Commons Sitting of 5 June 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The CLERK at the TABLE informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  ASHTON-UXDER-LYNE AND DUKIN-FIELD CORPORATIONS (ALMA BRIDGE, ETC.) BILL [LORDS],
    NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATER BILL [LORDS].
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.
    EASTBOURNE CORPORATION BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
    Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the. Provisional Orders included in the Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H).
    Mr. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEreported from the Committee on Croup H. of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock. Report to lie upon the Table.

    LONDON GOVERNMENT SCHEME (SOUTHWARK) BILL.
    Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
    Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    Reported, with Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

    RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 8).
    Mr. COMPTON RICKETTreported from the Committee on Group 8 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned until Monday next, at Eleven of the clock.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    WEST HAMPSHIRE WATER BILL [LORDS].
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to—
    London School Board (Superannuation) Bill, without Amendment.
    Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill.
    Limpsfield and Oxted Water Bill, with Amendments.
    Amendments to—Waterford and Bishop Foy Endowed Schools Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Liverpool Cathedral Committee to purchase a site for and to erect a Cathedral Church for the Diocese of Liverpool; and for other purposes." [Liverpool Cathedral Bill (Lords).]
    Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for empowering the Wrexham and District Electric Tramways, Limited, to construct new tramways and other works, and to work the said tramways by electrical power; and for other purposes." [Wrexham District Tramways Bill (Lords).]
    And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporating the Edgware and Hampstead Railway Company, and for empowering them to construct railways partly underground from Edgware to Hampstead; and for other purposes." [Edgware and Hampstead Railway Bill (Lords).]

    LIVERPOOL CATHEDRAL BILL [LORDS], WREXHAM DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [LORDS], EDGWARE AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
    Bead the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  PETITIONS.
    EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
    Petitions against; Prom Doncaster; Little Lever; Aberdare; Addingham; Bradford (two); Sheffield; Llangattock; Folkestone; and Shotts; to lie upon the Table.
    EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
    Petitions for alteration; from South-all; Norwood; Seaham Harbour; and Eastleigh; to lie upon the Table.
    FINANCE BILL.
    Two petitions from Walthamstow, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
    FRESHWATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Petition from Stirling, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    LICENSING BILL.
    Petitions in favour; From Ramsgate; and Bridlington; to lie upon the Table.
    LONDON ELECTIONS BILL.
    Petition from Camberwell, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
    Petition from Ilfracombe, against; to lie upon the Table.
    PLUMBKRS REGISTRATION BILL.
    Petition from Swansea, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
    Petition from Tudhoe Colliery, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
    Copy presented, of Colonial Report No. 354 (Bermuda, Annual Report for 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
    Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2813 to 281G [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    INEBRTATES ACTS, 1879 TO 1899 (ABSENCE UNDER LICENCE OF INMATES OF CERTIFIED INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES).
    Return [presented 4th June] to be printed. [No. 201.]

    SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
    Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 31st May 1902, declaring that Henry Birmingham, Artificer, Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, was appointed without a Civil Service

    1527
    Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Hanworth Smallpox Hospital.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, with regard to the smallpox hospital that is being erected at Hanworth, Middlesex, and which the officers of his department have just inspected and stated that there is no fear of pollution provided that the cesspools on the site are emptied regularly and their contents are not allowed to overflow or soak away into the soil, whether, seeing the importance of the question, he will give instructions by which all refuse solid or fluid shall be first treated with lime and afterwards burnt as a means of ensuring safety to the public.
  (Answer.) As I stated on a previous occasion, I have no authority to interfere with regard to this hospital, as it is not proposed to defray the cost out of borrowed money. Hence, I am not empowered to give instructions of the kind desired, but I will recommend the Urban District Council to take all necessary measures for the safe disposal of refuse from the building when it is used as a hospital.—(Local Government Board.)

Scottish Congested Districts Board—Island of Lewis Scheme.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the Deer Forest Commissioners state at page 10 of their Report, dated 19th March 1895, that any scheme that would result in affording cottars the opportunity of obtaining crofts would operate a substantial relief both to the cottars themselves and to the neighbouring crofters, will he say whether the proprietor of the Island of Lewis has recently been approached with a view to the acquisition of land requisite for putting into effect in the island a scheme such as that suggested; and,
1528
if not, will he state when the proprietor was last communicated with on the subject, the nature of the proposal made to him, and the reply thereto.
(Answer.) I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that they have been in communication with Major Matheson on the subject of crofts for cottars, but at present he has none to give them. In the meantime, at Major Matheson's request, the Congested Districts Board have re-opened the question of feuing land near Stornoway for fishermen's dwellings.—(Scottish Office).

Island of Lewis Lights.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state when the work of erecting a beacon on Tannasgeir Loch, Carloway, Island of Lewis, will be finished.
(Answer.) I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that the erection of this beacon is not an easy job, as it is difficult to land cither men or material on the rocks, which are only dry at certain states of the tide, and that the Government engineer cannot give any assurance as to when it will be possible to finish the work.—(Scottish Office.)

North British Railway—Coach Road Bridge.
MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of an accident which occurred to a railway guard at Parkhead, on the North British Railway, on the 3rd December last, who sustained injuries through falling from Coach Road railway bridge into the roadway below, he will ascertain whether the railway company have yet erected efficient railings on each side of the bridge, so as to prevent the recurrence of similar accidents.
(Answer.) I am informed by the railway company that instructions were given to their engineer on the 25th of April to provide the necessary railings on the bridge in question.—(Board of Trade.)

Port Said Quarantine Officers.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the officials in attendance at the quarantine office at Port Saidare unacquainted with either English, French, German, or Italian: And, in view of the fact that the majority of passengers passing through Port Said are British subjects, will arrangements be made for the regular attendance of an English-speaking official.
(Answer.) There are at Port Said at present four doctors, of whom one is a lady. All of them speak French and Italian, and one speaks English. The rest of the staff are seven in number; one is English, and five speak French and Italian; one of these also speaks English.—(Foreign Office.)

Yorkshire (W.R.) Constabulary.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the conditions of application for appointment required from candidates for the West Riding of Yorkshire Constabulary: Whether he is aware that it is stated therein that an applicant is to serve and reside in whatever part of the Riding he may be stationed, suitable houses being provided at low rents for married men where rents are high: And, seeing that, in parts, houses are not provided for married constables where rents are high, and that dissatisfaction exists amongst the constabulary in this regard, whether he will call the attention of the Standing Joint Committee and the Chief Constable to the matter, with a view to the fulfilment of the inducements held out to constables.
(Answer.) The conditions, of which I have seen a copy, state that constables are to serve and reside in whatever part of the Riding they are sent, suitable houses being liberally provided at low rents for married men where rents are high. The authorised strength of the force is 1,232; of these 190 are unmarried and live in lodgings; for the remainder 510 houses are provided, accommodating about 50 per cent. of the number. I am informed
1530
that where rents are high applications for houses are almost invariably granted by the Standing Joint Committee if the sanitary and other conditions are found to be satisfactory, but that in many cases, when sergeants or constables have large families, they prefer to reside in localities where suitable employment can be obtained for their children, even if they have to pay their own rents, rather than in houses rented for them elsewhere. Under these circumstances I do not think that any interference on my part is called for.—(Home Office.)

Fruit Preserving Order.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state when the Fruit Preserving Order will come into operative force in the various places where the trade is carried on.
(Answer.) Under The Rules Publication Act, 1893, the Order in question has to be published in draft for forty days. That period expires on the 14th instant, and if no questions arise rendering necessary any considerable modification of the Order I shallmake it at once, and direct that it shall come into operation on or about the 23rd instant. The Order has to be laid before Parliament for forty days, but it will be in force from the date fixed unless and until annulled by Parliament.—(Home Office.)

Indian Army—Supply and Transport Service.
MR. H. C. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state to what extent the Supply and Transport service of the Indian Army in the commissioned ranks is short of its proper establishment, and give the total number of commissioned officers sanctioned for that establishment, the number on leave, and the actual number on duty; what number of Officers have volunteered for the Supply and Transport Service during the past twelve months; and, should volunteers not come forward in sufficient numbers, how he proposes to fill the vacancies, and in the meantime how the work of the Department is carried on.

1531
(Answer.) A large increase of the establishment of the Supply and Transport Corps has lately been sanctioned, and important measures have been sanctioned for increasing the popularity of the service; but there has not been time for this to take effect fully; and the number of commissioned officers is at present about 25 per cent. below its established strength, as lately increased. Meanwhile regimental officers are temporarily employed in the corps. I am unable to answer the other portions of the hon. Member's Question.—(India Office.)

Cornwallis's Charity, Llansadwrn, Carmarthenshire.
MR. ALFRED DAVIES: To ask the hon. Member for the Ton bridge Division of Kent, as a Charity Commissioner, if he will state, with respect to the Cornwallis's Charity for the parish of Llansadwrn, Carmarthenshire, whether the old trustees are to be re-appointed, whether the new scheme is to have the sanction of the Parish Council of Llansadwrn, and whether the bequests under this charity will be devoted to the objects intended by the donor.
(Answer.) The proposals of the Commissioners with regard to the provisions of the scheme are still the subject of communication and consideration between the Commissioners on the one hand and the Patron and Trustees on the other, and, under these circumstances, no definite announcement as to the details of those proposals can usefully or properly be made at present. But the scheme will be duly published, in order that before it is established objections or suggestions may be made respecting its provisions by all persons and bodies interested. And, when it is published, a copy will be sent to the Parish Council of Llansadwrn, and any observations they may make upon it will be carefully considered by the Commissioners before the scheme is finally settled.—(Charity Commission.)
MR. ALFRED DAVIES: To ask the hon. Member for the Tonbridge Division of Kent, as a Charity Commissioner, if
1532
he will state with respect to the Cornwallis's Charity for the parish of Llansadwrn, Carmarthenshire, how much capital and how much accumulated income there were found to be in existence by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Mr. Marchant Williams, after his recent investigation, and the objects for which they were to be used; and, further, will he say if there were reported to be any deficiencies, and, if so, to what extent; and whether he has received any further official information as to the amounts.
(Answer.) The Commissioners do not think they can at the present stage of the proceedings in this case do more in reply to this question than to refer to pages 287 and 288 of the Report of the Assistant Commissioner. (Charity Commission.)

Merchant Ships as Armed Cruisers.
MR. COHEN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state when the Return of Merchant Ships as Armed Cruisers will be presented which was ordered by the House on the 1st May.
(Answer.) The Return is in the hands of the printers, and will be presented at an early date. If the hon. Member desires to have (at once) any of the information called for in the Return, I shall be happy to furnish him with it. (Admiralty.)

Channel Squadron—Roman Catholic Chaplain.
MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the Channel Squadron is occasionally at sea for a week at a time, and the men on board are liable to accidents, he will place the Roman Catholic sailors on equality with their Protestant comrades by attaching a Roman Catholic chaplain to this squadron.
(Answer.) It is not proposed to make any change in the existing arrangements with regard to the embarkation of chaplains on His Majesty's ships, and I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 28th May.† (Admiralty.)
† See preceding Volume, p. 783.

Gibraltar—Dock Labourers' Strike—Private Employment of Bluejackets.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that bluejackets have been employed in discharging live stock from vessels belonging to firms in Gibraltar whose workmen are at present locked out; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
(Answer.) Nothing is known by the Admiralty of the circumstances referred to in the hon. Member's question.—(Admiralty.)

H. M. S. "Britannia"—Beagling.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the attention of his department has been drawn to the practice of beagling as carried on by the cadets of H.M.S. "Britannia"; and whether, in future, the grant; of money out of which this sport is maintained will be made conditional upon the practice being discontinued and the drag hunt substituted.
(Answer.) The suggestion made by the hon. Member to the effect that the pack of beagles which is kept for the recreation of cadets on board H.M.S. "Britannia" should be discontinued has already been brought before the Board of Admiralty, but no sufficient reason is seen for suppressing the pack, and the answer to the hon. Member's Question is, therefore, in the negative.—(Admiralty.)

Rathcormac Postal Arrangements.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to a memorial from the inhabitants of Rathcormac praying for a day delivery of letters to their village, distant some three miles from Fermoy; and, considering that a second delivery is already enjoyed by four villages situated respectively three, four, five, and ten miles from Fermoy, and having regard to the amount of the cost involved by a day delivery to Rathcormac, and that it is not a fixed rule of the Post Office that every portion of the system should be remunerative at first, whether he will take such memorial into favourable consideration.
1534
(Answer.) As stated in a letter sent to the hon. Member by the Post Office on the 12th of last month, the question of establishing a second post to Rathcormac has been recently considered, but it was found that the cost of the existing service is so high in proportion to the amount of correspondence that the expense of affording a second post would not be warranted. The Postmaster General regrets that he is unable to depart from the decision already communicated to the hon. Member.—(Post Office.)

Connemara Postal Arrangements.
MR. O'M ALLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the postal arrangements throughout Connemara, in consequence of which letters in many places are not delivered until eleven or twelve o'clock on week days, and on Sundays not at all; and whether he will consider the desirability of utilising the railway for the carriage of the mails instead of by car from Galway.
(Answer.) The question of substituting a service by train for the existing mail car service between Galway and Clifden was considered some time ago, but it was thought that the cost could not be justified. The Postmaster General will have the matter looked into again, with the view of ascertaining whether it is now possible to make any change in the present arrangements, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as possible.—(Post Office.)

Separation of Sane and Insane Epileptics in Workhouses.
MR. NORMAN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he proposes to take any action, by legislation, by general Order, or otherwise, to bring about the separation in workhouses of the epileptics of both sexes, who for the greater part of the time are sane and well behaved, from the hopeless and permanent imbeciles.
(Answer.) Section 24 of The Lunacy Act, 1890, requires that a person shall not be allowed to remain in a workhouse as a lunatic unless the medical officer

1535
certifies that the accommodation in the workhouse is sufficient for his proper care and treatment separate from the inmates of the workhouse who are not lunatics, except where his condition is such that it is not necessary for his convenience or that of the other inmates that he should be kept separate. It follows that any sane epileptic is required to he kept separate from the imbeciles unless the condition of the latter is such that their separation from other inmates is not necessary. It does not, at present, appear to me that fresh legislation on this subject is requisite. If it should be shown that further regulations are needed I should be ready to consider the matter.—(Local Government Board.)

Mountmellick Police.
MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will state what is the population of the Mountmellick police district, the number of townlands to be patrolled, and the number of police barracks and men of all grades allocated to the district.
(Answer.) The population is 4,155. The number of townlands patrolled is thirty-six, having an area of about twenty-six square miles. There is one police barrack in the sub-district, with a force of eight men.—(Irish Office.)

Gibraltar—Dock Labourers' Strike-Private Employment of Soldiers.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the dock labourers of Gibraltar have been locked out by the Employers' Federation; and that men of the garrison regiment have on several occasions been used to discharge cargo from ships owned by the president and other prominent members of the Employers' Federation; and whether he will require that, in future, soldiers shall not be engaged in work of this kind.
(Answer.) No information on this matter has reached the War Office.—(War Office.)

Bayonet Contract—Pay of Sheffield Workmen.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office
1536
whether he has any official information showing why Messrs. Saunderson, Brothers, Sheffield, Contractors for the War Office, have demanded a reduction of 25 per cent. in the wages paid to workmen engaged on Government contracts; and whether there has recently been a reduction in the price paid them for the making of bayonets.
(Answer.) I am not aware that this firm have demanded a reduction of wages. The price paid for sword bayonets has recently been reduced.—(War Office.)

Army Schoolmasters.
MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Inter-Departmental Committee appointed last year to deal with questions affecting Army Schoolmasters have yet made their Report; and have arrangements now been made to provide an adequate supply of teachers in Army schools.
(Answer.) The Committee has reported, and arrangements are in progress for the provision of an adequate supply of teachers in Army schools.—(War Office.)

Gibraltar—Dock Labourers' Strike-Moorish Labourers.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in connection with the lock-out of dock workers at Gibraltar, Moors are being imported by the employers, under contracts endorsed by Sir George White the Governor to take the place of the locked-out labourers; and whether he will advise that the endorsement of such contracts be in future withheld.
(Answer.) I sent a despatch to the Governor on the 27th ultimo asking for information as to the introduction of Moorish labourers into Gibraltar, and expect to receive a reply shortly.—(Colonial Office.)

Coronation Festivities—Local Rates.
MR. LODER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, in view of this recent Order in relation to levying a Coronation Rate, what power, if any, exists for the enforcement of such a rate.

1537
(Answer.) The effect of the Order referred to will only be to prevent the disallowance by a district auditor of certain reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the celebration of the Coronation by any local authority to whom the Order applies. As was stated in the circular accompanying the Order, it will not legalise any expenses in this matter. I have no authority to determine questions as to any rate which includes a sum to meet expenditure of this kind. The mode of raising objection to any rate is by appeal to quarter sessions.—(Local Government Board.)

Uncertified Deaths in Highland Crofting Counties.
MR. WEIR: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is aware that of the deaths which occurred in the Highland Crofting counties last year no less than 1,479 were uncertified; and, will he consider the expediency of introducing legislation on the subject.
(Answer.) The Government are aware of the facts mentioned in the question, but no pledge can be given at the present time to introduce the necessary legislation.—(Treasury.)

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  South African War—General Buller and "The Times History of the War."
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, what explanation or reply he has to make respecting the statement of Sir Redvers Buller in his letter to the Secretary of State for War, dated 23rd May, with reference to the assistance alleged to have been given to the editors of "The Times History of the War" in its compilation by the official heads of the Army, and the information which was alleged to have been given, not only of the substance of confidential telegrams which passed between the Secretary of State for War and the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa, but of the views of Cabinet Ministers who dealt with them; and whether the information alleged to have been given to The Times will now be laid before the public; and
  1538
  will he explain why these communications were given to the editors of "The Times History of the War" by the Government.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): No documents whatever have been given to the editors of "The Times History of the War" by the Government or the War Office.

  Execution of Commandant Scheepers.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether Lord Kitchener, on his own initiative or as the result of a communication from the War Office, telegraphed to the War Office on the 5th April an account of the execution of Commandant. Scheepers, which took place on 18th January; was Lord Kitchener's attention drawn to the statement made by the hon. Member for Donegal, that Scheepers was brought in an ambulance van from Graff Reinet to the place of execution, with the band playing and the firing party following; that he asked to stand up to be shot, but was tied to a chair and blindfolded; that he was buried as he was, and the chair broken up and thrown into the grave; and that the band played back again; and whether he is now in a position to give any information as to Scheepers' state of health at the time of his execution.
  Mr. BRODRICK: Lord Kitchener's telegram was in response to an enquiry on this subject sent by me and I have no further information to give the hon. Member on this subject.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What is the date of reply? Did the right hon. Gentleman ask Lord Kitchener whether my statement was correct or not?
  MR. BRODRICK: I made the inquiry early in April.

  Ladysmith Siege—Sir Redvers Buller and Sir C. White.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, having regard to the statements that have been made respecting

  1539
  Sir Redvers Buller with reference to the heliogram sent by him to Sir George White during the siege of Ladysmith, the War Office will now publish in full that heliogram or permit its publication in full by Sir Redvers Buller.
  MR. BEODRIGK: I am not in a position at present to answer this Question.

  Compensation to British South African Sufferers by War.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can give the House an assurance that His Majesty's British, Colonial and Indian subjects who have suffered losses by the war in South Africa shall receive compensation and assistance in terms not less generous than those granted to the Boers in the Agreement of Peace.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): I am not quite certain that the hon. Member has correctly understood the terms of surrender, It is not a fact that we have promised all the Boers who have suffered losses in the war in South Africa compensation and assistance. What we have promised is that those who are unable to provide for themselves the necessary implements for the resumption of their industry shall have such assistance given. The answer to the Question will be: The assistance promised by His Majesty's Government for the restoration of the people to their homes is intended to apply to all His Majesty's subjects domiciled in the new colonies.

  Peace Negotiations—Sir H. M Cullum and the Boer Delegates.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been directed to a speech delivered at Greytown by Sir Henry M'Cullum, Governor of Natal, while the peace negotiations were pending, in which His Excellency commented on the demands made by the Boer delegates and on their delay in sending their answer; and stated that they were meanwhile living at
  1540
  the British Government's expense on the best provisions procurable; and what action, if any, does he propose to take with reference to this language In putting the Question the hon. Member said that in the manuscript he originally handed in at the Table he had reproduced the language actually used by Sir Henry M'Cullum, which was extremely vulgar and offensive, but it had been toned down in the Question as it appeared on the Paper.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member should have complained to me if he was dissatisfied.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I do not complain, I would not have taken the trouble.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I have a right to deprecate the language the hon. Member has used with regard to a public servant upon insufficient and unsatisfactory evidence. I have seen an abbreviated newspaper account of the speech in question, but do not know if it is correct. I do not think it necessary to take any action in the matter.

  Inquiry into Management of the War.
  CAPTAIN NORTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he could now state when the promised inquiry into the management of the South African war might be expected.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): This matter is engaging the attention of the Government.

  Army Pensions.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to grant pensions to the widows, children, and dependants of officers and men who have fallen in South Africa, and also to those who are incapacitated from work by wounds or other causes, on a basis equivalent to that which the families of those officers and men were receiving before the loss of their relatives; and

  1541
  whether he has any information to the effect that the Government of the United States have, since 1865, adopted this principle by the unanimous wish of the American people.
  MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member has been misinformed in regard to pensions in the United States which are granted on the principle that the family receives the same pension as the husband or father would have been entitled to had he been totally disabled. The Government is not prepared to grant pensions on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the pensions granted by His Majesty's Government to the relatives of those who have fallen in South Africa are barely sufficient, in the counties of Nottingham and Derby, to pay the house rents that prevail in these counties; and seeing that some of the widows of soldiers are now existing on charity, whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government that these relatives should be dependent upon charity.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware of the matters alluded to. The pensions granted were carefully considered and discussed in the House of Commons, and it would be impossible to vary them according to local circumstances.
  MR. MARKHAM: I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to carry out the unanimous resolution passed by this House last year with respect to pensions.
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not know to what resolution the hon. Gentleman alludes as to pensions, but we are acting on the resolution laid before the House and discussed by it.

  Under-Age Recruits.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he is aware that there are several young lads under eighteen years of age at the front in South Africa who were sent there with their regiments; whether in the bringing home of the troops he will endeavour to have these boys sent back; whether he is aware that
  1542
  several of these boys are only fit subjects for a hospital; and, seeing that complaints are made that in the canteens young soldiers who are teetotallers cannot procure any other refreshments than alcoholic drinks, will he take steps to have this state of affairs rectified.
  MR. BRODRICK: The only lads under eighteen years of age, of whose presence we are aware, are the enlisted boys of units forming the permanent garrison of the Colony. There seems no reason to take different steps regarding them than regarding the enlisted boys of other units in other parts of the world. The greatest care is taken that young soldiers shall be able to get non-alcoholic drinks, and there is no reason to suppose that they cannot get them.
  MR. NANNETTI: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is now aware that boys who enlisted in direct opposition to the wishes of their parents are out in South Africa, and can he not arrange that they shall be sent home.
  MR. BRODRICK: No boys have been enlisted except those who have declared their age over eighteen years.
  MR. NANNETTI: Have not several applications been received from parents about boys who have enlisted under
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member had better give notice of the Question.

  Army Recruiting from the Criminal Classes.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the recommendation of Sheriff Guthrie, of Glasgow, to a thrice-convicted burglar that he should join the Army to retrieve his character, he will consider the advisability of issuing regulations prohibiting the enlistment of men of bad character, seeing that respectable parents dissuade their sons from joining the colours mainly in consequence of the fact that they will be associated with undesirable companions.
  MR. BRODRICK: Will the hon. and gallant Member kindly refer to paragraph 105 of the Recruiting Regulations, where he will find ample instructions on this matter.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Is it not the fact that large numbers of these men are enlisted in the Army?
  MR. BRODRICK: It is not the fact that large numbers are, but it is in the power of the Commanding Officer to discharge such men if necessary.

  Army Canteens.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state what system is to be adopted after September next for the supply of Army canteens; and, if the tenant system is discontinued, whether notice will be given to tenants to enable them to dispose of their surplus stock.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Committee has not yet reported on this matter.

  Soldiers' Dependents and Parish Belief.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any Boards of Guardians have forwarded to him any resolution urging that His Majesty's Government should adequately provide for the maintenance of the wives and children of soldiers who have fallen in South Africa, as also for those who have been wounded and are suffering from the effects of disease; whether any Board of Guardians has protested against the soldiers' dependents being a charge on the poor rates; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government that relatives of soldiers should be in receipt of parish aid by reason of the Treasury Grant being insufficient to maintain them.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): Such resolutions have been received. Provision has been made for the payment from public funds of pensions for soldiers who have been wounded or incapacitated by disease contracted on active service—also for the widows and orphans of men killed in action or dying from wounds or disease
  1544
  contracted in the war. This provision is largely supplemented by the Patriotic Fund and other charitable organizations. I do not regard the provision as insufficient, and I much doubt if the Boards of Guardians which have sent up these petitions are aware of the extent to which it is made.
  MR. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the names of the Boards of Guardians which have sent protests? Is it not the fact that there are men who have fought in South Africa who have come on the parish rates?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am not aware of that fact. The memorial which has been presented to me from various Boards of Guardians is in precisely similar language to, and obviously arises from, the resolution passed by one Board of Guardians and sent round to the rest.

  Consular Service Committee.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee now inquiring into the Consular Service will be published.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRAN-BORNE, Rochester): The statement which I made on May 29th was that the whole question of the constitution and management of the Consular Service is at present under the consideration of the Foreign Office in communication with the Treasury and Board of Trade, but I am not yet able to say whether the result will be a formal Report, nor, if so, whether this will be published.

  Shanghai Tariff Commission.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state what point has been reached by the Tariff Commission sitting in Shanghai; whether the sitting of the Commission has been temporarily suspended; and, if so, for what cause; and whether His Majesty's Government has given any indication of its willingness to consent, on conditions, to any alteration of the Chinese import tariff.
  LORD CRANEORNE: His Majesty's Special Commissioner reported on the 26th ultimo that the negotiations for the conversion of the 5 per cent ad valorem import tariff to a specific basis, which were proceeding satisfactorily, had been suspended until the Chinese Commissioners received detailed instructions from Peking. The negotiation of amendments to the Commercial Treaties is proceeding slowly, but several clauses have already been agreed to by the Chinese Commissioners. The question of a further increase of the import tariff or of the transit pass duties, in return for additional facilities for trade, is still under consideration.

  British Traders in the French Congo.
  MR. CHARLES M'AETHUR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to a Note just issued by the French Minister of the Colonies to the effect that the French Government has never prohibited foreign houses from establishing and freely carrying on business in the French Congo, on condition of respecting the rights of the concessionaire companies; whether he is aware that the French Government has granted territorial concessions to about forty-four companies, which vest the latter with the exclusive right of trading with the natives, and a sole proprietorship of the raw products of the soil; whether, in view of the effect on the interests of British traders who were established in the country before the concessions were granted, His Majesty's Government have made representations on this subject to the French Government; and will he state what is the present position of the question.
  LORD CRANBORNE: A copy of a Note published by the Agence Havas upon the authority of the French Government has been sent home by His Majesty's ambassador at Paris. In the course of this Note it is stated that, subject to the condition that the rights of the concessionaire companies must be respected, the French Government have never prohibited foreign firms established in the Congo from freely carrying on their business. His Majesty's Government
  1546
  are aware that the French Government have granted territorial concessions to a certain number of companies which vest in the latter the sole proprietorship of the raw products of the soil, and which prohibit the natives from disposing of the raw products of a concession to anyone except the concessionaire. Negotiations on the subject have for some time past been proceeding with the French Government.

  Preferential Tariffs for Empire Products—Conference with Colonial Premiers.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give an assurance that, should definite proposals, upon which the colonies may be generally agreed, be submitted to His Majesty's Government in favour of the establishment of a system of mutual trade preference within the Empire, the House of Commons will be consulted before the Government is committed by any expression of approval to such a policy.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am unable to give answers to hypothetical questions.

  Kashmir Silk Industry.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that a foreign syndicate has been carrying on negotiations to obtain control of the silk industry which has been recently re-established in Kashmir under the auspices of the Durbar; whether any steps have been taken to prevent the transfer of this indigenous industry to a body of foreigners; and, if there has been any correspondence on the subject, will he place it upon the Table of the House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): I believe that offers have been made to the Kashmir State, both by foreign and by English firms, to take over the silk industry of the country. The State has now decided to keep the business in its own hands. I am unable to lay any correspondence on the subject on the Table.

  India and the New Army Scheme.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the statement of His Excellency the Viceroy in Council on 26th March that the Indian Government had not expected and can hardly be expected to welcome the proposals of His Majesty's Government with regard to the military scale of pay, and that they have placed their views upon it before His Majesty's Government, whether he can now state when it will be possible to place in the hands of M embers the opinion and arguments of the Indian Government.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I am not at present in a position to add anything to the information I gave to the House on the 1st May last in answer to a Question asked by the hon. Member for South Molton. †

  Railway and Steamship Rates.
  MR. M'GOVERN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade is he aware that American bacon is carried from Liverpool to Enniskillen at the rate of 15s. whilst the carriage of Irish bacon from Enniskillen to Liverpool is 22s. 6d. per ton; that fresh meat is carried from Liverpool to Belfast at 15s. per ton, whilst the charge for dead fowl from Enniskillen to Liverpool is 55s. per ton; that flour is carried from New York to Liverpool at 7s. 6d. per ton, whilst the charge from Liverpool to Belfast is 14s. 2d. per ton, and the charge of oats or grain from Enniskillen to Belfast is 13s. 3d. per ton; and will the Government take steps to amend the law to enable it to compel railway and steamship companies to carry English and Irish produce at the same rates as foreign produce.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OK TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I have no precise information as to the rates specified, but am making inquiry in regard to the rates for bacon between Liverpool and Enniskillen. So far as I am aware, the rate on flour carried between Liverpool and Belfast is 3s. to 5s. per ton, according to quantity,
  † See (4) Debates, cvii, 432.
  and not 14s. 2d., as stated by the hon. Member. The remainder of the rates referred to do not appear to be comparable inter se. As to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, I must again refer him to the existing provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, which already provide a remedy against undue preference.

  Permanent Female Factory Inspectors for Ireland.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-men whether he is aware that at the Congress of Irish Workers, held in Cork last month, a resolution was passed urging the necessity for female factory inspectors in that country, inefficient inspection of mills, factories, and warehouses is to be carried out; and will he be prepared to meet the demand made by the Congress by the appointment of such permanent female factory inspectors.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE. Croydon): Yes, Sir, and I would reply that there is already a staff' of "permanent female factory inspectors" whose services are available in Ireland not less than in other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Pupil Teachers' Central Classes.
  MR. MANSEIELD: To ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in the event of it being decided that the Act of 1901, chapter II., enabling County and County Borough Councils to sanction certain School Board expenses, does not cover the case of Pupil Teachers' Central Classes, which have recently been declared beyond the scope of elementary education, he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to enable this to be done temporarily until arrangements shall be made regarding higher education and secondary education generally; also will he state whether he proposes to extend the time during which the Act of 190I shall be in force.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir JOHN GORST, Cambridge University): The Board of Education are advised that

  1549
  the Education Act, 1901, does cover the case of Pupil Teachers' Centres; and that such establishments, if now sanctioned by the local authority, can be carried on at the expense of the school fund until the date mentioned in the Act. Clause 20, sub-Section (2), of the Education Bill now before Parliament extends this date till the appointed day.

  Elementary School Teachers—Tenure of Office.
  MR. MANSFIELD: To ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, in reference to his replies of 2nd August and 7th December 1900, and of 3rd May 1901, on the question of the tenure of office by elementary school teachers, whether he is now prepared to say when a Bill on this subject will be introduced.
  SIR JOHN GORST: The matter referred to in the Question can be dealt with in the Education Bill now before Parliament.

  Parliament Buildings-Lighting of Libraries, etc.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the dissatisfaction that prevails as to the electric lighting of the libraries, reading-rooms, and all the premises of the House of Commons, he will state what steps he proposes to take to remedy the present state of things.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent. St. Augustine's): I have instructed the engineer to consider whether a better distribution of light cannot be secured in these rooms, in the meantime, by way of experiment, I will have a number of reading lamps placed on the tables in one of the libraries.

  Limerick and Kerry Postal Service.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state the terms of agreement under which the Great Southern and Western Railway Company carried the mails on the Limerick and Kerry Line up to the 1st inst.; what
  1550
  are the terms they now require for the carrying of mails on the said line to which the Postmaster General will not agree, and owing to which difference the mail service is disarranged.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.)The payment made to the Great Southern and Western Railway Company for the mail service on the Limerick and Kerry Line up to the first instant was £1,500 a year, and the amount which they demanded for continuing the same service after that date was £7,161 a year. The cost of the postal service throughout the district served by this line is, without including the railway payment, high as compared with the revenue from the correspondence, and even a payment of £1,500 a year was not justified according to the ordinary rule. Under these circumstances the Postmaster General was unable to agree to the terms asked by the Company; and as they would not consent to give a more convenient service than that now in force for a moderate payment, he regrets that he has had no alternative but to modify the mail service in the manner shown in the statement already furnished to the hon. Member.
  MR. M'GOVERN: Arising out of that answer, may I ask if the Government has any means of compelling the Railway Companies to carry the mails by proper trains.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has no such power.

  Abbeyfeale Land Dispute.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that 700 copies of a ballad in reference to a dispute as to terms of purchase between the Ellis tenants near Abbeyfeale, in the county of Limerick, and their landlord, were seized by the police, on Friday, 16th May last, from Mr. Cornelius O'Rourke's shop in Abbeyfeale; if he can state by whose authority such a seizure was made; and whether the police had a warrant for this action.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The police acting as conservators of the peace, seized these leaflets because they contained what in their judgment amounted to an incitement to enter into a conspiracy not to pay rent. The printer seems to have anticipated that such a view might he taken of the leaflet for he did not put his name to it.
  MR. DELANEY: What have the police done with this document, and will the owner be compensated for his loss?
  MR. WYNDHAM: If he considers that he has been illegally injured, he has his remedy.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has seen this ballad and if, as a matter of fact, it is not a ballad composed in honour of the hon. Member for South Tyrone?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have seen it, but I cannot say I have read it with great attention. It is very poor stuff.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that the Executive are bound in duty to suppress this street-singer? It is not a seditious ballad, but has some phrases in glorification of my hon. friend opposite.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have a copy of the ballad. Will it be in order to road it, Mr. Speaker?
  MR. SPEAKER: It will not.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: What verse of the ballad is objectionable?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of acres of land purchased by the tenants in the parish of Abbeyfeale, in the county of Limerick, from their landlords, and the average number of years purchase paid by them for the same; also how many acres in the same parish are held under tenancy.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am endeavouring to procure the information in respect of land purchase, and will communicate it to the hon. Member when received. The information asked for in the second part of the Question cannot, I am informed, be officially obtained.

  Kilmallock Sub-Land Commission.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that about two weeks since a meeting was held in the town of Kilmallock, county Limerick, composed of tenant farmers whose application to fix fair rents had been heard by the Sub-Commissioners, Messrs. Crean, Peat, and Crosdaile, in February last, in Kilmallock; that those farmers protested against the alleged inadequacy of the reductions and against the composition of the Land Commission Courts; has he received a. copy of these Resolutions from the Kilmallock meeting; and can he take any action with a view to greater reductions of rent being made in future.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member must be aware that the Executive exercises no control over the decisions of legally constituted tribunals. If the tenants feel aggrieved by these decisions their remedy lies in an appeal.

  Irish Institutions for the Blind.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Local Government Board of Ireland has jurisdiction over Irish institutions which receive blind pupils for the purpose of giving them an industrial training, to enable them to become self-supporting; is he aware that those establishments depend to a considerable extent on the rates for their support: and, seeing that the Local Government Board has the right to look after blind persons sent by Boards of Guardians to the said institutions, will he explain why the Board has not done so; and will he take steps to bring this matter under the notice of the Local Government Board.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: This Question is based on a misapprehension. The Local Government Board exercises no jurisdiction over institutions for the blind. The Board's approval is necessary to the selection of an institution to which the Guardians may desire to send a blind child under the age of eighteen, but beyond this the Board has no authority. I have no information showing to what extent such institutions depend on the rates for their support.

  Cattle Rates on Irish Railways.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, according to present arrangements between the Great Southern and Midland Great Western Railway Companies (Ireland) at their Clara Junction, it is impossible to convey a horse or other animal by passenger train from any station south of Maryboro to Mullingar or other stations served by the Clara branch, and that animals booked in such places have to remain in the trucks a whole night at Clara Station: and whether, in view of the inconvenience caused by this arrangement to the public, he will make representations to these companies, with the view of having the matter remedied.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No specific representations have been made to the new Department in this matter. But if such are made in writing, the Department will cause inquiry to be made.

  Spanish-American War—British Diplomatic Action preceding the War.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can explain why there is no trace in the Foreign Office of any assurances given previous to the late war between the United States and Spain by the British Government to the Government of the United States as to the conduct or policy of Great Britain in reference to that war; and whether such assurances, if any, were given by word of mouth or were embodied in any official despatch.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A great many Questions have been put and answered on
  1554
  this subject, and I think with nothing but ill results. I should deprecate any continuance of what I may almost describe as discussion by the method of Question and answer in connection with a subject which now has only a historical interest, and which I think had better be allowed to rest.

  Gibraltar.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any steps have been taken by the Government in pursuance of the decision announced on June 27th, 1901, to have a complete survey, with bearings and soundings, taken of the eastern side of the rock of Gibraltar, and to institute observations there to ascertain the set of the sea currents, and how many working days could be used in the year for the construction of a harbour and dock on that side of the rock, as recommended by the Gibraltar Committee; and whether the Government has now come to any final determination as regards the works at Gibraltar, and the provision there of anchorage, docks, and works not exposed to converging fire from foreign territory.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A civil engineer was sent out to Gibraltar in November, 1901, for the purpose of making the necessary survey. Upon the completion of the required data in April last the assistant hydrographer of the Navy was sent out to draw out with him a joint report of the whole scheme. Both these officers have recently returned to England, and are now engaged in drawing up their report. Pending the completion of the report no final decision as regards any works on the eastern side of Gibraltar has been come to.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to lay the Report on the Table?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall have to consult my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty before I can answer that Question.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—GRANT TO LORD KITCHENER.
Message from His Majesty, recommending that he should be enabled to grant Lord Kitchener a sum of £50,000.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Sir, in conformity with His Majesty's gracious Message, I now rise to propose to the Committee of the House the grant of a sum of money to the distinguished General to whose skill have been entrusted the safety and honour of the Empire during the last two years and more in South Africa It is given to few great public servants, in so short a time to compass so much work for their country as it has been given to Lord Kitchener to do. It is six years since he was a colonel in the British Army. He has now the highest military rank under that of Field-Marshal; he has been made Baron, Viscount. After what I hope will be done by the House this afternoon, he will twice have been voted sums of money out of the public exchequer for his services. He is the Commander-in-Chief designate of our Indian Empire. These are great rewards, and yet I do not think anybody who looks back at Lord Kitchener's career will say that he is overpaid for the services which he has rendered to us.
I do not propose to go in detail over even that part of Lord Kitchener's military career which he spent in South Africa. It will be in the recollection of all that he went there first as the Chief of the Staff of Lord Roberts at a time when the duties of the Chief of the Staff', always onerous and always responsible, were especially onerous and especially responsible in consequence of the disorganisation, or, perhaps I should say, the dislocation, of Her Majesty's forces, consequent upon the ill-success which had attended our arms in the earlier phases of the campaign. That difficult and responsible duty Lord Kitchener
1556
executed with admirable energy and with admirable skill; but it was not, I suppose, until the third period of the war, after Lord Roberts had left South Africa, that the special claims of Lord Kitchener to the gratitude of his countrymen reached their present magnitude. Lord: Roberts, in the second phase of the war, had carried out a most brilliant strategical and tactical movement, by which the enemy, regarded as an organised single tactical unit, had been practically shattered. Had we been fighting a highly-organised industrial community, such as a European community, there is no doubt that with Lord Roberts's success the war would have come to an end. This is not the time to discuss whether the Boer leaders on whom the responsibility falls for the continuance of the war were right or wrong. Everybody, at all events, even those who think they were wrong, and I am among them, would at once admit that a man who was fighting for his country must, even if you differed from him, be judged by the most lenient canons.
The difficulties thrown upon Lord Roberts's successor were of a novel and a most formidable character. When I say they were novel, I, of course, do not mean that guerilla warfare has not been a well-known incident in the military history of many nations. On the contrary, some of the greatest military Powers have felt their resources strained to the utmost in times past in dealing with such difficulties as we have been happy enough to surmount. Some great nations have succumbed in the attempt to deal with those difficulties. The character of those difficulties will be understood at once when I remind the House that Lord Kitchener had to deal at the same time with no less than ninety small mobile columns scattered over an area greater than that of large European States, and these columns were themselves not hampered by the military necessities of defending great commercial or national interests. Their one object—from their point of view a most legitimate object—was to harass the enemy; but they were not limited in their movements by the necessities which necessarily attach to forces engaged in very distant theatres of operations.
There is one further difference which greatly added to Lord Kitchener's difficulties, and which, so far as I know, is absolutely new in the history

1557
even of guerilla warfare, and that is that we were, while fighting our enemies, supporting their whole civil population. I think it would be out of place to attempt any detailed account of the methods by which Lord Kitchener attempted to deal with these novel and in some respects unique difficulties. But it may interest the House to be reminded that in the course of his operations against this mobile foe he created no less than 4,000 miles of lines defended by blockhouses—a distance greater than the whole distance which separates the Atlantic from the Pacific in North America, a distance greater than that which separates Khartoum from Cape Town in South Africa. This gigantic task shows a fertile brain. The success with which this was carried out shows boundless courage, boundless energy, and boundless resource; and it is to those great qualities that we owe the fortunate termination of the war in South Africa.
From the nature of the case, it must happen that when great military operations of this character are carried on, there is no room for great dramatic incidents, great battles in which opposite forces are marshalled one against the other, and in which the issue of a day decides the issue of the campaign. There were gallant feats of arms, gallant feats on both sides, feats creditable to both the parties engaged. But there were not, and there could not be, any incidents such as those which marked the advance of Lord Roberts, for example, to Pretoria, and, even on a greater scale, European campaigns in which we and other nations have been engaged. Yet I am not sure that, in spite of this deficiency in the dramatic element of warfare, the task which Lord Kitchener had thrust upon him was not, perhaps, as difficult as any which has been carried out under more dramatic circumstances. Certainly the strain could not have been less. Certainly the constant demand made upon his vigilance, upon his military eye, surveying the huge theatre of warfare, cannot have been less. Those qualities have been called into requisition by the circumstances in which Lord Kitchener found himself as much as they have ever been called into requisition in any campaign of which we have a record. Sir, I think, therefore, that the House will not for one instant grudge this new and
1558
further mark of our sense of the services which he has done the Empire. In the brilliant roll of English Generals, few indeed have had greater difficulties to contend with, few have come out of those difficulties in a more absolutely triumphant manner. It is, therefore, with the utmost confidence that I now move the Resolution standing on the Paper in my name.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I rise for the purpose of supporting briefly, but most cordially, this recognition of the great services rendered by Lord Kitchener. I do not propose to enlarge upon the distinguished career of Lord Kitchener. From the early days of patient work in the exploration of Palestine, and of the duties, irksome at times, which he undertook on the Red Sea littoral, in the execution of which he displayed a singular aptitude for winning the confidence of men of other races than his own, and of conciliating them, through those laborious years of service in Egypt, culminating in the brilliant Soudan campaign, down to the day when, as Chief of the Staff, he set his foot in South Africa—those passages in his history are a prelude to the past events which now are in the minds of us all. Mr. Speaker, Lord Kitchener went to South Africa with the confidence of his fellow-countrymen. He has earned their admiration and their gratitude. With our partial and imperfect knowledge of the details of military operations, and with our ignorance—our necessary ignorance—of the intimate distribution of duties among those who conducted those operations, it is impossible for us at this moment to disentangle the course of events and to apportion to each of those who were engaged his proper share of credit. But we see enough to be aware of the supreme part that was played by that silent, modest, simple, almost stern figure of the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa. And, therefore, this vote does not convey merely, though it does so convey, a conventional compliment to the military staff' in South Africa through its head. It also, in an unusual degree, means an appreciation of his individual character and service. Lord Kitchener has shown himself a great soldier, but he has shown himself to be more than that—he has shown himself to be a great administrator, a master

1559
of the art of organisation, a tactful negotiator, and a largo-minded man. He is of the very best type of character which, with our pardonable partiality, we attribute to the British name. He is strenuous and pertinacious. He is straight and direct in his action, and he thinks of his duty and never thinks of himself. Then, can we hesitate at this moment, when his efforts, both as soldier and negotiator, have been crowned with success, when, as we hope, a stable and secure peace has been wrought out of the jarring elements of war—how can we hesitate to do honour to Lord Kitchener?
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £50,000 be granted to His Majesty to be issued to Lieutenant-General Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, G.C.B., G.C.M.G, Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's Forces in South Africa, in recognition of his eminent services during the war in South Africa."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
MR. DILLONon rising to oppose this Vote said that, in his humble judgment, the Irish Party had reason, now that peace had been concluded, to congratulate themselves on the attitude they had maintained throughout the course of this unhappy war. At a time when the Press of this country, including the greatest organs of the Metropolis, were clamouring that the leaders of the Boer armies should be proclaimed as outlaws and shot down or hanged without mercy when captured, the Irish Members had the courage, even in this Assembly, at a time when the view certainly was not popular, and even at the risk of some injury to the cause of their own people, to do justice to the honour and bravery of the men whom even the British nation was now anxious to honour. He confessed it was with a feeling of amusement and gratification that he read the somewhat hysterical proposals which appeared this morning in the columns of one of the leading Jingo journals of London, that a British subscription should be opened to present a sword of honour to General De Wet. He considered that such proposals as that, which showed the great change that had come over British sentiment, were, in one respect
1560
at least, a triumphant vindication of the attitude of the Irish Party.
With regard to the present grant, he wished at the very outset of the observations he felt it his duty to make, to make one concession, or, at least, one statement that would surprise hon. Members opposite. If he could look at this matter from the point of view of an Englishman who considered the war necessary and just, he would certainly think that Lord Kitchener was somewhat scurvily treated. He opposed this grant on the ground of the methods by which Lord Kitchener had carried on his work, and also on the ground of the small character of the war. Although it had been said that in matters of this kind it was not wise to make comparisons, it was impossible to avoid instituting comparisons, because there must be some rule on which these grants were estimated, and in considering the question of the amount proposed to be given to Lord Kitchener, Members were driven to compare it with the grant to the Commander-in-Chief on the alleged termination of the war. If he were an Englishman, believing in the war as a just and necessary one, he would be inclined to give Lord Kitchener, at least, double what was given to Lord Roberts. After all, when the services of the men were compared, it was Lord Kitchener who had brought about peace, and there was the testimony of Lord Milner himself that for some months before Lord Roberts left South Africa the war was going from bad to worse. There was not the smallest doubt that the prolongation of the war was largely due to the proclamations and the misconduct of the war by Lord Roberts. The Boers had fough, as no othe nation ever fought, for their liberty, for which they were prepared to sacrifice everything. Although there were articles in the terms of peace which he confessed gave to him as a friend of the Boer nation great gratification and satisfaction, and although he believed that if those terms had been offered eighteen months ago when Lord Kitchener thought he had made peace with Louis Botha and was not allowed to offer the terms which had now been given to the Boers after eighteen months of disastrous and

1561
cruel war; he confessed that he saw nothing magnanimous in them, inasmuch as they deprived a brave people of that which to every brave nation was the most sacred of their possessions, namely, their liberty and independence, to which these people, true to their race, had proved during the last two and a half years of glorious war that they were as faithful to as were their ancestors who defended their homes in Holland against the armies of Philip.
The Irish Members opposed this grant to Lord Kitchener on three separate grounds. First of all, because they were now, as they had been throughout, in opposition to the whole war upon its merits. Every reasonable man would recognise that Lord Kitchener was not responsible for the war, and if Lord Kitchener had been in the position of Lord Milner they would never have had a war at all. The soldiers under him were only doing their duty in the field and obeying orders. They opposed this Vote in the second place on the ground of the conduct of the campaign. They opposed it, because they deplored the wholesale devastation of the country, the burning of the homes of the inhabitants and the bringing of the women and children into the concentration camps. They held that those proceedings were against the laws of war. He had maintained before that the wholesale devastations of the Transvaal and the Orange Territory was against the laws of war. The provisions agreed to by the representatives of the European representatives for the conduct of war were as follows—
"Any compulsion of the population of occupied territory to take part in military operations against its own country is prohibited."
That was violated.
"Family honours and rights, individual lives and private property, as well as religious convictions and liberty, must be respected."
This was violated.
"Private property cannot be confiscated."
"Pillage is formally prohibited."
Both were violated. It was specially prohibited—
"To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war."
He held that it was beyond all question that in the last article, the words,
1562
"imperatively demanded by the necessities of war "meant the immediate necessities of a battle or engagement, and could not by any strain of interpretation be distorted into meaning the devastation of an entire country. All those four or five important articles which had only been recently adopted, defining what had been recognised as the usages of civilised warfare, had each and everyone been broken by Lord Kitchener in the conduct of this campaign, and, without going into any further detail, on that ground alone they were opposed to the Vote. Though he was advocating a very unpopular cause, he put it to hon. Members to reflect how far-reaching was the example of a great nation like England, which claimed to hold so prominent a position in all matters of civilisation and humanisation, breaking through the usages of civilised warfare in order to crush out of existence so small and brave a race as the Boers.
He wished for a moment to examine the policy of Lord Kitchener, or the policy for which he had accepted the full responsibility. Was there an hon. Member of the Committee who now believed in his heart that the devastation of the Transvaal and the Orange Liver Colony was a step which conduced to the termination of the war? He believed that all military men were convinced that it was an enormous blunder. ["No, no!"] He was speaking now of the judgment of others, for on military matters his own judgment was not worthy of much consideration. [Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear! "] He was speaking of the opinions he had gathered from military correspondents and others which had been published, who had declared that the war had been prolonged by the devastation of those two States, and the burning of the Boer farms. That he believed to be the opinion of every man in South Africa. The termination of the war had been hastened, although at enormous cost, by the blockhouse system, but the system was adopted after the devastation. His strong conviction was that this policy was not only to be condemned on the ground of its being a gross and most shocking violation of the usages of civilised warfare recognised by

1563
civilised countries in the last century, but also because it was a blunder and did not in any degree promote the object for which it was adopted. Could any man doubt its effect upon the future government of the country? Those who were conducting this war had stated all along what appeared to be a self-evident fact from the first, that in the long run if this nation persevered with the war they must come out on top by the process of wearing down a not very numerous enemy. The government ought to have kept their eyes fixed upon the problem of reconstruction of South Africa from the Zambesi to the Cape on lines which would in the future have been a source of strength to this Empire.
He wished to say a word or two about the concentration camps. That was the policy of Lord Kitchener, and they had been told that he had accepted full responsibility for that policy. That policy was a gross violation of the usages of war. [Cries of "No, no!"] What had been the results of that policy in the gross? Many hon. Members would recollect the elaborate statistics by which it was sought to prove to the House of Commons that a death rate of 300 per thousand per annum was about the normal death rate amongst the Boers. [Cries of "Question, question!"] That was the question, and it was on that ground that he was endeavouring to justify his opposition to this vote. It was stated in the last published returns that the death statistics in the camps had been reduced from 300 per thousand to 32 per thousand. They could never get over that fact which was a black record against the generals responsible and he was now endeavouring to fix the responsibility upon the Commander-in-Chief. He wished to take that opportunity of repudiating the charge made against himself and his comrades that they sought to fix charges of brutality on the individual officers and soldiers for they had never done so. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He had always endeavoured to fix the full weight of responsibility upon the man who was well able to bear it, namely, Lord Kitchener. In those camps since the 1st January, 1901, there had been 15,098
1564
deaths amongst children under twelve years of age. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "It's murder!"] During the operation of those camps upwards of 10,000 children had been sent to their death, who, had they been left in their homes, would have been alive today. [Cries of "No, no!"] That was a black record against the conduct of this campaign which no amount of sophistry would ever explain away.
He had now mentioned the three grounds on which they opposed this vote. It was impossible to consider the question of a grant to Lord Kitchener, the general charged with the responsibility of conducting this war, without having some regard to the character and the magnitude of the war and the victory in respect of which the money was asked for. He had made a rather interesting calculation in this respect, and he had ascertained that every Boer who by this victory had been added as an unwilling subject to this Empire had cost them £1,000 per head for every man, woman and child, and although there did not live a greater admirer of the Boer race than himself nor a man who valued the Boer race more highly he thought £1,000 per head was rather a high fine to pay for them. There had been great exaggerations about this war which had been spoken of as if it were a war with a great European power. Some people seemed to have forgotten the number of the enemy in the field against them. He maintained that every Boer had cost this country £1,000 per head, and he thought that was a high price to pay for it. There had never been a more extraordinary war than this one. The whole population of the two States who held the force of this Empire at Bay for nearly three years only numbered 250,000, men, women, and children, which was not more than the population of a town like Brighton, and certainly was under the population of Birmingham. He submitted that to call upon the House of Commons to vote £100,000 to the Commander-in-Chief, and £50,000 to the Chief of Staff for concluding a war in which the enemy consisted of only 250,000 men, women, and children, was rather a large order, and on that ground alone, if on no other, he opposed the grant.

1565
He now came to the last point. What I had victory done? In his judgment it had presented this country with a I problem which was one of the most difficult it had had to face in the whole course of its eventful history. After what had occurred it seemed doubtful whether it was possible for human statesmanship to solve that problem in the manner desired by the people of this country. To the Irish people, who had had a long and somewhat painful experience of British administrators endeavouring to govern and conciliate unwilling subjects, it seemed abundantly evident that no beginning towards the solution of this problem would be made by the men on the spot at present. Those who had watched the proceedings as critics—and he frankly admitted as biased and unfriendly critics—had found the question most interesting and instructive, and he could not better sum up their impressions than by quoting the opinion of a brilliant and illustrious English writer, who commented on the character of a fellow-countryman in the following words—
"There is nothing so bad or so good that you will not find an Englishman doing it. but you will never find an Englishman in the wrong. He does everything on principle. He fights you on patri tic principles; he robs you on business principles; he enslaves you on Imperial principles; he bullies you on manly principles; he supports his King' on loyal principles; and he cuts off his King's head on Republican principles; his watchword is always duty, and he never forgets that the nation which lets its duty get on the opposite side to its interests is lost."
He would not move his Amendment, but content himself by voting against the Vote.
CAPTAIN NORTON, as one of a very limited number of those sitting on his side of the House who had been connected with the service, wished to offer his meed of congratulation to the Government upon having so timely recognised the invaluable services which Lord Kitchener had rendered to the country. He might say that, much as he admired his reputation as a general, and the services he had rendered to his country in that respect, he appreciated still more the services which he had rendered from a diplomatic point of view. There were some of them
1566
sitting on that side of the House who, anxious as they were to let bygones be bygones, could not help feeling that if Lord Kitchener had received that measure of support to which he was entitled from all quarters, the war might have been brought to a more satisfactory issue quite eighteen months ago. They owed a tremendous debt to Lord Kitchener when they reflected that through his great skill he had won the esteem and admiration of a people who had made, perhaps, the most heroic struggle on record in the history of the world for their country, and they had established themselves as a people who would take their place down the centuries of time side by side with their great ancestors, who, unconquered by the Romans, nevertheless became their most faithful allies. He hoped that no one today would venture to take another leaf from the well-earned laurel of the distinguished general who had done so much for his country, and who had succeeded in gaining, as citizens of this country, the descendants of a race who, as had already been said, were not only unecnquered by the Romans, but who, centuries later, when their country was overrun by the troops of Louis XIV., made patriotic sacrifices which thrilled all Europe.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that, though the hon. Member for East Mayo professed to speak for the Irish nation, at all events he did not speak for the Irish soldier. As a past soldier of the British Army he did not think it would be right, over a question like this, to allow it to be supposed that the feelings of the Irish soldiers were fairly represented by Irish Members. In his opinion, the very best way they could record their feelings in regard to the Irish soldiers who had fought so gloriously, and died in such large numbers, under the leadership of Lord Kitchener and other British officers, was to ignore with contempt the ill-conditioned talk of Irish politicians.
MR. CREMERsaid that if the Vote before the Committee had been to thank Lord Kitchener he should not have opposed it, but when they were asked to vote

1567
£50,000 to Lord Kitchener for his services he declined to support it, on the ground that from the beginning of the war to the present moment he had never voted for a single sixpence towards the cost of the war, or anything arising out of the war. He hoped that he would preserve his consistency to the end of the chapter. He supposed he was precluded by the Rules of the House from proposing that their thanks should be tendered to His Majesty, but he believed they owed a great debt of gratitude to him for this war having been brought to a successful conclusion. He did not suppose a Vote of that kind would be possible in this House, but if it were he was certain that it would be passed without a discordant note, and without one voice being raised against it. Speaking on behalf of what might be, perhaps, a small section of his countrymen, but still a section that had had some little influence in the past, and might have still more influence in the future, he took the opportunity of tendering to His Majesty hearty thanks for the part he had played, and for the tact and judgment he had brought to bear in bringing this horrible war to the satisfactory conclusion to which it had been brought.
COLONEL. SAUNDERSONsaid he would only venture to occupy the attention of the House for a moment, because he thought it was necessary that the House should know that there was more than one opinion in Ireland with regard to this question. The hon. Member for East Mayo spoke in the name of a party with which he acted, not as its leader, but as a member of the party whose view he evidently represented. He himself spoke in the name of a very considerable part of the Irish people, and he also spoke in the name of every Irish soldier. The House would remember that when the war was in progress hon. Members opposite devoted their talents and their oratory to trying to induce the Irish people to oppose in every way the action of the Government, and to trying to prevent Irishmen enlisting in the army. The reply was sent back from South Africa by the Dublin Fusiliers and the Enniskillen Fusiliers, which had taught hon. Gentlemen opposite that
1568
they at any rate did not speak in the name of the Irish soldiers. There was one thing he thought had come clearly out before the world in the last two and a half years, and that was that the accusation brought by hon. Gentlemen opposite against British rule in Ireland, to the effect that free speech in Ireland was a thing of the past, was an absolutely unfounded accusation. He would like to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite what would have happened in Germany, during the Franco-German war, if a German had spoken in Germany to the effect that the war was a crime, and that no Germans should enlist in the army for the German cause. The career of that German would have been very short, and he would have deserved his fate. What would have happened in France, he would like to know—that was a country which had enlisted the affection of hon. Gentlemen opposite—if a Frenchman had proclaimed the justice of the German cause? He would have met with a similar fate. He could not conceive a better punishment for hon. Gentlemen opposite than that they should be consigned to the tender mercies of the Irish Regulars who had fought in South Africa. With regard to this Vote, upon one point he agreed with the hon. Member for East Mayo. He regretted that it was not greater. The opinion of the whole nation was that this had been a great and difficult job, and that it had been well done. He confessed that he was sorry that £50,000 was to represent the estimate at which the nation held Lord Kitchener's worth. To his mind the outcome of debates of this kind, and the course pursued by hon. Gentlemen opposite, must be to open the eyes of their Radical friends as to the true character of Nationalist Members, and, therefore, the more they debated this question, and the more often the House heard their views on questions of this kind, unless the conscience of the Radical party was of a pachydermatous character, that party would hesitate before consigning the care of Ireland in future to men who had avowed open hatred to Great Britain, and disloyalty to the British Grown.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he agreed with every word

1569
that fell from the First Lord of the Treasury and the Leader of the Opposition in praise of Lord Kitchener. He considered that he had done his work well, and he had particular admiration for him, because while making war to the best of his ability he always remembered that the great aim of war was peace, and that the true object of the Commander who had the interests of his country at heart was to convert, so far as he could, foes into friends. But the hon. Member had certain old-fashioned virtues which were at a considerable discount at present in this House of Parliament—he meant principle and consistency. Since he had been in the House he had consistently opposed all those special grants to commanders-in-chief of expeditions abroad. He opposed the Vote to Lord Alcester, two Votes to Lord Wolseley, the Vote to Lord Roberts, and the former Vote to Lord Kitchener. Under those circumstances it seemed to him that, as a matter of principle, and apart from any question as to this man or that, whether the Commander-in-Chief was an able man or not, and whether the war was just or unjust, he should be wanting in consistency if he were not, though he knew that it was unpopular, to oppose the present Vote. Why should he do it? He had never understood why they should vote a large sum of money to a Commander-in-Chief who did his duty, and why they should not vote a sum of money to a Statesman who did more for his country by bringing in some excellent bill and carrying it in this House. It would be said that the thing had been done often and often, but that was not consistent with common sense. After all, it was exalting the military virtues at the expense of the civil virtues. If it were proposed on the other side to vote a large sum of money to, say the Colonial Secretary for the services he had rendered to the country, he could understand their vote to Lord Kitchener for what he had done. But to leave out the Colonial Secretary, whom they honoured and respected, and who had done such signal service to the empire in connection with this war, was a thing which he certainly could not understand. They did not give the Colonial Secretary a farthing, and they gave £50,000 to
1570
Lord Kitchener. Even assuming that it was desirable to make a distinction between the civil and military services, he should be against this system of giving large sums to the Commanders-in-Chief. The Committee would remember that when Lord Roberts came back to England a vote was taken for gratuities to the entire army. It was divided into units, and the gratuities were calculated according to the particular grades of the officers and men. He could not understand why they should vote a special grant to the Commander-in-Chief, because he was precisely the military man connected with a campaign of this kind who did not need a special grant. They knew perfectly well that the Commander-in-Chief—and the hon. Member was not complaining of it—received a very large salary, and more than that if he distinguished himself they knew perfectly well that he would receive almost always in future high duties as long as he had any work in him. They were told that Lord Kitchener was to be sent as Commander-in-Chief in India. [An Hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] He said "hear, hear! "too. He was glad that Lord Kitchener was to receive that honour, but he should have preferred that he had been made Commander-in-Chief in England. For his part, he believed that nothing they could do for Lord Kitchener in a monetary way could equal the honour done to him by the confidence shown in his word by the Boers and the manner in which they received him when he went into their camp. Look at the condition of the soldiers. Many of them came back ruined in constitution, many of them were wounded, and some had lost the work which they had before going into campaign. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: You send them to the workhouse!] I; he had to choose between voting a large sum to the Commander-in-Chief, and voting a still larger sum to be distributed among the soldiers, he should be in favour of voting it to the soldiers. If he were a Member on the other side of the House he should agree with his hon. and gallant friend who had just sat down that Lord Kitchener had received too little. When Lord Roberts returned from South Africa he left matters, as he said himself, in a most critical condition.

1571
The First Lord of the Treasury had said that Lord Kitchener had a much more difficult task than Lord Roberts. [Cries of "No!"] Anyhow, most Gentlemen in the House would agree that while there was more sensational military work under Lord Roberts, the more difficult task in connection with the war had fallen to Lord Kitchener. Lord Roberts received £100,000 after he had told the country that the war was over. That was evidently an entire mistake. He did not know whether Lord Roberts might not feel that Lord Kitchener should get the same sum as himself, or whether the two noble Lords should put the two sums together and divide the pool. He thought it would be a mean thing on the part of the country not to give Lord Kitchener the same sum as Lord Roberts. He did not entirely agree with his hon. friend that in making these grants to the Commander-in-Chief they should consider whether the war was a just or an unjust war. He did not, in opposing this vote, question the merits of Lord Kitchener as a commander or as a negotiator; but because he was honestly opposed to all those votes.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he would not have troubled the House with any observations at that stage; but unfortunately, on the previous day, when he desired to register his vote against this grant in its initial stage, he was unable to make the Speaker hear him when he said "No." For that reason he felt that he could not allow this occasion to pass without following the course he had always adopted ever since the war commenced, and explaining why he was opposed to this grant of money. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had referred in very glowing and enthusiastic terms to the services done in South Africa, and to the sacrifices made by many of the Irish troops. He was not at all prepared to deny that the Irish troops in South Africa had done a great deal more than their fair share in the fighting and the suffering, but the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh would probably be surprised to hear that one of the reasons why he was opposed to this grant to Lord Kitchener was that he
1572
thought it was a shameful and disgraceful thing that the Commander-in-Chief should receive such large monetary compensation, while the very soldiers which the hon. and gallant Member talked about were allowed, in many cases, to drift into the workhouses, and their wives, children, and relatives had been absolutely neglected by the War Office. He did not know what the experience of the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been on this matter during the war, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not object to his telling him that scarcely a day had passed on which he had not received a large number of letters from the wives, children and relatives of the men at the front—particularly reservists—complaining that no steps had been taken by the War Office to compensate them for the loss of the wages of their husbands, fathers, or sons.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman will not be in order in discussing the conduct of the War Office under this Vote.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he had no desire to traverse beyond the scope of the Vote; he only wanted to show why he opposed this Vote to Lord Kitchener; and to ask why no similar proposal had been made for the provision of relief to the wives and children of the men at the front. In his opinion, the whole of this proceeding was covering the House and country with ridicule. The Government were making the House the laughing stock of the world. They were acting as if they had achieved some great and. mighty feat of arms, and had won a victory which justified them in celebrating it in every extraordinary way. What were the facts? Lord Kitchener with an army infinitely greater than all the men, women, and children in the Transvaal, had only been able to sign the conditions of peace at the end of two and three-quarter years, because the Boers had run short of ammunition and the other means for carrying on the war. Where was the glory in that? Was there anything wonderful in such a so-called feat of arms? He maintained that the whole history of the last

1573
two and three-quarter years had covered the name of the English people with eternal disgrace in every portion of the world; and the fact that this large sum of money was to be given to the Commander-in-Chief, while the men in the field and their families were left out in the cold, was simply disgraceful. It was a very easy thing for His Majesty the King or any other gentleman to suggest that this House should hand over £50,000 to Lord Kitchener or any other gentleman; but he thought that His Majesty the King and his counsellors would have been infinitely better advised if, instead of introducing this grant, they had asked the House to make some provision at this time to relieve the terrible distress and poverty of the masses of the people which was evident all round this city and in every part of the country. Lord Kitchener would go down to history as the one British General who had made war on women and children. [Loud and continued cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Divide."]
MR. MACVEAGHrose to a point of order. He begged to draw the attention of the Chairman to the persistent attempt of hon. Gentlemen opposite to prevent the hon. Member in possession of the Committee from proceeding with his speech.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to proceed.
MR. BAETLEYasked whether it was in order, even for an Irish Member, to insult the British Army? [Loud cries of "Divide," and "Withdraw," from the Government Benches, and of "Police" from the Irish Benches.]
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Withdraw what?
MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The charge the hon. Member made against Lord Kitchener.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: As to my reference to Lord Kitchener, I do not propose to withdraw a single word. [Loud and persistent cries of "Divide!"]
MR. MACVEAGH: I rise again to ask you, Mr. Jeffreys, whether you intend to enforce your decision that the hon. Member should obtain a fair hearing.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not out of order, but I cannot compel the Committee to listen to him. I hope, however, that the Committee will listen to him.
MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTrose upon a point of order, but was not heard in the Gallery, owing to the uproar in the House.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member rose to a point of order, and therefore I call upon him to raise his point of order.
MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I am anxious to assist, if I can, to put an end to this——
[Cries from the Irish Benches: What is your point of order?]
MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid the hon. Member had made use of an expression that had given a great deal of offence to Members on the Unionist side of the House. He had said that Lord Kitchener had made war upon women and children. If the hon. Gentle man did not withdraw that——
[Cries from the Irish Benches: That is not a point of order.]
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That might have been an unfortunate expression, but it was not out of order.
MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTagain rose, but was met with loud cries of "Name, name!"
MR. DILLON: Name him. If he were an Irish Member he would have been named long ago.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I call upon Mr. Redmond to continue his speech.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDrose, but could not make himself heard.
MR. REDDY: Where are your new Rules?
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The hon. Gentleman said——
MR. SETON-KARR: I beg to move that the hon. Member be no longer heard.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Mr. Jeffreys, will you ask them to be silent while I speak to you?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member wishes to explain some question that arose. I hope the House will allow him to do so.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND, who spoke amid a great uproar, was understood to say that the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency he did not remember at the moment, had accused him of making what was an offensive observation, and had called upon him to withdraw it. He did not know what that observation was, but if the hon. Member referred to the statement that Lord Kitchener was responsible for the death of 15,000 children in the concentration camps, and that by those camps he had made war on women and children, he could only say that was his absolute conviction; he stated it, and would not withdraw it.
Mr. HALSEY, rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the DEPUTY CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND, on rising to resume his speech, was again met with persistent interruption. He said that if hon. Gentlemen refused to hear him that was the best proof that they were afraid of what he might say. There was such an atmosphere of hypocrisy here that even when one man spoke the truth, hon. Members tried to drown his voice by organised disturbance. The conduct of Lord Kitchener in desecrating the tomb of the Mahdi at Omdurman——
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid this was a Vote to Lord Kitchener for his services in South Africa. The hon. Member must not allude to other matters.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he wished to give an additional reason why the Irish Members objected to this Vote. In Ireland they could not get a farthing for a useful purpose, and money was squandered here on Generals who were well paid for their work. If this grant was to be given, why was Lord Kitchener selected against General Buller? Why was Lord Methuen, who fought as well as any of our soldiers, passed over? Lord Kitchener and Lord Roberts had made more disgraceful conquerors than any Generals in the history of the world. They left the wives and children of the Boers to starve, and now they were made the heroes of a corrupt society. So far as he was concerned, he opposed, this Vote.
An HON. MEMBER: Oh! sit down.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: On a point of order, Sir, I desire to know whether one hon. Member of this House is entitled to order another to sit down. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] Mr. Jeffreys, I wish to know, Sir, why you. as Chairman, do not appeal to the Committee to give me a hearing. Is it because my opinions are not popular that I am not entitled to be heard?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I have appealed to the Committee to hear the hon. Gentleman. I cannot compel it. [Cries of "Call in the police" from the Irish Benches.]
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The expressions that I have heard are not out of order.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Well, that is very useful!
MR. CALDWELL: Upon a point of order, Sir, may I call your attention to the new Rule whereby, under certain conditions, a sitting may be suspended? And may I ask whether the time has not arrived when that Rule should be put in force.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No, Sir, I do not think the time has arrived. But I would ask the hon. Member to conclude his speech, as it is apparently distasteful to the House. I did not accept the closure, because I thought

1577
the hon. Gentleman was nearing the end of his speech. [Further Irish shouts of dissent.]
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDrose, and attempted to speak, amidst continued uproar. He was understood to say that, as he desired to reply, he appealed to the Deputy Chairman to get him a hearing. He begged to inform him that, owing to the continued interruption, he had been unable to make any progress in the speech he intended to deliver. He could not accept the statement that, because a speech was distasteful to some portion of the House, a Member should not be allowed to make it.
Mr. BANBURYrose in his place, and claimed to move.
"That the Question be now put."
MR. DILLON, speaking with his hat on, on a point of order wished to know whether in future a Member of this House, when his speech was distasteful, must desist.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.
MR. DILLON: I understood that was your ruling.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask you, on a point of order, if it is not true that you told me, because my speech was distasteful, that I should not continue?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: When the hon. Gentleman asked me to get him a hearing, I said his speech was evidently distasteful to the Committee, that I was not able to get him a hearing, and that I hoped he would conclude his speech.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not in your recollection that you said, as my speech was distasteful, I should desist?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That was not my intention. My intention was to say that, as the speech was distasteful to the House, I could not get the hon. Member a hearing.
(4.10.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 273; Noes, 138. (Division List No. 201.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Brassey, Albert

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cranborne, Viscount

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Allsopp, Hon. George

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Brymer, William Ernest

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Anstruther, H. T

Bull, William James

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Arrol, Sir William

Carlile, William Walter

Disraeli, Conmgsby Ralph

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dixon-Hartland, SirF'r'dDixon

Austin, Sir John

Cautley, Henry Strother

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

Dougnty, George

Balcarres, Lord

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Baldwin, Alfred

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

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

Elliot, Hon. A Ralph Douglas

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

Barry Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Chamberlain, T. (S'thampton)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Bartley, George C. T.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fardell, Sir T. George

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Chapman, Edward

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks

Charringcon, Spencer

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

Beresford Lord Charles William

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Finch, George H.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bignold, Arthur

Coddington, Sir William

Fisher, William Hayes

Bill, Charles

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Fison, Frederick William

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Bond, Edward

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith -

Colomb,SirJohnCharlesReady

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Boulnois, Edmund

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Flower, Ernest

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Corbett, A.Cameron(Glasgow)

Foster,philipS(Warwick,S. W

Galloway, William Johnson

Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

Round, James

Gardner, Ernest

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Russell, T. W.

Garfit, William

Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth

Rutherford, John

Gibbs, Hon.Vicary (St. Albans)

Macdona, John Cumming

Sackville, Col. G. S. Stopford-

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Gordon Hn.J.E.(Blgin & Nairn)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Gore,HnG.RC. Ormsby-(Salop

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

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Saunderson, RtHn.ColEdw. J.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

M'Killop,James(Stirlingshire)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Majendie, James A. H.

Seton-Karr, Henry

Graham Henry Robert

Malcolm, Ian

Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

Maxwell, RtHnSirHE.(Wigt'n

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfew

Grenfell, William Henry

Maxwell,WJH(Dumfriesshire

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Gretton, John

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Groves James Grimble

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Gunter, Sir Robert

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Milner, Rt.Hon.SirFrederickG

Spear, John Ward

Hain, Edward

Milvain, Thomas

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Hall, Edward Mar-hall

Mitchell, William

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Hamilton, RtHnLordG.(Mid'x

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry

More, Robt.Jasper(Shropshire)

Stewart, SirMarkJ.M. Taggart

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Morgan, David J. (Walth stow)

Stirling Maxwell, Sir John M.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

Stock, James Henry

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Heath, James(Staffords. N. W.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Helder, Augustus

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Tennant, Harold John

Henderson, Alexander

Myers, William Henry

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Thornton, Percy M.

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Newnes, Sir George

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Br'ghts'de

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Valentia, Viscount

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Parker, Gilbert

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Hoult, Joseph

Pemberton, John S. G.

Well by, Lt. Col. AC. E (Taunton

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Penn, John

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

Hutton, John (Yorks N. R.)

Percy, Earl

Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Pierpoint, Robert

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wills, Sir Frederick

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. SirJohn H.

Plummer, Walter R.

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

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col, W. (Salop

Purvis, Robert

Wilson, Fred, W. (Norfolk, Mid

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Pym, C. Guy

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Knowles, Lees

Randles, John S.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Rankin, Sir James

Wilson, J. W. (Worc stersh. N.)

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Ratcliff, R. F

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

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Lawson, John Grant

Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

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

Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Edw. H

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Renwick, George

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Younger, William

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Mr. Banbury and Mr.

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

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Bromley-Davenport.

Lowe, Francis William

Ropner, Colonel Robert

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Blake, Edward

Causton, Richard Knight

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Roland, John

Charming, Francis Allston

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Crean, Eugene

Asher, Alexander

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Cremer, William Randal

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Burke, E. Haviland-

Crombie, John William

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Burns, John

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Caldwell, James

Delany, William

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Black, Alexander William

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

1580

1581

Dillon, John

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Price, Robert John

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Priestley, Arthur

Duncan, J. Hastings

Leamy, Edmund

Rea, Russell

Dunn, Sir William

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Reddy, M.

Edwards, Frank

Lloyd-George, David

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Elibank, Master of

Lundon, W.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Ellis, John Edward

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Emmott, Alfred

MacNeill, John Cordon Swift

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maist'ne

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Roe, Sir Thomas

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

M'Govern, T.

Runciman, Walter

Fenwick Charles

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Kenna, Reginald

Shaw, Charles E w. (Stafford)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

M'Killop, W. (Silgo, North)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Fuller, J. M. F.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Furnees, Sir Christopher

Mather, William

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Gilhooly, James

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Soares, Ernest J.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Sullivan, Donal

Grant, Corrie

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Hammond, John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

Harwood, George

Norman, Henry

Tomkinson, James

Hayden, John Patrick

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Toulmin, George

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

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

Ure, Alexander

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Brien Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Wallace, Robert

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

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

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Holland, William Henry

O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.)

White, Luke (York. E. R.)

Horniman, Frederick John

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

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Whitley, J. H.'(Halifax)

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wood house, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Partington, Oswald

Joyce, Michael

Paulton, James Mellor

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Sir Thomas Esmonde

Labouchere, Henry

Perks, Robert William

and Captain Donelan.

Lambert, George

Power, Patrick Joseph

(4.24.) Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to be issued to Lieutenant-General Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's Forces in South Africa,
in recognition of his eminent services during the war in South Africa."
The Committee divided :—Ayes, 380; Noes, 44. (Division List No. 202.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

Bartley, George C. T.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Brymer, William Ernest

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Beach, Rt. H n. Sir Michael Hicks

Bull, William James

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Beresford, Lord Charles William

Caldwell, James

Allsopp, Hon. George

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasgow

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bignold, Arthur

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bill, Charles

Carlile, William Walter

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Black, Alexander William

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Arrol, Sir William

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Causton, Richard Knight

Asher, Alexander

Bond, Edward

Cautley, Henry Strother

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

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

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Boulnois, Edmund

Cavendish, V. G W. (Derbysh.

Austin, Sir John

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Balcarres, Lord

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Baldwin, Alfred

Brassey, Albert

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

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

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Channing, Francis Allston

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Banbury, Frederick George

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Chapman, Edward

Charrington, Spencer

Grenfell, William Henry

Lowther, Rt. Hn James (Kent)

Clive, Capt. Percy A.

Gretton, John

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A E.

Groves, James Grimble

Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

Coddington, Sir William

Gunter, Sir Robert

Macdona, John Cumming

Cogbill, Douglas Hurry

Guthrie, Walter Murray

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hain, Edward

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hall, Edward Marshall

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

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

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

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin.

Craig, Robert Hunter

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

Majendie, James A. H.

Cranborne, Viscount

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Malcolm, Ian

Crombie, John William

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Markham, Arthur Basil

Crass, Alexander (Glasgow)

Harwood, George

Mather William

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Davenport, William Bromley-

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton

Dewar, John A. (Inveness-sh.

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Helder, Augustus

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Helme, Norval Watson

Milvain, Thomas

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Henderson, Alexander

Mitchell, William

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Hoare, Sir Samuel

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Doughty, George

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

Morgan, Davd J (Walthamstow

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Holland, William Henry

Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Morley, Rt. Hn John (Montrose

Duncan, J. Hastings

Horniman, Frederick John

Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford)

Dunn, Sir William

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Mowbray Sir Robert Gray C.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hoult, Joseph

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Edwards, Frank

Howard, J. (Midd Tottenham)

Muraay Charles J. (Coventry)

Elibank, Master of

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Myers, William Henry

Ellis, John Edward

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Emmott, Alfred

Jacoby, James Alfred

Newnes, Sir George

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

Jebb, Sir Richard Claver house

Nicol, Donal Ninian

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Norman, Henry

Faber, George Denison (York)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Fardell, Sir T. George

Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Kearley, Hudson E.

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading

Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc.

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Finch, George H.

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Parker, Gilbert

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Partington, Oswald

Fisher, William Hayes

Keswick, William

Paulton, James Mellor

Fison, Frederick William

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

FitzGerald Sir Robert Penrose-

Knowles, Lees

Pemberton, John S. G.

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lambert, George

Perm, John

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Percy, Earl

Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Perks, Robert William

Flower, Ernest

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Pierpoint, Robert

Foster, Philip S. (Warw'k, S. W.

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Pilkington, Lieut-Col. Richard

Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

Lawson, John Grant

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Fuller, J. M. F.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Plummer, Walter R.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Galloway, William Johnson

Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

Priestley, Arthur

Gardner, Ernest

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Purvis, Robert

Garfit, William

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Pym, C. Guy

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Randles, John S.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. H'rb'rt John

Leng, Sir John

Rankin, Sir James

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Leveson-Gower, Fred' rick N. S.

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Ratcliff, R. F.

Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'r H mlets

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Gore, Hn G RC Ormsby-(Salop

Lloyd-George, David

Rea, Russell

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

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

Reid, James (Greenock)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Graham, Henry Robert

Lough, Thomas

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Grant, Corrie

Lowe, Francis William

Renwick, George

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

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

1584

1585

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Spear, John Ward

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Ritchie, Rt Hn. Chas. Thomson

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Welby, Lt-Col A C E (Taunton

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)

Roberts, William Snowdon

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Stewart Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

Rollit, Sir Albert, Kaye

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jonn M.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Stock, James Henry

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Round, James

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Runciman, Walter

Strachey, Sir Edward

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell (Birm

Russell, T. W.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Wills, Sir Frederick

Rutherford, John

Talbot, Lord E (Chichester)

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

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

Tennant, Harold John

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col Edwd J

Thomas, David Alfr'd (Merthyr

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

Scott, Chas. Frestwich (Leigh)

Thomas, J A (Glam'rgan, Gower

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

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

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

Seton-Karr, Henry

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Thornton, Percy M.

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Tomkinson, James

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Toulmin, George

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Shaw-Stewart. M. H. (Renfrew)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Younger, William

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Ure, Alexander

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Valentia, Viscount

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Wallace, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Sir William Walrond and

Soares, Ernest J.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Joyce, Michael

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

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Labouchere, Henry

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Blake, Edward

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal W.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Roland, John

Leamy, Edmund

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

Burke, E. Haviland-

Lundon, W.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Crean, Eugene

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cremer, William Randall

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Reddy, M.

Delany, William

M'Govern, T.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Dillon, John

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Kean John

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Ffrench, Peter

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Sullivan, Donal

Flynn, James Christopher

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Gilhooly, James

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

TELLERS FOE THE NOES—

Hammond, John

O'Brien, James F X. (Cork)

Sir Thomas Esmonde and

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Resolution to be reported tomorrow; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—VOTE OF THANK'S TO THE FORCES.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR, on rising to move the Resolution standing on the Paper, was prevented speaking by loud and continued cries of "Divide! Divide!" from the Nationalist Members.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I trust that hon. Members will, in the interests of freedom of debate—[loud Nationalist cheers]—in the interests of freedom of debate and of dignity of debate, listen to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. I trust that will be the case on both sides of the House.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I trust I may be allowed, on the question of order, to say to you, Sir, that my hon. friends who have just interrupted by cries of "Divide" have done so in consequence of a ruling of the Deputy Chairman of Committees to the effect that it was not out of order to refuse a hearing to an hon. Member who was making a distasteful speech.
MR. SPEAKER: I understand that some dispute arose in Committee. I was not altogether ignorant of what had taken place, although I am not accepting the version of the hon. Member as to the effect of the ruling

1587
of the Chair. But I do trust that, whatever has taken place in Committee, in this House freedom of debate, as I say, and dignity of debate, will be observed on both sides.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: All I wish to say is that there are no men in this House who have such a high interest in freedom of debate as those who sit upon these Benches, and that the action taken by my hon. friends was in the nature of a protest against what they regarded—and I think justifiably regarded—as an unwarrantable interference with the freedom of debate in the incident which has just closed.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I trust that, whatever difference of opinion may have made itself felt in connection with the Resolution which has just been agreed to, no such difference of opinion will be shown in reference to the Resolution which I am now about to propose—a Resolution which is intended to convey the thanks of the House to our troops engaged in South Africa, and to express our high admiration of the manner in which they have carried out their duties. I do not know that there is in our history any exact parallel to the Resolution which I am about to move; it includes some paragraphs for which there is no parallel in any previous Resolution of this House, so far as I know, in connection with our military forces. For the first time we have had an Army entirely composed of British subjects, and in that army have been righting side by side not merely the Regular troops of the Crown, but the Militia, the Volunteers, the colonial forces, and the Yeomanry and Volunteers from India. This indicates a very great revolution in the military position of this country. Never before have we sent beyond the seas any force comparable in numbers to the forces that have been engaged during the last few years in South Africa. Never before, when we have sent a really considerable force beyond the seas, have we been without allies or mercenaries other than of English nationality and English blood. That is my recollection; I do not pie-tend to have verified it; but certainly all through the Peninsular War we had the assistance of a famous corps, known
1588
as the German Legion, and all through the great wars of the eighteenth century that was emphatically the case. In the Crimean War we fought side by side with great allies. On this occasion alone, so far as I know, a force of 250,000 men has been collected 7,000 miles from our shores, every one of whom was a subject of his Majesty the King.
It is manifest that to each of the classes of which this great force was composed we ought to tender our thanks, and the first paragraph begins by tendering our thanks to the officers and men of the Regular Army. Sir, they have been the backbone, after all, of our fighting force. On them has the greatest I burden fallen, and they have served without discontent or murmuring side I by side with brothers in arms paid at a much higher rate, and in the circumstances properly paid at a much higher rate than themselves; they have seen that that was one of the necessities of the occasion, and so far as I know, there has been no discontent. They have ungrudgingly, as well as courageously, performed all the duties that have been thrown upon them. Then I come to another branch of the forces engaged in the field, of which we have, indeed, had plenty of experience in the past—I mean the sailors. Our sailors and our soldiers have constantly co-operated, not merely in operations in which the Navy itself was engaged, but in operations of a strictly military character, and never has that co-operation done otherwise than redound to the credit of the naval force engaged. What has been true throughout our history has been true in South Africa, and the naval brigade has earned undying honour in the early stages of the war.
I now come to the Militia, the Yeomanry, and the Volunteers. This is the first time in which these forces have been engaged far beyond the seas in great military operations; this is the first time the Militia, as far as I know, have ever fought side by side with the Regular troops of the country abroad, They were used in our fortresses during the Crimean war, but they never went to the front. In this war for the first time they have actually been in the fighting line with the Regular troops, And, Sir, if the position of the Militia on

1589
this occasion is novel, still more novel is I it that we should have these great bodies of Volunteers and Yeomanry who, even from the very early days of the war, have done such admirable services and have co-operated with an Army, which, by itself, was no doubt numerically insufficient for the work thrown upon it, not by the numbers of the enemy, but by the character of the country in which the military operations were carried on.
The third category of troops we have to thank are the colonial forces. If this is the first time in which the Militia have taken part in actual military operations, if this is the first time in which the Volunteers have co-operated with the Regular troops, so also is it the first time that any large body of our colonies has come forward in a moment of great Imperial need and thrown in their lot with the mother country. I quite agree it is not the first time they have given us assistance; but it is the great example, the first example, of what can be done, from a purely military point of view, by the British Empire when all the parts of that Empire are convinced that some great, common, Imperial need requires of every member of the Empire an equal sacrifice. Sir. the numbers supplied to us from our colonies have been considerable, and the service they have done us in the field has been great, but I venture to say that the benefits that they have conferred upon our common Empire are not to be measured either by the number of men engaged or by the actual military operations in which they have taken part; they are to be measured by the sentiment of which this great contribution is the conclusive evidence, and which makes the present war the opening of a new chapter in our Imperial history. These are the great classes of troops which we ask the House to thank. I think it would be superfluous if I were to waste the time of the House by saying one word in praise of their courage or their conduct. But, Sir, I must say a word about the admirable spirit of humanity which has animated them from first to last. In the speech which fell from the hon. Member for East Mayo in the early part of the sitting I lamented nothing so much as his attacks upon the
1590
inhumanity of the Army. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: He said nothing of the kind.]
MR. DILLONsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman should do him justice. He said distinctly that neither on that occasion nor on other occasions, as far as he knew, had he made any charge against the Army or officers on the ground of inhumanity. He made the charge against Lord Kitchener, who had himself accepted the whole responsibility for the policy which he attacked.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry to have misrepresented the hon. Gentleman. The version he gives of his speech is an accurate one. He did throw all the blame on Lord Kitchener, and the soldiers whom I am asking the House to thank must, in the hon. Gentleman's view, only be regarded as his reluctant instruments. However, I am not going back to the previous debate. It will be sufficient if I say I do not believe that the history of the world shows a parallel to the conduct of troops who were practically masters of the whole area in which they were, except just the ground on which these scattered commandos were carrying on their operations, who had the whole thing under their feet, and who never once, so far as I know, transgressed, I will not say the laws of war, but the higher code of humanity to which the laws of war are only a distant and rough approximation. It does show a great growth in humanitarian and humanising sentiment of which we may well be proud in this country. The temptations to excess and outrage must, after all, be great, even in the most disciplined troops, and some of these troops were in the nature of Irregulars; and yet I believe you may scan the annals of what has taken place in South Africa during the last two or three years with the most critical eye, and you will have to admit—I hope you will be glad to admit—that never yet has there in the history of the world been an example of 250,000 men in this uncontrolled possession of a country against whom no charge could truly be made of brutality or of inhumanity.
That concludes all I have to say about the earlier paragraphs of the Resolution

1591
which I shall submit to the House. The final paragraph is one which, in deference to our own feelings, and out of regard for those who have suffered by the war, we always pass on these occasions. It is a vote of condolence with those who have suffered loss and bereavement in the progress of the war. I will not argue the question of form. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: We are all anxious to pass that.] I am quite sure the hon. Member at all events agrees with the substance of this part of my remarks. I would say that, while it is true that the actual loss by wounds and disease in this war has been less, compared with the total number of the men engaged, than on previous occasions, partly through the changes in modern weapons and partly through the improvement of modern surgery and modern medicine, yet he is fortunate indeed, who has not in the circle of his own immediate experience come across cruel and heartrending cases of bereavement. We can do little to console the widow or the parent for the loss of husband or of child; but it may be some consolation to those who have suffered these irreparable injuries to feel that after all those whom they loved were engaged in a cause which the nation at large believes to be just; to which they freely lent their services: and in which they died and did not die in vain. The cause for which they were sacrificed has been successful; and if this is not a sufficient or an adequate consolation for the loss of their nearest and dearest, at all events it must be some comfort to know that the greatest of all sacrifices has not been made in vain. I now, Sir, beg to move the Resolution which I venture to place in your hands.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the thanks of this House be given to the officers and warrant officers of the Navy, the Army, the Royal Marines, the Militia, the Imperial Yeomanry, and the Volunteers for the energy and gallantry with which they executed the services which they were called upon to perform during the prolonged campaign in South Africa.
"That this House doth acknowledge and highly approve the gallantry, discipline, and good conduct displayed by the petty
1592
officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Navy, the Army, the Royal Marines, the Militia, the imperial Yeomanry, and the Volunteers throughout the war.
"That the thanks of this House be given to the officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of His Majesty's Colonial and Indian forces, for their co-operation with His Majesty's imperial forces, and for the energy and gallantry with which they executed the services which they were called upon to perform during the prolonged campaign in South Africa.
"That this House doth acknowledge and highly approve the gallantry, discipline, and good conduct displayed by His Majesty's Colonial and Indian forces, and doth also acknowledge the cordial good feeling which animated all His Majesty's forces.
"That the thanks of this House be given to the officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the several corps of militia which have been embodied in Great Britain and Ireland during the course of the war for the zealous and meritorious services which they have rendered at home and abroad.
"That this House doth acknowledge with admiration the distinguished valour, devotion, and conduct of those officers and men who have perished during the campaign in South Africa in the service of the Empire, and desires to express deep sympathy with their friends."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I feel much confidence that there will not be a single jarring note in the voice with which the House of Commons will today express its appreciation of the services of the Army in all its branches and all its ranks during the war which we are now happy to speak of as the late war. It was a war, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, of great trial. There was little in it of the ordinary pomp and circumstance of warfare. There was little of the glorious fever of the stricken field. There was endurance of great hardships; there was a wearisome life but always necessitating vigilance; there was a continual chance of encounter with a daring but a singularly artful and

1593
elusive enemy. There was, therefore, everything to disappoint and to harass and depress the soldier. Yet, Sir, the spirit of all these men never failed. Their discipline never relaxed; and they never lost that characteristic of cheerful good nature which we are always in the habit of associating with them. The country feels now that it did well to be confident in its Army at the commencement of the war. Even in the darkest days, when we were feeling our way and only discovering the gigantic nature of the task before us, the country never doubted that our soldiers were equal to the task. Now that it is over, although we have not the character in this country of being effusive, still there wells up from the heart of the nation a profound feeling of gratitude for their conduct which properly finds expression in the Resolution now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. It is a comprehensive Resolution which embraces the regular, the auxiliary, and the irregular forces of the Army, the colonial and the home troops alike, it deals with the Navy, to which we owe not only the gallant services of the brigade on shore, but also the services of every man of His Majesty's Fleet in every part of the world; because we are well aware that if it had not been for the efficiency and activity of the Navy our difficulties would have been multiplied several fold. The right hon. Gentleman's Resolution also takes account most naturally of the losses which our troops have suffered—of their gallant death, and of the sorrows of their relatives. To all alike our cordial thanks are due, and to all equally they will be freely given.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: There is one portion of this Resolution with which I suppose every man in the House, without exception, will be in complete sympathy, and that is the concluding paragraph, which expresses the sympathy of this House to the relatives of those who died gallantly on the field of battle; and I deeply regret that the right hon. Gentleman has tagged that portion on to the remainder of the Resolution. I do not know whether in matters of this kind the House thinks it worth while to have absolute unanimity, but if it were permitted to my friends and my self, we would be only too glad to take
1594
part in a unanimous expression of spmpathy with the relatives of those men who have fallen. I therefore regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman has included that in one Resolution with the other paragraphs, and I would ask you, Sir, whether it would be possible to put to the House the first portion of the Resolution dealing with the thanks to the living and the second portion which expresses sympathy with the relatives of the dead, separately.
MR. SPEAKER: I have already put the question to the House. I could not now separate one part of it from the rest without general consent.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I wag only anxious to make it plain that in the course which I and my friends propose to take we cannot be held to be out of sympathy with the sentiment expressed in the concluding portion of the Resolution. With the first portion of this Resolution we must, as the House will see in a moment, be out of sympathy. It is not necessary for us, nor is it our desire, to make any attack on the Army or upon the soldier's who carried out this campaign in South Africa, but they are being thanked in this Resolution for carrying out a work, as it was their duty to carry it out, which we have regarded from the first with absolute abhorrence, a work against which we have protested at every stage, and for the furtherance of which we have refused to vote a single shilling. We cannot with any show of consistency now, vote for a Resolution of thanks to those who were engaged in carrying on that work to what is regarded at the moment at any rate as a successful conclusion. That is the reason why we find it impossible to record our votes in favour of this Resolution, and why we must go into the lobby in opposition to it.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I am deeply sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not divided this Resolution, because I feel very reluctant to go into the lobby against it, and in that way seem even inferentially to Withhold sympathy from the relatives of those who have fallen during this war. I regret deeply the bloodshed and the loss of friends, and I am one

1595
of those who mourn the loss of friends. I would ask the House to allow me to speak of one matter which I think for the honour and dignity of this House should not pass unnoticed. I intend to press for an inquiry into certain matters in connection with this war, and I know that I shall be justified in that, but at present I must take exception strongly to one observation of the First Lord of the Treasury. Do not imagine for one moment that I am bringing any general charge against the Army—I come myself of a military stock—but the First Lord was not informed in reference to public events when he said that on no occasion had one charge of outrage been brought against a British soldier. I am amazed that the Secretary of State for War did not get up and correct him when he made that statement. The marvel is that with so large a force so little crime and outrage was alleged, but in the interests of truth we are bound to acknowledge that within the last twelve months two officers who were tried by court-martial were shot for wilful murder. Therefore it is not
proper to say that no charge of that kind was brought against any one. It is not right that this wholesale system of whitewashing should pass unnoticed. I do press on the First Lord of the Treasury that it is not right on his part, as the head and leader of this House, to make a statement which is contrary to what must be apparent to everyone who has read the newspapers. There is one other point which I wish to raise. So far as I am aware, the Resolution before the House is contrary to precedent in every other similar case. In every other vote of the same nature, special mention was made of every General of Division who had taken part in the war. Why are not the Generals of Division in South Africa mentioned in this vote? Why are the names of General Buller, General Gatacre, General White, General Colville, and General Warren mentioned? Is there not a great deal of theatrical pretence about all these proceedings?
(5.18.) Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 382; Noes, 42. (Division List No. 203.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Black, Alexander William

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Chapman, Edward

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bond, Edward

Charrington, Spencer

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Clive, Capt. Percy A.

Allen, William (Gateshead)

Boulnois Edmund

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

Allan, Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Coddington, Sir William

Allhusen, August's Henry Eden

Bowles, T. Gibson, King's Lynn

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Allsopp, Hon. George

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Brassey, Albert

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Arrol, Sir William

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Asher, Alexander

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Cranborne, Viscount

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Austin, Sir John

Brymer, William Ernest

Crombie, John William

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Butcher, John George

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Balcarres, Lord

Caldwell, James

Dalkeith, Earl of

Baldwin, Alfred

Cameron, Robert

Davenport, William Bromley-

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

Cambell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Davies, Alfred Carmarthen

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

Carlile, William Walter

Dewar, John A. (lnverness-sh.

Banbury, Frederick George

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Barlow, John Emmott

Cautley, Henry Strother

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

Cavendish, B. F. (N. Lanes.

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Bartley, George C. T.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbysh're

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Cawley, Frederick

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Beresford, Lord Charles William

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Doughty, George

Bownaggree, Sir M. M.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

Bignold, Arthur

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Bill, Charles

Channing, Francis Allston

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Duncan, J. Hastings

Holland, William Henry

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Dunn, Sir William

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Elibank, Master of

Horniman, Frederick John

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Houldsworth, Sir William Henry

Murray Col. Wyndham (Bath

Ellis, John Edward

Hoult, Joseph

Myers, William Henry

Emmott, Alfred

Houston, Robert Paterson

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Evans, Sir Francis H. Maidstone

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Newnes, Sir George

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Faber, George Denison (York)

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Norman, Henry

Fardell, Sir T. George

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Jacoby, James Alfred

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Jebb, Sir Richard Claver house

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Fenwick, Charles

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (M'ner'

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Palmer, Walter, Salisbury

Finch, George H.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Parker, Gilbert

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Partington, Oswald

Fisher, William Hayes

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Paulton, James Mellor

Fison, Frederick William

Kearley, Hudson, E.

Pease, Herbert Pike (D'rlingt'n

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Pease, J. A. Saffron Walden

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Pemberton, John S. G.

Flanuery, Sir Fortescue

Kenyon-Slaneyl Col. W. (Salop)

Perm, John

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Keswick, William

Perks, Robert William

Forster, Henry William

Kimber, Henry

Pickard, Benjamin

Foster, Phillip S (W'rwick, S. W.

Knowles, Lees

Pierpoint, Robert

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lambert, George

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Fuller, J. M. F.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Furness, Sir Christopher

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Plummer, Walter R.

Galloway, William Johnson

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Gardner, Ernest

Lawson, John Grant

Price, Robert John

Garfit, William

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Priestley, Arthur

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

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Purvis, Robert

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

Lee, Arthur H. Hants (Fareham

Pym, G. Guy

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb'rt John

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Randles, John S.

Godson, Sir August's Frederick

Legge, Col. Hon Heneage.

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

Leng, Sir John

Ratcliff, R. F.

Gordon, Mj Evans (T'w'rH'ml'ts

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

Lewis, John Herbert

Rea, Russell

Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.

Lloyd-George, David

Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Lockwood, Lt-Col. A. R.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesh'm

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Graham, Henry Robert

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Grant, Corrie

Lough, Thomas

Renwiek, George

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

Lowe, Francis William

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Grenfell, William Henry

Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Gretton, John

Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

Roberts, Samuel, Sheffield

Groves, James Grimble

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'uth

Robson, William, Snowdon

Gunter, Sir Robert

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Roe, Sir Thomas

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Macdona, John Cumming

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Guthrie, Walter Murray

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Hain, Edward

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

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

Round, James

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Runciman, Walter

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Russell, T. W.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Majendie, James A. H.

Rutherford, John

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Malcolm, Ian

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Harmsworth, R. (Leicester

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Mather, William

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

Harwood, George

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Seton-Karr, Henry

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Milvain, Thomas

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Helder, Augustus

Mitchell, William

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Helme, Norval Watson

Montagu, G (Huntingdon)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Henderson, Alexander

More, Robt Jasper (Shropshire

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Morgan, David J. (W'lthamst'w

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (M'nm'thsh.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Money, Charles (Breconshire)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

1598

1599

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Snares, Ernest J.

Tomkinson, James

Wills, Sir Frederick

Spear, John Ward

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

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

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Toulmin, George

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.

Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wilson, Fred W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

Valentia, Viscount

Wilson John (Glasgow)

Stock, James Henry

Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wallace, Robert

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

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

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'rd Un.

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts

Wortley, Rt. Hn. G B. Stuart-

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Tennant, Harold John

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Whiteley, H (Ashton und-Lyne

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Thomas J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Thomson, P. W. (York, W. K.)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Sir William Walrond and

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Leamy, Edmund

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Lundon, W.

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

Blake, Edward

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

O'Kelly, James (Roscomm'n, N.

Boland, John

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

O'Malley, William

Burke, E. Haviland.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

M'Gorern, T.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Crean, Eugene

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Reddy, M.

Delany, William

M'Kean, John

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Dillon, John

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Ffrench, Peter

Mooney, John J.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Flynn, James Christopher

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sullivan, Donal

Gilhooly, James

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South

Hammond, John

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

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'r'ry, Mid

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Joyce, Michael

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

Sir Thomas Esmonde and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

Resolved, That the thanks of this House be given to the Officers and Warrant Officers of the Navy, the Army, the Royal Marines, the Militia, the Imperial Yeomanry, and the Volunteers for the energy and gallantry with which they executed the services which they were called upon to perform during the prolonged campaign in South Africa.
That this House doth acknowledge and highly approve the gallantry, discipline, and good conduct displayed by the Petty Officers, Non-commissioned Officers and Men of the Navy, the Army, the Royal Marines, the Militia, the Imperial Yeomanry, and the Volunteers throughout the war.
That the thanks of this House be given to the Officers, Warrant Officers, Noncommissioned Officers, and men of His Majesty's Colonial and Indian Forces, for their co-operation with His Majesty's Imperial Forces, and for the energy and gallantry with which they executed the
1600
services which they were called upon to perform during the prolonged campaign in South Africa.
That this House doth acknowledge and highly approve the gallantry, discipline, and good conduct displayed by His Majesty's Colonial and Indian Forces, and doth also acknowledge the cordial good feeling which animated all His Majesty's Forces.
That the thanks of this House be given to the Officers, Warrant Officers, Noncommissioned Officers, and men of the several Corps of Militia which have been embodied in Great Britain and Ireland during the course of the war for the zealous and meritorious services which they have rendered at home and abroad.
That this House doth acknowledge with admiration the distinguished valour, devotion, and conduct of those Officers and men who have perished during the campaign in South Africa in the service

1601
of the Empire, and desires to express deep sympathy with their relatives and friends.
Ordered, That Mr. Speaker do signify the said Resolution to the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral, and to the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief His Majesty's Forces, and to His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, to communicate the same to the Officers and men referred to therein.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

FRESHWATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
(5.30.) As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
Amendment made—
"In page 2, line 11. by leaving out from the first word 'the' to the word 'of,' in line 12, and inserting the word 'Act' instead thereof."—(The Lord Advocate.)
Another Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 14, to leave out the words 'by not or.' "—(The Lord Advocate.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he was sorry the right, hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate had gone back from the decision of the Grand Committee, and that he had not made any explanation with regard to the Amendment he now proposed. The situation with regard to the Bill was that this was a Bill for the further protection of freshwater fish, and extending the close time for trout. And the opportunity had been taken in Grand Committee to remove some of the exceptions in favour of the landlords of Scotland. In 1845 and 1861, certain legislation was introduced to prevent poaching practices, but an exception was made in favour of the landlords, who under those Acts were enabled to do that which if done by anyone else would have been held to be poaching. The Lord Advocate had gone back on the decision of the Grand Committee, which said it was poaching to net trout, by introducing this Amendment "except where the landlords net trout." He did not approve
1602
of that exception. He quite appreciated the case of landlords who netted trout for the purpose of restocking their waters, or for the purpose of breeding, or for scientific purposes, and he would suggest that this proviso should be inserted—
"Provided, that it shall still be legal and permissible for such proprietors and others aforesaid to fish for trout by net in such waters, broads, or lochs, for scientific purposes, or for breeding, or restocking purposes."
No landlord would object to his being prevented from netting trout for commercial purposes, if they looked at these streams and lochs for sporting purposes. He could understand a landlord being permitted, to do as he pleased if the whole loch belonged to him, but it would be an intolerable thing, after they had protected the lochs and waters of Scotland, to allow the landlord of a certain portion of the shores; of the loch to net for commercial purposes. He did not think any self-respecting landlord, or any lover of sport, would do it. He objected to the two words "by netting" being deleted, but suggested that the proviso he had sketched out should be inserted, it was difficult to explain what a sense of wrong would be felt in the highlands of Scotland if this was allowed to go on, and the landlords were permitted to take the sporting rights of others.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said that if the decision of the Grand Committee had been one which he could assume was in thorough accord with the views of the majority he should not have gone back upon it, but it was a decision carried only by a majority of one, owing to the proceedings being protracted to about three o'clock. Therefore, he did not think he was wrong in taking the view of the House upon the matter. The hon. Member had put his case a little forcibly, but there was something also to be said on the other side. He congratulated the hon. Member who, he was glad to see, had all the zeal of a convert, because when this Bill was in the hands of a private Member, before the Government took it up, the principal opposition was from the hon. Gentleman, who was not so anxious that there should be a close time for trout. The Bill as introduced was not to alter the rights of fishing at all. It simply

1603
said there shall be a close time for trout, and further that there shall be a prohibition against the destruction of fish by dynamite. Then the hon. Member in his new-born zeal looked into the Statute Book and discovered the Acts of 1345 and 1860, which were passed to stop poaching, and had been surprised to find they were not directed against the landlords. They were not directed against the landlords, for the simple reason that in his own water a man cannot poach. Those Acts were directed against people who had no right to take trout at all. In Scotland there were no rights in the public for trout fishing, any more than there were in salmon fishing. The trout fishing in Scotland was an incident of the land over which the water flowed, and the owner of the land had the right to take the trout therein. The law went so far as to say that, although one might take a stand over the water on a public bridge, one could not throw a fly, a worm, or a hook into the water, because it did not flow over public land. So far as this Bill was concerned—so far as he knew—there never was any abuse by the landlord; but his hon. friend opposite said in Grand Committee, "Let us take away this exception in favour of the landlords," and he (Mr. Graham Murray) had so far supported him as to say that he was sure landlords would not wish to fish by illegal methods such, as cross lines and "otter" fishing, and, therefore, he was perfectly willing to allow the Amendment, but he must reserve to the landlord the right to take trout by netting. And why not? Why should not a farmer take trout from his own water by net for his dinner? So far as his inquiries had gone, there had been no abuse of taking trout by net with one exception. He believed that in some of the northern lochs in Orkney and Shetland there had been more netting than was desirable, at the instance of the small proprietors. The honest truth was that he did not think any abuse had ever been alleged against landlords, and even if there had been, he did not see how they could help it; because after all the landlords only took their own fish, although in law no one had any right in fish until he had caught it. He thought the House would do wisely in not accepting the burning zeal of the hon. Gentleman opposite, but to go back to the soberer
1604
methods of fishing which had come down without a break from the time of the Apostles.
MR. BLACKsaid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given a pretty broad explanation with regard to the law of fishing in Scotland, but he could not agree with him that there was no right in the public to fish the waters and lochs. If the law had been altered, it had been altered by Judge-made law, which, by common consent, was bad law. The right hon. Gentleman had delivered a panegyric on landlords, and seemed to think that they could do no wrong. He appeared to think that directly a man got a piece of land he threw off all the foibles and frailties of mankind, and donned the wings of an angel. But before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sat down he had to admit that some landlords in Orkney and Shetland had abused this practice of netting for trout. The right hon. Gentleman forgot that trout was migratory in its habits.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I dispute the statement that trout is a migratory fish.
MR. BLACK: It was universally known that it migrated for spawning purposes. It was well known that it swam up and down the streams and lochs for miles when it wanted to spawn, and, that being so, where did the argument come in that a man could do what he liked in his own loch? When he netted trout he netted his neighbour's trout, because the trout had gone up the loch to spawn. The hon. Member for the Border Burghs had instanced a case of a loch which was owned by several proprietors. He himself knew a loch owned by three, two of whom let the angling rights, and if the third proprietor netted the trout he netted the trout of the other proprietors. This applied to streams even more strongly than to lochs, because if a man netted his portion of a stream which was owned by scores of proprietors who owned the banks, he would eventually clear the stream, because trout gravitated to those parts where they found their food, and if the trout were removed from one part of a

1605
stream others would resort to that part for food. He thought the owners should only have the right to legitimate sport.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsupported the Amendment. There was no reason why landlords should be restrained from netting trout, a practice which they had not abused. He urged the House to take a commonsense view of the question.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid the point was as to whether or not proprietors were to be at liberty to fish for trout by net. It was not disputed that that was a practice in which no decent or sports-manlike landlord would indulge, except for scientific or breeding purposes. If the Bill permitted such a thing to be done, there were certain to be some people who would abuse the privilege. The provision would, in fact, reserve to these people a right to do something they ought not to do. If all landlords fished for trout with a net there would soon be no fishing at all. But because other landlords were sportsmen and observed fair play in regard to their; neighbours, the one person guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct would be enabled to make a profit at the expense of the others. There was no common sense in permitting that; it was not protecting the rights of property in the least, but simply enabling unsportsmanlike persons to do that which was universally condemned, and by so doing to injure the good sportsmen. The question had really nothing whatever to do with the rights of property. The proposal of the hon. Member for the Border Burghs was that, as a compromise, fishing for trout by net should not be absolutely forbidden, but that it should be prohibited except for scientific, I breeding, or restocking purposes. No sportsmanlike landlord could desire to do more than that, and he hoped the Lord Advocate would not object to the limitation.
MR. CATHCART WASONhoped that during the coming recess the Lord Advocate would pay a visit to the Shetlands, because he would then realise that, although the
1606
present Bill did not affect those parts to the extent it should do, a great destruction of fish went on there, and a Bill to deal with it effectually might be subsequently introduced. As to the present measure, it was to the interests of the landlord himself that it should remain in the form approved by the Grand Committee. There were a great number of ways in which the law laid down limits within which men should exercise their rights over their own property, so that this Bill was not exceptional in that respect. As to the reasons which had been urged for the excision of the words "by net or," no one would object to an Amendment which would enable a man to net a carp in his own pond for dinner, or one to meet the case of the landlord who desired to destroy a mischievous pike. He agreed with the hon. Member for the Border Burghs that the Amendment would create a wide-spread feeling of distrust, and give the impression that the House was abusing its position, and endeavouring to create privileges for the landlord class which had not existed hitherto. He trusted the Lord Advocate would not press his Amendment.
MR. RENSHAWunderstood that the existing state of matters had obtained for a very long period in Scotland.
MR. THOMAS SHAWpointed out that, under the Bill, there was a new and special provision for trout having a close time. In view of that, the whole of Scotland would practically become a preserve; therefore the occasion was most opportune for this Amendment.
MR. RENSHAWsaid the clause inserted by the hon. Member dealt with a different question altogether, and a question which the Bill, as originally introduced, did not touch at all. No evidence had been adduced to show that the practice in question existed to any extent, and the House were asked to deal with it on the mere hypothesis that a certain state of matters might exist. It was a strong order to ask the House, on such grounds, to take away a privilege which the landlord enjoyed, and a right to which he was entitled in respect of his own property. All the lochs and

1607
ponds in which trout existed were not subject to joint proprietorships; there were a vast number, some of which were stocked naturally and others artificially, in which a single proprietor had the sole right of fishing, Was the House prepared to say that in such a case the proprietor was not to have the right under any circumstances to net fish in his loch?
SIR ROBERT REID: It is a shabby practice.
MR. RENSHAWsaid that that might be so, but trout had a certain commercial value, and there was growing up in many parts of Scotland the practice of placing trout in ponds solely on account of their commercial value. By a proprietor being prevented, under any circumstances, netting those fish, a stop would be put to that which might otherwise develop into a valuable industry.
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid that if it would meet the wishes of his hon. friends on both sides of the House, he would move the addition of the words "except in ponds or lochs exclusively belonging to such person."
MR. BRYCEwas sure they had all heard with great satisfaction the compromise suggested by the Lord Advocate. On taking a broad view of the situation he believed it would be found that even the landlord would gain more by treating his fishing waters in a liberal way, and not using the net, than by any other way. There was no part of the world in which the people took so much enjoyment in the lochs as in Scotland, and one of the best things they could do by legislation would be to enlist the sentiment of the people in favour of a further development of free rod fishing, which he believed would be a great protection against poaching. That, however, was another question. The arrangement just proposed would, he thought, be for the benefit both of the landlord and everybody else.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Another Amendment made—
"In page 2, line 14, after the word 'net,' by inserting the words 'except in ponds or lochs exclusively belonging to such persons.' "—(The Lord Advocate.)
Another Amendment made—
"In lines 17 and 18, by leaving out, the words 'or other freshwater fish.' "—(The Lord Advocate.)
MR. BLACKadmitted that the Amendment he desired to move depended upon the issue raised at an earlier period of the debate, viz., of whether or not the trout was a migratory fish. For hundreds of years it had been recognised by a Scottish statute that the trout was a migratory fish in the period of spawning, because in the 17th Century an Act was passed regulating fishing in Loch Leven, in which it was stated that in the rivers or streams falling into Loch Leven fishing should be prohibited during a certain period for the purpose of preserving the Loch Leven trout when they went up for spawning. If that was the fact, the Amendment he was about to move was a necessary consequence of the present Bill and the Amendment which had already been accepted. He appealed to the Lord Advocate to accept this Amendment and allow this restriction to be passed.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 18, after the word 'same,' to insert the words 'and such proprietors and others shall further be subject to the said penal and other provisions if they affix in the bed of any river or stream, or at the entrance or exit thereof to or from any loch or pond, any dyke, hake, cruive net, or other artificial engine or appliance for the purpose of capturing or impounding or otherwise impeding the free passage of trout or other freshwater fish.' "—(Mr. Black.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I have no objection to accepting this Amendment.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid there was a growing industry in the culture of other kinds of trout, notably those from America. There were certain very fine species of trout which could be reared in this country which came from America, and many preferred them to the native species, but they had one disagreeable quality of getting away, and the only way to keep them was to put them in enclosed ponds. If the Lord Advocate accepted this Amendment he would put

1609
an end to this practice. As he had said, I he saw no reason why landlords should be restrained from netting trout, and the practice had not been abused.
SIR MARK STEWARTsaid he had tried various kinds of American trout, and without exception the majority of them had disappeared. They went down to the deeper water, which was the natural instinct of every fish. He did not think anything would be gained by the insertion of this proposal. He hoped the hon. Member would not press this Amendment.
MR. SETON-KARRsaid he knew something of the habits of fish, and he could state that great harm would be done if proprietors were prevented when the fish were spawning from allowing them to breed. The proposal I should only apply to waters running into a loch, but it was so framed as to prevent a proprietor from placing a grating where the trout went out. There was no harm; in trout being allowed to go up a small stream, but the case was different if they were allowed to come down. Once they went down, they went right to the sea. He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.
MR. RENSHAWsaid it seemed to him, if this Amendment was to be accepted, it ought not to be in connection with the clause now under consideration, but an earlier clause which dealt with the close time for trout. For his part he should be sorry to see introduced into the Bill any words of the sort proposed by the hon. Member for Banffshire. On his own property there was a pond which had two streams running into it—one alongside a footpath and the other through a wood. The stream alongside the footpath was the one the trout always tried to get up to spawn, but they never had an opportunity of spawning there. If they went up the other stream they were perfectly safe, because they were not disturbed by any person. He thought, therefore, in the interest of the trout itself, in the neighbourhood of large towns, it would be most unfortunate if the House were to agree to the Amendment.
MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he thought his hon. friend's Amendment was covered
1610
by the earlier part of the Bill. In the circumstances, he suggested that the Amendment should not be pressed to a division, which would probably be very adverse to him.
MR. EUGENE WASONsaid he represented probably the best trout fishing in the world. He concurred with what had been said as to the commercial value of trout fishing; but it was rod fishing, and not net fishing, which gave it its value. He hoped his hon. friend would withdraw the Amendment.
MR. BLACKsaid he was convinced from what had passed that it was the general feeling of the House that he should withdraw the Amendment, and he therefore asked leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Another Amendment made—
"In page 2, line 19, by leaving out the words 'these Acts,' and inserting the words 'the said Act' instead thereof."—(The Lord Advocate.)
Another Amendment made—
"In page 2, line 21, by inserting, after the word 'repealed,' the words 'Provided that it shall still he legal and permissible for such proprietors and others to fish for trout by net in such rivers, waters, or lochs where such fishing is prosecuted for scientific breeding or re-stocking purposes.' "—(Mr. Thomas Shaw.)

POLICE RESERVISTS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order for Second Reading read.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS, Birmingham, Bordesley), in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said: With respect to the Reservists in the police force, as the law at present stands, the police authorities have no power to let the time which the Reservists have spent with the colours count for pension purposes. If they serve for two years with the colours that period is taken off their time for superannuation pay. In all private firms and private undertakings employers can give and have given to employees who go on military service certain advantages one way or another, but the local authorities have no power to do so. This Bill, therefore, is simply to empower local authorities to allow the period for which

1611
the police Reservists have served under the colours to count for superannuation. It is a discretionary power which they have not at present, and no doubt the local authorities will be glad, especially at the present time, to show their willingness to mark their approbation of the conduct of the Reservists. I do not think the Bill needs any argument in support of it, because it will commend itself to the good feeling of the House that such a power should be put into the hands of the local authorities.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. CALDWELLsaid he quite approved of the Bill, so far as it went, but it did not go far enough. Reservists other than those in the police force should be included, and there should not be a limitation to the proclamation of 1899. He desired an explanation why a reference to the Royal Irish Constabulary was omitted. He thought it should be borne in mind that the Reservists were never called out except in cases of national emergency. He did not see why there should be the limitation proposed in the Bill, for the Reservists would be equally serving their country if they were called out by Royal proclamation at any future time. It made no difference to the men to say that this or that war was a small war, and they could not pass Acts of Parliament for every little expedition. Would it not be better to make it a matter of law that if a man was looking towards a pension under a local authority, and if he was called out by proclamation, his services under the colours should be counted for pension? What was the use of giving a discretion to the police authorities? If a man was working towards his pension he had a legal right to that pension, and if he were called out under proclamation to go out to a war, why should not his service count for pension without the will of the police authorities? Otherwise the local authority might reap a benefit, for if a policeman who was a Reservist went abroad and was killed, or died of disease, the Police Pension Fund would be relieved. Another point was whether a policeman who was a Reservist, was called out, under proclamation, to go to a war and was maimed or
1612
injured, would be allowed his pension under the Police Act, as if he had been maimed or injured while serving as a policeman. Again, the Bill limited the benefits to members of the police force, who were called out in the event of war, as Reservists. Why maket his limitation to policemen? There might be men in the employment of a local authority who were working towards a pension—clerks, or surveyors, or roadmen—and who were Reservists, and if they were called out, why should they be put on a different footing from policemen? The Bill ought to he widened to meet such cases, and to include all wars, as well as this particular war. He would not oppose the Second Reading, but he contended that its scope should he widened, and that it should not he made optional.
SIR JOHN DORTNGTONsaid he thought His Majesty's Government was a little generous at the expense of the local authorities. When Reservists were called out by special Proclamation, they no longer paid towards the Police Pension Fund, and, of course, did not render any service to the local authorities. He thought the Government ought to make some provision in the Bill for a contribution from the Treasury for recouping to local authorities their loss from the cessation of the Reservists' contribution to the Police Pension Fund during their absence.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,)said that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tewkesbury seemed to think that a moral obligation lay on the Government to make up the loss on local finance in regard to pensions, made by the Bill. But he would point out that the Government already made an annual payment to the Reservists, as a consideration for the right to call upon them in case of emergency, and he did not think any further payment was called for. It was true that the men who joined the police force knew that they were liable to be called upon when any emergency arose, and that they had no claim on the local authority when called out. It had been represented to the Government, by more than one local authority, that they would be very glad to have the opportunity to allow Reservists who were called out, to count their time

1613
under the colours for the Police Pension Fund. In all quarters of the country it was felt that the local authorities should have the power to do so. It was for the local authorities to say whether they desired to take advantage of the powers given them by this enabling Bill. He did not think local ratepayers would be inclined to grudge the very small sum likely to be demanded by the operation of the Bill. The hon. Member for Mid Lanark wanted to give an extension of the purposes of the Bill, and to make it compulsory; but the result of that would be that the local authorities would not in future employ any Reservists at all. The hon. Gentlemen had said why limit the powers to the present war? but in drafting the Bill the Government had followed precedent. He did not think it desirable to widen the area of the Bill, or to make it appear more formidable than it now was.

PRISON OFFICERS (PENSIONS) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Older for Second Beading read.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid this Bill affected prison warders who were in the service before the prisons were taken over from the local authorities by the Homo Office under the Act of 1877. There was a clause in that measure which provided that prison warders under the old authorities should not, when transferred to the Prison Board under the Government, be in a worse position as regarded superannuation than they were under the local authorities whom they served before the year 1877. The position was that the local authorities had power to give superannuation up to the extent of two-thirds of the salary. That was not always exercised by the local authorities, but they had the option. When the control of the prisons was taken over by the Government these warders were subject to the ordinary Civil Service scale. There was a provision in the 36th clause of the Act of 1877 which provided that the amount of pension might be raised, but not to exceed two-thirds, as regarded this limited number of warders in
1614
the service before 1877. There was some difficulty or difference with regard to the interpretation of that clause, but the Treasury interpretation was that the pension should be apportioned between the local authority and the Treasury. That was the interpretation placed upon it at that time, and it was adopted and acquiesced in by the Home Office. The practice had worked extremely well for the last twenty-three years, and when a warder left the service the local authority, which was the old prison authority, recommended to the Treasury that he should have two-thirds of his salary as pension, and that they would undertake to pay the difference between the Civil Service allowance scale and the two-thirds pension. That practice had worked well, and the local authorities had worked upon that principle. That was the interpretation placed upon the law, and the Treasury had always responded to the wishes of the local authorities by granting the two-thirds pension under those conditions in all cases where the local authorities recommended it. About three years ago, in the case of a warder in Carmarthenshire, the auditors of the Local Government Board disallowed that part of the pension which was supplied by the local authority, and consequently the case was brought before the House by the hon. Member for West Carmarthenshire, and undoubtedly it was a case of great hardship. This decision applied not only to this case, but to all the warders who were similarly situated, and who were on the pension list under the condition of two-thirds of their salary, the main part of which was supplied by the Treasury under the Civil Service scale and the remainder by the local authority. This referred to comparatively few, and the number was evidently diminishing continually, because it only applied to those warders who were in the prison service before 1877. This decision of the Local Government Board to surcharge this money led the local authorities to see that what they had supposed to be legal, and the practice which they had thought legal since 1877, was now in doubt. The difficulty had been got over by the Local Government Board agreeing that, pending the introduction of a Bill such as this, they would

1615
not enforce the surcharges, as otherwise it would entail a great hardship to these men and women, many of whom were now advanced in years, and who by the action of the Local Government Board would have their very moderate pension greatly reduced. The pension in this case was about £51, and the surcharge, which had hitherto been contributed by the local authority, was about £10. Therefore, it would be seen that without this Bill this small superannuation allowance would have been reduced to such an extent as to constitute a great hardship. Therefore, this Bill was simply to make the law quite clear upon this point. It could hardly be said to be fresh legislation, for it was only a proposal to make plain the meaning of Clause 36 of the Act of 1877, about which doubts had arisen, and this Bill would simply allow the local authorities to do legally what they had been doing up to the present time. He hoped the House would pass this measure.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. DILLONsaid he had vainly endeavoured to follow what the right hon. Gentleman had said in regard to the object of this Bill. It seemed to him that after the local authorities had successfully broken the law for a great many years, the Local Government Board had just found out that the law was being broken, and they had disallowed those pensions which the Treasury had fixed illegally. Upon being remonstrated with, the Local Government Board had entered into an agreement with the Treasury to still allow the law to be broken. After going to sleep for three or four years, the right hon. Gentleman came forward with a Bill of indemnity to enable these pensions to be charged upon the local authorities, in spite of the fact that the law as it stood did not permit this to be done. In moving the adoption of a Bill of this kind, he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to have given a little more information. They ought to have been told whether the local authorities approved of this Bill.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Yes, they do.
MR. DILLONthought some vague idea of the amount of liability involved ought to have been stated to the House, and he wished to have some explanation why in 1902 it was necessary to pass a Bill in order to legalise a system which had been going on ever since the Act of 1877 was passed. Why should it be necessary, after twenty-five years, to legalise this practice? Those were points upon which information was due to the House, and they were entitled to have some rough idea of the amount of the charge which it was proposed to cast upon local authorities. He also wished to know whether the Act would apply to Ireland.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: It does not apply to Ireland.
MR. CALDWELLthought the House would do well to discard altogether the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill, if they wished to understand it. Before 1877 the prisons were managed by the local authorities, and at that time there was a proviso in the Prisons Act that pensions might be given to the warders who had completed twenty years service and who were above the age of sixty years, and it was provided that the pensions should be granted at the discretion of the local authority up to the amount of two-thirds of the salary. That was the position of matters before 1877. In 1877 the prisons were transferred to the State. Clause 36 of the Pensions Act, which placed these warders under the control of the Treasury, was word for word the same, with the exception that "the Treasury" was substituted for "the local authority," as Section 15 of the Act of 1865. So that when these men were transferred from the service of the local authorities to that of the Treasury, the scale of prices was exactly the same, the only difference being that the Treasury had to pay the pension in the future. Then came the further provision that the responsibility for the payment of the pension was to be divided between the local authority and the State, each to pay an amount proportionate to the amount

1617
of service of the warders. That was to say, the period of time which these men served prior to the transfer was to be debited to the local authority, and the State was to pay in respect to services rendered to the State after the transfer. The whole difficulty arose after the passing of the Superannuations Act. Assuming that there was a grievance so far as these men were concerned, assuming they were prejudiced by the passing of this Superannuations Act, and that they had a just claim to have their discretion fully exercised so far as the Treasury was concerned, up to two-thirds of their pay, the question was—Who should pay the money? It would be admitted by everybody that the local authorities were not responsible for more than their share up to the time when they ceased to exist, but this Bill said that for services rendered to the State since 1872 the pay was to be split into parts, of which the local authorities, who certainly for the last twenty-five years had had nothing to do with it, were to pay a portion of the deficit which the State would not pay for service which had been rendered to the State. A pension was, after all, nothing but deferred pay, and the Government were not prepared to pay it themselves, so went to the local authorities, and said, "We will give you the authority to pay it out of the local rates." Could anything be more monstrous and unjust? If these men were entitled to the money, the people who employed them were bound to pay them. It was very easy for the Government to say, "We will pass this Bill, and enable the local authorities to pay money they have no right to pay now." There was no reason whatever why this should be paid by the local authority.
MR. RITCHIEsaid he would like the House to understand that this was not a matter which concerned the Government in any way. This was a Bill asked for by the local authorities. When the prisons were transferred to the Government, there were a certain number of warders whose services the Government took over on the same conditions as those previously fixed by the local authorities. Under the Treasury scheme of pension of one-sixtieth of the pay for every year's
1618
service after these men came into the service of the State, they came in too late in life to earn the 40/60 or ⅔ pension upon their service. The men having served the local authorities for so many years, the local authorities were willing to, and did, pay the difference between the pension paid by the State and two-thirds of these men's pay up to comparatively recently—when the Local Government Board disallowed the charge. This Bill was brought in to make legal an act which the local authorities had performed before, and which they proposed to perform again.

EVENING SITTING.
  OPPOSED PRIVATE HILL BUSINESS.

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (SUBWAYS AND TRAMWAYS) BILL. [BY ORDER.]
    As amended, considered.
    MR. WHITMOREsaid the new clause which he proposed to move was in connection with the Subways and Tramways Bill of the London County Council. The ostensible and primary object of the Bill was to enable a subway to be made under the new street to be made from Theobald's Road to the Strand. Nobody could take any exception to such a proposal as that; on the contrary, London Unionist Members were very glad to see that the County Council were proposing to make this subway. It was a good and thoughtful proposal to relieve surface traffic, and they were glad to see the experiment made. Therefore, the Bill was allowed to pass its Second Reading without opposition. The Bill also enabled the subway to be prolonged as a tramway on to the surface of the Embankment by the Savoy. The Tramways Bill had also been passed, which sanctioned the building of a tramway on the Embankment between Waterloo and Westminster, and the junction of this with the tram from Theobald's Road; and there was no doubt this was part of a big scheme to connect and link

    1619
    up the trams in North London with those of South London by means of a tramway over both Westminster Bridge and over Black friars Bridge. He had stated these facts in order to justify the somewhat unusual course of asking the House to reverse the decision of the Select Committee. He would be the last person, under ordinary circumstances, to ask the House to reverse their decision, but the Committee had had to deal with particular evidence given in the particular cases dealt with by these two Bills as they stood, while in reality the proposals of the two Bills were but a part of a much larger scheme. He submitted that upon this question they should take a large view of the matters involved, and not a narrow view based upon evidence given with regard to particular proposals. The scheme as a whole was one to give facilities for locomotion between North and South London, and if it was possible to give those facilities without having a tramway running down the Embankment, there could be no doubt that that would be the most desirable course. If it was necessary for the convenience of the public that a tramway should run down the Embankment, he did not suggest that they should in any way prevent it; but if it could be shown that the embankment was not wanted for any tramway system then it would be most desirable to keep it as an alternative route for lighter and more rapid traffic. He contended that the underground and tube railways already sanctioned or about to be sanctioned would supply the most efficient arterial communication between the north and the south. And until a powerful Committee had reviewed this large alternative as a whole, he should ask the House to prevent the Embankment being used by a circuitous tram-line. He did not want to interfere with the proper provision of communication between the north and south of London. He was not, however, convinced that this scheme was the most satisfactory that could be adopted to secure that end. He held that they could not bring two lines of tramways along the Embankment without impairing its utility as an alternative route to the City.
    New Clause (Southern Limit of Tramways) (Mr. Whitmore), brought up, and read the first time.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. LOUGHsaid it seemed to him quite clear that the House must set aside most of the arguments of the hon. Gentleman in support of the new clause, and confine itself to the one point; whether the House was to re-affirm or reverse the decision of the Select Committee. It was all very well for the hon. Member to indulge in ingenious conundrums, and ask the House not to sanction the scheme unless it was satisfied that this was the best way of establishing communication between North and South London, but that was a question it was quite impossible to decide at the moment. London would no doubt want tubes in the future; at the present time it wanted a tramway-down the Embankment. The lines referred to over Black friars and Westminster Bridges were not in the Bill at all. The tube connecting Islington with South London did not in the least remove the necessity of this proposal already sanctioned by the House. The question the House had to consider was whether the best boulevard in London would be ruined by this tramway. They had considered that question for nine years, and eventually had come to the view held by the Municipality of London that it would not. It was wrong in the case of London for the House to make exceptions that they did not make in the case of other towns. He considered that it was a shameful waste of the public time that the House should be called upon again to discuss a question it had already twice decided, and, in his opinion, if the House did not cease acting in this way as a kind of wet nurse to the London County Council, great injury would result to London. The suggestion of the hon. Member was that the House should interfere in the work of the London County Council. The works of taste and high art which the London County Council had already been responsible for along the Embankment surely should be a perfect answer to anyone who thought it would not be safe to

    1621
    trust them in this matter. The London County Council had purified the river, which was the greatest beauty of the Embankment; it had purified and beautified the river, and brought fish and beautiful birds up from the sea; it had constructed beautiful gardens on the embankments; it had provided bands to play in those gardens; it had supplied electric light, and the building which had been erected to manufacture the electric light was so beautiful and artistic in itself that that alone should be an assurance that the interests of the Embankment were safe in the hands of the County Council. He congratulated the hon. Member on the fact that he had finally broken away from his ingenious conundrums and come to the point, which was that he desired the House to reverse the decision of the Committee. He (Mr. Lough) hoped the House would do nothing of the kind.
    SIR JOHN DICKSON POYNDERsaid he hoped the House had no intention of revoking the decision at which it had arrived two months ago when these Bills were passed through their Second Reading. If they passed these Bills then, it was because the House had decided that in principle they agreed with those measures. Since then the Bills had undergone a very careful scrutiny and examination upstairs at the hands of a most able Committee, and there could be no reason for now reversing the decision that Committee had come to. The specific motion before the House was to lop off about thirty yards of the subway proposed to be constructed from Theobald Road in the north of London to the Embankment in the south, so that instead of coming out on the Embankment the subway should stop at Lancaster Place. If this scheme were merely a local matter, he would not support it. One of the Committees which had been investigating the "tube" schemes this year had taken expert evidence on the question of subways in London, and it had been clearly shown that in consequence of the complication of pipes and drains under the surface of the old roads it would be practically impossible to
    1622
    construct such subways. In this case, however, the matter was perfectly simple, as the Holborn Road was an entirely new road, and, therefore, free from that difficulty. But even so it was a very expensive business, it being estimated that the tramway - subway scheme would cost £300,000 per mile. The scheme would form the sole connecting link between the Northern and Southern tramway systems, and it was because it would form such a valuable element in locomotion in London that he so strongly advocated it. There was a weak point in the present Bill, inasmuch as it contained no provision for extending the tramway over either of the bridges, but he hoped that, if the House reaffirmed its decision of two months back, such a proposal would, at no distant date, be projected. The Amendment of his hon. friend would really render nugatory this expensive subway scheme, because if the thirty yards in question were knocked off it would be impossible to form a junction between the Embankment scheme and the subway, and both schemes would be ruined. No obstruction would be caused by this junction, because, owing to the gradient of the Holborn street, the point at which the tram would emerge from the subway would be exactly on the Embankment level, nor would it emerge even in the middle of the road, because, under an agreement with the Duchy of Lancaster, the tram would emerge under a house belonging to the Duchy, so that it would merely form a curve on the surface of the Embankment, just as though it was coming out of an ordinary tramway depôt. The objections to the proposal were those which were always brought forward on aesthetic lines, or those urged by his old-fashioned hon. friends, who apparently thought that because the Bill had been rejected before it ought to be rejected now. But since the proposal was first made, the conditions of London had greatly altered, and some of the great social problems of the day could be solved only by a system of cheap and rapid locomotion. A large scheme was being carried out in South London, and there was a growing system in North London, but this hiatus existed in the middle. He asked the House to sanction

    1623
    these schemes in order that that hiatus might be closed up, so that all classes would have the opportunity constantly throughout the day of moving rapidly between north and south or east and west.
    MR. BANBURYpointed out that the question upon which a division was taken two months ago was not the one now being considered, but as to whether there should be a tramway from Black friars to Westminster Bridge. As to the question of obstruction of traffic, there was nothing more likely to cause a block than a tram-car suddenly emerging from a house and cutting across the stream of traffic. It had also to be remembered that a tram-car was, so to speak, immovable; it could not pull a little to the near or to the offside to let other vehicles pass, and all who were accustomed to driving horses knew that nothing conduced to congestion of traffic more than a tramcar stuck in the middle of the road. If he believed that any advantage would accrue to the majority of the population of London by a tramway running down the Embankment he would not object to it, but because he believed the reverse of that would occur he strongly opposed the scheme. Possibly something might be said for a tramway from Black friars to Westminster Bridge; people might prefer to go overground rather than underground. But the present Bill would not give them that facility; all it did was to make a connection between Waterloo Bridge and Westminster, and that, he contended, was of no use to anybody. The hon. Member for the Chippenham Division had said that he should vote for the scheme because it meant an extension over the river in the future. But what about the evidence given before the Committees which had considered that question? In 1892 the whole of the police evidence was against the tramways running over Westminster Bridge, because of the obstruction to traffic that would be caused.
    MR. LOUGH: That is ancient history.
    MR. BANBURYadmitted that it was some years ago, but if the argument had weight then, its force was increased tenfold now, when the traffic was so much
    1624
    greater. The only object of the scheme was to give the London County Council an opportunity of coming to the House on a subsequent occasion to ask for powers to take the tramways over the Westminster Bridge, down Victoria Street and other places, on the ground that hundreds of thousands of pounds having been spent on the Embankment scheme, it was necessary to make these further extensions to prevent that money being wasted.
    MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid the Committee had given these Bills a very careful consideration, and, so far as they passed them, they did so by unanimous votes. The particular Bill under discussion, and the No. 7 tramway in the other Bill, were passed as one continuous line. The Embankment tramway would form a link with the whole system in the north of London, and it was as a through line, and not as a local line, that it was passed. Little opposition was offered to the Subway Bill. The scheme for a tramway through a subway was a novel and interesting one, and it was a plan which seemed more likely to solve the difficult problem of locomotion in London than any other yet adopted. In Boston similar schemes had assisted immensely to clear the streets of traffic and to facilitate locomotion generally. They were altogether different from "tube" railways, and should not be confused therewith. The subway would run from the north tinder Holborn and the Strand, and come out on the level of the Embankment by Waterloo Bridge, and from there a tram line would run to Westminster. The two schemes would form one continuous line, and would have to be worked as such. There was no street in London along which a tram could run with less difficulty or inconvenience than the Embankment. On each side of the lines there would be room for three vehicles to pass abreast. The trams would be run by electricity, on some system other than the overhead, the cars would be "single deck" cars—they would have to be quite low to get through the shallow subway, and they would run along a part of the Embankment where there were extremely few frontagers. The Committee had removed the portion of the line that would have

    1625
    given the greatest offence to the frontagers, viz., the portion from Waterloo Bridge to Blackfriars, a strong argument against which was that, it would merely be a competing line with the District Railway. There was also an apprehension that that part of the line would be the first step towards a tramway over Blackfriars Bridge, but with the scheme as it now stood, no such apprehension could be felt. Much of the opposition to the scheme arose from the fear that the tramways would be taken over Westminster Bridge. That matter was not before the Committee; if it had been, there might have been a great deal more opposition than there was to the present proposal. The impression produced on his mind by the sketch of a subway under the river at Waterloo Bridge was that there would be far greater difficulties in crossing the river there than at Westminster. But that was not the question before the Committee, and he would recommend the House to look at the scheme as it stood. The scheme was one for connecting a central part of London—Westminster—with the whole of the north of London, and from that point of view alone it formed a most useful addition to the facilities of locomotion in London. He hoped the question would be decided on its merits, not simply because it was promoted by the London County Council. There had been too many schemes decided not according to their merits, but according to whether or not they were promoted by the London County Council. There could not be a tramway along the Embankment without the agency of the London County Council, because that body were not only the owners of the embankment but also the tramway authority under the Act of 1870. The adoption of the Amendment might stop the subway altogether, and possibly that was its object. If in time the line was to be connected with the South London tramway system, the exact means of the connection would have to be determined by Parliament when that time came, but the present scheme, he thought, was not open to any serious objection. The Embankment ought not to be treated simply as a quick route between Westminster and the City for a certain limited number of cabs and carriages; it was intended for the general public, and there
    1626
    was no better way of making it useful for the general public than that of providing along a portion of the roadway a means of locomotion useful and convenient to everybody and hurtful to few.
    MR. BRYCEdesired to affirm from personal knowledge the remarks of the last speaker as to the success of the subway system in Boston. The experience of Boston ought to be a very valuable guide for London, and he hoped the experiment now to be tried would be so successful as to lead to the further adoption of the principle in order to relieve our most congested thoroughfares.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERthought the underground system would be a solution of many of the present difficulties with regard to the congestion of traffic, and it would be a great pity if the House took the retrograde step of discouraging the only possible solution. He was surprised, however, to hear that his hon. friend had been misled into asserting that the London County Council was the tramway authority for London, an assertion which carried with it the contention that no tramways could be built by anybody else, or without their sanction. ("No.") If it did not mean that, what did it mean?
    MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: It meant that they were the owners of a large portion of the tramways, that they might become the owners of many more, and that they actually had Parliamentary authority to work those tramways.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid that did not alter the fact that Parliament had given to the Corporations of the boroughs in London a complete veto in regard to any tramways within their respective areas. Why was the Corporation of the City of Westminster in the position of having a coach and six driven through its power of veto by the London County Council? It was because the Metropolitan Board of Works—a far more efficient body than that which succeeded it, although he admitted it was not a perfect body—built the Embankment, and the persons who succeeded to the ownership of that magnificent thoroughfare retained the power conferred upon the original constructors, and that was the power they were now exercising. Tramways were no longer

    1627
    seriously regarded by those who really considered the question of City traffic. With the enormous advances already made with the motor system, tramways would, soon he practically superseded, and yet Parliament was being asked to allow one of the finest thoroughfares in the world to be used for the purposes of an exploded system. He sincerely hoped the House would set its face against the proposal thus to destroy that spendid roadway.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that so many excellent speeches had been made in support of these Bills, that all he desired to do was to correct one or two unintentional misstatements. To begin with the hon. Member for Peckham, the House knew that it was very difficult for the London County Council, in whatever it attempted, to please that hon. Gentleman. If the London County Council introduced any instalment of reform, they were told by him that it was scrappy and fragmentary, and that it lacked the statesmanship of the Metropolitan Board of Works. If it brought in a complete scheme, the hon. Member saw in this another evidence of the over-bearing mind of the London County Council, who wished to get everything in their own hands. The result was that they could not please the hon. Member for Peckham whatever they did. If the hon. Member thought that the defect of the Bill was that the tramway did not go over Westminster Bridge he could remove his own objection by putting down an Instruction to the Lords to allow the tramway to go over the bridge.
    MR. BANBURY: I did not know that I had any power to instruct the Lords.
    MR JOHNBURNS: Well, I never found the hon. Member short in instructing any-body. The suggestion that they wished to go over Blackfriars Bridge was out of the question, as the bridge belonged to the Corporation. He believed, however, that one day the Corporation would give permission for the tramways to cross that bridge. The County Council were spending £6,000,000 on a street, and the subway would pass under it to the Embankment. The hon. Member for Peckham was anxious that there should be no congestion of traffic, particularly on the
    1628
    Embankment, but he knew that one reason why there was congestion on the Surrey side was that the tramways were allowed to stop short instead of coming over Westminster Bridge. The result was that noise, danger, and disorder occurred, which were necessarily disturbing both to the staff and the patients of St. Thomas's Hospital. He pointed out advantages which would accrue from having a tramway over Westminster Bridge, by which a connection would be established between the south of London and Hampstead Heath. He was sure no one would enjoy that more than the hon. Member for Peckham. With regard to the argument that a tramway would spoil the Embankment, he said if there was one thing which the County Council had done, it was to improve the Embankment. Having stated what had already been done to make the Embankment more attractive, he said these improvements might be regarded as indications that the County Council wished to render it a pleasant resort for the people. They were told that the tramways would not be used. That was the business of the County Council, but they were convinced that they would be used to a most profitable extent. He appealed to the House to give the County Council this opportunity of linking up the north with the south of London by a tramway system, which it was desired should be creditable to London, on a fine but relatively unused embankment, which, properly equipped for locomotion, would be the envy of the world.
    MR. BURDETT - COUTTSsaid his objection to this tramway scheme was that it was a fundamentally retrograde policy. If there was one change which had come over London in the course of the last two or three years, it was the establishment of the policy of underground communication between distant points. It was absurd to say that owing to the pipes under the roads, subways were impossible when Committees of the House of Lords had been sitting on twelve or thirteen subway propositions going through the busiest parts of London and when three at least of these propositions had been sanctioned. [AN

    1629
    HON. MEMBER: Sixty feet deep.] He did not care how deep they were; they did the work and the reason why by common consent the underground system of transit had been accepted was that it enabled passengers to be conveyed at a far greater speed than they could be conveyed overground, and that was a matter directly affecting the housing problem. In the face of that development he ventured to submit that it was a retrograte policy to make a proposition to spend a vast sum of money on tramways which would interfere with the traffic passing through crowded streets, and which would in the opinion of many destroy the amenity of the most beautiful thing in London—namely the Embankment. He did not think they ought not to shut their eyes to the real nature of this Bill. It was brought in with the one great object of eventually getting the tramways across Westminster Bridge in order that later on, they should proceed along Victoria Street, Regent Street, Piccadilly, and in every possible direction. It would have been far straighter for the County Council to have put the proposal for a tramway over Westminster Bridge in the Bill so that the House might have come to a decision on its true merits.
    SIR F. DIXON-HABTLANDsaid the hon. Member for Battersea had as good as admitted that the object was eventually to bring the tramways over Westminster Bridge. When the bridge was to be built there was considerable discussion amongst architects as to the form it should take so as not to destroy the view of the Houses of Parliament. After a good deal of trouble the height originally proposed was reduced and modifications were made in the design so that the view would not be interfered with. He had examined the plans of the bridge with one of the architects and he was informed that the bridge would not bear the weight of the tramways. The House ought to keep that fact before it when the real object of the promoters of the Bill seemed to be ultimately to get the tramways over the bridge. He did not think it was honest that the project should be brought forward in parts.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGUsaid the great question they had to look to at the present time was that
    1630
    of locomotion, and as the proposal now before the House would increase the facilities he would support the Bill. He thought that in process of time motor cars would take the place of tramways in many parts of London. If there was any place in London where they could put a tramway without inconvenience to the other traffic it was the Embankment. He should like to see the tramways extended over Westminster bridge.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I do not intend to go into the merits of this scheme. I have listened carefully to the whole of the debate, and I am sure the House will be of opinion that it has been sufficiently discussed. But I wish to call the attention of the House to a matter of even greater importance, as I think it, than the merits of this particular tramway proposal. Let the House consider how it is spending its time at this moment. Here is an overburdened Parliament wondering whether we shall be able to escape an autumn session, there being such a vast amount of work before us. The House of Commons has today voted thanks to the soldiers for their conduct in a great war. We are engaged in the consideration of a new system for educating the people of the country, and the means of laying on taxation to raise money for the cost of the war. In the middle of all this, a large portion of the sitting of one day is taken up in doing nothing but re-hearing a case which comes before us with the unanimous approval and desire of the municipal authority. This is a question from the London County Council, which is surely responsible for locomotion and general communication all over London. It is not a party question. I was absent from the House at the time, but my recollection is that the Bill was carried to its second reading without a division. [An HON. MEMBER: "By a majority."] It was referred to an unusually competent Committee, with a most competent Chairman, which had examined it thoroughly; and now when it comes back to the House the same old battle is fought over again and the same old arguments are brought forward. I do not know if a cure is to be found for this state of things, but I think it ought not to be possible for the House of Commons to spend and re-spend

    1631
    its time in such a way on such a subject as this. I venture to think that the remedy for the evil must be in the direction of some sort of devolution of business of this character to the care of bodies which have more time spend upon it, and are, perhaps, on the whole, more competent to come to a conclusion upon it than the House of Commons.
    MR. CUMMING MACDONAsaid that this was not a Government measure, and hon. Members could vote upon it according to their conscience. He represented a constituency on the south side of the river, and he thought that his constituents had just as good a right to enjoy the privileges on the north side of the river as the inhabitants of those localities. If Westminster Bridge was not strong enough to carry tramways then let Vauxhall Bridge be utilised to link up the south side with the north. This country was behind the times in the matter of inter-city communication.
    MR. BOULNOISsaid that two Bills had been brought in by the London County Council to deal with two different matters. One of these Bills was allowed to go through without discussion and the other Bill with very considerable discussion. The right hon.
    the Leader of the Opposition had complained that the time of the House was taken up in discussing a Bill which had passed through a Select Committee; but they on that side of the House would not have raised this discussion if they had thought that the House would have an opportunity of considering this question as a whole. They were in favour of the shallow tube Bill which would provide the best mode of locomotion for London, but they objected to have over ground tramways tacked on to the shallow tunnel scheme. His right hon. friend said this was a small matter. He agreed, but it was the thin edge of the wedge; and they would soon have tramways proposed over Westminster Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge; and, by and by, they might have tramways passing up Portland Street opposite the residence of the right hon. gentleman the Member for Aberdeen. He hoped the House would mark its sense of the importance of this Question by passing the new Clause which had been moved by his hon. friend.
    (10.54.) Question put.
    House divided:—Ayes, 106; Noes, 176. (Division List No. 204).

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fr'd Dixon

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

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir Wm, Hart

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Austin, Sir John

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Knowles Lees

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

    Finch, George H.

    Lawson, John Grant

    Bignold, Arthur

    Finlay, Sir Robert Banratyne

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Bill, Charles

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Bond, Edward

    Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Flower, Ernest

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol. S

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Ediab'gh, W.

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Chapman, Edward

    Gretton, John

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Groves, James Grimble

    Morgan, Hn. F'red. (Monm'thsh.

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

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Helder, Augustus

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

    Henderson, Alexander

    Penn, John

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos, Myles

    Webb, Colonel William George

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Wills, Sir Frederick

    Purvis, Robert

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

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Stock, James Henry

    Mr. Whitmore and Mr. Banbury.

    Robinson, Brooke

    Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Valentia, Viscount

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.)

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Partington, Oswald

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Hain, Edward

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Alien, Charles P. (Glonc. Stroud

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

    Ambrose, Robert

    Hammond, John

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Harwood, George

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Rea, Russell

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Redely, M.

    Bell, Richard

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Black, Alexander William

    Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

    Redmond, William (Glare)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Holland, William Henry

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Boland, John

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Renwick, George

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh'e

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Joyce, Michael

    Royner, Colonel Robert

    Bull, William James

    Kerrley, Hudson E.

    Round, James

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Labouchere, Henry

    Rutherford, John

    Burns, John

    Lambert, George

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Caldwell, James

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

    Cameron, Robert

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Shaw, Thomas (Harwick B.)

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Leamy, Edmund

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

    Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

    Leng, Sir John

    Spear, John Ward

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lloyd-George, David

    Stracney, Sir Edward

    Corbett A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Lundon, W.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Taylor, Theodore Cooke

    Craig, Robert Hunter

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Tennant, Harold John

    Cranborne, Viscount

    MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    Crean, Eugene

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Thomas, J. A. (Glam'gan, Gower

    Cremer, William Randal

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n, N

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    MacVcagh, Jeremiah

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

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Delany, William

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Tomkinson, James

    Denny, Colonel

    M'Govern, T.

    Toulmin, George

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness. sh.

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    M'Kean, John

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Dillon, John

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Ure, Alexander

    Donelan, Captain A.

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesssh.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Duke, Henry Edwatd

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Edwards, Frank

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Fenwick, Charles

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

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

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

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

    Ffreneh, Peter

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    Fuller, J. M. F.

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

    Young, Samuel

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

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

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    O'Malley, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Grant, Corrie

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sir John Dickson-Poynder and Mr. Lough.

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Parker, Gilbert

    Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn" (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), put, and agreed to.

    Bill to be read the third time.

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL (By ORDER).
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE VOLUNTEERS BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
    GENERAL LAURIEsaid there were 70,000 fishermen on the coast of Canada, and the Admiralty would be debarred from obtaining services of these men if the proviso was retained in the Bill which provided that the men must be actually on the register of a vessel. Canadian fishermen, for example, were paid off as soon as the vessel landed the product of its voyage, and after that they were not registered as on a vessel at all.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge)said he would briefly explain the object of the Bill. In 1869 the Admiralty was empowered to raise naval volunteers within the United Kingdom, and by the Act of 1896 that power was extended beyond the United Kingdom to seamen in vessels registered in the British Islands. Since that time it had become necessary to raise volunteers, particularly in Newfoundland, and it was found that the limitation to seamen serving on ships registered in the British Islands made that course impossible. The object of the Bill was to remove that disability and to enable the Admiralty to enlist as naval volunteers British subjects in all parts of the world.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

    SUPPLY. [15TH MAY, AFTERNOON SITTING.] REPORT.
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [28th May], "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the First Resolution, 'That a
    1636
    sum not exceeding £37,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces and Marlborough House.' "—
    Question again proposed.
    SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he should be glad to know whether there was any intention of acting on the Report of the Committee which dealt with questions of cable communication.
    Subsequent Resolutions agreed to :—
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £66,200, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £27,500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the Houses of Parliament Buildings."

    SUPPLY [15TH MAY, EVENING SITTING] REPORT.
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [29th May], "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £29 395, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the pay and expenses of officers of Metropolitan Police employed on special duties, and the salaries and expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary.' "
    SUPPLY [26TH MAY]. REPORT.
    Resolutions reported :—
  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1902–3.

    Class V.
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for grant in aid of the revenue of the Island of Cyprus."
    2." That a sum, not exceeding £133,225, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903, for the subsidies to certain telegraph companies and a grant in aid of the annual expenses of the Pacific Cable."
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £40,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903, in respect of a loan to the Government of Crete."

  SUPPLY [27TH MAY]. REPORT.
  Resolutions reported :—
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES 1902–3.

    Class II.
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £25,716, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1903, for the salaries and expenses of the Board of Agriculture, and to pay certain grants in aid."
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEYasked if the Government would have any objection to postponing the Vote, because if it were taken now it would be impossible for hon. Members interested in agricultural questions to raise them during the remainder of the session. Moreover, the President of the Board of Agriculture was not present.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.)said that if the hon. Member desired it, he would not object to the Vote being postponed, but another opportunity of considering it might not arise.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he was quite ready to discuss the Vote now, but his principal reason for asking that it should be postponed was that the President of the Board of Agriculture was not present, and he desired to ask him one or two questions.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the President of the Board of Agriculture had been sent for.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he noticed that only yesterday the President of the Board of Agriculture, speaking at Reading, said that he himself was in communication with the Board of Trade upon the very important question of railway rates, and he thought it would be useful if the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House what he was doing in the matter. As far as he understood, the right hon. Gentleman was trying to get the Board of Trade to wake up. At present the Board of Trade absolutely neglected the farming industry, which had to contend with higher rates than were given to foreigners. If a large amount of agricultural produce were sent from one part of the country to the other, the railway companies gave favourable rates; but in the case of a small farmer who was only able to send a small quantity of produce to market, the rates were absolutely prohibitive, and in some cases would almost double the selling price of cream or milk in the London market. That showed how utterly impossible it was for agriculturists to send small quantities of produce to market, and that was why agriculturists felt that the Board of Trade neglected their interests. His object in raising the question was to assist the President of the Board of Agriculture in the matter, because if the House expressed its approval of the action of the right hon. Gentleman it would strengthen his hand. He knew that the right hon.

    1639
    Gentleman was only too ready to assist farmers, and he hoped that by raising the question in the House it would assist the right hon. Gentleman in trying to wake up the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman also said at Reading that it was desirable that something more should be done as regarded grants towards technical agricultural interests—such questions as scientific research into the making of cider, an industry which was becoming very important, and might be a very valuable one indeed. Recently the Bath and West of England Agricultural Society made an application to the right hon. Gentleman in this matter; he did not know what reply was given but he rather gathered that the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to have the support of the House in putting pressure on the Treasury. The right hon. Gentle man further said that it was very desirable that the County Councils should be encouraged to vote money towards agricultural education and scientific research, and he threw out the suggestion that if the County Councils would make grants he would be prepared to supplement them. He believed that the County Councils would be only too ready to respond to that He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to inform the House what he considered might be done out-side the House to further the interests of a great national industry.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): I will tell the hon. Member very frankly what I think on the subject of railway rates. In the first place, I think that agriculturists themselves might do a very great deal by cooperating on this subject, and thus bringing pressure to bear on the railway companies. The present condition of things does tell somewhat hardly against the farmer who is a small consigner, as compared with the tradesman, and especially the foreigner, who are able to send much larger consignments at much lower rates. In Denmark, the farmers have influenced railway rates to a very considerable extent by combination among themselves—by combining to bring pressure on the railway companies, and also by combining a number of their
    1640
    small consignments, so that they form one lot, and get the benefit of the reduced rates. I wish English farmers would follow that example. As regards bringing Government pressure to bear, I have not the same power that is possessed by the Irish Board of Agriculture of appealing directly to the Railway Commissioners when there seems to be any case of undue charges. That would be very useful in my Department. However that may be, I have been in communication with the Board of Trade on this subject. Since the joint Committee of the two Houses sat in 1888, two new points have arisen. The first is the question of railway companies and the rates charged by them, when they are also owners of lines of steamers. I am inclined to think that they have facilities which they exercise so as to give, in many cases, undue preference to foreign goods. Then again, the question of delay has arisen, and the Board of Trade require, very properly, that we should place before them some fair amount of evidence on the matter, and I am taking every means I can to secure that evidence. The hon. Member referred to the grant, especially I think, to the cider industry in Somerset. I am making inquiries, and I am inclined to think that before we proceed further in the direction of grants we ought to ascertain whether the work already done is of a really practical nature, and is likely to improve cider making. I know the interest which the hon. Member takes in this matter, and I can assure him that I personally will not hesitate to continue the grant if I am quite satisfied that the work which has already been done is of a really practical character. I believe that the money given in grants to the various colleges is money well spent, for a double reason. In the first place there is the grant for what it is worth, but it also enables us to exercise control over the local taxation grants in the country, and to see that a fair share of them is given to agricultural purposes, and also that the money is well spent. I have made it a rule not to give these grants unless they involve a certain amount of control. I think further that the whole of the country has a perfect right to benefit by the work done in any one county. What is more, I believe that a great

    1641
    deal of the work is being done over and over again in various counties. That would be avoided it the counties—and I am glad many of them are willing—would let the Board of Agriculture try and harmonise their work, so as to prevent repetition, and to see that the work is of a kind which will not only be of particular benefit to the county in which it is carried on, but also of benefit to the whole of the United Kingdom.
    MR. MACVEAGHsaid he gathered that it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to make representations to the Board of Trade on the question of railway rates, and he should like to know whether it was intended that the proposed inquiry should include railway rates in Ireland. He quite understood that the Board of Agriculture in Ireland had power to make representations in regard to individual cases of excessive railway rates, but he thought it would be well to know whether the inquiry would include railway rates in Ireland, as the question was one of very great importance.
    MR. HANBURY: By permission of the House, I will reply to the hon. Member. Ireland, as the hon. Member knows, has got its own Department of Agriculture, but I will consult with my right hon. friend as to collecting the necessary information as regards Ireland to he laid before the Committee to be appointed.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid he was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman was using his influence to induce the Board of Trade to order a further inquiry into the present position of rail-way rates. Agriculturists had felt that they had received but scant justice in the matter, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was plenty of information, which could be submitted to a Committee, which might guide the Board of Trade as to what action should be taken. He believed that the railway companies had as much to gain from an inquiry as the traders, and he was sure the inquiry would bring a great deal of light to bear on a question on which, he could not help thinking, the Board of Trade was not fully in-formed.
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £18,442, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the salaries and expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales."
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £26,402, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the salaries and expenses of the Civil Service Commission."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he wished to refer to the form of the examinations of the Civil Service Commission. His strong conviction on the subject led him to protest against the absurd and overwhelming position which the classical languages still held in the examinations of the Civil Service Commission. He thought much of the lime devoted to the study of these languages was wasted on the part of the masters, and still more on the part of the pupils. As a matter of fact, he found that many gentlemen who had taken the very highest degrees in the universities were unable to speak a word of French or German. There was no compensation for that in the study of the ancient languages, because many gentlemen who had devoted ten or twelve years to their study were absolutely unable to carry on a conversation in modern Greek. It was impossible that the education of the country could ever he rational or profound as long as the best years of the lives of young boys and young men were devoted to studies which should be entirely left to professional students and professors. The Civil Service Commission could not, perhaps, be blamed for following tradition in the matter. It was really incredible, but it was true, that a man who took up the responsible duty of governing perhaps 100,000 people in India obtained his right to that position by a rote-like recollection of Greek and Latin classics. The whole system was wrong. He would only deal with one argument that might be urged in favour of it,

    1643
    and that was that these languages were useful for the purposes of mental gymnastics. His opinion was that they were just as useful for the purpose as the acrostics which society papers published for the amusement of the young ladies who perused them. He might suggest to Englishmen that there was a language and literature called English, which they might very well study with advantage. Even on the subject of English literature, the Civil Service examinations followed old and worn-out traditions. They followed what might be called the Chinese tradition. The greatest power which a man could possess in order to secure admission into the public service was simply a good memory. He had known very able men with bad memories, and very stupid men with good memories. Indeed, if memory were to be the chief intellectual quality for the position of First Lord of the Treasury, he was afraid the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the House would find himself at the bottom of the list, because, with reference to certain subjects, he had not a very good memory. In public or private life, no one would think of choosing a man simply because he had the power of repeating a certain amount of literature. He hoped, therefore, that the Civil Service examinations would be brought into accord with higher, better, and more enlightened forms of education.
    Resolution agreed to.
    4. "That a sum., not exceeding £38,605, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor General."
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,361, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the salaries and expenses of the Registry of Friendly Societies.
    1644
    6. "That a sum, not exceeding £420,145, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for stationery, printing, paper, binding, and printed books for the public service; to pay the salaries and expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry miscellaneous services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."

    SUPPLY [30TH MAY]. REPORT.
    Resolution reported :—
  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1902–3.

    CLASS II.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £92,356, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and subordinate Offices."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that when the Vote was considered in Committee his hon. friend the Member for South Donegal expressed extremely strong views in regard to the manner in which inspection in connection with vivisection was carried on, and his hon. friend went on to denounce, in somewhat forcible language, the practice of vivisection in every shape and form. It was due to the strong conviction which he himself held on the subject that he should state that he thought the Home Office would be most unwise in forbidding vivisection altogether. He would not yield to any man in his love for animals, and he did not know if, at certain periods of one's life, one did not think that it would not have been better to bestow love on what were called the lower animals than on the higher animals. If vivisection meant any pain to the lowest animal, he would be against it, and he was against it in any shape or form that would inflict pain on animals. But, at the same time, he thought that vivisection carried on under the safeguards provided by the Home Office was

    1645
    absolutely necessary. If a medical man were now able to save 75 per cent. of diphtheria cases where formerly 60 per cent. were fatal, if the horrible disease of hydrophobia was to a large extent diminished, if vaccination had practically destroyed the disease of small-pox in places where the people where not stupid enough to avoid it, if surgical operations, especially on the brain, were possible which were impossible twenty or thirty years ago, if all these incalculable and infinite blessings to humanity were
    1646
    possible today, it was largely due to the research made by vivisection. He held those views so strongly that he felt compelled to give expression to them.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Adjourned at ten minutes before Twelve o'clock.