Commons Sitting of 13 February 1902

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—
  London and India Docks (Various Powers) Bill.
  West Gloucestershire Water Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz.:—
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Electric Supply Bill.
  Ordered, The Bill be read a second time.

  WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
  "To confer further powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of West Ham, and to make further provision for the good government of that borough; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  SHEFFIELD, ROTHERHAM, AND BAWTRY RAILWAY BILL.
  "For making railways from Sheffield and Rotherham to Bawtry; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  SCARBOROUGH TRAMWAYS BILL.
  "To incorporate the Scarborough Tramways Company and to empower that Company to make and maintain tramways and to execute certain street works in the borough of Scarborough; to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough to provide golf-links and recreation grounds; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
PETITIONS.
  CLUBS REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND).
  Petition from Dundee, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Low Laithes; Grange Moor; Batley; and Bradford; to lie upon the, Table.
  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) ACT (1854) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Aberdeen; Glasgow; and Fountain bridge (two); to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Two Petitions from Eccles, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Oxford, against; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Ashton-under-Lyne; Chickenley Heath; Low Laithes; Grange Moor; and Bradford; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Warrender Park; Annie land; Glasgow; and Dundee; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY TRADING (SCOTLAND).
  Petition from Dundee, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  VIVISECTION.
  Petition from London, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
RETUENS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CABLE COMMUNICATIONS.
  Copy presented of First Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Cable Communication [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POSITION OF BRITISH FIRMS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  Copy presented of Memorandum respecting the Position of Industrial and Commercial Establishments owned or managed by British Subjects or Companies in Foreign Countries [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  MINES AND QUARRIES.
  Copy presented of General Report and Statistics for the year 1900, Part IV.; Colonial and Foreign Statistics; Statistics relating to Persons employed, Output and Accidents at Mines and Quarries in the

  1233
  British Colonies and Foreign Countries [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (CODE, 1902).
  Copy presented of Code of Regulations for Day Schools, 1902, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 573 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NEW WRIT.
  New Writ for the County of Kilkenny (North Kilkenny), in the room of Patrick M'Dermott, Esquire (Manor of Northstead).—(Sir Thomas Esmonde.)
  EAST INDIA (ARMY CHANGES).
  Address for "Copy of a Memorandum regarding the Changes in the Native Army of India, prepared by the Indian Office in March 1900.—(Mr. Schwann).
(3.35.) QUESTIONS.

  South African War—Contraband of War—Right of Search—The "Herzog."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what portion of the £28,380 paid to the German Government in respect of the detention of German vessels detained on suspicion of carrying contraband of war was paid in respect of the "Herzog." Was the "Herzog," on her visit and detention by H.M.S. "Thetis," shown by the papers examined by the boarding officers to have on board quantities of provisions, clothing, and chemicals suited to the purposes of manufacturing explosives, all consigned to Mr. Potts, then Vice Consul of the Transvaal Republic at Delagoa Bay, as well as cases shipped at Naples and marked as containing macaroni, but alleged by the captors to contain 1,700 rifles packed at Lausanne and Zurich and thence transmitted to Naples. And, having regard to the fact that the "Herzog" was taken by H.M.S. "Thetis" to Durban, after visit and detention, and tendered there to the Prize Court without bulk being broken or the cargo examined, that the Prize Court on 6th
  1234
  January, 1900, exercised its authority over the "Herzog" by ordering the release of certain of the passengers on board, and that the "Herzog" was released by order of His Majesty's Government of 8th January, 1900, without any examination of the ship, the officers, the crew, or the cargo being allowed to be made by the Prize Court at Durban, do His Majesty's Government propose to make any compensation to the officers and crew of H.M.S. "Thetis" for thus depriving them of the prize money they would have been entitled to in case the "Herzog" had, after examination, been condemned by the Prize Court?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The German claims were satisfied by the payment of the lump sum named, and no specific portion of it was allotted to the "Herzog." The ship's manifest showed large quantities of provisions, iron ware, tools, drugs, bandages, acids, etc., consigned to Mr. Pott, and other suspected Transvaal agents; also cases of macaroni consigned to Mr. Pott, of which warning had been received that they really contained rifles. After the release of the "Herzog," however, H.M. Consul at LourenÇo Marques reported that she had not landed any contraband of war at that place, though subsequently he reported that the greater portion of the flour on the "Herzog" had gone to the Transvaal. As the "Herzog" was never placed in the Prize Court, that Court could not, and did not, exercise any jurisdiction over the vessel. The release of the "Herzog" wag due to orders emanating directly from H.M. Government.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I under stand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the passengers were not released by the peremptory order of the High Court?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the "Herzog" never appeared before the Prize Court, I assume that it did not carry out the operation to which the hon. Member refers.

  Searching for Contraband of War—Present Practice.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that the last visit by

  1235
  His Majesty's cruisers of a ship on the high seas, in order to ascertain whether contraband of war was being carried on, took place on 27th June, 1900, His Majesty's Government has rescinded or varied the orders in force previous to that date directing His Majesty's cruisers to visit and detain and bring in for trial vessels suspected of such traffic; What other means His Majesty's Government have adopted of stopping that introduction of foreign recruits and intercourse with Europe of which Lord Kitchener complained in his despatch of 8th November, 1901; and whether, in view of the fact of Lord Kitchener's statement that the measures taken have been ineffectual for their purpose, His Majesty's Government will now consider and adopt other and more effective measures.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Foreign Office, on October 6th, 1900, gave orders to Her Majesty's Consuls at European ports to discontinue watching for the shipment and transhipment of arms and ammunition to the Transvaal. In consequence of that order the Department was asked, on October 13th, whether the searching of vessels for contraband of war in South African waters by Her Majesty's ships should be discontinued. The Foreign Office replied, after consultation with the War Office and the Colonial Office, that it was considered that searching might be stopped. Telegraphic orders to discontinue searching were sent to the naval commanders, but the patrol of the coasts was continued, as well as searching in the case of any suspicious landing. The difficulties of searching vessels at sea under the present conditions of shipping cargo are very great.

  British South Africa Company.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when His Majesty's Government propose to continue the inquiry into the administration of the British South Africa Company and the alterations desirable in the Government of the territories under the control of the Company, which was remitted to a Select Committee of this House in 1896, but as to which the Committee through want of time failed to report.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We do not propose to continue the inquiry the hon. Gentleman refers to. As he well knows, there have been changes made in the administration of the Jritish South Africa Company consequent upon the inquiry which has been already held.

  Suggested War Tax on Steamship Companies.
  MR. ALFRED DAYIES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of imposing a tax for war purposes on the Steamship Companies in respect of all passengers entering Great Britain and Ireland from places Abroad who are not residents in Great Britain and Ireland, which system has been adopted by the United States.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): No, Sir.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: In reference to Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer's alleged difficulty of carrying out such a system of taxation, it could be carried out in a simple manner—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Home Charges for the South African Field Force.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if, having regard to the reduction by Lord Kitchener of the total expenses of the Field Force in South Africa to about £2,500,000 per month for pay, food, and transport, he can generally state the amount of the Home charges per month for the force in South Africa and under what main heads they are incurred, and to what extent Lord Kitchener is consulted upon the subject.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The main Home charges are as follows:—

  Sea Transport

  £600,000

  Horses and Mules

  400,000

  Provisions and Forage

  700,000

  Clothing

  200,000

  1237

  Stores

  200,000

  Miscellaneous, e.g., Officers' pay, Separation Allowances, etc.

  400,000

  Total

  £2,500,000

  It is the business of the Home authorities to supply the Army and to meet all Lord Kitchener's requisitions, but he is not consulted as to the home charges in respect of these services, nor do I think it would be right to lay such an additional burden upon him.

  Remounts—Purchases in New Orleans.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that accusations were brought in the United States against an officer connected with our Remount Department, that the War Office took action as regards the case, and that the officer in question did not clear his character, the Government will immediately institute an inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the purchase of remounts in the United States.
  MR. BRODRICK: An accusation of having received commission on horses bought was made in New Orleans against a veterinary officer connected with the Remount Department. He was ordered to take steps to clear his character by bringing an action against his accuser, or to resign his commission. He resigned his commission, forfeiting his gratuity of £800. The work of the Remount Department in New Orleans is being most carefully watched, and the Administration of the service there is one among the questions which will come before the Military Court of Enquiry which will shortly assemble.

  Duration of Horse life—Instructions to Government Buyers, &c.
  MR. FREDERICK WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the fact that out of 240,000 horses embarked for South Africa in the two years ending December 1901, only 50,000 were purchased in the United Kingdom; and if he can state whether the instructions to Government buyers and veterinaries were the same at home and abroad; and whether any reports have been received
  1238
  showing the duration of life and military value of horses from the United Kingdom and horses from other countries.
  MR. BRODRICK: The actual numbers were 59,800. The instructions given to Government buyers and veterinaries were almost the same for home and abroad, but some contracts abroad were made at a fixed price, and in the case of home purchases a top price was set for certain classes of horses. It is very difficult to estimate the duration of life of these horses, as they have been worked under such dissimilar conditions. As regards military value, the reports tend to show that British and American horses have stood work better than those from other countries except South Africa.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Has it not been computed that the average life of the total number of horses is about six weeks?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Meat Contracts—Cold Storage Company.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Cold Storage Company, Limited, have obtained during the war any cattle captured by British troops in South Africa, and from such cattle provided meat for the troops; if so, will he state what price was paid, if any, for such cattle, and how many head of cattle were obtained or purchased, what price was paid by the Government to the Cold Storage Company, Limited, for the meat obtained from the captured cattle, and what was the quantity.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The military authorities in South Africa made a contract with the Cold Storage Company in February last by which live stock which was captured was handed over to the Company, who provided drivers and butchers for dealing with it. In cases in which the Company was required to keep the cattle till demanded, they paid at the rate of 8d. per lb. of dead meat issued, and if

  1239
  slaughtered promptly 9d. The Government paid 10d. per lb. for all meat as required, the difference covering the cost of slaughtering and driving, and keeping when required. Captured cattle have been, and are still being, handed over on these terms. The contract comes to an end on 31st March. I cannot undertake to obtain the quantity as it would involve immense clerical labour. It should be remembered in connection with the profits made by the Cold Storage Company that their operations were not confined to dealings with the Government, and that a large portion of their business was in frozen meat.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: Is it not a fact that in many instances the captured cattle were actually butchered by the troops, and that, therefore, the Cold Storage Company did not tender any service at all in connection with the supply?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. That is all the information I have.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if any of the cattle captured by His Majesty's troops in South Africa have been sold, either by auction or by private tender; and if any of these cattle have been bought by the Cold Storage Company, and subsequently delivered as fresh meat under the terms of their contract; if so, will he give instructions that captured cattle shall in future not be sold, but be utilised to reduce the quantities required from the contractor.
  LORD STANLEY: I am not aware whether any cattle captured in South Africa have been sold by auction or private tender, but in the contract just made, captured cattle are reserved, and will be utilised wherever possible to reduce the quantities required of the contractor.

  Messrs. Houlder and Mr. Bergl.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of an action pending involving grave issues between underwriters of Lloyds and Messrs. Houlder, he will consider the advisability
  1240
  of discontinuing the employment of Messrs. Houlder so long as the action remains undetermined.
  LORD STANLEY: There is no present War Office contract with Messrs. Houlder. At the beginning of the war they held contracts for the War Office to carry horses from foreign and colonial ports, but in April, 1901, the War Office terminated these contracts and transferred the business to the Admiralty Transport Department, who have employed various shippers.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Are not Messrs. Houlder in the contract with Mr. Bergl?
  LORD STANLEY: They are shippers.

  Mr. Bergl's Meat Contract.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the persons named by him in connection, with the formation of a company to carry out Mr. Bergl's contract undertook to procure the incorporation of such a company and to find the required capital; and whether such a company has yet been, registered; and, if so, what is the amount of its capital.
  LORD STANLEY: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The registration has been applied for in Pretoria, but the usual formalities are being gone through, and it has not yet been notified to the War Office. The capital is £650,000.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: May I take it that it was part of the arrangement with Mr. Bergl that these gentlemen should form the company?
  LORD STANLEY: Yes, Sir.
  MR. BAYLEY: What was the name of the company?
  LORD STANLEY: I forget the exact title. I believe it is the Imperial Cold Meat Storage Company.
  MR. O'SHEE: Will the noble Lord undertake to provide a special staff at the War Office to carry

  1241
  on the operations of company promoting?

  Mr. Rhodes and the Bergl Contract.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Government held any communication with Mr. Rhodes, or any person or persons professing to represent Mr. Rhodes, or any persons professing to represent Mr. Bergl, or any of his associates in the Bergl contract, before the tender for the meat contract in South Africa was submitted by Mr. Bergl. And whether, before the contract was granted to Mr. Bergl, any assurance was conveyed, either to him or to anyone associated with him, or to anyone who could convey such information to him or any of his associates in the contract, in regard to distribution and storage of meat in South Africa.
  LORD STANLEY: No communication of any sort took place between the Government and Mr. Rhodes, or anyone professing to represent Mr. Rhodes, before Mr. Bergl submitted a tender for the meat contract. A number of firms who might possibly compete for the contract were invited to call at the War Office to obtain any information they required before tendering. Over 30 attended, amongst whom was Mr. Bergl, and the same information was supplied to them all.

  British Prisoners at Bermuda.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the number of British subjects who have been transported to Bermuda under Martial Law, by what authority are they detained there, and are they subjected to solitary confinement?
  MR. BRODRICK: These prisoners, who are 219 in number, are isolated from others. They are not in solitary confinement. They are held in Bermuda under the same authority as prisoners of War.

  Kumasi Campaign.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a clasp
  1242
  or clasps will be issued for the punitive expedition against the Ashantis, which lasted from 15th July, 1900, the date of the relief of Kumasi, until the 31st December, 1900, and involved repeated engagements.
  MR. BRODRICK: In accordance with Army Order 249 of December, 1901, the clasp "Kumasi" will be granted to those actually concerned in the defence or relief of Kumasi. The other operations subsequent to the relief are not considered of sufficient importance for the grant of a clasp.

  Officers' Uniform Change.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: On behalf of the hon. Member for Leicester, Sir John Rolleston, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the Army Order as to the new service dress, he will take into consideration the case of officers who have joined their regiments within the last six months, and who have been consequently put to unnecessary expense in their outfits.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have already explained to the House that the regulations dealing with the introduction of the new service dress are intended to secure officers from expenditure other than that attendant on the usual replacement of worn-out uniform, but that cases of special hardship will be considered on their merits. I understand these cases are likely to be few in number, and intimation that changes would take place was made on the 20th December, before the order, so as to save officers, if possible, from unnecessary expense.

  Army Hay Contracts.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any contract has been entered into at any time since October 1899, for the supply of hay, free on board at a British port, at a price of £9 or more per ton; and, if so, whether he can state the total amount of hay so bought, and the date or dates of the contract or contracts.
  LORD STANLEY: No such contract has been made by the War Office,

  1243
  and no payments for hay have been made at such a high price or near it.

  War Office Clerkships.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if members of the Volunteer, Militia, and Yeomanry forces who have served for not less than 12 months with the Field Force in South Africa will be admitted as candidates for War Office military clerkships.
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will the places be open to officers?
  MR. BRODRICKwas understood to reply that that point was not definitely decided.

  Inspection of War Office Stores.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can explain why no definite provision is made for the inspection of veterinary and medical stores in the (War Office) Order in Council of 4th November, 1901, while the inspection of ordnance and engineer stores is specifically provided for therein.
  MR. BRODRICK: The inspection of veterinary and medical stores is carried out by the officers of the Army Veterinary Department and the Army Medical Corps, under the orders of the Quartermaster General and the Director General, Army Medical Service, who are charged with the duty of their inspection. In the case of the Director General of Ordnance, who is charged with the provision of warlike stores, it was necessary to draw a specific distinction between the inspection of those which are purely engineer stores, the responsibility for the quality of which rests with the Inspector General of Fortifications, and that of the warlike stores belonging to other branches of the Army, for which the Director General of Ordnance is responsible.

  Composition of Army Corps.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of
  1244
  State for War what number of men, specifying Regulars and Militia, now compose the first, second, and third Army Corps respectively, and what has been done to constitute the fourth, fifth, and sixth Army Corps.
  MR. BRODRICK: No useful purpose would be served by giving these Returns while we have 200,000 men serving in South Africa. The fourth, fifth, and sixth Army Corps will not be constituted until the termination of the South African campaign.

  Defence of Coaling Stations—Naval or Military Control.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the defence of coaling stations will be under the charge of the Naval or Military authorities for the future.
  MR. BRODRICK: No change has been made in the existing arrangements for the defence of coaling stations.

  Artificer Engineers.
  MR. PLUMMER: On behalf of the hon. and gallant Member for Kilmarnock Burghs, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state what is the horse power of the largest vessel in the Fleet on which artificer engineers have full charge of the machinery, and what is the rate daily of pay and pension on retiring of such artificers.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The largest vessels in which artificer engineers have full charge of machinery are sloops of 1,400 I.H.P. The pay of an artificer engineer on promotion is 8s. 6d. a day, rising to 9s. 6d. after five years service in the rank, and 10s. 6d. after 10 years service. Artificer engineers in charge of engines are eligible for additional allowances, of which the average amount is 9d. per day. They are eligible on retirement at the age of 55 to pensions ranging from £50 to £120, according to length of service.

  Trade with Persia—Nushki Route.
  EARL PERCY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India

  1245
  whether he can state the value of the import and export trade between Persia and India by the Nushki route for the years 1896–1901.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA Lord G. HAMILTON,): The following are the figures since April 1897, when the Nushki trade was first separately recorded:—

  1897–98.

  1898–99.

  1899–1900.

  1900–01.

  Rs.

  Rs.

  Rs.

  Rs.

  Imports into British Beluchistan through Nushki.

  3,65,608

  3,46,824

  6,82,019

  7,48,021

  Exports from do.

  2,84,321

  3,81,258

  5,53,393

  7,86,431

  Total Trade Rs.

  5,89,929

  7,28,082

  12,35,412

  15,34,452

  Indian Cable Rates—Reduction.
  MR. WYLIE: Can the Secretary of State for India confirm the statement that the telegraph rates to India are to be reduced to 2s. 6d. per word.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The difficulties which had been experienced in arranging for a reduction of the telegraph rates to and from India have now been removed, and a notification has been sent by the Post Office to the International Bureau at Berne that the rate will be reduced from 4s. to 2s. 6d. It is hoped that this reduction will be introduced very shortly, but the necessity of complying with the forms of the Telegraph Convention makes it difficult to state the exact date at present.

  Australian Mail Service—Indian Native Sailors.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that proposed legislation is under the consideration of the Parliament of the Australian Commonwealth under which no postal contracts will be given to mail steamers any portion of whose crew may be Indian native subjects of His Majesty; and, if so, what
  1246
  action he proposes to take to protect natives of India from the effects of such legislation.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am aware of the legislation to which the hon. Member refers, and I am in communication with the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the subject.

  Anglo-Japanese Agreement—Communication to the U.S. Government.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Agreement between Great Britain and Japan, signed on 30th January, was communicated to the United States Government before publication; and, if so, whether the United States Government has expressed any opinion upon it. In putting the Question the hon. Member said: May I invite the noble Lord to say that my original Question on this subject was not put, as has been widely stated, by any arrangement with the Foreign Office or with himself. It is, of course, well known to Members of the House that under our Party arrangements that would not be the case. Still, it has been influentially stated outside to be the case.
  The following Question also appeared on the Paper:
  MR. O'MARA: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the terms or substance of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 30th January, 1902, have been communicated to the Government of the United States, and whether this Government has declared its adhesion thereto.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): The hon. Member is probably referring to Questions which passed between us with regard to the relations between this country and America at the time of the Cuban war. No doubt what he says is quite correct. There was no such arrangement between us as to the putting of Questions. In reply to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that the substance of the Agreement was communicated to the United States Government before publication.

  1247
  That Government have not yet expressed any opinion on it.
  MR. NORMAN: I will take the earliest opportunity of calling attention to this matter.

  Anglo-Japanese Agreement—Inclusion of Manchuria—Anglo-German Agreement.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 30th January, 1902, applies to Manchuria and the occupation of that province by Russia; whether the terms or substance of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty were communicated to the German Government; and, if so, has it received the adhesion of the German Government; whether the Anglo-German Agreement, called by Count von Bülow the Yang-tsze Agreement, is still in force; and whether the German Government admits that it applies to Manchuria.
  The following Question also appeared on the Paper:
  MR. LAMBERT: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in the Anglo-Japanese Agreement, the words "Empire of China" include without reservation the province of Manchuria.
  LORD CRANBORNE: Manchuria is no more excluded from the scope of the Agreement than any other province of the Chinese Empire. The substance of the Agreement was communicated to the German Government. The Anglo-German Agreement is still in force. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware of the interpretation placed by the German Government on the application of the Agreement to Manchuria.
  MR. O'MARA: Am I to understand that Manchuria is included in this Agreement?
  LORD CRANBORNE: Yes.

  Anglo-Japanese Agreement—Opportunity of Discussion by the House.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will give the House an early opportunity for a complete and full discussion of the new Anglo-Japanese Agreement.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to my hon. friend, I have to say that of course there is more than one course open to the House. If the Opposition were to suggest that they were prepared to put down a substantive Motion objecting to the course which the Government have pursued, I need hardly say that, in accordance with universal practice, we should find a day in the immediate future for its discussion. Supposing, however, that the Opposition were not prepared to move what, no doubt, would be equivalent to a vote of censure, then the only ordinary method of discussing this or that interesting question connected with Foreign Affairs is on a Vote. I should be prepared as soon as I can to put down the Vote on Account, with the Foreign Office Vote first, on which it might be discussed, or at some subsequent date the Vote for the Foreign Minister, on which it might be discussed. Those are the methods which suggest themselves to my mind as being the most convenient.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the Vote on Account be moved before the Estimates for the year are laid on the Table?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe the Vote on Account can be moved before the general Estimates are on the Table, but I hope the general Estimates will be in the hands of Members at no very late date.

  Welsh Colonists in Patagonia.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will lay the Report of Mr. C. Scott, of His Majesty's Legation at Buenos Ayres, into the case of the Welsh colonists in Patagonia upon the Table of the House; and, whether, seeing that the Canadian Government is prepared to give land in Canada free to Welshmen in Patagonia who desire to settle in Canada, he will advise the Government to give every facility in the way of transport to the 500 Welsh colonists who have expressed their wish to proceed to Canada.
  LORD CRANBORNE: Mr. C. Scott's Report will be laid shortly. I am not aware that the Canadian Government are prepared to give land free to the immigrants from Chubut, or to

  1249
  give facilities in the way of transport. They have, as I stated on the 8th of February, sent delegates to investigate the question, but I have not yet learned what are the contents of their Report, or whether any decision has been taken upon it.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: Will the Government give facilities for transport if the land is provided free?
  LORD CRANBORNE: Any further Question must be addressed to the Colonial Secretary.

  Workmens' Compensation Act.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the lack of a provision requiring Returns in the Workmen's Compensation Act pointed out in the statistics of proceedings for workmen's compensation during 1900, compiled by the Home Office; and whether he will consider the possibility of inserting a clause providing for such Return in any amending Bill.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): Yes, Sir. I am well aware of the point to which the right hon. Baronet draws attention, and I will see that it is considered in connection with any Bill amending the Workmen's Compensation Act.

  Cost of Military Prisoners.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state how much of the Supplementary Estimate for Prisons is caused by the increased number of military prisoners in civil prisons; and whether he can give the number of military prisoners detained in civil prisons on the 1st of January, 1899, 1900, 1901, and 1902, respectively.
  MR. RITCHIE: It is not possible to say precisely what was the extra charge accruing for the maintenance of military prisoners detained in civil prisons during the year. Like other prisoners they are
  1250
  a charge on the ordinary Civil Vote, and no separate account is kept of their cost of maintenance. The number of military prisoners in civil custody in January of the four years mentioned was, respectively, 354, 376, 792, and 774.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Is there any charge for this on the Supplementary Estimate?
  MR. RITCHIE: Certainly.

  Alien Immigration—Royal Commission.
  MAJOR EVANS-GORDON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now say if the inquiry into the question of Alien Immigration will be entrusted to a Royal Commission or a Committee of this House.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): It is proposed to entrust this inquiry to a Royal Commission.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: When will the Royal Commission be appointed?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is impossible to fix the date. It always takes time.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I will ask again ten days hence.

  Portobello Railway Accident.
  MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the accident which resulted in the death of James Lumsden, goods guard on the North British Railway, at Portobello, on the 31st January; and whether he has received any official report showing that the wagons were labelled on one side only, thus necessitating the man going underneath the wagons to see such labels; and whether he can now state the cause of the accident.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board of Trade have received the statutory notice of the accident referred to. The unfortunate man was found lying in a siding suffering from injuries which shortly

  1251
  proved fatal. No one appears to have seen the accident happen. I have ordered an inquiry into the circumstances to be held by an Assistant-Inspecting Officer of Railways.

  Goods Traffic Between Fawkham and Farningham.
  MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a number of cases which have recently occurred in which goods trains have become divided when running between Fawkham and Farningham on the South Eastern and Chatham Railway resulting in damage; whether he has yet consulted the inspecting officers of the Board of Trade with reference to the general question of breakaways; and whether he proposes to publish Reports from the inspecting officers with regard to the matter.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Since the beginning of 1901 only two such accidents as are referred to by the hon. Member have occurred, so far as the Board of Trade are aware, viz., on the 5th December and the 9th of last month. The general question of breakaways is now under the consideration of the Board's Inspecting Officers of Railways, and when I obtain their Report I will consider the question of publication.

  Vaccination and Government Lymph.
  MR. BULL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, having regard to the fact that any individual may, whether he has had any especial experience on the subject or not, set up the production and sale, without license or inspection, of vaccine lymph, and, seeing that vaccination is obligatory, whether the Government intends to enlarge its establishment so as to be in a position to supply its own lymph to the profession generally, or to exercise some control over those outside sources from which private practitioners under existing conditions are compelled to derive their supply.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Walter Long,): As regards the first part of the Question, I dealt somewhat fully with the subject in my reply on Monday last to my hon. friend the
  1252
  Member for North Islington.†I shall be happy to give a copy of that answer to my hon. friend. I also stated recently in reply to the hon. Member for the Rugby Division that as at present advised I did not propose to ask for power to control the lymph supplied from outside sources.

  Vaccination Experiments on Monkeys.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the use of smallpox virus passed through pustules on monkeys as a source of vaccine by Dr. S. Monckton Copeman, Medical Inspector Local Government Board, who states that a considerable number of children have been vaccinated with vaccine thus obtained; and whether the Local Government Board has given its medical inspector leave to vaccinate children with vaccine of such a nature.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Dr. Copeman informs me that he has made experiments of the kind referred to in the Question. The Local Government Board have not given him permission to vaccinate children with lymph yielded by the monkey, and I understand that he has not in fact done so. In all cases the vaccinations have been performed with lymph derived directly from the calf.

  Tuberculosis Commission Experiments.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the localities in which the farms are situated at which the experiments of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis will be carried out, and the conditions on which these farms have been obtained and the necessary laboratories and buildings erected.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The two farms referred to are situated in Stansted, in Essex. They belong to Sir James Blyth, who has most generously placed them at the disposal of the Royal Commission for experimental work free of charge. The Government have expressed to Sir James Blyth their warm appreciation of
  †See page 855.

  1253
  his act, which will greatly facilitate the labours of the Commission. Arrangements have been made for the occupation of the farms for a period of three years, though it is hoped that the inquiry will be completed within a shorter period. The Commissioners have caused to be erected on the farms the laboratories and other buildings necessary for their experiments.

  Mineral Royalties.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will explain to the House his reason for classing as "capital" royalties derived from minerals.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The question of Royalties is a matter of argument, which I must decline to discuss by way of Question and answer across the floor of the House.

  Walton Postman—Heavy Fine for Soliciting a Christmas Box.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will re-consider the case of Postman Walter Coulson, of Malton, who in January 1899, was fined a day's pay for having solicited a Christmas box, and who is now being further penalised in the sum of £7 16s. for the same offence by having a good conduct stripe, which became due in March, 1901, deferred until January, 1904,
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Postmaster General regrets that in view of the offence committed by Coulson in 1899, it was not possible to award him a good conduct stripe in March last. But if his conduct continues good, his case will be re-considered before 1904.

  Mail Service between Vancouver and Hong Kong.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Canadian Pacific Railway and Ocean Steamship Company advertise 15 services in the year in either direction between Vancouver and Hong Kong; whether the mails will be carried by each of these ser-
  1254
  vices; and, if so, whether, under the Post Office contract with the Company, the yearly subsidy of £60,000 for a monthly service will be correspondingly increased.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company advertises and performs 15 services in the year in each direction between Vancouver and Hong Kong, and that the mails are carried by each of these services. This arises from the circumstance that the Company, for its own purposes, sought permission of the Postmaster General in 1891 to make the service three-weekly instead of monthly in the summer season; and the three-weekly summer service instituted in 1892 has been continued ever since. No payment was, of course, asked by the Company for a change which was sought as a concession to its own interests, and no extra payment has been made by the Post Office; nor is the Postmaster General aware of any intention on the part of the Government to make any extra payment on account of the extra service in the future.

  Scottish Police Superannuation.
  MR. WYLIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, seeing that, in their Report on the Police Superannuation (Scotland) Bill, introduced last session, the Select Committee concur in the view that there should not be a great difference in the attractions provided by the English as against the Scottish service, and that, as stated in the Report, the Scottish police would be willing to accept as satisfactory less than the increased scale suggested in said Bill, whether the Secretary for Scotland can hold out some hope of bringing in a Bill to deal with the question on the lines suggested by the report.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. Graham Murray,): The points referred to in the hon. Member's Question were fully considered before I replied to his previous Question.†I regret that I am unable to add anything to the reply I then gave.

  Hyde Park Corner.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Brompton and
  †See page 532.

  1255
  Piccadilly Circus Railway Bill of this Session contains a proposal to enable the Company to acquire a frontage of 80 feet and a depth of 48 feet opposite nearly to Stratton Street, with power to construct stations and buildings; whether it is for these purposes that a corner is being cut off the Green Park, opposite to Hamilton Place, and in proximity to Hyde Park Corner; and can he take steps to stop the curtailment of the park.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): Yes, Sir; my attention has been given to this matter, and I have already notified to the promoters of the Bill that I cannot assent to the proposal to take a part of the Green Park. The widening of the roadway opposite Hamilton Place has nothing to do with this scheme.

  Congestion in West Clare.
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now prepared, in reference to a Local Government Board Circular, dated 30th January, 1892, to recommend that West Clare be made a congested district.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The Circular of 30th January, 1902 (not 1892), had reference to the transfer to Clare of a congested electoral division formerly in County Galway. Legislation would still be necessary to constitute the remainder of Clare a congested area. The Census Book for Clare has not yet been published, and in the absence of such information it is not possible even to consider whether a case can be made for amending the Schedule of congested districts under the Land Act of 1891.
  MAJOR JAMESON: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to bring in a Bill dealing with this question?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The next Census Book may show a different state of affairs from that prevailing in 1891, and we must wait until we see that.

  Police Arrest at Kilmihil, Clare.
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant
  1256
  of Ireland whether he is aware that Sergeant Callan, Royal Irish Constabulary, of Kilmihil, County Clare, stopped and arrested a young man of that village, took him to the police station, stripped and searched him, and that the young man was at once released on the return of the senior sergeant of police; and will he have the matter investigated and Sergeant Callan removed from Kilmihil.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The man was suspected of having unlicensed firearms late at night. He refused to allow Sergeant Callan to examine him, or to give his name. At the barracks, however, he allowed the sergeant to satisfy himself that he had no arms concealed, and was at once discharged. It is not the fact that the man was stripped. The matter has been fully investigated, and it is not proposed to remove the sergeant.
  MAJOR JAMESON: Is it according to the law of the land for the police to treat a man in this way?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it the law in Ireland that a man may be thus stopped and searched?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a general question which does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: "Sheridan."

  Stewart Estate, County Tyrone.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the 40th section, of the Land Act of 1896 has been applied to the Stewart Estate in County Tyrone; and why the offer of the tenants has not been accepted; whether he can state what is the present position of the estate.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The petition for sale of this estate was dismissed in March, 1897, by order of the Land Judge, who has, therefore, no further jurisdiction in the matter.

  De Freyne Estate—Plan of Campaign.
  COLONEL JAMES McCALMONT: On behalf of the hon. Member for S. Antrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  1257
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the evidence of Bernard Harte and John M'Dermottroe, at French Park, on 8th January, in which they stated that John Fitzgibbon, shopkeeper, Castlerea, had been handed some £21 as trustee of the Plan of Campaign on the De Freyne Estate; and whether it is proposed to take any action thereon.
  MR. WYNDHAM: My attention has been called to this evidence, but I am not prepared to discuss the hypothetical admissibility and value of evidence in cases which are not before any Court.

  Agrarian Outrages in Ireland.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the Return of the number of agrarian outrages in Ireland during the quarter ending 31st December, 1901, whether inquiry has been made by constabulary authorities into the 11 cases of alleged incendiary fires; whether he can say if any of them, and, if so, how many, were, in the opinion of the police, entitled to be classified as committed by the parties seeking compensation. And will he state what inquiry, if any, was made by the constabulary authorities into the five alleged cases of maiming cattle last quarter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The 11 cases of incendiary fire and the five cases of injuries to cattle were closely investigated by the police before they were recorded as outrages, and there is no reason to believe that any of them were committed by the parties seeking compensation.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of agrarian offences returned for Ireland during the quarter ending the 31st December, 1901; how many of these were offences against the person; and whether the figures mark a diminution or otherwise in the number of such offences.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The replies to the first two queries are, 47 and none. These figures show a marked decrease.

  Conviction of Irish M.P's.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  1258
  Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the summonses in the Crimes Act cases, which were the subject of the arguments in the cases stated in the King's Bench Division last week, were condemned by all the judges; whether these summonses were drafted by the junior Crown prosecutor; and whether he will take any steps to introduce more efficiency into this department in Ireland in the future.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member is quite in error in supposing that the summonses in the cases mentioned were condemned by the Court. On the contrary, they were considered adequate and sufficient without amendment. They were drafted by Mr. Edward Morphy, the Counsel who subsequently conducted all but one of the cases. No steps such as suggested are necessary.

  Prison Treatment of Dr. Jameson and others.—Treatment of Imprisoned Irish Members.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that when Dr. Jameson and his associates were sentenced to terms of imprisonment a petition to the Home Secretary was extensively signed in the House of Commons, asking him to arrange that Dr. Jameson and his friends should be treated as first-class misdemeanants; whether, seeing that the Home Secretary, immediately on receipt of the petition, ordered Major Jameson and the other prisoners to be treated as first-class misdemeanants, the Irish Government will now take similar action in reference to Irish Members of Parliament and other Irish citizens convicted under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Dr. Jameson and his associates were granted conditional pardons, the condition being that they should undergo their sentences, but as first-class misdemeanants. This was effected by Royal Warrant. The reply to the latter part of the Question is in the negative.
  MR. DILLON: Is it not the fact that immediately after the sentences were pronounced a petition was extensively

  1259
  hawked round this House and signed by Members to the Home Secretary, and, as a consequence, Dr. Jameson and his friends were at once made first-class misdemeanants?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no official knowledge of that, but no doubt a petition was signed and presented, and it may have had great influence. But what was done then was done by exceptional procedure by Royal Warrant. There is no power enabling the Lord Lieutenant to act in the manner suggested.
  MR. DILLON: Is it not in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to order that the prisoners shall be treated as first-class misdemeanants?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir, not as far as I know.

  Strabane Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. M'FADDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the cause of the delay in the holding of the inquiry by a Local Government Board inspector in connection with representations lodged with the Strabane No. 2 Rural District Council, over 12 months ago, for the erection of labourers' cottages under two schemes formulated by the Council.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Local Government Board has no scheme before it from this council awaiting inquiry.
  MR. M'FADDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a copy of a Resolution passed at a meeting of the labourers of the Strabane No. 2 Rural District, County Donegal, held at Murlog on the 19th January last, protesting against the action of the Local Government Board in delaying schemes for the erection of labourers' cottages in the district: Is he aware that there are now pending four schemes for the erection of 120 cottages in the district; that the scheme known as Scheme D, for the erection of 20 cottages, was adopted five years ago, and, although a contract for carrying out this scheme has been entered into, no work in connection with it has yet been undertaken by the contractor; and that Scheme F was adopted by the
  1260
  District Council about three years ago, and the contract for carrying it out has not yet been entered into: And if, considering that the labourers on whose behalf representations were lodged in these schemes have been compelled to live during the periods named in houses condemned by the sanitary authority as unfit for human habitation, steps will be taken by the Board to have the schemes completed without further delay.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The only schemes in which the usual preliminaries have not yet been completed, are those included in the Provisional Order of December last, and in an Order about to be issued—for 55 cottages in all. The duty of pressing forward the contracts in the cases of the remaining 65 cottages authorised by Orders previously issued, rests solely with the District Council, and the Local Government Board is in no way responsible.

  Maintenance of Irish Criminal Lunatics.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the passing of Act 1, Edward VII., ch. 17, in regard to the maintenance of criminal lunatics confined in Irish district lunatic asylums, he will recommend the Government to make a refund from the Treasury of the expenditure incurred since the passing of the English Act, 47 and 48 Vic, ch. 64, which provides for payment for this class of inmates in English asylums from Imperial sources; or whether he will recommend any Amendment to the Act of last year which will tend in that direction.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.

  Steeven's Hospital, Dublin.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Steeven's Hospital, one of the charitable institutions in Dublin to which Government grants are made, has a governing body and the principal members of its staff who are mostly Protestant, though the population of Dublin and the majority of the patients at this hospital are mostly Roman Catholic; and whether, in view of the present circumstances of the hospital

  1261
  management, the Treasury will take steps before again renewing the grant to this hospital to ensure that the institution is conducted on purely non-sectarian lines, and otherwise in accordance with the conditions governing such grants.—The hon. Member complained that the alterations made in the Question were such that it did not fully convey his meaning.
  MR. WYNDHAM: At the request of my hon. friend I will reply to this Question. Three of the members of the governing body of the institution are Roman Catholics, and many of the staff are also of the same denomination. I have no evidence whatever before me that the hospital is conducted on sectarian lines, or that the conditions upon which grants from public funds are made to it are not observed and complied with.

  Kilkenny Mayoralty.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the fact that at the statutory meeting for the election of mayor, held on the 23rd January last in Kilkenny, the 20 members present voting ten for each candidate, and the alderman entitled under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1840, to give a casting vote, being absent, no election could be made; and, seeing that no election can be made now except by order of the King's Bench, and that at a meeting of the Corporation, on 12th January, 1900, to elect a Mayor to fill a vacancy caused by the disqualification of the previous mayor, the members present were like wise equally divided, and there being no outgoing mayor to act as chairman, the meeting was unable to decide this preliminary question, and divided into two equal parts, each electing its own candidate as mayor, whether he will bring in a Bill to insure that at such elections in Ireland some person present shall have a casting vote, and make provision for the selection of a chairman when there is no outgoing mayor to preside and the meeting is equally divided on this question.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The circumstances of this case are met by the provisions of
  1262
  Sections 52 and 53 of the Municipal Corporations Act of 1840, and further legislation in the matter is not considered necessary.

  Dingle Fisheries.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board have refused to assist the fishermen of Dingle, County Kerry, in procuring ice for the safe transport of their fish; and whether, with the view of promoting the fishing of this district, they will accede to the request made by all the fishermen of the district.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is not the practice of the Board to provide ice for sale to fishermen at stations where fisheries have been established. An application, however, has been made by a resident at Dingle for a loan of £200 for the construction of an icehouse. This the Board will sanction if satisfactory security be given.

  Limerick and Kerry Railway.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Commissioner of Valuation was asked to revalue the line of railway known as the Limerick and Kerry Railway before its amalgamation with the Great Southern and Western, and can he state on what grounds the Commissioner then refused; and whether, considering the rates for railway guarantees in County Kerry, and that the Kerry County Council request the revaluation of this portion of the now Great Southern and Western Railway on the grounds that, before amalgamation, the request was made, the Government will take steps to see that the Commissioner complies with the request of the Kerry County Council.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioner did not see his way to revalue this line at a time when the question of its amalgamation with the Great Southern and Western was under consideration by Parliament. His decision was subject

  1263
  to appeal, but no appeal was taken. I have already stated there is no power now to revalue the line except as part of, and in connection with, the entire system, and that such a revaluation will be carried out if application be made by the various rating bodies interested.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Seeing that County Kerry pays such very high rates for this railway, and is only interested in this particular branch, will the hon. Gentleman ask the Commissioner to reconsider his decision?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I understand that there is no opening for reconsideration. The line can only be revalued as a whole.

  Irish County Councils and Urban Roads.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state by what authority County Councils are empowered to provide for contribution to the maintenance of roads inside Urban Districts without reference to the Rural District Council from which such contribution is to be levied; and, seeing that such rule is not provided for in the Local Government Act, will he direct its withdrawal or amendment so as to include the Rural District affected?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Where main roads run through Urban Districts, and the Urban District Councils have not undertaken the entire charge of these roads, their maintenance devolves on the County Council, one-half the cost being chargeable to the County at large, and half to the Urban District. County Councils do not, so far as the Local Government Board are aware, contribute to the cost of roads other than main roads, within Urban Districts.

  Sale of Robertstown Farm.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Frederick Boyle has applied to the Land Commission for an advance to enable him to purchase a farm at Robertstown, in County Waterford: Can he state how long Boyle has been in possession of this farm, the amount of the advance applied for, and the date
  1264
  of the application; has the advance yet been sanctioned; if not, has the inspector of the Land Commission yet visited the farm and sent in his report on the case; and can a copy of this report, when made, be obtained by making application; and can he explain why the old tenant of this farm was not given the option of purchasing it at the terms on which it has been offered to Mr. Boyle.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Boyle, who has been in occupation of this holding since 1899, applied in September last for an advance of £1,071, which has been sanctioned. A certified copy of the Inspector's report may be obtained upon payment of the prescribed fee of one shilling by either of the parties to the agreement. I have no information on the last paragraph.
  MR. POWER: Is it not the fact that the old tenant offered a considerably higher secured rent than this man?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Small Holdings at Drumlish and Newtownforbes.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what date the inquiry under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act will be held at Longford into the request of the Longford Rural District Council for a loan to enable tenants in the villages of Drumlish and Newtownforbes to purchase their holdings.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No application has yet been received for a loan in this case. When full particulars of the scheme have been furnished, together with a statement of the amount required to carry it out, arrangements will be made for holding an inquiry.

  Maconochy Appeals.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that, in the case of the Maconochy, County Longford, tenants, in which case the appeals by the landlord were lodged late and which are now to be heard at Longford on 27th March,

  1265
  the landlord's solicitor offered a half-year's rent to the tenants to waive their objections to the landlords' appeals going in; and whether he will direct the attention of the Court to this attempt to induce the tenants into foregoing their rights.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): I have no information as to the alleged offer, but even assuming that it was made the Executive have no power to interfere in a civil litigation between private parties.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: If I supply a copy of the original letter to the right hon. Gentleman, will he take action?
  MR. ATKINSON: The hon. Member asks me to "ear-wig" the court before the litigation comes on. That I cannot do.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Have you never done it in the case of a Nationalist?
  MR. ATKINSON: Never.

  Richmond Lunatic Asylum.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the annual sum demanded from the County Wicklow towards the maintenance of the Richmond Lunatic Asylum has risen from £1,575 11s. 8d. in 1891 to £5,884 16s. 4d. in the present year, although the number of patients sent annually from the County Wicklow to Richmond Asylum has decreased from 43 in 1891 to 26 in 1900 and 1901; and whether he proposes to institute an inquiry into the cause of the annually increasing demands of the Richmond Asylum authorities upon the ratepayers of the County of Wicklow.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The apportionment of the expenses of the Asylum is not regulated by the number of yearly admissions, but by the actual number of residentpatients belonging to each contributory area. The increase in the demands of the Asylum upon Wicklow arises from the increase in the number of resident patients from Wicklow; the
  1266
  increased amount required for repayment of loans due to the consequent extension of the Asylum; and the increase in the cost of maintenance. The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative; the matter is entirely in the hands of the Committee of Management with whom the Government cannot interfere.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: Is it not the fact that within ten years the change has increased from £1,575 to £5,800, although the patients have decreased in number?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. In 1891 there were 121 patients and now there are 174.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: That is not according to the reply I received from the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member has been under a misapprehension; the question of apportionment is governed not by the number of yearly admissions but by the number of resident patients from each contributory district.

  Belfast Imports—Infringement of Customs Regulations.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in the month of October of last year, upwards of 25,000 bags of flour imported into Belfast from the United States of America were found to contain looking-glasses, wooden match-boxes, spoons, tin cups, and cheques; and whether, if this is in contravention of the Consolidated and Lottery Act, any fine was inflicted; and, if so, what was the amount.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Several thousand bags of flour were, in the month of October of last year, imported at Belfast, which upon examination by the officers of the Customs Department were found each to contain a small article, not liable to duty, bearing an advertisement of the flour in the bags. The advertisements were of small intrinsic value and consisted of the articles named. These small articles not having been included in the Customs Entry, the bags of flour con-

  1267
  taining them were submitted to special examination, and a nominal fine of £1, to mark the irregularity of the Entry, was imposed under the provisions of the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876, as a condition upon which the importers were allowed to amend the particulars on that document. The Board of Customs were advised that the sale of the bags would be a technical contravention of the Lotteries Acts, but as the offence could not possibly be committed until after the goods had passed out of Customs control, no action was taken by that Department under the Lotteries Acts.

  Rutland Street, Limerick, Post Office.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing the inconvenience caused to the public attending the Law Courts and City Hall at Limerick owing to the want of convenient telegraphic communication, he will establish a branch telegraph office in connection with the branch post office which has been established there for years, having regard also to the population of the district.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Post Office to which the hon. Member refers is understood to be that in Rutland Street, Limerick. The establishment of a telegraph office there was not found to be justified when the question was last considered, but the Postmaster General will have the matter gone into afresh and will communicate with the hon. Member.

  Howth Bailey Flashing Light.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any complaint has been made to the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the new Howth Bailey Flashing Light, which has been stated to show only one flash every 30 seconds, really shows two flashes in that interval.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Commissioners of Irish Lights telegraph to me that their attention has been called to a second very faint flash in the Howth Bailey Light, due to reflection from the lantern glass. They state that it is due
  1268
  to the apparatus not being complete, and that it will eventually disappear, in all probability.

  Arklow Bank—Lighting and Buoying.
  MR. COGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state how many vessels have been stranded on the Arklow Bank during the past six months; is he aware that the floating lights and marks, placed to guard this bank, have been out of their chartered positions; can he say on what date the Arklow buoys were last replaced and their positions ascertained, and by whom; and how many times a year the buoyage under the care of Trinity House is thus treated; and whether he will give directions to the Commissioners of Irish Lights to have the markings of the ArklowBank checked and corrected without further delay.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Two vessels have been stranded on the Arklow Bank during the past six months. I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that in heavy gales the Arklow Bank Light Vessels alter their position, but are replaced at the earliest opportunity. The buoys there were replaced 12 months ago, and will be again examined very shortly. I am informed that the Trinity House buoys are examined on every opportunity when any of their vessels are passing the locality. The Board of Trade have no jurisdiction to give directions to the Commissioners.

  Limerick Harbour Commissioners—Shannon Pilot Licences.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what is the cause of the delay of the Board of Trade in giving its sanction to the bye-law promulgated by the Limerick Harbour Commissioners in June, 1900, respecting the charging of percentage on steamers whose masters or mates hold pilot licenses on the Shannon; and whether, seeing that the Limerick Harbour Commissioners have complied with all the requirements of the Board of Trade, he will see his way to give the required consent to the bye-law, and thus place Limerick on

  1269
  the same footing as the other ports who have such bye-laws.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board of Trade are waiting for a reply from the Limerick Harbour Commissioners to the Board's letter of the 12th November, 1901; in which the Board asked for the observations of the Commissioners as to certain Amendments which the Board proposed to make in the bye-laws as submitted to them for approval.

  Judicial Conduct of Judges.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what precedents are there for the refusal of the Government to give facilities for the discussion of the judicial conduct of a judge, which forms the subject of a special Motion placed on the Paper of the House of Commons.†And whether, having regard to the fact that criticism of the conduct of a judge is forbidden by the Orders of the House, except in discussion of a specific Motion for that purpose, and that the Motion now on the Paper of the House embodies a distinct censure of a learned judge, he will consider the propriety of giving facilities for the discussion of the Motion, or of instituting a Motion for the removal of the Motion relating to the conduct of the learned judge from the Notice Paper, when the reasons on which that Motion is grounded could be shown.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it would be desirable to give, an opportunity for the discussion which the hon. Member has asked for, nor do I think it would be in accordance with precedent.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are there any precedents for the refusal of a discussion?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think there are.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I can state that there are not.

  Local Taxation.
  MR. BELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government
  †See page 372.
  1270
  will introduce legislation during this session of Parliament to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation with regard to a uniform system and basis of valuation of property for all descriptions of rates and taxes.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid it is impossible for me to give any pledge on this subject in the present condition of public business.

  New Deputy Chairman.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the consent of the Crown has been found necessary and has been obtained for the creation of the new office of Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, empowered to act, on occasion, as Deputy Speaker; and when, and by what form, the new appointment will be made.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; the consent of the Crown has been obtained. The appointment will be made in the same form as that of the Chairman of Committees.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to communicate the assent of the Crown to the House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have just communicated it.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That is not a proper way of doing it.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The appointment, I understand, will be by Motion. That is the practice usually followed in regard to the Chairman himself.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: When will the appointment be made?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It will be made, as is usual, the first time we go into Committee of Supply, which is tomorrow.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will there be a salary attached to the office?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In the course of the debate which we had the other night on this subject, I pointed out that the establishment of a new paid office, although it might be extremely desirable, is a step to be taken with caution, and we ought to have the Report of a Committee of this House on the subject before we take that step.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Whom does the Government contemplate moving into the chair?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

  Halifax and Hong Kong Mail Contract.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can indicate the day when the Motion for the approval of the Post Office (Halifax (or Quebec) and Hong Kong Mail Contract) will be taken; whether he intends to take it before or after midnight; and whether notice will be given.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am unable at this moment to fix a date.

  The Ballot for Notices of Motion.
  MR. BOULNOIS: I desire to ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a matter relating to the mode of balloting for notices of Motion on Tuesdays—namely, whether it is competent for an hon. Member to write the name of any other hon. Member or Members, instead of or in addition to his own; and whether some more fitting method of taking the ballot can be arranged.
  MR. SPEAKER: My attention was called to this matter last Tuesday, and I stated then that I thought the practice of writing the names of a number of other Members besides that of the Member who writes down his own name was a very objectionable practice. It has been carried so far that one hon. Member has written his own name followed by the names of 24 other Members. That is, I think, an abuse of the rules. I also think hon. Members will observe that there is some inconvenience now, when so many Members desire give nototices of Motion
  1272
  on Tuesdays, in the crowd which comes up to the Table at a time when business is or might be proceeding. Something more convenient to the House might be thought of, and, if it met with the general consent of the House, I would suggest that on Tuesdays before I call on the Notices of Motion the names should be written down at the Desk in "No" Lobby where the pairs are written down, and that a clerk of the House—I do not mean one from the Table—should be in charge and there should be an instruction to him from the House that no hon. Member should write down more than one name.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: Would it be competent for an hon. Member to give notice on behalf of another hon. Member in the event of the absence of the latter?
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes; I said that no one should write down more than one name.
  MR. BROAD HURST: If an hon. Member wrote to another asking him to enter his name, could he do so?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think an hon. Member might write down the name of another hon. Member, but he must not write his own name in that case.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  JAMES Wood, Esquire, for Down (East Down Division.)

ANGLO JAPANESE AGREEMENT.
Motion for Adjournment.
Mr. NORMAN, Member for South Wolverhampton, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the Agreement between Great Britain and Japan, a Copy of which has recently been presented to the House"; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places and not less than 40 members having accordingly risen:—
MR. NORMAN: I do not take this step without a realisation of the responsibility which attaches to it. I am well aware that questions of foreign policy cannot be discussed with the same freedom, and ought not to be discussed with the same, freedom, as the issues of our ordinary party warfare; more especially when the subject in question is an offensive and defensive Treaty of Alliance, involving a momentous change from the traditional foreign policy of this country, and placing the British Empire in a situation in which it might be compelled to declare war in a cause which was not of its own seeking. I know, Sir, I am walking on very thin ice, and I shall try to walk lightly and warily; and in all sincerity I desire to say that I do not bring this forward as a mere party matter. If any immoderate or indiscreet word should fall from me during the few remarks I shall address to the House, it will have escaped me through inexperience or inadvertence, and it will be contrary to my intention and desire, and I shall greatly regret it. My purpose is not to address an argument to the House, but if I may say so, to administer an interrogatory.
The Agreement in question came upon the country, without doubt, as a complete surprise. No word of warning prepared us for it. No foreign events had foreshadowed its appearance. No international complication, so far as this country is aware, had arisen to justify it. The country was aware that our relations with Japan were as good as they happily have been for a long time. The country also knew that negotiations were proceeding between various powers for the safeguarding of our commercial interests in Manchuria. But this Agreement, when we awoke yesterday morning to find it in the newspapers, came upon us as a bolt from the blue. It is not only, as I said just now, a momentous departure from the time-honoured policy of this country, but for the first time Great Britain has concluded an offensive and defensive alliance with a foreign Power, and it is the first time also in modern history that any European Power has concluded an alliance of this nature not with an Occidental but an Oriental race. More than that, the haste with which this Agreement
1274
was presented appears to me to call for some explanation. It would seem to indicate a situation of some immediate urgency. We have had for a long time a Treaty with Italy. I do not know whether it is still in existence or not. It has been kept secret. We have at the present moment a Treaty with Germany. It is kept secret. This Treaty with Japan, which is a much more binding and compromising Treaty, is suddenly rushed into the knowledge of the world, and I think it is not unreasonable to ask what is the cause of this impetuous publicity. I think the fact that Lord Lansdowne's covering letter to the British Minister in Japan cannot reach him until three weeks after it is published in this country, is sufficient answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman opposite what evidence there is of impetuosity. Lord Lansdowne's letter is a very important document indeed; it has to be read together with the Treaty, and it cannot reach the British Minister until weeks after it has been presented to the public in Europe.
I come now, Sir, to the document itself. What does it commit Great Britain to? Of course, hon. Members will have very carefully studied the document, and therefore I need only refer to it very briefly. Lord Lansdowne says in his letter that both parties to the Agreement have desired that the integrity and independence of the Chinese Empire should be preserved, that there should be no disturbance of the territorial status quo, that all nations should be afforded equal opportunities for the development of their commerce and industry, and that peace should not only be restored, but should for the future be maintained. These are most admirable sentiments, and I am quite sure there will not be found in the British Empire a single person who will disagree with them for one moment. But these moderate sentiments are very soon left behind in the despatch, and a little further on we come to the words which explain under what circumstances warlike measures might become necessary, and might be legitimate to take. I will read the important words—
"Not only in the case of aggressive action or actual attack by some other Power, but in the

1275
event of 'disturbances arising in China or Korea, and necessitating the intervention of either of the High Contracting Parties.' "
Who is to be the judge of the necessity? Obviously either of the High Contracting Parties. But again, proceeding further in the despatch, Lord Lansdowne's despatch runs away again from this rather alarming sentence which I have quoted. He says that the Treaty
"Contains no provisions which can be regarded as an indication of aggressive and self-seeking tendencies,"
and that it
"Can operate only when one of the allies has found himself obliged to go to war in defence of interests which are common to both."
I submit with all respect that these words are not a correct statement of the facts. There is not a syllable in the text of the Treaty to justify these statements. These statements in Lord Lansdowne's despatch are not justified by the text of the Treaty, and they cannot be found in it. Art. 1 says
"It will be admissible for either of the parties to take such measures as may be indispensable in order to safeguard those interests, if threatened, either by the aggressive action of any other Power, or by disturbances arising," etc.
Then Art. 2 goes on to say that
"If either Power should become involved in war the other Party would maintain a strict neutrality and prevent other Powers from joining in the hostilities."
Art. 3 says that
"If any other Power does join in hostilities against the Ally, the other contracting party will come to its assistance and will conduct the war in common or make peace in mutual agreement with the Ally."
Now, what is this country committed to by these articles? What kind of situation is here envisaged in which England may be compelled to take up arms? If Japan of its own independent, free, unfettered decision, which according to this text we cannot control, considers Russia to be taking aggressive action in Korea or Manchuria, Japan may take up the quarrel and call upon us to keep the other Powers out of the dispute. But it must be remembered that Russia, has already the Dual Alliance with another Power, and if Russia is attacked aggressively by any other Power France is bound to come to her assistance. Therefore France is brought in, and then
1276
England is bound by this Treaty to declare war against Russia and France. This seems to me to follow logically from the terms of the Treaty, and I ask the noble Lord to explain, if he can, why it is not so. Moreover, we are bound not only to declare war, but not to make peace except in agreement with Japan. This is the definite question I put:—"Is not British policy by this Treaty tied hard and fast to the wheels of Japanese policy, and should we not, under certain circumstances, have to go to war, however unwilling we might be to do so, or however adverse to British interests such a war might, be? "I venture to think that the seriousness of such a situation can hardly be over-stated.
I have alluded to the Dual Alliance. The terms of neither the Dual Alliance nor the Triple Alliance have been published, but they are pretty well known, and it is understood by diplomatists that under neither of those Treaties is one of the Allies bound to come to the assistance of the other unless the latter has been aggressively attacked. But under this Treaty we are apparently bound to come to the assistance of Japan under circumstances in which Japan may have been the aggressor. The policy of England had always been freedom from alliances; but we have been suddenly thrust headlong into an alliance far more stringent and binding than has been ventured upon by any of the great Continental Powers whose very existence depends upon alliances in arms. It is reasonable, therefore, under these circumstances—unprecedented and alarming—that the House should ask at the earliest possible moment for some further explanation and justification.
Now, Sir, what is the stake for which we are taking this action? As regards Manchuria, we know the potential value of British interests there, but what are British interests in Korea? It would be rather difficult for any hon. Member to define them. Our only interest in Korea is that it is of very great importance to Japan, whose welfare is always a matter of consideration to us. It is a worthless country, with a grossly corrupt and incompetent Government. Its frontier towards Russia is a sort of no-man's-land, inhabited by refugees from justice and ruffians of every kind, and is not safe for an ordinary traveller to pass through without escort. In fact, Korea

1277
is in a most dangerous and unstable position, and it is upon the state of a country like this that the question of peace or war for the British Empire might have to depend. As regards Japan, my position is a little difficult, if the House will pardon an allusion to myself, because I have been for many years one of the strongest advocates for good relationship with that country. I advocated long before it was accepted by the Government, indeed, I wrote a book advocating, that Japan should be welcomed into the comity of nations, I yield to no one in my admiration for the Japanese people or their statesmen. I have not the slightest sympathy with the parrot cry that Japan is merely a nation of assimilators and imitators. Like everyone else, I have the profoundest admiration for the power of Japan, and for the gallantry and humanity of her soldiers, and I find myself embarrassed at offering criticisms which might seem to put me in a hostile position to Japanese interests. I hope the House will pardon this personal explanation, as the matter lies very close to my sympathy. It must be remembered however that Japan and Russia have been preparing for war for a considerable period. When Russia planned her magnificent railway—the largest and most costly railway in the world—Japan at once announced a programme of military and naval expansion to mature at the same time as the Siberian Railway, which places Russia in a position to greatly increase her forces in the Far East at short notice. It is undesirable to dwell further on this rivalry, although I might give very many examples of it. But it is a fact that both these two nations believe and fear that a situation may arise which will compel them to resort to war to settle their differences. It is into such a situation as that that we come with this treaty of offensive and defensive alliance.
On one point there cannot be the least possible doubt, and that is that this new Treaty is a most excellent thing for Japan. All I ask is, have our interests been sufficiently considered? We have happily for a long time been on the very best possible terms with Japan. It was under a Liberal Government, when Lord Rosebery had charge of the foreign policy of this country, that we, first of all
1278
civilised nations to do so, admitted Japan to the council board of civilised humanity. That was an act of statesmanship of the highest possible wisdom, and it bound us to Japan by ties and bonds which can never be broken. Then again Lord Rosebery, on the occasion when there was a partial alliance of European Powers to snatch from Japan the fruits of her hard-earned victory, refused to be a party to it, and that drew tighter still the ties which bound us to Japan. The question is, were not these relations good enough? Was it necessary to assume all the responsibility and risks of an offensive and defensive alliance when we had already attained a position which appeared to respond to our needs and character of our policy? I read these the words in The Times this morning—
"If the fabric has been reared and completed to its present stage by Lord Salisbury and Lord Lansdowne, the site was cleared and the foundations were laid by Lord Rosebery."
I have no means of knowing what Lord Rosebery thinks about this Treaty, but I wonder if he will appreciate this attempt to invoke his authority for a diplomatic act to which he has been no party. I do not know what Lord Rosebery may think, but I should certainly be surprised if he does not regard with astonishment, and perhaps with some alarm, the sky-scraping edifice that has been run up on the foundation laid by his wise and consistent statesmanship.
I fear, Sir, that I am trespassing on the time of the House, but it is impossible to discuss this question without making a more direct allusion to Russia. It is quite useless to deny that this Treaty is aimed at Russia. It must be so, from the nature of things, because no other Power can be suspected of cherishing any designs against Korea. It is well known that there is a party growing in this country who are looking forward to better relations between this country and Russia than have existed in the past. Many of our most serious political writers and thinkers, led indeed by the Prime Minister himself, in a remarkable utterance, desire that the past between Russia and ourselves should be left behind, and that a better understanding should be entered on. That point of view was put with great force and lucidity by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Berwick Division in a debate in this House the

1279
other day.†Have hon. Members reflected upon the attitude of Russia towards this country during the long period of the war that we have been passing through? We have been, engaged in a war which has held us fast. Every single soldier was occupied, and we had in those days no alliance at all. We had for a time perhaps, hardly a friend, and it would have been, of course, impossible for us to defend the North West frontier of India with our Fleet, however powerful it might be. Surely if there was any occasion which any Power desiring to strike at us would have seized, that was the occasion. Has Russia done anything of that kind? It must certainly be said that her attitude has been admirable and friendly. She has taken no step whatever to embarrass us. Her regular way of bringing pressure on us is to mass a few regiments upon the Afghan frontier. She has not even done that, although it was at one time stated that she had, but it was found afterwards not to be so. On the contrary, she has given us this proof of friendship and goodwill. I wish I could point to any similar goodwill we have shown to her. I think I am entitled to ask the question, has the Government tried to come to terms with Russia about Manchuria? Many of us think some modus vivendi is possible. All we want to know is that before taking this step no stone was left unturned to come to such terms with Russia as would safeguard the political and commercial interests of both countries. If not, can Russia be blamed if she regards us as going about among the nations looking for an alliance against her? First she sees us concluding a treaty with Germany, which the German Government at once repudiated, declaring it had not the meaning our Government attached to it. That having failed, Russia will say that we have gone to Japan. With regard to France, I suppose not for many years have the British and French Governments been on such cordial terms as at present; and yet this Treaty, owing to the diplomatic alliance between Russia and France, will necessarily bring her into antagonism with us.
As to the United States, I asked the noble Lord this afternoon whether it
†See preceding volume p. 608.
1280
had been informed and had expressed any opinion. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs replied that the United States Government had been informed but had not expressed any opinion. If only informed a day or two ago, they might not have had an opportunity of replying; but if they were informed some time ago and have not expressed any opinion, that surely is a matter which the House should consider. The interests of America and our own have been identical with those of Japan, and the obvious course would be to endeavour to take step by step in this matter with America. A reply may easily be made that the policy of the United States is against entangling alliances; but until the publication of this Treaty that policy was ours also. Finally, are we so free from anxiety, is our Army so ready, are our six Army Corps so prepared to take the field, are our relations with other nations so friendly, that we can afford to look with complacency on a treaty in which a declaration of war by ourselves is so bluntly foreshadowed? I think, Sir, that the whole country is looking forward with eagerness to an era of peace; this offensive and defensive alliance is the Government's reply.
The cheers which the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary received when entering the House remind me of another point. The right hon. Gentleman, in the eloquent Address which he has just delivered in the City, said he hoped in future that the orbits of the Colonies would move in harmony with our own. Sir, at the present moment Australia is engaged in preventing the immigration of citizens of the nation with whom we have made this Treaty—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The only question which the hon. Gentleman is entitled to discuss is the agreement between Great Britain and Japan.
MR. NORMAN: What I desired to point out, Sir, was that we are making an alliance with a country whose subjects are being excluded from one portion of the British Empire.
There is just one other point I wish to allude to with regard to the effect of this Treaty in altering the balance

1281
of naval power. Is it the intention of the framers of this Treaty to strengthen us in one part of the world by enabling us in consequence of this alliance to remove our ships from another part? I thank the House for having listened to me with so much patience, and I hope I have kept my promise not to employ any indiscreet or extravagant language. I have no desire either to condemn the Treaty or to oppose it. My sole desire is to obtain information and explanation; and in view of the abrupt change of policy, of the momentous issues involved in view of the fact that we may be plunged into war for interests not our own, in a cause we did not foresee or create, in a quarrel not of our own seeking, is to ask the two questions, "Is it wise?" "Was it necessary?" I beg to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Norman.)
The UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): Mr. Speaker, I confess that as the hon. Gentleman opposite developed his speech I became rather astonished that he had made this Motion at all. He apologised to the House for explaining that whereas he has always been hitherto an advocate of Japan and of close friendship between this country and Japan, yet he was appearing in the capacity of a critic of this Agreement, which consecrates the friendship between England and Japan. I certainly do not think that his explanations were unrequired, but he will forgive me for saying that I did not think personally, nor does it appear to me that the House thought, he had really sufficiently explained why, holding the views which he avows and which he himself published in a book, he should have appeared as a critic of the Government on the present occasion. First of all, he complained of the undue haste which the Government had shown in this matter. If he imagines that the Agreement itself has been hastily concluded, he labours under a complete misconception.
MR. NORMAN: Hastily published.
LORD CRANBORNE: I understand that it is not undue haste in its preparation of which he complains, but undue haste in its publication. I ask him, and I ask the House of Commons, what view they would have taken of the Government if, having made such an Agreement—an Agreement which undoubtedly does lay certain important obligations on this country—we had kept it secret and not communicated it to the country? It is manifest that an Agreement of this kind was bound to be published, and, if published, published, of course, at once. Why should we delay? We have nothing to be ashamed of in it. The real origin of this treaty was our anxiety to maintain the status quo in China. I venture respectfully to recall to the House some observations which a few days ago I made in reference to Persia. Speaking generally of the East, I said that the policy of this country was almost everywhere the maintenance of the status quo; that with that end in view we were not only ready, but anxious, to have understandings with any Power which would have understandings with us, all conceived, of course, in the unaggressive spirit of this Agreement. Well, it was the status quo which we desired to maintain, and that status quo is more particularly described in the opening words of the Agreement, in the preamble—the two elements of English policy in the East which have been so often referred to, the maintenance of the open door and of the territorial integrity of China. I would like to recall to the House the diplomatic situation in respect to those two great divisions of policy. There has been a great deal of diplomatic arrangement on the subject, and several conventional instruments between the Powers of Europe have been effected accordingly. There are, of course, first, the treaties that this country and other countries have with China herself—treaties which secure to us the most-favoured-nation treatment in China. The most-favoured-nation treatment, I need not say, involves the principle of the open door. Then there was the American Note, which, the House will remember, was issued by the United States in September, 1899, and which was an

1283
invitation to the Powers of Europe to declare themselves in favour of the policy of the open door. That Note was assented to, I think, by every Power in Europe, and by Japan. Later there was the Anglo-German Agreement. That contained in itself the same two principles to which I have referred—the open door and the territorial integrity of China; and that met with a large measure of agreement from nearly all the Powers of Europe. Then, in order to finish at once this historical retrospect, I may mention that there was one important conventional arrangement in respect to Korea—namely, that which exists between Russia and Japan. In 1898 an agreement was come to between Russia and Japan, in the course of which it was laid down that, in view of the great development of the commercial and industrial enterprise of Japan in Korea and the large numbers of Japanese subjects residing in that country, the Russian Government would not in any way hamper the development of commercial and industrial relations between Japan and Korea. That is the diplomatic language, but, speaking the language of everyday life, that means that Russia recognised that Japan had a special position in Korea.
What, then, Sir, is the situation? It is this: that in respect of the three main foundations of this Agreement—the open door, the integrity of China, and the special position of Japan—we have before us, already agreed to, conventional arrangements by which almost every Power has endorsed those two principles in respect to China, and in which Russia herself has endorsed the principle which has regard to Korea. The House will follow the tendency of my argument. It is to show that this Agreement merely follows on principles which have already been accepted by almost every other Power. This goes to show that every Power has interests of this kind in the Ear East; yet England and Japan have special interests. There is, as regards our own country in the first place, the great position we have always occupied in the East; the influence and power of this country, which exist, of course, wherever the ocean flows;
1284
but besides that there is our commercial position in China. I want the House to realise how very important that position really is. We own, I think, roughly speaking, 60 per cent. of all the shipping which trades with China; we own about one-half of all the commerce which goes to and comes from China; so that our commercial position is one of the very greatest importance. And if that is its importance now, who shall say what in the future its importance will become? There is in China an almost infinite capacity for commercial expansion, and, speaking as representing a commercial country, I think there can be no consideration more important in its Imperial politics than that of the commercial future of China.
But the position of our trade, though very great, is not unchallenged. There is, in the first place, the great increase in the commercial development of other countries. There is what I may call the spontaneous competition of other countries. But competition is not always spontaneous. There is a certain tendency towards territorial privilege and artificial barriers, which prevents that competition having the purely spontaneous character, of which we have no reason whatever to complain. Indeed, in the last resort, I do not think some European Powers are opposed to the policy of spheres of influence in China. That places us in a situation of some difficulty, because from our point of view the policy of spheres of influence is a very objectionable policy. We do not want "spheres of influence" in China. We may be driven to adopt that policy, but it is not one that suits us. We want the whole of China to be open to commerce and industrial enterprise. That places us in a position quite different from that of any other Power. What, then, is our position? It is that our interests are mainly commercial—that they are of the highest importance, but that there are special difficulties attaching to it. I say that, under these circumstances, the Government were not only right, but were bound to take every care to safeguard our position in China.
I have spoken of the special position of Great Britain in these regions. It is hardly necessary for me to speak of the

1285
special position of Japan. That special position is dictated by geographical considerations. Japan has a growing commerce in both China and Korea, and any hon. Gentleman who wants to know why Japan is specially interested in the maintenance of the integrity of China, and in the particular position she has achieved in Korea, has only to get the atlas and look at the map. That being so, we have this situation. There are two Powers—Great Britain and Japan—who have a peculiar interest in maintaining the integrity of China, and the position of Japan in the Far East, and who are peculiarly able—the one on account of her Navy, and the other on account of the nearness of her military base—to maintain that policy. Under these circumstances, the question which presented itself to the Government, and now presents itself to the House of Commons, is, could we not go one step further than we went in the previous conventions and agreements which I have described to the House? Could we not go a little beyond the mere declaration of our policy of preserving the open door and maintaining the integrity of China by defining how that policy must be carried out? The answer to that question is dependent on the conditions attached to the instrument in which we are going to make this definition. We cannot enter into responsibilities lightly. We have far too great a stake to do anything in a hot headed manner. We are not international knights-errant who are going to make binding Agreements because of the good looks of any Power. Therefore it is necessary for us to look closely into the conditions which surround the obligations into which we have entered.
What are the conditions? I have already described, to the House the preamble. What are the rights and obligations which the two contracting parties acquire under the Treaty? It is said, in the first place, that under certain circumstances, it will be admissible for either party to take certain measures—not compulsory, but admissible. That does not mean that the two allies are going to use the machinery of this Agreement for any trifle. On the contrary, it contemplates a serious,
1286
or even a very serious invasion of our respective rights: Then—
"It will be admissible for either of them to take such measures as may be indispensable."
There again there is a limiting word. As I have said, it is not compulsory on either Party to enter upon the defence of its own rights, nor in regard to any trifling invasion of those rights. It is only when it considers it is indispensable in order to protect its interests that such a course is admissible. When does it operate? Only when the interests of the contracting parties are threatened by the aggressive action of any other Powers. We recognise no right of the two contracting parties to undertake this defence of their interests when the danger is due to their own aggression and not to the aggression of others. Lastly, it is provided that the Powers may claim this right to defend their interests when they are threatened by disturbances so grave as to endanger the lives and property of their own subjects in China or Korea. The House will see, therefore, that the conditions under which either Power may claim to exercise these rights are strictly limited.
I will now turn to the ally. The ally has obligations under this Treaty only in the event of aggression. The hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to think that the ally was bound to intervene in the case of serious disturbance threatening the lives and property of the subjects of either Power.
MR. NORMAN: The noble Lord misunderstood me.
LORD CRANBORNE: I am glad I misunderstood the hon. Member, because that would have been a wrong impression. It is not so. The ally is not under any obligation at all except in the case of an attack on the other Power.
MR. NORMAN: Will the noble Lord kindly point out the portion of the Treaty containing that provision?
LORD CRANBORNE: Of course it is only in defence of their respective interests as above described—that is, when attacked by the aggressive action of a third Power—that any obligation is thrown upon the ally. I need not say that whether the action is aggressive or not

1287
is a question for what I call the second Power, or ally, to determine. Either Power, before it undertakes any obligation, has a right to judge whether or not the conditions of the Treaty have been fulfilled. When such a case does arise the House will observe that the conditions are still very moderate. In the case of an attack by a single Power, all the ally is bound to do is to maintain neutrality; and to do its best to restrict the quarrel to the two Powers involved. It is only when another Power intervenes, when there is a coalition against either Great Britain or Japan, that the extreme obligation on the Ally of interfering by armed force comes into operation.
I have shown how cautiously and moderately this Agreement is worded. We should be very glad, of course, if other Powers were willing to pursue the same objects as we are pursuing, and to follow our example. In this connection, I may speak of the attitude of the United States to which the hon. Member for South Wolverhampton referred. All through the difficulties in China we have worked on the most cordial terms with the United States. I think I may say that in almost every crisis, and even in every small difficulty—which has arisen during the negotiations at Peking—the representatives of the United States and our representatives have been acting together. I entertain no doubt that in this Agreement we shall command the full approval of the Government of the United States. Sir, the fact is that the power of England is essential to Japan and the power of Japan is very important to England. We have watched, as I believe almost all the world has watched, with interest and approval, the remarkable progress which Japan has made in the ways of civilisation and in its ascent to the rights and responsibilities of a Western Power; and on one recent occasion—namely, when the representatives of all the Powers were in such imminent danger in Peking, Japan earned the gratitude of the whole of Europe by being first in the field to rescue them. For ourselves, our policy in the Far East, as I have often had occasion to say in this House, is not aggressive. We fully recognise the position of profound responsibility which the extent of our
1288
Empire has placed us in. Our policy has always been sober and cautious; and I think it may be said in China, as it may be said of the East generally, whether in our negotiations elsewhere or in the agreement which we have had the honour to lay before the House, our only desire is progress and peace.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think that any one in or out of the House will be surprised at the course taken by my hon. friend behind me, because there cannot well be imagined a matter of greater gravity, a more serious step, than that which was announced to the country yesterday. I certainly think that it is incumbent on the House of Commons to obtain at the earliest possible moment as full an explanation of the matter as the Government think it within their duty to give, and this is not a bad example of the utility for the public and patriotic purposes of Parliament of this particular method of bringing important matters before Parliament.
Now, Sir, the Under Secretary of State has made a very plain, careful, and reasonable reply to the inquiries made by my hon. friend behind me with equal care and equal reasonableness; but I do not know that the noble Lord has completely satisfied us. I do not mean satisfied our opinion, but satisfied our reasonable and proper curiosity. The noble Lord, as far as I understood him, has not given us any reason for this step that has been taken. He has recounted what has happened in the past; he has given a statement of the present position of affairs; he has declared the general intention and policy of the Government; but when he referred to what this Treaty involves, as going one little step beyond where we have been before, I wonder whether he realises fully that this step was a positive obligation upon this country in certain emergencies to go to war. That surely can hardly be described as one little step beyond where we were. The noble Lord says that the Government was very anxious to maintain the status quo, and one of the objects which in these documents are held out as the groundwork of the Agreement between this country and Japan is the territorial

1289
integrity and independence of China. Well, I want to know a little what "China" means, because I find that the language, in a geographical sense, is vague. In the beginning of one of the earlier paragraphs of Lord Lansdowne's despatch, it speaks of—
"The integrity and independence of the Chinese Empire,"
and that—
"There should be no disturbance of the territorial status quo, either in China or in the adjoining regions,"
that all nations should within—
"Those regions as well as within the limits of the Chinese Empire be accorded equal opportunities for the development of their commerce and industry."
So that there are three definitions of the territorial effect of this Treaty. There is China; there are adjoining regions; and there is the Chinese Empire as well. Now, I should have thought that that was unnecessary, and it may give rise to confusion in the minds of hon. Members to mention all these separate items which I presume are all included within the Chinese Empire. The Chinese Empire includes territory as far as Yark and and Kashgar. It includes Tibet, I presume; it includes Eastern Turkestan; it takes a very wide flight, and I think we ought to have from the Government some more exact definition of the country, of the geographical superfices, to which those interests are supposed to refer. On the main question I believe there is substantial agreement amongst us as to the policy to be pursued. To begin with, we have nothing but goodwill towards Japan and the Japanese Government. We are all agreed in our admiration of the wonderful enterprise and the progress they have made, and their love of progress. They had established their position as one of the great Powers of the world, and we have given indisputable proof, to which the noble Lord referred in the past that we have been among the first and foremost to recognise these facts and to act upon them. We are also, I think, agreed that our interests, so far as China is concerned, are mainly identical—I mean the interests of Japan and ourselves. We have no other desire than to maintain the integrity and inde-
1290
pendence of China. What we are most concerned in is the maintenance of the freedom of trade which we enjoy under treaties with China. That is the matter which comes closest to our real interests; but at the same time I do not think that anybody has a desire or the wish to see the independence and integrity of China interfered with, and I was glad to hear the noble Lord so explicitly disown the policy of establishing some sphere of influence of our own, and prefer the so much better, wider, and wiser policy of the open door for the trade of all nations alike. We are all agreed that there should be an equal opportunity to all nations of developing commerce and industry, and we are all agreed in favour of peace, and if any of these rights and interests are endangered, we ought, of course, to take all due steps. But the noble Lord then described how satisfactory was the position at present. He quoted admissions of declarations which had been made in various agreements between different pairs of States, and said that all accepted these principles.
LORD CRANBORNE: I said generally.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It cannot be said that the principles have been accepted all round. Then I come to ask him—Why this sudden step? Seeing that things were established on so satisfactory a basis, why take this step? Does it involve some danger of interfering with the present satisfactory position by arousing some new jealousies and suspicions amongst the Powers themselves? Of course, in saying this we are speaking without knowledge of many circumstances which may be in the knowledge of the Government; and I do not wish to be considered as at all pronouncing any opinion, because we are not in a position to do so, as to the wisdom or unwisdom, the necessity or the lack of necessity, of this Treaty. But I think we have not yet received from the noble Lord any reason why this great change of policy has been entered upon; no change in the ultimate object of policy surely, but change in the means by which that object is to be attained.
The noble Lord said that although the position was satisfactory, yet we have so

1291
large a share of the trade of China, and such huge interests involved, that we are exposed to great and constantly increasing competition. How does this Treaty affect competition? It has nothing to do with competition. I am afraid that the best way by which we can meet competition is by competing better ourselves. That is probably the high road to success. But how will this Treaty affect competition and trade with other countries? Let us look more closely to the terms of it. To begin with, there is not perfect consistency between the letter of Lord Lansdowne and the Treaty itself. As my hon. friend behind me pointed out, the passage at the top of the second page in Lord Lansdowne's letter is not borne out in the Treaty, it says—
"That part of the Treaty which renders either of the high contracting parties liable to be called upon by the other for assistance can operate only when one of the allies has found himself obliged to go to war in defence of interests which are common to both, when the circumstances in which he has taken this step are such as to establish that the quarrel has not been of his own seeking, and when, being engaged in his own defence, he finds himself threatened, not by a single Power, but by a hostile coalition."
There is nothing in the Treaty as to the nature of the quarrel which is entered into. That is surely a very important matter.
LORD CRANBORNE: "Aggressive action."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Who is to judge of the aggressive action? Is it both the Powers? Must they agree upon aggressive action? I will put a case to the noble Lord in order to bring out what the real conditions of the Treaty are. Under the Agreement, it seems to me, supposing our common interests—I am sorry to see that the Foreign Office uses the word "mutual" in the ungrammatical wording of the text of the Treaty, but "common," I think, is preferable to "mutual"—supposing our common interests in China are affected injuriously either by foreign aggression or by disturbance, and one of the Powers interferes. What is the other Power going to do? Is the other Power bound to neutrality? Is it bound to stand by with its arms folded while the other Power is conducting military operations?
LORD CRANBORNE: Obviously not
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Let it be clear. When it says it shall be neutral, it means it shall abstain from interfering in the war.
LORD CRANBORNE: No, no.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It means that it is not to take part with the other side, I suppose. Well, if that is so with regard to that particular case, supposing there is trouble in Korea, where Japan has a large number of Outlanders, who are not always a very manageable or reasonable class of people. They have trouble with their Outlanders—somebody picks a quarrel. When Outlanders get to loggerheads with the Government of the country in which they happen to live, it is sometimes difficult to discover who is the author of the quarrel which arises, and we may take a different view from Japan upon that matter. Japan which is recognised in the Treaty, has political as well as commercial interests in Korea. Its political interests are affected; a disturbance arises; Japan finds itself threatened by two Powers; we are bound, whatever we may think of the origin of the quarrel—I am putting the case hypothetically, I shall be glad to know it is not so—whatever we may think of the origin of the quarrel, we are bound to join Japan in the war. I hope it will be made clear that that is not so; but, to the best of my reading of it, that would follow from the terms of the Treaty.
Sir, I think the House will do well to remember that our stake in this matter is a huge one. I do not mean only the necessity of our maintaining our rights in the Far East—our commercial and our other interests—I refer to stakes in another sense, in another shape. Supposing we were involved through this Treaty in a war; is the burden equally divided between us and Japan? Japan's interests are in China and within her own borders and in Korea. She has full responsibility, of course, for her domestic defence. But when we are called upon under this Treaty to go to war with two Powers, we find those Powers touching us in

1293
every part of the world, so that it is not at all an equal thing to us and to Japan to be involved in a war such as is contemplated here. I saw it stated in this morning's papers—I think it was the French Press—that this arrangement is very much better for us than for Japan. Well, Sir, I doubt it very much in respect to the matter to which I am referring—namely, that Japan, after all, runs but a small risk compared to the enormous disturbance of our position and the enormous risk which any such eventuality would force upon us. This is, I believe—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—the first occasion since the end of the Great War that we have formed a defensive or offensive alliance with any Power. We have always, even in this particular matter of the Far East, had the advantage of the freedom which individual action gives. I am not one who thinks it is very admirable to boast of our isolation, because there is a kind of isolation which does not reflect very much credit upon this country. But, on the other hand, there is a freedom of individual action which is of immense importance to this country, and this Treaty, so far as it goes, deprives us of that freedom of individual action. I agree with my hon. friend behind me that the peaceable commercial interests and other material interests of this country, and of Japan and of the United States, are very much the same in the Far East. Might not common action have been sufficiently secured by an interchange of diplomatic Notes, and not by an explicit undertaking of this kind, imposing upon us an
"international contract of binding validity"?
I should like to know also from the Government—I may say that I put all this criticism in a hypothetical way, because we have not yet received what must be the real reason for this developed policy—I should like, before I sit down, to ask one more question. What have been the communications made, before this Treaty was ratified or published, with the other Powers concerned—with Germany, with the United States, and with the other Great Powers who are concerned in this matter? Let me repeat, we have no desire to change the policy which has now been established
1294
as the policy of this country in the Far East. We desire to be on friendly terms with Russia, on far more friendly terms, in fact, than we have ever been before. We desire to associate ourselves, as closely as you please, with the Japanese, with whom there is a certain strong sympathy in this country. But we wish to be sure that in order to carry out these desirable objects, so great and important an obligation as this was necessary for the purposes we have in view.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I shall only detain the House for a short time, but the questions of the right hon. Gentleman, I suppose, require that I should take some notice of the speech which he has just delivered.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to be of opinion that there is some occult reason lying behind the transaction which we are now commenting upon; that His Majesty's Government have a great deal of secret information which indicates the necessity of making this Treaty with Japan. So far as I am aware, every Gentleman in this House is perfectly competent to understand the full weight of the grounds upon which we have made what I quite admit is, at all events in recent years, a new departure. I am not prepared to minimise in the slightest degree the importance of the step we have taken. I do not at all pretend that it is one of the ordinary, everyday diplomatic transactions between Power and Power. But the reasons for it seem to me to lie not in the secret archives of this or any other Foreign Office, but upon the broad facts and the large necessities of our interests and our policy in the Far East.
Sir, I am amazed both at the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman appears to find in discerning any reason for this policy, and at the interpretation which he puts upon the instrument in which that policy is embodied. Actually, if I do not misunderstand the right hon. Gentleman, he went this extraordinary length. Because in the Treaty we bind ourselves if Japan were at war—as Japan binds herself if we go to war in regard to our interests in the Far East—to maintain, in the first instance, and until a third Power is engaged, a neutral attitude, the right hon. Gentleman,

1295
who has studied this document, appears to think its provisions carry with it this extraordinary consequence, that however much we might desire to go to the assistance of Japan, if Japan were in difficulties with a single Power, we should be prevented from doing so by the fact that the word "neutrality" comes in in this Treaty.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I said I was sure it could not mean that, but the words imply that.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think not. I think even the subtlest of lawyers would hardly contend that any interpretation of that kind could be put upon those words. Common sense is against it, and, I venture to say, the ordinary canons of interpretation which every man adopts in the work of daily life. When you pledge yourselves not to fight against persons, you do not pledge yourselves not to fight on their side. That, really, is the whole thing put in a nutshell.
I do not feel it in my power to expand for more than five minutes the grounds on which the Government have thought this a most expedient policy for us to adopt. It is admitted on all hands that our interests in the Far East and Japan's interest s in the Far East are identical; it is admitted on all hands that what we both want in the Far East is the maintenance of the status quo. It is admitted on all hands that there can be no greater blow to the policy which not only Japan and Great Britain, but also America, Germany, all the commercial nations, I believe, have—their interest is also the status quo—there can be no greater blow to the status quo in the Far East than that two Powers should coalesce to crush either us or Japan. That they should crush us, I will not argue. But if we were at war with a Power in the Far East, the value of Japan to us is clear and manifest. But is it conceivable that we should permit two Powers to crush Japan? I do not think that it is. And I think it is not so, not only for the reasons stated by my noble friend, but also for the reason stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—that the interests of Great Britain and Japan are identical. That is the first broad ground on which we think this Agreement desirable. The
1296
second ground is not less important, and it is that in our judgment a Treaty of this kind makes strongly for peace. I do not discuss the great alliances referred to by the hon. Member who brought this Motion forward, which we all know to exist in Europe at the present time. But that, on the whole, they have made for peace, no human being will deny, and for this obvious reason. In these days, while a war between two Powers is sufficiently formidable, a war in which a larger number of Powers is involved is practically so great an undertaking that even the most adventurous statesmanship would shrink from it. If it were possible for two first-class Powers to coalesce to fight against Japan, the result would be either that Japan would be crushed, would suffer very serious losses, and be practically crippled, or that before that event took place she would modify her policy to suit the demands of her two antagonists. Neither of these changes can we contemplate with equanimity. It is neither good for us that Japan should be crushed, nor that through a coalition of two Powers she should be obliged to mould her policy in a direction antagonistic to our interests. Now that this Treaty has been carried out, it is quite evident that that contingency cannot take place. There never can be two Powers ranged against Japan alone, any more than there can be two Powers ranged against us alone in the Far East. That fact clearly and evidently makes for what is the greatest interest of the civilised world—the interest of peace.
It has been suggested and hinted by some who have spoken in the debate, that this Treaty must be of an unfriendly character to other nations. Sir, I say that it is nothing of the kind. I entirely concur with what fell from the right hon. Gentleman when he said that he desired that this country should be on friendly and cordial terms with Russia, and that there should be no lack of confidence dividing the Governments of those two countries. There is no wish dearer to the heart of His Majesty's Government. We are most anxious for that result. The dangers which this Treaty guards against are the dangers of an adventurous policy, of which His Majesty's Government are

1297
very far from suspecting the Russian Government in the Far East. Nevertheless, it is well known that there are schools of thought on the Continent of Europe which would like to see such adventurous schemes carried out. Whether those schools will ever gain such influence in their own countries as to make them a danger to the peace of the world, I know not, but I trust not, and I am inclined to believe not. But that by this Treaty we have done much to strengthen all the forces which, make for peace, that we have done much to place upon a solid and permanent foundation, or as long as the Treaty lasts, the interests common to the whole of the commercial world, and not least of our American brothers, I have no doubt at all. Though I began my speech by criticising some of the interpretations of the right hon. Gentleman, and by explaining to him that he was wrong in supposing that there was any occult motive lying behind our open and avowed policy, I may, I think, interpret the general ten our of his observations as being in favour of the course which we have pursued. He suggested, indeed, an alternative—the exchange of Notes between this country and Japan and the United States, which was to have the same effect as a Treaty.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: At any rate, they were to conduce to the same objects. I fail to understand what the value of that policy would be. In so far as the Notes differed from the Treaty, they would differ in this respect—that Japan would not know what we meant, and we should not know what Japan meant; and the result of that doubt and ambiguity would be that there would be an uncertainty in the policy of the two countries, which now, I hope, will never occur. I do not deny for one moment that this Treaty throws an obligation on this country which might possibly be onerous. I do not pretend that by a Treaty of this kind you get everything and you risk nothing, nor do I believe in the policy which asserts that any such object is within the reach of diplomacy; but I do
1298
believe that it makes for peace, and I do believe that it builds up into a more solid and coherent alliance all the forces which tend towards an object which every man in this House has in view—the object of maintaining the status quo in the Far East, with equal trade opportunities for every nation anxious to take part in Eastern commerce. That is the one motive which animated us in making this Treaty, and I am sure that the House and the country will think that motive sufficient.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No one will cast any doubt on the motives by which the Government have been actuated. They desire peace and the maintenance of the status quo in China. That we all willingly acknowledge. The question is whether the method which they have pursued to achieve those ends is the best method that could be adopted. The right hon. Gentleman has not thrown as much light on this matter as might have been desired. He has simply confined himself to the statement that the obligation of this country to go to war in certain circumstances is the best method of preserving peace, but he has said nothing that would satisfy me that that is the best method in the circumstances. There are many things which he has not explained. The status quo is spoken of in this document. But what is the status quo to-day in Manchuria? That is an important question. Every Power, including ourselves, has impaired the integrity and independence of China by appropriating, under the terms of a lease, a portion of her territory. You have taken Wei-Hai-Wei; Germany has taken Shangtung, and Russia has taken Port Arthur. The status quo has been impaired. The right hon. Gentleman ought to give us some idea of the status quo which we are to maintain. What is the position which you assume with reference to Manchuria at this moment? You have not told us what is the status quo of Russia in Manchuria. It has been assumed that we are going to act in this matter with Japan upon interests which are common to the two countries. Lord Lansdowne says so in his despatch. But the Treaty itself, in the first article,

1299
points out that the interests are not identical. It discriminates between our special interests in China and Japan's in Korea; and it makes provision, not for action in common in these respects, but for separate action in both. That is the meaning of the next article with reference to neutrality. I agree that we may remain neutral. But what a singular situation. You call yourself allies. Your ally goes to war, and you expressly stipulate that either party may remain neutral. But what is the consequence? You may be engaged in a war on account of your commercial interests in China, or of the integrity of China being attacked. Japan is at liberty to remain neutral. If so, you cannot enter her harbours, and therefore the whole advantage which you might expect to gain from the alliance with Japan may be totally neutralized. The war may be with China, with Russia. France, or Germany, but one contracting party is at liberty to be neutral when the other is attacked by one Power. That seems to me to be a most extraordinary arrangement. Take it the other way. Suppose that Japan is attacked by one Power, it may be a Great Power far stronger than herself, yet we are at liberty under this Treaty, the origin of the hostilities being separate, to say that we are neutral, and Japan may be abandoned to the mercy of that Power, and so may be crushed. What an extraordinary arrangement that is! Then if Japan is embarked on hostilities we may take our choice; we may say, "It does not suit the interests of England to embark on these hostilities, we will be neutral." That is provided for in the second article of the Treaty, and the words are used, "in the defence of their respective interests," not their common interests, but their "respective interests." And throughout the whole of this Treaty it is regarded as a fact that Japan and Great Britain are not necessarily acting in defence of their common interests, as to which their common consent would be required in order to justify hostilities.
It is contemplated here that the two countries, "in the defence of their respective interests," may become involved in war with another Power. One of the contracting parties, as I have
1300
said, is at liberty to leave its ally in the lurch in the case of hostilities with only one Power. But a neutral and an ally are not compatible words; when you talk of a man who is an ally you mean a man who is not neutral. It is a most extraordinary state of things. The Power that attacks may be a great and overwhelming Power—it is not necessary to say what Power—with an unlimited command of troops, which in the near future will approach Japan; and, positively, under this Treaty we are under no obligation to prevent Japan from being crushed by that single Power. Then, if we have determined justly that the particular incident on which the hostilities with Japan have arisen is one which does not concern us, and have declared ourselves to be neutral, the advent of another Power will leave us no option in the matter, war will be forced upon us despite our determination. You are compelled therefore, having determined to be neutral, to cease to be neutral, and to enter into the contest simply by the advent of another Power, or the coalition of other Powers. We have every reason to be satisfied with the course which this country has pursued before? The Government of Lord Rosebery, of which I was a member, were very strongly pressed by a great European coalition to join them in depriving Japan of the fruit of the war she had waged with such wonderful gallantry and vigour; but we declined altogether to take part in that transaction by which Port Arthur was transferred from Japan to Russia. That apparently is the status quo which is now to be maintained in the interests of the integrity of China. Therefore we have taken the line, and I believe it was a line approved of on all hands, of refusing to take a course which would have been injurious to Japan. My right hon. friend referred to a great inequality between the contracting parties in the event of war. If you are to have war with a Great European Power, as he truly said, it will not be confined to China, or Korea, or the China seas.
And if you are going into a war such as you are contemplating, when attacked by two Powers—everybody knows whom you mean, it is no use endeavouring to conceal it—that war will not be waged

1301
in China, Korea, or the Gulf of Pe-chi-li; it will be waged in Central Asia. It will be waged by a Power which has the capacity of pouring unlimited forces into Persia and into Afghanistan, upon your Indian frontier. In this Treaty you are staking upon the dice the peace and the future of your Indian Empire. Your fleets will be engaged not only in the China seas, but in the Mediterranean and in the Baltic. I only ask, when you are lightly undertaking such a responsibility as this, how would it have been in that dark December, after the disaster of Colenso, if you had been called upon under this Treaty to encounter in war two of the greatest Powers in Europe? That, in my opinion, is a situation which requires much more mature consideration, much more careful explanation of the perils it involves in the future than any we have received, especially at a time when you are piling up hundreds of millions of debt, when you have to search in all your possessions in order to get men enough to man your Army, and when you have actually depleted the defences of India. It has been said, and truly, that this is a policy which is contrary to the traditional policy of this country ever since the great war. We have refused to embark in many of these treaties, all advanced on the same grounds, that are advocated by the right hon. Gentleman, that they were in the interests of peace. Beginning with the Holy Alliance, and coming down to the Triple Alliance and the Dual Alliance, all are propounded as being in the interest of securing peace. We have maintained without these alliances now, for the better part of the century, a great and potent influence in Europe, and now we are going to abandon that policy and embark upon a future which no man can foresee.
There is one question to which I would direct the attention of the House, and upon which we have received no information from the Government. What is to be the position of China in this matter? You talk of the independence and integrity of China, and yet, it seems to me, you claim the right to refuse to China what naturally belongs to an independent nation. Suppose that China chose of her own free will to give preference to particular countries, is she not to be
1302
allowed to do that? If you deny her the right to do that you deny her a right which belongs to every independent country, and therefore we really ought to understand in what position we are placed. I quite agree with the noble Lord who said that we do not favour the principle of "spheres of influence." No, Sir, I think it is very much better that we should have, and that all the world should have, access to all parts of China; but surely you cannot deny to China some independent right in herself of dealing with questions of that kind. Are you going to war with China if she makes a Treaty with some one else? You have bound yourself to Japan, but you have not bound any other Power, and is it to be a casus belli if China with Russia or some other country makes an Alliance. We ought to be told very distinctly on that point, because this affects the whole question of Manchuria, which everybody knows lies at the bottom of this Treaty. We want to know what the situation is in reference to that, and whether the existing status in regard to Manchuria is part of the status quo which you desire to maintain. Lord Salisbury said, I think very wisely, some time ago that the great danger to the world is the situation of the decaying nations. Everybody knows what he meant by "decaying nations." Everybody knew what he meant by that, and one of the decaying nations, at all events, is China. You have a Government restored there at this moment. What do you think may be the position of that Government in the next five years, during which this Treaty is to last? You are binding yourself to the maintenance of the integrity and independence of China for five years, and that at the price of war if necessary. What may be the change in the condition of China during that period? In my opinion all these questions come under this dilemma, and all treaties of this kind are exposed to this criticism—either your interests and your ally's are identical—and then without a Treaty you will be compelled to act together, or else your interests are not identical, and then if you are compelled to act with her it may prove a disaster to you; and, as a fact, history shows that when the time comes you will refuse to act. That is the history most of these treaties guarantee. It happened, I think, at the time of the war with America, when

1303
you called on Holland to act on a Treaty of this kind. If you and Japan have the same interests, as I believe you have, then when the necessity arises you will act together; but if the time comes when it is contrary to the safety of this country, and you find yourself bound by an obligation of this kind, the Treaty will fall into ruin. That is the fundamental objection to all treaties of this kind. We did five-and-twenty years ago enter upon a treaty—not so stringent as this, but a separate dual treaty. It was at the time we were being engaged in the general European settlement of the Treaty of Berlin. It was called the Anglo-Turkish Convention. What has become of the Anglo-Turkish Convention? It has been repudiated. It was a treaty under which we engaged—and we took Cyprus for the purpose—we engaged to maintain and defend alone the integrity and independence of the Turkish dominions in Asia Minor.
LORD CRANBORNE: On conditions. If Turkey reformed.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Oh, yes, if certain reforms were carried out. I am glad that the noble Lord put the point to me. How do you know that the condition of China will not change as much in the course of the next five years as the condition of Turkey changed after that Convention was made? Then there may be reasons for repudiating this Treaty, as you repudiated the Anglo-Turkish Convention. There you are, left with Cyprus on your hands. Cyprus, which used to be a place of arms, is as little a place of arms as Wei-Hai-Wei will be, and it is in exactly the same situation. It is absolutely useless. Treaties of this kind, which are founded upon the anticipation of events which it is impossible to predict, have this immense evil, that they may impose on you the necessity of doing that which will be disastrous to your fortunes, or else leave you in a state which is injurious to your credit in the world. Therefore, I confess, I do desire still to have some fuller explanation, something which will be intelligible to us and to the people of this country, of the reasons which have led to the departure from principles which have been consecrated by the traditions of nearly a century.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: It was impossible to listen without emotion to the mournful prophesies of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, but although I listened with great attention to both the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman who preceeded him I could only gather from their speeches that this is not a sufficiently offensive and defensive treaty with Japan. Their complaint was that if Japan was attacked by only one Power we were not bound to assist her, but would have to wait until they were attacked by a second Power. The right hon. Gentleman asked what was the status quo given in the Far East. He has only to consult the Consular Reports to see that it is a trade of many millions which it is essential that we should maintain. I am only going to detain the House for a moment. I have travelled in these regions and know the people in the Far East, and I do not believe there is a single British subject in China or Japan who would not be thankful to His Majesty's Government for having negotiated and for having concluded this Treaty with Japan. I am quite sure it is of the greatest advantage to this country, and I cannot for the life of me understand the policy suggested by the Leader of the Opposition that instead of concluding a Treaty, open and above-board and communicated to foreign Powers, there should simply have been an interchange of Notes between His Majesty's Government and Japan. This Treaty is open to the whole world, and it surely is the surest guarantee of peace we could possibly have. As representing an industrial constituency, and as knowing the difficult problems which concern British interests in the Far East, I desire as a humble Member of this House to record my vote with grateful thanks to the Government for having negotiated the Treaty. I believe to the full the letter of Lord Lansdowne to Sir Claude Macdonald in which the noble Lord says
"It contains no provisions which can be regarded as an indication of aggressive self-seeking tendencies in the regions to which it applies. It has been concluded purely aw a measure of precaution to be invoked should, occasion arise in the defence of important British interests."

1305
The important British interests which are concerned in the enormous trade in China and Japan which we have at the present time—a trade at 28 or 30 treaty ports with only a duty of 5 per cent. against us. A trade which in the condition of affairs in the Far East with two great Powers so closely allied, is liable to be interfered with at any time. I am quite certain this Treaty is a guarantee of peace, and I am grateful to the Government for having negotiated it.
Mr. JOSEPH WALTON: The House will perhaps pardon me for taking up a brief space of its time upon this most important question of British interests in the Far East, but it is a question to which I have given some attention, and it is for that reason that I venture to address the House. The question of safe-guarding our interests in the Far East is a question which ought to be approached from no Party standpoint because it affects the whole nation, and indeed the whole empire. We have had reason occasionally in the past to blame the Government for not having been vigilent enough in upholding the trade rights of this country in China. We have had again and again to accuse them of having pursued a policy of drift and surrender, and, indeed, what is the situation of British treaty and trade rights with China today? We know that some agreements have been entered into, notably the Anglo-German Agreement, which professedly was entered into for the purpose of maintaining the independence and the integrity of China, and of giving all nations equal opportunity to trade there. Then there was the Anglo-Russian Agreement, and there have been other understandings such as that with Germany. In spite of all these Agreements and understandings, is it not the fact that our Treaty trade-rights in the great country of Manchuria have been to some extent lessened and unfavourably affected? Is it not the fact that Germany has planted herself in the province of Shan-tung, and that in all human probability we shall not in the future enjoy the same trade-rights there as we ought under our treaties with China? The question with
1306
me is not whether the Government have made too much haste, but whether they have not been much too slow in concluding some effective arrangement for co-operating with Japan in support of our mutual interests in the Far East. In my opinion the first mistake was made when Russia, France and Germany sought to deprive Japan of the fruits of victory, and compelled her to evacuate the Lao-tung Peninsula. Had England when requested, as she was by the Powers, given Japan the benefit of her influence and insisted, as a condition of her withdrawal from the Lao-tung Peninsula, that Russia, France and Germany and other nations should enter into an agreement not to occupy Port Arthur or any part of the Lao-tung Peninsula, the chances are that the situation in China today would have been very different.
This Treaty which has been concluded with Japan is a most important Agreement; it may be far reaching in its consequences. The question is, is it an Agreement of a menacing or aggressive character? I am bound to say that the objects set before the two Powers are most laudable. Those objects are simply to maintain the status quo, the independence and integrity of the Chinese Empire, and equal trading rights for all nations. The contracting parties most unselfishly seek no advantage or preference for themselves, they simply seek to preserve what they already enjoy under their Treaty trade-rights in the Chinese Empire, and to ensure that those rights should be equally enjoyed by all other nations. There is nothing in the policy set forth in this Treaty in regard to which foreign Power can have any reasonable ground of objection. We were told by my hon. friend the Member for South Wolverhampton that if Japan made an attack upon Russia the Treaty would become operative. But according to its wording, the Treaty becomes operative only in the event of aggressive action by any other Power against England or Japan. Therefore, in the event of aggressive action on the part of Japan herself against Russia or any other Power, the Treaty would not become operative.
The question we have to consider is whether this Treaty makes for peace or for war. My honest opinion is that the Treaty will do much to safeguard the just commercial rights and interests of this country in the Far East, and that it is a

1307
guarantee of peace rather than an incitement to war. I believe that the alliances in Europe have undoubtedly maintained the peace of Europe. When I was in Japan two years ago, the Marquis Ito and every other statesman with whom I had interviews said to me: "It is all very well telling us that the interests of England and Japan are identical, but what is the use of saying that unless we arrive at a common understanding for giving practical effect to our policy, and for supporting our mutual interests." I do not disguise from myself the fact that in certain eventualities we, under this Treaty, take upon our shoulders a grave responsibility; yet, on the other hand, I believe that, with the full knowledge on the part of the other nations of the world of the existence of this Treaty, the likelihood of aggressive action on their part such as would cause us to be plunged Into war under our new obligations is much lessened rather than increased. After all, we have most important trade-rights in the great Empire of China. Have we so lost the qualities of our forefathers that we are not prepared to take the slightest risk to uphold and maintain these rights? I have often accused His Majesty's Government of making humiliating surrenders. I still hold that they have done so, but in regard to this particular Treaty, I think they are showing a practical desire to safeguard the just interests of this country in China, especially in a commercial sense, and that their action will commend itself to the great bulk of the British nation. The Treaty runs for only five years. That is not a long period. If during those five years any reason is found which makes it unwise to renew the Agreement, it will be open to His Majesty's Government to terminate it.
Reference has been made to the fact that we are allying ourselves to an Oriental nation. Well, I know something of Japan, although not so much as my hon. friend the Member for South Wolverhampton. But have we not admitted Japan within the pale of civilised nations by recently giving her jurisdiction over foreigners? Did not the Japanese nation and the Japanese troops set an example to European nations in the recent operations in China? I believe that in allying ourselves to the Japanese nation we are allying ourselves to a nation at the head of which are
1308
statesmen as capable as our own. The marvellous progress which Japan has made during the last 30 years justifies us in reposing in them this confidence, and being willing so to recognise that our interests in the Far East are identical as to enter into the mutual obligations contained in this Treaty. It is absolutely essential to Japan that the independence of Korea should be maintained. Japan's population is increased at the rate of half a million a year, and her area of cultivable land is very limited. My hon. friend the Member for South Wolverhampton spoke discouragingly of Korea, but I believe it is the fact that Korea is very much under-populated, that there is a considerable area of cultivable land which is unoccupied, and that as a country into which the surplus population of Japan may pass, it is essential to that country that Korea should not pass under the domination of any other Power. But we, as well as Japan, have interests in Korea. We have trade interests and treaty rights in Korea equally as in China, though I must admit that the interests of Japan, so far as Korea goes, are much superior to and of much greater importance than our own. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire told us there was no precedent for any such arrangement. But we guarantee the independence and integrity of Afghanistan. That is an enormous undertaking. We are under a treaty with the Ameer to drive out any invading foe from Afghan territory. The wisdom of that arrangement may be open to question, but there it is, and it is a precedent for the course the Government has taken with regard to Japan.
I gather from the speeches of some of my hon. friends on this side of the House that they would prefer that Great Britain should remain in the position of splendid isolation we have recently been enjoying. Personally, I do not like that position. I deeply regret that—to my mind—the mistakes of His Majesty's Government has led to international animosities between ourselves and foreign nations, which have made our position in the world one of much greater danger than it was when our relations were those of

1309
amity and concord. The objects for the forwarding of which we are, under this Treaty, to co-operate with Japan, are objects to which all the other nations having interests in Japan have already subscribed. Is it not the fact that the United States sought the assent of the various Powers to practically the same objects as are here set forth, but that for some reason, best known to the United States Government, after being very active for a short time, they ceased their efforts, and since then have occupied a more neutral position? There is no doubt although we may not have their formal adhesion in this particular Agreement, we should have the moral if not the material support of the United States in furthering the policy here laid down.
Then, again, I do not see how Russia, France, or Germany can possibly have any objection to the aims set forth in this Agreement, because they have repeatedly declared that their policy is practically the same. However that may be, the immense importance of British commercial interests in the Far East justify the Government in making such arrangements for safeguarding those interests as in their opinion would be most effective, even though those arrangements may bring about, in certain eventualities, a risk of war. My own opinion is, however, that this Agreement will safeguard our commercial interests better than they have been safeguarded hitherto. Hon. Members, on my own side of the House especially, ought to attach enormous importance to these commercial interests, because we, more than hon. Members on the Government side, represent great industrial constituencies. [Ministerial cries of "No."]
SIR HOWARD VINCENTrose to speak.
MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I except the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Sheffield, but as a rule we do. The hon. Member opposite represents an industrial constituency and we as a rule also represent industrial constituencies. [Cries of "No, no."] However that may be, we have important commercial interests in China and the new departure made is to my mind a wise departure, con-
1310
ceived in the best interests to safeguard the interests of the Empire. I wish for this Agreement all that those who concluded it hope it may achieve. I trust that it will be the means of strengthening our position in the Far East and preserve for the commerce of this country that great neutral market of China, without which, and without other markets of the same character, we could not expect the prosperity of this country to continue.
EARL PERCY: I could add my voice to that of the hon. Member for Central Sheffield in congratulating the Government upon having concluded this Treaty. The hon. Member for South Wolverhampton said that the policy of His Majesty's Government is only the legitimate corollary of the policy which was pursued by Lord Rosebery's Government. We are all very willing to acknowledge the friendly action which that Government adopted towards Japan, but if the policy of His Majesty's Government is only the superstructure raised on Lord Rosebery's policy, all I can say is that that superstructure has been very much strengthened by this Treaty.
MR. NORMAN: The noble Lord is not correctly representing what I said. I do not regard it as the natural corollary.
EARL PERCY: I am glad to be able to agree with the hon. Member, for I think it is very different indeed. When after the war between China and Japan the three Powers—Russia, Germany and France—combined together to rob Japan of the legitimate fruits of her conquest, Lord Rosebery's Government stood aloof and maintained a neutral attitude. In the face of such a Treaty as that which has just been concluded, such acts of spoliation will be absolutely impossible in the future. We cannot deny that this Treaty entails responsibilities of an onerous character upon this country. It is not necessary to inquire too minutely whether those responsibilities are likely to be more onerous to us than to Japan. I agree with the Leader of the House who said that he did not believe diplomacy was capable of securing advantages without corresponding con-

1311
cessions. Nor is it dignified for a great country like this to grudge such sacrifices When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire tells us such a treaty is unnecessary if our interests are identical, then I think that there is one obvious answer and it is that prevention is better than cure. I rather doubt if such a treaty had been in existence whether we should have had any of those long series of incidents in Shan-tung, Port Arthur, and Wei-hai-Wei.
Then the right hon. Gentleman drew not a very convincing parallel between the present Agreement and the Anglo-Turkish Convention, and he asked, "How do you know that China will not act like Turkey or be willing to surrender to some other Power some part of her vast territory?" I do not think anyone will find in the Blue-books issued recently any desire on the part of China to surrender territory, for China has come to us and asked repeatedly if we will assist her in resisting the demands of foreign Powers. We agreed with Turkey to guarantee the integrity of the Turkish Empire, but in the present case we are not guaranteeing the independance or the integrity of China at all. All we say is that we will combine to resist any attack upon Chinese integrity by two other Powers which, at the same time, invades any of the rights of the contracting parties. I will only say that I think it is a very remarkable fact, of which I hope the country will take note, that upon the first occasion upon which we have contracted a Treaty Alliance with a great military and naval Power, the principal speakers upon the Opposition side of the House have denounced the Treaty, although they were the very men who went about upon every platform in the country denouncing us for our splendid isolation. If ever there was a Treaty which justified us in departing from our traditional policy, it is this Treaty. It is not aggressive, for, on the face of it, it professes to recognise the rights of China, and not to aim at any absorption of territory either for ourselves or Japan. For my own part—and I believe this opinion is shared by a good many people in this country—I think the greatest guarantee for European peace and the peace of the
1312
Far East, and the greatest guarantee against any further acts of aggression in those parts is that you should make your intentions known and show other countries that you have the power, if necessary, to enforce them.
MR. MACDONA: I desire to join in the chorus of praise which the Government has so justly earned for itself, and that it has at last received the full reward of Lord Salisbury's masterly patience and perseverance in identifying his policy with the "open door" theory consistently all through the wearisome vacillating and selfish aims of all the other Powers, who were anxious to cut up China and completely dismember it to the satisfaction of their own greed. I have gone over most of the ground in China and I have seen a great deal of the Chinese people. By this union with Japan we are allying ourselves with what has proved to be one of the pluckiest little nations in the world. I believe that the bravery of the Japanese troops during the storming of the walls of Peking when they fought side by side with the British troops, was worthy of any nation in the world which is proud of its military history. I believe this Treaty will mean the continuance of peace and prosperity in the Far East, and the development of our trade. Ever since England took possession of Wei-Hai-Wei, the Chinese people have been looking to our policy as the foundation of future commercial enterprise. No document could be drafted which would show more friendly feeling between England and the Chinese people than is shown by this Treaty. Therefore I feel perfectly confident that this Treaty will inaugurate an era of commercial prosperity, because the Japanese are a nation as commercially enterprising as ourselves. In this Treaty with Japan Lord Salisbury has capped and completed a most illustrious career as the most brilliant Foreign Minister England ever had. The result will be to increase our prosperity and prestige amongst the nations, and to extend our trade enormously.
Mr. NORMAN: My only object in moving the adjournment was

1313
to elicit information, and that desire having been gratified to some extent—though not to a very great extent—by the interesting speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House and the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, I now ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion by leave withdrawn.

NEW PROCEDURE RULES.
[THIRD DAY'S DEBATE.]

ORDER IN DEBATE.
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Standing Order 21 (Order in Debate), as amended [11th February]:—
And which Amendment was, in line 17 (in the second paragraph), to leave out the words "shall continue for one week, on the second occasion for a fortnight, and on the third or any subsequent occasion for a month," and insert the words "in any session shall continue until the expiration of the next twenty days on which the House sits, on the second occasion until the expiration of the next forty days on which the House sits, and on the third or any subsequent occasion until the expiration of the next eighty days on which the House sits, and the number of days of suspension shall be reckoned irrespectively of any prorogation or adjournment.
If a Member is suspended under this Order, his suspension shall, notwithstanding the expiration of the days of suspension aforesaid, continue until he has written a letter to the Speaker, expressing his sincere regret to the House for the offence for which he has been suspended.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
Questions again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Standing Order."
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: On Tuesday night the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House appealed to me to shorten the discussion upon this Rule—
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On this stage.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I listened to the appeal with no little astonishment, for of all the alterations in the Rules which have been proposed by the Government in their scheme, this one is by far the most important and far-reaching. The other Rules deal with matters concerning the shortening of debate, the order in which business shall be taken, and the general convenience of Members;
1314
but this Rule deals with a great constitutional question of the utmost gravity. The Rule I refer to deals with the right of duly elected Members of Parliament to fulfil their duty to their constituencies in this House; it deals with the right of the House to disfranchise constituencies; and, indeed, if we are to judge by some of the declarations made from the Government Bench, the right of this House to decide who is and who is not fit to sit in this House as the representative of a constituency. These questions and others of a similar character are raised by this proposal, and it seems to me astonishing that the House of Commons should be asked to debate a proposal of this kind without the most careful and the most searching debate. I may remind the House that in 1882, when the Closure Rule was proposed, the debate on that one Resolution alone lasted for 19 nights; and in 1887, when the late Mr. W. H. Smith proposed a new Closure Rule—and this was after the principle of the Closure had been accepted by Parliament—the debate on that new Rule lasted 14 nights. I know that the right hon. Gentleman said the other night that, in his opinion, the Closure Rule was the most revolutionary change that had ever been made in the Procedure of the House. I do not take that view. The Closure was a most important and far-reaching change, but after all the Closure Rule only dealt with an arrangement made by the House itself for the management of debate, and for the limitation of the right of free speech—a most important change, no doubt, but still a change that did not raise, in my opinion, in any sense the grave constitutional question with which this Rule we are now considering is concerned. My view is that the Closure was not half as serious a Rule for the future of this House as the Rule we are now discussing, and if 19 days on the first occasion were not too long to take in discussing the Closure Rule, and if 14 days were not too long for the new Closure Rule in 1887, it seems to me little short of ridiculous for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the general discussion of this Rule ought to be limited to one, two, three, or for that matter four nights.
It seems to me that when the House bears in mind the character of this new Rule it

1315
will be well for it to act slowly, cautiously and deliberately. This new Rule as it stands at present contemplates the possibility of the expulsion for the whole of a Parliament—for the whole of the remainder of Parliament—of any number of Members. It contemplates the possibility of the arbitrary disfranchisement for the whole of Parliament of an unlimited number of constituencies. It contemplates the possibility of the revival of those contests between this House and the constituencies in the country which are not unknown in the history of the House of Commons, and which have always resulted in the past in the injuring of the dignity, reputation, and power of Parliament; and it seems to me that in dealing with such a proposal as that, the House ought to proceed with the utmost caution. Now, the far-reaching effect of this Rule, its high constitutional import, its certain risks and its uncertain benefits, are all practically admitted by every speaker who has taken part in the debate, by the representatives of the Government as well as by everyone else. The first question which I think naturally occurs to the mind of any man who comes to the consideration of this Rule is, Why is this proposal made? In view of the serious character of this proposal, I say that to justify its production here at all by the Government, a case of absolute necessity should be put forward. It should be shown, for example, that the existing Rules for the maintenance of order were absolutely inefficient, it should be shown that the existing rules had completely broken down, it should be shown that disorder and disregard and defiance of the authority of the Chair were of frequent occurrence, and that there was practically in the existing Rules no means of checking and punishment. In point of fact, it should have been shown by the Government that a crisis had arisen, and that the evil was of so desperate a character that they were justified in proposing a desperate remedy. Nothing less, in my mind, can justify a proposal so serious and far-reaching and unconstitutional as this rule—a rule which has today absolutely no parallel in any legislative chamber in any civilised nation in the whole world.
Now let me ask, has such a case been
1316
made out? The hon. Member for South Longford dealt powerfully with this point, and he asked what case had been made by the Government in support of this Rule, and in the debate which followed he was not answered. The Leader of the Opposition in his speech made the same demand. He said—
"The House of Commons, if it is necessary to do this strong thing, to pass this unconstitutional Rule—if it is necessary, I believe the House of Commons will be willing to do it; but show us the necessity."
He asked Ministers to make out and to show in what the present Rules were inefficient to copy with disorder. It is not only that the Government have not made a good case; they have made no case at all. The First Lord of the Treasury, in the interesting speech with which he introduced these Rules, dealt minutely with the many changes he proposed in the procedure of the House. He dwelt at length upon the changes you are asked to make with reference to our dinner, with reference to the time at which we are to take Questions, and other matters, and he gave what, possibly, no doubt seemed to him a strong case, from the point of view of convenience, for some of the alterations, at any rate, which he proposed. But the one serious alteration affecting the constitutional rights of the Members of this House, affecting the rights of constituencies outside, the one serious revolutionary change which he proposes, he did not support by one single word of argument. I confess I listened with amazement as his speech went on, to find that he had nothing to say in support of this Rule. It is not, I believe, that he has made a bad case in support of the Rule; he has made no case at all. He absolutely treated with contempt, apparently, the demand that he should offer any argument in support of the Rule at all.
So much for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Rule. What attitude has been taken by those who followed on that Bench? The Colonial Secretary made a long and able speech in support of the new Rules, but again he deliberately abstained from any attempt to show that the existing Rules had broken down, and that it was necessary to strengthen them in order to put down a state of disorder. The Government have made no case in support of the Rule, because they had no

1317
case they could make. Let me, in one or two brief moments, consider how matters stand. I will not deal with the special case that arose, last March, a case exceptional in its nature and character, a case which was legislated for on the spot, a case which is not practically touched by these Rules at all, because the legislation passed for it was passed for an emergency. Let me deal with any other case of disorder that arose, and I make the assertion that for many years past there have been so few cases of even a technical disregard for the authority of the Chair, and so few cases of anything that could be called disorder on the floor of the House, that it is an absurdity to pretend that the present rules for dealing with disorder have broken down. What happened last session? There were three Members suspended, on three different occasions. Each one of the cases, the House will remember, arose out of some ebullitions of temper. They were dealt with on the spot. They caused no disorder in the House, no disorder whatever. There was an exhibition of temper on the part of the Member, and the Member was suspended without disorder. These were the only cases, and is it pretended for a moment that the rules which operated that way last year and for other years in the past, did not deal sufficiently with the case? Why, Sir, it is absurd. It is to be borne in mind that for the last 15 years there has been only one case of a member being suspended twice, and I believe, not to limit myself to 15 years at all, but to take a period of, say, the last 25 years there are not more than two cases. Now, I say this in order to make that an argument that the existing rules effectually prevent disorder. When breaches of order have taken place and a Member in the heat of the moment has disregarded the authority of the Chair, they have been dealt with under the existing rules. These cases have been infrequent, and there is no need to strengthen the rules as they stand at this moment. Then I ask, if this be so, why is it that the Government are proposing this Rule? Why in the absence of any case of necessity, when the existing Rules are working smoothly and efficiently, do they propose this extraordinary and unconstitutional and revolutionary change, affecting, as I have said, the constitutional rights of
1318
Members and of the constituencies of the country?
Now, Sir, this is a serious question. Why is it that this Rule is proposed? Nobody has pretended it is because there is any necessity for it. Why is it proposed? We heard the answer given with perfect candour by the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh. He had the courage and the manliness to say what was in the mind of the Government, but which they had not the courage to declare to the House. This Rule is a declaration of war against the Irish Members and the Irish Party. We on these benches are a united and a disciplined body of men. We know our own minds, and we pursue our own policy quite regardless of the mere party interests of any English political party, and the power of such, a body in this House is felt, and it would seem to me is feared. We have this new Rule proposed, not because the old rules have broken down, but because, as the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh said it is desirable to inaugurate a system of reprisals against the Irish Party for the disagreeable action they have taken, not in breaches of order, but in the way in which they have conducted their business in this House. I hope I will not be considered as offensive if I say that in my opinion there was something little short of a contemptible want of candour on the part of the Leader of the House and the Colonial Secretary in this matter. They, forsooth, said that this has no particular application to the Irish Members, that it is not intended for the Irish Members more than anybody else. The Colonial Secretary came down here the other day, and, in the mildest and most conciliatory manner, smilingly assured us across the House that it was not intended for us and that nobody said it was except we ourselves. My mind went back when he was speaking to some declarations which he and other members of the Government made during the recess on this matter. The first hint we got about the new Rules being brought in to deal with the Irish Members was in the famous Blenheim speech of the First Lord of the Treasury. The First Lord of the Treasury, at Blenheim, spoke of the action of the Irish Members as being of a nature intended to degrade

1319
the Imperial Parliament. But the Colonial Secretary went one better in his speech. He said—
"It is my conviction that the nation is taking note of these proceedings. I think that they expect that the Mother of Parliaments will know how to defend herself against these attacks, attacks by men who, by our liberality, come to us in numbers disproportionate to the wealth, intelligence, and population they represent."
And to show to the House that this was a deliberate policy on the part of the Government to apply these restrictions to the Irish Members in particular, allow me to quote two or three words from a speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has never been immoderate in his attacks on the Irish Party at all, and who has certainly never been a source of irritation to us by his speeches. I quote him to show that this was the deliberate policy which tonight was overthrown by the right hon. Gentleman and by the Colonial Secretary. On the 10th October he said—
"The Irish Party must be dealt with; some alteration in the procedure of the House of Commons must be passed which will enable it to cope with this difficulty; and I hope and believe that these suggested alterations will be so framed as to have particular regard to the methods and aims of the Gentleman whose action has brought upon us the necessity of altering our old Rules."
And the Colonial Secretary in Edinburgh, on 25th October, after denouncing the Irish Party in terms which were most extreme and insulting, and which I will not read out, said—
"I do not expect any assistance from the Opposition in dealing with Irish rowdiness and Irish obstruction. We shall have to do that ourselves. We shall be left to vindicate the honour of Parliament as best we may. We propose next session to bring forward Rules which will give the House of Commons a greater control over the men who insult and outrage it."
Now, I want to know what becomes of this pretence which is solemnly put forward by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Colonial Secretary that, forsooth, these Rules are not intended for the Irish Members at all; that the Irish Members probably would never come under their operation; that they were not in their mind at all, but that they proposed this revolution in the Rules affecting the rights of Members and constituencies, simply as a part of a benevolent scheme for promoting the domestic felicity of Members of this House. It is an absurdity.
1320
Every honest man in this House, and, of course, we are all honest as well as honourable, knows in his heart, whatever he may say or not say, that these Rules are framed with the special intention of applying to the Irish Members. And I repeat that, in my opinion, it is a somewhat contemptible want of candour on the part of the Leader of the House and of the Colonial Secretary to pretend that they are not intended against Irish Members. Now, if these Rules are directed against a particular section of this House, then, I beg the House to consider whether that does not throw an enormous responsibility upon them in carefully scrutinising the character of the new Rules. If this House is going to legislate in order to hurt or limit the power of special sections of this House, we certainly ought not to hear appeals on the part of the First Lord for shortening debate. We ought to have the fullest and most searching discussion which it is possible to have, before a Rule, introduced with such a motive, is passed into law.
Let me very briefly examine this new Rule. In the first place I desire, most emphatically, on behalf of the Irish Members of this House, to repudiate the absurd idea that we have any interest in disorder in this House. It is absurd. We have no such interest, and, for my part, I always regret disorder in this House, although I am open to the taunt that I have more than once been the cause of it. I may say more than that. We admit that the authority of the Chair must be maintained. Why, we are engaged in an effort to obtain once more, for our country, a legislature. Do hon. Members imagine that we desire to degrade and destroy the whole theory and practice of constitutional representative Government, or to see it destroyed in this House? Nothing of the kind! We recognise, of course, that every Legislative Assembly must maintain order, must uphold the authority of the Chain Aye, I go the full length of the First Lord, who said it must uphold the authority of the Chair in a decision, whether that decision is right or wrong. I go the full length in saying that it must be respected, and further, that the Chair must be invested with the authority to punish any act of disobeying or defying the authority of the Chair.

1321
But this Rule is, in the first place, as I have endeavoured to show, unnecessary, because the authority of the Chair—taking human nature as it is, year in and year out—is very fairly, and, I think, efficiently respected and carried out, and every disobedience to the authority of the Chair is sufficiently punished. Next, it is most vindictive in its application to the Members who will come under it. It is directed against one particular section of the House, and it is in itself an unconstitutional violation of the rights of constituencies outside. There is one question I would like to ask, if I am not transgressing any rule of order; and that is, have the authorities of this House been consulted about this Rule? The Leader of the Opposition proposed an Amendment the other night, that a Committee of the House should be appointed to consider these Rules before they were proposed here. Now, here is a Rule affecting the maintenance of order upon which it would be of the most enormous value to have the evidence of the Speaker, the Chairman of Committees, and the officials of the House. When a change of so serious a character as will be made by this Rule is proposed, I say it is scarcely decent to the House of Commons to propose it without having obtained the opinion of the officers of the House upon it. I do not think the House ought to be asked to accept this Rule until it has had the advice of those who will have to administer the Rule when it is passed.
Now, Sir, I shall deal very shortly with the question of punishment. In addition to punishment for disobedience the House is to exact an expression of sincere regret. There is no precedent or analogy to justify such a proposal. Contempt of Court is not analogous. I could imagine cases in which the House might be justified in demanding an apology; but this Rule left no discretion to the House. It has been said that the man who would not apologize was not fit to sit in the House. But that raised the question whether the House was to arrogate to itself the right, as if it were a club, to say who is and is not fit to sit in the House. I would ask the House to pause before it attempts to assert this right. It has
1322
attempted to assert such a right before, but in every case it has met with humiliation and disaster. It did it in the case of Wilkes, and again and again he was expelled because you thought that for his writings on speeches he was unfitted to sit in this House. Well, in the end the House had to give way, and in my own recollection a most signal instance of this took place when Mr. Bradlaugh was refused admission to the House because of the opinions he held, and because of books that he had written. The House took up a position as though they had the right to say to the constituency, "We consider the man you have sent in unfit to sit amongst us." Well, the contest went on and just as in every other case the House of Commons was beaten, and Mr. Bradlaugh in the end came back to this House and sat here for years and was a highly respected Member, and the House will perhaps recollect one very dramatic and touching incident connected with Mr. Bradlaugh's career. When he was lying on his death bed, about one or two days before he died, this House of Commons, by a unanimous vote, which did honour to it, resolved to expunge from their records the Resolution expelling him from amongst them, and almost the last intelligence that reached him before death stole upon him was the intelligence of this act of reparation by this House.
What is the position? Every time the House has attempted in the past to decide who is fit and who is not fit to sit here they have had to give way. The constitutional right is in the constituency to send to this House whom they please to represent them. Let us see what will happen under this Rule. Suppose the case of a man who refuses to give this apology as it is called. What will you do suppose he applies for the Chiltern Hundreds. Are you going to refuse him the Chiltern Hundreds? There is no precedent for the refusal of the Chiltern Hundreds except where the person applying has been guilty of dishonourable or criminal acts; there are some instances of the kind, but very few. There are some recent instances where, in such a case, the Chiltern Hundreds have been refused, but in no other case was it ever refused. Are you going to refuse it? Because, Mr. Speaker, if you

1323
intend to refuse it that will mean the permanent disfranchisement of the constituency of the man, and you should not argue this upon the case of one man because it may happen in the case of a number of men, and you must not judge of this Rule in its best aspect but in its worst. If you refuse a man the Chiltern Hundreds you disfranchise permanently the constituency, but if you do not refuse him the Chiltern Hundreds you will enter into one of those contests through which you cannot hope to come with either credit or success. The Leader of the House alluded to what he called a threat which he said that I uttered. I had no intention of uttering a threat. I was endeavouring then to do what I am endeavouring to do now. I was endeavouring to see how this Rule would operate, and I said then, and I repeat it now, that under the operation of this Rule the time might come—I did not say that it would, and I hope that it may not—whenthe whole Irish representation would be compulsorily excluded from this House during the whole of the Parliament. Would that be an advantageous thing for the connection between Ireland and the rest of the Empire? We are often accused of being extremists, but after all everyone knows very well that there are many men who are more extreme than we. Everybody knows that there are men in Ireland who have no faith whatever in constitutional movements in Ireland; men who preach the doctrine that we waste time in coming to this House; men who preach the doctrine of constitutional agitation for the redress of Irish grievances is of no use, and that the only means of redressing them is by physical force directed in some way or other against England, and it is possible that you might, by the total exclusion of the entire Irish representation from this House, destroy once and for all the possibility of conducting constitutional and Parliamentary movements in Ireland. I ask you, in all seriousness—and do not let the First Lord of the Treasury say I am uttering a threat; I am not doing anything of the kind; I approach this question with some sense of responsibility—I ask you, in all seriousness, is that a contingency to which you can look forward with any complacency whatever? Every man connected with Ireland
1324
and the Empire would be forced to look on such a contingency with alarm, and such a contingency is possible if this Rule is passed.
Sir, I am anxious to be moderate and reasonable, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman for these reasons which seem to me to be overwhelming and grave and serious reasons, and I ask him to pause and ponder before he goes further with this Rule. There is no enthusiasm in support of this Rule on the part of anyone, either in the House or out of it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire was perfectly right when he said the other night that the whole feeling of the House was against it. We have heard a few speeches from the other side of the House, but almost all had deprecated this Rule up to the present. There is no one among the supporters of the Government who supports it in his heart, and none of the newspapers outside this House support it. I read in one of the strongest partisan journals an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to moderate this Rule. If he carries this Rule it will simply be by the enforced Party obedience which drives a man into it against his will in response to the Party whip. If we could decide this question by ballot, I have no hesitation in saying that this Rule would be very seriously modified or withdrawn altogether. In proposing this Rule the Government, as I have said, are doing an unnecessary thing; they are adopting a rash and hazardous course; they are taking an unconstitutional step; and they are committing the House to a vindictive, and therefore a weak policy. For my part I make no appeal ad misericordiam. I make on behalf of the Irish Members no appeal in this matter, but I say with the House of Commons that on the broadest grounds of consideration for their own interest as a legislative Chamber; on the broadest grounds of the constitutional rights of the constituencies on the ground of manliness and fair-play and justice, that the House of Commons will do well to ponder well and hesitate before they pass a Rule which is capable of working in the way I describe and which, in the long run, may do more to injure Parliament and impair this House than the

1325
acts of those who are supposed to be its bitterest enemies.
Mr. LOYDhoped that the Government would not withdraw the very reasonable and temperate proposal that a Member who has been guilty of such deliberate and sustained defiance of the authority of the Chair as to call for his suspension should not resume his place without an expression of sincere regret for the offence for which he was suspended. The right hon. and learned Member for South Longford closed his speech the other day with the statement that the existing Rules were quite sufficient, that the proposal was made by the Government with the object not of maintaining order in the House but of excluding the Irish Members who had shown themselves skilled in the technical rules of debate and so had become troublesome to the Government. That was a reason which might be good enough for the purpose of hostile Party attack against the Government, but even if any one could be found to believe it, it would be quite inadequate to explain the feeling in the constituencies that the Rules for maintaining the authority of the Chair required strengthening, and that some recognition of the supremacy of this House ought to be made the condition of returning to take part in its debates after such flagrant discourtesy and defiance of the Chair as could alone cause a Member's suspension.
This question of the expression of regret had hitherto chiefly been considered as a matter of taste and fancy and sentiment among the Members themselves, and some hon. Members had taken credit to themselves for great magnanimity and declared that they could quite imagine themselves being betrayed in a time of excitement into a defiance of the Chair, and therefore they were prepared to forego the requirement of any apology. He doubted if any Member of the House would feel the slightest satisfaction in the fact that a brother Member had had occasion to express regret for his insults to the Chair. He did not think they would be guided to a proper decision in this matter, by looking at their own feelings
1326
exclusively, and leaving out of view the feelings of outrage, humiliation, and disgust with which their constituents were afflicted when they read of this assembly, which after all was their assembly, being degraded and humiliated in the eyes of the world. And if their feelings were repeatedly outraged in this way there would come to be super-added to the sense of shame and humiliation a feeling of distrust in the competence of this House to protect itself and its proceedings from insult. And the contempt which they at first felt for the aggressors would be transferred, and justly transferred, to the Assembly which submitted to those deliberate insults, or at all events, showed itself unable or unwilling to protect itself against them. He approached this question with no animosity towards any Member or section of the House, and asked himself this question, "What is the very least which my constituents, and, therefore, the constituencies generally, are entitled to, as a protection against the humiliation, and disappointment, and loss of confidence in their representative assembly, which are produced in their minds by these repeated and successful attacks upon the authority of the Chair?" And he felt convinced that nothing short of a formal recognition by the offending party, that his misconduct was a matter for regret, before he came back to share in the proceedings of their National Assembly, could relieve them of the humiliation which they suffered at the hands of the offender. Many things had been said in this debate about the childishness, or the cruelty, or the vindictiveness of wishing to receive an apology as if the acceptance of an expression of regret were not in all civilised countries and in all ages a well-known method of reinstating the injured party in his own self-respect, and in the estimation of his neighbours, and at the same time rendering the aggressor less willing to offend again.
The healing and soothing effect of an expression of regret upon the feelings of the injured party was based upon the best and most generous instincts of our nature, and its deterrent effect on the offender operated upon just those springs of conduct which needed control, his impulsiveness, his hasty temper in the least heinous cases, his vanity, his love

1327
of display, his desire for notoriety in the more deliberate instances.
For these reasons he considered the constituencies were the injured parties, and were looking to the House to protect them from the recurrence of these insults. In the second place, he regarded the expression of regret as a well recognised expedient for soothing the outraged feelings of the injured constituencies and making the aggressor less likely to offend again.
Now, how was it sought to frighten them off making this very reasonable requirement? First, they were told that they were depriving a graceful act of all attraction by making it compulsory. But there was nothing to prevent a Member, who wished to reinstate himself promptly in the good opinion of the House and the country, taking the earliest opportunity of conveying his good, and generous, and kindly frame of mind to the Speaker as the representative of the collective authority and dignity of the House.
Secondly, they were told that they were calling upon a Member not to do an act only, but to get into a frame of mind called "repentance." But they did nothing of the kind; all they said was that unless the House had before it evidence that the offender was in that frame of mind, it would not be desirable for him to have the opportunity of repeating his offence, and that if he stated that he was in that frame of mind they would accept his word for it. The House did not force him to tell a lie; if he was not sincerely regretful, if he was unprincipled enough to do so, he, no doubt, had the opportunity, but they no more forced him to tell a lie by requiring from him a statement of regret than they were responsible for perjury in tendering the oath of allegiance as a condition precedent to entering upon the confidential and responsible position of Membership in the first instance. Then it was said, "Oh, but then Members will get themselves suspended, and remain intentionally suspended, after they might otherwise return, or they may be unable honestly to say they are sorry for disregarding the authority of the Chair. But the man who remained out intentionally in order to create a grievance, or who really approved of his own conduct in resisting the Chair, would not be a fit person to come and take part
1328
in the proceedings of this House, and the sympathy of the public would not be with him, and his chances of martyrdom would be nil.
Fourthly, it was said, granted that the offender would not be entitled to pose as a martyr, his constituents would be, for the time, disfranchised. So they ought to be if they chose to elect a man who was not prepared to abide by the elementary rules of order without which a business meeting could not be conducted. But if they disapproved, what greater, what more legitimate leverage could be brought to bear on a Member misbehaving himself than the disapprobation of his constituents?
Fifthly and lastly, it was said, "Take care; you are provoking a conflict with the constituency, and the House of Commons is sure to be beaten in the end. As to this argument, he believed it was based on precedents where free thought or free press or other prejudices had been aroused in the people, and he did not believe that where it was a question of the disregard of the elementary rules of good order in the Popular Assembly, the sympathy of the country would be on the side of the offender. But even if the offender were able, by taking the Chiltern Hundreds, to put this House in a difficulty, was the country reduced to such a point of indifference and imbecility that it would not support Parliament in any legislation necessary to make such an offender an ineligible candidate, where the constituency sought to force him back into the House, in evasion of rules made from no other motive than to ensure the orderly and proper discharge by Parliament of its duties? By the proposed new Rule the disorderly Member was not called upon to express regret for any of his political opinions, but merely for his defiance of the Chair. The offender in this case for whom sympathy would be claimed would be a man who had so undue an opinion of his own importance that, while ready to insult and humiliate the rest of the House and the constituents throughout the Kingdom, he was yet unwilling or unable to make any honourable reparation for his insults to others, for fear of being lowered thereby in his own precious vanity and self-esteem. He did not believe the time

1329
had come, or was likely to come, when the country would be against the House of Commons in insisting upon such a moderate proposal as this in the interest of Parliamentary decorum. But if there were any risk of misunderstanding outside the House he would advise the Government to run that risk and deal with the threatened difficulties when they arose. They were not likely to be worse; they could not be worse than the reduction of the House of Commons to the position of impotence and ridicule and contempt into which it had now been driven by repeated undisguised and hitherto unrepelled attacks from within. He should certainly vote for the Resolution. (8.15.)
(8.50.) Mr. EMMOTTsaid he took part in the debate with a good deal of diffidence, and it was only because he felt very strongly on this particular question that he ventured to speak at all. He would speak with entire freedom from any party bias with regard to the matter. He approached the consideration of the rules with an earnest desire to make the House of Commons a better legislative machine and also a more useful check on the administration of the Government. He thought the penalties attached to suspension too long. He understood that there had only been one case of a second suspension of an hon. Member in one session during the last 25 years. The Rule now proposed was entirely beyond anything for which there was any precedent in the rules of representative Assemblies in foreign countries. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury in deprecating comparison with the rules of foreign Assemblies, but if order was less often broken in this legislative assembly than in any other in the world, it could not be argued that our punishments should go beyond those of which foreign nations made use in their legislative Assemblies. He passed from the question of punishment to deal with what was the real objection to the new Rule they were discussing, namely, the apology to follow the punishment. That was either a mere triviality not worth their attention, or there lay behind it a great constitutional question, which might easily bring the
1330
House into conflict with the constituencies. He would not dwell on the distinction, which had occupied a good deal of time in the debate, between an apology and an expression of sincere regret. The First Lord of the Treasury, who had no mean reputation as a philosopher, said that the distinction between the two expressions was too subtle for his comprehension, and the Colonial Secretary, who did not pose as a philosopher, but as a practical man—so practical, in fact, that on one occasion he said he did not care two pence for the laws with which he was dealing at the moment—said that "there is some distinction between an expression of regret and an apology." He would not venture to decide who of these two great authorities was correct. For his purpose, he did not care in the least who was correct. The apology was for an offence. The offence according to the Rule was, first, disregarding the authority of the Chair; second, persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House; and third, abusing the rules of the House otherwise than by obstruction. The Colonial Secretary, with his usual ability and force, said that all these offences were equivalent to disregarding the authority of the Chair, whether in the person of Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Committees. He submitted with all respect that that was not the case. They must, in regard to this matter, look ahead. If the present line of increased stringency were carried further—instead of adopting what was the real remedy for the evil, a system of devolution—many new offences might appear, the nature of which they could hardly prophesy at the present time. He might mention an incident which had just been discovered, namely, that an hon. Member had signed his own name and 24 others in the ballot book. That might be described as an abuse of the rules of the House, and it would be perfectly possible for Mr. Speaker, if he chose, to bring the name of the Member who did so before the House. He ventured to say that the more they tightened the rules of debate the more ingenuity would be exercised to evade the rules.
The First Lord of the Treasury and the Colonial Secretary had exhausted all their ingenuity 'to show that an expression of sincere regret, which was now to be asked

1331
from any Member who was suspended from the service of the House, was a mere formal matter. They described it as similar to the withdrawal by an hon. Member when called to order for using an un-Parliamentary expression in the heat of debate. In regard to this matter, the expression of "sincere regret" was to be given in respect of "the offence for which he has been suspended." Now, the withdrawal of an un-Parliamentary expression, used in heat of debate, was often a technical matter; but when an hon. Member was suspended from the service of the House, it had often been because of the action of that Member taken, as he believed, in the defence of a great principle. He did not separate the technical breach of the rules of the House from the principle on which he acted; and the more earnest and sincere he was, the less likely was it that he would separate these two things. One of the earliest cases of obstruction of which he had any knowledge was carried on more than 100 years ago, when Mr. Burke and several other Members forced the House to sit all night discussing the question of a restriction of the liberty of the Press. On that occasion Mr. Burke said, "Posterity will bless the pertinacity of this day," and when an hon. Member was suspended he generally believed that posterity would bless his pertinacity. What they wanted to do was to give a Member time to think over his action, and, if he had that time, he might be able to say that he was frankly sorry for what he had done, and that the action he took was entirely unworthy. If so, no apology was needed from him, and he would be the last man to commit the offence again. On the other hand, an hon. Member might regret his collision with the Chair, but rejoice in the protest which he had made. If he were an honest and sincere man he might be able in such a case to make a technical apology; but another man, equally honest and sincere, might be entirely unable to disconnect the technical breach and the cause of the offence against the rules of the House. There was a third case in which an hon. Member might rejoice in a breach of
1332
the rules of the House, and in the cause of it. In that event they put a premium on hypocrisy by demanding a "sincere apology"; or they would disfranchise the constituency for an indefinite period, which he maintained the House had no right to do. He confessed he was never so much surprised as when the First Lord of the Treasury said that he did not understand why there should be any sympathy with a constituency the Member for which refused to apologise to the Chair. The whole point of the representative system was that they must give due weight to the opinion of the entire country, and if they cut off one, two, fifty or eighty Members from the House, they crippled the Parliamentary system, which was the foundation of our representative system. It would be like the futile proclamation to the Boers in August last. The opinion of Ministers seemed to be that if a Member apologised they were no worse, but if he did not, then the House was well rid of a knave. Something had been said about the treatment of persons who had committed contempt of Court, but he maintained that the analogy did not hold at all. The Judiciary was composed, for the most part, of distinguished gentlemen who were not only men of the world, but men who had a good deal of human nature in their composition. In the case of contempt of Court, the Judge or Judges fixed the punishment, and it was practically never of a long-continuing, or permanent character; but above all, the Judge could alter the punishment at any time. But in this case they were asked to pass a rigid rule, that a Member guilty of disorder must have a certain fixed punishment, and at the end of that punishment he must express "sincere regret" for his offence. The system of punishment for contempt of Court was elastic and variable, and proportioned to the offence; while the system which the House was asked to adopt was rigid, and without elasticity.
It seemed to him that the very painful incident which occurred last year had affected the minds of His Majesty's Ministers; but he maintained that that incident would never have occurred if they had had the power of suspending

1333
the sitting for a short time, or if the leaders of the Irish Party had been present at the time. He saw no reason why anything that had occurred since that event should induce them to legislate in haste. In conclusion, he wished to say that he entirely agreed with the very powerful argument of the hon. Member for Waterford, and with the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that no cause had been shown why this Rule should be passed. For whom was it to be passed? The Government denied that it was meant for the Irish Members; they said it was meant for a hypothetical offence which had not yet occurred; but he could not believe that the present House of Commons would consent to pass a Rule like this unless some cause had been shown for it. He hoped he might be allowed to speak a little more strongly in regard to the forced apology which was to be made at the end of a greatly enhanced period of punishment. That was an un-English and unfair method of dealing with the case, and was entirely opposed to human nature. Precedents were against it. Did the right hon. Gentlemen apologise for foolish expressions or their own mistakes? They apologised for the mistakes of others, but not for their own. What they had said, they had said. There was one instance in which an apology was made by a statesman. The late Mr. Gladstone did apologise for words which he had used in regard to a foreign country; but he was a great man, and could afford to apologise. A forced apology was a poor weapon even against children in the nursery or boys at school; and if a schoolmaster was unable to control his boys without constantly demanding an apology he was unfit for his work. He maintained that it was totally repugnant to all their ideas of fair play to ask a man to suffer punishment and then to apologise. If they were to have new rules, these should be for a modification of punishment, and not for its prolongation. By Article 39 of the Belgian Parliamentary Code, an end was put to temporary exclusion from the Chamber by the Member declaring in writing "that he regrets he disregarded the decision of the Chamber." He would make the serious and practical suggestion that, if they increased the length of the punishment in connection with this
1334
matter, they should make it possible for an hon. Member to purge the remainder of the offence by making an apology, and then to allow him to take his seat once more. He ventured to appeal to the Government—although he was afraid it would not do much good—to reject this policy of unconditional surrender after punishment. He did not ask His Majesty's Ministers to humiliate themselves, and to express their sincere regret for the proposals they had made on this subject, but to take into consideration the feeling of the great majority in this House against the proposed Rule. Whoever invented this policy, it was framed in a spirit of narrow and tyrannical martinet. He believed that if the Rule were eventually passed, it would either have to be rescinded or it would be ignored. He entirely opposed the suggestion that there should be an apology as well as punishment.
Mr. LAW)said a great point had been made of the fact that no case whatever had been made out by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House for this change in the rules of the House, but the only way in which it could be justified by the right hon. Gentleman was by calling attention to a scene of disorder which he more than anyone else desired to forget. The rules which existed now did not admit of punishment adequate to that scene, and although it might be said that rules had already been made to deal with that particular case, it was distinctly stated at the time those rules were passed that they were only temporary in their character, and that the whole question would be dealt with in a broader spirit. The rules before the House were the result. It had been said by the hon. Member for Waterford that the statements of the right hon. Gentleman that these rules were not directed against the Irish Party were disingenuous, but a distinction must be drawn here. Everyone who made rules of this kind had of necessity before his mind the difficulties with which the House would have to deal, and he would not be doing his duty if he did not frame rules in such a way as to deal with that form of disorder which was likely to occur. The form of disorder

1335
which had to be dealt with was organised disorder, and the only quarter from which organised disorder came was the Irish Benches. The rules, therefore, are not directed against the Irish Members as Irish Members, but they are directed against that section of the House from which organised disorder is to be feared. Although the hon. and learned Member for Waterford spoke of his love of order and dislike for disorder in the strong speech which he had delivered, he had also told the House that he and those who supported him came here in an interest unconnected with any Party in the House of Commons, whilst in a previous speech he had said that while England, Scotland, and Wales reverenced the traditions of the House of Commons, he and his followers looked upon it as an instrument of tyranny and oppression. If that were the hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion, it was obvious that in an interest which he thought greater than the interests of order, he would not hesitate to humiliate the House. He agreed in the main with what had been said with regard to the apology. It seemed to him that an apology was not required. He thought the punishment fitted the offence, besides which an apology was, he thought, a mistake from another point of view. He did not believe it would have any effect upon organised disorder. If there were any body of Members of this House who wished for their own purposes to organise disorder, they would contrive some means by which they could fulfil the conditions of the Standing Order, and at the same time preserve their influence with those outside the House to please whom they had organised the disorder. He thought the insistence on an apology almost approached the verge of unfairness. There might be something in the precedent of contempt of Court, but it seemed to him that the universal opinion was that if the offence that was committed was one for which an apology was accepted, the apology ended the matter, and the House could not, without unfairness, inflict the utmost penalty and then demand an apology.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid the conclusion to which he was inevitably drawn in this debate was that if hon. Members opposite had attended with assiduity to the discussion of the Rule, there were very few of them who would support the Government in this matter. He opposed these Rules generally, and this Rule in particular, firstly, because no case had been made out by the Government in support of it, and secondly, that the multiplication of the penalties was not calculated to serve the purpose which the Government had in view, but to defeat it. It was not today that obstruction and disorder in the House of Commons had arisen for the first time; if they looked back, they would find that scenes of disorder and violence, exceeding by a hundredfold anything which had taken place of late years, were, perpetrated in the House without any interference by the Speaker, and what was more, without detriment to the lasting dignity and efficiency of the House itself; because hon. Members then had, as they had now, the honour and dignity of the House at heart. He had been in the House for 17 years, and he could safely say, allowing for a little more breeziness in debate on the Irish Benches, and allowing for a little stronger language arising possibly from stronger convictions, there had been no disorder on the part of Irish Members which called for exceptional legislation. He was not a Party man, and he had been astonished by the amount of self-restraint and loyal deference to the Standing Orders of this House that had been displayed by the Irish Members. The one scene in the House at which he was present was one in which Irish Members were not concerned, and from Mr. Parnell downwards Irish Members had always used their influence on the side of law and order and to maintain a proper deference to the Chair. He could not recall a single case where Irish Members had availed themselves of the legitimate, though discreditable, method of delaying the business of the House by lurking in the lobbies in place of recording their votes. Was this Rule necessary? What had been done by the Irish

1337
Members to warrant the introduction of this exceedingly drastic remedy? Those who sat in the House were not perturbed or shocked by these scenes to the same extent as the smug-faced citizen who read the exaggerated reports of them in the daily papers. If it was the abominable and disreputable exaggeration of the Press which, to his mind, caused the Government to take up the attitude they had on this question, they might rely on the faith and goodwill of the House, If it was a matter of principle as was explained by the hon. Member for Oldham on the previous night, then no amount of penalty would prevent the man doing what he thought was his duty to his constituency. No one wished to see disorder, and everybody desired to see business conducted in an orderly manner, but when, on a matter of conscience, a man stood up as did Mr. Plimsoll and defied the rules of the House, all he could say was he would far rather be like him, a wrongdoer, than an observer of the rules and regulations of the House in the way that the Leader of the House would desire them to be.
So much for the general question. With regard to the particular character of the Rule, the House was asked to say a Member should undergo a cumulative penalty. Sometimes an offence might be so serious that the full penalty of 80 days ought to be inflicted, and sometimes so serious that the offender ought to be expelled from the House altogether, and if a man so misconducted himself, by all means let the ancient law and customs of the House be enforced and let him be expelled. But 80 days for such an offence, as speaking with undue irrelevance, was against all common sense. Yet, if a man filled with public ardour was guilty of this offence and had been twice previously named, he had to submit to that penalty. Supposing a Member were named under those circumstances and was to be awarded the penalty of 80 days, the House might consider the penalty to be excessive, and the Motion of the First Lord of the Treasury might be defeated, and there would be an undoubted injury inflicted on the prestige of the Chair. It would be far better to make the Rule as elastic
1338
as possible. Let the House apply the Rule and make it as heavy as necessary, but let them not make it accumulative. There were degrees of offences; an offence might be committed by a Member, for which 20 days suspension might be a wholly insufficient penalty; yet, because a trivial offence had been committed for the third time, the Member who committed it was to be ostracised for the whole of one session and possibly a part of another. Such a thing might happen to even a Minister of the Crown, who was sometimes guilty of un-Parliamentary expressions, and what inconvenience would not arise if he were not in his place to answer questions, if he were suspended for even 20 days by a Speaker who happened to have lost his temper for a moment? The House ought not to make this change upon the instigation of a comparatively young Parliamentarian; the rules were made not for the Government, but for the House of Commons, and hon. Members who sat in the House were the stewards and the trustees of the House of Commons.
With regard to the expression of sincere regret, he submitted that no ground had been shown for any such innovation. Something had been said about the precedent of contempt of Court, but after a man had served his six weeks imprisonment, or whatever his term was, nothing further was required of him. The thing was conclusive in itself, and any idea of an apology after punishment was foreign to all conception of the administration of the law. Why should not the First Lord propose that a Member be excluded from the service of the House until he apologised? In cases where great principles were concerned or men's consciences involved, as would often be the case in the suspension of Irish representatives, Members might then be kept out of the House for ever. Members, under such circumstances, would prefer to remain out of the House for an indefinite period, and they would be supported by their constituents in so doing. He would make an appeal—but not to the Treasury Bench; the matter did not concern them alone, and it wag monstrous that such proposals should be enforced by the crack of the Party whip. The matter concerned

1339
the House of Commons, and when the present Government had passed away, the conduct of the House in dealing with these Rules would be arrainged, and it would be praised or condemned by future generations who occupied the Benches on either side. He therefore appealed, not to the Treasury Benches, but to hon. Gentlemen on the other side, who, like those for whom he spoke, were instinct with the best and noblest traditions of the House. Speaking to a large extent as a non-Party man, as one who would never sacrifice his convictions at the call of a Party, he appealed to hon. Members carefully to examine these Rules, to see if they could honestly satisfy themselves that they would tend to the more efficient maintenance of order, to freedom of debate, to the enabling of men honestly and openly to express their conscientious convictions without fear or favour, to free from the suggestion of oppression a body of men who had honestly, before their country, endeavoured to discharge the highest duties of citizens, and if the Rules were so examined, he had little doubt that they would meet with the fate they deserved, and they would not be passed by the House of Commons.
Sir JOHN KENNAWAYsaid that on the present occasion the House were not discussing a subject under ordinary circumstances. The Rules before the House were of a very far-reaching character, and they affected so vitally the position of the House of Commons in the country, the relations between the Chair and the House, the maintenance of that good feeling which had generally hitherto existed between the two sides of the House, and all that went to make the House of Commons what it is, that he could not feel that the time spent in discussing their general principles had been wasted. It was only right that those principles should be fully discussed before the House descended to the consideration of details. All would agree with the hon. Member for Waterford that the Rules, and the principles underlying them, should be carefully scrutinised for the reasons just mentioned. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly justified in asking why they
1340
had been brought in at all, but Members could not conceal from themselves the fact that threats had been made of determined attempts to degrade the House of Commons, and to bring its proceedings and its very existence into disrepute, and those threats justified the bringing forward of the proposals. The hon. Gentleman had on former occasions spoken in very clear terms very different from those he had used in the present debate. The House welcomed him as the upholder of the authority of the Chair, as being desirous of suppressing disorder and of making the House of Commons a pattern to all other assemblies. If he and those who followed him maintained that attitude, why should they fear the application of these Rules? The introduction of the proposals before the House was undoubtedly a very serious step, but the Government had brought them in under their sense of responsibility to the country. They had been forewarned that attempts would be made to conduct the House of Commons on lines different from those which had hitherto prevailed, and they would not have been doing their duty had they not attempted to strengthen their position. The House might rest assured that the Government had not taken this step lightly. By the course they had adopted they were probably sacrificing some of the measures on which they set their hearts. There were measures mentioned in the King's Speech, such as the Water Bill, the Education Bill, the Licensing Bill, and others which the Government were very anxious to see passed into law, and they would certainly not have brought forward the present proposals except under a very strong sense of duty towards the House and the country. He believed they were expressing the feelings of the country when they announced their determination to make the Rules more effective for the maintenance of the authority of the Chair, and for ensuring that the punishment instead of being a mere farce should be sufficient for the purpose for which it was inflicted. It was also necessary to make the machinery of the House more perfect, so that the great sacrifices made by Members should not be thrown away, and that useful measures should not session after session share in

1341
the massacre of the innocents, or be relegated to the chances of another session. These objects were all worthy of consideration, but, at the same time, if the efficiency of the House was to be maintained unimpaired, if by the alteration of the Rules the high character of the House, of which all were so proud, and which they desired to hand down to those who came after them, was to be upheld, it could not be done by the efforts of one Party only, or by mere Party divisions and measures. The alterations would have to be on lines commanding the assent and consent of the greater number of Members of the House, who were loyal to its traditions, and desired to see those traditions maintained.
His principal reason for rising was the fear that Members were drifting into a spirit of antagonism on this question. He appealed to all parties not to look at the matter from a Party standpoint; to seek not Party advantage, but the general advantage of the House, and to endeavour to frame such rules as should command general assent and be carried with general approval. He ventured to appeal to the First Lord and the Government in that sense, and especially on the Question of the apology. The matter should not be treated as a Party question; the House, as a whole, should be allowed to express its opinion and to record its conscientious conviction. If that were not done, the Rule would be worth very little. He would not enter into the general Question of punishment and apology, but the demand for an apology after punishment did seem to revolt the sense of justice and fair play. The Rule would have a tendency to make martyrs of those who refused to render the apology, and, instead of the punishment being effective, the men would be regarded as heroes in their constituencies and encouraged in their refusal to obey. Beyond that, there was the great danger of landing the House into contests with constituencies, and they all knew what had been and always would be the outcome of such contests. He entirely disagreed with the suggestion that it would be desirable by such a Rule to exclude Irish Members from the House. He welcomed their appearance in the House, as he believed it was a means of keeping a united Empire and a united Kingdom. As to the apology, men who were loyal to the traditions of the House would always be ready, as gentlemen, to apologise where necessary, while those
1342
who described themselves as aliens and unwilling, Members would find themselves turned into heroes, and he doubted whether, in the present temper of their constituencies, they would ever dare to make an apology even if they wished. The questions to be considered were simply those of the increased severity of penalties, and that of the apology. Those were questions, not of principle, but of degree. Milder measures might very well be tried first, and then, if those measures were insufficient, more extreme steps might be afterwards taken. Having done well hitherto, they could afford to wait and see the effect of what they had done. In view of the anxious position of the country, and in view of the serious attitude taken by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, he appealed to all who were loyal to the traditions of the House, and desired to see its efficiency maintained, to close their ranks and unite on moderate measures to serve the purposes of the Government, and then, if necessary, they could go further afterwards.
Mr. LABOUCHERE: rejoiced that there were so many gentlemen of light and leading on the Government side of the House joining in the protest against the apology. All would admit that with regard to rules for regulating the procedure of the House, it was desirable that there should be general agreement as to their fairness and equity. He should have thought that before bringing in any such rules as these, the First Lord of the Treasury would have consulted the Leader of the Opposition, but apparently he had done nothing of the kind. It was very evident that he had not consulted the old and experienced Members on his own side, because the only gentlemen who had supported the Government were two or three Members of no great weight or experience. The Colonial Secretary had very truly said that the objection of such rules should not be vindictive, but to prevent a repetition of certain events. But if an apology was sufficient, of what use was punishment? Or, if punishment was sufficient, of what use was an apology? There was no case in which an apology

1343
was demanded, and punishment inflicted as well. [An Hon. Member: Contempt of Court.] Had the hon. Member ever been committed for contempt of Court? ("No.") Well, he had, half a dozen times, and therefore he spoke not as a lawyer, but as a victim. Only a little while ago he was fined £50 for contempt of Court; he paid the £50, and nobody asked him for an apology. Could any single case be cited in which an apology was demanded if punishment was inflicted?
MR. BULL: pointed out that in cases of contempt of Court very often a man was sent to prison and was not liberated until he apologised.
MR. LABOUCHEREcontended that under the general law of the country there was no offence for which a man was sent to prison and had to apologise when he came out. That being the general law of the land, the right hon. Gentleman had no right to make offensive experiments on the House of Commons. If it was laid down as a general principle of law, that would be one thing; but, if it was not so laid down, he objected to it being applied to Members of Parliament and not to other persons in the country. If the First Lord were left alone he believed he would go on heaping punishments and apologies one upon the other until Members would positively be told that if they violated the Rules of the House not only would they be sent to prison, but they would afterwards have to go to a reformatory or some other such place for two or three years. He did not consider himself to be either a convict or a "ticket-of-leaver," and he objected to be treated as such.
There were two modes in which the Rules of the House might be violated. A man might have a bad temper; some people had. He might, being of an e-x citable disposition, say something which would have been better left unsaid, and, when called upon to withdraw, his temper continuing, decline to do so. In such a case, any gentleman would be perfectly ready to apologise as soon as he recovered his temper. But there were cases of a different character. Some hon. Gentlemen spoke as though the Irish were the only Members concerned, but the whole
1344
Church Party had declared that they might object to certain measures on conscientious grounds. The Member for St. Albans had said that if a law were brought in for allowing polygamy he would oppose it in violation of all the Rules of the House. Considering the Bills that were brought in by the present Government, such as those for giving doles and so on, he did not know but what a Bill might be brought in before long for permitting polygamy; ft was impossible to say what would happen. In any case, the Church Party had declared that there were proposals which they might conscientiously consider it their duty to resist by violating the Rules of the House, and that in such cases they would not apologise. Doubtless the Irish Members considered that Ireland was just as immorally governed as England would be considered to be if polygamy were permitted; they had their conscientious objections, and if he himself were an Irish Member and consciously violated a Rule of the House, he would not dream of apologising; he would rather remain out of the House for any number of days or years—though it would be a great deprivation—than express regret for an action which he believed to be justified. It would surprise the House to hear that he himself was once suspended. In the course of a debate he expressed an opinion of a noble Lord which perhaps was not couched in the Parliamentary language required by the House of Commons when one Member spoke of another. Mr. Courtney, for whom personally he had the greatest respect, was in the Chair, and called upon him to withdraw the expression. He replied that it would be impossible for him to do so, because, by so doing, he would be violating the rights of the House of Commons, and never should those rights be violated in his person. The matter was reported to Mr. Speaker, who declared that unless the hon. Member withdrew the words he would have to be suspended. The usual Motion was put to the House, and the Conservative majority voted for, while the Liberals voted against, his suspension. What occurred then? Mr. Gladstone sent for him and said that, without entering into the question whether the words were in good or bad taste, he considered he was perfectly in the right, and that a Member of the House

1345
of Commons was entitled to say what he liked of any Member of the House of Lords. Mr. Gladstone was a man who stood by his followers, and he offered to bring the matter before the House, to put down a Resolution and ask for a day. For that he (the hon. Member) expressed his obligations, but said that the Conservatives would vote as on the previous occasion, and a precedent would be established in favour of that against which he had protested. Mr. Gladstone agreed, but said he considered it his duty to make the offer, because he thought the hon. Member had been unfairly treated. That was a case in point. Suppose an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House did something against the Rules, and was suspended. If the First Lord of the Treasury were to make an offer similar to that of Mr. Gladstone's, would the hon. Member give away the whole thing by expressing his sincere regret at having violated the Rules of the House?
He alluded to that case simply because it was one in which it had been made possible for a Member to save himself from suspension by expressing sincere regret. By the presence of the word "sincere" in the Rule the right hon. Gentleman had shown how loosely the proposals had been drawn up. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Armagh had expressed his objection to the word, but, since it was in, he would not have it taken out. That apparently was the feeling of the Government. The First Lord did not think the word was necessary, because "sincere regret" was the same as "regret," but, it once having been inserted, if it were withdrawn it would give a charter to insincerity, and, therefore, owing to the looseness with which the proposals had been framed, the word "sincere," which to a large extent was the crux of the whole question, was to be retained. The Colonial Secretary had said that sincere regret was not an apology. The Colonial Secretary was a very able man, but he was not an expert in the matter of apologies. He rather admired him for that. He was perfectly certain that nothing the right hon. Gentleman could do in the way of mistake would ever induce him to come to this House and express "sincere regret" for it. It was said that because the Leader of the Opposition had expressed his approval of certain Amendments the right hon.
1346
Gentleman ought to vote in favour of the words which were proposed. That was the greatest mistake possible. They knew what happened again and again on the Second Reading of a Bill. A Member got up and said that he could not vote for the Bill, but if certain concessions were made he would vote for it. When the Bill was passing through Committee the Amendments which were desired were moved. He really thought the First Lord of the Treasury would do well to show himself more conciliatory upon the matter than he at present seemed disposed to be. If the demand for an apology were removed, the right hon. Gentleman would ease the passage of rules very much, but if he was under the impression that he was to carry them through verbatim, as though they were the laws of the Medes and Persians, he would find that not days, but weeks, would be required for their discussion. There were some of the rules to which they had no sort of objection, but if the system, of imposing the whole of them, exactly as they stood, upon the House was persisted in, the right hon. Gentleman must expect them to resist them to the utmost. The First Lord of the Treasury had said that this was not a Party question, but he was making it one. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must have perceived that the majority even of his own Party would be glad if this demand for an apology were withdrawn. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to get up, say to his followers that this was not a Party question, and that each gentleman was free to vote according as he conscientiously thought. If he did so there was not the slightest doubt that the rule would be thrown out.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he had listened as well as he could to almost all that had been said, and amongst the questions they were bound to answer was that asked by the Leader of the Opposition and others, as to what was the cause of the proposed alteration. To his mind there were two very sufficient answers. With the permission of the House, he would try to give them as shortly as possible. The first answer was that what the constituencies of Great Britain were most interested in at present was that some such changes in the rules as those proposed by the Government

1347
should certainly be affected. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was too democratic to know anything of the wishes of the people; it was reserved for Tory Members to be in close touch with the needs of the constituencies. Those who, like himself, had taken recent steps to make themselves acquainted with the ardent wishes of the rank and file among constituents apart from Party, level-headed men interested in having good government and administration, knew that two things were necessary if the House of Commons was to maintain the respect of the country—the repression of continued obstruction and the purging of the House from all suspicion of disorderly behaviour. Much had been said from many quarters as to the possibility of a conflict between the constituencies and the House of Commons. Much had been said on that matter from a most fallacious point of view. Members who came to the House of Commons did not exist by any virtue of their own. They were useful to the country because they obeyed orders and carried out broadly the mandate the country gave. That was a conclusive answer to the question asked on the other side. The fundamental principle of the constitution was that the majority should rule. They could not get away from that. The very essence of the franchise was that the people entitled to it should elect men who would be bound by the rules of the House of Commons. Every Member must subordinate himself to the majority of the assembly. [A Nationalist Member: Why did you not pass Home Rule then?] They did not pass Home Rule because there never was a majority of Parliament in favour of it. It was pre-supposed when a Member of the House of Commons was elected that he would obey the rules of the Assembly, and with the recognition of this principle three-fourths of the arguments against the proposal were disposed of.
He was sorry to have to submit the second branch of his argument, but the House would not think he was candid or courageous if he flinched from the argument he was now going to adduce. It was no pleasure to him to come in conflict with hon. gentlemen from Ireland. He was not inclined to speak unduly in the way of blaming them. He
1348
could only regret that the abilities of the hon. Member for Waterford were confined to one section of the House. He wished the whole nation had a greater share of them. The hon. Member for Waterford was angry with the suspicion that these new Rules were levelled at Irish Members. He would like to repudiate this if he could, but naturally the Rules were framed upon past experience, though they would have general application. He must remind the hon. Member for Waterford of what he himself had said. It was natural, if threats were made in regard to the arrangement of affairs in the House, that those responsible should take precautions to preserve order. He found that the hon. Member for Waterford made a speech in 1896, in which he said—
"So long as self-government is denied to Ireland, of course the presence of the Irish Members tends towards the block of business and the disarrangement of Government plans, and is a constant source of trouble, difficulty, and danger."
[Nationalist cheers.] He did not wonder at the cheers. He was not questioning the consistency of the hon. Members. He was only questioning whether gentlemen in the position of the hon. Member for Waterford could wonder that steps should be taken to protect the House. The hon. Member also said—
"If the House suffers in reputation and efficiency, it is not in human nature that the Irish Members should grieve very much over it."
[Nationalist cheers.] He hoped English and Scotch Members would take notice of the cheers with which these remarks were received. He noticed that the gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite, who might form a future Liberal Government, were not cheering them very much. But he went a little further. There was another speech made by the hon. Gentleman at Newcastle-on-Tyne on the 3rd March, 1901, in which he said—
"They would make the English Parliament and English people understand that the Irish representatives in this country were a foreign element, and that so long as they were forcibly kept in the English Parliament, the very existence of Parliamentary institutions in this country would be menaced."
He passed on to another speech delivered by the hon. Gentleman at Sligo on 2nd January, 1902, in which he said that—

1349
"These months (the 12 months of 1901) showed the Irish people that they had once more in the House of Commons a band of thoroughly reliable Irish Nationalists as their representatives, men who were independent of all English political parties, men who had but one single thought—"
He waited for the repeated cheers of the Welsh Members—
"To forward the cause of Ireland and to injure and attack England in every way open to them."
The hon. Welsh Members were discreetly dumb. Let him go on a little further. Here was an extract from a speech delivered by the hon. Member for Waterford at the Hotel Cecil on March 19th, 1901—
"Of course we know not when, we know not how, or from what quarter the settlement of this National question will come; but what we do know is that we have it in our power to make the Government of Ireland by the present methods impossible in Ireland, and in the House of Commons, but when we once reach that point, we are very near indeed to the terms of settlement."
But that was not nearly all. He had a quotation from a speech made by the hon. Gentleman in America in November, 1901—
"Our policy," he said, "is to make the Government of Ireland by England in every department of Government in Parliament and out of Parliament, difficult, dangerous, and please God, impossible." [Cheers from the Irish Benches.]
Were not those cheers rather unfortunate in connection with his argument? Was it not very significant of the argument he was now using that the hon. gentleman was almost sorry that those words could be quoted? [Cries from the Irish Benches "No, no."] At all events they were in strong contradiction to the constitutional attitude which the hon. Gentleman had taken up that night. Then in the course of the same speech in America the hon. Gentleman went on to say—
"We take up the position, therefore, of saying that we are making the Government of Ireland by England difficult, dangerous, and impossible by the agency of the United Irish League in Ireland, and by the agency of the united and independent Parliamentary party in the House of Commons. That, briefly speaking, is our position and our policy."
That was a grave announcement of the policy of the constitutional Leader of the Irish Party. It was a strong, he might say a courageous, announcement of the policy which the hon. Gentleman in-
1350
tended to pursue, and the end at which he meant to arrive. But as custodians of the honour and repute of the House of Commons they were bound to take steps to meet the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Waterford made another speech at Belfast on 2nd October, 1901, in which he declared—
"I say that so long as there is a body of men in the English Parliament of that character, no rules that the wit of man can devise can prevent their presence from being a source of irritation and of difficulty, of trouble and of danger."
It was no pleasant part of his duty to quote further from the speeches of the hon. Gentleman. He would infinitely rather have taken the line that these proposals had no connection with the Irish Members, and that these latter were absolutely free from any likelihood of breaking the Rules. That was the wish and hope and intention in framing these Rules. [Cries from the Irish Benches of "Oh, oh."] At all events, he could speak for himself. He was one of the few Members in this House who had absolutely no policy, and he could honestly say that he wished the Irish Party could have seen their way not to be so eager to fit this cap to their own heads, but would have rather disavowed the idea that the Rule would apply especially to them. But if it did apply to them as the result of their adhesion to the declarations he had quoted, any taunt of unfairness, or want of generosity was met by the quotations themselves. He came to another aspect of the question which interested him deeply, and which he ventured to impress on the attention of the House. This debate had arranged partly over the question of punishment and suspension of hon. Members for disregarding the ruling of the Chair, and partly over the expression of regret demanded for that action. On that point he had strong personal views. It seemed to him that the offence of any Member of the House who broke the ordinary laws of order was two-fold. In the first place he offended against the wishes of the people, whose representatives sat there, and who had been elected by a large majority to support the policy of the Government. It had been said that the offence would be purged by a

1351
period of suspension, and withdrawal from the House. But there was another aspect of the offence which had not been sufficiently dealt with during the debate. It was, that if the offence was coupled with anything like a refusal to obey the order of the Chair, it meant that there had been a direct personal affront to that personality which represented in this House dignity, law, and order. He was not a metaphysician, and perhaps must fail to make his case logically clear. But hon. Members regarded the Chair as a sort of incarnation of their own self-respect, and if the Chair was flouted, or treated with any disrespect, it was not only an offence against the business of the House, but also against the sentiment, the dignity, and the self-respect of the House; and that aspect of the offence required that there should be a quiet, decent, and moderate expression of regret. He therefore begged the Government to stand firm. Unless they could save the House of Commons from a repetition of what had happened in the past, and from the occurrence of that which had been foreshadowed in the speeches he had quoted, the House of Commons would gradually lose the respect and confidence of the people of this country. Speaking for himself, therefore, he hoped the Government would stand firm. In despite, and in defiance of all ideas that there might be backsliders among them, the Government might depend on a sufficient majority, and might confidently depend on the confidence and respect of the nation at large.
Mr. DALZIELsaid he thought that the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, to any one who had heard the debate, would be regarded as a most unfortunate one. No one could have listened to the debate without having been struck by the marvellous unanimity which had been expressed with regard to one point of the Resolution—namely, the proposed expression of regret—and it was, therefore, unfortunate that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have at that moment made a strong appeal to Party passion, and should have raked up out of the dustbin forgotten speeches of the Irish Members.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: Does the hon. Member want the dates?
MR. DALZIELsaid he did not want the dates, because whether the speeches were delivered a fortnight or a month ago did not affect his argument. His point was that the House was about to take a decision on a matter of grave Parliamentary and national importance. It was a matter which above all things affected the House of Commons for all time, and it was not right in discussing a non-Party matter such as that to introduce racial passion as the hon. and gallant Gentleman had done. They had one consolation with regard to that portion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech, because he frankly admitted that he had not got a single follower; and it was hoped that the Government would take due note of that admission and give it the significance it deserved. The hon. and gallant Gentleman at the conclusion of his speech made an appeal for respect for the dignity of the Chair. That was a false issue. It was not the question before the House. The Chair was made by a House, and it was the House that was insulted if the Chair was insulted. The issue now was whether they ought by a mere majority place in the hands of a majority in the future, which might be a narrow majority, the power to take an unknown Member from the back benches and put him without a minute's notice into the Chair. As the Rule stood the Government would be able, at the beginning of a session, or at any time during a session, to make any Member Deputy Chairman for the time being who would have the power of naming Members. That was a big authority indeed to place in the hands of any man, who might be a mere partisan and who might not have traditional Parliamentary instincts. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the country at the last General Election had declared in favour of the proposals of the Government, and had given a mandate for them. He wondered whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman in one of the many speeches he delivered at the last election had ever even mentioned the question of procedure in the House of Commons, and further whether he had thought of the ingenious proposal of expressing sincere regret. He did not think so. He thought the proposal was made in Birmingham much

1353
later than the last election. He had always imagined that hon. Gentlemen opposite were too busy, at the last election, taking praise for the glory of a completed war, to think of anything else. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was, however, right to the extent that the country wished its business to be carried on in a businesslike fashion, but did not care what method was adopted. The Government had received no mandate for punishing hon. Members, or for obtaining an expression of sincere regret. He had listened to nearly every speech during the Debate, and one thing stood clearly out and that was the point of the hon. Member for Waterford, that no case had arisen for increasing the punishments. If they were to introduce Amendments to their procedure they should introduce them with reference to rules which had failed. At present they were dealing with an imaginary situation. It had never been known that an individual member had offended three times in the course of a session, and, therefore, they were dealing with a situation which they had no reason to suppose would arise. Too much importance was attached to the individual member, and to what he might do. The gentlemen really responsible were the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. Speaking generally, no scene had ever occurred in the House except as a result of strong, and as many thought inadvisable, action on the part of the Government of the day. All the scenes were the result of action taken by the majority, which the minority thought was taken in order to burke proper discussion, and where the Government of the day tried to closure, after a few hours discussion, Estimates amounting to 25 or 30 millions. If the Government of the day gave so little heed to the opinion of the minority, they were bound in future to have unfortunate scenes, and it was only by a spirit of fair play on the part of the Government that the House of Commons could uphold its authority and dignity in the future as in the past. The hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about majority rule. Would he bow to a Liberal Government with the majority of perhaps 20 or 30? Would he say that he respected the authority of, the country and bowed regretfully to the majority? Would he move Amendments?
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYasked if it was an obstructive or un-Parliamentary proceeding to move Amendments.
MR. DALZIELsaid it entirely depended on what the Amendments were. If a Liberal Government were returned with a clear majority to pass a certain measure would the hon. and gallant Gentleman vote for it? He was inclined to think that, in such circumstances, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not respect the majority. The danger was that the Government of the day were often tempted, sometimes justly, in order to carry their measures, to resort to extreme proposals. He feared that the present proposals would not be effective. One proposal stated that the hon. Member asking a question, and he alone, could ask a supplementary question. That in itself could be used as a vehicle for great injustice. It would be some time before the House became accustomed to it, and he could conceive an hon. Member, perhaps a new Member, with the greatest respect to the Chair, disregarding the ruling of the Chair quite unintentionally in asking supplementary Questions. Then with regard to repetition in debate, they all knew that very often a new Member used an argument several times, though he had no intention of offending against the Chair. But under the Rule if he were called to order and disregarded the ruling of the Chair, he would be named. It seemed to him that one of the first things the Government would have to introduce into the House, if the rules were passed, would be a black book in which convictions of hon. Members would be recorded. The whole point of the proposed expression of regret was that it would be merely lip service. A suspended Member would be told "Give us an apology and we do not care what kind it is." He thought the Government were trying to humiliate members unnecessarily. They ought to trust to the respect which hon. Members felt for the House and for themselves, and not to any new rules which the Government could devise.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Robert Finlay,):

1355
I confess, before the speech of the hon. Gentleman, I should have thought it impossible that the admirable speech of my hon. and gallant friend could have been so entirely misunderstood. To represent my hon. and gallant friend as having made an appeal to racial passion is so absolutely wide of the mark that I think the hon. Gentleman must have immediately felt that he did not carry the general sense of the House with him. At an earlier period of the evening, a very interesting speech was made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, in which he said that he had himself no sympathy whatever with disorder. I accept that statement and I welcome it. But I ask the House to observe what follows from it. If the feelings of the hon. and learned Member on the subject are shared by the Party which he leads, and leads in so distinguished a manner, what becomes of the allegation that this rule is any special grievance on Irish Members in this House? If they have no sympathy with disorder, if they repudiate it, if they have no desire to practise it, how can these new Rules affect them? They will be unharmed by them. I would call the attention of the hon. Member for Waterford to the absolute inconsistency between that passage in his speech, in which, as representing the Irish Party, he repudiates all sympathy with disorder, and that other passage in which he said that these Rules obviously contemplated the disfranchisement of an unlimited, number of constituencies. Where are you to get an unlimited number of constituencies which will be disfranchised unless there is not merely sympathy with disorder, but the actual practice of disorder in this House.
The hon Member for Waterford made an attack on the First Lord of the Treasury and the Colonial Secretary. He was very severe on them for having said that these rules were not really aimed at the Irish Party. If any justification were wanted for the statements of my right hon. friends, that these Rules are aimed at disorder generally in the House, by whatever Party it may be practised, it would be found in the statement of the hon. and learned Member himself that he, as the representative of his Party, repudiated disorder and had no sympathy
1356
whatever with it. If that be the case the rules are not only aimed at he Irish Party, but will not hit the Irish Party; and if the admirable maxim of the hon. and learned Member is carried out in practise, hon. Members from Ireland will not suffer under them. The speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had at least one merit, which has been wanting from a good many speeches delivered in the course of this debate. It was that he set before the House very clearly indeed what is the precise issue on which we are going to divide. We are not going to divide on any question of detail in connection with the rules of procedure. The question is whether or not the terms of the old rule are to remain, and the motion is that they be left out; and no hon. Member can oppose that unless he is prepared to assert that no strengthening of the penalties for disorder is required. That is the question, and the only question, upon which we shall proceed to a division. All consideration of the details of the Rules must necessarily stand over until another occasion. On the broad point, I think the House generally will be in thorough agreement with my hon. and gallant friend when he said that the feeling of the country was overwhelmingly in favour of strengthening the procedure of the House, so far as it is intended to cope with disorder, and that the authority of the Chair must at all risks be maintained. I do not believe myself that there is any business assembly in any part of the country that would for one week submit to some of the scenes which we have been compelled to witness in this House. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford asks what justification is there for the change. Things are going smoothly enough as it is, he says, and you do not want any change. If there is no defiance of the authority of the Chair, the change will do no harm to anyone. I think, however, experience has shown that some measure, we hope not a measure of punishment, and certainly not a vindictive measure, but a measure which will have the effect of prevention, is very badly wanted indeed. This Rule has not been conceived in any spirit of making reprisals on the Irish members. That is an oratorical phrase.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: What about the Blenheim speeches?
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: The object of this Rule is not to make reprisals on any class of Members in this House.
MR. PIRIE: It is nothing but vindictiveness.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: If hon. Members would read the Rule they will see that its object is to provide an adequate penalty to prevent these offences being committed. That is the object, and the only object, and those who were concerned in the framing of these rules would indeed rejoice if the effect was such that we were spared the recurrence of these scenes. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford was, I think, very severe on the Colonial Secretary, because he referred to the party the hon. and learned Member leads as a party that had expressed their intention to injure and degrade the House of Commons. I understood the hon. and learned Member to quote that from the Colonial Secretary.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: My complaint against the Colonial Secretary was that he stated the night before last that these rules were not directed against the Irish Members, whereas at Blenheim and at Edinburgh he stated distinctly that the rules to be introduced were directed against the Irish Members.
SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I do not think the hon. Member is quite following the point I am making. I heard him quote as a grievance a passage from the speech of the Colonial Secretary, to the effect that there was a Party in this House who had declared their intention to injure and degrade Parliament. I would remind the hon. and learned Member, as his memory seems to want a little jogging, of what he said not quite a year ago in this House. He referred to the Party which he leads as "a foreign element" in this House. [Several hon. Members: Hear, hear.] I do not know whether hon. Members will cheer what follows. The hon. and learned Member then said:—
"In dealing with such an element I assert that no rules which the wit of man can devise can possibly save your Parliament from being injured and degraded in the eyes of the world."
Yet the hon. and learned Member complains of my right hon. friend for having quoted his own words. The hon. and
1358
learned Member does not stand alone, because there are, unfortunately, in the Party which he leads with so much ability, some other Members who have used language which was calculated to create the impression that they regarded language of that kind as suitable language to be used by Members of this Assembly. The hon. Member for North Leitrim—I am quoting from the Irish News on the 20th of March, 1901—said at Ennis Killen, refering to the fact that he and others had been dragged out of the House of Commons, that the, reason was that they had protested against alien rule and the plunder of the country. I myself would have given another reason. Then the hon. Member went on to say that "They would degrade the House of Commons and continue to degrade it until they got their own Parliament again." In face of language of that kind used by the Leader of the Nationalist Party and by one of his followers—I could multiply quotations to the same effect almost indefinitely—can it be said that some precautions are not wanted by way of preventing the possibility of such threats being carried into effect? What the hon. and learned Member for Waterford said tonight about himself is, I trust, shared by the whole of his followers, and I hope earnestly that there will be no attempt to carry such threats into effect, and that we shall be spared all those painful scenes which have been conjured up by the imaginations of some hon. Members who have taken part in this debate.
This is not the occasion to consider the detailed terms of this Rule. I shall not argue as to what the precise length of suspension should be for defying the authority of the Chair. I will only say that I think there is hardly an hon. Member in this House who does not agree that the present time of suspension is altogether inadequate. Then we come to the burning question of apology, on which so much eloquence has been expended. I desire to make an appeal to the common sense of the House. If a man defies the authority of the Chair, he is punished with a certain term of suspension, and if he apologises then the term of suspension comes to an end. [Hon. Members: No, no!] If he apologises,

1359
a term of suspension may be regarded as complete punishment. [An Hon. Member: That is not the rule.] Hon. Members who interrupt must not have read the Rule. So many days suspension are given, and that exhausts the punishment if an apology is made. Now what I desire to put before the House is this. There are two offences of very different gravity indeed. A man may defy the Chair in a moment of heat; he expresses his regret, and after so many days suspension he returns; but suppose a man persists in his defiance of the Chair, declines to express regret, assumes an attitude of defiance to the Chair, and comes back to this Assembly persisting in the insult and refusing to withdraw it, is not that an offence of an entirely different character? What we have to consider at present is whether these two classes of persons are to be dealt with in the same way, and I very respectfully submit to the House that these two offences are widely different. One is the case of a man who, in a moment of heat, offends against the Rules of the House and apologises, and the other, that of a man who, on set purpose, has defied the Chair, and comes back and tells the House he declines to apologise, that he refuses to withdraw, and by that very act offering insult, not only to you, Sir, but to the House, and continuing that insult. It is said that it is very hard that a man should have to apologise if he thinks he has not been really guilty. All I will say on that point is that every man in a matter of this kind must bow to the ruling of the Chair, and I cannot understand how the business of a deliberative Assembly can be carried on unless the authority of the Chair be respected; and if the Chair pronounces an hon. Member out of order, he should bow to that ruling, whatever his own opinion may be. We are not now on the question of the precise wording of the terms of the apology. We are on the broad question whether a man who has defied the Chair, and persists in that defiance, is to be put on the same footing as the man who has offended and apologised.
The hon. Member for Northampton referred to the case of Mr. Wilkes, who was expelled by the House, and, as it was ultimately held, without the effect of disqualifying Mr. Wilkes, because this House could not
1360
alter the qualifications for membership. But what has that case to do with the present? The House claimed to treat Mr. Wilkes as a person who could not be sent back to the House, and he was disqualified. In the present case it is at the option of the hon. Member to make an apology and qualify himself for sitting in the House. What possible analogy is there between the case of Mr. Wilkes in the last century but one and the present case, when by doing what a proper feeling ought to prompt the hon. Member to do, he might qualify himself for his duties? Mr. Bradlaugh's case had been referred to. I think a more unlucky comparison could not have been made. Mr. Bradlaugh's quarrel with the House was as to the terms upon which he should be admitted upon a question of theology. [Opposition cries of "Oh, oh!"] The question was as to whether Mr. Bradlaugh should be allowed to take the oath after having expressed his belief that no such oath would be binding upon his conscience. I would remind the House, however, that when Mr. Bradlaugh was admitted to the House, no man was more scrupulous in his observance of the Rules of this House. He was a man with whose views I had hardly any sympathy, but, however much we may have differed from him, everyone would recognise that no man ever had more genuine respect for the Chair, and no man more scrupulously took pains to see that order was preserved in the House.
The Question upon which the House will divide is a very short one indeed. It is simply whether the House regards the present machinery for dealing with defiance of the Chair as adequate, and no man can vote against the Government without having made up his mind that no improvement is wanted in our machinery for dealing with this matter.
Mr. M'KENNA: said the hon. Gentleman the Attorney General wished to confine the argument to the question whether the present Rules were inadequate. He should have thought that he would have shown them in what respect the existing Rules had failed to preserve order in the House. He had been making some extracts from the journals of the House, and he had prepared a list of the whole of the suspensions which had taken place since the year 1882,

1361
and if the House would bear with him for two or three minutes, he would like to read the most conclusive proof they could possibly have that the existing Rule had proved adequate to preserve order. In 1882, when the Rule passed, there were no suspensions; in 1883 and 1884 there were none, in 1885 one, in 1886 none, and in 1887 three—and this was the single case when a Member was suspended twice. In the year 1888 there was one suspension, in 1889 none, 1890 one, 1891 none, in 1892 one, in 1893 and 1894 none, in 1895 one, 1890 five, 1897 none, 1898 one, 1899 none, and 1900 none; until we got to last year, when we find from actual experience of the existing Rule that no one, or at the most only one hon. Member, was suspended. It had been said that they had to take precautions against threats, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite read as one of these threats an extract from one of the speeches made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in 1896. In the year 1897 there was no disorder, in 1898 one hon. Member was suspended, and in 1899 and 1900 none. They found that as a direct consequence of the threats which were alleged to be so dangerous, one hon. Member was suspended in four years. He thought the good sense of the House would agree with him that on such an experience as that, and with the experience of last year, it would be admitted that the Rule since 1882 has worked admirably.
He now came to the year 1901. There was only one year when there were numerous suspensions, and that was in 1896, when five Members were suspended at a single sitting. It was the year after a general election and a new Parliament, and there was, as there always was after a general election, a considerable amount of excitement and party feeling and passion, which occasionally found an outlet in disorder. The same thing was true of 1901, which was a Parliament which met after a general election when passion had been very much excited. He admitted that both in 1896, when five Members were suspended, and in 1901, when there were 10 or 12 suspensions, there was serious disorder. But even in these years there was no case of a second suspension, and it was proved that the operation of this Rule was fully sufficient to maintain order. But what was the real reason why this Amendment was proposed now? It
1362
was because the change was popular. Why was it popular? It was alleged that the conduct of hon. Members seriously obstructed the business of the House. It was not that side of the question which was popular with the public, and it was said that changes should be made in order to expedite business. This proposal was popular because it appealed to the lowest section of the British Press. That was the sole ground of its popularity, and he appealed to the fair play of hon. Gentlemen opposite not to pander to that passion, but to be guided by the evidence which they had got of the actual working of the existing Rule, and be satisfied with the Rule which had maintained order in the past, and which they might reasonably anticipate would be sufficient to maintain order in the future. This was a question amongst themselves, and should be decided as a question between one Member and another, and they were entitled to ask that hon. Members from Ireland should be treated with the respect which they deserved. What was the use of quoting in this House speeches which had been made outside, for he had no doubt that even hon. Gentlemen opposite would say more in speeches outside than they would be prepared to justify in speeches made in this House. Those threats which had been quoted had been made ever since the Irish Party had been in existence, but in spite of those threats they found that order had been maintained in the House. It was idle to come down to this House and ask for an Amendment of this Rule without giving any single solid ground why such an Amendment should be made.
He had only one word more to say and that was on the question of expressing "sincere regret." Every one of them knew that there were times when a Member would think he was in the right, although he might be against the ruling of the Chair. He was aware that he was treading on very delicate ground, and he frankly assorted that on some occasions he thought he was in the right when he had been told that his remarks were irrelevant, but he had always bowed to the ruling of the Chair, and he hoped he always should do so, because he had always been inspired by the view that, right or wrong, the Chair intended to be fair. But supposing he did not believe that. He

1363
would speak with no possible disrespect to Mr. Speaker, or to the Chairman of Committees, because he felt no possible disrespect; but the Deputy Chairman was not yet appointed, and he did not know who he might be, and perhaps he might be inclined to speak of him all the disrespect in the world. Supposing he had occasion to believe that he was "named" by the Deputy Chairman on grounds of personal malice against himself. Of course he was speaking in the abstract only, and he knew he was putting a hypothetical case which was not likely to arise. Supposing he believed that he was "named" as the result of personal malice against himself, or as a result of a strong partisan bias, he could assure the House that nothing in this world would make him sincerely regret an offence which he did not himself believe he had committed. That was his frame of mind. Upon the principles laid down by the First Lord of the Treasury, and the Colonial Secretary in the illustration he had given, he would not be considered a person fit to be a Member of this House. But they did not turn him out. Other hon. Members had stated that this was their frame of mind, and why did they not turn them out of the House? He was told that it was not the frame of mind when it was converted into acts. But when the frame of mind was converted into acts, they punished hon. Members by suspension, and after finishing his term of punishment they went on punishing him because his frame of mind did not make him a fit person to be a Member of this House. He was not as the Attorney General said repeating his offence. He would repeat his offence if the occasion arose again, but if he said nothing, withdrew nothing, and repeated nothing, he was making no now offence, and under these circumstances he felt very strongly that this House would be committing a great blunder from which they might in future have great difficulty in withdrawing when they had a man whom everyone thought was wrongly exiled from this House for the sole reason that he refused to add hypocrisy to his offence.
Mr. DISRAELI: said he felt that if the hon.
1364
Member who had just spoken had let himself go a little further he would have given them a good example of a suspended Member, and would, perhaps, have saved the situation and the Government. He only wanted to detain the House five minutes to give an explanation of the way he should vote, because there were differences of opinion upon this side in regard to this Amendment. They might divide this proposal into two parts, one dealing with suspension with which he agreed, and the other providing for an apology with which he thoroughly disagreed. They had had a lesson in deportment during this debate, and they had had several Mr. Turvey drops on the Front Benches who had educated thorn to the point that a gentleman would always apologise. He supposed they were all gentlemen, but he should like to know if any gentleman there would apologise if he thought himself right. They had to face in a House like this hon. Members of very different temperaments. There was the man who would never confess himself wrong, and he felt that this Rule would fall very hardly upon him. He thought in this brand new set of rules the Government had introduced something out of date, because he believed apologies to be obsolete. Apologies went out with duelling, and to introduce the formal apology into a question like this seemed to him to be putting in something so ancient that it must in itself damage the rules. There were two kinds of men who would apologise. There would be the man who would come with his tongue in his check, and make his apology to the House, and at the same time tell his constituency that he did not mean it. Then there was the gentleman who would not make his apology, and would continue to defy the House to the delight of the half-penny Press and those who admired his conduct in his constituency. He did not think that would lend dignity or honour to this assembly, and he could not help thinking that the great example on which these rules were founded was the occasion upon which the new Rule was based last session. It was the Irish Party who gave them that illustration, and the Irish Party had been the only case which hon. Members could quote. He had wished that the Church Party would, perhaps, run amuck, but they had not done so, and they had

1365
to illustrate their debates by the case of hon. Gentlemen from the sister Isle. He had always voted against the rule to closure votes of Supply, and hon. Members would remember that Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule closure produced quite as much exasperation on the Conservative side of the House as this Rule was producing amongst the Opposition.
There was another very important question which would arise if this apology was passed, and it was, what was a suitable apology in such a case? What was the apology which would be accepted by the House? He did not know whether it would be left in the hands of Mr. Speaker to judge what the apology should be. He thought it was a very difficult and ungrateful task to decide. He could not help thinking that there would be long debates and many questions asked as to whether the hon. Member for so-and-so had apologised, what were the terms of his apology, and whether they were adequate and satisfactory to the House. He thought this proposal would leave the House in a position of great ridicule. At the same time he believed that the right hon. Gentleman had framed these rules with the intention of bringing more honour and dignity to this House, but he believed the introduction of this question of apology would produce ridicule and contempt. He re-echoed the words of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Honiton Division of Devonshire, that the Government should leave this point an open question, and let every hon. Member vote as he liked. If this were done then they would get the true opinion of the House.
Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: said he was not going to take up the time of the House for more than a moment or two, but he did think it was a very curious thing that the speeches from the front Bench opposite had been so directly opposed to the remarks of some hon. Members opposite. They had been told that these rules were not directed against hon. Members from Ireland. There was, however, one circumstance in connection with the Paper circulated showing the result of communications with foreign Parliaments which did bear out entirely the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Newport. The speeches made at Blenheim were made
1366
on the 10th of August. Now, the communications made by the Foreign Office to their representatives abroad asking for information as to the proceedings of foreign Parliaments bore almost exactly the identical date to the speeches made at Blenheim, when it was stated that these rules were directed against the Irish Party. It did seem to him that whether these rules were directed against the Irish Party or not they applied equally to all sections of hon. Members in this House, and they had been taken exception to not only by hon. Members on this side but also by hon. Members on the opposite side. These Rules have been condemned by hon. Gentlemen opposite who were usually amongst the staunchest supporters of the present Government. The hon. and gallant Member for Newport told them that it was a necessity of Parliamentary Government that the majority should rule. If the precept was put into force then they would have a sea-saw arrangement between the two sides of this House, one side introducing legislation which the other side would immediately proceed to repeal, and the system would break down altogether. His only desire was just to say that it seemed to have escaped observation that the most wilful, deliberate, and premeditated breach of these rules was visited by exactly the same penalty as a person who committed an unpremeditated breach of the rules. An unpremeditated breach of the rules was to be treated in exactly the same way as wilful and deliberate obstruction of the business of the House. If one might quote the precedent of the Law Courts, he believed that unpremeditated offences against the law were almost always regarded with much more leniency by the person who sat in judgment than when a criminal showed deliberate intent to do personal injury or damage to property. Although there was no hope that the Government would not press this Amendment or carry the proposal now before the House, yet when the time came to deal with the Amendments he hoped that it would be found possible that the Government would do what they now asked private Members to do when they committed mistakes, and that was to express their regret that they had not consulted all sections of their followers, and admit that they were equally as capable of making mistakes as

1367
private individuals were capable of breaking the Rules of this House. He hoped when the time for the reconsideration of these proposals arrived the Government would acknowledge frankly the mistake they had made, and after consultation with hon. Members on the Ministerial side he trusted they would decide to modify this proposal.
Mr. FLYNN: said the case made out by the Leader of the Irish Party was that no grounds had been shown for the passing of this rule. Not one hon. Member who had supported this clause had brought forward a single instance or a tittle of proof that the present state of public business or anything that had occurred dining the last three or four years justified this rule. Hon. Member after Member on the opposite side of the House had got up and denounced the latter part of this clause, and yet the Government expected not by argument but by a brute mechanical majority to force this proposal through the House. What reply had been made by the Attorney General to speeches like that made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Honiton Division and the hon. Member for St. Albans. The Attorney General had made no reply whatever. The Government simply sat tight and would not budge one tittle or jot, and trusted that their brute machanical majority would carry them through Speaking generally, Irish Members were but slightly concerned with the latter portion of the clause which referred to the apology. Speaking of himself, if in discharging his duty conscientiously and honourably in defence of the rights of his country he happened to come into conflict with the Chair, no punitive measures and punishments from this splendid assembly would ever induce him to offer an apology. He had often been called to order, and whenever he recognised he was in the wrong and had done something against the rules he was always ready to apologise at once; but where a question of principle was involved no clause of this kind would ever induce him to apologise.
He would leave that matter and pass on to another portion of the clause. They had to remember that by this proposal the period of suspension was doubled, trebled, and quadrupled. What
1368
power resided in a Ministry, and what power was inherent in this House to deny to a constituency the right of its Member to take his seat? There resided no power of this kind in the Ministry or in the House except the power which resided in a tyrannical majority; and what might be the case of Irishmen tomorrow would, in all probability, be the case of Conservative Members in days to come. All hon. Members of this House, whether they came from Ireland, England, or Scotland, or whether they sat on the front Benches or the back Benches, came to this House in a representative capacity.
What inherent right was there in this House to disfranchise a constituency whose representative had committed a breach of decorum or a breach of order? There was no such power. If a Member refused to give an apology alter being suspended and was perpetually banished from the House, the constituency would be disfranchised during all that Parliament, and questions of enormous importance to the constituency might arise. The Government appeared to be determined to adhere to every syllable of the Rule and to carry it through by their majority. This was the antithesis of freedom of debate. The majority of the Government supporters had not the courage or the manliness to uphold the traditions of the Assembly. They would vote blindly and submissively for one of the greatest outrages ever attempted on a free Assembly.
Mr. ARTHUR STANLEY: said he understood that they were engaged in a Second Reading debate, and he should reserve to himself the liberty of voting in regard to the details of the proposal. While wishing to agree with the Government and to do all they could to preserve order, he and other hon. Members did not intend to vote for measures which they thought would not conduce to that end.
MR. PIRIE: said the most remarkable feature of the evening's debate was the great discrepancy of opinion that had been disclosed in the speech of the Attorney General as compared with the speeches of the First

1369
Lord of the Treasury and the Colonial Secretary. The First Lord and the Colonial Secretary had not the courage to declare in the House as they declared in the country the true reason for the proposal of the new Rules. They stated that these Rules were not applicable to any particular section of the House, but the Attorney General was more candid and more truthful in disclosing the real reason. He said that they were distinctly aimed at one section of the House. The hon. Member was glad that the House now realised the real reason for their introduction. The outcome of this was an emphatic proof that there was one law for the majority and another for the minority. In this, as on many other occasions, the Government spirit of
vindictiveness was to be traced. They were introducing a thumbscrew and an instrument of moral torture for Members of the House The hon. Member was continuing his remarks amid cries of "Divide" from the Ministerial side, when
It being midnight, Mr. Speaker proceeded to interrupt the Business.
Whereupon Mr. Balfour rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 157 (Division List No. 25).

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

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

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'ml's

Agnew, sir Andrew Noel

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Gore, Hn G R C Ormsby-(Salop

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cranborne, Viscount

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Crossley, Sir Saville

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

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

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cust, Henry John C.

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Balcarres, Lord

Dalkeith, Earl of

Grenfell, William Henry

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

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Gretton, John

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Le'ds

Davenport, William Bromley-

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christc.)

Denny, Colonel

Groves, James Grimble

Banbury Frederick George

Dickson, Charles Scott

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Hambro, Charles Eric

Bignold, Arthur

Disraeli, Coning by Ralph

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'r'y

Bond, Edward

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Doughty, George

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Bousfield, William Robert

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Bowles, Cap t. H. F. (Middlesex)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Brymer, William Ernest

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanl'y

Bull, William James

Dyke, Rt Hon Sir William Hart

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Helder, Augustus

Butcher, John George

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Henderson, Alexander

Carlile, William Walter

Emmott, Alfred

Higginbottom, S. W.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edwd. H.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Cautley, Henry Strother

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Hogg, Lindsay

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

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brig'ts'de

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh'e

Finch, George H.

Hoult, Joseph

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Houston, Robert Paterson

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

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsh'm

Chamberlain, J. Austen (W'rc'r

Fisher, William Hayes

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Charrington, Spencer

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Forster, Henry William

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, SW

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Galloway, William Johnson

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gardner, Ernest

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Keswick, William

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Knowles, Lees

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Nicholson, William Graham

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Law, Andrew Bonar

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Stock, James Henry

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmonth

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Stroyan, John

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Parker, Gilbert

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Lawson, John Grant

Parkes, Ebenezer

Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareh'm

Paulton, James Mellor

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

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

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pemberton, John S. G.

Tennant, Harold John

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Percy, Earl

Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastin's

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N S

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Thornton, Percy M.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Plummer, Walter R.

Tollemache, Henry James

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesh'm

Pretyman, Ernest George

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

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

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Purvis, Robert

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Randles, John S.

Valentia, Viscount

Lucas, Col Francis (Lowestoft)

Rankin, Sir James

Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmo'th

Ratcliff, R. F.

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Macdona, John Cumming

Reid, James (Greenock)

Walker, Col. William Hall

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Maconochie, A. W.

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Wanklyn, James Leslie

M'Calmont, Col. HLB (Cambs.

Renwick, George

Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Warr, Augustus Frederick

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Majendie, James A. H.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Webb, Colonel William George

Manners, Lord Cecil

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Robinson, Brooke

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Martin, Richard Biddalph

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Massey-Mainwaring Hn W. F.

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE (Wigt'n

Round, James

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Maxwell, WJH (Dumfriesshire

Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Russell, T. W.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Rutherford, John

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Milvain, Thomas

Saunderson, Rt Hn Col. Edw. J.

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

Mitchell, William

Seely, (Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Seely, Capt. J. E. B. (I. of Wight

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

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Wood, James

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

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

Morgan, David J. (Walth'stow

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wylie, Alexander

Morrell, George Herbert

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Morrison, James Archibald

Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyn's'e

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Morton, Arthur H. A, (Deptford

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Spear, John Ward

Sir William Walrond Mr. Anstruther

Muntz, Philip A.

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Newnes, Sir George

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Delany, William

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Dewar, John A. (Invernesssh.)

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

Caine, William Sproston

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Ambrose, Robert

Caldwell, James

Dillon, John

Asher, Alexander

Cameron, Robert

Donelan, Captain A.

Ashton, Thomas Gair.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H

Doogan, P. C

Atherley-Jones, L

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Duncan, J. Hastings

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Dunn, Sir William

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Cawley, Frederick

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Channing, Francis Allston

Evans, Sir Franc. H (Maidstone

Bell, Richard

Cogan, Denis J.

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Blake, Edward

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Farrell, James Patrick

Boland, John

Craig, Robert Hunter

Fenwick, Charles

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Crean, Eugene

Ffrench, Peter

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Cremer, William Randal

Flynn, James Christopher

Boyle, James

Crombie, John William

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Brigg, John

Cullinan, J.

Fuller, J. M. F.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Dalziel, James Henry

Gilhooly, James

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herb. John

1372

1373

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mooney, John J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Grant, Corrie

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Schwann, Charles E.

Hammond, John

Moss, Samuel

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Moulton, John Fletcher

Shaw, Chas. Edwd. (Stafford)

Harrington, Timothy

Murphy, John

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

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

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Norman, Henry

Soares, Ernest J.

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

Holland, William Henry

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Sullivan, Donal

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

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

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E..

Hutton, Alfred, E. (Morley)

O'Brien, Kendal (Tip'er'ry Mid.

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E)

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

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

Thomas, J. A. (Glam'rg'n, G'w'r

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

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

Thompson, Dr. E C (M'nagh'n, N

Joyce, Michael

O'Connor. T. P. (Liverpool)

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

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Doherty, William

Tomkinson, James

Kennedy, Patrick James

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

Ure, Alexander

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

O'Dowd, John

Wallace, Robert

Labouchere, Henry

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lambert, George

O'Malley, William

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Layland Barratt, Francis

O'Mara, James

White, George (Norfolk)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Leigh, Sir Joseph

O'Shee, James John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Lewis, John Herbert

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Lough, Thomas

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wilson, Fred W. (Norf'lk,Mid.)

Lundon, W.

Price, Robert John

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

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Reddy, M.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Young, Samuel

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Rickett, J. Compton

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

M'Fadden, Edward

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Mr. Broad hurst and Mr. Pirie.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Robson, William Snowdon

M'Kenna, Reginald

Roche, John

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Runciman, Walter

(12.12.) Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Standing Order."
The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 261 (Division List No. 26).

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Evans, Sir Franc. H (Maidstone

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

Causton, Richard Knight

Farrell, James Patrick

Ambrose, Robert

Cawley, Frederick

Fenwick, Charles

Asher, Alexander

Channing, Francis Allston

Ffrench, Peter

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cogan, Denis J.

Flynn, James Christopher

Atherley-Jones, L.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Fuller, J. M. F.

Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

Crean, Eugene

Gilhooly, James

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Cremer, William Randal

Goddar'd, Daniel Ford

Bell, Richard

Crombie, John William

Grant, Corrie

Blake, Edward

Cullinan, J.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Boland, John

Dalziel, James Henry

Hammond, John

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Delany, William

Harms-worth, R. Leicester

Boyle, James

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Harrington, Timothy

Brigg, John

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Harwood, George

Broadhurst, Henry

Dillon, John

Hayden, John Patrick

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Donelan, Captain A.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Doogan, P. C.

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Duncan, J. Hastings

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

Caine, William Sproston

Dunn, Sir William

Holland, William Henry

Caldwell, James

Emmott, Alfred

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Cameron, Robert

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Jacoby, James Alfred

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

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

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

O'Brien, Kendal (Ti'perary Mid

Sullivan, Donal

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Tennant, Harold John

Joyce, Michael

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

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

O'Doherty, William

Thomas, J. A (Glam'rgan, G'wer

Labouchere, Henry

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

Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n, N

Lambert, George

O'Dowd, John

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

Layland-Barratt, Francis

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Tomkinson, James

Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington

O'Malley, William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Leigh, Sir Joseph

O'Mara, James

Ure, Alexander

Lewis, John Herbert

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wallace, Robert

Lough, Thomas

O'Shee, James John

Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

Lundon, W.

Paulton, James Mellor

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Wason, Eugene (Clackman'an)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Pirie, Duncan V.

White, George (Norfolk)

M'Fadden, Edward

Power, Patrick Joseph

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Price, Robert John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Reddy, M.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

Mooney, John J.

Rickett, J. Compton

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

Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Morley, Rt. Hn. Jno.(Montrose

Robson, William Snowdon

Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd

Moss, Samuel

Roche, John

Young, Samuel

Moulton, John Fletcher

Runciman, Walter

Murphy, John

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Schwann, Charles E.

Mr. Herbert Gladstone Mr. M'Arthur

Newnes, Sir George

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

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

Shaw, Chas. Edwd. (Stafford)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Norman, Henry

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

Doughty, George

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Arnold-Forster. Hugh O.

Charrington, Spencer

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Fardell, Sir T. George

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Balcarres, Lord

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Finch, George H.

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

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (L'ds

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Firbank, Joseph Thomas

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christc.

Colston, Chas. Edwd. H. Athole

Fisher, William Hayes

Banbury, Frederick George

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Forster Henry William

Bignold, Arthur

Cranborne, Viscount

Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S W

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Galloway, William Johnson

Bond, Edward

Crossley, Sir Savile

Gardner, Ernest

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Bousfield, William Robert

Cust, Henry John C.

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Dalkeith, Earl of

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

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'm'ts

Brymer, William Ernest

Davenport, William Bromley-

Gore, Hn G R Crosby-(Salop

Bull, William James

Denny, Colonel

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.

Bullard, Sir Harry

Dickson, Charles Scott

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Butcher, John George

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Carlile, William Walter

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edwd. H.

Disraeli, Coning by Ralph

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y

Cautley, Henry Strother

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

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

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

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Grenfell, William Henry

Majendie, James A. H.

Seely, Capt. J E B (Isle of Wight

Gretton, John

Manners, Lord Cecil

Seton-Karr, Henry

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Groves, James Grimble

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W. F.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Hambro, Charles Eric

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'x

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

Smith, H C (North'mb, Tyn'side

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Spear, John Ward

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Milvain, Thomas

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Mitchell, William

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanl'y

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Stirling Maxwell, Sir John M.

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)

Stock, James Henry

Helder, Augustus

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Stroyan, John

Henderson, Alexander

Morrell, George Herbert

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Higginbottom, S. W.

Morrison, James Archibald

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hogg, Lindsay

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brights'e

Muntz Philip A.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

Hoult, Joseph

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

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Houston, Robert Paterson

Murray, Charles J. (Conventry)

Thornton, Percy M.

Howard, John (Kent Faversh.)

Nicholson, William Graham

Tellemache, Henry James

Hozier, Hn. Jame Henry Cecil

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Hudson, George Bickersteth

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Parker, Gilbert

Valentia, Viscount

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

Peel, Hn. W. Robert Wellesley

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Kenyon, Hn. G. T. (Denbigh)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Percy, Earl

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Keswick, William

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Knowles, Lees

Platt-Higgings, Frederick

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Lambton, Hn. Frederick W.

Plummer, Walter R.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Law, Andrew Bonar

Pretyman, Ernest Geroge

Webb, Colonel William George

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

Purvis, Robert

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Lawson, John Grant

Randles, John S.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Rankin, Sir James

Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Reid, James (Greenock)

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

Leigh-Bennett Henry Currie

Remmant, James Farquharson

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Leveson-Gower, Fred, N. S.

Remshaw, Charles Bine

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Renwick, Geroge

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

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

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

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T

Wood, James

Lowther C. (Cumb, Eskdale)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Robinson, Brooke

Wylie, Alexander

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'uth

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Macdona, John Cumming

Round, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Sir William Walrond And Mr. Anstruther.

Maconochie, A. W.

Russell, T. W.

M'Calmont, Col. H L B (Cambs.

Rutherford, John

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

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

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Debate rising; And, it being after midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

ADJOURNMENT.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANSHIP.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I am sorry to see that the First Lord of the Treasury is not in his place. The first Lord is rarely in his place. [Cries of "Order."] I have never

1379
for many years spoken on the Motion for the adjournment of the House, but at this time I regard it as my duty to do so. The House will probably recollect that this afternoon I asked the First Lord a question, which I think I was perfectly and more than justified in asking—I asked him to give us across the Table the name of the Gentleman whom he said he should propose as the Deputy Chairman tomorrow. Having regard to the powers to be vested in the Deputy Chairman—powers that have never yet been vested in the Speaker, I say that it is an absolutely monstrous thing that the right hon. Gentleman should not tell us who this gentleman is, in order that we may know whether it is a satisfactory appointment or not. If it is satisfactory, of course no one can say anything, but if it is unsatisfactory of course it is our bounden duty to oppose that appointment by every form of the House. Every one of the Ministers must know the name of the gentleman and I must ask that the name should be given to us. Or are we to hear it to-morrow morning by reading it in The Times. People here seem to regard a communication to The Times as a medium of communication to this House. The First Lord is not respectful to the House in not being here when a matter of the most drastic importance in relation to this House is discussed—a matter which is an organised attack on the Irish Party. The First Lord is bound to be here. I know that the Leader of the Irish Party docs not know the name of the gentleman who is to be appointed. Has ever the Leader of the Opposition been told? Or is it that Mr. So-and-So is to be proposed to take the Chair of the House, and that the gentleman elected will be invested with powers for the rest of Parliament by which he will be able to order us motu proprio? I am only making a supposition. That man will carry on the work of the Government with his eyes fixed on the Treasury Bench. We are bound to have a man we can rely on, and in whom we have confidence. I say it is simply a monstrous thing that we should not know the name. I am surprised the subordinates of the First Lord did not send for him. I must say that I think a very grave liberty has been
1380
taken with the House of Commons. It shows the absolute slight of the House of Commons, which has become a second nature with the First Lord, if he is permitted to foist upon us a man who may be the despot and the master of the House of Commons. I will ask the Whip of the party—for the Whip knows all about this arrangement—to tell us the name.
Mr. DILLON: I am very glad that my hon. friend has raised this point. There is another reason which my hon. friend did not state. The matter is one which naturally creates the greatest interest on these benches. We are not only not told the name of the Gentleman who is to be appointed, but we are left in considerable doubt as to the procedure by which he is to be appointed. The only precedent we have is that according to which the Chairman is appointed at the commencement of Parliament, and so far as I recollect that procedure is that on the first night on which we go into Committee of Supply we do so with nobody in the Chair. A Motion is made that Mr. So-and-So take the Chair. Now that is a very serious matter. The thing is done all in a hurry without explanation and without an opportunity offered for proper debate. [An Hon. Member: "The Speaker is in the Chair."] I think the Speaker has left the Chair before the Motion is made to take the Chair. Well it is quite possible—I do not know in the least—that the Motion for the appointment of the Deputy Chairman will lead to a somewhat prolonged discussion, and I agree with my hon. friend that it would be only fair in the peculiar circumstances of the creation of a new office to give the Members of the Opposition some notice of the name of the person whom it is intended to propose. When it is proposed to appoint a Speaker of the House, the name of the candidate who is going to be proposed is a matter of public knowledge, although it is not publicly announced to the House, and it is canvassed on all sides of the House, so that hon. Members may have an opportunity of making up their minds as to how they will receive the Motion. As far as I am aware it is the practice for the Government of the day, when it is proposed to appoint

1381
a Speaker, to enter into communication with the Leader of the Opposition, in order, if possible, to arrive at some general understanding. I think that is so in the case of every one of those high officials who have control over the liberty of debate. Under the new Rules the liberty of those sitting in this House and the rights of constituencies are involved, and I think it ought to be a matter of considerable deliberation and consultation. It would have been of great importance if the First Lord of the Treasury had, not only this morning but two or three days or a week previous to the making of the Motion, consulted the Leaders of the Opposition so that the Opposition Party might have had an opportunity of considering the name in question, and ascertaining whether he could have election from the House. I am perfectly sure that nothing would have been more easy than to select from the party opposite many men who would be elected unanimously, men in whose partiality we have confidence. But I frankly own that there are many men on that side in whom I have no confidence, and it would be an unfortunate interlude in the course of the discussion of the new Rules, if the first step taken under them in connection with the appointment of an Officer of the House, were to lead to an angry personal debate, and if the gentleman proposed was to be canvassed in the House by those who would have to sit under his mercy. I think the First Lord should have announced the name in the interest of good order itself, and in the interest of that respect which in my opinion will never be adequately secured by Draconian laws or rules for punishment so effectively as by cultivating good temper, good feeling, and the confidence of the House. I say deliberately, and I have the authority of Mr. Speaker Brand for it, that if the Irish Members get fair play, and if they have confidence in the Chair, they are as easy to deal with as any other Members, but if they do not get fair play they are likely to be troublesome.
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): The hon. Member for South Donegal has
1382
complained of the First Lord of the Treasury. I would ask the hon. Member whether it is quite fair to the First Lord of the Treasury to bring this matter forward now without notice.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Yes. (Cries of "Order.") He asked me the question. I could not imagine that the First Lord would be absent.
MR. GRANT LAWSON: As a matter of fact my right hon. friend left the House immediately after the last division. All I can say is that the name of a very well-known Gentleman will be proposed to the House [cries of "When?"] tomorrow. It is not likely that anybody will be proposed whom the House does not know. I am quite sure the name will be acceptable to the House. I hope that hon. Members will not be in any way hampered by the fact that they do not know the name at this time of the night. I must tell you frankly that I do not know it myself.
MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: The feeling on this side of the House has been aroused, and we are inclined to protest, because it is proposed under the new rule to place plenary powers in the hands of an unknown Gentleman—powers which have never been placed in the hands of the Speaker or the Chairman before.
MR. T. W RUSSELL: Will the Motion be made to-morrow with you, Sir, in the Chair?
MR. SPEAKER: I can only understand what is intended from what has passed in the House in answer to a question—namely, that it is proposed to move the Deputy Chairman into the chair in the same way as at the beginning of a Parliament the Chairman of Ways and Means is appointed. The procedure is, when the order for Committee of Supply is called for, the Speaker steps out of his chair and immediately the Leader of the House moves the Gentleman who is to be Chairman into the Chair. On some occasions debate has arisen—there were one or two debates some years ago—and the Speaker has stepped back into the Chair to give the House the opportunity of debate.
MR. DALZIEL: I assume the House may divide on the question of adjournment now before us?
MR. SPEAKER: The House can decide not to adjourn now, and, if it should so decide, debate may continue till one o'clock.
The division having been called and the doors locked,
MR. SPEAKERsaid: I find upon inquiry that this question has been considered before, and it was the opinion of Mr. Speaker Peel that there could be no division after twelve o'clock on this question and that opinion I adopt. There will be no division.
Mr. DALZIEL: On a point of order—It was on account of your ruling that I waived my right to speak. I presume that the Motion is now before the House.
MR. SPEAKER: assented.
MR. DALZIEL: said that this was one of the most extraordinary occasions the House had witnessed for some time. It was a good illustration of the way in which this House was managed. They would have asked this day to elect to the office of Deputy Speaker a gentleman of whom they actually knew nothing whatever. What was all this mystery about? It seemed to him that they were entitled to some notice who the Gentleman was. There had been no defence offered for this mystery at all. The Government were not treating the House with respect when there was no person of authority present to represent them. [An Hon. Member: "Yes, the Secretary for War".] They were delighted to see the Secretary for War. The right hon. Gentleman had perhaps been brought back by the division bell when he was hurrying through Palace Yard.
MR. CHANNING: said it was unfortunate and regrettable that the First Lord had with-
1384
drawn from the House. He asked the Secretary of State for War to give the name of the gentleman whom it was proposed to elect as Deputy Chairman, and also whether they would have a full opportunity of discussing his claims for the position.
MR. CREMER: stated that a Select Committee reported on the accommodation of the House in 1894. The Committee found that the Clerk of the House had 28 rooms, of which 12 were bedrooms, exclusively at his disposal. They recommended that when a change occurred a certain number of these rooms should be taken and given for the accommodation of others who were at present inadequately provided for. He asked whether effect was to be given to that recommendation.
MR. O'SHEE: said the hon. Member for South Donegal was perfectly justified in the action he had taken, because the First Lord of the Treasury when asked in the afternoon declined to give the information in regard to the gentleman to be proposed as Deputy Chairman.
MR. REGINALD LUCAS: said it would not be reasonable to expect a Cabinet Minister to give the information which had been asked. During the last twenty minutes they saw the way some hon. Members regarded the business of the House. The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Irish Party were both absent, and he considered the proceedings in which hon. Gentlemen opposite were now engaged were a farce and nothing more.
It being One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at One o'clock.