. Gentlemen who a few months ago, speaking in the country, were such ardent Army reformers, and a few months hence will probably be such ardent financial reformers, though he has incurred hostility, my firm belief is that the time will come when he will be pointed to, as some of the greatest of his predecessors have been, as one who has inaugurated a new era in the British Army, who has made that Army efficient for all possible purposes of home defence, and probably purposes of foreign war, and who by so doing has done more than even the most dexterous diplomacy can hope to do to secure that peace which is our first interest, and which never can be secured unless we have the respect of those Powers which are our friends, in some respects our rivals, and which might under certain circumstances be our enemies. If my right hon. friend has contributed in this way, as I think he has, to the cause of peace, if he has done something material to put our Army upon an organised and firm footing, then I think he will rank not only as a great Army reformer, but as one of the greatest and most effective friends of peace which this country has ever produced.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that if those Members of the House who had advocated Army reform were able to recognise in the scheme of the Secretary of State for War that which the Leader of the House
1660
had claimed for it the right hon. Gentleman would find in them warm defenders, instead of critics of that scheme. While he agreed that the country had been invited by many hon. Members of both sides of the House to consider Army reform as the main question which was to be discussed in the House in the present session, he confessed he could not, criticising, he hoped honestly, the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, find in it the elements of hope for the great reform of the British Army in the future which they had been led to expect in the past. The right hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat had himself shown one of the greatest blots of principle on the scheme. He had claimed for the scheme that there was in it—at first he had said no increase, and then had modified his words and said only a small increase in our forces. That was one of the attacks which he made upon the scheme. The increase of expenditure had been enormous. As the right hon. Gentleman tin Member for West Monmouth had pointed out in his speech just previously, although the normal peace expenditure had grown rapidly from £18,000,000 to, what was now called £29,000,000, but what in reality was £31,000,000, with loan money, to which there must be added the enormous expenditure of India, and of the Civil Service Estimates in relief of the Army—in spite of the gigantic expenditure which was continually increasing there had been no appreciable increase in the normal peace Army of the country. As one who considered that a mobile and effective force was of more value and more importance to the country for the efficiency of Imperial defence than mere numbers, he failed to see in the present scheme, as he had failed to see in previous scheme, marked as they were by great increase of expenditure, that increase in the number and efficiency of the mobile Army of this country which they had been led to expect. The right hon. Gentleman then quoted the numbers of our normal forces, and had spoken of the 600,000 men that we had already, and of the 650,000 that we might have under the scheme. We had 1,000,000 of one sort or another in the land forces of the Empire. The

1661
one charge which he had always made against the system, and which ought still to be made against the scheme, was that the Government had not made a small effective mobile Army out of the enormous number of men for which the country paid.
The First Lord of the Treasury had claimed for the Secretary of State for War that that right hon. Gentleman had created real army corps, He desired to show the House how little those army corps would stand the test. Where were the cavalry for the army corps? The right hon. Gentleman had not increased the cavalry by a single man. The right hon. Gentleman had a scheme for the gradual increase of the Yeomanry which he might or might not obtain, but they were not cavalry. The right hon. Gentleman did not increase the cavalry by a single man. He denied that there was regular cavalry for three army corps, let alone the six army corps which were claimed as a, reality under the scheme. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of these army corps, composed partly of Regulars, partly of Volunteers, and partly of Militia brought from all parts of the country, he was speaking of men who might take their discharge at any moment.
MR. BRODRICK: Not at all.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: Yes, the Volunteers could demand their discharge at a moment's notice, and to serve under any other conditions would do away with the volunteer service. That showed how ill thought out the scheme was which the Leader of the House and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had endeavoured to persuade the House was a reality. He recollected some years ago a scheme which provided eight army corps, which practically never existed, although for some years the regiments supposed to compose them figured in the Army list. After a time they became such a laughing stock that they were withdrawn from the Army list He confessed so far as they had gone at present he had not gathered from the Secretary of State for War or the Leader of the House any facts which led him to suppose that the three army corps mentioned in the scheme would be any more a reality than
1662
the eight army corps which everybody had so laughed at. He agreed with the Leader of the House that many gentlemen on both sides had shown what the right hon. Gentlemen called an ardour for army reform, and he was very glad they had done so. The noble Lord the Member for Bedfordshire had told the House that in South Africa he had learnt one thing, which was that in all those years that he had listened to the debates on Army reform in that House it was the reformers who had been right and the Government who had been wrong. The reformers now saw the Minister for War was—in all but the chief point—a convert to their views. He believed it was a fact that the most ferocious of the inquisitors in the old days of the Spanish Inquisition were the Cardinals, secretly of the ancient Hebrew faith, yet they had retained their Jewish religion through all the time of the Inquisition. What those who had pressed for Army reform now learnt from the Secretary of State was that during the ten years he had been connected with the War Office, and had ridiculed the reformers, he had agreed in secret with most of the reforms put forward.
He was not at this moment speaking of the details of the scheme, but of the principle, and any detail to which he should allude he should allude to very briefly, and merely as an illustration, but he should have to allude to some details, and that would make it unnecessary for him to speak again upon the subject in Committee. The first point in the speech of the Secretary of State for War on which he would dwell was one upon which the right hon. Gentleman had been unjust alike not only to the reformers but to the House itself. With regard to the manœuvres the right hon. Gentleman had said the Government were going to do that which they ought to have done in the past, and have annual manœuvres and test the troops in all parts of the country. Why had they not done it in the past? The right hon. Gentleman said they had not done it before because the House of Commons prevented them, "All our proposals," he said, "with regard to manœuvres were cut down by the House of Commons." He would not deal with the contention in detail, he would simply quote the speech of the right

1663
hon. Gentleman on the Manœuvres Bill to disprove it, Deputation after deputation had waited upon him to press the Bill.
MR. BRODRICK: I know that the right hon. Gentleman almost alone supported me.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: On July 8th. 1897, the right hon. Gentleman said the Bill was brought forward at that late period of the session in consequence of the very strong encouragement which the Government had received from all quarters of the House, and he added that there had been indications of support "from almost every quarter" of the House. In fact, the opposition to the Bill was confined to a few Members of the House. It was an attack made upon the House of Commons. There were a few Members who were opposed to the Bill, but they were a very small minority of the House, and the pressure that was brought to bear upon the Government to bring forward and to pass the Bill was a pressure from all sides of the House. Another matter also—one, perhaps, of detail—also one to which he would briefly allude, one which was attracting a great deal of attention in the country, was that the right hon. Gentleman said the chief of the lessons of the war which the Government had learnt concerned the equipment of the Army with guns. He spoke of the necessity of adopting heavy guns for the Army; a matter which the reformers had pressed upon the House, but what was more important, he spoke of quick-firing guns, and he defended the gun supplied to the Army, which he said was accounted the "best field-gun in Europe" by experts "three or four years ago." No doubt that was said to the Government by one of their experts. But field guns of the old type were out of date, and the Government had been warned repeatedly by the House before the war had begun that we should have quick-firing guns, but what happened? In the ordinary sense our Army had not a single quick-firing gun in the country. The two systems of quick-firing guns which had now been adopted by the Government had been refused when the reformers brought the matter before
1664
the House on the "21st of April, and then again in June, 1899. The Government admitted that they had not a single quick-firing gun, but that they were experimenting in the matter. In that detail the right hon. Gentleman misled the House. The policy with regard to guns now adopted by the Government had been arrived at by the Government after the commencement of the war, from which they had learnt at last a lesson, and was a policy which had been pressed by the military reformers of the House several years ago. The principal staff officer of Sir Redvers Buller's force in Natal, who had previously been long in the Intelligence Department, had written of the war in South Africa that our guns in South Africa had "never been matched against quick-firing field guns of the latest type," The Secretary of State had adopted all the accessories of his scheme from the views put forward by military reformers in this House. He had even withdrawn the Guards from Gibraltar, and he had one so, so far as could be made out, on the ground that Gibraltar had contracted in size and that there was now less room there for the evolutions of the Guards than previously. He had also adopted the views of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite with regard to handing Sierra Leone and other stations over to the fleet, as he himself had said, against the opinion of the Admiralty, and he had thereby caused that unpleasant feeling between the two Departments, which had almost become a public scandal during the last few days.
But, continued Sir Charles Dilke, these are small matters compared with the much larger matters in which the right hon. Gentleman has very greatly changed his views, without, however, adopting a solid system which would give a good foundation to the future military institutions of the country. One of the lessons of the war which almost every officer who has returned home has impressed upon us is the need for mounted infantry as apart from our cavalry. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of that need. Almost every officer who has spoken or written about the war has assumed that our present scheme for mounted infantry would be put an end

1665
to; that the best men would not he picked out of the infantry battalions, but that separate mounted infantry battalions would be established. I believe it was the universal opinion throughout the Army and the country that one of the reforms the Government would institute would be the creation of mounted infantry battalions. There is not a word about that in the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, and when he says that it is necessary that we should be provided with a much larger body of mounted troops, I ask where are they to be found in the Estimates. There is nothing but the suggestion that the Yeomanry will be increased, but the Yeomanry are not a force available for foreign service or for India, or for any use outside these shores. They are a hypothetical force as to the future of which we know nothing at all.
There are many other points in the scheme on which the country has been profoundly disappointed. It had been almost universally accepted after the experience we have had of Colonial mounted infantry in this war that there would be some sketch, however faint, of the future constitution of an Imperial mounted infantry throughout the Empire. I know it is said that these suggestions should come from the Colonies, but they have come. You would not be forcing any such scheme on the colonies, but you would only be accepting an invitation already made. Suggestions have been already made by Canada and Australia, and in New Zealand a definite scheme has been proposed by the Government, and the country will be disappointed that no reference has been made to that scheme by the Secretary of War.
MR. BRODRICK: I made a distinct reference to it.
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: The point on which reformers in this House have always insisted, and the necessity for which has been terribly shown in the early stages of this war, is that we should not wait for war to make these preparations, but that an arrangement with the Colonies should be made in time of profound peace so that it might be in working order when war broke out, and not
1666
have to be made much too late to render all the assistance it would have rendered in the earlier stages of a war.
I will not dwell on the adoption by the right hon. Gentleman of the views of reformers in this House with reference to transport and the Army Medical Department. I remember debate after debate in which hon. Members called for the reorganisation of the Army Medical Department, and I think it is unjust that the responsibility should now he thrown on the House of Commons for having rejected Government proposals which were never made. I will not even dwell on the great change in the training of the Army for war referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and which implies a severe censure on the War Office of the past. The words of the Secretary of State for War were grave words. They went as far as the words which have been used in public by a. distinguished officer who has the confidence of the present Commander-in-Chief, and who served as Adjutant-General to the Commander-in-Chief in India. He used these very serious words—
"There is no disguising the fact that the troops sent out from England to South Africa were not properly instructed in the duties required from soldiers in war."
What a terrible condemnation of the War Office of the past that the Secretary of State should be obliged to admit that our soldiers—although only a small Army, which were we told would be more efficient than the conscript armies of foreign countries, both because of its voluntary system and its manageableness—are less efficient and less trained than the armies of other countries. I understood the Secretary of State to admit that. At all events the words he used I with regard to changes in the future were so strong that they appeared to me to carry that condemnation. The Secretary of State has theoretically adopted the views of reformers in this House, and, taking almost the words of the Service Members' memorandum circulated last year, he tells us that in the past we have had scratch corps and improvised staffs, but that in future we are to have corps trained in peace by the officers who are to command them in war, and that they

1667
are to be provided with peace staffs. He has applied these words not only to the three army corps for foreign service, but also to the three mixed army corps, which I agree with the hon. Member who has spoken are nebulous corps, because their constitution is of such a mixed description that it cannot be satisfactory. It is my belief that it will lead, in the event of war, to their being broken up again and not employed in the manner now contemplated. I believe that in the event of war you would pick out from these corps the regular troops, and that therefore they would have no real existence.
The right hon. Gentleman has explained that besides these army corps there will be left at home more than half a million of men prepared for defence, I confess I am one of those who hold that the command of the seas is the defence of this country. I agree with my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire (Sir W. Harcourt) that this House will cheer-fully vote whatever money is necessary to maintain that command, which is our real defence. I believe that the British Army exists mainly as a really efficient army for the reinforcement of the Indian garrison, and, if necessary, as the rudiment of that army which, in the event of a great war, would be necessary to secure peace by means of a, counter-stroke at the possessions of our enemy. I attach more importance to the smaller portion of the Army which is organised for the purpose of offence than to this enormous horde of men with rifles for home defence. Those men are mainly composed of Militia and Volunteers. I listened in vain in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman for that reform of the Militia which I did expect. There was a plan for the creation of a Militia Reserves, but that is not the kind of reform we expected. There is a great deficiency of officers which applies not only to the Militia but still more to the Volunteers. There is nothing in the scheme to remedy that deficiency, and I cannot see how they are to be provided. And yet what can be the value of these picked and special detachments of Volunteers, to be put into an army corps, unless you have efficient and sufficient officers to command them.
1668
In reply to an interruption of mine with reference to the training of these officers, the right hon. Gentleman said that the matter was under consideration. I confess I cannot see that we have in this scheme that great measure of army reform which was promised at the last election. The right hon. Gentleman has, it is true, adopted the language and many of the measures proposed to him by reformers in this House. But when he went to the root of the subject I find a, great falling off. He paid lip service to the Cardwell system and spoke in high terms of it, but when he came to the substance of his scheme there was again a large increase in the long service portion of the Army, which is entirely opposed to the Cardwell system, whereas there was no corresponding increase in the short service portion of the Army. That is a side of the subject which I fear I cannot develop to-night.
The most important part of the whole question is, how are you going to make up the number of troops which are supposed to exist after the present war, depleted as the Army will be? The Leader of the Opposition said we had no statistical calculations before us. This is a point on which, at all events, calculations should have been given us. We know that there are three years drafts required for India at the end of this war, instead of one ordinary draft. There is also an enormous deficiency under many other heads which will have to be made up. How are you going to make it up? When the right hon. Gentleman talks of the Cardwell system he must remember that it has been greatly altered by both sides of the House in consequence of the difficulties always existing in the ease of India, and which are increased now, and will be much greater at the conclusion of the war. The original idea was a short service system, but it was soon found that that would not suit India. Then we proposed five year, then six years, and ultimately seven, and eight years for men discharged in India In 1883 a Government of which I was a member, and in which the Leader of the Opposition was Secretary to the Admiralty, was obliged to give the men the option of staying up to twelve years, and giving them advantages for doing so. That was a complete

1669
departure from the Cardwell system. The principle of the Cardwell system is sound, namely, that the Army could be extended for war, but it was not applicable to India. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with that matter the other day, but not, I think, very plainly. He pays lip service to the Cardwell system, but he is getting all his old soldiers to stay behind, which is an absolute reversal of that system. He is extendng the long service portion of the Army in this way, although he is not making any corresponding attempt to deal with the short service portion. Then again, there was an almost universal belief throughout the country that some attempt would be made to increase the pay of the private soldier. I believe every candidate at the general election on both sides was in favour of increasing the private soldiers pay, and I believe also the taxpayers are in favour of it. The subject is, however, merely referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, who tells us that it would be useless to increase the pay of the private soldier unless we made it something like double the present pay. Have you tried? I see nothing myself pointing at all in that direction. Have you tried even that elasticity of conditions of service which many think so desirable? What did your Inspector General of Recruiting tell you two years ago? He said you had never given the three years system a fair chalice. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the views of the present Commander-in-Chief on this subject, and the views of reformers in this House, and yet he says that the only question is, "Are we to have a separate army for India or not?" No one in this House has ever for a generation proposed a separate army for India. But what we have proposed is elasticity in the conditions of service, which would make recruiting far more easy than it is at present. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us what is the opinion of Lord Roberts on the subject of the conditions of army service.
It being midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

SUPPLY [1ST MARCH].
Resolutions reported:—
CIVIL SERVICE SUPPLMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.

  Class I.
  1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £35,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1901, in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."
  2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1901, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Government Property."
  3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1901, for payments under the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, and the Light Railways (Ireland) Act, 1889."

  Class II.
  4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
  5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,200 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1901, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."
  6. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,015, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1901, for the

  1671
  Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal."
  Resolutions read a second time.
  First Resolution:—
  MR. TULLYsaid they had now been dealing with Supplementary Estimates for several nights, and no further information had been given them. The Estimates had been prepared in a very loose way, for even in regard to fixed charges like rent and insurance an extra, £5,500 was required. Although the Imperial Institute and the London University was not in the nature of a. museum or a picture gallery they were, now proposing to spend nearly £10.000 upon it. There was. however, an item of £2,000 for the Intelligence Department of the War Office to which he did not object, for he thought they needed to spend more money on that Department. He did not know why all this extra expenditure on regard to electric lighting should have been incurred, because there never was a time when greater economy should have been practised in all Government departments. He did not think sufficient reasons had been given to justify the voting of this large sum of £35,000, and he begged to move a reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out '£35,200,' and insert '£35,100' instead thereof."—(Mr. Tully.)
  Question proposed, "That £35,200 stand part of the Resolution."
  MR. O'MARAsaid that when this Vote, was before the Committee Member after Member on this side of the House rose and complained of the way in which the Estimates were brought before the House. Before that money was voted he should like to have full details given to the House. He was of opinion that most of this expenditure ought to have been foreseen. There was £3,000 set down in connection with the Latent Office, and although £20,000 was spent there last year they were now asked for £3,000 more. The First Commissioner of Works had told them that
  1672
  by carrying out this work they would save £750 a year, but he could not understand how he made this out, and he should like the matter cleared up. He found that there was a sum of £3,125 for the adaptation of Hertford House for the Wallace Collection, but that was on the top of a previous expenditure of £160,000. He represented a poor constituency, and objected to that expenditure for a London show. Then there was the item "Furniture," £1,325, which was an increase of 50 per cent, over the previous year. He could not understand how the expenditure for furniture should have gone up to such an enormous extent. It was an item that ought to be stationary. Then there was an increase of £3,400 on household articles, which surely warranted some explanation, as did also the increase of £950 on the Die and Medal Department of the Royal Mint. He hoped his friends would look carefully into these increases of expenditure, and that they would have some support from both sides of the House in putting pressure on the Government to reduce expenditure. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed, but the public would not laugh when they saw the Budget, and when hon. Gentlemen went down to their constituencies after the Budget their constituents would not laugh. Every penny ought to be turned over two or three times before being spent, instead of these thousands of pounds being thrown away.
  MR. FLYNNsaid the House owed a debt of gratitude to the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, because he had given information to hon. Members which they did not have when these Estimates were last considered. When the Supplementary Estimates were being discussed in Committee last, a high financial authority on the opposite side of the House pointed out that the system of Supplementary Estimates was going from bad to worse, entirely owing to the fact that the Estimates were not properly criticised, and that the Treasury had got into a reckless method of keeping their accounts. For example, there was an increase of £5,500 for rents, insurance, and tithe-rent charges. Now, if there was one item which was supposed to be stationary

  1673
  it was rent. If the rents had gone up, why was that so? They ought to have some information on that point. He had some knowledge of insurance matters, and he was not aware that premium rates had gone up. Again, in all departments tithe-rent charges had gone down; and why should they have gone up in this case? He complained that they got no details from the Government under any of these heads. An hon. and frugal Gentleman from Scotland criticised in a few and pointed remarks some of the subjects under A, relating to new works, alterations, additions, and purchases, and asked for explanations, but none had been forthcoming. In regard to the Wallace Collection, why was it that £3,125 had been spent in addition to the previous £160,000 for converting one of the finest mansions in London and fitting it up for the storage of that collection? He believed it was impossible to over-estimate the value of that collection, but it was quite unreasonable to ask the poor taxpayers in Dublin or Cork to pay for what they would never have a chance of seeing He thought hon. Members above the gangway had not applied their minds to Supplementary Estimates during the present session or in previous sessions. Anyone acquainted with structural alterations would not believe that £163,000could have been spent in Hertford House in making ready that mansion for the priceless collection it now contained. If any hon. Member got a plan of the mansion as it formerly existed, it would be impossible for him to conceive how that enormous sum of money had been spent. Then they were asked for £10,000 for the Imperial Institute for the purposes of the London University, and yet the House was too niggardly to grant even £1,000 to Queen's Colleges in Ireland, to provide proper instruction for clinical students. No adequate explanation had been given of that Supplementary Estimate. The imperial Institute—that precious monument of Imperial imbecility—had never, not even in its amusements, been able to compete with a twopenny-halfpenny circus, and could not compete with private enterprise such as was displayed at Earl's Court in any one particular. Yet they were now asked to vote £10,000 more, sub silentio, for
  1674
  that Institute. They would not pass it in silence, but would comment on such expenditure, especially in such times. With reference to the £2,000 spent on Winchester House, he would not object if it were for the purpose of improving the Intelligence branch of the War Office or the Foreign Office, but after what had occurred during the last year and a half, not one penny should he spent on the Intelligence Department, He thought hon. Members were justified in reiterating their protest against the large and progressive increases asked for in the Supplementary Estimates without any adequate explanation regarding them being given.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): I shall reply, as shortly as I can, to the various criticisms which have been addressed to me by hon. Members. The hon. Member for South Kilkenny asked me to explain why details in the Estimates had been given in full so far as Sub-head A was concerned, but not as regards other sub-heads, and he stated that in the Supplementary Estimates for last year details were given in full. I stated the other night that it has always been the practice to give details only of new services in the Supplementary Estimates, but I do not intend to pass over the criticism of the hon. Member, and will endeavour to give him the fullest explanation I can. First of all the hon. Member asked me with regard to the Census buildings. In connection with that the Supplementary Estimate now asked for could not have been fore-seen when the original Estimate was framed. That Estimate was prepared in October,1899, and of course we knew then that the Census would be taken this year, but the Census Bill had not even been passed. After the original Estimate was framed we were asked by the Registrar General for further accommodation, first of all for an increased staff, which was necessary for the collection of the further details required, and for the greater expedition which was generally desired, and also because it had been decided to establish a female staff, for whom separate accommodation was necessary. Then a complaint was made by the Medical Officer of the Local Government Board with regard to the sanitation

  1675
  and ventilation of these buildings, and Professor Corfield, one of the best authorities on sanitation and ventilation, visited the buildings, and a further sum of money was required to carry out the improvements he suggested. It would therefore have been impossible for the Department to have foreseen this additional expenditure as long ago as October, 1899.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: Divide, divide!
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask whether the noble Lord the son of the Prime Minister is entitled to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? Because you are the Prime Minister's son you have no right to interrupt.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has no right to address personally any member of the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: He has no right to interrupt us either. Send for your police and turn him out. [Cries of "Police! Police! Police!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman does not keep more order I shall have to call on him to leave the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Very well, Sir, go on. You will not call on him, though, to go out. We will stand no nonsense from him.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The next hon. Gentleman asked me to explain the amount required for the Patent Office extension. I must appeal to my hon. friends to allow me to explain. It is quite impossible for me to address the House while they arc speaking. The hon. Member said that this was not a, pressing expenditure. It is not an excess over the, original Estimate at all, being within the total sum asked for. But if we had not pressed forward this payment we should not have been able so soon to provide accommodation for the library at the Patent Office, and would have had to continue a payment of £700 a year for a temporary building. The lease of the building expires in 1904. Fortunately there is a
  1676
  break in it, and if we now avail ourselves of that, we shall be enabled to save £700 during the next three years. I think that is a reason why urgency can be pleaded. Another hon. Member asked me a question with reference to some of the items on page 8. One of them refers to the rentals of new buildings which have been taken within the current year for the further accommodation required by the War Office in consequence of the expeditions which have been sent out to South Africa, the recruiting of the Yeomanry, and various other duties entailing an increased staff. A large proportion of the charge for light and fuel is in respect of these new offices. The hon. Member has asked me about the charges in connection with the Wallace collection. The original charge was £125,000, and that included the purchase of the freehold, the purchase of the lease, and the cost for the very large buildings which were added at the rear. This sum of £3,125 was for furniture to equip the buildings for opening to the public, and after all it is a very small sum, I think, to pay for furnishing the buildings in return for the munificent bequest which we have received.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the right hon. Gentleman had met them in a conciliatory spirit, and had shown his desire to meet every objection that had been raised. If the criticisms from the Irish benches were always met in the same spirit it would be more satisfactory. After the explanation which had been given he would recommend his hon. friend not to further discuss the Vote, but allow it to pass.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Second Resolution:—
  MR.T.M. HEALYcalled attention to the fact that merely upon Government property alone in Ireland, in consequence of the passing of the Local Government Act, the sum of £3,000 had come as an additional charge on the ratepayers. It must be remembered that the charge was fixed

  1677
  by the Government themselves, and that 'they had no power to assess the amount which ought to be borne by the Government rateably, with regard to the other buildings existing in the country, and they had constantly to meet the outcry against the small amount the Government had to pay. To what was this additional charge of £3,000 due? It was due to the profligate system of advancing salaries by the Local Government Board. Nobody in the country was a bit better off except the officials. There was not a soul throughout the thirty-two counties, from the Nationalist county in the south to the Orange county in the north, better off. They had advanced the salaries from crossing sweeper up to the secretary of the county council. When Ireland was not better off and better cared for, why was it that the peasant in his sheeling should have to pay this additional charge? If the right hon. Gentleman could show that a single road was better kept he should be slow to offer criticism in respect of this sum, but they knew that not a single shilling of this amount went to any local credit, except into the pockets of the worthless class who had been maintained by the grand jury system in the country. How could they defend it? Was it not money entirely thrown away because of action which the supreme court of appeal had condemned as illegal? The High Court had declared that every one of the sealed orders issued had been illegal. Why should the Government bring this additional charge on the ratepayers of the country, having regard to the fact that the Estimate was prepared when it was assumed there was some legality in the charges, and that they should not be blotted out? Some Members might be of opinion that it was the desire of the Irish party to obstruct the business of the House. There was no such intention, and he resented the attacks which had been made upon them by some of the scions of nobility opposite. Their only desire was to criticise the Estimates in so far as they had a bearing on the ordinary daily life of the people of Ireland.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I scarcely think that the hon. and learned Member
  1678
  can expect me to follow him into a detailed examination of the Irish Local Government Act. I scarcely think that I should be in order if I attempted to do so. We have agreed to a payment in lieu of votes equivalent to the amount which would be charged if the property were not in the occupation of the Crown. We have accepted that principle, and it is certainly a principle which we have no reason to be very fond of, because it means a charge on the Imperial Exchequer. The money so taken from the Imperial Exchequer goes in relief of the local rates, and it is a little discouraging that a Vote of this character should be open to the very bitter criticism which the hon. and learned Member opposite has levelled against it. This additional sum is needed because the rates have risen.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Why have they risen?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It must be perfectly obvious to the House that over the local rates we have no control. We have promised to pay our fair proportion of what those rates are. It is the new local authority which has raised the rates.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: No.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The new local authority has raised the rates. | No.] It is not a matter which we can check, and if it were true that the whole of the increases were due, as the hon. and learned Member suggests, to salaries in connection with the Local Government Board, it would still be not a. matter over which the Treasury had any control. But I do not think there is any foundation for that assumption. In any case the whole of this is a charge which falls on the Treasury automatically in consequence of the rise in rates, and unless we are to break our agreement—which is one beneficial to the ratepayers—I am bound to ask the House to pass this Vote.
  MR. MURNAGHANcomplained that the Irish contribution was out of all proportion to the amount it should be. The contribution to the English rates was about one hundred times as much as that to the Irish rates.

  1679
  Moreover, the increase in rates in Ireland was 8 per cent., while in England it was no more than one per cent. That in itself showed that the rates in Ireland were growing beyond all reason, and seeing that in the rich country of England £1 was felt no more than 1s. in Ireland, the gentlemen of England should show more consideration towards the Irish people in this matter.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLagreed that this matter could and ought to be discussed on the Local Government Board Vote. The Local Government Board in Ireland had treated the local authorities with the utmost contempt, and the House ought certainly to have some assurance that such conduct would be stopped.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the hon. Member for East Waterford had suggested, and he agreed, that this question should be remitted to a future occasion.
  Third Resolution:—
  MR. T. M. HEALYunderstood the Government were carrying on in Donegal and elsewhere very considerable works, but the mode in which those works had been conducted was not satisfactory. It was also understood that the Government had already suggested that the gentleman chiefly responsible should retire from the service. With that decision he had not the slightest fault to find, but would the Secretary to the Treasury state how much the Government expected to pay in respect of extras, and who was to replace the gentleman responsible for the blunderings which had caused the extra demands? Was it to be a another Scotsman?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was unable to state the name of the
  1680
  successor to the gentleman referred to, as he had not yet been appointed. The Vote under consideration, however, had nothing to do with the gentleman the hon. and learned Member had in mind, but was for repayments to the county council and local bodies in respect of a portion of the guarantees. He would look into the points raised, but for the moment he had not the figures by him.
  Further Consideration of remaining Resolutions deferred till To-morrow.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS ACCOMMODATION.
  Select Committee appointed to consider whether any, and what, arrangements can be made to improve the accommodation provided for the general use of Members of this House.
  Ordered, That the Committee have, power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.— (Sir William Walrond.)

  PRESENCE OF THE SOVEREIGN IN PARLIAMENT.
  Resolved, That it is expedient that a Select Committee be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider the accommodation available in the House of Lords when the Sovereign is personally present in Parliament, and the advisability of substituting Westminster Hall on such an occasion for the House of Lords.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint them therewith—(Sir William Walrond.)
  Adjourned at a quarter after One of the clock.